The “topic banning” of William Connelley from Wikipedia caught my eye on WUWT.
Connelly is a Green party activist and prolific Wikipedia contributor on climate change issues, and runs a blog called Stoat
According to Delingpole, Connelly rewrote 5,428 climate articles on Wikipedia.
His skewing of public information on climate has been extraordinary, going so far as to delete the resignation letter from Hal Lewis’s Wikipedia page.
From an NZ perspective, it has been interesting to see Connelly pop up on Hot Topic and admonish Gareth (see Ian Wishart’s commentary here
It is ironic then that When Connelly does re-emerge on HT to comment on sea ice, his comments frequently get voted out of sight.
It’s interesting sometimes just to randomly wander around the East Anglia Emails
This one shows the CRU looking for funding from Shell International:
Mike and Tim
Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
Sorry about the delay.
I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably
the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation
including the foundation as they seem to have good access to the top
levels.
Mick
James Cameron and Google CEO: Questioning Warming Science is Criminal 291010CameronGoogle CEO Eric Schmidt and film director James Cameron recently concurred that people who question the science of anthropogenic global warming are, in their opinions, “criminal”.
The two made the comments during a recent on stage conversation at a private event in Silicon Valley.
“If that continues, business as usual as our leaders in Washington say is OK for us to do, we will have extincted 70% of the species on the planet by the end of the century.” Cameron responded to Schmidt’s line of discussion on global warming.
During the same conversation Schmidt stated, “There are people who in my view criminally doubt some of the science.”
“I agree, criminally, I agree with that.” Cameron interjected.
“People, we need to evolve mentally and philosophically to something that has never existed before.” the Avatar director continued.
“We need to become techno-indigenous people of an entire Earth, not of a nation, not of a state, but of a planet.”
Funny how Google are quite happy to serve up the “sceptic” ads, even for arcane programming sites that having nothing to do with climate
Let’s take a look at some of the vested interests in the Silicon Valley “club”:
(Note: Prop 23 is the proposed bill to delay the climate legislation in CA)
The last stand for climate change has brought John Doerr, a leading green tech investor with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, to the table. Doerr has given $500,000 to defeat Prop 23. And he’s not alone.
Wendy Schmidt, wife of Google CEO Eric Schmidt and founder of the 11th Hour Project, a Silicon Valley environmental grant-making nonprofit, donated $500,000 to NRDC’s No Prop 23 Committee
To date, the heaviest hitter on Team No is Thomas Steyer, the press-shy founder of San Francisco hedge fund Farallon Capital Management. Steyer, a big donor to Democratic candidates, has pledged $5 million and stepped forward to co-chair the No on 23 Committee with George Schulz, the Republican former secretary of state.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
– Joseph Goebbels
From Michael Mann (truth doesn’t matter):
“Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”
* The environmental movement has been hijacked by Malthusian Eugenicists and these Quotes from the mouths of the Elite are why I know that AGW is a False Conclusion and now through the Climategate emails are proven to be based on Junk Science…Science Magazine should be Ashamed for running this Whitewash of an article
Read these …put them in context for yourself then think again about what these Globalist Criminals are setting up In Copenhagen
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
– Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
“All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and
behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society
“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
“One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
– Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
– Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
-Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
– Al Gore, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.”
– David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager
“Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send out entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.”
– Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth
“By the end of this century, climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia
“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic, global seal level rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
– Greenpeace International
“Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon – the man-made natural disaster.”
– Barack Obama, US Presidential Candidate
“We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years from today it will probably be too late.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”
– UN Commission on Global Governance report
“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
– Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General
“Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.”
– Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute
“A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
“Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
– UN Agenda 21
“The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human sepcies has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution. Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.”
– Rene Dubos, board member Planetary Citizens
Dante Mudd Dante Mudd
Dec. 12, 2009 at 7:48pm
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
* Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
* Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
* Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
* Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
* Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Now on to the Club of Rome.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
* Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
* Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
* Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of the Club of Rome.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
“[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.”
“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”
* Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Al Gore’s mentor and executive member of the Club of Rome.
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
* Al Gore, member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world’s first carbon billionaire. He is also the largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which looks set to become the world’s central carbon trading body.
Maurice Strong sits on the board of directors for CCX.
Back before he became U.S. President Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation when it gave CCX nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”
Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he then steered steered through Congress.
“We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.”
“The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.”
* Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union, member of the Club of Rome
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
* David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum and donated the land on which the United Nations stands. Speaking at a U.N. Business Conference, Sept. 14, 1994
“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
* David Rockefeller, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.
“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure ‘one world’, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
* David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405
Other Club of Rome members include Tony Blair, George Soros Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Javier Solana, Kofi Annan, Bill Gates, The Dalai Lama, Hassan bin Talal, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Gro Harlem Bruntland, Robert Muller, Garret Hardin, King Juan Carlos of Spain and his wife Queen Sophia, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Prince Philippe of Belgium and many more people that include wealthy elites, ‘new age spiritualists’, former or current world political figures and former or current U.N. figures.
Watch Lord Christopher Monckton (Former Adviser to Margaret Thatcher) Speaking in St. Paul on the real purpose of the Copenhagen Treaty – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
This site has indisputable evidence providing references of their own admission to what the real agenda is – http://green-agenda.com/
Club of Rome’s Depopulation Agenda
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
* Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
* Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind, 1976.
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people…. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
* Paul Ehrlich in The Population Bomb. Paul Ehrlich is a member of the Club of Rome.
“I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today”
“We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”
* Dave Foreman, Co-founder of Earth First! and member of the Club of Rome.
“World population needs to be decreased by 50%”
* Henry Kissinger, , Former National Security Advisor, Former Secretary of State, chairman of Kissinger Associates, member of the Club of Rome.
“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
* Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union, member of the Club of Rome
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
* Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor, member of the Club of Rome.
In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.
* Jacques Cousteau, French naval officer and explorer. Member of the Club of Rome.
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
* Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, member of the Club of Rome.
Post a comment
As for the Ice Age in the 1970s
In Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (1977 p 686), Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Holdren stated:
“Many observers have speculated that the cooling could be the beginning of a long and persistent trend in that direction – that is, an inevitable departure from an abnormally warm period in climatic history.”
Science News, March 1, 1975
“Most climate scientists now expect a full-blown 10,000-year ice age”.
Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976
“Climate scientists are united in their prediction of extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation”.
Science Digest, February 1973
“As a result of ominous signs that the Earth’s climate is cooling down, meteorologists are unanimous in predicting that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century, triggering catastrophic famines.”
What Happen?
What the computer doesn’t take into account is water vapor.
gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies
total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas
The main driver of the Climate is water vapor which 99% is natural
Co2 is next which is 95% natural and 5% man-made
Tell me this 95% of Co2 is natural and 5% is man-made and I believe that this from the IPCC. So it is only the 5% that is man-made that is causing the problem.
Well answer me this before man was no earth depending on what religious faith you are we had higher and lower amounts of Co2 changes without man being there?
I have listed the amounts Co2 in previous periods of time for you to look at and give me an answer. For you I do know at period of time what lowered it. But what drove it up?
And whatever drove Co2 back then maybe the cause that is driving Co2 up now.
(Cambrian Period) 496.0 to 542 million Years ago Co2 20 to 35 times higher than present – day 6000ppmv.
(Jurassic Period) 150.8 to 199.6 million Years ago Co2 4 to 5 times Higher than present – day 1200 – 1500ppmv.
(Cretaceous Period) 70.6 to 145.5 million Years ago Co2 close to present – day 385ppmv.
(Paleogene (Tertiary) Period) 28.4 to 55.8 million Years ago Co2 lowering from 3800ppmv to 650ppmv.
(Negene (Tertiary) Period) 7.246 to 23.03 million Years 650ppmv to 100ppmv.
(Quaternary Period) (Gelasian Age) 1.806 to 2.588 million Years 100ppmv to 300ppmv.
Please people go and learn Co2 is colourless and at low concentrations, the gas is odourless these are facts but everytime on the NEWS we see steam coming from cooling towels when the MSM runs a story on climate change which is mainly water Vapour.
Now they want to Tax us because some has called Co2 pollution. If it is pollution then why do we use it in soft drinks, why do we use it in food? The funny thing is that Co2 is 1.5 times heavier then air.
Co2 has many uses with our way of life.
Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic compounds needed for plant growth and development.
Co2 is simply not pollution it is in fact a build block of all life on earth.
To say different is madness I understand that 100% Co2 will kill you in fact 1% Co2 will kill you over time. For you information 1% is the same as (10,000ppmv) the highest that we are able to prove is 6500ppmv 500 million years ago. I understand that O2 can be a poison too while Scuba Driving below a certain depth due to the pressure.
But let’s put this in some sort of order Earth air is 79% N 20%O2 and 0.38% Co2 of which only 5% is man-made the IPCC agrees
They also agree that Water Vapour is the major driver of the Climate so why are we being lied too.
Co2 is a major component of the carbon cycle.
CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppmv)
Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.
As far as we know the highest level of Co2 on earth that we can prove was some 542 to 496.0 million Years ago Co2 20 to 35 times higher than present – day 6000ppmv.
In the (Cambrian Period) there was no humans back then
Move forward 199.6 to 150.8 million Years ago Co2 4 to 5 times Higher than present – day 1200 – 1500ppmv in the (Jurassic Period) there was no humans back then.
Moving forward 145.5 to 70.6 million Years ago Co2 close to present – day 385ppmv in the (Cretaceous Period) Still no humans.
Moving forward 55.8 to 28.4 million Years ago Co2 lowering from 3800ppmv to 650ppmv in the (Paleogene (Tertiary) Period) still no humans but the Co2 went up from 385 in the(Cretaceous Period) to 3800p but dropped back to 650ppmv scratch your head.
Moving forward again 23.30 to 7.246 million Years Co2 was 650ppmv to 100ppmv in the (Negene (Tertiary) Period) still no humans.
Moving forward again 2.588 to 1.806 million Years Co2 100ppmv to 300ppmv and went backwards and forwards between the two in the (Quaternary Period) (Gelasian Age) but mate still no humans.
It has got me mate this higher and lower levels of Co2 with no mankind to make it who can they blame.
But even when Co2 was at it highest that we know 6000ppmv 542 to 496.0 million Years ago it was still not at a toxic level. Given amounts above 5,000 ppmv are considered very unhealthy but not toxic.
The next highest level that we know was 55.8 to 28.4 million Years ago 3600ppmv dropping to 650ppmv not toxic if fact 2/3 the level of what is considered toxic.
The funny thing is that please some here tell me what goes on in deserts with the warming and very cold nights or what goes on at the South Pole the driest place on earth which is the coldest.
I think that there is still Co2 there maybe water vapour or the lack of it might have something to do with it.
But the cooling and the computer models just don’t see eye to eye what the hell we will change the name.
Without Co2 the earth would be a very cold place indeed.
Air is
nitrogen 78% to 79%
Oxygen is 21% to 20%
The other 1% are trace gases
These trace gases include Noble gases that are very inert or unreactive gases
Noble gases
Argon
Helium
Krypton
Xenon
Hydrogen is also present in trace quantities in the atmosphere but because it is so light much of it over time has escaped Earth’s Gravitational Pull
The remaining trace gases are greenhouse gases.
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrous Oxide
Water Vapour
Ozone
These greenhouse gases are what keep the planet warmer than it would be without them.
Co2 or Carbon Dioxide is 0.38% of the 1% the other 99% being the Nitrogen and Oxygen.
95% of the 0.38% of Co2 is natural leaving only 5% of the 0.38% being man-made and the problem that was 1st said to cause Global Warming and now called Climate Change.
And they want Australia to pay millions to billions a year to a world Government go Away.
The funny thing is that in terms of Co2 and it heating effect at a certain point it doesn’t matter what percentage of Co2 there is in the atmosphere because it doesn’t cause any more warming due to it reaching a limit to do so with its ability to absoulbe the IR .
We would have to start going into physics to explain it. But the IPCC knows that.
Climate Change is real but Climate Change that is caused by man-made Co2 hasn’t been proven at all.
There is NO direct link to the rising in Co2 to the Increase in temperature other then in a computer model of the world’s enco systems.
The trouble is that we have had cooling for the last 10 years even know Co2 has still been going up. So this alone tells you that while Co2 is going up temperatures have fell that there is not direct link.
99.99999999999999999.% if not all of the changes on earth has been a result of evolution driven by past climates coupled together with major events (comets and what not and all other forms of NATURAL DISASTERS which in Human time have always been said to be an ACT of GOD. LOL otherwise we can sue them Insurance Companies for not paying us.
The ability of the eco-systems has evolved and ways and how the eco-systems changes co2 levels has changed due to different life forms now. We don’t have the same plants life now as what we had in the past due to the changes Co2 levels because of what I have said above and the fact that we have had lower Co2 levels.
Due to the differences of Co2 Level the plants we have now against the past plant life that took the carbon out of the air and put it under the ground and with pressure with time gave us the Oil, Gas, Coal & Diamonds. The amount of Co2 that a tree takes out is nothing and they need to be a certain age before they are any good.
There was also no human life from back then on earth too we ourselves are a result of past climates and now we think we can change the world and stop evolution to key to survival for mankind is adaptation not mitigation. Mitigation no matter what is only buying us time until we are forced to adaptation no matter what we do. Human mankind is mortal and we should learn from the failure of past civilizations.
Do you think that mitigation is going to work it has never worked before in evolution the only thing that has worked time and time again has been adaptation?
They say that the earth is 4.5 billion years of age how long has man-kind been on earth they say that 1 day that the sun will grow and eat the earth. How are we going to mitigate that?
We have even had our country’s leader saying in parliament that Climate Change will cause more bushfires. With no written history or records how can anyone prove in a court that we haven’t had times when we had more bushfires in a period before.
Australia as a European settlement is only 221 years old.
Industrial Revolution is 300 years old.
Please Australia as a continent has always had bushfires the Australian aboriginals use fire to control their environment. It has been said that 30,000 to 80,000 years ago that the aboriginals arrived from Asia by way of a land bridges does that mean that the current water level was lower then today’s.
What with no Oil and Gas and its Co2 used back then.
Australia has always had bushfires to the point that some Australian Flora (plants) cannot exist without fire.
Adaptation is one of the hallmarks of Australian native flora their ability to handle fire sets them apart from flora of other regions in the world. This adaptation of Australian flora didn’t happen overnight it took 1,000’s of years to adapt.
There are two main strategies by plants to survive fire. The first is the ability to sprout new growth from protected parts of the plant, and the second is the use of chemicals from bush-fire smoke to initiate germination of seed.
Fire has shaped the bush in Australia in a way which has happened nowhere else in the world.
We have only had said man-made Climate Change from the Industrial Revolution is 300 years old.
How do we know what the rate of Climate Change was before we had temperature instrument reading? They use Tree Ring data which is not a perfect science and Ice Core data which is a bit better. But the truth of the matter is that the reconstruction of past Climate Change History and the rate of change is rubbish.
The said history of how the Aboriginals walking down land bridges is better than Ice Core Data and Tree Ring Date. The way how Australian native flora has adapted to bushfire has take 1000’s of years because since European settlement 221 years ago the introduced species of flora has yet to adapt to bushfire.
In the Australian parliament our leaders said as a result of this said man-made Climate Change that Australia would have more droughts which will in turn cause more bushfires. Australia has always had droughts proven by the prominent features of the Australian flora are adaptations to aridity and fire.
Australia native flora whose diversity was shaped by the effects of continental drift and climate change.
This Man Made Climate Change Is Bull Shit
How about answering some questions.
These are the thing that you need to research because the science has been mixed up with politics and Vested interest.
The Club of Rome and what their think and the people involved, they were started in 1970.
The Trilateral Commission and the people behind them they were started in 1970’s
The Group of 30 and the people behind them they were started in the 1970’s
The IMF and the World Bank the people and Families that control it and links to the groups.
Now we come to 1992 and the UN’s Agenda 21 Program have a look at The Club of Rome thinking and what they said and believe and what is in the UN Agenda 21 program of which Climate Change is only a part of.
Once you have researched then Groups and the people in them and then inter connection of these groups to each other then this will give you some sort of an idea that is driving all this rubbish about man-made Co2.
Certain big bank are going to make Billions and Trillions off carbon trading that is going to do nothing to stop Climate Change. The Climate has changed from the beginning of time on earth. And as a result of Climate Change over thing these are the things that drove evolution and as a result species either adapted or migrated of simple died out. Mitigation goes against the whole thing that has brought about man – kind to this earth.
It is always good not to simply believe what you are told it is good to question it. I have children of my own a 14, 12 and 9 year old they are being taught that Co2 is pollution we use Co2 in many application we have it in our soft drinks. So if Co2 was bad then why is it in our drink?
I had 1 of our country’s politicians tell me that what is of that stuff of Sydney I told him it is not Co2 because Co2 Colourless and Odourless. That is the real pollution that we need to lower and get rid of. That is the pollution that is harming out health and causing the cancers of our time.
This is about form a new world order that was once never spoken about. This is about forming a Government that will be unelected and will take the power off our own Governments. It has been a dream of certain people for their life time. It is about control.
It is very hard to divide to conquer to form a World Government. It is far easier to feed the masses rubbish that most don’t understand or is above their heads and to get them to unite to stop something that is not real and to give to promise the developing countries money from the developed country to get them on side but the developing counties have to sell their souls for that money.
It has been reports in the newspaper that INVESTING in birth control to reduce population growth could be more effective in cutting greenhouse gas emissions than building wind turbines or nuclear power stations, according to a UN report.
It also said in the newspaper report that in the report Taking action to prevent one billion births by 2050 would save as much carbon dioxide as constructing two million giant wind turbines.
The newspaper reports that the UN Population Fund report predicts the global population could reach 10.5 billion by 2050, up from 6.8 billion today, unless urgent action is taken to reduce fertility rates.
It says even its medium-growth forecast of 2.3 billion more people by 2050, which assumes a fall in average fertility from 2.56 to 2.02 children per woman, would make it much harder to achieve the cuts in carbon emissions needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.
Go and read this it is a report from the UN on populations. It is written in a form that makes it hard to read.
UN Population Fund
state of world population 2009
Facing a changing world:
women, population and climate
But here is a quote.
WE ARE NOT SOME ONE’S FARM ANIMALS
“SUSTAINABLE WORLD POPULATION”
“The long-term effort to maintain population-wide human well-being in balance with atmosphere and climate will ultimately require sustainable patterns of consumption and production that can only be achieved and maintained in the context of a sustainable world population. ”
OUTMODED REPLACED “MORE HOLISTIC”
“Outmoded attitudes about “population control” have been replaced by more holistic, rights- and health-based views about population dynamics and their relationship to climate change.”
WHAT RESEARCH WHERE IS IT
“Research has shown for more than 15 years that merely satisfying unmet demand for family planning services would enable developing countries to meet their targets for lower fertility rates”
Ask yourself WHAT RESEARCH AND WHAT AND WHO SET THE TARGETS FOR LOWER FERTILITY RATES.
Please tell me about China’s 1 child policy
Here is some information for you to start with.
China’s 1 child policy China’s one child policy was established by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1979 to limit communist China’s population growth. Although designated a “temporary measure,” it continues a quarter-century after its establishment. The policy limits couples to one child. Fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization.
Fact
Simple 2 people have 1 child normal a married western couple have children between 20 years of age to 45 years of age at the latest so every 20 to 25 years you are reducing the population br a ratio 2 to 1 person. So they are not even replacing their own population. Go and read the reports then go and read the newspapers. And that will give you a balance.
What is happening in china is a plan for the rest of the world I am a father i have 3 children no one has the right to tell them how many children they can have. That is their right and their right alone.
And if think that this sort of thing hasn’t happen before then Go & Research Eugenics
and find pass history of government involvement and laws and programs that they have set up in the past.
Please keep an open mind do you own research and then tell you friends.
Don’t trust anyone not even yourself check check and triple check it is in your own best interest.
This whole talk fest has to do with Energy Security and Energy Security alone it has to do with for filling long held dreams of a few powerful people to form a world government together with enabling a few to make money and big money on a trading system that will push up prices to force people and government to move away Carbon Base Energy mainly Oil and Gas and the vehicle that they are using to bring about the change was first called Global Warning now Called Climate Change.
THE SMARTEST PERSON IS NOT THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS THEY KNOW EVERTHING BUT IT IS THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS THEY HAVE MORE TO LEARN.
THE MORE YOU KNOW THE MORE YOU DON’T KNOW!
Please just research it all for yourself.
Research the whole picture.
Tools
“The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
I want to offer him my heart-felt and deepest thanks for turning up and providing us with such a fortuitous opportunity – that’s if the Sarc Police will allow me, of course.
Richard C (NZ) says:
October 20, 2010 at 9:02 am
“At least he walks the walk, and built his own electric car”
I wonder if it’s coal-fired?
Andy says:
October 20, 2010 at 9:35 am
I expect it’s powered by a mixture of coal, gas, wind and hydro. Like everything else in this country
Apology? Just my wry sense of humour. And “Samoth” appears to have one to, given he spells his name backwards when appearing in this supposed parallel universe to the “real one” of Hot Topic, where he posts as Thomas.
The plot thickens…
Richard C (NZ) says:
October 20, 2010 at 9:50 am
“Just my wry sense of humour. And “Samoth” appears to have one to”
I see you have a reading comprehension problem. I’ll try to clarify some of the statements that you seem to have trouble with:
Let’s start with #130:
oh dear:
October 18th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
You need to find dispassionate evidence of fraud, and you have so far failed.
Spoken so authoritatively! One might suppose you were a lawyer [SNIP ad hominem remarks]. OK, kindly produce some precedents on how freely written confessions of criminal behavior, acknowledged by the authors, is not admissible evidence. Make it easy on yourself: Start by explaining why the Miranda Warning is meaningless (and where the US Supreme Court went wrong in requiring it).
[SNIP ad hominem remarks]
Now to #129:
Point 3: I think you meant “cannot”? [predict the climate] Please clarify.
I clearly said that climate alarmists must show evidence that they can predict the future course of the climate — else their dire predictions amount to the same as a crazy guy on the street corner claiming the world is about to end. How you got this exactly backward is baffling.
Then you say:
Obviously we cannot predict exactly what will happen in 50 or 100 years
Good that you agree with me. So what’s the (unpredictable) problem we need to take drastic action to avoid?
My contention is that climate models are useful for giving us information about what is likely to happen, even if the[y] are “wrong”.
Partially right. As with the example of thunderstorms — models of chaotic events, when “correct”, can help elucidate the mechanics of the phenomenon. They cannot tell us what is “likely to happen” in the sense of predicting a specific future path in any detailed sense. The way the CAGW alarmist crowd tries to use them is bogus – if they (or you) don’t know that, they (you) are ignorant.
(BTY: One result of the thunderstorm modeling is that an enormous amount of heat is removed from the Earth by the combination of convection to near the top of the atmosphere and subsequent IR radiation to space. Nobody can say exactly how thunderstorm activity — or convective strength in general — will respond to an increase in temperature: But if it were to increase by 3%, the resulting heat loss would completely cancel a doubling of CO2, even given the high estimates of sensitivity by the IPCC. This is just one of the many unknowns “parameterized” in GCMs which is tweaked to produce the desired results.)
Point 4: the attribution of global warming to human produced greenhouse gases is scientific
A requirement for human produced CO2 to build up to any significant level is that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 must be on the order of > 100 years, and indeed, AGWers produce scores of papers with CO2 cycle models showing this level of lifetime. The problem with these theoretical papers is that the 36 published, peer-reviewed (since 1950), empirical measurements of CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere have all shown lifetimes < 15 years, with an average of ~ 7 years. These observations have not been shown to be in error, and are mostly ignored.
In science, when theory and observation disagree, theory changes. The AGW hypothesis ignores observations and is not science.
The problem of working out the implications of these projections is generally tackled by people who are not climate scientists.
The problem here is that the people who are pushing the “solutions” are the same people who decide who gets the funding for research. Perhaps you don’t see the conflict of interest here (after all, you think that freely given admissions of illegal behavior is not “evidence”), but most rational people do.
Author: Joanne Nova
Comment:
Oh Dear. You’re really pushing the bounds to the max. No more ad homs, no more argument from authority. No more indulgent, patronizing, over-long effusions from a stone age anonymous thinker. Catch up with the reformation, we’re 400 years ahead of you.
Name yourself Oh dear. You speak for the dominant paradigm. What on earth could you be afraid of? That we might google you like you did to Courtney?
Your post at #148 is completely daft. [SNIP ad hominem remarks.]
My post at #141 I correctly said and referenced:
And, as Kiehl reports, the models use a variety of climate sensitivities from 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2 to get this large range of assumed anthropogenic forcings. But there is good reason to consider that the real climate sensitivity is much lower. For example, Idso snr. reports his 8 natural experiments that indicate a “best estimate” of climate sensitivity of 0.10 C/W/m2 which corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.
And on the basis of that I stated the only reasonable conclusion;
So, nobody knows what climate sensitivity really is.
The models use a wide range of assumed climate sensitivities.
The lowest assumed climate sensitivity used by a model is probably too large by about an order of magnitude.
And on the basis of that, the modellers assert that climate sensitivity is large.
.
Your silly response to that is to assert of me:
Then contradict yourself by stating that the “unknown” figure is now too large. Not only that, you can quantify the magnitude of the error in the unknown value.
There is no contradiction of any kind in what I said.
[SNIP ad hominem remarks.]
I have been receiving a lot of email lately asking some very important questions on how to deal with Internet Trolls, and what to do when their trolling becomes more threatening.
It’s really tough not to allow your personal emotions get in the way. It can be even more difficult not to react to someone who is constantly harassing you, or your forum members.
But, I cannot stress enough, and will say it until I am blue in the face: DON”T FEED THE TROLL.
What does that mean? It’s simple really, do not respond in anyway shape or form to a troll. Their whole purpose is exactly that, to get a reaction, any reaction from the people/community they are trolling.
As an admin, or monitor on a forum board, your job is to prevent the trolling, not fuel it. Here are some basic steps to block trolling:
——————————————————————————————————————–
Only one comment under this blog post – and no, not a troll.
I’m a bit confused as to whether ‘Thread’ is a poster or new threads which I can’t pick up from the drop down menu because it’s too long for my screen
Whichever, in my view if you have too many subcategories it’s confusing for posters
I’m still plowing around trying to find my last post to Samoth in which I objected to assumptions which he had made
No matter; but if Thread could be a little less energetic might be easier for the rest of us
Or I’m a simpleton as Samoth with his assertion of ‘preconceived ideas’ considers me to be
“THREAD is Richard C organising things into threads…Yes?
If you wait a day for Google to index this site, you should be able to find Samoth through the search box.
I wouldn’t take stuff too personally though Val. It is a characteristic of the warmist mindset to assume every non-believer is stupid. You get used to it after a while.
Yes, I have the same problem, RT knows – you have to zoom out to see the entire menu and eventually RT will mimic the drop down on the Open Thread page. It takes time and RT is VERY busy at the moment.
“I’m still plowing around trying to find my last post to Samoth”
Get the RSS feed and also go to Admin
Admin
* Log in
* Entries RSS
* Comments RSS (click on this)
Tip -open CCG in more than 1 tab (I work with 5 -9 tabs, 3 of which will be CCG)
“too many subcategories” – Val, there is a bigger picture here, you have to understand that. (basically all the categories of “New List V2.0 in “Open Threads” have been incorporated so that the entire AGW Proponent – AGW Sceptic debate is framed (plus a few other issues).
Already the new set up has an international cooperative advantage. There is cross linking and referencing going to JoNova and overseas players of note (with cred) for example
“if Thread could be a little less energetic” – will be finished soon.
Relax Val, I know what I’m doing and so does RT, he was a NZ Herald catalogue Guy , I ‘ve been a corporate intel administrator and energy sector researcher, dealing with ship loads of info. This is a doddle by comparison – you’ll crack it in time (remember to use the Reply button).
The THREAD’s are de facto categories (Headers) providing places to put stuff, cross-link, reference, stimulate discussion, cover the bases and so forth.
{BTW, I was up from 3AM Sunday morning setting it up – it has taken HOURS and a lot of work for RT too]]
You will find Samodt, filed and linked under “Troublesome Trolls” – see, remember our discussion about that, and now you want to access your troublesome troll, there’s a way to do it.
I will also be linking the same spot on the page via “Debating” under “Disproving AGW”. we need this resource for future reference.
There is much more going on than you realise remember, we are up against a collective opponent and as Andy says “know your enemy’.
Also, if you have gone through a session with a troll like we did with Samodt, there is a lot of material that we can re-use, so we need to get back to it for future reference.
I employ this tactic all the time ( no point in re-inventing the wheel) and did so on a raid into Hot Topic. Now I can re-use what I hit them with.
BIG TIP – after a raid, save the page to your local drive, so that if the blogger takes down the page, you have not lost you material. I think this may have happened with the Hot Topic 10:10 page but can’t be bothered checking (and haven’t got the time) because no matter, I’ve got that page saved to my local disk.
[BTW – this comment will be linked under “Debating” or “Debating Strategies” or something when I set it up (possibly in “Disproving AGW”) so we can easily go back to it]
We now have a HUGE resource in a very short time and it a competitive advantage. I ‘m already using it as an extension to my own Bookmarks system which is MASSIVE.but very difficult to retrieve a key piece of material when I need it quickly in a debate – Open Threads solves that.
Is it worth putting in some tags (keywords) or some brief content on each thread header?
Very good point Andy (but I think the content comes afterwords i.e sub-sub-sub categories – as in a database hierarchy ),
That had not crossed my mind and to be honest, I don’t know how to do that (knowledge gap).
Seeing your heads in that zone and mine isn’t (and I don’t think I’ve got the time), See if you can set up a demo example somewhere to show us how to do it – you’re right, we need “hooks”.
Just call yourself THREAD or HEADER or something appropriate and go for it.
There are obviously some header titles we don’t want in Keywords as Val has pointed out previously.
e.g. Troublesome Trolls
That would be cute in the Blogosphere, but it might go viral and create such a storm that it would distract us from the real missions and clutter up our resource (and RT’s Blog).
RT may have a contrary opinion on this to mine, of course (i.e. a better idea in concert with his Blog aims – he might already have an idea in mind from NZ Herald days)
Richard D. De Veaux and David J. Hand ying with statistics can be accomplished in many ways. Distorting graphics, manipulating data or using biased samples are just a few of the tried and true methods. Failing to use the correct statistical procedure or failing to check the conditions for when the selected method is appropriate can distort results as well
Keywords:
Statistics, data mining, climategate, david hand
The above keywords might trigger a search result for “climategate”, but it depends to some extent on the spam algorithms of the search engine.
In other words, though the paper has no direct relevance to climategate, it might be of interest to someone interested in the topic.
You can apply this to topic headers:
e.g
GCMs:
Keywords : General circulation Models, climate change, computer modelling, Hadley Centre,
“FROM 3 AM!!!! ARE YOU A HERO OR WHAT???” – Nope, but I can get a lot done at that hour when there’s no distractions (Trolls) and also it pays to remember the the world goes on 24/7 so there’s always someone to talk to.
I’m all for engaging with Trolls, it keeps you sharp and you’ve got to know your stuff. But the Key is to pick the right Troll – some are a complete waste of time so let them go. Samodt was brilliant, so now we have built up a resource and don’t forget there are other eyes taking it in (Lurkers).
There are some very knowledgeable Trolls and a lot can be learned from them (I have) and a skillful Troll will bury you if you are not careful.
It’s all about strategies and not wasting time. You’ll be getting off lightly here (RT runs a tight ship) but you would not believe the ad-homs that have come my way in other places (some scary threats – remember, they like blowing up kids.
[BTW – was payed the ultimate complement by RedLogix at Hot Topic – he thought I was a professional sceptic – Ha!]
[This will also be X-ref’d under “Debating Strategies”, see how it works]
This article is a reasonable high-level summary, imo.
A good book to read is “Chill” by Peter Taylor. It goes into some quite detailed technical background into the water vapour arguments.
(Interestingly, Taylor has many years as an environmental consultant to governments and NGO’s, including Greenpeace)
Richard Lindzen’s talk at the ICCC conference in Chicago this year explains in fairly intelligible language some of the problems with the science. It is an hours video, well worth watching.
(Will try to find a URL later)
November 19, 2009: bucket of cold water #2. When I first saw the climategate emails, I knew these were real, they confirmed concerns and suspicions that I already had. After my first essay “On the credibility . . .” posted at climateaudit, I got some emails that asked me to be sensitive to the feelings of the scientists involved. I said I was a whole lot more worried about the IPCC, in terms of whether it could be saved and whether it should be saved. I had been willing to substitute the IPCC for my own personal judgment [in public statements], but after reading those emails, the IPCC lost the moral high ground in my opinion. Not to say that the IPCC science was wrong, but I no longer felt obligated in substituting the IPCC for my own personal judgment.
After the marketing disaster of the century, 10:10 desperately needed to save some face. They had accidentally showed us their totalitarian desires and lost at least 20,000 members in a week. How embarrassing.
How do you hide that? In true PR form, you frame your membership numbers and “save” the members you lost: keep the thousands of people (or fakers) who have joined and then left your group on your tally. (Just don’t call it “current members”.)
On their new redesigned home page they say they have 110,340 worldwide …wait for it…”sign ups”.
The 10-10 event page that Jo links to is hilarious:
e.g
In Germany there will be a low carbon speed dating event.
(Breeding is low carbon?)
There will be a zero carbon music festival in Portugal.
(No food, no amps, sounds like fun)
British schools will have Fuel Free Fridays and students will compete to design the best eco school.
(British schools better get used to being fuel-free – it will become the norm)
Saturday, October 16, 2010
UN Secretary-General Arrives in Morocco
He will identify three main challenges for global governance: ensuring that the global economy works for all people; combating climate change; and addressing new challenges, such as migration and organized crime.
“Antarctic cooling, global warming? …. the continent and in the interior appear to have cooled slightly …… we fully expect Antarctica to warm up in the future.”
Wow! the predictive skills of climate scientists is uncanny. Somewhere between 2006 and 2007, Antarctica did exactly what Gavin predicted. It switched from a long term cooling trend to a long term warming trend – in just one year!
George Taylor, former Oregon State climatologist writes:
Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation.
If he’s correct, then all GCM’s are massively in error because they fail to show any of the observed oscillations.
Swedish Wind Energy appears in a new increase in the deliberate attempt to conceal the fact that properties near wind turbines drop significantly in value, among others, writes Elisabeth von Brömsen, Föreningen Svenskt Landskapsskydd. Confederation of Swedish Landscape Protection.
A new paper, penned by a group of known warmist scare mongers, claims to have proof that CO2 is the control knob that regulates Earth’s temperature. Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, and Reto A. Ruedy, all from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, are boasting they have experimental proof that “carbon dioxide is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s
(Reuters) – Futuristic schemes for slowing climate change such as dimming sunlight are fraught with risks but will get a serious hearing from the U.N. panel of climate scientists, a leader of the panel said on Wednesday.
James Delingpole has a good article http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100060540/happy-climate-fools-day/
quoting selectively
I know what you’re thinking and I’ve heard about the “consensus” too. But when you can actually prove something you don’t need a consensus. That’s why you never hear about the consensus on gravity, or the consensus on evolution. Saying that 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming is an awful lot like saying that 97% of priests believe in God. If they didn’t at least pretend to believe in global warming climate change climate disruption they wouldn’t be climate scientists – not of the sort that get public funding, anyway. And when those “scientists” have to delete their own source data to prevent it from being released under freedom of information laws they deserve the scare quotes because at that point they have stopped being a credible science and have become just another bunch of religious extremists.
Simply put, the shoddy and disreputable field of climate “science” still has an awfully long way yet to go to actually prove that our six and a half pints of co2 are a problem of sufficient magnitude to justify such an obscene amount of public cash. Not when we are the only nation currently prepared to eviscerate our economy in such a way, making the entire exercise a futile gesture from the outset.
and what does he say about the precautionary principle?
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t the “cure” sound worse than the problem? A bit like amputating your leg to “cure” your in-growing toe nail? A bit Nongqawuse? But surprisingly few of the politicians, bankers, civil servants, trans-national bureaucrats, academics, activists and energy companies who stand to receive a slice of this funding bonanza seem to see it that way. And who can blame them? Remarkably few of those pallets would be enough to turn most of us into true believers.
Chinese firms blamed in huge greenhouse gas scam
Damian Carrington – smh October 28, 2010
BRUSSELS: The European Commission is planning to clamp down on a €2 billion ($2.8 billion) carbon trading scam involving the deliberate production of greenhouse gases which the fraudulent manufacturers are then paid to destroy.
The Climate Change Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, says the use of these carbon permits, from industrial gas projects in China, could be banned because of their ”total lack of environmental integrity”.
Billions of euros worth of the controversial permits were used between 2008-09 in the European Union’s emission trading scheme, in which companies must exchange pollution permits for emissions produced.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The scheme allows some of those permits to be bought in from developing countries.
The most popular of these so-called offsets come from projects that destroy the greenhouse gas HFC-23, a byproduct of the manufacture of the refrigerant gas HCFC-22.
The Environmental Investigation Agency said in June that many Chinese chemical companies were manufacturing HCFC-22 primarily to earn money from destroying HFC-23, which can be five times the value of the refrigerant gas the plants are ostensibly set up to create.
Mike McKenna, director of Kronospan’s Chirk factory, said the subsidies for electricity generators which use biomass encouraged them to take “the easy option” of burning freshly felled timber.
He told BBC Radio Wales: “The easy option for them is cutting down trees and burning them for electricity generation.
“That’s because the subsidies are worth more than twice the value of the wood.
Solar flare-up will burn a hole in every pocket (NSW)
Brian Robins and Tim Barlass October 31, 2010 – smh
INVESTIGATION
HOUSEHOLDS will pay an extra $600 on their electricity bill over six years to cover the $2 billion cost of the failure of the state government’s overly generous solar power scheme.
If elected in March, the opposition will have the scheme, which runs to the end of 2016, reviewed by the auditor-general so that it can decide on its future.
From midnight last Wednesday, the government slashed from 60¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt hour the tariff paid to households installing solar panel systems because the surging number of applications has blown out the scheme’s cost.
In reports tabled in Parliament last week, the government disclosed that it had been advised that even after slashing the tariff for solar panels, it anticipated 777 megawatts of solar panels would be installed by the time the scheme closed.
Already, 200 megawatts of capacity has either been installed or ordered.
The reports detailed the total cost to households is forecast to reach $1975 million by 2017, placing a burden on homes at a time when power prices are rising sharply already
Richard your site is wonderful from a reference point of view but I do miss talking to people; is there something that can be done about that? Or should I just go to Jo Nova or WUWT for that aspect?
I have to agree here. The threads have been great work (particularly by Richard C), but I think many would prefer some more opportunity to follow a conversation thread.
I don’t know an easy solution other than to spawn off a separate reference site. Is this feasible?
I’d be happy to chip in for any hosting if that was required.
Thanks Andy; Richard C is doing great work but a conversation thread would be a wonderful idea
I mentioned this once before and I think someone mentioned a thread ‘talk now’ but I can’t find it or it may have disappeared in the deritus
I suggest a thread called something like ‘conversation’; I like this site particularly because its frequenters are local (I think) and although we are not all scientists or computer modellers we can all learn off each other
And so far we seem to have avoided the trolls which Jo Nova’s site has recently attracted
I want to echo what Val said, that you’re doing a wonderful job in adding the reference feature and a tremendous heap of references to the site! I only have time to quickly scan the messages as they cross my inbox, but I see them all and I’m learning a great deal. The best thing about it is that I know, when I have some time to peruse a particular topic, that I’ll find the references right here! All I need to do is follow a few of the obvious threads or just use the Google search feature that’s built right in to the site!
Andy,
See my reply to Val. Another site would involve twice the admin time and I think we can do both things here. As I said to Val, we just need more posts to stimulate a little more conversation.
Thanks for your offer to help with costs, that’s tremendous. The October traffic spike took us from a normal 3 GB to 4 GB to just over 10 GB! Normally, that means an extra $60 for the month but I hope to negotiate something more reasonable. The site must not go down! There were several days last month when that almost happened, and without prompt action by the Kiwi Web Host Company to add free bandwidth (just for the one month) the great Climate Conversation would have been terminated until today!
I should look into putting a Donate feature on the site… more research!!
The main point of this site is to provide a vehicle for conversation. You’ve probably noticed that the word conversation features in the name of the site! :>) I have been deeply pleased at the contributions that have been coming in over the last few months. So, no, please don’t go away! Go to all the sites, by all means, but you’re welcome to have conversations here.
There are the “Open threads”, as you know, but the main vehicle is to discuss the individual posts. We need more of those, and so anybody is welcome to write one and submit it to me for publication. I encourage you to do so.
For myself, I could happily sit here and read and write about global warming all the time. However, I must earn a living and I cannot indulge this fascinating (and necessary!) pastime. You may notice that I almost never contribute here in the morning; that’s because I have a major customer for editing who uses me most days for between 4 and 8 hours. I start early in the morning so I have time to service other customers during office hours if required. Rising at 4:45 am requires me to retire sometime between 9:00 pm and 11:00 pm, so you won’t often see contributions from me later in the evening.
Why am I telling you this? Because sometimes a message to me goes unanswered for hours; if you know when I’m likely to be on deck you know when to be patient. Also you might forgive me for not posting more stories. And finally, somebody might be inspired to lend a hand by writing stories, summarising items of news or passing on information.
You all do a sterling job and I’m happy to report that October’s web traffic was a WordShine world record: 541,000 hits from 46,000 web sites. By country: 14% were from NZ, 60% from .net, .com and unknown, 1.3% (over 9000 hits) from the UK, down to 540 hits from South Africa.
Now, last month was special because we were featured twice on WUWT and other blogs, however normal traffic isn’t too shabby either. September came to just over 202,000 hits from around the world (NZ hits were 47%). So a lot of people are wanting to read about global warming in a calm, rational tone. Perhaps I sometimes get too excited, but my aim is to remain rational! And many people are interested in our stoush with NIWA over the temp record. It’s great to be a source of inspiration for others. Barry Brill, Chairman of the NZCSC, is the moving force in that.
Thanks for all your help; let’s keep going as we’re doing.
Thanks Richard for your message; yes, let’s keep going as we’re doing and I look forward to seeing a ‘donate’ button in the near future; I think with links that people offer on the various threads if each of us posters puts a brief summary of what the link is about that might stimulate more conversation and for me that would be great
Also each of us should pass links to the site with our comments on other blogs we might visit such as on WUWT – that would increase traffic more over time; I’ve been doing my bit and I’m sure others have been doing the same
I note that CCG wins hands down with the search engines over HT JoNova WUWT in search % using Alexa. I have registered CCG with Google to enable better cataloging but as you will see in Jo Novas feedback there is a fine line in gaming Google i.e quality content in posts is better than pushing Open Threads as a list site (easy to do but Google unhappy).
BTW, I save EVERY Open Threads page to my local drive after significant contributions, so there is always a back-up for me and for you if you need it. The bulk of the structure is in place now so I don’t see me putting the in a lot more and will be going for targeted quality contributions from now on especially with the new science findings that are coming in (a bewildering amount this year – mostly ignored by warmists.
I would also be interested in sponsoring “Open Threads” one day as I have probably put in the most data and it is a fantastic resource for me and I am sure others will find it eventually (including trolls). I’m not flush with cash at the moment though – some big bills coming up including hospital.
An educational computer game in which users have to save the world from climate change offers an interesting solution – decide the problem is overpopulation and design a virus to kill millions.
Fate of the World goes on sale on Tuesday and has been praised by gaming experts and climate campaigners as a way of reaching new audiences in the fight against carbon emissions.
However, climate change sceptics may be surprised and angered by some of the strategies on offer in the game which is being released on PCs and Apple Macs.
As the head of a fictional international body the user must save the world from soaring temperatures, increasing floods and deadly droughts.
The game, developed by Red Redemption, an Oxford-based design company, uses real data and input from scientists and has best been described as a Football Manager for eco-enthusiasts.
Users are presented with a budget, environmental data, and a series of energy policies which range from emissions caps and investment in biofuels to continue investing in fossil fuels.
Other more extreme policies are also available such as creating a disease to reduce the world’s population or geoengineering, such as cloud seeding from planes.
The game, described on its website as a “dramatic global strategy game”, takes you forward 200 years to see the outcome of your decisions, including whether major species such as the polar bear have been condemned to extinction.
The blurb reads: “You must manage a balancing act of protecting the Earth. Resources and climate versus the needs of an ever-growing world population, who are demanding ever more food, power, and living space. Will you help the whole planet or will you be an agent of destruction?”
Last night the Competitive Enterprise Institute, through its outside counsel Gibson Dunn, filed its brief arguing against NASA’s rather scattershot and contradictory effort to dismiss our lawsuit requesting certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)(press release available here).
Our suit, CEI vs. NASA (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), followed on the heels of ClimateGate, and a December 2009 Notice of Intent to Sue if NASA did not turn over certain records withheld since CEI sought them in August 2007 and January 2008 requests. That Notice was eleven months ago and, despite NASA offering some documents and admitting — temporarily — that certain others relating to the advocacy site used by NASA scientists, RealClimate.org were “agency records”, NASA then ceased its brief steps to comply with the transparency statute FOIA.
In court documents filed last night, the Competitive Enterprise Institute argues that NASA has gone out of its way to avoid turning over records that show the agency reverse-engineered temperature data to better make the case that the planet is becoming warmer. Tulumello_andrew
CEI, which is being represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Andrew Tulumello, argues in a pleading filed in Washington federal court that NASA’s request for summary judgment in the Freedom of Information Act suit against the agency should be denied because e-mails and other evidence turned over by NASA suggest that there are additional records that are being withheld.
“Rather than deal forthrightly with a FOIA request on these issues, NASA has engaged in obstruction and delay,” Tulumello writes in the court filing, which was filed late last night in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Branding of Dissenters Has Begun – Clearing The Path To A Climate Science Pogrom
Right smack on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, German Parliamentarians, in a frontal assault, are now openly calling out and branding scientists for the crime of scientific dissent. These Parliamentarians are demanding that the government take a position against them.
Warwick Hughes has put a comment on his blog on 11 November referring to Phil Jones and the Chinese weather station corruption saying Doug Keenan has emailed me re his new article bringing forward his concerns about Jones et all 1990
The link to the article is http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5610/b080830.htm
a couple of paras
In 1990, Phil Jones and co-authors published a research paper that (amongst other things) analyzed temperature data from eastern China during 1954–1983. The basis for the paper seemed unlikely: China was in upheaval during that time, and obtaining reliable data would be implausible. (This issue was first raised on the blog Climate Audit, of Steve McIntyre.)
The temperature data had been obtained from weather stations. The issue here concerns the histories of those stations: if stations are moved (e.g. from the outskirts of a city to the city center), then the temperature data cannot be studied directly, but has to first be adjusted to take account of the moves. The stations’ histories are sometimes referred to as “metadata”.
There are links to
• Jones–Keenan exchange
• Remarks on Keenan [Energy & Env., 2007]
• Wang’s defense in the university’s fraud investigation
Wang was a co author of the Jones’ paper
Very interesting particularly the defense about which Keenan says
Zeng’s letter further claims that Zeng remembers the histories of 41 of the 49 stations. Zeng apparently makes that claim even though the letter acknowledges that Zeng is remembering over an “almost 19-years time span”. I find the claim extremely implausible. I.e. the claim further diminishes the credibility of Zeng’s letter.
Wang’s submission says that the documents for the 49 station histories, which would have been highly valuable and archived at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, are “no longer available”. Thus Wang’s submission is based solely on Zeng’s claimed memory.
Dr Tim Ball has some fighting words today
Climate Deception Is A Crime Against Humanity?
…
Because of the deliberate deception and vigorous propaganda that CO2 was causing warming actions were demanded and pursued. Completely unnecessary and devastating policies were implemented. We’re wasting billions on climate change programs and alternate energy programs. Nations who pursued green energy and jobs policies are in serious financial problems. Nations like Britain and regions like Ontario Canada or California that abandoned or failed to update traditional energy sources, including nuclear, will have inadequate power supplies for many years to come. The cost of everything, especially food, has soared and will continue to rise. Industries have closed and more are threatened as draconian restrictions on carbon production are introduced.
…
Failure of people to pursue the crimes committed by those involved with Climategate has emboldened them and their supporters to launch a claim to being the aggrieved parties. They can only do this because the leaders have whitewashed their actions. Continuations of the fiascos that are the UNFCC, the IPCC and the WMO filled with people who only work to perpetuate themselves mean it is increasingly urgent for the people to identify them as accessories after the fact. To co-opt an idea from the environmental movement, we must act locally by demanding accountability of national weather and climate agencies. Many of them are tacitly acknowledging culpability by investigating their data sources and management.
…
Donna Laframboise has an interesting take on Tim Ball’s post
I’ve never met Tim Ball, a retired climatology professor and vocal climate change skeptic. I think he comes across well in this video, and I’ve heard others say he’s a good and decent man. I must confess, though, that I stopped reading his regular posts at Canada Free Press some time ago because I consider his rhetoric over-the-top.
Claes Johnson banned from teaching Mathematics course at Swedish University:
Extremist pro-green Swedish university shackles academic freedom and bans all teaching that doesn’t conform to dogma of human-caused global warming
[snip]
The math professor reports that this latest gagging is most extreme because it includes required material for his students and may be fatally damaging to their studies.
The highly-experienced and respected professor has been banned by his bosses from teaching any “part of course material in the course Numerical Methods II.” The material is also found in his ebook, ‘BodyandSoul.’
Dr. Johnson laments, “the course, has been “stopped” by the President of the Royal Technological Institute KTH, because the book contains a mathematical analysis of some models related to climate simulation.”
It appears the blanket ban was precipitated after a small clique of pro-green student activists protested to the university that Johnson was daring to address both sides of the global warming debate. The story is also reported by DN.SE, a popular Scandinavian publication who added, “the school took away pages of the book.”
Maurice Strong set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide a powerful vehicle for almost complete control of climate science. Each national weather office perpetuates the deception that human CO2 is causing climate change. He controlled the science through the IPCC and the political and propaganda portion under the umbrella of the Rio Conference (1992) and the ongoing Conference of the Parties (COP).
By peopling the IPCC with representatives of national weather offices, he attained control of the politics within each nation and collective global control. They’re the Trojan Horses from which funding and research emanate to deceive the politicians and public into achieving his goal of destroying the industrialized nations.
From YALE environment360
——————————————————————————————————————– 13 Dec 2010: Report ‘Perverse’ Carbon Payments Send Flood of Money to China
To offset their own carbon emissions, European companies have been overpaying China to incinerate a powerful greenhouse gas known as hfc 23. And in a bizarre twist, those payments have spurred the manufacture of a harmful refrigerant that is being smuggled into the U.S. and used illegally.
by mark schapiro
European legislators in Brussels have discovered that the strategy they devised to combat climate change is helping subsidize the economy of their, and America’s, major global competitor — China. European companies have been overpaying Chinese companies more than 70 times the cost to eliminate a potent greenhouse gas — triflouromethane, or hfc 23, a byproduct of manufacturing a refrigerant that has been banned in developed countries and is being phased out in developing ones.
In order to offset their own greenhouse gases, companies and utilities in Europe that are subject to the emission limits of the Kyoto Protocol have been paying vastly inflated prices to Chinese companies to destroy hfc 23, and in the process have been providing the Chinese government with hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue to compete against Europe’s own “green” industries. European concern about this practice was a major source of contention during last week’s climate negotiations in Cancun, as the UN attempted to defend the integrity of the multi-billion dollar global carbon offset market.
And in an odd twist, the incentives offered through the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) also appear to be stimulating production of an ozone-depleting refrigerant gas that has been landing in the U.S. black market. Investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Two European Parliament members have alleged a ‘gross misuse of European consumers’ money.’
and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have led to the conviction of several smugglers who have illegally imported the ozone-depleting refrigerant, hcfc 22, into the U.S. for sale to trucking companies, supermarkets, automotive supply shops, and other large-scale users of refrigerant gases. The illegal refrigerant is significantly cheaper than non-ozone-depleting refrigerants permitted in the U.S., a price discrepancy triggered partially by the large overpayments to Chinese firms that have led to an ample supply of hcfc 22 on the international black market.
That black market completes a global circuit unique to the era of climate change: From China’s industrial zones, the credits for the greenhouse gases — bought and sold as commodities on the global carbon markets — flow to European companies that need them to continue polluting at home, while the underlying ozone-depleting gas responsible for creating those credits flows to American companies seeking discounted refrigerants.
“It’s perverse,” says Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch member of the European Parliament. “You have companies which make a lot of money by making more of this gas, and then getting paid to destroy it.”
Met Office 2008 Forecast: Trend of Mild Winters Continues
Met Office, 25 September 2008: The Met Office forecast for the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average. It is also likely that the coming winter will be drier than last year.
Reality Check: Winter of 2008/09 Coldest Winter For A Decade
Met Office, March 2009: Mean temperatures over the UK were 1.1 °C below the 1971-2000 average during December, 0.5 °C below average during January and 0.2 °C above average during February. The UK mean temperature for the winter was 3.2 °C, which is 0.5 °C below average, making it the coldest winter since 1996/97 (also 3.2 °C).
Met Office 2009 Forecast: Trend To Milder Winters To Continue, Snow And Frost Becoming Less Of A Feature
Met Office, 25 February 2009: Peter Stott, Climate Scientist at the Met Office, said: “Despite the cold winter this year, the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future.
“The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850.”
Reality Check: Winter Of 2009/10 Coldest Winter For Over 30 Years
Met Office, 1 March 2010: Provisional figures from the Met Office show that the UK winter has been the coldest since 1978/79. The mean UK temperature was 1.5 °C, the lowest since 1978/79 when it was 1.2 °C.
Met Office July 2010: Climate Change Gradually But Steadily Reducing Probability Of Severe Winters In The UK
Ross Clark, Daily Express, 3 December 2010: ONE of the first tasks for the team conducting the Department for Transport’s “urgent review” into the inability of our transport system to cope with snow and ice will be to interview the cocky public figure who assured breakfast TV viewers last month that “I am pretty confident we will be OK” at keeping Britain moving this winter. They were uttered by Transport secretary Philip Hammond himself, who just a fortnight later is already being forced to eat humble pie… If you want a laugh I recommend reading the Resilience Of England’s Transport Systems In Winter, an interim report by the DfT published last July. It is shockingly complacent. Rather than look for solutions to snow-induced gridlock the authors seem intent on avoiding the issue. The Met Office assured them “the effect of climate change is to gradually but steadily reduce the probability of severe winters in the UK”.
Met Office 2010 Forecast: Winter To Be Mild Predicts Met Office
Daily Express, 28 October 2010: IT’S a prediction that means this may be time to dig out the snow chains and thermal underwear. The Met Office, using data generated by a £33million supercomputer, claims Britain can stop worrying about a big freeze this year because we could be in for a milder winter than in past years… The new figures, which show a 60 per cent to 80 per cent chance of warmer-than-average temperatures this winter, were ridiculed last night by independent forecasters. The latest data comes in the form of a December to February temperature map on the Met Office’s website.
Reality Check: December 2010 “Almost Certain” To Be Coldest Since Records Began
The Independent, 18 December 2010: December 2010 is “almost certain” to be the coldest since records began in 1910, according to the Met Office.
Met Office Predicted A Warm Winter. Cheers Guys
John Walsh, The Independent, 19 January 2010: Some climatologists hint that the Office’s problem is political; its computer model of future weather behaviour habitually feeds in government-backed assumptions about climate change that aren’t borne out by the facts. To the Met Office, the weather’s always warmer than it really is, because it’s expecting it to be, because it expects climate change to wreak its stealthy havoc. If it really has had its thumb on the scales for the last decade, I’m afraid it deserves to be shown the door.
A Frozen Britain Turns The Heat Up On The Met Office
Paul Hudson, BBC Weather, 9 January 2010: Which begs other, rather important questions. Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre’s predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?
A Period Of Humility And Silence Would Be Best For Met Office
Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times, 10 January 2010: A period of humility and even silence would be particularly welcome from the Met Office, our leading institutional advocate of the perils of man-made global warming, which had promised a “barbecue summer” in 2009 and one of the “warmest winters on record”. In fact, the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.”
Alex Hill, the chief government adviser with the Met Office, told The Scotsman there was no future for skiing in Scotland because climate change would see winters become too warm for regular snowfall.
Mr Hill said: “Put it this way: I won’t be investing in the skiing industry.
“The amount of snow has been decreasing for the last 40 years, and there’s no reason why it’s going to stop now.”
18 Dec 2010 – SkiClub.co.uk:
Angie Brown is a correspondent for BBC Scotland and has been skiing in Scotland since her childhood. “The snow last weekend in Glenshee was the best I’ve ever seen. It was comparable with resorts in France and Austria where I’ve been” she told us. “The problem was that they couldn’t cope with the numbers of people that turned up. There were only 2 men at the equipment hire counter, and not enough sets of equipment so I ended up skiing with no poles.”
Ah happy days! I ised to live in Aberdeen and remember skiing at Glenshee. The place was always full when there was snow because of its easy access to the cities and the limited tows.
My friends over there was waxing lyrical abou tthe amazing skiing last year, but suggested that this wouldn’t happen again for 25 years.
It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’. But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.
Like the three IPCC ‘assessment reports’ before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. The reports from working groups II and II are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.
There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if that large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.
Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change—in other words the key parts of WG I?
The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration.” And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?
Why are carbon trading issues that have gone awry ignored by the media? Two examples: 1-scam artists from around the world, capitalizing on lax regulations at the Danish emissions trading registry have made off with an estimated $7-billion over the last two years, and 2- the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced that it will be ending carbon trading this year. Both of these have been underreported (ignored?) by most media.
[Snip]
Denmark isn’t the only place where carbon folks have been in bed with organized crime. A probe in Germany, where the total damage is estimated at 80 million Euros followed investigations in Britain, France, Spain, Norway and the Netherlands over carbon fraud over the past year.
The head of the United Nations offered Robert Mugabe a lucrative retirement package in an overseas haven if he stood down as Zimbabwe’s president, according to claims quoted in leaked diplomatic cables.
The extraordinary offer was allegedly made by Kofi Annan, who was then the UN secretary general, at the millennium summit of world leaders in New York, according to a memo drawn up by American officials which was obtained by the WikiLeaks website.
As Britain’s top independent forecaster (a skeptic) again outwits his global warming adversaries in weather prediction, we examine what really separates the men from the boys in this hot topic.
Award Winning maverick forecaster, Piers Corbyn’s unparalled success in outperforming his rivals (global warming believers) is winning him deserved column inches in the British press.
The man who, in 2010 predicted a trio of major rare events (Pakistan floods, Moscow heatwave, Britain’s brutal winter) gives us a rare glimpse into why he’s so successful, to the great embarrassment of his main rivals, the Met Office.
CONNIE Hedegaard, the EU Climate Commissioner, appeared on these pages on Monday promoting the outcomes of the Cancun climate summit and offering to work with Australian Climate Change Minister Greg Combet.
Combet, for his part, is committed to putting a price on carbon.
What Hedegaard didn’t mention in her piece, but to which Combet and Australia should pay close attention, is that the Danish tax authority has been robbed blind by a carbon trading scandal that has rocked the market for carbon offsets. While the story saw some coverage a year ago, significantly higher losses have since been reported and this has largely been ignored.
The Danish auditor general is on the case now as the scope of the crime has become obvious, and grown exponentially since it was first reported. Originally discussed as a quasi-small-time dollar scam, the reality a year later is a lot larger: Europol is estimating a value on the case of 38 billion kroner and the values seem to keep going up.
Hedegaard, then Denmark’s Climate and Energy Minister, helped set up and manage a system where there were no background checks on the listings of permitted traders. This removal of identification was done even though the EU requires at least a passport. This helped a group of fake, rogue traders set up a program that looted the Danish economy of up to 2 per cent of its GDP in lost VAT taxes.
Here’s How:………….continues
——————————————————————————————————————– Cancun deal puts climate action back on track
THERE is good reason to reflect for a moment about global warming and the recent climate conference in Cancun.
This year was actually one of the hottest on record. And the weather-related catastrophes, from fires in Moscow to floods in Pakistan and Venezuela, are a warning of things to come unless we deal with the challenge of climate change. That’s why the package of decisions that came out of the conference in Cancun may well be this year’s most important Christmas present.
What’s in the package? Quite a bit. The key points of the agreement concluded in Cancun are based on the results we achieved in Copenhagen last year.
[Snip] a new book by British environmental journalist Fred Pearce, one of the world’s leading commentators on climate change, suggests cause for serious concern.
The Climate Files: The battle for the truth about global warming, is a compilation of Pearce’s reporting on the Climategate scandal, mainly for the Guardian newspaper.
Neither Pearce, nor the Guardian, is a climate denier.
[Snip]
“Jones insisted that what he did, for good or ill, was what his fellow climate scientists did. They didn’t publish all their data and methods because, ‘it hasn’t been standard practice to do that. Maybe it should be, but it’s not.’ Following that came the most startling observation, when Jones was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication had requested to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. ‘They’ve never asked,’ he said.”
Thus, Pearce observes: “The rigour of peer review came crashing down before our eyes.”
Steig suggested that rather than argue it out on the blogs O’Donnell, Id at el should publish a paper under peer review. So that’s what they tried. And guess which person it was who was selected to review O’Donnell et al’s paper. And guess which person it was – under the pseudonym Reviewer A – who tried to thwart the paper’s progression to publication with 88 pages of comments and obfuscation ten times longer than the original paper.
Yep. You got it. The mystery peer reviewer was none other than Eric Steig. Even in the monstrously corrupt world of “climate science” this was clearly a breach of protocol. Certainly, in no other scientific discipline would a reviewer with such a clear conflict of interest be invited to review a paper whose main purpose was to criticise one he’d written himself.
Now let us allow Iapogus (the commenter at Bishop Hill from whom I filched this summary: I’m an interpreter of interpretations, me) to continue the story:
Ryan guessed that Reviewer A was Stieg early on, but still remained patient and good natured. At one point in the review process, Steig suggested that Ryan and Jeff should use an alternative statistical technique, which they then did. But then later, Steig then criticised the paper, citing the example of the same statistical technique as an issue (the one he had suggested). So Steig has laid himself open to charges of unprofessional conduct, duplicity. And that was when Ryan decided to bring all this out in the open. Meanwhile Gavin and the other members of the Team at the Real Climate (RC) blog have gone into overdrive in moderating any commenter who ask any reasonable questions about all of this. Basically this was the evidence that peer review at least in climate science is broken.
Bishop Hill has quite a good summary of this story.
It has been featuring quite prominently in the climate blogosphere over tha last few days.
Dellers article is quite a good summary
SEC Charges Seven in Global Warming Pump-and-Dump Scheme
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2011-46
Washington, D.C., Feb. 18, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a group of seven individuals who perpetrated a fraudulent pump-and-dump scheme in the stock of a sham company that purported to provide products and services to fight global warming.
Additional Materials
* Litigation Release No. 21862
* SEC Complaint
The SEC alleges that the group included stock promoters, traders, and a lawyer who wrote a fraudulent opinion letter. The scheme resulted in more than $7 million in illicit profits from sales of stock in CO2 Tech Ltd. at artificially inflated prices. Despite touting impressive business relationships and anti-global warming technology innovations, CO2 Tech did not have any significant assets or operations. The company was purportedly based in London, and its stock prices were quoted in the Pink Sheets.
European Union faces legal action over fraudulent carbon emissions trading
The European Union faces legal and political challenges over its handling of the carbon markets which remain in chaos after a cyber attack forced partial closure of the Emissions Trading Scheme.
EU officials are due in a Belgian court on Monday to answer a request to name companies in possession of stolen allowances after a legal challenge by an Italian company affected by the fraud.
And on Wednesday the EU’s climate change committee will try to reassure national governments and carbon exchanges that they have the right level of security in place to reassure nervous market users
As the great global warming scare continues to crumble, attention focuses on all those groups that have a huge interest in keeping it alive. Governments look on it as an excuse to raise billions of pounds in taxes. Wind farm developers make fortunes from the hidden subsidies we pay through our electricity bills. A vast academic industry receives more billions for concocting the bogus science that underpins the scare. Carbon traders hope to make billions from corrupt schemes based on buying and selling the right to emit CO2. But no financial interest stands to make more from exaggerating the risks of climate change than the re-insurance industry, which charges retail insurers for “catastrophe cover”, paid for by all of us through our premiums.
New evidence raises growing concerns that environmentalism is the sinister tool of fascist politics. Revelations from a crumbling Libyan dictatorship show an enforced green agenda propped up by a discredited UK establishment.
Latest news highlighted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (March 3, 2011) strengthens claims by global warming skeptics that not only are extreme political radicals controlling the green movement but that there exists an increasing popular rising against this sinister trend.
What will come as a shock to most citizens not fully engaged in the long running climate debate is that there has been a new twist in the controversy revealing a dark and dangerous undertone to the once innocent and non-political green movement. No longer are the rank and file of the environmentalist movement comprised of animal-loving, kind natured innocents that we remember from our childhood. No, quite the contrary as the misguided support of zealots such as Britain’s Lord Stern and Prince Charles have backed Libyan ogre, Colonel Gaddafi.
Catastrophic sea level rise is one of the most valued hole cards played by alarmists in the global warming debate. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore showed computer generated images of what Manhattan would look like if sea level rose 20 feet. Building on this theme, elevation charts of coastal cities have become a staple in global warming presentations by Al Gore wannabes. But what happens when sea level in the real world does not rise nearly as much as alarmists predict? If you are a NASA-funded gatekeeper of sea level data, you merely doctor the data.
Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. As a result, alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.
Will Google start censoring climate skeptics? Can anyone say Googlegate?
The Yale Forum on Climate Change reports that,
… Google leads people to accurate information about climate change. Fifty-two percent of the 980 sites [returned by a Google search on climate change-related terms] contained clear statements in line with the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science evidence. For example, if you had searched for “climate change myths” in early May, you would have found this Environmental Defense Fund site, which says, “The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it.”
And Google may be willing to fix this problem for the alarmists. The Yale Forum goes on to state:
Meanwhile, can search engines do a better job of pointing the public toward credible sites?
A Google spokeswoman, who insisted on anonymity because she is not a Google executive, said the company is always looking for ways to improve results. “Last year, we made 500 changes to the algorithm to improve search quality,” she said.
Trenberth: “Unbelievable” Breakdown in Defensive Zone Coverage
Steve McIntyre, posted on Jul 31, 2011 at 2:47 PM
Kevin Trenberth recently expressed his consternation at the breakdown in Team defensive zone coverage that enabled publication of Spencer and Braswell:
“I cannot believe it got published,” said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Trenberth and Phil Jones were Cover 2 in the rock-solid IPCC AR4 defense. Readers will recall Jones’ promise of a goal-line stand against McKitrick and Michaels 2004:
Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Not sure where to put this,but I note that Wikipedia has classified CO2 as pollution, including that from breathing
Quote:
Major primary pollutants produced by human activity include:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) – a colourless, odorless, non-toxic greenhouse gas associated with ocean acidification, emitted from sources such as combustion, cement production, and respiration
“The failure of Skeptical Science to present diverse viewpoints on these issues (and on the others in the posts on Skeptical Science) indicates that their weblog is not balanced in the presentation of the existing research findings in climate science. John Christy and Roy Spencer are very well-respected climate scientists by most everyone in this science community.
Skeptical Science would do more of a service to the science community if they accurately presented their (and my viewpoints), even when they disagree, rather than disparage those who disagree with them. As Skeptical Science is currently presenting their information on climate on their weblog, everyone just needs to recognize that the weblog is not presenting all peer reviewed perspectives.”
Armed Troops Burn Down Homes, Kill Children To Evict Ugandans In Name Of Global Warming
Neo-colonial land grabs carried out on behalf of World Bank-backed British company
Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against “global warming,” a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.
Armed Troops Burn Down Homes, Kill Children To Evict Ugandans In Name Of Global Warming.
The evictions were ordered by New Forests Company, an outfit that seizes land in Africa to grow trees then sells the “carbon credits” on to transnational corporations. The company is backed by the World Bank and HSBC. Its Board of Directors includes HSBC Managing Director Sajjad Sabur, as well as other former Goldman Sachs investment bankers.
Book Review: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an IPCC Exposé
In this book, Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise exposes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a fraud. LaFramboise (see author profile here) spent two years investigating the IPCC. She says it acts like a spoiled teenager, hence the title of the book.
The IPCC has long been touted as the preeminent authority on climate science. But LaFramboise shows that the participants were picked by governments, not for their scientific expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.” Many of the scientists are in fact, very young graduate students. Many of the bureaucrats in the IPCC are from radical environmental groups. Real experts are often ignored. She says the IPCC is a purely political organization, not a scientific one, and she backs up her charges with copious references.
The IPCC has always claimed that its reports are based exclusively on published peer-reviewed research. But LaFramboise found, after a meticulous review of the cited references, that about 28% of sources were from magazine articles, press releases, and unpublished papers. In fact, the major conclusions of one chapter in the latest IPCC report were based on two papers that had not been published. When an IPCC expert reviewer asked the IPCC and the papers’ authors for supporting data, they all refused to produce the data. Yet, the IPCC claims it is completely transparent.
LaFramboise points out that the IPCC does not check sources. And, “Peer review does not prove that a piece of research is true.” “A couple reviewers, of course, are a poor substitute for mass scrutiny. Sometimes reviewers are chosen poorly; other times they’re lazy.”
BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.
CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Climate change science being stifled by NSW Labor bureaucrats
* by: Malcolm Holland
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* December 02, 2011 12:00AM
SENIOR bureaucrats in the state government’s environment department have routinely stopped publishing scientific papers which challenge the federal government’s claims of sea level rises threatening Australia’s coastline, a former senior public servant said yesterday.
Doug Lord helped prepare six scientific papers which examined 120 years of tidal data from a gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour.
The tide data revealed sea levels were rising at a rate of about 1mm a year or less – and the rise was not accelerating but was constant.
“The tidal data we found would mean sea levels would rise by about 100mm by the end of the century,” Mr Lord said yesterday.
“However the (federal) government benchmark which drives their climate change policy is that sea levels are expected to rise by 900mm by the end of the century and the rate of rise is accelerating.”
Mr Lord, who has 35 years experience in coastal engineering, said senior bureaucrats within the then Department of Environment Climate Change and Water had rejected or stopped publication of five papers between late 2009 and September this year.
“This was very thorough research, peer reviewed and getting the highest ranking from various people, and one of the papers got a nine out of 10 for the quality of the work,” he said.
“You have to ask yourself why they were rejected, considering they had been peer reviewed, and the Fort Denison tide data is among the longest continuous data of its type available in the world.
NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker has asked department officials to explain why they put the lid on internal research that questioned catastrophic predictions of sea-level rises as a result of climate change.
A former senior researcher in the department, Doug Lord, said yesterday two papers he co-authored with colleagues and was due to present at conferences were suppressed because they suggested sea-levels on the east coast are rising at only one 10th of the rate estimated by the federal government, based on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Mr Lord said long-term data gleaned from gauges in Sydney Harbour suggested sea levels were rising at the rate of about 1mm per year. This would lead to a rise of about 90mm by 2100, not the 900mm rise predicted by the IPCC.
“We can’t identify an acceleration of the rate, which doesn’t mean that it’s not there,” Mr Lord told The Australian. “But if it’s going to reach those levels, it’s got to accelerate at some time in the future.”
Mr Lord, who does not question the science of climate change, said the papers were pulled by the department at the last minute, after they had been accepted and peer-reviewed.
“It’s very odd that they left that until the last minute and withdrew both papers at the latest possible opportunity,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Ms Parker said the minister had “asked for a thorough explanation” and wanted more information.
In a statement, the Office of Environment and Heritage said it “fully supports the analysis of tide gauge records to estimate historical sea-level rise trends and the publication of these analyses for discussion and debate”.
But the agency insisted “historical trends of sea-level rise recorded by tide gauges do not necessarily provide a good indication of future sea levels because trends are expected to change with continued global warming”.
The agency said the papers were withdrawn over “concerns raised by an independent statistician about the statistical analysis of tide gauge records”.
In Germany, there is news today (here) about a prominent climate scientist who earlier this year was convicted of defaming a journalist, Irene Meichsner.
The case (described in detail in English here) has to do with Meichsner’s reporting of errors in the IPCC 2007 report in early 2010 in the Frankfurter Rundschau. The scientist, Stefan Rahmstorf (known in the US as a blogger at Real Climate and whom I’ve occasionally sparred with) is a German government advisor who strongly attacked Meichsner for her coverage of the IPCC. His attacks prompted the Frankfurter Rundschau to subsequently correct Meichsner’s reporting, apparently based solely on Rahmstorf’s say so, such was his authority.
Meichsnner, believing that she had done no wrong, sued. The Cologne court then decided in her favor, concluding that Rahmstorf’s attacks were unsupported by evidence and even libelous.
Interestingly, in the US, Rahmstorf’s efforts to take down the journalist were uncritically celebrated by no less than the New York Times, which helps to illustrate both a bandwagon effect in coverage of climate by journalists who see themselves on the “same side” as the scientists and also the extensive deference than scientists are granted by the media. Given the court outcome, I wonder if the NYT will be correcting its earlier coverage?
A German magazine on science journalism provides a detailed discussion of the case and its significance (translated from German) and summarizes this episode as follows:
“The detective-inspector and his colleagues were polite, well mannered and did not over-react when I declined to give them my wordpress password. I politely explained that they had a warrant to search my house, not my head.” – Roger Tattersall aka ‘Tallbloke’
No, Tallbloke has never been anonymous to my knowledge. I know I’ve posted comments here at CCG in the past referring to his full name that he has replied to as ‘Rog Tallbloke’:-
The UK Met Office and BBC promoted statement is extremely delusional and dishonest and a cover-up of reality. Full article: Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming
Their ‘expectation’ that the world will warm by 2C this century ‘due to increased greenhouse gas emissions’ is proven drivel based on their own failed self-serving fraudulent models.
They deliberately choose to know almost nothing about solar influences on earth’s weather and climate and create ‘information’ designed to deceive.
It is the largely predictable vast changes in solar charged particle flux and sun-earth magnetic connectivity which control weather and climate.
Pulling back the curtain on someone’s wizardry right when they’re producing the smoke and lights is like pulling back the curtain when they’re in the shower. Lies, like nakedness, show it all to the world: “Well, here I am….”
From “The Mango”
Episode 1, Season 5
Seinfeld Volume 4, Disc 1
Timecode for the scene: 2:55
Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science[emphasis added].We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.
And more.
In the golden words of red Dwarf – talk your way out of this one, Smeghead!
It appears likely that it’s the ‘strategy’ doc at issue, and as John M has pointed out, it only contains info we already know from the other docs and other sources.
It does contain that one zippy quote about discouraging teaching science which was – unsurprisingly – widely circulated, but, since we’re not Deniers whose entire existence is focused on distributing culled snippets of dubious provenance, we’ll have to forego the pleasure of using it for the time being.
So, let me kick off the conversation by saying that the venom and vitriol coming from the warmistas is to be expected. They typically revel in ad-homs and seldom consider inconvenient facts. I think Bolt nails (bolts?) it by saying “If the sceptics’ conspiracy was real, why fake the evidence?”. This is the inconvenient fact of the whole matter.
When the warmistas claim that we are duplicitous because the Climategate ‘hacking’ was applauded by us, yet this ‘hacking’ is condemned by us, the main difference is that the authenticity of the CRU emails was confirmed as much as possible before being posted on sites like WattsUp. In stark contrast, DeSmog posted the stolen and forged Heartland docs within one hour of receipt, without any attempt to verify their authenticity. And it turns out the main Policy document was a forgery.
“To see the melting of the sea ice not as a warning to humanity but as an invitation to drill for more of the stuff that caused the problem in the first place is the definition of madness. What Shell is doing is climate change-profiteering.”
Approximately $1.3 million in cash seems to have gone missing from a project called “Strengthening Capacity of Environmental Civil Society Organisations”. Overall, it was worth about $4.5 million, part-funded by Norway. Further funding has been suspended for this and for the $2.5-million REDD+ readiness project, aimed at “enhancing Tanzania’s capacity to deliver data on forest carbon stocks”, has also been put on hold.
As the news of the scandal emerged, WWF’s Tanzania country director, Stephen Mariki, resigned and, so far, the eight people linked to the fraud have had their employment terminated.
G.W.F. Hegel completely changed the meaning of civil society, giving rise to a modern liberal understanding of it as a form of market society as opposed to institutions of modern nation state
Naomi Klein: ‘If You Take Climate Change Seriously, You Have to Throw Out the Free-Market Playbook’ | Common Dreams http://t.co/lINu9DHh 07:18:13 PM March 01, 2012
“We published an article in 2005 that showed, among other things, that [being] overweight was associated with lower mortality – and we got an awful lot of negative feedback from that,” Katherine Flegal, a senior research scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the study’s lead author, told Time.
The previous article was dismissed as “rubbish” by many academics, but Flegal maintained her position, choosing to conduct further research and bring attention to the findings.
“It is not an unusual finding. But authors tend to shy away from it. They tend to underplay it or try to explain it away,” she told The Independent.
Just goes to show, if everyone believes it, it ain’t necessarily true. Happy New Year everyone!
by Anastassia Makarieva, Victor Gorshkov, Douglas Sheil, Antonio Nobre, Larry Li
Thanks to help from blog readers, those who visited the ACPD site and many others who we have communicated with, our paper has received considerable feedback. Some were supportive and many were critical. Some have accepted that the physical mechanism is valid, though some (such as JC) question its magnitude and some are certain it is incorrect (but cannot find the error). Setting aside these specific issues, most of the more general critical comments can be classified as variations on, and combinations of, three basic statements:
1. Current weather and climate models (a) are already based on physical laws and (b) satisfactorily reproduce observed patterns and behaviour. By inference, it is unlikely that they miss any major processes.
2. You should produce a working model more effective than current models.
3. Current models are comprehensive: your effect is already there.
Let’s consider these claims one by one.
Models and physical laws
[…]
Thus, while there are physical laws in existing models, their outputs (including apparent circulation power) reflect an empirical process of calibration and fitting. In this sense models are not based on physical laws. This is the reason why no theoretical estimate of the power of the global atmospheric circulation system has been available until now.
The models reproduce the observations satisfactorily
As we have discussed in our paper (p. 1046) current models fail when it comes to describing many water-related phenomena. But perhaps a more important point to make here is that even where behaviours are satisfactorily reproduced it would not mean that the physical basis of the model are correct. Indeed, any phenomenon that repeats itself can be formally described or “predicted” completely without understanding its physical nature
[…]
For example, a climate model empirically fitted for a forest-covered continent cannot inform us about the climatic consequences of deforestation if we do not correctly understand the underlying physical mechanisms.
You should produce a better model than the existing ones
[…]
To expect a few theorists, however keen, can achieve that is neither reasonable nor realistic. We have invested our efforts to show, using suitable physical estimates, that the effect we describe is sufficient to justify a wider and deeper scrutiny. (At the same time we are also developing a number of texts to show how current models in fact contain erroneous physical relationships (see, e.g., here)).
Your effect is already present in existing models
Many commentators believe that the physics we are talking about is already included in models. There is no omission. This argument assumes that if the processes of condensation and precipitation are reproduced in models, then the models account for all the related phenomena, including pressure gradients and dynamics. This is, however, not so. Indeed this is not merely an oversight but an impossibility. The explanation is interesting and deserves recognition – so we shall use this opportunity to explain.
[…]
In current models in the absence of a theoretical stipulation on the circulation power, a reverse logic is followed. The horizontal pressure gradients are determined from the continuity equation, with the condensation rate calculated from the Clausius-Clapeyron law using temperature derived from the first law of thermodynamics with empirically fitted turbulence. However, as we have seen, to correctly reproduce condensation-induced dynamics, condensation rate requires an accuracy much greater than γ << 1. Meanwhile the imprecision of the first law of thermodynamics as applied to describe the non-equilibrium atmospheric dynamics is precisely of the same order of γ. The kinetic energy of the gas is not accounted for in equilibrium thermodynamics.
[…]
Summary and outlook
The Editor’s comment on our paper ends with a call to further evaluate our proposals. We second this call. The reason we wrote this paper was to ensure it entered the main-stream and gained recognition. For us the key implication of our theory is the major importance of vegetation cover in sustaining regional climates. If condensation drives atmospheric circulation as we claim, then forests determine much of the Earth’s hydrological cycle (see here for details). Forest cover is crucial for the terrestrial biosphere and the well-being of many millions of people. If you acknowledge, as the editors of ACP have, any chance – however large or small – that our proposals are correct, then we hope you concede that there is some urgency that these ideas gain clear objective assessment from those best placed to assess them.
Controversial research outlines physics behind how forests may bring rain
It took over two-and-a-half-years for the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics to finally accept a paper outlining a new meteorological hypothesis in which condensation, not temperature, drives winds. If proven correct, the hypothesis could have massive ramifications on global policy—not to mention meteorology—as essentially the hypothesis means that the world’s forest play a major role in driving precipitation from the coast into a continent’s interior. The theory, known as the biotic pump, was first developed in 2006 by two Russian scientists, Victor Gorshkov and Anastassia Makarieva of the St. Petersburg Nuclear Physics, but the two have faced major pushback and delays in their attempt to put the theory before the greater scientific community.
“It is, at first glance, incredible that such a process could be so influential, be based on basic physics, and yet have gone unnoticed for so long by so many,” says co-author Douglas Sheil who worked with Gorshkov and Makarieva on the new paper. “I shared this view initially, but over time it has withstood a large number of queries and challenges.”
Gorshkov and Makarieva argue that forests drive winds through “persistent condensation,” bringing in rain from the oceans. Put simply: no forests, no rain
The scientists behind a widely reported new climate change study suggesting we are currently in the warmest climate of the past four thousand years have had their work shredded in peer review, and been accused of skating close to scientific “misconduct”.
The paper, led by Oregon State University’s Shaun Marcott, claimed to have validated the discredited “hockey stick” graph and proven that modern temperatures were the highest in four millennia.
Their research was published in the prestigious journal Science and sparked worldwide media headlines. The New York Times trumpeted “Global temperatures highest in 4000 years”, while Associated Press went even further: “Heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years”.
“Of course, Anthony Watts can do all he likes to shut down debate on his blog. However, there is simply no consistent, rational, mathematically valid, or scientific explanation of the GHE. So we say it’s back to you Roy and Anthony.”
For reasons including “pure politically correct”, NASA has fought a losing battle – against reality – on the subject of Global Warming, which it feels obliged to believe in as a “scientifically correct” theory. Linked to this, quite directly, NASA has also battled against reality on the subject of sunspot frequency, size, location on the Sun’s surface and other variables linked to sunspot cycles in this present Cycle 24 of approximately 11-year-long cycles. These have been accurately recorded since Cycle 1 set by convention between astronomers as starting in Feb 1755.
NASA wanted to believe Cycle 24 would be about the same, perhaps bigger in sunspot numbers and intensity, than Cycle 23. This has not happened. Cycle 24 started weak and got much weaker: February 1906 and Fenruary 2013 had one thing in common, they both had extreme low numbers of observable sunspots on “our” local Star.
[…] The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) recommends that teachers force students to participate in Greenpeace campaigns, excusing Greenpeace’s criminal activities as “creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems”. Grade 10 students are encouraged to take part in boycotts organized by Greenpeace as part of their civics class. One school forces its students to volunteer for “justice based community and international organizations”, including Greenpeace. Many schools direct students to the Greenpeace website via online newsletters, while other schools invite Greenpeace representatives into their classrooms to save students the trouble of having to go online to find environmental propaganda. Or better yet, some schools will hire Greenpeace employees as teachers or have a Greenpeace Association at their school in order to allow students full-time access to Greenpeace’s propaganda.
‘Two Alarmist Professors Suspects in Climate Fraud’
by John O’Sullivan
Professor Will Steffen, Executive Director of ANU Climate Change Institute College of Asia and the Pacific and The Australian National University and Professor Lesley Hughes Head of the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University are named and shamed for alleged fraudulent public presentations last month.
In a damning open letter (July 9, 2013) by Australian scientists, Dr Judy Ryan and Dr Marjorie Curtis, professors Steffen and Hughes are being called out for their biased and unscientific presentations given at the Canberra Community Forum on June 17th 2013. The professors are accused of not only making “misleading” and “false” statements but it is being suggested their bogus climate claims may rise to the level of actual fraud.
Drs Ryan and Curtis have now made their letter open to the wider scientific community and the public so they may judge for themselves how egregious are the cherry picked claims of professors Steffen and Hughes.
Below we publish the full Ryan/Curtis letter so our readers can get the full picture of this sorry tale:
[Ryan/Curtis letter]
“In closing, Dr Curtis and I believe that as ethical scientists it is our duty to bring these issues to your attention and that of other concerned scientists and citizens. If you think that anything we have said here is untrue please click ‘reply all’ and let us know and we will apologize. We have also sent this email by mail to both of you, so that even if you are unable to access your email for a few days you will still get this important letter and have the opportunity to respond. Please do this before the 1st August 2013.” – Dr Judy Ryan and Dr Marjorie Curtis
Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared.
[Sydney Morning Herald] “Professor Will Steffen, a researcher at the ANU and member of the Climate Council, said scientists understand how a hotter, moister climate is already affecting storms such as Haiyan”
[Actual study] “Remarkably, the two periods of most frequent typhoon strikes in Guangdong (AD 1660–1680, 1850–1880) coincide with two of the coldest and driest periods in northern and central China during the Little Ice Age.”
It seems fundamental to me that a globe where the poles are supposedly warming faster than the tropics will enjoy less extreme weather because of the reduced differentials in barometric pressure globally. That a professor at ANU could make such a flawed statement is incomprehensible. Except when you take it as a politically inspired statement rather than a science-based one.
Fact checking seems to be a lost art – even by a judge in this case:
‘A judge shouldn’t be so careless with the facts of climate change’
Written by Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun blogs, November 12 2013.
It is disturbing that a judge should have so little regard for evidence – and that the Sydney Morning Herald does not bother to fact-check his claims:
“Tony Abbott’s stance on climate change has been criticised by an eminent judge speaking from a Pacific island that is being devastated by the effects of rising tides.
District court judge Michael Finnane spoke during a self-financed fact-finding visit to Kiribati, where seawater has broken into fresh water reserves, flooded houses and in the future is likely to force an exodus of islanders…
Judge Finnane said: “If [Mr Abbott] came here and saw the things over here that I have seen, I think he would have a different view. If he looked at them and didn’t walk around with shut eyes he would see there is something very significant happening here…
“My gut feeling is that there’s a huge problem with fresh water here. They are taking measures to hold back the waves but ultimately this island, and there are 33 other islands, are going to become less and less habitable…”
He also said it was “absurd” that people in Sydney drove large four-wheel-drive vehicles or SUVs and didn’t realise the damage they were doing to the environment.”
[…]
“I don’t like to say this of a judge of whom there is a lot to like and admire, but when it comes to global warming, is Finnane himself the one walking around with his eyes wide shut?”
‘Russel Norman slammed for linking typhoon with climate change’
Source: ONE News
Green Party co-leader Russel Norman has been criticised for linking the destructive Philippines typhoon with climate change.
Political leaders began today’s Parliamentary session by offering messages of support to Filipinos affected by the destructive Typhoon Haiyan.
However, Dr Norman used his time to quote the head of the Philippines delegation to UN Climate talks, who had spoken hours earlier.
[…]
He [Norman] said that 11 hours earlier the Philippines Government gave a speech about climate change and their desire for all governments to take action on it.
New Zealand Parliament – Draft transcript – Tuesday, 12 November
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to this terrible event that has befallen the people of the Philippines. I think that the best way that I can acknowledge those who have died and the suffering of those who are currently trying to find their way through the rubble in the Philippines is read out a statement by the Filipino people themselves. This is a statement by Yeb Sano, head of the Philippines delegation to the UN climate talks. He read this statement at the opening of the climate talks in Warsaw in the last few hours. His home has been devastated; many of his family are missing. These are his words: “It was barely 11 months ago in Doha when my delegation [appealed] to the world to open our eyes to the stark reality that we face [as] then we confronted a catastrophic storm that resulted in the costliest disaster in Philippine history.
[Continuation line: Less than a year after]
Less than a year [after], we [could not] imagine that a disaster much bigger would come. With a … cruel twist of fate, my country is being tested by this hellstorm called Super Typhoon Haiyan.” It has been described by experts as the strongest typhoon that has ever made landfall in the course of recorded human history. He said: “It was so strong that if there was a Category 6, it would have fallen squarely in that box. … we remain uncertain as to the full extent of the … devastation, as information trickles in in an agonisingly slow manner because [electricity] lines and communication lines have been cut off. … The initial assessment show that Haiyan left a wake of massive devastation that is unprecedented, unthinkable and horrific.” This is affecting two-thirds of the Philippines, with about half a million people now rendered homeless and with scenes reminiscent of the aftermath of a tsunami, with a vast wasteland of mud, and debris, and dead bodies. He said: “Despite the massive efforts that my country had exerted in preparing for the onslaught of this monster of a storm, it was just too powerful and even as a nation familiar with storms, Haiyan was nothing we have ever experienced before, or perhaps nothing that any country has ever experienced before. The picture in the aftermath is ever slowly coming into focus. The devastation is colossal.”
[Continuation line: I will continue with a quote from Yeb Sano]
I will continue with a quote from Yeb Sano, head of the Philippines delegation at the UN climate talks. “To anyone who continues to deny the reality that is climate change, I dare you to get off your ivory tower and away from the comfort of their armchair. I dare you to go to the island of the Pacific, the islands of the Caribbean, and the islands of the Indian Ocean and see the impacts of rising sea levels; to the mountainous regions of the Himalayas and the Andes to see communities confronting glacial floods, to the Arctic where communities grapple with the fast dwindling polar ice caps, to the large deltas of the Mekong, the Ganges, the Amazon, and the Nile where lives and livelihoods are drowned, to the hills of Central America that confronts similar monstrous hurricanes, to the vast savannas of Africa where climate change has likewise become a matter of life and death…Not to forget the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico…And if that is not enough, you may want to pay a visit to the Philippines right now. The science has given us a picture that has become much more in focus. The IPCC report on climate change and extreme events underscored the risks associated with changes in the patterns as well as frequency of extreme weather events. Science tells us that simply, climate change will mean more intense tropical storms. As the Earth warms, that would include the oceans. The energy that is stored in the waters off the Philippines will increase the intensity of typhoons and the trend we now see is that more destructive storms will be the new norm.”
‘Russel Norman defends typhoon climate change speech’
Source: ONE News
Green Party co-leader Russel Norman has defended his speech in Parliament yesterday that linked Typhoon Haiyan with climate change following criticism from opposition MPs
[…]
The Green co-leader is this morning standing by his statement, saying it was the perfect time to address the issue.
“We should be listening to the people and government of the Philippines.
“They want us to take action on things like climate change, and countries like New Zealand who have a plan to increase our greenhouse emissions, there’s a complete contradiction of what the people of the Philippines are asking us and what the current Government is doing.”
# # #
Apparently, “the people and government of the Philippines” (actually just Yeb Sano) are now the attribution experts (i.e. ignore all other typhoon/hurricane specialists, even the IPCC), we should listen to them (make that Yeb Sano) at the behest of Russel Norman.
‘Supertyphoon Haiyan Brings Lots Of Sound And Fury, Little Scientific Information’
By Paul Knappenberger & Patrick Michaels
[…]
On the conference’s opening day [COP 19, Warsaw], an envoy form the Philippines, Yeb Sano, gave an emotional address to the delegates in which he vowed to stop eating until something was accomplished.
“I will now commence a voluntary fasting for the climate. This means I will voluntarily refrain from eating food during this (conference) until a meaningful outcome is in sight.”
Adding,
“We can fix this. We can stop this madness. Right now, right here.”
Sano got a tear-filled standing ovation.
While the outpouring of sympathy was certainly deserved, an outpouring of action on climate change is certainly not […]
Scientists say single weather events cannot conclusively be linked to global warming. Also, the link between man-made warming and hurricane activity is unclear, though rising sea levels are expected to make low-lying nations more vulnerable to storm surges.
In other words, limitations, even strict ones, on anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases—the very thing that Sano seeks—will have no detectable (at least based on our current scientific understanding) impact on the characteristics of future tropical cyclones, such as Haiyan, or Sandy, or Katrina, or any other infamous storm. And as for sea level rise, projections are far more lurid than observations.
The hard numbers (from Ryan Maue’s excellent compilation) show that global tropical cyclone activity for the last 40+ years—during the time of decent observations and the time with the greatest potential human impact from greenhouse gas emissions—while showing decadal ups and downs, show little overall change. In fact, global cyclone activity has been below average for the past 5 years [see graph].
Also: ‘Philippines lead negotiator at the COP 19 in Warsaw puts the blame for super typhoon on global warming’
COP 19, the annual UN global warming mega jamboree has opened in Warsaw. The lead negotiator for the Philippines, Yeb Sano, was one of the first speakers:
1145 – There is now a three minutes silence for the tragedy in the Philippines. Delegates are on their feet. Some are joining Sano in shedding tears for the loss of lives that occurred during the typhoon.
1141 – Yeb Sano announces he will not eat during the conference, until a meaningful agreement has been achieved.
More>>>>>>>>
I can imagine Russel Norman, if present at COP 19, shedding (crocodile?) tears along with the rest and vowing with Yeb Sano not to eat for the duration of the conference (well until the first banquet anyway) – in complete ignorance of ACE graphs, SREX/AR5 conclusions, or any other scientific trend analysis or literature.
The unsubstantiated conflation of hurricanes/typhoons (one-off weather events) with climate change and the COP 19 performance is scurrilous and detestable IMO.
‘Some historical perspectives on Typhoon Haiyan-Yolanda’
by Anthony Watts
“……here are some useful bits of information that help put this storm into the perspective of “worst ever” claims, and opportunistic claims about it being a product of global warming…..”
“……when you look at the science for tropical cyclones in the region, such claims don’t even begin to hold up”
“It seems abundantly clear then that any claim trying to tie Typhoon Haiyan to a pattern of increased frequency of storms supposedly driven by “global warming” is patently false.”
‘After Suzanne Goldenberg [Guardian] makes a large, fraudulent claim about climate change spending, it gets very quietly “fixed” with the addition of weasel words “may” and “up to”‘
Robert Brulle pushes back on Guardian $1 billion/yr spin on his study of “climate change counter movement” funding:
“You may have seen the Guardian article on my paper: I have written to the newspaper complaining about this headline. I believe it is misleading. I have been very clear all along that my research addresses the total funding that these organizations have, not what they spent on climate activities. There is a quote in my paper that speaks directly to this:
“Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.”
It is fair to say these organizations had a billion dollars at their disposal. But they do a lot of other things besides climate change activities, and so saying that they spent $1 Billion on climate change issues is just not true. I did not attempt to analyze the internal spending of these organizations, and so I can say nothing about the total amount spent on climate change activities. I hope that this clarifies the findings of my research. Best Bob Brulle
‘Organizations Bankrolling Climate Change Denial Revealed in New Study’
By James A. Foley
A new report in the journal Climatic Change details the sources of funding for climate change deniers. The study is the first peer-reviewed analysis of the funding organizations behind the climate change counter-movement.
Written by Mark Steyn, SteynOnline on 29 August 2014.
“No disrespect to Professor Ka-Kit Tung, but I felt vaguely that I’d read about this climate cycle – natural variability, 30-year cooling periods, 30-year warming periods – somewhere before …oh, years ago, it was. But for the life of me I couldn’t recall which eminent climate scientist had advanced the proposition. And then I remembered. It was IPCC lead author, Nobel Laureate and Fellow of the Royal Society Professor Mark Steyn just over five years ago:……..”
‘Fed Up With Govt Misconduct, Federal Judge Takes Nuclear Option’
Federal Prosecutor Alleges Boss Pressured Him To Engage in ‘Unethical Conduct’; Judge Calls Abuses ‘Egregious,’ ‘Pervasive,” and “Reprehensible”
By Sidney Powell | 10/15/14 9:45pm
In perhaps the most stunning documentation yet of abuses by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, two former Assistant United States Attorneys spoke to defense attorneys and revealed appalling deceit and corruption of justice. This latest litigation time bomb has exploded from multi-million dollar litigation originally brought by the Department of Justice against Sierra Pacific based on allegations that the lumber company and related defendants were responsible for a wildfire that destroyed 65,000 acres in California.
In what was dubbed the “Moonlight Fire” case, the tables are now turned. The defendants have discovered new evidence and filed a stunning motion. The new evidence and disclosures are being taken seriously by the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of California—as they should be. In a shocking action, Judge Morrison C. England Jr. ordered the recusal of every federal judge in the Eastern District of California.
[…]
The Sacramento Bee reported on the Defendant’s filing. Indeed, the Defendants’ motion informs us that a former Assistant United States Attorney came forward and disclosed that he believes that he was removed from the original prosecution by “his boss, David Shelledy, chief of the civil division in the United States Attorney’s office,” because he “rebuffed” pressure to “engage in unethical conduct as a lawyer.” Of course, like other former prosecutors who were unethical, Mr. Shelledy is to receive Attorney General Holder’s highest award for excellence—this week.
Andrew Weaver: Libel Chill or Libel “Polar Vortex”
by Steve McIntyre
Andrew Weaver has been taking a victory lap following the recent decision in his favor by rookie judge Emily Burke. In previous commentary about Mann v Steyn, I’ve made some snide remarks about the competence of D.C. trial court judge Combs-Greene, either implying or stating that Canadian courts have higher standards. I take it all back. As a Canadian, it’s embarrassing to discuss Judge Burke’s disorganized and muddled decision with readers from other countries. Unsurprisingly, beneath the muddled prose, there are (what appear to me) some bright-line legal errors over and above quixotic and often grossly incorrect findings of fact.
In fairness to Judge Burke, she was astonishingly inexperienced to have been assigned a relatively complicated libel case. She had been appointed as a judge on May 13, 2004 [Sic ?] (h/t Hilary Ostrov) and the Weaver v National Post trial began in the first week of June 2014, only a few weeks after Burke’s appointment. Her resume shows that her professional experience over the previous 20 years had been as a labour arbitrator, with no apparent evidence of previous experience in libel law. It was very unfortunate that she was assigned this case.
If Burke’s decision accurately reflects Canadian libel law, then for opinion writing in Canada (including Climate Audit), it is more of a polar vortex than mere libel “chill”. To borrow a phrase, it would be a travesty if National Post did not appeal this decision.
In today’s post, I’ll set out an overview of the main issues.
[…]
It’s hard to list all the errors of fact. I plan to do follow-up posts, setting out chronologies of fact for the main threads listed above.
‘Greenpeace enlists Justin Gillis & John Schwartz of the NY Times in Journalistic Terrorist Attack on Willie Soon – Miss Target, Hit Smithsonian Instead’
by Kip Hansen, February 23, 2015
I cannot bring myself to quote from this unconscionable piece of journalistic malfeasance:
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher [hotlink]
By JUSTIN GILLIS and JOHN SCHWARTZ FEB. 21, 2015
Instead, I simply let my title and the following excerpts from the so-called “supporting” documents offered by Greenpeace speak for themselves. Their [non-]journalist lackeys: Justin Gillis and John Schwartz of the NY Times, apparently didn’t actually read them – or they might have noticed that the contracts are between the Smithsonian (not Soon) and Southern and if they had stretched themselves, might have uncovered the definition of “deliverables”….I can’t believe Gillis and Schwartz allowed themselves to be duped again.
What they claim is damning evidence is nothing of the kind, instead it is standard contract language and practice.
Willie Soon title for the above ‘proposal’ is “principal investigator”. A title that expressly means a Smithsonian team is responsible, otherwise Dr. Soon would not have the title.
The contract does not explicitly describe who is responsible for performing the work. Only that Dr. Soon as Principal oversees the technical aspects. To ensure correct technical language, Smithsonian’s Contract Officer who is the legal signature, will likely ask/order Dr. Soon to write or oversee writing the research results.
Dr. Soon declared his funding via Smithsonian! The Smithsonian may pull funds from fifty donors to actually pay Dr. Soon and the other employees; as such, the Smithsonian is responsible for identifying whose funds they were using.
Dr. Soon’s value as an effective employee is that he successfully locates potential sponsors and brings funds to the Smithsonian.
It is quite odd that the alarmists are soiling their panties in such an effort to smear Dr. Soon. Twisting contractual wording and communications to mean other than the Smithsonian intended. Meanwhile alarmists get caught committing flagrantly illegal acts, e.g. Gleick, and they honor him. Lucky for them the Holder Department of Justice is blind to alarmist wrongful actions.
For going on two years now, I’ve been trying to publish a manuscript that critically assesses the reliability of climate model projections. The manuscript has been submitted twice and rejected twice from two leading climate journals, for a total of four rejections. All on the advice of nine of ten reviewers. More on that below.
The analysis propagates climate model error through global air temperature projections, using a formalized version of the “passive warming model” (PWM) GCM emulator reported in my 2008 Skeptic article. Propagation of error through a GCM temperature projection reveals its predictive reliability.
[…]
I will give examples of all of the following concerning climate modelers:
They neither respect nor understand the distinction between accuracy and precision.
They understand nothing of the meaning or method of propagated error.
They think physical error bars mean the model itself is oscillating between the uncertainty extremes. (I kid you not.)
They don’t understand the meaning of physical error.
They don’t understand the importance of a unique result.
Bottom line? Climate modelers are not scientists. Climate modeling is not a branch of physical science. Climate modelers are unequipped to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.
The incredibleness that follows is verbatim reviewer transcript; quoted in italics. Every idea below is presented as the reviewer meant it. No quotes are contextually deprived, and none has been truncated into something different than the reviewer meant.
And keep in mind that these are arguments that certain editors of certain high-ranking climate journals found persuasive.
[…]
In their rejection of accuracy and fixation on precision, climate modelers have sealed their field away from the ruthless indifference of physical evidence, thereby short-circuiting the critical judgment of science.
Climate modeling has left science. It has become a liberal art expressed in mathematics. Call it equationized loopiness.
The inescapable conclusion is that climate modelers are not scientists. They don’t think like scientists, they are not doing science. They have no idea how to evaluate the physical validity of their own models.
They should be nowhere near important discussions or decisions concerning science-based social or civil policies.
What am I accused of that prompts being investigated? Here is my crime:
“Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr., at CU’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change and its economic impacts. His 2013 Senate testimony featured the claim, often repeated, that it is “incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” ”
The letter goes on to note that John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, “has highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke.” (For background on this see here and here.) My 2013 testimony to the Senate is here and House is here in pdf (Q&A following hearing here and here). The testimony was the basis for my recent book on Disasters & Climate Change.
Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none. He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).
Adam Sarvana, communications director for Natural Resources Committee’s Democratic delegation, reinforced the politically-motivated nature of the investigation in an interview:
“The way we chose the list of recipients is who has published widely, who has testified in Congress before, who seems to have the most impact on policy in the scientific community”
Let’s see – widely published, engaged with Congress, policy impact — these are supposed to be virtues of the modern academic researcher, right? (Here in PDF is my view on the importance of testifying before Congress when asked. I still think it is important.)
I am pleased that some colleagues with whom I have had professional disagreements with in the past have condemned the investigation via Twitter, among them Eric Steig (of Real Climate), Bob Ward (LSE) and Simon Donner (UBC). This shows some real class. In contrast, Michael E. Mann, who I defended when a Virginia politician came after him, used the “investigation” as a chance to lob childish insults my way via Twitter. Some things you can always count on in the climate arena!
So far, I have been contacted by only 2 reporters at relatively small media outlets. I’d say that the lack of interest in a politician coming after academics is surprising, but to be honest, pretty much nothing surprises me in the climate debate anymore. Even so, there is simply no excuse for any reporter to repeat incorrect claims made about me, given how easy I am to find and just ask.
The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject. I am a full professor with tenure, so no one need worry about me — I’ll be just fine as there are plenty of interesting, research-able policy issues to occupy my time. But I can’t imagine the message being sent to younger scientists. Actually, I can: “when people are producing work in line with the scientific consensus there’s no reason to go on a witch hunt.”
When “witch hunts” are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics.
Pachauri, the recently resigned chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has PR flaks and a legal team. What is his version of events? Here’s a quote from a Reuters news story:
“His [Pachauri’s] lawyers have said his computer and mobile phone were hacked and that vested interests were maligning him because of his outspoken stand on global warming.”
See:
‘Indian climate chief told to stay away from thinktank after harassment claim’
‘A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics’
By Judith Curry, Published September 28, 2015, FoxNews.com
“The demand by Senator Whitehouse and the 20 climate scientists for legal persecution of people whose research on science and policy they disagree with represents a new low in the politicization of science.
‘Vermont climate scientist wants RICO prosecutions of climate change opponents’
By Bruce Parker / September 24, 2015 /
Alan Betts, a leading climate scientist from Pittsford, is among the letter’s signatories. Betts told Vermont Watchdog he believes opposition to man-made climate change involves organizational deceit worth investigating. “Bring them to court and make them face up,” Betts said. “
Walter Olson, senior fellow at the CATO Center for Constitutional Studies, and an expert on RICO, said Betts and the other researchers are undermining their own profession. “They are playing with dynamite as far as freedom of science goes,” Olson told Vermont Watchdog. “If science is to be free, if intellectual life is to be free, people have to be given leeway to say things that other people are going to believe are wrong or not objective.”
Listen: Warmist Thom Hartmann asks Skeptic: ‘Why should you not be in jail?’ ‘You are killing people.’ Blames skepticism for ‘dead children’ ‘I am calling you a criminal’
Nationally syndicated radio host Hartmann debated with CFACT Climate Skeptic Paul Driessen on September 21, 2015. The heading on Hartmann’s website is ‘Climate Change Deniers Should Be In Prison’
Hartmann to Driessen: ‘You are paid to lie to people.’
‘I am talking about racketeering, organized crime. I am calling you a criminal.’
Driessen talks of why he is skeptical and Hartmann responds: ‘That’s what you should be in jail for’ – ‘You are killing people.’ – ‘You have five million climate refugees.’
‘Dead children — you’re responsibility.’ – ‘It’s all the consequence of climate change.’
“This RICO travesty shows how desperate alarmists have become. They are losing the climate science fight. Their models are increasingly contradicted by reality. Their ad hominem attacks will ultimately fail.”
#RICO20 $4 million NSF grant while Shukla’s organization is being “dissolved” ?
Anthony Watts / September 30, 2015
…and so far, that four million dollar plus NSF grant has produced only one paper. From the NSF grant page:
Badger, A. M., and P. A. Dirmeyer. “Climate response to Amazon forest replacement by heterogeneous crop cover.,” Hydrol. Earth Sys. Sci., v.12, 2015, p. 879.
‘Lewandowsky’s Psychological Science publishing hoax reaches the media’
Anthony Watts / 3 hours ago January 12, 2016
From Paul Matthew’s Climate Scepticism blog:
Yesterday this story appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald [hotlink – see below]. As far as I am aware this is the first time it has appeared in the mainstream media. Kudos to their reporter Paul Sheehan, and also to the Quillette magazine forwriting about it in December, and Lee Jussim for giving a talk about it at an academic meeting on social psychology.
January 10, 2016 by Paul Sheehan Sydney Morning Herald columnist
Cultural sensitivity is turning into a victory for ideology over objectivity
[…]
My favourite example, which encapsulates all of the above, was provided by Dr Lee Jussim, a professor of social psychology at Rutgers University in the US. He dissected a paper published by a respected journal, Psychological Science, in 2013, and found that it was rubbish, and probably published because the journal’s editors shared the ideological bias of the article’s conclusion.
The paper was entitled “NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax”. The abstract of the study states: “Endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science … This provides confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.”
Note the term “conspiracist ideation”. The English language is being brutalised in the social sciences to create a false sense of rigour.
When Jussim checked the data, he found that of the 1145 participants in the study, only 10 thought the moon landing was a hoax. Of those who thought climate science was a hoax, almost all of them, 97.8 per cent, did NOT think the moon landing was a hoax.
The social psychologists who conducted the study had disguised the data and smothered it under a layer of obfuscation. No peer reviewer or journal editor took the time to check the raw data. Instead, the paper was published because it buttressed a pervasive ideological bias in the field.
By colluding they have may have committed a federal crime:
‘Dear attorneys general, conspiring against free speech is a crime’
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, April 11, 2016
Liberal law enforcers shouldn’t break the law to shut up climate change dissenters.
Federal law makes it a felony “for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).”
I wonder if U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, or California Attorney General Kamala Harris, or New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have read this federal statute. Because what they’re doing looks like a concerted scheme to restrict the First Amendment free speech rights of people they don’t agree with. They should look up 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, I am sure they each have it somewhere in their offices.
“Smoke & Fumes,” Part Deux: Exxon Knew “The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.”
“So, way back in 1963, the entire oil industry knew exactly what we know today: The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.”
‘A Climategate-like bombshell: State Attorney Generals colluded with Green groups to punish political opponents’
by Chris Horner, April 18, 2016
[…]
In the end, it seems the only parties that may be breaking the law are those colluding AGs in their scheme to silence political opposition, while seeking funds for their preferred policy agenda. It is they who need to come clean.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE EMAILS [hotlink – see below]
Chris Horner is an attorney in Washington, D.C. who obtained the email records for the Energy & Environment Legal Institute. He is also a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
A press conference today featuring Al Gore and more than a dozen state attorneys general was expected to reveal new state-level investigations of U.S. energy companies regarding climate change. But the vast majority of AGs standing on stage refused to join such an effort, signaling a lack of interest in wasting their own states’ resources.
Last year, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that he had launched an investigation into fossil fuel companies regarding what the New York Times called “possible climate change lies.” The investigation was based entirely on a series of controversial articles written by researchers at the Columbia School of Journalism and InsideClimate News, which selectively pulled statements from company documents to suggest Exxon Mobil’s public policy advocacy was inconsistent with its own research.
Unsurprisingly, environmental activists embraced the articles, and even began an online campaign – complete with the hash tag #ExxonKnew on Twitter – to pressure state and federal officials to launch investigations into so-called “climate denial.” To date, they have succeeded in convincing Schneiderman as well as the attorneys general for California and Massachusetts.
But Democratic attorneys general from New Mexico, Washington, D.C., Rhode Island, Maine, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, and Vermont – all of whom stood on the stage next to Al Gore today – refused to announce that they would be launching their own investigations. In fact, reporters covering the event struggled to find much of anything new in what the officials were promising. The Huffington Post even conceded that the AGs “were vague on what exactly they have planned.”
Editorial boards across the country have criticized the #ExxonKnew campaign as an attempt to “stamp out all disagreement,” while also worrying about the legal precedent of pursuing “criminal penalties over those involved in a scientific debate.” An editorial from Bloomberg News called Schneiderman’s investigation a “dangerous arrogation of power.”
Legal experts have also questioned the merits of New York’s investigation. John Coffee, a law professor at Columbia University, told the New York Times that a “leading obstacle [to a conviction] would be the First Amendment, as climate change is a matter of robust public debate.”
Paying for Media, Policy Outcomes
Although Schneiderman’s office contends the investigation is based on allegations of “fraud,” one of the groups who funded the research underpinning Schneiderman’s investigation – the Rockefeller Family Fund – admitted last week that their funding of non-profit news entities, including Columbia and InsideClimate News, was geared toward achieving “better climate policy.”
The new campaign’s goals include “to establish in public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm,”
I’ve reviewed the 22 internal documents from 1977 to 1989 made available by ExxonMobil here. I’ve also reviewed what I could find on 104 publications (most are peer-reviewed) with ExxonMobil personnel as authors or co-authors. For some of the peer-reviewed articles I only had an abstract and for some I could find the reference but no abstract or text without paying a fee. Below this short essay is an annotated bibliography of all 22 internal documents and 89 of the published papers. The documents are interesting reading, they fill in the history of modern climate science very well. Much of the current debate on climate change was being debated in the same way, and often with the same uncertainties, in 1977.
Between 1977 and the fifth IPCC report in 2013 ExxonMobil Corporate Research in New Jersey investigated the effect of increasing CO2 on climate. If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Further, if they found any definitive evidence of an impending man-made climate catastrophe, I didn’t see it. The climate researchers at ExxonMobil participated in the second, third, fourth and fifth IPCC assessment reports making major contributions in mapping the carbon cycle and in climate modeling. They calculated the potential impact of man-made CO2 in several publications. They investigated methods of sequestering CO2 and adapting to climate change. They also investigated several potential biofuels.
The internal documents are generally summaries of published work by outside researchers. Some of the documents are notes from climate conferences or meetings with the DOE (Department of Energy). For many of the internal documents one has to read carefully to separate what is being said by the writer and what he is reporting from outside research. Exxon (and later ExxonMobil) did some original research, particularly making ocean and atmospheric measurements of CO2 from their tankers. But, most of what they produced was by funding research at Columbia University or the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. All of their internal research and the work at Columbia was published as far as I can tell, so it is difficult to accuse them of hiding anything from the public or shareholders.
At the heart of Schneiderman’s accusation, according to the NY Times, is a list of statements made by ExxonMobil executives that he believes contradict the internal memos summarized below. The statements are reported here. In fact, the internal memos and documents listed below, do not contradict the ExxonMobil executives in any way. The internal documents and publications all clearly describe the considerable uncertainties in climate science and align with the executives’ statements. Go to the link to see all of them, two of the most notable are quoted below:
State Officials Investigated Over Their Inquiry Into Exxon Mobil’s Climate Change Research
By JOHN SCHWARTZMAY 19, 2016
Since last November, a growing number of state attorneys general have been pointing their fingers at Exxon Mobil, investigating whether the energy company’s research about climate change conflicted directly with its public statements on the issue.
But now the accusers are being accused, with a battle being waged over principles of free speech, government overreach and collaboration with activist organizations.
Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, sent a letter on Wednesday to the New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, demanding all communications since 2012 between his office and climate change activist organizations.
The attorneys general, Mr. Smith said, are doing the bidding of environmental activists who set out to make pariahs of Exxon Mobil and its industry in pursuit of policies to limit climate change.
Those activists and the attorneys general, Mr. Smith said in the letter, have secretly collaborated in the years since a two-day workshop in 2012 “to act under the color of law to persuade attorneys general to use their prosecutorial powers to stifle scientific discourse, intimidate private entities and individuals, and deprive them of their First Amendment rights and freedoms.”
CEI sponsored a full-page advertisement in The New York Times highlighting abusive efforts by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, and a coalition of other “AGs United for Clean Power” to silence the speech of more than 100 businesses, nonprofits, and private individuals who question the AGs’ positions on climate change. Published as an open letter, the ad features signatures from 43 organizations, legal experts, and individuals who value Americans’ First Amendment rights and believe they should be protected.
Rudman offensive but NZ temp record dubious
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/09/rudman-offensive-but-nz-temp-record-dubious/
Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/09/meltdown-of-the-climate-consensus/
Climate panel must be purged
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/09/climate-panel-must-be-purged/
Seismic shift in climate thinking
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/09/seismic-shift-in-climate-thinking/
Filmed free for nothing
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/filmed-for-free-but-for-nothing/
Hal Lewis resigns from the APS in protest
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/hal-lewis-resigns-from-the-aps-in-protest/
Royal Society Humiliated
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/royal-society-humiliated/
The “topic banning” of William Connelley from Wikipedia caught my eye on WUWT.
Connelly is a Green party activist and prolific Wikipedia contributor on climate change issues, and runs a blog called Stoat
According to Delingpole, Connelly rewrote 5,428 climate articles on Wikipedia.
His skewing of public information on climate has been extraordinary, going so far as to delete the resignation letter from Hal Lewis’s Wikipedia page.
From an NZ perspective, it has been interesting to see Connelly pop up on Hot Topic and admonish Gareth (see Ian Wishart’s commentary here
It is ironic then that When Connelly does re-emerge on HT to comment on sea ice, his comments frequently get voted out of sight.
Climate: Controversies News MMCC Scepticism Climategate and the Main Stream Media
Organisations: Societies, Universities, Companies, Greenpeace, WWF, ET AL
CSIRO Bureau of Meteorology
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/world-of-sceptical-questions-unfolds%E2%80%A6/#comment-25456
CSIRO and BOM in cahoots here
NIWA
Follow the thread down
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/observations-on-niwas-statement-of-defence/#comment-25199
NIWA – Tyndall – Science Media Centre – Royal Society (NZ) – Gluckman – Smith – IPCC – Media etc
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/global-warming-general-001/#comment-25877
Connections
NIWA – Tyndall – Science Media Centre – Royal Society (NZ) – Gluckman – Smith – IPCC – Media etc
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/global-warming-general-001/#comment-25877
It’s interesting sometimes just to randomly wander around the East Anglia Emails
This one shows the CRU looking for funding from Shell International:
Mike and Tim
Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
Sorry about the delay.
I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably
the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation
including the foundation as they seem to have good access to the top
levels.
Mick
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=185&filename=968691929.txt
See also: this thread
The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/
Google
See “Controversies and Scandals”
Climategate Google Suggest
James Cameron and Google CEO: Questioning Warming Science is “Criminal”
Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Friday, Oct 29th, 2010
Lock up the dissenters?
James Cameron and Google CEO: Questioning Warming Science is Criminal 291010CameronGoogle CEO Eric Schmidt and film director James Cameron recently concurred that people who question the science of anthropogenic global warming are, in their opinions, “criminal”.
The two made the comments during a recent on stage conversation at a private event in Silicon Valley.
“If that continues, business as usual as our leaders in Washington say is OK for us to do, we will have extincted 70% of the species on the planet by the end of the century.” Cameron responded to Schmidt’s line of discussion on global warming.
During the same conversation Schmidt stated, “There are people who in my view criminally doubt some of the science.”
“I agree, criminally, I agree with that.” Cameron interjected.
“People, we need to evolve mentally and philosophically to something that has never existed before.” the Avatar director continued.
“We need to become techno-indigenous people of an entire Earth, not of a nation, not of a state, but of a planet.”
Funny how Google are quite happy to serve up the “sceptic” ads, even for arcane programming sites that having nothing to do with climate
Let’s take a look at some of the vested interests in the Silicon Valley “club”:
(Note: Prop 23 is the proposed bill to delay the climate legislation in CA)
The last stand for climate change has brought John Doerr, a leading green tech investor with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, to the table. Doerr has given $500,000 to defeat Prop 23. And he’s not alone.
Wendy Schmidt, wife of Google CEO Eric Schmidt and founder of the 11th Hour Project, a Silicon Valley environmental grant-making nonprofit, donated $500,000 to NRDC’s No Prop 23 Committee
To date, the heaviest hitter on Team No is Thomas Steyer, the press-shy founder of San Francisco hedge fund Farallon Capital Management. Steyer, a big donor to Democratic candidates, has pledged $5 million and stepped forward to co-chair the No on 23 Committee with George Schulz, the Republican former secretary of state.
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08-17-texas-oil-v.-california-clean-tech-the-battle-over-Prop-23/P1
Not only do these guys have vested interests in “green” technology and truck loads of money, they also effectively control the internet.
I’m not so worried about Cameron, but Schmidt gives me the creeps.
“I’m not so worried about Cameron”
Cameron had massive reach with Avatar and the sequel will be filmed in NZ.
He gets into kids minds (and grown-ups) so I think he’s every bit as dangerous as Schmidt – just a different medium.
Ideology: Green, Guardian, Totalitarian and Leftism
Guardian scribe can’t cope with complex scientific arguments unseating his cognitive faculties:
“How fear of bias dominates the climate change debate”
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/news/#comment-25885
Mike Jowsey says:
October 19, 2010 at 6:13 am
Christopher Monkton talking about world government (and taxation), communism and climate fraud. Very eloquent, informative and disturbing.
http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-interview-lord-monckton-talks-about-nwo-master-plan/
Greening H’wood
Fonda, Turner reunite at Environmental Media Awards
See – James Cameron and Google CEO: Questioning Warming Science is “Criminal”
Useful Quotes
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
– Joseph Goebbels
From Michael Mann (truth doesn’t matter):
“Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”
* The environmental movement has been hijacked by Malthusian Eugenicists and these Quotes from the mouths of the Elite are why I know that AGW is a False Conclusion and now through the Climategate emails are proven to be based on Junk Science…Science Magazine should be Ashamed for running this Whitewash of an article
Read these …put them in context for yourself then think again about what these Globalist Criminals are setting up In Copenhagen
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
– Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
“All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and
behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society
“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
“One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
– Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
– Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
-Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
– Al Gore, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.”
– David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager
“Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send out entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.”
– Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth
“By the end of this century, climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia
“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic, global seal level rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
– Greenpeace International
“Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon – the man-made natural disaster.”
– Barack Obama, US Presidential Candidate
“We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years from today it will probably be too late.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”
– UN Commission on Global Governance report
“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
– Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General
“Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.”
– Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute
“A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
“Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
– UN Agenda 21
“The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human sepcies has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution. Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.”
– Rene Dubos, board member Planetary Citizens
Dante Mudd Dante Mudd
Dec. 12, 2009 at 7:48pm
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
* Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
* Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
* Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
* Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
* Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Now on to the Club of Rome.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
* Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
* Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
* Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of the Club of Rome.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
“[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.”
“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”
* Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Al Gore’s mentor and executive member of the Club of Rome.
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
* Al Gore, member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world’s first carbon billionaire. He is also the largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which looks set to become the world’s central carbon trading body.
Maurice Strong sits on the board of directors for CCX.
Back before he became U.S. President Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation when it gave CCX nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”
Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he then steered steered through Congress.
“We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.”
“The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.”
* Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union, member of the Club of Rome
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
* David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum and donated the land on which the United Nations stands. Speaking at a U.N. Business Conference, Sept. 14, 1994
“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
* David Rockefeller, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.
“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure ‘one world’, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
* David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405
Other Club of Rome members include Tony Blair, George Soros Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Javier Solana, Kofi Annan, Bill Gates, The Dalai Lama, Hassan bin Talal, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Gro Harlem Bruntland, Robert Muller, Garret Hardin, King Juan Carlos of Spain and his wife Queen Sophia, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Prince Philippe of Belgium and many more people that include wealthy elites, ‘new age spiritualists’, former or current world political figures and former or current U.N. figures.
See this link for much more! – http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
Additional Information
Agenda 21 & the Club of Rome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4aD3_tJNsc
Agenda 21 for a U.N. Dictatorship pt.1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axuDes2bb1Y
Agenda 21 for a U.N. Dictatorship pt.2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8lz7KZdK3Q
Watch Lord Christopher Monckton (Former Adviser to Margaret Thatcher) Speaking in St. Paul on the real purpose of the Copenhagen Treaty – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
Beware the UN’s Copenhagen plot – http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/beware-the-uns-copenhagen-plot/story-e6frg6qx-1225791869745
One World Government The Real Aim of Environmentalism – http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16694
The Marxist roots of the global warming scare – http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/080616
Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story – http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629
This site has indisputable evidence providing references of their own admission to what the real agenda is – http://green-agenda.com/
Club of Rome’s Depopulation Agenda
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
* Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
* Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind, 1976.
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people…. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
* Paul Ehrlich in The Population Bomb. Paul Ehrlich is a member of the Club of Rome.
“I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today”
“We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”
* Dave Foreman, Co-founder of Earth First! and member of the Club of Rome.
“World population needs to be decreased by 50%”
* Henry Kissinger, , Former National Security Advisor, Former Secretary of State, chairman of Kissinger Associates, member of the Club of Rome.
“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
* Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union, member of the Club of Rome
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
* Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor, member of the Club of Rome.
In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.
* Jacques Cousteau, French naval officer and explorer. Member of the Club of Rome.
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
* Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, member of the Club of Rome.
Post a comment
As for the Ice Age in the 1970s
In Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (1977 p 686), Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Holdren stated:
“Many observers have speculated that the cooling could be the beginning of a long and persistent trend in that direction – that is, an inevitable departure from an abnormally warm period in climatic history.”
Science News, March 1, 1975
“Most climate scientists now expect a full-blown 10,000-year ice age”.
Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976
“Climate scientists are united in their prediction of extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation”.
Science Digest, February 1973
“As a result of ominous signs that the Earth’s climate is cooling down, meteorologists are unanimous in predicting that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century, triggering catastrophic famines.”
What Happen?
What the computer doesn’t take into account is water vapor.
Greenhouses Gas
Water Vapor Contributes 36 – 72%
Carbon Dioxide Contributes 9 – 26%
Methane Contributes 4 – 9%
Nitrous Oxide
Ozone Contributes 3 -7%
CFCs
gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies
total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas
The main driver of the Climate is water vapor which 99% is natural
Co2 is next which is 95% natural and 5% man-made
Tell me this 95% of Co2 is natural and 5% is man-made and I believe that this from the IPCC. So it is only the 5% that is man-made that is causing the problem.
Well answer me this before man was no earth depending on what religious faith you are we had higher and lower amounts of Co2 changes without man being there?
I have listed the amounts Co2 in previous periods of time for you to look at and give me an answer. For you I do know at period of time what lowered it. But what drove it up?
And whatever drove Co2 back then maybe the cause that is driving Co2 up now.
(Cambrian Period) 496.0 to 542 million Years ago Co2 20 to 35 times higher than present – day 6000ppmv.
(Jurassic Period) 150.8 to 199.6 million Years ago Co2 4 to 5 times Higher than present – day 1200 – 1500ppmv.
(Cretaceous Period) 70.6 to 145.5 million Years ago Co2 close to present – day 385ppmv.
(Paleogene (Tertiary) Period) 28.4 to 55.8 million Years ago Co2 lowering from 3800ppmv to 650ppmv.
(Negene (Tertiary) Period) 7.246 to 23.03 million Years 650ppmv to 100ppmv.
(Quaternary Period) (Gelasian Age) 1.806 to 2.588 million Years 100ppmv to 300ppmv.
Please people go and learn Co2 is colourless and at low concentrations, the gas is odourless these are facts but everytime on the NEWS we see steam coming from cooling towels when the MSM runs a story on climate change which is mainly water Vapour.
Now they want to Tax us because some has called Co2 pollution. If it is pollution then why do we use it in soft drinks, why do we use it in food? The funny thing is that Co2 is 1.5 times heavier then air.
Co2 has many uses with our way of life.
Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic compounds needed for plant growth and development.
Co2 is simply not pollution it is in fact a build block of all life on earth.
To say different is madness I understand that 100% Co2 will kill you in fact 1% Co2 will kill you over time. For you information 1% is the same as (10,000ppmv) the highest that we are able to prove is 6500ppmv 500 million years ago. I understand that O2 can be a poison too while Scuba Driving below a certain depth due to the pressure.
But let’s put this in some sort of order Earth air is 79% N 20%O2 and 0.38% Co2 of which only 5% is man-made the IPCC agrees
They also agree that Water Vapour is the major driver of the Climate so why are we being lied too.
Co2 is a major component of the carbon cycle.
CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppmv)
Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.
As far as we know the highest level of Co2 on earth that we can prove was some 542 to 496.0 million Years ago Co2 20 to 35 times higher than present – day 6000ppmv.
In the (Cambrian Period) there was no humans back then
Move forward 199.6 to 150.8 million Years ago Co2 4 to 5 times Higher than present – day 1200 – 1500ppmv in the (Jurassic Period) there was no humans back then.
Moving forward 145.5 to 70.6 million Years ago Co2 close to present – day 385ppmv in the (Cretaceous Period) Still no humans.
Moving forward 55.8 to 28.4 million Years ago Co2 lowering from 3800ppmv to 650ppmv in the (Paleogene (Tertiary) Period) still no humans but the Co2 went up from 385 in the(Cretaceous Period) to 3800p but dropped back to 650ppmv scratch your head.
Moving forward again 23.30 to 7.246 million Years Co2 was 650ppmv to 100ppmv in the (Negene (Tertiary) Period) still no humans.
Moving forward again 2.588 to 1.806 million Years Co2 100ppmv to 300ppmv and went backwards and forwards between the two in the (Quaternary Period) (Gelasian Age) but mate still no humans.
It has got me mate this higher and lower levels of Co2 with no mankind to make it who can they blame.
But even when Co2 was at it highest that we know 6000ppmv 542 to 496.0 million Years ago it was still not at a toxic level. Given amounts above 5,000 ppmv are considered very unhealthy but not toxic.
The next highest level that we know was 55.8 to 28.4 million Years ago 3600ppmv dropping to 650ppmv not toxic if fact 2/3 the level of what is considered toxic.
The funny thing is that please some here tell me what goes on in deserts with the warming and very cold nights or what goes on at the South Pole the driest place on earth which is the coldest.
I think that there is still Co2 there maybe water vapour or the lack of it might have something to do with it.
But the cooling and the computer models just don’t see eye to eye what the hell we will change the name.
Without Co2 the earth would be a very cold place indeed.
Air is
nitrogen 78% to 79%
Oxygen is 21% to 20%
The other 1% are trace gases
These trace gases include Noble gases that are very inert or unreactive gases
Noble gases
Argon
Helium
Krypton
Xenon
Hydrogen is also present in trace quantities in the atmosphere but because it is so light much of it over time has escaped Earth’s Gravitational Pull
The remaining trace gases are greenhouse gases.
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrous Oxide
Water Vapour
Ozone
These greenhouse gases are what keep the planet warmer than it would be without them.
Co2 or Carbon Dioxide is 0.38% of the 1% the other 99% being the Nitrogen and Oxygen.
95% of the 0.38% of Co2 is natural leaving only 5% of the 0.38% being man-made and the problem that was 1st said to cause Global Warming and now called Climate Change.
And they want Australia to pay millions to billions a year to a world Government go Away.
The funny thing is that in terms of Co2 and it heating effect at a certain point it doesn’t matter what percentage of Co2 there is in the atmosphere because it doesn’t cause any more warming due to it reaching a limit to do so with its ability to absoulbe the IR .
We would have to start going into physics to explain it. But the IPCC knows that.
Climate Change is real but Climate Change that is caused by man-made Co2 hasn’t been proven at all.
There is NO direct link to the rising in Co2 to the Increase in temperature other then in a computer model of the world’s enco systems.
The trouble is that we have had cooling for the last 10 years even know Co2 has still been going up. So this alone tells you that while Co2 is going up temperatures have fell that there is not direct link.
99.99999999999999999.% if not all of the changes on earth has been a result of evolution driven by past climates coupled together with major events (comets and what not and all other forms of NATURAL DISASTERS which in Human time have always been said to be an ACT of GOD. LOL otherwise we can sue them Insurance Companies for not paying us.
The ability of the eco-systems has evolved and ways and how the eco-systems changes co2 levels has changed due to different life forms now. We don’t have the same plants life now as what we had in the past due to the changes Co2 levels because of what I have said above and the fact that we have had lower Co2 levels.
Due to the differences of Co2 Level the plants we have now against the past plant life that took the carbon out of the air and put it under the ground and with pressure with time gave us the Oil, Gas, Coal & Diamonds. The amount of Co2 that a tree takes out is nothing and they need to be a certain age before they are any good.
There was also no human life from back then on earth too we ourselves are a result of past climates and now we think we can change the world and stop evolution to key to survival for mankind is adaptation not mitigation. Mitigation no matter what is only buying us time until we are forced to adaptation no matter what we do. Human mankind is mortal and we should learn from the failure of past civilizations.
Do you think that mitigation is going to work it has never worked before in evolution the only thing that has worked time and time again has been adaptation?
They say that the earth is 4.5 billion years of age how long has man-kind been on earth they say that 1 day that the sun will grow and eat the earth. How are we going to mitigate that?
We have even had our country’s leader saying in parliament that Climate Change will cause more bushfires. With no written history or records how can anyone prove in a court that we haven’t had times when we had more bushfires in a period before.
Australia as a European settlement is only 221 years old.
Industrial Revolution is 300 years old.
Please Australia as a continent has always had bushfires the Australian aboriginals use fire to control their environment. It has been said that 30,000 to 80,000 years ago that the aboriginals arrived from Asia by way of a land bridges does that mean that the current water level was lower then today’s.
What with no Oil and Gas and its Co2 used back then.
Australia has always had bushfires to the point that some Australian Flora (plants) cannot exist without fire.
Adaptation is one of the hallmarks of Australian native flora their ability to handle fire sets them apart from flora of other regions in the world. This adaptation of Australian flora didn’t happen overnight it took 1,000’s of years to adapt.
There are two main strategies by plants to survive fire. The first is the ability to sprout new growth from protected parts of the plant, and the second is the use of chemicals from bush-fire smoke to initiate germination of seed.
Fire has shaped the bush in Australia in a way which has happened nowhere else in the world.
We have only had said man-made Climate Change from the Industrial Revolution is 300 years old.
How do we know what the rate of Climate Change was before we had temperature instrument reading? They use Tree Ring data which is not a perfect science and Ice Core data which is a bit better. But the truth of the matter is that the reconstruction of past Climate Change History and the rate of change is rubbish.
The said history of how the Aboriginals walking down land bridges is better than Ice Core Data and Tree Ring Date. The way how Australian native flora has adapted to bushfire has take 1000’s of years because since European settlement 221 years ago the introduced species of flora has yet to adapt to bushfire.
In the Australian parliament our leaders said as a result of this said man-made Climate Change that Australia would have more droughts which will in turn cause more bushfires. Australia has always had droughts proven by the prominent features of the Australian flora are adaptations to aridity and fire.
Australia native flora whose diversity was shaped by the effects of continental drift and climate change.
This Man Made Climate Change Is Bull Shit
How about answering some questions.
These are the thing that you need to research because the science has been mixed up with politics and Vested interest.
The Club of Rome and what their think and the people involved, they were started in 1970.
The Trilateral Commission and the people behind them they were started in 1970’s
The Group of 30 and the people behind them they were started in the 1970’s
The IMF and the World Bank the people and Families that control it and links to the groups.
Now we come to 1992 and the UN’s Agenda 21 Program have a look at The Club of Rome thinking and what they said and believe and what is in the UN Agenda 21 program of which Climate Change is only a part of.
Once you have researched then Groups and the people in them and then inter connection of these groups to each other then this will give you some sort of an idea that is driving all this rubbish about man-made Co2.
Certain big bank are going to make Billions and Trillions off carbon trading that is going to do nothing to stop Climate Change. The Climate has changed from the beginning of time on earth. And as a result of Climate Change over thing these are the things that drove evolution and as a result species either adapted or migrated of simple died out. Mitigation goes against the whole thing that has brought about man – kind to this earth.
It is always good not to simply believe what you are told it is good to question it. I have children of my own a 14, 12 and 9 year old they are being taught that Co2 is pollution we use Co2 in many application we have it in our soft drinks. So if Co2 was bad then why is it in our drink?
I had 1 of our country’s politicians tell me that what is of that stuff of Sydney I told him it is not Co2 because Co2 Colourless and Odourless. That is the real pollution that we need to lower and get rid of. That is the pollution that is harming out health and causing the cancers of our time.
This is about form a new world order that was once never spoken about. This is about forming a Government that will be unelected and will take the power off our own Governments. It has been a dream of certain people for their life time. It is about control.
It is very hard to divide to conquer to form a World Government. It is far easier to feed the masses rubbish that most don’t understand or is above their heads and to get them to unite to stop something that is not real and to give to promise the developing countries money from the developed country to get them on side but the developing counties have to sell their souls for that money.
It has been reports in the newspaper that INVESTING in birth control to reduce population growth could be more effective in cutting greenhouse gas emissions than building wind turbines or nuclear power stations, according to a UN report.
It also said in the newspaper report that in the report Taking action to prevent one billion births by 2050 would save as much carbon dioxide as constructing two million giant wind turbines.
The newspaper reports that the UN Population Fund report predicts the global population could reach 10.5 billion by 2050, up from 6.8 billion today, unless urgent action is taken to reduce fertility rates.
It says even its medium-growth forecast of 2.3 billion more people by 2050, which assumes a fall in average fertility from 2.56 to 2.02 children per woman, would make it much harder to achieve the cuts in carbon emissions needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.
Go and read this it is a report from the UN on populations. It is written in a form that makes it hard to read.
UN Population Fund
state of world population 2009
Facing a changing world:
women, population and climate
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2009/en/overview.shtml
But here is a quote.
WE ARE NOT SOME ONE’S FARM ANIMALS
“SUSTAINABLE WORLD POPULATION”
“The long-term effort to maintain population-wide human well-being in balance with atmosphere and climate will ultimately require sustainable patterns of consumption and production that can only be achieved and maintained in the context of a sustainable world population. ”
OUTMODED REPLACED “MORE HOLISTIC”
“Outmoded attitudes about “population control” have been replaced by more holistic, rights- and health-based views about population dynamics and their relationship to climate change.”
WHAT RESEARCH WHERE IS IT
“Research has shown for more than 15 years that merely satisfying unmet demand for family planning services would enable developing countries to meet their targets for lower fertility rates”
Ask yourself WHAT RESEARCH AND WHAT AND WHO SET THE TARGETS FOR LOWER FERTILITY RATES.
Please tell me about China’s 1 child policy
Here is some information for you to start with.
China’s 1 child policy China’s one child policy was established by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1979 to limit communist China’s population growth. Although designated a “temporary measure,” it continues a quarter-century after its establishment. The policy limits couples to one child. Fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization.
Fact
Simple 2 people have 1 child normal a married western couple have children between 20 years of age to 45 years of age at the latest so every 20 to 25 years you are reducing the population br a ratio 2 to 1 person. So they are not even replacing their own population. Go and read the reports then go and read the newspapers. And that will give you a balance.
What is happening in china is a plan for the rest of the world I am a father i have 3 children no one has the right to tell them how many children they can have. That is their right and their right alone.
And if think that this sort of thing hasn’t happen before then Go & Research Eugenics
and find pass history of government involvement and laws and programs that they have set up in the past.
Please keep an open mind do you own research and then tell you friends.
Don’t trust anyone not even yourself check check and triple check it is in your own best interest.
This whole talk fest has to do with Energy Security and Energy Security alone it has to do with for filling long held dreams of a few powerful people to form a world government together with enabling a few to make money and big money on a trading system that will push up prices to force people and government to move away Carbon Base Energy mainly Oil and Gas and the vehicle that they are using to bring about the change was first called Global Warning now Called Climate Change.
THE SMARTEST PERSON IS NOT THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS THEY KNOW EVERTHING BUT IT IS THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS THEY HAVE MORE TO LEARN.
THE MORE YOU KNOW THE MORE YOU DON’T KNOW!
Please just research it all for yourself.
Research the whole picture.
Tools
“The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
David Rockefeller
Agenda 21 Alert: Global Warming Freeze?
Green Supremacists
An environmentalist fantasy of violent totalitarianism.
Troublesome Trolls
Samoht
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/royal-society-humiliated/#comment-25959
Andy says:
October 19, 2010 at 10:39 pm
I think we owe our friend “samoth” an apology.
At least he walks the walk, and built his own electric car:
http://www.evalbum.com/1772
Richard C (NZ) says:
October 20, 2010 at 9:00 am
“apology” !
I want to offer him my heart-felt and deepest thanks for turning up and providing us with such a fortuitous opportunity – that’s if the Sarc Police will allow me, of course.
Richard C (NZ) says:
October 20, 2010 at 9:02 am
“At least he walks the walk, and built his own electric car”
I wonder if it’s coal-fired?
Andy says:
October 20, 2010 at 9:35 am
I expect it’s powered by a mixture of coal, gas, wind and hydro. Like everything else in this country
Apology? Just my wry sense of humour. And “Samoth” appears to have one to, given he spells his name backwards when appearing in this supposed parallel universe to the “real one” of Hot Topic, where he posts as Thomas.
The plot thickens…
Richard C (NZ) says:
October 20, 2010 at 9:50 am
“Just my wry sense of humour. And “Samoth” appears to have one to”
Yes, I was “warming” to the guy – I miss him.
oh dear – resident at JoNova
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/#comments
BobC:
October 19th, 2010 at 12:19 am
oh dear @129,130:
I see you have a reading comprehension problem. I’ll try to clarify some of the statements that you seem to have trouble with:
Let’s start with #130:
Spoken so authoritatively! One might suppose you were a lawyer [SNIP ad hominem remarks]. OK, kindly produce some precedents on how freely written confessions of criminal behavior, acknowledged by the authors, is not admissible evidence. Make it easy on yourself: Start by explaining why the Miranda Warning is meaningless (and where the US Supreme Court went wrong in requiring it).
[SNIP ad hominem remarks]
Now to #129:
I clearly said that climate alarmists must show evidence that they can predict the future course of the climate — else their dire predictions amount to the same as a crazy guy on the street corner claiming the world is about to end. How you got this exactly backward is baffling.
Then you say:
Good that you agree with me. So what’s the (unpredictable) problem we need to take drastic action to avoid?
Partially right. As with the example of thunderstorms — models of chaotic events, when “correct”, can help elucidate the mechanics of the phenomenon. They cannot tell us what is “likely to happen” in the sense of predicting a specific future path in any detailed sense. The way the CAGW alarmist crowd tries to use them is bogus – if they (or you) don’t know that, they (you) are ignorant.
(BTY: One result of the thunderstorm modeling is that an enormous amount of heat is removed from the Earth by the combination of convection to near the top of the atmosphere and subsequent IR radiation to space. Nobody can say exactly how thunderstorm activity — or convective strength in general — will respond to an increase in temperature: But if it were to increase by 3%, the resulting heat loss would completely cancel a doubling of CO2, even given the high estimates of sensitivity by the IPCC. This is just one of the many unknowns “parameterized” in GCMs which is tweaked to produce the desired results.)
A requirement for human produced CO2 to build up to any significant level is that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 must be on the order of > 100 years, and indeed, AGWers produce scores of papers with CO2 cycle models showing this level of lifetime. The problem with these theoretical papers is that the 36 published, peer-reviewed (since 1950), empirical measurements of CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere have all shown lifetimes < 15 years, with an average of ~ 7 years. These observations have not been shown to be in error, and are mostly ignored.
In science, when theory and observation disagree, theory changes. The AGW hypothesis ignores observations and is not science.
The problem here is that the people who are pushing the “solutions” are the same people who decide who gets the funding for research. Perhaps you don’t see the conflict of interest here (after all, you think that freely given admissions of illegal behavior is not “evidence”), but most rational people do.
See all comments on this post here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/#comments
Author: Joanne Nova
Comment:
Oh Dear. You’re really pushing the bounds to the max. No more ad homs, no more argument from authority. No more indulgent, patronizing, over-long effusions from a stone age anonymous thinker. Catch up with the reformation, we’re 400 years ahead of you.
Name yourself Oh dear. You speak for the dominant paradigm. What on earth could you be afraid of? That we might google you like you did to Courtney?
TWinkler – resident at JoNova
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/#comments
Author: Richard S Courtney
Comment:
Twikler:
Your post at #148 is completely daft. [SNIP ad hominem remarks.]
My post at #141 I correctly said and referenced:
And on the basis of that I stated the only reasonable conclusion;
Your silly response to that is to assert of me:
There is no contradiction of any kind in what I said.
[SNIP ad hominem remarks.]
Richard
See all comments on this post here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/#comments
Author: TWinkler
Comment:
TWinkler AKA Brendon
A serial troll from as far back as March 1 2010
Using at least 2 different IP addresses has been moderated several times.
The rest of this post is [snipped as will any other posts from this person] ED
Derecho64 – resident at Climate Change Dispatch
http://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/7563-our-jgr-paper-on-feedbacks-is-published#comment-9352
RedLogix – resident at Hot Topic
http://hot-topic.co.nz/no-pressure-1010-on-the-button/#comment-18293
http://hot-topic.co.nz/no-pressure-1010-on-the-button/#comment-18319
Do we really need a thread entitled “troublesome trolls”?
Does it actually add anything to the discussion?
Ideas welcomed (as long as they are not of a troll nature 🙂 )
Yes, we do. This is a resource, you need to read Debating Strategies – Tips.
To illustrate, there’s a huge stoush at JoNova http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/#comments
Scan from about # 100 on (Richard S, Courtney is on fire!).
Tip – put in a short innocuous or supportive comment – check the box:
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
And watch the debate vie email (get gmailer if you have not already got it)
Spatch: – Resident at JoNova
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-8-do-most-western-climate-scientists-believe-global-warming-is-man-made/comment-page-2/#comment-109272
Not-Richo – passing Troll, raiding JoNova from # 103
Aka
Not Richard:
Still not Richard:
So Richard was wrong:
Richard still confused:
I’m not Richard:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/head-of-australian-science-academy-issues-decree-from-pagan-chieftans-of-science/#comments
Thanks for passing by, Not-Richo, I’m forever in your debt.
You buried me.
Well played.
But do your CLOUDS still have a silver lining?
Forum Trolling – How to Handle Trolls
trollpolice.com
I have been receiving a lot of email lately asking some very important questions on how to deal with Internet Trolls, and what to do when their trolling becomes more threatening.
It’s really tough not to allow your personal emotions get in the way. It can be even more difficult not to react to someone who is constantly harassing you, or your forum members.
But, I cannot stress enough, and will say it until I am blue in the face: DON”T FEED THE TROLL.
What does that mean? It’s simple really, do not respond in anyway shape or form to a troll. Their whole purpose is exactly that, to get a reaction, any reaction from the people/community they are trolling.
As an admin, or monitor on a forum board, your job is to prevent the trolling, not fuel it. Here are some basic steps to block trolling:
——————————————————————————————————————–
Only one comment under this blog post – and no, not a troll.
Climate Change Propaganda
Tyndall Centre and Grantham Institute
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/world-of-sceptical-questions-unfolds%E2%80%A6/#comment-25742
the rules of the game
http://klimakatastrophe.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/rulesofthegame.pdf
The Social Simulation of the Public Perception
of Weather Events and their Effect upon the
Development of Belief in Anthropogenic
Climate Change
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp58.pdf
I’m a bit confused as to whether ‘Thread’ is a poster or new threads which I can’t pick up from the drop down menu because it’s too long for my screen
Whichever, in my view if you have too many subcategories it’s confusing for posters
I’m still plowing around trying to find my last post to Samoth in which I objected to assumptions which he had made
No matter; but if Thread could be a little less energetic might be easier for the rest of us
Or I’m a simpleton as Samoth with his assertion of ‘preconceived ideas’ considers me to be
“THREAD is Richard C organising things into threads…Yes?
If you wait a day for Google to index this site, you should be able to find Samoth through the search box.
I wouldn’t take stuff too personally though Val. It is a characteristic of the warmist mindset to assume every non-believer is stupid. You get used to it after a while.
‘Thread’ is me – Richard C.
“I can’t pick up from the drop down menu”
Yes, I have the same problem, RT knows – you have to zoom out to see the entire menu and eventually RT will mimic the drop down on the Open Thread page. It takes time and RT is VERY busy at the moment.
“I’m still plowing around trying to find my last post to Samoth”
Get the RSS feed and also go to Admin
Admin
* Log in
* Entries RSS
* Comments RSS (click on this)
Tip -open CCG in more than 1 tab (I work with 5 -9 tabs, 3 of which will be CCG)
“too many subcategories” – Val, there is a bigger picture here, you have to understand that. (basically all the categories of “New List V2.0 in “Open Threads” have been incorporated so that the entire AGW Proponent – AGW Sceptic debate is framed (plus a few other issues).
Already the new set up has an international cooperative advantage. There is cross linking and referencing going to JoNova and overseas players of note (with cred) for example
“if Thread could be a little less energetic” – will be finished soon.
Relax Val, I know what I’m doing and so does RT, he was a NZ Herald catalogue Guy , I ‘ve been a corporate intel administrator and energy sector researcher, dealing with ship loads of info. This is a doddle by comparison – you’ll crack it in time (remember to use the Reply button).
The THREAD’s are de facto categories (Headers) providing places to put stuff, cross-link, reference, stimulate discussion, cover the bases and so forth.
{BTW, I was up from 3AM Sunday morning setting it up – it has taken HOURS and a lot of work for RT too]]
“I’m still plowing around trying to find my last post to Samoth”
Val, as an example of how the system works go here
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/controversy-and-scandal/#comment-26256
You will find Samodt, filed and linked under “Troublesome Trolls” – see, remember our discussion about that, and now you want to access your troublesome troll, there’s a way to do it.
I will also be linking the same spot on the page via “Debating” under “Disproving AGW”. we need this resource for future reference.
There is much more going on than you realise remember, we are up against a collective opponent and as Andy says “know your enemy’.
Also, if you have gone through a session with a troll like we did with Samodt, there is a lot of material that we can re-use, so we need to get back to it for future reference.
I employ this tactic all the time ( no point in re-inventing the wheel) and did so on a raid into Hot Topic. Now I can re-use what I hit them with.
BIG TIP – after a raid, save the page to your local drive, so that if the blogger takes down the page, you have not lost you material. I think this may have happened with the Hot Topic 10:10 page but can’t be bothered checking (and haven’t got the time) because no matter, I’ve got that page saved to my local disk.
[BTW – this comment will be linked under “Debating” or “Debating Strategies” or something when I set it up (possibly in “Disproving AGW”) so we can easily go back to it]
We now have a HUGE resource in a very short time and it a competitive advantage. I ‘m already using it as an extension to my own Bookmarks system which is MASSIVE.but very difficult to retrieve a key piece of material when I need it quickly in a debate – Open Threads solves that.
thanks Andy – wise words; but I still think that there are going to be too many threads
“but I still think that there are going to be too many threads”
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet, Val.
Is it worth putting in some tags (keywords) or some brief content on each thread header?
It makes it easier for search engines to index, and therefore a more useful resource.
Is it worth putting in some tags (keywords) or some brief content on each thread header?
Very good point Andy (but I think the content comes afterwords i.e sub-sub-sub categories – as in a database hierarchy ),
That had not crossed my mind and to be honest, I don’t know how to do that (knowledge gap).
Seeing your heads in that zone and mine isn’t (and I don’t think I’ve got the time), See if you can set up a demo example somewhere to show us how to do it – you’re right, we need “hooks”.
Just call yourself THREAD or HEADER or something appropriate and go for it.
You can always Reply to thread headers with no hooks (all of em at present) with a header containing hooks.
I’ve just realized that the Keywords are set in the Blog post.
So. RT drives it – it’s his job, yaaaaaay!
The Keywords therefore, are the titles of all the headers plus whatever.
I might get around to compiling a list of Keywords, life expectancy permitting – that would be useful
There are obviously some header titles we don’t want in Keywords as Val has pointed out previously.
e.g. Troublesome Trolls
That would be cute in the Blogosphere, but it might go viral and create such a storm that it would distract us from the real missions and clutter up our resource (and RT’s Blog).
It might go viral anyway – Yoiks! and Youza!
RT may have a contrary opinion on this to mine, of course (i.e. a better idea in concert with his Blog aims – he might already have an idea in mind from NZ Herald days)
RT – bad news (for you), please see:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/controversy-and-scandal/#comment-26518
But I guess you would be very aware of that at your end and I think you’ve already alerted us to that.
When there’s a lot of stuff going on, details like that get forgotten.
I’ve missed a BIG trick here – sorry everyone.
Here’s an example:
A paper by David Hand et al
(Note with interest that David Hand was on the panel of the Oxburgh enquiry into the CRU emails )
“How to lie with bad data”
http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?verb=Display&version=1.0&service=UI&handle=euclid.ss/1124891289&page=record
Richard D. De Veaux and David J. Hand
ying with statistics can be accomplished in many ways. Distorting graphics, manipulating data or using biased samples are just a few of the tried and true methods. Failing to use the correct statistical procedure or failing to check the conditions for when the selected method is appropriate can distort results as well
Keywords:
Statistics, data mining, climategate, david hand
The above keywords might trigger a search result for “climategate”, but it depends to some extent on the spam algorithms of the search engine.
In other words, though the paper has no direct relevance to climategate, it might be of interest to someone interested in the topic.
You can apply this to topic headers:
e.g
GCMs:
Keywords : General circulation Models, climate change, computer modelling, Hadley Centre,
Okay.
I had better get onto this.
FYI,
I have Hierarchical and Relational Database programming skills in the forgotten recesses of my mind.
e.g. COBOL with embedded SQL, BASIC, ACCESS, System Design and Analysis and such like.
That’s good to hear.
I used to work for a search engine company (Globalbrain, ChCh) so have a bit of useful background there.
Andy, please continue this conversation in “Open threads as promised’ here
thanks Richard; I know there’s stuff going on behind the scenes; FROM 3 AM!!!! ARE YOU A HERO OR WHAT???
“FROM 3 AM!!!! ARE YOU A HERO OR WHAT???” – Nope, but I can get a lot done at that hour when there’s no distractions (Trolls) and also it pays to remember the the world goes on 24/7 so there’s always someone to talk to.
I’m all for engaging with Trolls, it keeps you sharp and you’ve got to know your stuff. But the Key is to pick the right Troll – some are a complete waste of time so let them go. Samodt was brilliant, so now we have built up a resource and don’t forget there are other eyes taking it in (Lurkers).
There are some very knowledgeable Trolls and a lot can be learned from them (I have) and a skillful Troll will bury you if you are not careful.
It’s all about strategies and not wasting time. You’ll be getting off lightly here (RT runs a tight ship) but you would not believe the ad-homs that have come my way in other places (some scary threats – remember, they like blowing up kids.
[BTW – was payed the ultimate complement by RedLogix at Hot Topic – he thought I was a professional sceptic – Ha!]
[This will also be X-ref’d under “Debating Strategies”, see how it works]
Debating Strategies
See – Disproving AGW
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/disproving-agw/#comment-25938
Here’s a good article for us lay people written by a lay person
http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/2010/10/15/denying-the-catstrophe-the-science-of-the-climate-skeptics-position/
He describes the contents of the article as ‘a necessarily brief summary of the skeptic’s case.’
The comments are interesting too for those who have time
This article is a reasonable high-level summary, imo.
A good book to read is “Chill” by Peter Taylor. It goes into some quite detailed technical background into the water vapour arguments.
(Interestingly, Taylor has many years as an environmental consultant to governments and NGO’s, including Greenpeace)
Richard Lindzen’s talk at the ICCC conference in Chicago this year explains in fairly intelligible language some of the problems with the science. It is an hours video, well worth watching.
(Will try to find a URL later)
Andy, if it’s primarily Water Vapour, can you duplicate here please;
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/#comment-26341
And see this page:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/disproving-agw/#comment-26342
Val, please see this page;
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/disproving-agw/#comment-26342
Wikipedia’s climate doctor
Global warming propagandist slapped down by Wikipedia
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
Announcing the timeline: “ClimateGate: 30 years in the making”
‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’
Judith Curry
Climate etc
Oct 26, 2010
November 19, 2009: bucket of cold water #2. When I first saw the climategate emails, I knew these were real, they confirmed concerns and suspicions that I already had. After my first essay “On the credibility . . .” posted at climateaudit, I got some emails that asked me to be sensitive to the feelings of the scientists involved. I said I was a whole lot more worried about the IPCC, in terms of whether it could be saved and whether it should be saved. I had been willing to substitute the IPCC for my own personal judgment [in public statements], but after reading those emails, the IPCC lost the moral high ground in my opinion. Not to say that the IPCC science was wrong, but I no longer felt obligated in substituting the IPCC for my own personal judgment.
East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit – Searchable
Happy anniversary, Climategate (a day overdue).
Oops – a week too early (the perils of a crowded calendar)..
The real reason for AGW: Post Normal Science
James Hansen: Would you buy a used temperature data set from THIS man?
The IPCC: 5,600 small white lies
THE CITIZEN AUDIT REPORT
UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 “F”s on Report Card
Global Warming’s Corrupt Science
By Patrick J. Michaels
Climategate Google Suggest – Google Search
See See “Organisations: Societies, Universities, Companies, Greenpeace, WWF, ET AL”
Google
RealClimate: Funding and Activism, Richard S. Courtney
10/10/10 and 350.org based on urban legend, not science
10:10 spin til it hurts
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/1010-spin-til-it-hurts/
After the marketing disaster of the century, 10:10 desperately needed to save some face. They had accidentally showed us their totalitarian desires and lost at least 20,000 members in a week. How embarrassing.
How do you hide that? In true PR form, you frame your membership numbers and “save” the members you lost: keep the thousands of people (or fakers) who have joined and then left your group on your tally. (Just don’t call it “current members”.)
On their new redesigned home page they say they have 110,340 worldwide …wait for it…”sign ups”.
The 10-10 event page that Jo links to is hilarious:
e.g
In Germany there will be a low carbon speed dating event.
(Breeding is low carbon?)
There will be a zero carbon music festival in Portugal.
(No food, no amps, sounds like fun)
British schools will have Fuel Free Fridays and students will compete to design the best eco school.
(British schools better get used to being fuel-free – it will become the norm)
I missed this – can’t think why:
“Who’s doing what to mark the Global Day Of Doing on Oct 10?”
All that wild eco partying sounds like fun (to disparage).
Oh well, perhaps there will be a “Global Day Of Doing” next year.
UN chief uses climate hoax to promote global governance
Saturday, October 16, 2010
UN Secretary-General Arrives in Morocco
He will identify three main challenges for global governance: ensuring that the global economy works for all people; combating climate change; and addressing new challenges, such as migration and organized crime.
When You Control The Forecast And The Data – Magic Happens
“Antarctic cooling, global warming? …. the continent and in the interior appear to have cooled slightly …… we fully expect Antarctica to warm up in the future.”
Wow! the predictive skills of climate scientists is uncanny. Somewhere between 2006 and 2007, Antarctica did exactly what Gavin predicted. It switched from a long term cooling trend to a long term warming trend – in just one year!
Scafetta on 60 year climate oscillations
George Taylor, former Oregon State climatologist writes:
Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation.
If he’s correct, then all GCM’s are massively in error because they fail to show any of the observed oscillations.
Global Warming’s Corrupt Science
By Patrick J. Michaels, October 20, 2010
Wind power reduces the value of homes
Swedish Wind Energy appears in a new increase in the deliberate attempt to conceal the fact that properties near wind turbines drop significantly in value, among others, writes Elisabeth von Brömsen, Föreningen Svenskt Landskapsskydd. Confederation of Swedish Landscape Protection.
[Wait 10 secs – Google Translate]
More Lies About CO2
Written by Doug L. Hoffman, Resilient Earth | 24 October 2010
A new paper, penned by a group of known warmist scare mongers, claims to have proof that CO2 is the control knob that regulates Earth’s temperature. Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, and Reto A. Ruedy, all from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, are boasting they have experimental proof that “carbon dioxide is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s
Futuristic climate schemes to get U.N. hearing
By Alister Doyle, OSLO | Wed Oct 27, 2010
(Reuters) – Futuristic schemes for slowing climate change such as dimming sunlight are fraught with risks but will get a serious hearing from the U.N. panel of climate scientists, a leader of the panel said on Wednesday.
James Delingpole has a good article http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100060540/happy-climate-fools-day/
quoting selectively
I know what you’re thinking and I’ve heard about the “consensus” too. But when you can actually prove something you don’t need a consensus. That’s why you never hear about the consensus on gravity, or the consensus on evolution. Saying that 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming is an awful lot like saying that 97% of priests believe in God. If they didn’t at least pretend to believe in global warming climate change climate disruption they wouldn’t be climate scientists – not of the sort that get public funding, anyway. And when those “scientists” have to delete their own source data to prevent it from being released under freedom of information laws they deserve the scare quotes because at that point they have stopped being a credible science and have become just another bunch of religious extremists.
Simply put, the shoddy and disreputable field of climate “science” still has an awfully long way yet to go to actually prove that our six and a half pints of co2 are a problem of sufficient magnitude to justify such an obscene amount of public cash. Not when we are the only nation currently prepared to eviscerate our economy in such a way, making the entire exercise a futile gesture from the outset.
and what does he say about the precautionary principle?
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t the “cure” sound worse than the problem? A bit like amputating your leg to “cure” your in-growing toe nail? A bit Nongqawuse? But surprisingly few of the politicians, bankers, civil servants, trans-national bureaucrats, academics, activists and energy companies who stand to receive a slice of this funding bonanza seem to see it that way. And who can blame them? Remarkably few of those pallets would be enough to turn most of us into true believers.
The Precautionary Principle
The Consensus
Chinese firms blamed in huge greenhouse gas scam
Damian Carrington – smh
October 28, 2010
BRUSSELS: The European Commission is planning to clamp down on a €2 billion ($2.8 billion) carbon trading scam involving the deliberate production of greenhouse gases which the fraudulent manufacturers are then paid to destroy.
The Climate Change Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, says the use of these carbon permits, from industrial gas projects in China, could be banned because of their ”total lack of environmental integrity”.
Billions of euros worth of the controversial permits were used between 2008-09 in the European Union’s emission trading scheme, in which companies must exchange pollution permits for emissions produced.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The scheme allows some of those permits to be bought in from developing countries.
The most popular of these so-called offsets come from projects that destroy the greenhouse gas HFC-23, a byproduct of the manufacture of the refrigerant gas HCFC-22.
The Environmental Investigation Agency said in June that many Chinese chemical companies were manufacturing HCFC-22 primarily to earn money from destroying HFC-23, which can be five times the value of the refrigerant gas the plants are ostensibly set up to create.
Andy says:
October 30, 2010 at 11:13 am
Chirk factory workers protest over ’subsidy threat’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11649996
Mike McKenna, director of Kronospan’s Chirk factory, said the subsidies for electricity generators which use biomass encouraged them to take “the easy option” of burning freshly felled timber.
He told BBC Radio Wales: “The easy option for them is cutting down trees and burning them for electricity generation.
“That’s because the subsidies are worth more than twice the value of the wood.
h/t Bishop Hill
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
Solar flare-up will burn a hole in every pocket (NSW)
Brian Robins and Tim Barlass October 31, 2010 – smh
INVESTIGATION
HOUSEHOLDS will pay an extra $600 on their electricity bill over six years to cover the $2 billion cost of the failure of the state government’s overly generous solar power scheme.
If elected in March, the opposition will have the scheme, which runs to the end of 2016, reviewed by the auditor-general so that it can decide on its future.
From midnight last Wednesday, the government slashed from 60¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt hour the tariff paid to households installing solar panel systems because the surging number of applications has blown out the scheme’s cost.
In reports tabled in Parliament last week, the government disclosed that it had been advised that even after slashing the tariff for solar panels, it anticipated 777 megawatts of solar panels would be installed by the time the scheme closed.
Already, 200 megawatts of capacity has either been installed or ordered.
The reports detailed the total cost to households is forecast to reach $1975 million by 2017, placing a burden on homes at a time when power prices are rising sharply already
Richard your site is wonderful from a reference point of view but I do miss talking to people; is there something that can be done about that? Or should I just go to Jo Nova or WUWT for that aspect?
I have to agree here. The threads have been great work (particularly by Richard C), but I think many would prefer some more opportunity to follow a conversation thread.
I don’t know an easy solution other than to spawn off a separate reference site. Is this feasible?
I’d be happy to chip in for any hosting if that was required.
Thanks Andy; Richard C is doing great work but a conversation thread would be a wonderful idea
I mentioned this once before and I think someone mentioned a thread ‘talk now’ but I can’t find it or it may have disappeared in the deritus
I suggest a thread called something like ‘conversation’; I like this site particularly because its frequenters are local (I think) and although we are not all scientists or computer modellers we can all learn off each other
And so far we seem to have avoided the trolls which Jo Nova’s site has recently attracted
a better name ‘talk fest’
The forum for talk fests is:
“Open threads as promised”
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/
I’ve used it to get feedback from Jo Nova and that worked well, see:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-27133
Just start a new thread with anything you want to talk about. I left some pointers around but they seem to have got lost.
Remember that this was why Richard T provided “Open threads as promised”
Richard C,
I want to echo what Val said, that you’re doing a wonderful job in adding the reference feature and a tremendous heap of references to the site! I only have time to quickly scan the messages as they cross my inbox, but I see them all and I’m learning a great deal. The best thing about it is that I know, when I have some time to peruse a particular topic, that I’ll find the references right here! All I need to do is follow a few of the obvious threads or just use the Google search feature that’s built right in to the site!
So thank you, Richard C!
The forum for talk fests is:
“Open threads as promised”
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/
Just start a new thread with anything you want to talk about. I left some pointers around and I was hoping you would turn up here but no show:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-26757
I’ve been talking to myself – I was was looking for some input re keywords as I’ve been using Rank Tracker to analyze CCG keywords..
Remember that this was why Richard T provided “Open threads as promised”
Andy,
See my reply to Val. Another site would involve twice the admin time and I think we can do both things here. As I said to Val, we just need more posts to stimulate a little more conversation.
Thanks for your offer to help with costs, that’s tremendous. The October traffic spike took us from a normal 3 GB to 4 GB to just over 10 GB! Normally, that means an extra $60 for the month but I hope to negotiate something more reasonable. The site must not go down! There were several days last month when that almost happened, and without prompt action by the Kiwi Web Host Company to add free bandwidth (just for the one month) the great Climate Conversation would have been terminated until today!
I should look into putting a Donate feature on the site… more research!!
Thanks, Andy.
Val,
The main point of this site is to provide a vehicle for conversation. You’ve probably noticed that the word conversation features in the name of the site! :>) I have been deeply pleased at the contributions that have been coming in over the last few months. So, no, please don’t go away! Go to all the sites, by all means, but you’re welcome to have conversations here.
There are the “Open threads”, as you know, but the main vehicle is to discuss the individual posts. We need more of those, and so anybody is welcome to write one and submit it to me for publication. I encourage you to do so.
For myself, I could happily sit here and read and write about global warming all the time. However, I must earn a living and I cannot indulge this fascinating (and necessary!) pastime. You may notice that I almost never contribute here in the morning; that’s because I have a major customer for editing who uses me most days for between 4 and 8 hours. I start early in the morning so I have time to service other customers during office hours if required. Rising at 4:45 am requires me to retire sometime between 9:00 pm and 11:00 pm, so you won’t often see contributions from me later in the evening.
Why am I telling you this? Because sometimes a message to me goes unanswered for hours; if you know when I’m likely to be on deck you know when to be patient. Also you might forgive me for not posting more stories. And finally, somebody might be inspired to lend a hand by writing stories, summarising items of news or passing on information.
You all do a sterling job and I’m happy to report that October’s web traffic was a WordShine world record: 541,000 hits from 46,000 web sites. By country: 14% were from NZ, 60% from .net, .com and unknown, 1.3% (over 9000 hits) from the UK, down to 540 hits from South Africa.
Now, last month was special because we were featured twice on WUWT and other blogs, however normal traffic isn’t too shabby either. September came to just over 202,000 hits from around the world (NZ hits were 47%). So a lot of people are wanting to read about global warming in a calm, rational tone. Perhaps I sometimes get too excited, but my aim is to remain rational! And many people are interested in our stoush with NIWA over the temp record. It’s great to be a source of inspiration for others. Barry Brill, Chairman of the NZCSC, is the moving force in that.
Thanks for all your help; let’s keep going as we’re doing.
Thanks Richard for your message; yes, let’s keep going as we’re doing and I look forward to seeing a ‘donate’ button in the near future; I think with links that people offer on the various threads if each of us posters puts a brief summary of what the link is about that might stimulate more conversation and for me that would be great
Also each of us should pass links to the site with our comments on other blogs we might visit such as on WUWT – that would increase traffic more over time; I’ve been doing my bit and I’m sure others have been doing the same
Richard T, thanks for the up-date.
I have been trying to shepherd the guys to “Open Threads as promised” for O/T conversations.
Have been using it to talk to myself but did get some feedback from Jo Nova https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-27133.
I am very interested in the stats for CCG and have been doing some analysis myself with Rank Tracker and placed them in Open Threads as promised here https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-27150
I note that CCG wins hands down with the search engines over HT JoNova WUWT in search % using Alexa. I have registered CCG with Google to enable better cataloging but as you will see in Jo Novas feedback there is a fine line in gaming Google i.e quality content in posts is better than pushing Open Threads as a list site (easy to do but Google unhappy).
BTW, I save EVERY Open Threads page to my local drive after significant contributions, so there is always a back-up for me and for you if you need it. The bulk of the structure is in place now so I don’t see me putting the in a lot more and will be going for targeted quality contributions from now on especially with the new science findings that are coming in (a bewildering amount this year – mostly ignored by warmists.
I would also be interested in sponsoring “Open Threads” one day as I have probably put in the most data and it is a fantastic resource for me and I am sure others will find it eventually (including trolls). I’m not flush with cash at the moment though – some big bills coming up including hospital.
Climate change game launched
Published: 7:00AM GMT 01 Nov 2010 – Telegraph UK
An educational computer game in which users have to save the world from climate change offers an interesting solution – decide the problem is overpopulation and design a virus to kill millions.
Fate of the World goes on sale on Tuesday and has been praised by gaming experts and climate campaigners as a way of reaching new audiences in the fight against carbon emissions.
However, climate change sceptics may be surprised and angered by some of the strategies on offer in the game which is being released on PCs and Apple Macs.
As the head of a fictional international body the user must save the world from soaring temperatures, increasing floods and deadly droughts.
The game, developed by Red Redemption, an Oxford-based design company, uses real data and input from scientists and has best been described as a Football Manager for eco-enthusiasts.
Users are presented with a budget, environmental data, and a series of energy policies which range from emissions caps and investment in biofuels to continue investing in fossil fuels.
Other more extreme policies are also available such as creating a disease to reduce the world’s population or geoengineering, such as cloud seeding from planes.
The game, described on its website as a “dramatic global strategy game”, takes you forward 200 years to see the outcome of your decisions, including whether major species such as the polar bear have been condemned to extinction.
The blurb reads: “You must manage a balancing act of protecting the Earth. Resources and climate versus the needs of an ever-growing world population, who are demanding ever more food, power, and living space. Will you help the whole planet or will you be an agent of destruction?”
H/T Andy
Not the Last You Will See of “Climate” Oversight
By Chris Horner on 11.4.10 @ 1:53PM
Last night the Competitive Enterprise Institute, through its outside counsel Gibson Dunn, filed its brief arguing against NASA’s rather scattershot and contradictory effort to dismiss our lawsuit requesting certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)(press release available here).
Our suit, CEI vs. NASA (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), followed on the heels of ClimateGate, and a December 2009 Notice of Intent to Sue if NASA did not turn over certain records withheld since CEI sought them in August 2007 and January 2008 requests. That Notice was eleven months ago and, despite NASA offering some documents and admitting — temporarily — that certain others relating to the advocacy site used by NASA scientists, RealClimate.org were “agency records”, NASA then ceased its brief steps to comply with the transparency statute FOIA.
Global Warming FOIA Suit Against NASA Heats Up Again
November 04, 2010 – LegalTimes
In court documents filed last night, the Competitive Enterprise Institute argues that NASA has gone out of its way to avoid turning over records that show the agency reverse-engineered temperature data to better make the case that the planet is becoming warmer. Tulumello_andrew
CEI, which is being represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Andrew Tulumello, argues in a pleading filed in Washington federal court that NASA’s request for summary judgment in the Freedom of Information Act suit against the agency should be denied because e-mails and other evidence turned over by NASA suggest that there are additional records that are being withheld.
“Rather than deal forthrightly with a FOIA request on these issues, NASA has engaged in obstruction and delay,” Tulumello writes in the court filing, which was filed late last night in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Branding of Dissenters Has Begun – Clearing The Path To A Climate Science Pogrom
Right smack on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, German Parliamentarians, in a frontal assault, are now openly calling out and branding scientists for the crime of scientific dissent. These Parliamentarians are demanding that the government take a position against them.
Fred Singer features prominently
http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/11/branding-of-science-dissenters-has-begun-clearing-the-path-to-a-climate-science-pogrom/
Warwick Hughes has put a comment on his blog on 11 November referring to Phil Jones and the Chinese weather station corruption saying Doug Keenan has emailed me re his new article bringing forward his concerns about Jones et all 1990
The link to the article is http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5610/b080830.htm
a couple of paras
In 1990, Phil Jones and co-authors published a research paper that (amongst other things) analyzed temperature data from eastern China during 1954–1983. The basis for the paper seemed unlikely: China was in upheaval during that time, and obtaining reliable data would be implausible. (This issue was first raised on the blog Climate Audit, of Steve McIntyre.)
The temperature data had been obtained from weather stations. The issue here concerns the histories of those stations: if stations are moved (e.g. from the outskirts of a city to the city center), then the temperature data cannot be studied directly, but has to first be adjusted to take account of the moves. The stations’ histories are sometimes referred to as “metadata”.
There are links to
• Jones–Keenan exchange
• Remarks on Keenan [Energy & Env., 2007]
• Wang’s defense in the university’s fraud investigation
Wang was a co author of the Jones’ paper
Very interesting particularly the defense about which Keenan says
Zeng’s letter further claims that Zeng remembers the histories of 41 of the 49 stations. Zeng apparently makes that claim even though the letter acknowledges that Zeng is remembering over an “almost 19-years time span”. I find the claim extremely implausible. I.e. the claim further diminishes the credibility of Zeng’s letter.
Wang’s submission says that the documents for the 49 station histories, which would have been highly valuable and archived at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, are “no longer available”. Thus Wang’s submission is based solely on Zeng’s claimed memory.
Richard North has lost his PCC complaint against the Guardian on their Amazongate story.
This is a bit of a sorry state of affairs, since Roger Pielke Jnr also concurred with North’s view.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/11/end-of-popular-science.html
After claiming that he never deleted any emails, Phil Jones now admits deleting emails
From Tom Nelson:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/11/after-claiming-that-he-never-deleted.html
Dr Tim Ball has some fighting words today
Climate Deception Is A Crime Against Humanity?
…
Because of the deliberate deception and vigorous propaganda that CO2 was causing warming actions were demanded and pursued. Completely unnecessary and devastating policies were implemented. We’re wasting billions on climate change programs and alternate energy programs. Nations who pursued green energy and jobs policies are in serious financial problems. Nations like Britain and regions like Ontario Canada or California that abandoned or failed to update traditional energy sources, including nuclear, will have inadequate power supplies for many years to come. The cost of everything, especially food, has soared and will continue to rise. Industries have closed and more are threatened as draconian restrictions on carbon production are introduced.
…
Failure of people to pursue the crimes committed by those involved with Climategate has emboldened them and their supporters to launch a claim to being the aggrieved parties. They can only do this because the leaders have whitewashed their actions. Continuations of the fiascos that are the UNFCC, the IPCC and the WMO filled with people who only work to perpetuate themselves mean it is increasingly urgent for the people to identify them as accessories after the fact. To co-opt an idea from the environmental movement, we must act locally by demanding accountability of national weather and climate agencies. Many of them are tacitly acknowledging culpability by investigating their data sources and management.
…
sorry link
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30372
Donna Laframboise has an interesting take on Tim Ball’s post
I’ve never met Tim Ball, a retired climatology professor and vocal climate change skeptic. I think he comes across well in this video, and I’ve heard others say he’s a good and decent man. I must confess, though, that I stopped reading his regular posts at Canada Free Press some time ago because I consider his rhetoric over-the-top.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/appalling-rhetoric-from-a-climate-skeptic/
Well that’s her opinion I guess; I personally like Dr Ball
Andy says:
December 7, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Claes Johnson banned from teaching Mathematics course at Swedish University:
Extremist pro-green Swedish university shackles academic freedom and bans all teaching that doesn’t conform to dogma of human-caused global warming
[snip]
The math professor reports that this latest gagging is most extreme because it includes required material for his students and may be fatally damaging to their studies.
The highly-experienced and respected professor has been banned by his bosses from teaching any “part of course material in the course Numerical Methods II.” The material is also found in his ebook, ‘BodyandSoul.’
Dr. Johnson laments, “the course, has been “stopped” by the President of the Royal Technological Institute KTH, because the book contains a mathematical analysis of some models related to climate simulation.”
It appears the blanket ban was precipitated after a small clique of pro-green student activists protested to the university that Johnson was daring to address both sides of the global warming debate. The story is also reported by DN.SE, a popular Scandinavian publication who added, “the school took away pages of the book.”
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30756
Claes Johnson’s Blog:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/12/kth-gate-climate-mathematics-stopped.html
Climate Distortions Were Achieved. National Weather Agencies Are The Trojan Horses
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, December 13, 2010
Maurice Strong set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide a powerful vehicle for almost complete control of climate science. Each national weather office perpetuates the deception that human CO2 is causing climate change. He controlled the science through the IPCC and the political and propaganda portion under the umbrella of the Rio Conference (1992) and the ongoing Conference of the Parties (COP).
By peopling the IPCC with representatives of national weather offices, he attained control of the politics within each nation and collective global control. They’re the Trojan Horses from which funding and research emanate to deceive the politicians and public into achieving his goal of destroying the industrialized nations.
Continues………
Old news but it came up again at Cancun.
From YALE environment360
——————————————————————————————————————–
13 Dec 2010: Report
‘Perverse’ Carbon Payments Send Flood of Money to China
To offset their own carbon emissions, European companies have been overpaying China to incinerate a powerful greenhouse gas known as hfc 23. And in a bizarre twist, those payments have spurred the manufacture of a harmful refrigerant that is being smuggled into the U.S. and used illegally.
by mark schapiro
European legislators in Brussels have discovered that the strategy they devised to combat climate change is helping subsidize the economy of their, and America’s, major global competitor — China. European companies have been overpaying Chinese companies more than 70 times the cost to eliminate a potent greenhouse gas — triflouromethane, or hfc 23, a byproduct of manufacturing a refrigerant that has been banned in developed countries and is being phased out in developing ones.
In order to offset their own greenhouse gases, companies and utilities in Europe that are subject to the emission limits of the Kyoto Protocol have been paying vastly inflated prices to Chinese companies to destroy hfc 23, and in the process have been providing the Chinese government with hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue to compete against Europe’s own “green” industries. European concern about this practice was a major source of contention during last week’s climate negotiations in Cancun, as the UN attempted to defend the integrity of the multi-billion dollar global carbon offset market.
And in an odd twist, the incentives offered through the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) also appear to be stimulating production of an ozone-depleting refrigerant gas that has been landing in the U.S. black market. Investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Two European Parliament members have alleged a ‘gross misuse of European consumers’ money.’
and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have led to the conviction of several smugglers who have illegally imported the ozone-depleting refrigerant, hcfc 22, into the U.S. for sale to trucking companies, supermarkets, automotive supply shops, and other large-scale users of refrigerant gases. The illegal refrigerant is significantly cheaper than non-ozone-depleting refrigerants permitted in the U.S., a price discrepancy triggered partially by the large overpayments to Chinese firms that have led to an ample supply of hcfc 22 on the international black market.
That black market completes a global circuit unique to the era of climate change: From China’s industrial zones, the credits for the greenhouse gases — bought and sold as commodities on the global carbon markets — flow to European companies that need them to continue polluting at home, while the underlying ozone-depleting gas responsible for creating those credits flows to American companies seeking discounted refrigerants.
“It’s perverse,” says Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch member of the European Parliament. “You have companies which make a lot of money by making more of this gas, and then getting paid to destroy it.”
Continues…………
Warm Bias: How The Met Office Mislead The British Public
Saturday, 18 December 2010 14:16 Dr. Benny Peiser
Met Office 2008 Forecast: Trend of Mild Winters Continues
Met Office, 25 September 2008: The Met Office forecast for the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average. It is also likely that the coming winter will be drier than last year.
Reality Check: Winter of 2008/09 Coldest Winter For A Decade
Met Office, March 2009: Mean temperatures over the UK were 1.1 °C below the 1971-2000 average during December, 0.5 °C below average during January and 0.2 °C above average during February. The UK mean temperature for the winter was 3.2 °C, which is 0.5 °C below average, making it the coldest winter since 1996/97 (also 3.2 °C).
Met Office 2009 Forecast: Trend To Milder Winters To Continue, Snow And Frost Becoming Less Of A Feature
Met Office, 25 February 2009: Peter Stott, Climate Scientist at the Met Office, said: “Despite the cold winter this year, the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future.
“The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850.”
Reality Check: Winter Of 2009/10 Coldest Winter For Over 30 Years
Met Office, 1 March 2010: Provisional figures from the Met Office show that the UK winter has been the coldest since 1978/79. The mean UK temperature was 1.5 °C, the lowest since 1978/79 when it was 1.2 °C.
Met Office July 2010: Climate Change Gradually But Steadily Reducing Probability Of Severe Winters In The UK
Ross Clark, Daily Express, 3 December 2010: ONE of the first tasks for the team conducting the Department for Transport’s “urgent review” into the inability of our transport system to cope with snow and ice will be to interview the cocky public figure who assured breakfast TV viewers last month that “I am pretty confident we will be OK” at keeping Britain moving this winter. They were uttered by Transport secretary Philip Hammond himself, who just a fortnight later is already being forced to eat humble pie… If you want a laugh I recommend reading the Resilience Of England’s Transport Systems In Winter, an interim report by the DfT published last July. It is shockingly complacent. Rather than look for solutions to snow-induced gridlock the authors seem intent on avoiding the issue. The Met Office assured them “the effect of climate change is to gradually but steadily reduce the probability of severe winters in the UK”.
Met Office 2010 Forecast: Winter To Be Mild Predicts Met Office
Daily Express, 28 October 2010: IT’S a prediction that means this may be time to dig out the snow chains and thermal underwear. The Met Office, using data generated by a £33million supercomputer, claims Britain can stop worrying about a big freeze this year because we could be in for a milder winter than in past years… The new figures, which show a 60 per cent to 80 per cent chance of warmer-than-average temperatures this winter, were ridiculed last night by independent forecasters. The latest data comes in the form of a December to February temperature map on the Met Office’s website.
Reality Check: December 2010 “Almost Certain” To Be Coldest Since Records Began
The Independent, 18 December 2010: December 2010 is “almost certain” to be the coldest since records began in 1910, according to the Met Office.
Met Office Predicted A Warm Winter. Cheers Guys
John Walsh, The Independent, 19 January 2010: Some climatologists hint that the Office’s problem is political; its computer model of future weather behaviour habitually feeds in government-backed assumptions about climate change that aren’t borne out by the facts. To the Met Office, the weather’s always warmer than it really is, because it’s expecting it to be, because it expects climate change to wreak its stealthy havoc. If it really has had its thumb on the scales for the last decade, I’m afraid it deserves to be shown the door.
A Frozen Britain Turns The Heat Up On The Met Office
Paul Hudson, BBC Weather, 9 January 2010: Which begs other, rather important questions. Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre’s predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?
A Period Of Humility And Silence Would Be Best For Met Office
Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times, 10 January 2010: A period of humility and even silence would be particularly welcome from the Met Office, our leading institutional advocate of the perils of man-made global warming, which had promised a “barbecue summer” in 2009 and one of the “warmest winters on record”. In fact, the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.”
Met Office 2009 : Skiing Doomed In Scotland
Written by Steven Goddard, Real Science | 18 December 2010
10 February 2009 – news.scotsman.com:
Alex Hill, the chief government adviser with the Met Office, told The Scotsman there was no future for skiing in Scotland because climate change would see winters become too warm for regular snowfall.
Mr Hill said: “Put it this way: I won’t be investing in the skiing industry.
“The amount of snow has been decreasing for the last 40 years, and there’s no reason why it’s going to stop now.”
18 Dec 2010 – SkiClub.co.uk:
Angie Brown is a correspondent for BBC Scotland and has been skiing in Scotland since her childhood. “The snow last weekend in Glenshee was the best I’ve ever seen. It was comparable with resorts in France and Austria where I’ve been” she told us. “The problem was that they couldn’t cope with the numbers of people that turned up. There were only 2 men at the equipment hire counter, and not enough sets of equipment so I ended up skiing with no poles.”
Ah happy days! I ised to live in Aberdeen and remember skiing at Glenshee. The place was always full when there was snow because of its easy access to the cities and the limited tows.
My friends over there was waxing lyrical abou tthe amazing skiing last year, but suggested that this wouldn’t happen again for 25 years.
How wrong can you be?!
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax
Source: Canadian Free Press
by Tim Ball and John McLean
It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’. But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.
Like the three IPCC ‘assessment reports’ before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. The reports from working groups II and II are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.
There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if that large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.
Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change—in other words the key parts of WG I?
The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration.” And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?
Wrong.
Continues……..
Carbon Trading Schemes in Trouble and Ignored
By Jack Dini Friday, December 17, 2010
Why are carbon trading issues that have gone awry ignored by the media? Two examples: 1-scam artists from around the world, capitalizing on lax regulations at the Danish emissions trading registry have made off with an estimated $7-billion over the last two years, and 2- the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced that it will be ending carbon trading this year. Both of these have been underreported (ignored?) by most media.
[Snip]
Denmark isn’t the only place where carbon folks have been in bed with organized crime. A probe in Germany, where the total damage is estimated at 80 million Euros followed investigations in Britain, France, Spain, Norway and the Netherlands over carbon fraud over the past year.
WikiLeaks cables: UN offered Robert Mugabe a lucrative retirement overseas
# guardian.co.uk, Saturday 18 December 2010 21.50 GMT
The head of the United Nations offered Robert Mugabe a lucrative retirement package in an overseas haven if he stood down as Zimbabwe’s president, according to claims quoted in leaked diplomatic cables.
The extraordinary offer was allegedly made by Kofi Annan, who was then the UN secretary general, at the millennium summit of world leaders in New York, according to a memo drawn up by American officials which was obtained by the WikiLeaks website.
Maverick Outwits Climate Science in Global Warming Predictions Game
by John O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
December 23rd 2010
As Britain’s top independent forecaster (a skeptic) again outwits his global warming adversaries in weather prediction, we examine what really separates the men from the boys in this hot topic.
Award Winning maverick forecaster, Piers Corbyn’s unparalled success in outperforming his rivals (global warming believers) is winning him deserved column inches in the British press.
The man who, in 2010 predicted a trio of major rare events (Pakistan floods, Moscow heatwave, Britain’s brutal winter) gives us a rare glimpse into why he’s so successful, to the great embarrassment of his main rivals, the Met Office.
continues………
Taxing lessons of a flawed ETS
# Jack H. Barnes
# From: The Australian
# December 30, 2010
CONNIE Hedegaard, the EU Climate Commissioner, appeared on these pages on Monday promoting the outcomes of the Cancun climate summit and offering to work with Australian Climate Change Minister Greg Combet.
Combet, for his part, is committed to putting a price on carbon.
What Hedegaard didn’t mention in her piece, but to which Combet and Australia should pay close attention, is that the Danish tax authority has been robbed blind by a carbon trading scandal that has rocked the market for carbon offsets. While the story saw some coverage a year ago, significantly higher losses have since been reported and this has largely been ignored.
The Danish auditor general is on the case now as the scope of the crime has become obvious, and grown exponentially since it was first reported. Originally discussed as a quasi-small-time dollar scam, the reality a year later is a lot larger: Europol is estimating a value on the case of 38 billion kroner and the values seem to keep going up.
Hedegaard, then Denmark’s Climate and Energy Minister, helped set up and manage a system where there were no background checks on the listings of permitted traders. This removal of identification was done even though the EU requires at least a passport. This helped a group of fake, rogue traders set up a program that looted the Danish economy of up to 2 per cent of its GDP in lost VAT taxes.
Here’s How:………….continues
——————————————————————————————————————–
Cancun deal puts climate action back on track
* Connie Hedegaard
* From: The Australian
* December 27, 2010
THERE is good reason to reflect for a moment about global warming and the recent climate conference in Cancun.
This year was actually one of the hottest on record. And the weather-related catastrophes, from fires in Moscow to floods in Pakistan and Venezuela, are a warning of things to come unless we deal with the challenge of climate change. That’s why the package of decisions that came out of the conference in Cancun may well be this year’s most important Christmas present.
What’s in the package? Quite a bit. The key points of the agreement concluded in Cancun are based on the results we achieved in Copenhagen last year.
[Snip]
Now we have a deal.…………continues
Climate science needs light
January 8, 2011 – Toronto Sun
[Snip]
a new book by British environmental journalist Fred Pearce, one of the world’s leading commentators on climate change, suggests cause for serious concern.
The Climate Files: The battle for the truth about global warming, is a compilation of Pearce’s reporting on the Climategate scandal, mainly for the Guardian newspaper.
Neither Pearce, nor the Guardian, is a climate denier.
[Snip]
“Jones insisted that what he did, for good or ill, was what his fellow climate scientists did. They didn’t publish all their data and methods because, ‘it hasn’t been standard practice to do that. Maybe it should be, but it’s not.’ Following that came the most startling observation, when Jones was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication had requested to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. ‘They’ve never asked,’ he said.”
Thus, Pearce observes: “The rigour of peer review came crashing down before our eyes.”
RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: February 8th, 2011
Excerpt
Steig suggested that rather than argue it out on the blogs O’Donnell, Id at el should publish a paper under peer review. So that’s what they tried. And guess which person it was who was selected to review O’Donnell et al’s paper. And guess which person it was – under the pseudonym Reviewer A – who tried to thwart the paper’s progression to publication with 88 pages of comments and obfuscation ten times longer than the original paper.
Yep. You got it. The mystery peer reviewer was none other than Eric Steig. Even in the monstrously corrupt world of “climate science” this was clearly a breach of protocol. Certainly, in no other scientific discipline would a reviewer with such a clear conflict of interest be invited to review a paper whose main purpose was to criticise one he’d written himself.
Now let us allow Iapogus (the commenter at Bishop Hill from whom I filched this summary: I’m an interpreter of interpretations, me) to continue the story:
Bishop Hill has quite a good summary of this story.
It has been featuring quite prominently in the climate blogosphere over tha last few days.
Dellers article is quite a good summary
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/2/8/steigs-method-massacred.html
Clicking through to the comments below the CA post (not many) fills in the picture too.
Bad things on so many levels.
SEC Charges Seven in Global Warming Pump-and-Dump Scheme
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2011-46
Washington, D.C., Feb. 18, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a group of seven individuals who perpetrated a fraudulent pump-and-dump scheme in the stock of a sham company that purported to provide products and services to fight global warming.
Additional Materials
* Litigation Release No. 21862
* SEC Complaint
The SEC alleges that the group included stock promoters, traders, and a lawyer who wrote a fraudulent opinion letter. The scheme resulted in more than $7 million in illicit profits from sales of stock in CO2 Tech Ltd. at artificially inflated prices. Despite touting impressive business relationships and anti-global warming technology innovations, CO2 Tech did not have any significant assets or operations. The company was purportedly based in London, and its stock prices were quoted in the Pink Sheets.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-46.htm
European Union faces legal action over fraudulent carbon emissions trading
The European Union faces legal and political challenges over its handling of the carbon markets which remain in chaos after a cyber attack forced partial closure of the Emissions Trading Scheme.
EU officials are due in a Belgian court on Monday to answer a request to name companies in possession of stolen allowances after a legal challenge by an Italian company affected by the fraud.
And on Wednesday the EU’s climate change committee will try to reassure national governments and carbon exchanges that they have the right level of security in place to reassure nervous market users
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/20/carbon-emissions-trading-market-eu
Unscientific hype about the flooding risks from climate change will cost us all dear
By Christopher Booker 7:15PM GMT 26 Feb 2011 – UK Telegraph
As the great global warming scare continues to crumble, attention focuses on all those groups that have a huge interest in keeping it alive. Governments look on it as an excuse to raise billions of pounds in taxes. Wind farm developers make fortunes from the hidden subsidies we pay through our electricity bills. A vast academic industry receives more billions for concocting the bogus science that underpins the scare. Carbon traders hope to make billions from corrupt schemes based on buying and selling the right to emit CO2. But no financial interest stands to make more from exaggerating the risks of climate change than the re-insurance industry, which charges retail insurers for “catastrophe cover”, paid for by all of us through our premiums.
Continues………
British Green Movement Backed Murderous Libyan Regime
johnosullivan’s journal
New evidence raises growing concerns that environmentalism is the sinister tool of fascist politics. Revelations from a crumbling Libyan dictatorship show an enforced green agenda propped up by a discredited UK establishment.
Latest news highlighted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (March 3, 2011) strengthens claims by global warming skeptics that not only are extreme political radicals controlling the green movement but that there exists an increasing popular rising against this sinister trend.
What will come as a shock to most citizens not fully engaged in the long running climate debate is that there has been a new twist in the controversy revealing a dark and dangerous undertone to the once innocent and non-political green movement. No longer are the rank and file of the environmentalist movement comprised of animal-loving, kind natured innocents that we remember from our childhood. No, quite the contrary as the misguided support of zealots such as Britain’s Lord Stern and Prince Charles have backed Libyan ogre, Colonel Gaddafi.
Continues……..
NASA-Funded Group Doctors Sea Level Data
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Theory trumps reality
Catastrophic sea level rise is one of the most valued hole cards played by alarmists in the global warming debate. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore showed computer generated images of what Manhattan would look like if sea level rose 20 feet. Building on this theme, elevation charts of coastal cities have become a staple in global warming presentations by Al Gore wannabes. But what happens when sea level in the real world does not rise nearly as much as alarmists predict? If you are a NASA-funded gatekeeper of sea level data, you merely doctor the data.
Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. As a result, alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.
Continues…….
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2011/05/nasa-funded-group-doctors-sea-level.html
Climate cleansing: Google to censor skeptics?
Posted on May 20, 2011 by Steve Milloy
Will Google start censoring climate skeptics? Can anyone say Googlegate?
The Yale Forum on Climate Change reports that,
… Google leads people to accurate information about climate change. Fifty-two percent of the 980 sites [returned by a Google search on climate change-related terms] contained clear statements in line with the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science evidence. For example, if you had searched for “climate change myths” in early May, you would have found this Environmental Defense Fund site, which says, “The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it.”
And Google may be willing to fix this problem for the alarmists. The Yale Forum goes on to state:
Meanwhile, can search engines do a better job of pointing the public toward credible sites?
A Google spokeswoman, who insisted on anonymity because she is not a Google executive, said the company is always looking for ways to improve results. “Last year, we made 500 changes to the algorithm to improve search quality,” she said.
Say it ain’t so, Google… don’t be evil!
Continues………
http://junkscience.com/2011/05/20/climate-cleansing-google-to-censor-skeptics/
The IPCC’s alteration of Forster & Gregory’s model-independent climate sensitivity results
This looks like a fairly significant error in IPCC’s core reasoning
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/
Trenberth: “Unbelievable” Breakdown in Defensive Zone Coverage
Steve McIntyre, posted on Jul 31, 2011 at 2:47 PM
Kevin Trenberth recently expressed his consternation at the breakdown in Team defensive zone coverage that enabled publication of Spencer and Braswell:
“I cannot believe it got published,” said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Trenberth and Phil Jones were Cover 2 in the rock-solid IPCC AR4 defense. Readers will recall Jones’ promise of a goal-line stand against McKitrick and Michaels 2004:
Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
>>>>>>
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/31/trenberth-unbelievable-breakdown-in-defensive-zone-coverage/
Pretty interesting thread on CA on this one
Shades of Climategate 2, The Sequel
Not sure where to put this,but I note that Wikipedia has classified CO2 as pollution, including that from breathing
Quote:
Major primary pollutants produced by human activity include:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) – a colourless, odorless, non-toxic greenhouse gas associated with ocean acidification, emitted from sources such as combustion, cement production, and respiration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution
Distinguished physicist Prof Will Happer explodes some CO2 myths here:
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/happer-the_truth_about_greenhouse_gases.pdf
(h/t climatescience.org.nz)
A bit more credible than Wikipedia activists.
Roger Pielke Snr takes John Cook at Skeptical Science to task:-
My Response To The Skeptical Science Post “One-Sided ‘Skepticism”
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/my-response-to-the-skeptical-science-post-one-sided-skepticism/
Summary
“The failure of Skeptical Science to present diverse viewpoints on these issues (and on the others in the posts on Skeptical Science) indicates that their weblog is not balanced in the presentation of the existing research findings in climate science. John Christy and Roy Spencer are very well-respected climate scientists by most everyone in this science community.
Skeptical Science would do more of a service to the science community if they accurately presented their (and my viewpoints), even when they disagree, rather than disparage those who disagree with them. As Skeptical Science is currently presenting their information on climate on their weblog, everyone just needs to recognize that the weblog is not presenting all peer reviewed perspectives.”
Ouch.
Armed Troops Burn Down Homes, Kill Children To Evict Ugandans In Name Of Global Warming
Neo-colonial land grabs carried out on behalf of World Bank-backed British company
Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against “global warming,” a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.
Armed Troops Burn Down Homes, Kill Children To Evict Ugandans In Name Of Global Warming.
The evictions were ordered by New Forests Company, an outfit that seizes land in Africa to grow trees then sells the “carbon credits” on to transnational corporations. The company is backed by the World Bank and HSBC. Its Board of Directors includes HSBC Managing Director Sajjad Sabur, as well as other former Goldman Sachs investment bankers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.prisonplanet.com/armed-troops-burn-down-homes-kill-children-to-evict-ugandans-in-name-of-global-warming.html
An IPCC Exposé
Book Review: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an IPCC Exposé
In this book, Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise exposes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a fraud. LaFramboise (see author profile here) spent two years investigating the IPCC. She says it acts like a spoiled teenager, hence the title of the book.
The IPCC has long been touted as the preeminent authority on climate science. But LaFramboise shows that the participants were picked by governments, not for their scientific expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.” Many of the scientists are in fact, very young graduate students. Many of the bureaucrats in the IPCC are from radical environmental groups. Real experts are often ignored. She says the IPCC is a purely political organization, not a scientific one, and she backs up her charges with copious references.
The IPCC has always claimed that its reports are based exclusively on published peer-reviewed research. But LaFramboise found, after a meticulous review of the cited references, that about 28% of sources were from magazine articles, press releases, and unpublished papers. In fact, the major conclusions of one chapter in the latest IPCC report were based on two papers that had not been published. When an IPCC expert reviewer asked the IPCC and the papers’ authors for supporting data, they all refused to produce the data. Yet, the IPCC claims it is completely transparent.
LaFramboise points out that the IPCC does not check sources. And, “Peer review does not prove that a piece of research is true.” “A couple reviewers, of course, are a poor substitute for mass scrutiny. Sometimes reviewers are chosen poorly; other times they’re lazy.”
>>>>>>>>>>
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/10/17/book-review-the-delinquent-teenager-who-was-mistaken-for-the-worlds-top-climate-expert-an-ipcc-expose/
*****************************************************************************************************
Have questioned the MftE CC accordingly (Cc’d to PMSAC)
BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.
CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
By Christopher Horner, CEI.org for WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/17/breaking-an-ipcc-backchannel-cloud-was-apparently-established-to-hide-ipcc-deliberations-from-foia/
Climate change science being stifled by NSW Labor bureaucrats
* by: Malcolm Holland
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* December 02, 2011 12:00AM
SENIOR bureaucrats in the state government’s environment department have routinely stopped publishing scientific papers which challenge the federal government’s claims of sea level rises threatening Australia’s coastline, a former senior public servant said yesterday.
Doug Lord helped prepare six scientific papers which examined 120 years of tidal data from a gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour.
The tide data revealed sea levels were rising at a rate of about 1mm a year or less – and the rise was not accelerating but was constant.
“The tidal data we found would mean sea levels would rise by about 100mm by the end of the century,” Mr Lord said yesterday.
“However the (federal) government benchmark which drives their climate change policy is that sea levels are expected to rise by 900mm by the end of the century and the rate of rise is accelerating.”
Mr Lord, who has 35 years experience in coastal engineering, said senior bureaucrats within the then Department of Environment Climate Change and Water had rejected or stopped publication of five papers between late 2009 and September this year.
“This was very thorough research, peer reviewed and getting the highest ranking from various people, and one of the papers got a nine out of 10 for the quality of the work,” he said.
“You have to ask yourself why they were rejected, considering they had been peer reviewed, and the Fort Denison tide data is among the longest continuous data of its type available in the world.
>>>>>>>
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/climate-change-science-being-stifled-by-nsw-labor-bureaucrats/story-e6freuzi-1226211748047
54 comments so far, only one lame AGW supporter – all the rest vehemently believe AGW is a con.
Blocked Sea-Level Research Probed
Sunday, 04 December 2011 23:09 Imre Saluszinsky
NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker has asked department officials to explain why they put the lid on internal research that questioned catastrophic predictions of sea-level rises as a result of climate change.
A former senior researcher in the department, Doug Lord, said yesterday two papers he co-authored with colleagues and was due to present at conferences were suppressed because they suggested sea-levels on the east coast are rising at only one 10th of the rate estimated by the federal government, based on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Mr Lord said long-term data gleaned from gauges in Sydney Harbour suggested sea levels were rising at the rate of about 1mm per year. This would lead to a rise of about 90mm by 2100, not the 900mm rise predicted by the IPCC.
“We can’t identify an acceleration of the rate, which doesn’t mean that it’s not there,” Mr Lord told The Australian. “But if it’s going to reach those levels, it’s got to accelerate at some time in the future.”
Mr Lord, who does not question the science of climate change, said the papers were pulled by the department at the last minute, after they had been accepted and peer-reviewed.
“It’s very odd that they left that until the last minute and withdrew both papers at the latest possible opportunity,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Ms Parker said the minister had “asked for a thorough explanation” and wanted more information.
In a statement, the Office of Environment and Heritage said it “fully supports the analysis of tide gauge records to estimate historical sea-level rise trends and the publication of these analyses for discussion and debate”.
But the agency insisted “historical trends of sea-level rise recorded by tide gauges do not necessarily provide a good indication of future sea levels because trends are expected to change with continued global warming”.
The agency said the papers were withdrawn over “concerns raised by an independent statistician about the statistical analysis of tide gauge records”.
The Australian, 5 December 2011
http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/4488-blocked-sea-level-research-probed.html
A Journalist Fights Back and Wins
Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 12/01/2011
In Germany, there is news today (here) about a prominent climate scientist who earlier this year was convicted of defaming a journalist, Irene Meichsner.
The case (described in detail in English here) has to do with Meichsner’s reporting of errors in the IPCC 2007 report in early 2010 in the Frankfurter Rundschau. The scientist, Stefan Rahmstorf (known in the US as a blogger at Real Climate and whom I’ve occasionally sparred with) is a German government advisor who strongly attacked Meichsner for her coverage of the IPCC. His attacks prompted the Frankfurter Rundschau to subsequently correct Meichsner’s reporting, apparently based solely on Rahmstorf’s say so, such was his authority.
Meichsnner, believing that she had done no wrong, sued. The Cologne court then decided in her favor, concluding that Rahmstorf’s attacks were unsupported by evidence and even libelous.
Interestingly, in the US, Rahmstorf’s efforts to take down the journalist were uncritically celebrated by no less than the New York Times, which helps to illustrate both a bandwagon effect in coverage of climate by journalists who see themselves on the “same side” as the scientists and also the extensive deference than scientists are granted by the media. Given the court outcome, I wonder if the NYT will be correcting its earlier coverage?
A German magazine on science journalism provides a detailed discussion of the case and its significance (translated from German) and summarizes this episode as follows:
>>>>>>>>>
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/12/journalist-fights-back-and-wins.html
“The detective-inspector and his colleagues were polite, well mannered and did not over-react when I declined to give them my wordpress password. I politely explained that they had a warrant to search my house, not my head.” – Roger Tattersall aka ‘Tallbloke’
That’s the first time Tallbloke’s real name has come to my attention. I think he wanted to remain anonymous. Was it the Guardian that broke silence?
No, Tallbloke has never been anonymous to my knowledge. I know I’ve posted comments here at CCG in the past referring to his full name that he has replied to as ‘Rog Tallbloke’:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/06/listener-lambasted-concerning-climate-claims/#comment-66355
Tallbloke’s plight covered by the BBC (non-environment reporter) – complete with photo of Roger:-
Concerns over Climategate inquiry
By Nikki Fox BBC News East
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-16294420
Tallbloke’s commentary at his blog:-
Winter Solstice: Past the darkest night to sunnier days ahead
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/winter-solstice-past-the-darkest-night-to-sunnier-days-ahead/
Reply to article: Piers Corbyn
The UK Met Office and BBC promoted statement is extremely delusional and dishonest and a cover-up of reality. Full article: Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming
Their ‘expectation’ that the world will warm by 2C this century ‘due to increased greenhouse gas emissions’ is proven drivel based on their own failed self-serving fraudulent models.
They deliberately choose to know almost nothing about solar influences on earth’s weather and climate and create ‘information’ designed to deceive.
It is the largely predictable vast changes in solar charged particle flux and sun-earth magnetic connectivity which control weather and climate.
>>>>>>>>>>
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9016
“Fake, fake, fake, fake.” – Seinfeld-ism
Pulling back the curtain on someone’s wizardry right when they’re producing the smoke and lights is like pulling back the curtain when they’re in the shower. Lies, like nakedness, show it all to the world: “Well, here I am….”
From “The Mango”
Episode 1, Season 5
Seinfeld Volume 4, Disc 1
Timecode for the scene: 2:55
http://seinfeld-ism.com/2011/01/30/fake-fake-fake-fake/
Bill at Hot Topic:-
Bill’s emphasis note.
Bill again (2 days later):-
“…..for the time being” ?
Jim Lakely, Heartland Institute:-
Lies, like nakedness, show it all to the world: “Well, here I am….”
Discussion of FakeGate is underway here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/02/ive-been-busy/#comment-80691
FakeGate – worthy of some conversation, methinks.
Lucia: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tell-me-whats-horrible-about-this/#comments
Josh: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/16/not-quite-friday-funny-fakegate/
Judith: http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/15/heartland/
The Bish: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/15/heartland-says-key-memo-was-fake.html
Watts: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/some-notes-on-the-heartland-leak/
Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/i-heart-heartland/
Bolt: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_the_sceptics_conspiracy_was_real_why_fake_the_evidence/
So, let me kick off the conversation by saying that the venom and vitriol coming from the warmistas is to be expected. They typically revel in ad-homs and seldom consider inconvenient facts. I think Bolt nails (bolts?) it by saying “If the sceptics’ conspiracy was real, why fake the evidence?”. This is the inconvenient fact of the whole matter.
When the warmistas claim that we are duplicitous because the Climategate ‘hacking’ was applauded by us, yet this ‘hacking’ is condemned by us, the main difference is that the authenticity of the CRU emails was confirmed as much as possible before being posted on sites like WattsUp. In stark contrast, DeSmog posted the stolen and forged Heartland docs within one hour of receipt, without any attempt to verify their authenticity. And it turns out the main Policy document was a forgery.
FakeGate conversation in detail here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/02/ive-been-busy/#comment-80691
Actress Lucy Lawless refuses to leave Shell oil-drilling ship bound for Arctic:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6473000/Lawless-refuses-to-leave-Shell-oil-drilling-ship
“To see the melting of the sea ice not as a warning to humanity but as an invitation to drill for more of the stuff that caused the problem in the first place is the definition of madness. What Shell is doing is climate change-profiteering.”
– Lucy Lawless, lawbreaker.
“problem” ?
WWF in embezzlement scandal
Approximately $1.3 million in cash seems to have gone missing from a project called “Strengthening Capacity of Environmental Civil Society Organisations”. Overall, it was worth about $4.5 million, part-funded by Norway. Further funding has been suspended for this and for the $2.5-million REDD+ readiness project, aimed at “enhancing Tanzania’s capacity to deliver data on forest carbon stocks”, has also been put on hold.
As the news of the scandal emerged, WWF’s Tanzania country director, Stephen Mariki, resigned and, so far, the eight people linked to the fraud have had their employment terminated.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/wwf-in-embezzlement-scandal.html
“Civil Society Organisations” ?
G.W.F. Hegel completely changed the meaning of civil society, giving rise to a modern liberal understanding of it as a form of market society as opposed to institutions of modern nation state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society
I suspect though that WWF approved organisations would be those that advance “common” interests.[1] (first sentence at link).
And that the “common” interests are WWF interests.
And WWF interests are ?
Looks like there was another common interest involved at the WWF office too.
Naomi Klein: ‘If You Take Climate Change Seriously, You Have to Throw Out the Free-Market Playbook’ | Common Dreams http://t.co/lINu9DHh 07:18:13 PM March 01, 2012
Hmmm……
H/t HT as it happens
Has Salinger moved to Arizona?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/06/noaas-national-climatic-data-center-caught-cooling-the-past-modern-processed-records-dont-match-paper-records/#more-65130
Looks like they have been “fiddling” the USA National Climate Data.
Emails released to Chris Horner under FOIA from NOAA
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/NOAA%20emails%20reax%20to%20CG%20b.pdf
Relates to climategate
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/8/22/us-reaction-to-climategate.html
From the “Another consensus debunked” file comes this:
New study says overweight people live longer
Just goes to show, if everyone believes it, it ain’t necessarily true. Happy New Year everyone!
The controversy
by Anastassia Makarieva, Victor Gorshkov, Douglas Sheil, Antonio Nobre, Larry Li
Thanks to help from blog readers, those who visited the ACPD site and many others who we have communicated with, our paper has received considerable feedback. Some were supportive and many were critical. Some have accepted that the physical mechanism is valid, though some (such as JC) question its magnitude and some are certain it is incorrect (but cannot find the error). Setting aside these specific issues, most of the more general critical comments can be classified as variations on, and combinations of, three basic statements:
1. Current weather and climate models (a) are already based on physical laws and (b) satisfactorily reproduce observed patterns and behaviour. By inference, it is unlikely that they miss any major processes.
2. You should produce a working model more effective than current models.
3. Current models are comprehensive: your effect is already there.
Let’s consider these claims one by one.
Models and physical laws
[…]
Thus, while there are physical laws in existing models, their outputs (including apparent circulation power) reflect an empirical process of calibration and fitting. In this sense models are not based on physical laws. This is the reason why no theoretical estimate of the power of the global atmospheric circulation system has been available until now.
The models reproduce the observations satisfactorily
As we have discussed in our paper (p. 1046) current models fail when it comes to describing many water-related phenomena. But perhaps a more important point to make here is that even where behaviours are satisfactorily reproduced it would not mean that the physical basis of the model are correct. Indeed, any phenomenon that repeats itself can be formally described or “predicted” completely without understanding its physical nature
[…]
For example, a climate model empirically fitted for a forest-covered continent cannot inform us about the climatic consequences of deforestation if we do not correctly understand the underlying physical mechanisms.
You should produce a better model than the existing ones
[…]
To expect a few theorists, however keen, can achieve that is neither reasonable nor realistic. We have invested our efforts to show, using suitable physical estimates, that the effect we describe is sufficient to justify a wider and deeper scrutiny. (At the same time we are also developing a number of texts to show how current models in fact contain erroneous physical relationships (see, e.g., here)).
Your effect is already present in existing models
Many commentators believe that the physics we are talking about is already included in models. There is no omission. This argument assumes that if the processes of condensation and precipitation are reproduced in models, then the models account for all the related phenomena, including pressure gradients and dynamics. This is, however, not so. Indeed this is not merely an oversight but an impossibility. The explanation is interesting and deserves recognition – so we shall use this opportunity to explain.
[…]
In current models in the absence of a theoretical stipulation on the circulation power, a reverse logic is followed. The horizontal pressure gradients are determined from the continuity equation, with the condensation rate calculated from the Clausius-Clapeyron law using temperature derived from the first law of thermodynamics with empirically fitted turbulence. However, as we have seen, to correctly reproduce condensation-induced dynamics, condensation rate requires an accuracy much greater than γ << 1. Meanwhile the imprecision of the first law of thermodynamics as applied to describe the non-equilibrium atmospheric dynamics is precisely of the same order of γ. The kinetic energy of the gas is not accounted for in equilibrium thermodynamics.
[…]
Summary and outlook
The Editor’s comment on our paper ends with a call to further evaluate our proposals. We second this call. The reason we wrote this paper was to ensure it entered the main-stream and gained recognition. For us the key implication of our theory is the major importance of vegetation cover in sustaining regional climates. If condensation drives atmospheric circulation as we claim, then forests determine much of the Earth’s hydrological cycle (see here for details). Forest cover is crucial for the terrestrial biosphere and the well-being of many millions of people. If you acknowledge, as the editors of ACP have, any chance – however large or small – that our proposals are correct, then we hope you concede that there is some urgency that these ideas gain clear objective assessment from those best placed to assess them.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version/
Controversial research outlines physics behind how forests may bring rain
It took over two-and-a-half-years for the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics to finally accept a paper outlining a new meteorological hypothesis in which condensation, not temperature, drives winds. If proven correct, the hypothesis could have massive ramifications on global policy—not to mention meteorology—as essentially the hypothesis means that the world’s forest play a major role in driving precipitation from the coast into a continent’s interior. The theory, known as the biotic pump, was first developed in 2006 by two Russian scientists, Victor Gorshkov and Anastassia Makarieva of the St. Petersburg Nuclear Physics, but the two have faced major pushback and delays in their attempt to put the theory before the greater scientific community.
“It is, at first glance, incredible that such a process could be so influential, be based on basic physics, and yet have gone unnoticed for so long by so many,” says co-author Douglas Sheil who worked with Gorshkov and Makarieva on the new paper. “I shared this view initially, but over time it has withstood a large number of queries and challenges.”
Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0130-hance-physics-biotic-pump.html#yRFhcKimPzZDMr2P.99
Gorshkov and Makarieva argue that forests drive winds through “persistent condensation,” bringing in rain from the oceans. Put simply: no forests, no rain
New global warming scandal hits climate science
By Ian Wishart
The scientists behind a widely reported new climate change study suggesting we are currently in the warmest climate of the past four thousand years have had their work shredded in peer review, and been accused of skating close to scientific “misconduct”.
The paper, led by Oregon State University’s Shaun Marcott, claimed to have validated the discredited “hockey stick” graph and proven that modern temperatures were the highest in four millennia.
Their research was published in the prestigious journal Science and sparked worldwide media headlines. The New York Times trumpeted “Global temperatures highest in 4000 years”, while Associated Press went even further: “Heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years”.
Now, the story is rapidly unraveling……….
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3532
Found at the top of Google News ‘Climate Science’ – bet it gets shunted quick.
“Of course, Anthony Watts can do all he likes to shut down debate on his blog. However, there is simply no consistent, rational, mathematically valid, or scientific explanation of the GHE. So we say it’s back to you Roy and Anthony.”
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=11444
Andrew McKillop: Solar Cycle Warnings
For reasons including “pure politically correct”, NASA has fought a losing battle – against reality – on the subject of Global Warming, which it feels obliged to believe in as a “scientifically correct” theory. Linked to this, quite directly, NASA has also battled against reality on the subject of sunspot frequency, size, location on the Sun’s surface and other variables linked to sunspot cycles in this present Cycle 24 of approximately 11-year-long cycles. These have been accurately recorded since Cycle 1 set by convention between astronomers as starting in Feb 1755.
NASA wanted to believe Cycle 24 would be about the same, perhaps bigger in sunspot numbers and intensity, than Cycle 23. This has not happened. Cycle 24 started weak and got much weaker: February 1906 and Fenruary 2013 had one thing in common, they both had extreme low numbers of observable sunspots on “our” local Star.
>>>>>>
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?page=2
Embracing Greenpeace. Ignoring Climate Science
by Matthew Lau
[…] The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) recommends that teachers force students to participate in Greenpeace campaigns, excusing Greenpeace’s criminal activities as “creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems”. Grade 10 students are encouraged to take part in boycotts organized by Greenpeace as part of their civics class. One school forces its students to volunteer for “justice based community and international organizations”, including Greenpeace. Many schools direct students to the Greenpeace website via online newsletters, while other schools invite Greenpeace representatives into their classrooms to save students the trouble of having to go online to find environmental propaganda. Or better yet, some schools will hire Greenpeace employees as teachers or have a Greenpeace Association at their school in order to allow students full-time access to Greenpeace’s propaganda.
>>>>>>
http://propagandistmag.com/2013/06/15/embracing-greenpeace-ignoring-climate-science
Interesting that this Canadian article links back to an NZ NBR article on GM “Golden Rice” which Greenpeace have been campaigning against
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/greenpeaces-crime-against-humanity-dw-134615
This is classic Greenpeace anti-science scaremongering.
‘Two Alarmist Professors Suspects in Climate Fraud’
by John O’Sullivan
Professor Will Steffen, Executive Director of ANU Climate Change Institute College of Asia and the Pacific and The Australian National University and Professor Lesley Hughes Head of the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University are named and shamed for alleged fraudulent public presentations last month.
In a damning open letter (July 9, 2013) by Australian scientists, Dr Judy Ryan and Dr Marjorie Curtis, professors Steffen and Hughes are being called out for their biased and unscientific presentations given at the Canberra Community Forum on June 17th 2013. The professors are accused of not only making “misleading” and “false” statements but it is being suggested their bogus climate claims may rise to the level of actual fraud.
Drs Ryan and Curtis have now made their letter open to the wider scientific community and the public so they may judge for themselves how egregious are the cherry picked claims of professors Steffen and Hughes.
Below we publish the full Ryan/Curtis letter so our readers can get the full picture of this sorry tale:
[Ryan/Curtis letter]
“In closing, Dr Curtis and I believe that as ethical scientists it is our duty to bring these issues to your attention and that of other concerned scientists and citizens. If you think that anything we have said here is untrue please click ‘reply all’ and let us know and we will apologize. We have also sent this email by mail to both of you, so that even if you are unable to access your email for a few days you will still get this important letter and have the opportunity to respond. Please do this before the 1st August 2013.” – Dr Judy Ryan and Dr Marjorie Curtis
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/245-two-alarmist-professors-called-out-for-alleged-climate-fraud.html
‘IPCC: Fixing the Facts’
by Steve McIntyre
Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared.
>>>>>>>>>
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
[Sydney Morning Herald] “Professor Will Steffen, a researcher at the ANU and member of the Climate Council, said scientists understand how a hotter, moister climate is already affecting storms such as Haiyan”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/typhoon-haiyan-influenced-by-climate-change-scientists-say-20131111-2xb35.html#ixzz2kJt3ZmvH
[Actual study] “Remarkably, the two periods of most frequent typhoon strikes in Guangdong (AD 1660–1680, 1850–1880) coincide with two of the coldest and driest periods in northern and central China during the Little Ice Age.”
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/11/9/storms-and-global-warming.html
# # #
Tony Abbott made a good call to disband the Climate Commission so he no longer has to listen to climate charlatan Will Steffen.
It seems fundamental to me that a globe where the poles are supposedly warming faster than the tropics will enjoy less extreme weather because of the reduced differentials in barometric pressure globally. That a professor at ANU could make such a flawed statement is incomprehensible. Except when you take it as a politically inspired statement rather than a science-based one.
Fact checking seems to be a lost art – even by a judge in this case:
‘A judge shouldn’t be so careless with the facts of climate change’
Written by Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun blogs, November 12 2013.
It is disturbing that a judge should have so little regard for evidence – and that the Sydney Morning Herald does not bother to fact-check his claims:
“Tony Abbott’s stance on climate change has been criticised by an eminent judge speaking from a Pacific island that is being devastated by the effects of rising tides.
District court judge Michael Finnane spoke during a self-financed fact-finding visit to Kiribati, where seawater has broken into fresh water reserves, flooded houses and in the future is likely to force an exodus of islanders…
Judge Finnane said: “If [Mr Abbott] came here and saw the things over here that I have seen, I think he would have a different view. If he looked at them and didn’t walk around with shut eyes he would see there is something very significant happening here…
“My gut feeling is that there’s a huge problem with fresh water here. They are taking measures to hold back the waves but ultimately this island, and there are 33 other islands, are going to become less and less habitable…”
He also said it was “absurd” that people in Sydney drove large four-wheel-drive vehicles or SUVs and didn’t realise the damage they were doing to the environment.”
[…]
“I don’t like to say this of a judge of whom there is a lot to like and admire, but when it comes to global warming, is Finnane himself the one walking around with his eyes wide shut?”
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11813-judge-should-not-be-so-careless-with-climate-change-facts.html
Should be – “even by a judge [and a newspaper] in this case”
Steve Goddard’s graph of typhoons with more than 10,000 fatalities:
https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/399952907795058688
“94% of deadliest cyclones occurred with CO2 below 350. Worst was 1970 global cooling”
‘Russel Norman slammed for linking typhoon with climate change’
Source: ONE News
Green Party co-leader Russel Norman has been criticised for linking the destructive Philippines typhoon with climate change.
Political leaders began today’s Parliamentary session by offering messages of support to Filipinos affected by the destructive Typhoon Haiyan.
However, Dr Norman used his time to quote the head of the Philippines delegation to UN Climate talks, who had spoken hours earlier.
[…]
He [Norman] said that 11 hours earlier the Philippines Government gave a speech about climate change and their desire for all governments to take action on it.
>>>>>>
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/russel-norman-slammed-linking-typhoon-climate-change-5708348
New Zealand Parliament – Draft transcript – Tuesday, 12 November
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to this terrible event that has befallen the people of the Philippines. I think that the best way that I can acknowledge those who have died and the suffering of those who are currently trying to find their way through the rubble in the Philippines is read out a statement by the Filipino people themselves. This is a statement by Yeb Sano, head of the Philippines delegation to the UN climate talks. He read this statement at the opening of the climate talks in Warsaw in the last few hours. His home has been devastated; many of his family are missing. These are his words: “It was barely 11 months ago in Doha when my delegation [appealed] to the world to open our eyes to the stark reality that we face [as] then we confronted a catastrophic storm that resulted in the costliest disaster in Philippine history.
[Continuation line: Less than a year after]
Less than a year [after], we [could not] imagine that a disaster much bigger would come. With a … cruel twist of fate, my country is being tested by this hellstorm called Super Typhoon Haiyan.” It has been described by experts as the strongest typhoon that has ever made landfall in the course of recorded human history. He said: “It was so strong that if there was a Category 6, it would have fallen squarely in that box. … we remain uncertain as to the full extent of the … devastation, as information trickles in in an agonisingly slow manner because [electricity] lines and communication lines have been cut off. … The initial assessment show that Haiyan left a wake of massive devastation that is unprecedented, unthinkable and horrific.” This is affecting two-thirds of the Philippines, with about half a million people now rendered homeless and with scenes reminiscent of the aftermath of a tsunami, with a vast wasteland of mud, and debris, and dead bodies. He said: “Despite the massive efforts that my country had exerted in preparing for the onslaught of this monster of a storm, it was just too powerful and even as a nation familiar with storms, Haiyan was nothing we have ever experienced before, or perhaps nothing that any country has ever experienced before. The picture in the aftermath is ever slowly coming into focus. The devastation is colossal.”
[Continuation line: I will continue with a quote from Yeb Sano]
I will continue with a quote from Yeb Sano, head of the Philippines delegation at the UN climate talks. “To anyone who continues to deny the reality that is climate change, I dare you to get off your ivory tower and away from the comfort of their armchair. I dare you to go to the island of the Pacific, the islands of the Caribbean, and the islands of the Indian Ocean and see the impacts of rising sea levels; to the mountainous regions of the Himalayas and the Andes to see communities confronting glacial floods, to the Arctic where communities grapple with the fast dwindling polar ice caps, to the large deltas of the Mekong, the Ganges, the Amazon, and the Nile where lives and livelihoods are drowned, to the hills of Central America that confronts similar monstrous hurricanes, to the vast savannas of Africa where climate change has likewise become a matter of life and death…Not to forget the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico…And if that is not enough, you may want to pay a visit to the Philippines right now. The science has given us a picture that has become much more in focus. The IPCC report on climate change and extreme events underscored the risks associated with changes in the patterns as well as frequency of extreme weather events. Science tells us that simply, climate change will mean more intense tropical storms. As the Earth warms, that would include the oceans. The energy that is stored in the waters off the Philippines will increase the intensity of typhoons and the trend we now see is that more destructive storms will be the new norm.”
More>>>>>
http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/drafts/50HansY_20131112/draft-transcript-tuesday-12-november-2013
‘Russel Norman defends typhoon climate change speech’
Source: ONE News
Green Party co-leader Russel Norman has defended his speech in Parliament yesterday that linked Typhoon Haiyan with climate change following criticism from opposition MPs
[…]
The Green co-leader is this morning standing by his statement, saying it was the perfect time to address the issue.
“We should be listening to the people and government of the Philippines.
“They want us to take action on things like climate change, and countries like New Zealand who have a plan to increase our greenhouse emissions, there’s a complete contradiction of what the people of the Philippines are asking us and what the current Government is doing.”
# # #
Apparently, “the people and government of the Philippines” (actually just Yeb Sano) are now the attribution experts (i.e. ignore all other typhoon/hurricane specialists, even the IPCC), we should listen to them (make that Yeb Sano) at the behest of Russel Norman.
I don’t think so.
‘Supertyphoon Haiyan Brings Lots Of Sound And Fury, Little Scientific Information’
By Paul Knappenberger & Patrick Michaels
[…]
On the conference’s opening day [COP 19, Warsaw], an envoy form the Philippines, Yeb Sano, gave an emotional address to the delegates in which he vowed to stop eating until something was accomplished.
“I will now commence a voluntary fasting for the climate. This means I will voluntarily refrain from eating food during this (conference) until a meaningful outcome is in sight.”
Adding,
“We can fix this. We can stop this madness. Right now, right here.”
Sano got a tear-filled standing ovation.
While the outpouring of sympathy was certainly deserved, an outpouring of action on climate change is certainly not […]
Scientists say single weather events cannot conclusively be linked to global warming. Also, the link between man-made warming and hurricane activity is unclear, though rising sea levels are expected to make low-lying nations more vulnerable to storm surges.
In other words, limitations, even strict ones, on anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases—the very thing that Sano seeks—will have no detectable (at least based on our current scientific understanding) impact on the characteristics of future tropical cyclones, such as Haiyan, or Sandy, or Katrina, or any other infamous storm. And as for sea level rise, projections are far more lurid than observations.
The hard numbers (from Ryan Maue’s excellent compilation) show that global tropical cyclone activity for the last 40+ years—during the time of decent observations and the time with the greatest potential human impact from greenhouse gas emissions—while showing decadal ups and downs, show little overall change. In fact, global cyclone activity has been below average for the past 5 years [see graph].
More>>>>>>>
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/11/12/supertyphoon-haiyan-brings-lots-of-sound-and-fury-little-scientific-information/
Also: ‘Philippines lead negotiator at the COP 19 in Warsaw puts the blame for super typhoon on global warming’
COP 19, the annual UN global warming mega jamboree has opened in Warsaw. The lead negotiator for the Philippines, Yeb Sano, was one of the first speakers:
1145 – There is now a three minutes silence for the tragedy in the Philippines. Delegates are on their feet. Some are joining Sano in shedding tears for the loss of lives that occurred during the typhoon.
1141 – Yeb Sano announces he will not eat during the conference, until a meaningful agreement has been achieved.
More>>>>>>>>
http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.co.nz/2013/11/philippines-lead-negotiator-at-cop-19.html
# # #
I can imagine Russel Norman, if present at COP 19, shedding (crocodile?) tears along with the rest and vowing with Yeb Sano not to eat for the duration of the conference (well until the first banquet anyway) – in complete ignorance of ACE graphs, SREX/AR5 conclusions, or any other scientific trend analysis or literature.
The unsubstantiated conflation of hurricanes/typhoons (one-off weather events) with climate change and the COP 19 performance is scurrilous and detestable IMO.
‘Some historical perspectives on Typhoon Haiyan-Yolanda’
by Anthony Watts
“……here are some useful bits of information that help put this storm into the perspective of “worst ever” claims, and opportunistic claims about it being a product of global warming…..”
“……when you look at the science for tropical cyclones in the region, such claims don’t even begin to hold up”
“It seems abundantly clear then that any claim trying to tie Typhoon Haiyan to a pattern of increased frequency of storms supposedly driven by “global warming” is patently false.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/some-historical-perspectives-on-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/#more-97255
‘After Suzanne Goldenberg [Guardian] makes a large, fraudulent claim about climate change spending, it gets very quietly “fixed” with the addition of weasel words “may” and “up to”‘
[Links to before and after Guardian article]
http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.nz/2013/12/after-suzanne-goldenberg-makes-large.html
Andy Revkin [my emphasis]
Robert Brulle pushes back on Guardian $1 billion/yr spin on his study of “climate change counter movement” funding:
[Link to Guardian article]
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1ru6cd9
NATURE WORLD NEWS
‘Organizations Bankrolling Climate Change Denial Revealed in New Study’
By James A. Foley
A new report in the journal Climatic Change details the sources of funding for climate change deniers. The study is the first peer-reviewed analysis of the funding organizations behind the climate change counter-movement.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5392/20131220/organizations-bankrolling-climate-change-denial-revealed-new-study.htm
‘Settled Science Catches Up with Steyn’
Written by Mark Steyn, SteynOnline on 29 August 2014.
“No disrespect to Professor Ka-Kit Tung, but I felt vaguely that I’d read about this climate cycle – natural variability, 30-year cooling periods, 30-year warming periods – somewhere before …oh, years ago, it was. But for the life of me I couldn’t recall which eminent climate scientist had advanced the proposition. And then I remembered. It was IPCC lead author, Nobel Laureate and Fellow of the Royal Society Professor Mark Steyn just over five years ago:……..”
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/settled-science-catches-up-with-steyn.html
FRAUD, BIAS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
The 97% ‘consensus’ and its critics
Andrew Montford
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdf
PR Week – Special report: climate change and communications
“According to NASA, 97 per cent of scientists agree the climate is very likely to be warming due to human activity”
http://www.prweek.com/uk/specialreportclimatechange
Not quite climate but……
‘Fed Up With Govt Misconduct, Federal Judge Takes Nuclear Option’
Federal Prosecutor Alleges Boss Pressured Him To Engage in ‘Unethical Conduct’; Judge Calls Abuses ‘Egregious,’ ‘Pervasive,” and “Reprehensible”
By Sidney Powell | 10/15/14 9:45pm
In perhaps the most stunning documentation yet of abuses by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, two former Assistant United States Attorneys spoke to defense attorneys and revealed appalling deceit and corruption of justice. This latest litigation time bomb has exploded from multi-million dollar litigation originally brought by the Department of Justice against Sierra Pacific based on allegations that the lumber company and related defendants were responsible for a wildfire that destroyed 65,000 acres in California.
In what was dubbed the “Moonlight Fire” case, the tables are now turned. The defendants have discovered new evidence and filed a stunning motion. The new evidence and disclosures are being taken seriously by the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of California—as they should be. In a shocking action, Judge Morrison C. England Jr. ordered the recusal of every federal judge in the Eastern District of California.
[…]
The Sacramento Bee reported on the Defendant’s filing. Indeed, the Defendants’ motion informs us that a former Assistant United States Attorney came forward and disclosed that he believes that he was removed from the original prosecution by “his boss, David Shelledy, chief of the civil division in the United States Attorney’s office,” because he “rebuffed” pressure to “engage in unethical conduct as a lawyer.” Of course, like other former prosecutors who were unethical, Mr. Shelledy is to receive Attorney General Holder’s highest award for excellence—this week.
Read more at http://observer.com/2014/10/fed-up-with-govt-misconduct-federal-judge-takes-nuclear-option/#ixzz3GdBPoaCW
Andrew Weaver: Libel Chill or Libel “Polar Vortex”
by Steve McIntyre
Andrew Weaver has been taking a victory lap following the recent decision in his favor by rookie judge Emily Burke. In previous commentary about Mann v Steyn, I’ve made some snide remarks about the competence of D.C. trial court judge Combs-Greene, either implying or stating that Canadian courts have higher standards. I take it all back. As a Canadian, it’s embarrassing to discuss Judge Burke’s disorganized and muddled decision with readers from other countries. Unsurprisingly, beneath the muddled prose, there are (what appear to me) some bright-line legal errors over and above quixotic and often grossly incorrect findings of fact.
In fairness to Judge Burke, she was astonishingly inexperienced to have been assigned a relatively complicated libel case. She had been appointed as a judge on May 13, 2004 [Sic ?] (h/t Hilary Ostrov) and the Weaver v National Post trial began in the first week of June 2014, only a few weeks after Burke’s appointment. Her resume shows that her professional experience over the previous 20 years had been as a labour arbitrator, with no apparent evidence of previous experience in libel law. It was very unfortunate that she was assigned this case.
If Burke’s decision accurately reflects Canadian libel law, then for opinion writing in Canada (including Climate Audit), it is more of a polar vortex than mere libel “chill”. To borrow a phrase, it would be a travesty if National Post did not appeal this decision.
In today’s post, I’ll set out an overview of the main issues.
[…]
It’s hard to list all the errors of fact. I plan to do follow-up posts, setting out chronologies of fact for the main threads listed above.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/02/23/andrew-weaver-libel-chill-or-libel-polar-vortex/
Why is it that these Judge’s (including Geoffrey Venning here) seem incapable of determining facts?
‘Greenpeace enlists Justin Gillis & John Schwartz of the NY Times in Journalistic Terrorist Attack on Willie Soon – Miss Target, Hit Smithsonian Instead’
by Kip Hansen, February 23, 2015
I cannot bring myself to quote from this unconscionable piece of journalistic malfeasance:
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher [hotlink]
By JUSTIN GILLIS and JOHN SCHWARTZ FEB. 21, 2015
Instead, I simply let my title and the following excerpts from the so-called “supporting” documents offered by Greenpeace speak for themselves. Their [non-]journalist lackeys: Justin Gillis and John Schwartz of the NY Times, apparently didn’t actually read them – or they might have noticed that the contracts are between the Smithsonian (not Soon) and Southern and if they had stretched themselves, might have uncovered the definition of “deliverables”….I can’t believe Gillis and Schwartz allowed themselves to be duped again.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/23/greenpeace-enlists-justin-gillis-john-schwartz-of-the-ny-times-in-journalistic-terrorist-attack-on-willie-soon-miss-target-hit-smithsonian-instead/
Comments are illuminating e.g.
Phil February 24, 2015 at 12:48 am
It seems that it may be The Smithsonian that has acted unethically.
[long and comprehensive reasoning]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/23/greenpeace-enlists-justin-gillis-john-schwartz-of-the-ny-times-in-journalistic-terrorist-attack-on-willie-soon-miss-target-hit-smithsonian-instead/#comment-1867096
ATheoK February 24, 2015 at 10:33 am
What they claim is damning evidence is nothing of the kind, instead it is standard contract language and practice.
Willie Soon title for the above ‘proposal’ is “principal investigator”. A title that expressly means a Smithsonian team is responsible, otherwise Dr. Soon would not have the title.
The contract does not explicitly describe who is responsible for performing the work. Only that Dr. Soon as Principal oversees the technical aspects. To ensure correct technical language, Smithsonian’s Contract Officer who is the legal signature, will likely ask/order Dr. Soon to write or oversee writing the research results.
Dr. Soon declared his funding via Smithsonian! The Smithsonian may pull funds from fifty donors to actually pay Dr. Soon and the other employees; as such, the Smithsonian is responsible for identifying whose funds they were using.
Dr. Soon’s value as an effective employee is that he successfully locates potential sponsors and brings funds to the Smithsonian.
It is quite odd that the alarmists are soiling their panties in such an effort to smear Dr. Soon. Twisting contractual wording and communications to mean other than the Smithsonian intended. Meanwhile alarmists get caught committing flagrantly illegal acts, e.g. Gleick, and they honor him. Lucky for them the Holder Department of Justice is blind to alarmist wrongful actions.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/23/greenpeace-enlists-justin-gillis-john-schwartz-of-the-ny-times-in-journalistic-terrorist-attack-on-willie-soon-miss-target-hit-smithsonian-instead/#comment-1867664
‘Are Climate Modelers Scientists?’
by Pat Frank February 24, 2015
For going on two years now, I’ve been trying to publish a manuscript that critically assesses the reliability of climate model projections. The manuscript has been submitted twice and rejected twice from two leading climate journals, for a total of four rejections. All on the advice of nine of ten reviewers. More on that below.
The analysis propagates climate model error through global air temperature projections, using a formalized version of the “passive warming model” (PWM) GCM emulator reported in my 2008 Skeptic article. Propagation of error through a GCM temperature projection reveals its predictive reliability.
[…]
I will give examples of all of the following concerning climate modelers:
They neither respect nor understand the distinction between accuracy and precision.
They understand nothing of the meaning or method of propagated error.
They think physical error bars mean the model itself is oscillating between the uncertainty extremes. (I kid you not.)
They don’t understand the meaning of physical error.
They don’t understand the importance of a unique result.
Bottom line? Climate modelers are not scientists. Climate modeling is not a branch of physical science. Climate modelers are unequipped to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.
The incredibleness that follows is verbatim reviewer transcript; quoted in italics. Every idea below is presented as the reviewer meant it. No quotes are contextually deprived, and none has been truncated into something different than the reviewer meant.
And keep in mind that these are arguments that certain editors of certain high-ranking climate journals found persuasive.
[…]
In their rejection of accuracy and fixation on precision, climate modelers have sealed their field away from the ruthless indifference of physical evidence, thereby short-circuiting the critical judgment of science.
Climate modeling has left science. It has become a liberal art expressed in mathematics. Call it equationized loopiness.
The inescapable conclusion is that climate modelers are not scientists. They don’t think like scientists, they are not doing science. They have no idea how to evaluate the physical validity of their own models.
They should be nowhere near important discussions or decisions concerning science-based social or civil policies.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/are-climate-modelers-scientists/
I am Under “Investigation”
February 25, 2015 ~ rogerpielkejr
[…background story…]
What am I accused of that prompts being investigated? Here is my crime:
“Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr., at CU’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change and its economic impacts. His 2013 Senate testimony featured the claim, often repeated, that it is “incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” ”
The letter goes on to note that John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, “has highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke.” (For background on this see here and here.) My 2013 testimony to the Senate is here and House is here in pdf (Q&A following hearing here and here). The testimony was the basis for my recent book on Disasters & Climate Change.
Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none. He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).
Adam Sarvana, communications director for Natural Resources Committee’s Democratic delegation, reinforced the politically-motivated nature of the investigation in an interview:
“The way we chose the list of recipients is who has published widely, who has testified in Congress before, who seems to have the most impact on policy in the scientific community”
Let’s see – widely published, engaged with Congress, policy impact — these are supposed to be virtues of the modern academic researcher, right? (Here in PDF is my view on the importance of testifying before Congress when asked. I still think it is important.)
I am pleased that some colleagues with whom I have had professional disagreements with in the past have condemned the investigation via Twitter, among them Eric Steig (of Real Climate), Bob Ward (LSE) and Simon Donner (UBC). This shows some real class. In contrast, Michael E. Mann, who I defended when a Virginia politician came after him, used the “investigation” as a chance to lob childish insults my way via Twitter. Some things you can always count on in the climate arena!
So far, I have been contacted by only 2 reporters at relatively small media outlets. I’d say that the lack of interest in a politician coming after academics is surprising, but to be honest, pretty much nothing surprises me in the climate debate anymore. Even so, there is simply no excuse for any reporter to repeat incorrect claims made about me, given how easy I am to find and just ask.
The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject. I am a full professor with tenure, so no one need worry about me — I’ll be just fine as there are plenty of interesting, research-able policy issues to occupy my time. But I can’t imagine the message being sent to younger scientists. Actually, I can: “when people are producing work in line with the scientific consensus there’s no reason to go on a witch hunt.”
When “witch hunts” are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics.
https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/i-am-under-investigation/
The sordid Pachauri electronic messages saga is here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/un/ipcc-organisation/comment-page-1/#comment-1293813
From Laframboise article: http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/pachauri-s-sofa.html
Pachauri, the recently resigned chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has PR flaks and a legal team. What is his version of events? Here’s a quote from a Reuters news story:
“His [Pachauri’s] lawyers have said his computer and mobile phone were hacked and that vested interests were maligning him because of his outspoken stand on global warming.”
See:
‘Indian climate chief told to stay away from thinktank after harassment claim’
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/26/us-india-harassment-pachauri-idUSKBN0LU1CH20150226
‘Media beats up Willie Soon, but turns a blind eye to EPA-funded researchers shilling for EPA’s biggest rule’
Posted on May 5, 2015 by JunkScience.com
http://junkscience.com/2015/05/05/media-beats-up-willie-soon-but-turns-a-blind-eye-to-epa-funded-researchers-shilling-for-epas-biggest-rule/
‘EPA authors, media, miss $31 million dollar potential conflict of interest’
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/epa-authors-media-miss-31-million-dollar-potential-conflict-of-interest
Lord Monckton has filed a research misconduct complaint with Harvard University.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/fighting-back-against-the-double-standard-on-climate-funding-at-harvard/
‘A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics’
By Judith Curry, Published September 28, 2015, FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/28/new-low-in-science-criminalizing-climate-change-skeptics.html
‘Perp-walking the climate skeptics’
By Dave Neese, The Trentonian, Posted: 09/27/15,
http://www.trentonian.com/opinion/20150927/dave-neese-perp-walking-the-climate-skeptics
‘Vermont climate scientist wants RICO prosecutions of climate change opponents’
By Bruce Parker / September 24, 2015 /
http://watchdog.org/239397/environmentalists-seek-rico-prosecutions/?utm_source=hoot&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=ss
Listen: Warmist Thom Hartmann asks Skeptic: ‘Why should you not be in jail?’ ‘You are killing people.’ Blames skepticism for ‘dead children’ ‘I am calling you a criminal’
Nationally syndicated radio host Hartmann debated with CFACT Climate Skeptic Paul Driessen on September 21, 2015. The heading on Hartmann’s website is ‘Climate Change Deniers Should Be In Prison’
Hartmann to Driessen: ‘You are paid to lie to people.’
‘I am talking about racketeering, organized crime. I am calling you a criminal.’
Driessen talks of why he is skeptical and Hartmann responds: ‘That’s what you should be in jail for’ – ‘You are killing people.’ – ‘You have five million climate refugees.’
‘Dead children — you’re responsibility.’ – ‘It’s all the consequence of climate change.’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/29/listen-warmist-thom-hartmann-asks-skeptic-why-should-you-not-be-in-jail-you-are-killing-people-i-am-calling-you-a-criminal/
‘Climate alarmists want us prosecuted under RICO’
Written by Paul Driessen, 29 September 2015.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-alarmists-want-us-prosecuted-under-rico.html
‘The ‘RICO 20 letter’ to Obama asking for prosecution of climate skeptics disappears from Shukla’s IGES website amid financial concerns’
Anthony Watts / September 29, 2015
“Uh, oh…It’s about to become more about the people behind the letter, than the letter itself.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/29/the-rico-20-letter-to-obama-asking-for-prosecution-of-climate-skeptics-disappears-from-shuklas-iges-website-amid-financial-concerns/
‘MYSTERY: Scientists Remove Letter Asking Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics’
Michael Bastasch, 09/29/2015
http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/29/mystery-scientists-remove-letter-asking-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/
‘Backfire on the #RICO20 and Jagadish Shukla is imminent; wagon circling, climbdown, dissolution begins’
Anthony Watts / September 30, 2015
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/30/backfire-on-the-rico20-and-jagadish-shukla-is-imminent-wagon-circling-climbdown-dissolution-begins/
#RICO20 $4 million NSF grant while Shukla’s organization is being “dissolved” ?
Anthony Watts / September 30, 2015
…and so far, that four million dollar plus NSF grant has produced only one paper. From the NSF grant page:
Badger, A. M., and P. A. Dirmeyer. “Climate response to Amazon forest replacement by heterogeneous crop cover.,” Hydrol. Earth Sys. Sci., v.12, 2015, p. 879.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/30/rico20-4-million-nsf-grant-while-shuklas-organization-is-being-dissolved/
‘Shukla’s Gold’
by Steve McIntyre, Sep 28, 2015
http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/
‘Uh, oh. Jagdish Shukla and the #RICO20 has captured the attention of Congress, and FOIA documents are coming out’
Anthony Watts / October 1, 2015
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/01/uh-oh-jagdish-shukla-and-the-rico20-has-captured-the-attention-of-congress-and-foia-documents-are-coming-out/
‘Jagdish Shukla’s #RICO20 blunder may have opened the ‘largest science scandal in US history’’
Anthony Watts / October 2, 2015
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/02/jagadish-shuklas-rico20-blunder-may-have-opened-the-largest-science-scandal-in-us-history/
Whistleblowers Claim NOAA Rushed Contentious ‘Pause’ Buster Study Despite Reservations
Links to Washington Post article below.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/whistleblowers-claim-noaa-rushed-contentious-pause-buster-study-despite-reservations/
Congressman now threatens to subpoena commerce secretary over global warming report
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/18/congressional-climate-change-skeptic-threatens-to-subpoena-commerce-secretary-to-get-noaa-documents/
BREAKING: Greenpeace co-founder reports Greenpeace to the FBI under RICO and wire-fraud statutes
By Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. December 8, 2015
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-greenpeace-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/
‘Quote of the Week: Dr. Will Happer’s blowback to Greenpeace during ambush at Senate hearing today’
“You son of a bitch, I haven’t taken a dime.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/quote-of-the-week-dr-will-happers-blowback-to-greenpeace-during-ambush-at-senate-hearing-today/
And the article Greenpeace wanted from their “undercover investigation”:
‘Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science’
Suzanne Goldenburg
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
‘Lewandowsky’s Psychological Science publishing hoax reaches the media’
Anthony Watts / 3 hours ago January 12, 2016
From Paul Matthew’s Climate Scepticism blog:
Yesterday this story appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald [hotlink – see below]. As far as I am aware this is the first time it has appeared in the mainstream media. Kudos to their reporter Paul Sheehan, and also to the Quillette magazine forwriting about it in December, and Lee Jussim for giving a talk about it at an academic meeting on social psychology.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/12/lewandowskys-psychological-science-publishing-hoax-reaches-the-media/
‘Distorted universities need a reality check’
January 10, 2016 by Paul Sheehan Sydney Morning Herald columnist
Cultural sensitivity is turning into a victory for ideology over objectivity
[…]
My favourite example, which encapsulates all of the above, was provided by Dr Lee Jussim, a professor of social psychology at Rutgers University in the US. He dissected a paper published by a respected journal, Psychological Science, in 2013, and found that it was rubbish, and probably published because the journal’s editors shared the ideological bias of the article’s conclusion.
The paper was entitled “NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax”. The abstract of the study states: “Endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science … This provides confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.”
Note the term “conspiracist ideation”. The English language is being brutalised in the social sciences to create a false sense of rigour.
When Jussim checked the data, he found that of the 1145 participants in the study, only 10 thought the moon landing was a hoax. Of those who thought climate science was a hoax, almost all of them, 97.8 per cent, did NOT think the moon landing was a hoax.
The social psychologists who conducted the study had disguised the data and smothered it under a layer of obfuscation. No peer reviewer or journal editor took the time to check the raw data. Instead, the paper was published because it buttressed a pervasive ideological bias in the field.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/distorted-universities-need-a-reality-check-20160110-gm2tsd.html
‘Emails reveal NY AG Schneiderman. other AG’s colluding with Al Gore and greens to investigate climate skeptics’
http://junkscience.com/2016/04/emails-reveal-ny-ag-schneiderman-other-ags-colluding-with-al-gore-and-greens-to-investigate-climate-skeptics/
By colluding they have may have committed a federal crime:
This could all backfire badly on Schneiderman, Walker, Harris, and Gore.
New York AG Tried To Cover Up Activist Involvement In Exxon Probe
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/new-york-ag-tried-to-cover-up-activist-involvement-in-exxon-probe.html
Left-wing activists spent years planning climate investigations
New York AG launches climate investigation, takes fire
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/left-wing-activists-spent-years-planning-climate-investigations.html
“Smoke & Fumes,” Part Deux: Exxon Knew “The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/18/smoke-fumes-part-deux-exxon-knew-the-entire-theory-of-climatic-changes-by-co2-variations-is-questionable/
‘A Climategate-like bombshell: State Attorney Generals colluded with Green groups to punish political opponents’
by Chris Horner, April 18, 2016
[…]
In the end, it seems the only parties that may be breaking the law are those colluding AGs in their scheme to silence political opposition, while seeking funds for their preferred policy agenda. It is they who need to come clean.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE EMAILS [hotlink – see below]
Chris Horner is an attorney in Washington, D.C. who obtained the email records for the Energy & Environment Legal Institute. He is also a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/18/a-climategate-like-bombshell-state-attorney-generals-colluded-with-green-groups-to-punish-political-opponents/
AG collusion emails:
http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Master-VT-OAG-docs-of-note.pdf
‘Al Gore and State Attorney Generals start another climate witch hunt (Update: schism develops)’
[…]
UPDATE: all is not well in Goreville
Democratic Attorneys General Refuse to Join Rockefeller-Backed Climate Investigation
3:03pm EDT March 29, 2016
by Steve Everley
steve@energyindepth.org , Dallas, Tex.
A press conference today featuring Al Gore and more than a dozen state attorneys general was expected to reveal new state-level investigations of U.S. energy companies regarding climate change. But the vast majority of AGs standing on stage refused to join such an effort, signaling a lack of interest in wasting their own states’ resources.
Last year, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that he had launched an investigation into fossil fuel companies regarding what the New York Times called “possible climate change lies.” The investigation was based entirely on a series of controversial articles written by researchers at the Columbia School of Journalism and InsideClimate News, which selectively pulled statements from company documents to suggest Exxon Mobil’s public policy advocacy was inconsistent with its own research.
Unsurprisingly, environmental activists embraced the articles, and even began an online campaign – complete with the hash tag #ExxonKnew on Twitter – to pressure state and federal officials to launch investigations into so-called “climate denial.” To date, they have succeeded in convincing Schneiderman as well as the attorneys general for California and Massachusetts.
But Democratic attorneys general from New Mexico, Washington, D.C., Rhode Island, Maine, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, and Vermont – all of whom stood on the stage next to Al Gore today – refused to announce that they would be launching their own investigations. In fact, reporters covering the event struggled to find much of anything new in what the officials were promising. The Huffington Post even conceded that the AGs “were vague on what exactly they have planned.”
Editorial boards across the country have criticized the #ExxonKnew campaign as an attempt to “stamp out all disagreement,” while also worrying about the legal precedent of pursuing “criminal penalties over those involved in a scientific debate.” An editorial from Bloomberg News called Schneiderman’s investigation a “dangerous arrogation of power.”
Legal experts have also questioned the merits of New York’s investigation. John Coffee, a law professor at Columbia University, told the New York Times that a “leading obstacle [to a conviction] would be the First Amendment, as climate change is a matter of robust public debate.”
Paying for Media, Policy Outcomes
Although Schneiderman’s office contends the investigation is based on allegations of “fraud,” one of the groups who funded the research underpinning Schneiderman’s investigation – the Rockefeller Family Fund – admitted last week that their funding of non-profit news entities, including Columbia and InsideClimate News, was geared toward achieving “better climate policy.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/29/al-gore-and-state-attorney-generals-start-another-climate-witch-hunt/
WSJ Confirms Collusion Behind #ExxonKnew
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/13/wsj-confirms-collusion-behind-exxonknew/
The Exxon Climate Papers
by Andy May (or West?)
[…]
I’ve reviewed the 22 internal documents from 1977 to 1989 made available by ExxonMobil here. I’ve also reviewed what I could find on 104 publications (most are peer-reviewed) with ExxonMobil personnel as authors or co-authors. For some of the peer-reviewed articles I only had an abstract and for some I could find the reference but no abstract or text without paying a fee. Below this short essay is an annotated bibliography of all 22 internal documents and 89 of the published papers. The documents are interesting reading, they fill in the history of modern climate science very well. Much of the current debate on climate change was being debated in the same way, and often with the same uncertainties, in 1977.
Between 1977 and the fifth IPCC report in 2013 ExxonMobil Corporate Research in New Jersey investigated the effect of increasing CO2 on climate. If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Further, if they found any definitive evidence of an impending man-made climate catastrophe, I didn’t see it. The climate researchers at ExxonMobil participated in the second, third, fourth and fifth IPCC assessment reports making major contributions in mapping the carbon cycle and in climate modeling. They calculated the potential impact of man-made CO2 in several publications. They investigated methods of sequestering CO2 and adapting to climate change. They also investigated several potential biofuels.
The internal documents are generally summaries of published work by outside researchers. Some of the documents are notes from climate conferences or meetings with the DOE (Department of Energy). For many of the internal documents one has to read carefully to separate what is being said by the writer and what he is reporting from outside research. Exxon (and later ExxonMobil) did some original research, particularly making ocean and atmospheric measurements of CO2 from their tankers. But, most of what they produced was by funding research at Columbia University or the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. All of their internal research and the work at Columbia was published as far as I can tell, so it is difficult to accuse them of hiding anything from the public or shareholders.
At the heart of Schneiderman’s accusation, according to the NY Times, is a list of statements made by ExxonMobil executives that he believes contradict the internal memos summarized below. The statements are reported here. In fact, the internal memos and documents listed below, do not contradict the ExxonMobil executives in any way. The internal documents and publications all clearly describe the considerable uncertainties in climate science and align with the executives’ statements. Go to the link to see all of them, two of the most notable are quoted below:
More>>>>>
https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/19/the-exxon-climate-papers/
CEI Strikes Back At Unlawful Subpoena
Objection filed in response to blatant attack on First Amendment rights
https://cei.org/content/cei-strikes-back-at-unlawful-subpoena
Letter to Attorney General Walker from CEI’s Lawyers:
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Walker%20Letter%20re%20CEI%20Subpoena.pdf
Objections of Competitive Enterprise Institute to Subpoena Issued by United States Virgin Islands Office of Attorney General
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/CEI%20Objections%20to%20USVI%20Subpoena.pdf
State Officials Investigated Over Their Inquiry Into Exxon Mobil’s Climate Change Research
By JOHN SCHWARTZMAY 19, 2016
Since last November, a growing number of state attorneys general have been pointing their fingers at Exxon Mobil, investigating whether the energy company’s research about climate change conflicted directly with its public statements on the issue.
But now the accusers are being accused, with a battle being waged over principles of free speech, government overreach and collaboration with activist organizations.
Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, sent a letter on Wednesday to the New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, demanding all communications since 2012 between his office and climate change activist organizations.
The attorneys general, Mr. Smith said, are doing the bidding of environmental activists who set out to make pariahs of Exxon Mobil and its industry in pursuit of policies to limit climate change.
Those activists and the attorneys general, Mr. Smith said in the letter, have secretly collaborated in the years since a two-day workshop in 2012 “to act under the color of law to persuade attorneys general to use their prosecutorial powers to stifle scientific discourse, intimidate private entities and individuals, and deprive them of their First Amendment rights and freedoms.”
Continues>>>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/science/exxon-mobil-climate-change-global-warming.html?_r=0
ABUSE OF POWER
CEI sponsored a full-page advertisement in The New York Times highlighting abusive efforts by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, and a coalition of other “AGs United for Clean Power” to silence the speech of more than 100 businesses, nonprofits, and private individuals who question the AGs’ positions on climate change. Published as an open letter, the ad features signatures from 43 organizations, legal experts, and individuals who value Americans’ First Amendment rights and believe they should be protected.
See ad, text, links etc >>>>>>
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/18/full-page-ad-in-nyt-today-slams-attorney-generals-climate-witch-hunt/
Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’
By Kenneth Richard on 13. September 2016
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.lyKFogWB.Ck8PwqCL.dpbs
Massive Cover-Up Exposed: Lying Alarmists Rebranded 70s Global Cooling Scare as a Myth
by James Delingpole 14 Sep 2016
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/14/massive-cover-exposed-lying-alarmists-rebranded-70s-global-cooling-scare-myth/