We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Donations:
Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Sunday, 2 August 2015

Dear PM Abbott: Don't sign Paris Treaty

Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott, prior to the last election, described the man-made global warming (CAGW)  alarm as "crap." (Link)

Now, as recorded by a press release from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (LINK) he has down an amazing about turn
The Abbott government has committed Australia to joining the next big global climate pact."
Image: Steve Hunter via Jo Nova
Surely he should realise how foolish he will look for this apparent turn around in position. 

He was voted into office when the previous Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Government was voted out due to their bowing down to the Great Global Warming God.

On 10 February 2011,  the Flim Flam man - Tim Flannery was appointed by the Gillard Government as the Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission by the Australian Government. 


One of PM Abbott's early moves in office was to close down the Climate Commission. So far he was heading in the right direction.


However, some time later, PM Abbott's  Foreign Minister Julie Bishop announced that she will extravagantly waste Australian Taxpayer's Money.
AUSTRALIA will contribute $200 million to a global fund to help poorer nations tackle climate change.  (Link)
What? Climate has changed since the beginning of time. It didn't need help from humans.  And,

Medieval Warm Period WAS warmer despite what the Shrill say

Source: RPT

Another debunking of one of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's- so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #27


"Medieval Warm Period was warmer"Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.


UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's explanation:
evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific.
Source: RPT

Medieval Warm Period (MWP) WAS warmer - and was in BOTH hemispheres.

Anthony Cox explains:

Saturday, 1 August 2015

Global Warming to Global Cooling - A Paradigm Change


Fred Singer, writing for American Thinker has a piece under the banner:

A Paradigm Change: Re-directing public concern from Global Warming to Global Cooling

He begins:
I want to change public concern from Global (GW) to Global Cooling (GC).  Presented here are three arguments in favor of such a drastic shift -- which involves also a drastic shift in current policies, such as mitigation of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide.
Now, as there is NO empirical evidence that (man's emissions of) carbon dioxide are causing GW, the first leg is already established.

My main argument relies on the fact, backed by historical evidence, that cooling, even on a regional or local scale, is much more damaging than warming. 
Again, Fred is just pointing out an obvious reality. In May this year, The esteemed medical Journal - The Lancet -published:


Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather

Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells. (bold added)
Fred Singer continues:

Friday, 31 July 2015

Humans aren't the main cause of Global Warming; SS debunked AGAIN.

Source

Another debunking of two of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's- so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #45 and #139
"There's no empirical evidence"There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming.

SS says:
There is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

There’s no empirical evidence to support AGW

True. For 2 main reasons. Temperature and CO2 are not correlated; example the modern era. From 1959. 20thC. 1659. Longer. Secondly there is growing evidence CO2 increase is not caused by human emissions. See Pettersson’s work, one, two, three and overview. Salby’s work. (see item 139). Quirk’s paper. Knoor and Gloor’s work is summarised here. So even if CO2 causes temperature, for which there is no empirical evidence, there is cogent evidence that the increase in CO2 is not caused by humans. So, not is there no empirical evidence to support AGW, there is empirical evidence against it.


"Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural"Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.

Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural


He’s probably right. See items 45, 46, 77.

 Salby’s work on isotopes which the alarmists say prove the increase in CO2 is due to humans in fact shows the opposite. 

As Jo Nova notes : 

Tuesday, 28 July 2015

Sea level rise is decelerating: another SS "Myth" Debunked.

Cartoons by Josh
Another debunking of one of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #25.

"Sea level rise is exaggerated"A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.

Anthony Cox answers:

Sea level rise is exaggerated.  

Plenty of papers show this is the case. 

Houston and Dean is as good as any.
ABSTRACT (bold added) 
HOUSTON, J.R. and DEAN, R.G., 2011. Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(3), 409–417. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.


Ablain et al 2009 and Cazenave et al 2008 confirm the slowdown in rate of sea level rise, consistent

Saturday, 25 July 2015

Crook Cook's Identity Fraud

Michael Spencer Graphic

Cartoonist and professional scrawler UNSkeptical UNScience - SS's John Cook has been fraudulently using Luboš Motl's identity.

Luboš Motl is a Czech theoretical physicist by training who was an assistant Professor at Harvard University from 2004 to 2007. His scientific publications are focused on string theory.
Luboš writes a blog called The Reference Frame (TRF).

On TRF, Luboš writes of John Cook:
John Cook is the founder of one of the world's most famous "Sky Is Falling" websites about global warming, SkepticalScience.COM. The name of the web wants to express the point that the climate skeptics shouldn't even be allowed to use the term "skeptics". They only deserve expletives while the "true skeptics" are the champions of panic such as Cook himself. He is a typical example of the alarmist "grassroots movement" who has no relevant education (his top academic achievement is to have been a "former student" – in other words, a dropout) and no significant intelligence but whose persistent activism – in combination with the pathologically corrupt atmosphere in many institutions that favor "a certain kind of views" – has allowed him to become something like an "honorary scientist" and to have earned a huge amount of money, too.

Anthony Watts writes:
If it wasn’t enough that John Cook dresses himself up as a Nazi in his SkS uniform on his forum, now we have him caught in what looks to be identity theft of a well known scientist.  
This isn’t a brush away issue that he can ignore, as Dr. Lubos Motl found out yesterday, John Cook has been using the name of Dr. Lubos Motl to post comments that Dr. Motl has NOT written.
Here is Crook Cook on a forum admitting that he uses the identity of Scientist Luboš:  (click on image to enlarge)

Friday, 24 July 2015

SS Myth: Models can Hindcast. NO - they cannot - Massive Fail!

Another in our series debunking UNSkeptical UNScience's so-called Myths of Global Warming. This post debunks their "Myth" No 6.

"Models are unreliable"Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

And their explanation:
Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.
Donald C. Morton on Dr Judith Curry's site writes:
The Validation of Climate Models 
How do we know that the models representing global or regional climate are sufficiently reliable for predictions of future conditions? First they must reproduce existing observations, a test current models are failing as the global temperatures remain nearly constant. Initiatives such as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) can be useful but do not test basic assumptions such as linearity and feedback common to most models. Matching available past and present observations is a necessary condition, but never can validate a model because incorrect assumptions also could fit past data, particularly when there are many adjustable parameters. One incorrect parameter could compensate for another incorrect one. 
Again, from the SS explanation: