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

Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW

ICAC and AGW

by Anthony Cox

Anthony Albanese, the soft face of socialism according to Andrew Bolt, has released the State of Australian Cities 2013 report.


Obviously Albanese has made the most of the 10 minute briefing he would have had from the Bureau of Meteorology [BOM] before he went out and fronted the press. Unfortunately he, like most other pollies has taken whatever he was briefed with as gospel. If he had bothered to do some of his own research and checking [yes I know, stop laughing, a pollie doing his own fact-checking] he would have found that the BOM doesn’t even think UHI will be a problem.

Blair Trewin in his technical manual to the ACORN-SAT Australian temperature record can only find a UHI effect in minimum temperatures and in only one of the major urban areas Adelaide.

Trewin concludes on page 81:
This suggests that either any urban influence on temperatures at these locations was already fully developed by 1910 or that anomalous urban warming was manifested as step changes, possibly associated with specific buildings or other developments in the vicinity, which were successfully removed in the homogenisation process. It is likely that the first explanation is the dominant influence at Sydney, and the second at Melbourne.

On the face of it this is ridiculous. Since 1910 Sydney has increased in population and size 10 fold. How could its UHI effect be finished in 1910? Likewise how could the BOM’s “homogenisation process” cater for particular buildings?

What is more likely is that the methodology used by the BOM to “homogenise” or adjust temperatures is faulty. The new ACORN-SAT temperature network took over from the previous High Quality [HQ] network, corrected for the HQ biases but still found the same trend. I’m sure Albanese can relate to those sort of corrections!

There is no doubt the BOM has had trouble with its ‘adjustments’ to raw temperature data. The bias in their adjustments is well documented and noted in Stockwell and Stewart’s paper. Stockwell and Stewart list several areas where bias was incorporated into the HQ network. Supposedly Trewin’s technical manual overcame these biases in the ACORN-SAT. Yet at Table 6 and Figure 19 of Trewin’s technical manual we see the list and form of the ‘adjustments’ made to temperature to produce ACORN-SAT and overcome these biases in the HQ network.

These adjustments do not make sense.

For purposes of true adjustment neutrality the equality between negative and positive adjustments over the whole of the particular temperature sites is not important. The crucial point is whether those adjustments are neutral over the particular sites. Table 6 and Figure 19 do not tell us whether there has been equality of trend produced by the equality between negative and positive adjustments. That is because a particular site can be overall negatively adjusted but still have a negative trend produced by the adjustment and, to a lesser extent, because overall the trend has been increased or made positive by the adjustments, vice-versa.

In other-words, the adjustments have created a part of the trend. That is wrong.

So, the temperature information being provided to Albanese and which forms the basis of the State of Australian cities report he was spruiking is problematic to say the least. That doesn’t stop Albanese from claiming heat kills more people than cold.

Common sense tells us that cold is much more lethal than heat as numerous studies have found. And the reason why people die in heatwaves is because green policies based on the lie of AGW make using air-conditioners too expensive!

Albanese continues the lie of the 2012-2013 summer being an ‘angry” one. This is simply not correct. The satellite record is damning about the BOM’s claim of a record hot Summer:




This comparison is conclusive. The satellite/BOM temperature comparison clearly shows that the BOM ‘adjustments’ are misleading. The satellite record shows the 2012-2013 Summer as the 13th hottest since the more accurate satellite record began in 1979, not the first.

Albanese’s report also claims that the ‘angry’ Summer had Australia’s hottest temperature of 49.6C at Moomba, South Australia.

Again this is a blatant falsehood. The 1999 Australian Yearbook shows many hotter temperatures than 49.6C in the past including 52.8C in Bourke in 1877. As part of its “homogenisation” the BOM has removed or ‘adjusted’ all these past record temperatures.

Personally I’ve thought this winter has been as cold as any for a long while; my subjective impression is also shared by what is happening in the US.

But AGW has never been about the real world. It is a manufactured world conjured up by models and computers programmed by green zealots. Those very people are busy ‘adjusting’ the past to make sure it is consistent with the lie of AGW.

This week saw the recommendation by ICAC that former ALP NSW politicians be charged with fraud and corruption. Reality has entered their cosy little make believe world.

Is it too much to hope that similar charges will be laid against the main advocates and profiteers of AGW?

 



Tuesday, 30 July 2013

The Consensus, settled science and the real deniers.

Michael Mann:
Science Denier? or Deceiver?
As most people know, Wikipedia is a handy resource but it is not always right. In fact it is terribly wrong sometimes.

For example, Wikipedia's entry on

Climate change denial - Wikipedia,

begins: 

Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.

Note that the entry mentions scientific consensus.

Oh dear, talking of science and then using the very unscientific term scientific consensus? For there to be a "consensus," implies that the science isn't settled. Surely confirming that there is no Law of Anthropogenic Global Warming; no Law of Climate. Again from Wikipedia (virtually contradicting their denial entry above):
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. (Emphasis added - Link)
On the supposed "consensus" and the "settled science" Professor Ian Plimer wrote, in his book How to Get Expelled from School 
The IPCC’s Summaries For Policymakers are released before the body of the report. If journalists were inquisitive and had some scientific knowledge they could easily show that the Summary for Policymakers…… is not a summary at all but states pre-ordained conclusions. What journalists did not do was to read the 987-page Working Group 1 IPCC 2007 report.  
If they did they would have found that the words “uncertain” and “uncertainty” appeared more than 1300 times and that there are 54 “key uncertainties” that acknowledge limits to the prediction of climate. The IPCC itself shows that the science is not settled, that there is no consensus and that little is known about the controls on the climate. But all this is hidden in the small print and journalists have just have not bothered to read what might contradict their own opinions. (emphasis added)
The Alarmists' arguments began when the accepted term was Anthropogenic (or Man-made) Global Warming (AGW). The Alarmists tried to use the double whammy of saying that sceptics didn't accept the falsified AGW hypothesis at the same time implicitly trying to blacken sceptics with an implied link to the Holocaust deniers.

At an intermediate stage, the term morphed into Man-made Global Warming, then just Global Warming and then, after a stall in the temperature rise, moved to Climate Change.  Unfortunately,  the Alarmists tag of denier kept getting further from the truth.

Let's examine the stages and the sceptics' (at least from this blogger's POV) agreement or denial:

Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming (CAGW): 

Sceptics, generally believe the science is still out. Until recently, it has been generally accepted that Planetary Warming of 0.7-0.8ºC occurred during the 20th century. However, more recent papers show this maybe not be the case. In a paper presented at the European Geosciences Union in 2012, greek scientists Steirou and Koutsoyiannis concluded that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data respectively.

Steirou, E., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2012, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 14, Vienna, 956-1, European Geosciences Union, 2012. (link)
So, the "science" says "no catastrophic global warming" (CAGW) during the 20th century. Also, no global warming this century for between 17 and 23 years to date. (back-up link)

Catastrophic AGW? - NO.  My position.  I deny that there has been catastrophic global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. In fact, beneficial warming has been experienced.
UHI Image - NASA

Man-made Global Warming (AGW)

Has there been man-made global warming? Yes. The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect has been experienced. An urban heat island (UHI) is a metropolitan area that is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas due to human activities.

AGW? Yes. My position - I do NOT deny AGW!

Global Warming (GW?)

Well, anyone who believes that the world has not warmed since the Little Ice Age is either confused or a fool.

GW? Yes! My position  - I do not deny GW.

Climate Change. (CG? err...forget it)

Since Climate has changed since time immemorial, how could anyone deny climate change?

This shows how the Alarmists' use of the Term "Climate Change Denial" is so idiotic. 

And Climate Denier? Forget it? 

Who could deny that there is climate?

As Professor Bob Carter says in his recent book Taxing Air  
To term a person a climate sceptic is simply to reinforce that he or she surely is a scientist; for all good scientists........are sceptics. (bold added)
So are we sceptics, or in fact are non-alarmist scientists deniers? Bob (in Taxing Air) continues:
Most people termed 'climate sceptics' or 'deniers' by their opponents, and all true scientists in general, are in fact climate 'agnostics'. This is to say that, in advance of analysis, they have no particular axe to grind regarding the magnitude of the human influence on global climate. Rather, they just want the facts to be established and for the interpretations then to fall where they most logically live .
So, we see, at least from this blogger's point of view, the sceptic is NOT a Global Warming Denier, not a Climate Change Denier, definitely NOT a Climate denier.

Who are the real deniers (or deny pretenders) of Climate Change?


As has been previously pointed out on this blog, Dr David Deming from the University of Oklahoma gave evidence to the Senate enquiry that lead IPCC author (not mentioned by Deming but lated outed by Overpeck) Jonathan Overpeck emailed Deming saying that they had to get rid of the MWP to scare the populace into accepting the AGW hoax. (link and Link)

In other words the IPCC through one of their lead authors were saying - (for convenience) that they:
  • DENY the existence of the Medieval Warm Period;
  • DENY that fact that there was a Roman Warm Period,;
  • DENY the Minoan Warm Period Data;
  • DENY the fact that warming occurs BEFORE the rise in atmospheric CO2.
So, remind me again, who are the REAL deniers? 
  • IS it the sceptics who know climate changes? 
  • IS it the Sceptics who know the planet has warmed since the Little Ice Age?
  • IS it the Sceptics who examine all the science?
or IS it the the Alarmists, the paid-for-a warming-opinion scientists who were exposed of duplicity by multiple climategate emails?











Monday, 29 July 2013

Australian Prime Minister Amazingly ignorant on Climate Matters

In the campaign leading up to his first incarnation as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described "Climate Change" as ""the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time." Why is it, then that he is so ignorant on "climate change." In an interview with Andrew Bolt, he displayed amazing ignorance on 'climate change.' Interview link.


RUDD: The International Panel of Climate Change scientists that you just referred to contains within it 4,000 scientists
No, PM, it is NOT the International Panel, it is the Intergovernmental Panel. It is a political body and not a scientific one.

And, does it contain within it 4000 scientists? No, it doesn't employ scientists. And 4000? Try just 5, PM.

John McLean examined the IPCC's 4AR and found the working group on "Climate change" found "just 5 reviewers endorsed the chapter but most of those had potential vested interests." (link)
The IPCC leads us to believe that over 600 impartial reviewers diligently examined chapter 9 and a very high proportion agreed with its findings. It is difficult to see how this impression could be much further from the truth - 7 reviewers who were probably impartial, only 2 of whom made more than one comment; just 5 reviewers endorsed the chapter but most of those had potential vested interests.
Rudd also referred to the CSIRO.

The second source of authority, as the Prime Minister of Australia, is the CSIRO. And the CSIRO, which is a body which has existed in this country since the 1930s, analyses climate change science     
To quote Des Moore of the Institute for Private Enterprise:
Rudd claims the CSIRO supports taking action (to reduce emissions) because failure to do so will “see an increase in extreme weather events and ... an increase in drought events” in certain parts of Australia. Leaving aside analytical errors in this area made  by CSIRO and it’s now obvious warmist bias, Rudd seems unaware of the IPCC report playing down the risk of extreme weather events and giving increased weight to the pursuit of adaptive policies.
Perhaps the PM should read Graham Williamson's book on the CSIRO titled "Loss of Independence and Integrity." See also: CSIR Oh! Your victims speak out!

And please, PM, don't used the pejorative term "Climate Change Denier," especially to sceptics who know that climate changes.

 

Sunday, 28 July 2013

Drowning in Sea Level Nonsense - Drowning in National Debt.


From Alan Caruba's Warning Signs (link)

Drowning in Sea Level Nonsense


By Alan Caruba

New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D) and forty members of Congress believe the sea levels are rising, that a panel should be created to determine what should be done, and, of course, to throw billions of dollars at a problem that does not exist. Politicians were eager to scare the public with the discredited global warming hoax and now they have found a new one.

In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a $20 billion flood barrier system to protect the city from future hurricanes and rising sea levels. Well, hurricanes like tropical storm Sandy are real, but rare. Rising sea levels, however, represent no threat at all.

William Happer who researched ocean physics for the U.S. Air Force and is currently a physics professor at Princeton University notes that “The sea level has been rising since 1800, at the end of the ‘little ice age’”, a cooling cycle last from around 1300 to 1850. 
 
Far from heating up, the Earth entered a new cooling cycle around 1996 or so.

Harrison Schmitt, a former Apollo 17 astronaut, U.S. Senator, and a geologist, says 
“Predicting a sea level rise of seven feet over the next few thousand years would see too risky a prediction on which to spend tax dollars” and that is surely an understatement. Wasting billions on “climate change”, however, is the new siren call of the Obama administration, but the National Research Council is warning, as Fox News reported, “that those kinds of subsidies are virtually useless at quelling greenhouse gases.”

In fact, as the amount of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas—alleged to “trap” heat—has risen and has had zero effect on the cooling cycle.

A recent article in the British newspaper, The Register, reported on a study by scientists in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, that was published in “Nature Geoscience” that concluded there was no “scientific consensus” to suggest the rate of the seas’ rise will accelerate dangerously.

The notion of the seas rising, swamping coastal cities, and creating havoc is the stuff of science fiction, not science. This is why spending millions or billions on the assertions of some who have a real stake in keeping the public frightened is a very bad idea.

At the center of the global warming scare campaign is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its most recent report said that “no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th-century data alone” but that does not discourage the IPCC from forecasting an increase due to global warming. This organization should be disbanded and, if I were in charge, many of its leaders would be in jail right now for fraud.

Who can you believe? One such person is Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, the former chair of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is the past president (1999-2003) of the International Union for Quaternary Research Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. He has been studying sea level and its effects on coastal areas for more than 35 years. I cited his credentials because others making predictions lack the same level of authority.

Dr. Morner acknowledges that “sea level was indeed rising from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. (Emphasis added). 
 
Get out your pocket ruler and look at what one millimeter represents. It is small. It is very small. Not surprisingly Dr. Morner is very critical of the IPCC and its headline-grabbing doomsday predictions. He scorns the IPCC’s claim to “know” that facts about sea level rise, noting that real scientists “are searching for the answer” by continuing to collect data “because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!”

A recent paper reviewed by CO2 Science finds that sea levels have risen from 2002-2011 at a rate of only 1.7 millimeters per year over the past 110 years, the equivalent of 6.7 inches per century. This is close to Dr. Morner’s assertion that, at most, there has been a rate of increase that tops out at 1.1 millimeter per year. The review concluded that there is no evidence of any human influence on sea levels.

Even so, in early July a scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Josh Willis, told Fox News, that “There is no question that the time to prepare for sea level rise is now…We will definitely see seven feet of sea level rise—the only question is when.” And who funds NASA?

Between the scientists trying to gin up more government money for their agencies and departments and the politicians trying to find a new reason to spend more money, the public is left wondering if the oceans are rising and whether that represents something worth worrying about. The answer is (a) yes, sea levels are rising in infinitesimal amounts and (b) no, we need to stop spending money based on such claims.

It’s not the sea level rise you should worry about. It is the rising levels of national debt and the deficit. (NCTCS emphasis)

© Alan Caruba, 2013

Friday, 26 July 2013

The real worry: We may be facing global cooling - Monckton

On the Alex Jones Channel, Lord Christopher Monckton is interviewed by David Knight to discuss the ongoing research showing that Global warming is a falsity being pushed across the world for economic means through mediums such as carbon taxes.

Knight mentions Christopher's Eternity puzzle and adds Lord Monckton is a real puzzle solver. Christopher has been listening to the US Senate hearing and points out that there has been no warming for 17 years. He mentions that, in the Cook et al paper the 97% is actually 0.3% (See link)
Sea level has been rising less than 2 inches a century.

He mentions his monthly figures which were published HERE.

He mentions that the sun has had a "hissy fit" and the real worry is that we may be going into global cooling.

Christopher says the US tax supposedly will cut CO2 emissions by 11% over ten years, and the US only contributes 17.5% of all global CO2 emissions. Even if the US tax were to succeed, then less than 2% of global CO2 emissions would be remitted over than 10 year period; that in turn would reduce the Co2 concentration from 422ppmv to 421.5 which would mean that the CO2 radiative forcing would fall by 0.006 w/m2