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:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Monday, 31 August 2015

Scepticism and burden of Proof

Don Aitken on his blog has a thought provoking piece titled:

Am I a sceptic? I think so.

Describing his scepticism, Don says:
What is it to be sceptical about something? My own meaning is that where I am not sure about something I think is important, and can’t reasonably be sure, I am sceptical about claims. That doesn’t mean I think it’s wrong, whatever it is; it is simply that I am not in a position to make a proper judgment. Some other person or organisation may be sure, but that is no real help to me. I need to make up my own mind about it, and for the moment I can’t. Therefore I don’t accept the proposition, at least for the moment. Quine would call it the state of ‘suspended judgment’, one of non-belief rather than of disbelief.
Don then moved on to " a neat little series of thoughts on the issue of scepticism on the Fabius Maximus website..."  by Marcello Truzzi (bold added)
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new “fact”. Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of “conventional science” as usual. But if a

Saturday, 29 August 2015

More Climate Alarmism Refuted

Source: Tallbloke


John Hinderaker writing for Power Line: (bold added)
It isn’t quite true to say that the science is settled–climate science is in its infancy, and we have only a poor understanding of the Earth’s climate. Just about every proposition is controversial. But we are very close to being able to say that, as to global warming alarmism, the debate is over and the alarmists have lost. (I mean, of course, the scientific debate, not the political one, which never had much to do with science in the first place.)
Read More: Power Line

= = = = = = = = = = =

ICSC Chief Tom Harris for the Washington Times:

Deceptive temperature record claims

Warmest month announcements have no scientific basis
The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter. 
NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.  
As Jay Lehr, science director of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute said, “It is a scam that dwarfs all others that have come before.”
Read More Here

= = = = = = = = = = =

Judith Curry, writing on her blog Climate etc reviews a new paper by the UNSkeptical UNScience (SS) team.

The paper:

Britain's solar boom over

Political Editor of the UK Telegraph, writes
Britain's solar boom is over after ministers announced they would offer virtually no subsidies for people to install panels on their homes. 
In a surprise move, ministers on Thursday said that they plan to slash the amount of money given to families who put solar panels on their homes. 
Under the new proposals, the amount paid to homeowners under the “feed-in tariff” from next year will fall by nearly 90 per cent. Experts said that it will lower the payments to households by around £192  (AU$ 412) a year.
Solar subsidies are a virtual reverse Robin Hood effect; the Rich robbing the poor:
Critics say the scheme, which was heavily pushed by energy firms, enables wealthy families to rake in subsidies paid for by many who are already struggling with their energy bills. 
Renewables are really not viable without subsidies.
Last week, a source at the Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) told the Telegraph: “[Energy secretary Amber Rudd] is determined to get a grip of these out-of-control subsidies and make sure that hardworking billpayers are getting a fair deal.” Decc did not respond to a request to clarify or confirm the comments.

Thursday, 27 August 2015

UN IPCC -an alarmist organisation

Mad Men of Climate Alarmism
Cartoons by Josh
Another debunking of one of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's- so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #34
IPCC is alarmist
Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.
UNSkeptical UNScience (SS) says

Climate scientist Roy Spencer made this statement:
"Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change."
He starts by suggesting something highly questionable isn’t open to being questioned. What he seeks to do is suggest, by inference, that the IPCC has an agenda, and this distorts the reports they produce. In other words, Spencer (and others) suggest that the IPCC exaggerates what the science says in favour of anthropogenic global warming. It is perfectly legitimate to question this assertion, since Spencer and others offer no evidence to support it.

However,  SS is wrong when they say Spencer and others offer no evidence to support it.. The IPCC in their PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK (Para 2) and again on their page on Organisation History:
" assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation 

Anthony Cox writes

IPCC is alarmist

See items 1, 106, 110 (tipping points) As much as they can, that’s their business. 

As Jay Leno said: 
According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet. 
But seriously alarmism is exactly that: exaggerated, hyperbolic, emotional, half-true, not true. 

Schneider set the tone with his infamous advice about selling the message. His double ethical bind doesn’t exist; as a scientist if he has to think about telling the truth he isn’t a scientist; he was an advocate full stop. 

They’re all advocates with their dreadful, always wrong predictions like Flannery, or their odious comparisons, deniers are worse than Nazis from Hamilton

Alarmists like Suzuki want to jail sceptics

Alarmists think anyone who disagrees with AGW is insane and needs to be treated

Alarmists want to spend other people’s money, abolish capitalism and reduce population

Alarmists have to invoke “scary scenarios”, to quote Schneider, because their solutions to this non-existent problem are themselves so alarming. 

In technical terms the alarmism of AGW is seen in its estimates of climate sensitivity (see items 7, 34, 101)

Because alarmists use the wrong statistical methods they conclude temperature can go up forever (see items 30, 73, 91, 110). This is wrong.


Wednesday, 26 August 2015

Increasing CO2 has little to no heating effect

The Shrill at work.
Another debunking of one of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's- so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #30

"Increasing CO2 has little to no effect"The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements.

Why the Shrill via people like UNSkeptical UNScience (SS) imagine that human's emissions of carbon dioxide have anything to do with the climate is an exercise in hubristic nonsense, which seems to be the Shrill and the Green's greatest talent.

NZCSC write in

Why is it that mostly chemists seem to understand the behaviour of carbon dioxide whilst even professors of physics appear incapable of grasping the basics of thermodynamics?
In every 85,800 molecules of air, 33 are CO2. Of those humans produce just one. That the UN IPCC claim that one (1) molecule of CO2 in 85,800 molecules of air causes catastrophic warming while the remaining 32 molecules of Nature's identical CO2 do not is insanity.

Temporarily suspending science by assuming the UN radiative back-warning 'theory' of global warming is valid. Purely for purposes of illustration one can calculate an indicative impact of human production of CO2 on rising temperature.

 Use relevant assumptions widely acknowledged world-wide:
  • CO2's theoretical maximum share of the greenhouse gas theory's effect is 3% (water vapour is 95%)
  • Total human production of CO2 is 3% of Earth's annual production (UN IPCC figure), and
  • Using temperature increase of 0.8°C since 1860 - close to start of industrialisation and the end of Little Ice Age. 
Then human affect be: 0.8 × 0.03 × 0.03 = 0.0007ºC

These indicative calculations exaggerate the UN IPCC's theorised impacts of human CO2 because

Tuesday, 25 August 2015

The true cost of wind energy is higher than most cost estimates calculate

A report prepared for the Institute of Political Economy at UTAH State University titled


This report explores the true cost of producing electricity from wind power. Rather than creating a new cost estimate, we analyze the findings of prominent cost studies by experts in the energy field. Each study includes different factors in its estimate of the cost of wind power. We break down each of these factors and explain the significance of each. These factors include: capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, capacity factor, transmission costs, baseload cycling, social and environmental costs, and the cost of government subsidies. Other factors are more difficult to quantify, but nevertheless add to the true cost of wind power. Such factors include: opportunity cost of taxpayer dollars, reduced reliability of the grid, and higher electricity prices. 

A detailed report that comes to the following conclusion:


The true cost of wind energy is higher than most cost estimates calculate. Mandates requiring the use of wind energy increase electricity costs for consumers, and subsidies mask the actual cost of doing so. RPS require intermittent renewable energy to exist, but at the expense of utilities and consumers. The PTC makes wind power cheaper for utilities and consumers, but at the expense of taxpayers. Through such policies, U.S. policymakers have essentially decided that electricity consumers will have wind power, even if it is more expensive. The cost of this decision has fallen to U.S. taxpayers and consumers of electricity. When weighing the costs and benefits of wind power, not including all of the hidden costs makes wind power appear to be a more attractive option than it actually is. Energy policy decisions, however, should be based on a more complete estimate of the cost of wind energy.

Monday, 24 August 2015

Politicians, Scientists use ambiguous, non scientific, non-evidence based, terminology. ALP may have a fraudulent ideology.

In an email to Federal MP Mark Butler, Shadow Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Dr Judy Ryan and her associate Marjorie Curtis question MP Butler following a Canberra Community Forum.

We recently had the pleasure of hearing you speak at the Canberra Community Forum. The title for the Forum was “We Need Action on Climate Change”.  In the interests of scientific integrity, honesty and transparency we will call it “Human Caused CO2 Global Warming” (HCCO2GW) in this public letter. 

The reason we feel we can do this is because you conceded that it should be described as such during the evening. In our opinion, the term “climate change” is ambiguous, misleading and based on political ideology rather than any scientific evidence or hypothesis.

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to ask you two questions. I will now address my question. Retired Geologist, Aert Driessen, has written to you separately regarding his question.

 Suffice to say here, I informed you of the fact that at the previous Canberra Community Forum in

Friday, 21 August 2015

Denmark is scaling back its green ambitions

(Source: Getty)
Clara Guilborg writing for  Business Site City AM reports that Denmark is scaling back its green ambitions:
Denmark is scaling back its green ambitions, after the country’s government said the previous target was “too expensive for businesses”. 
In a goal set by the country’s previous government, Denmark had promised to reduce its carbon emissions at least 40 per cent by 2020, against 1990 levels. 
This is proving too expensive though, so the northern European country is now settling for a 37 per cent reduction instead.
No global warming for ~20 years; perhaps they should scale back their reduction of carbon (dioxide) emissions to zero reduction.
Speaking in Parliament, Denmark’s climate minister Lars Christian Lilleholt said this new goal would be “enough”, reports The Local
            It will be very expensive for the Danish society to reach those last  
           percentage points and will therefore impose extra costs on our business community.    
So, Denmark is scaling back its green ambitions from 40% to 37%. That's a small move in the right direction, but as there has been no global warming for around 20 years, perhaps they should consider moving it down to zero. THAT would really improve their economy.

WHEN will they ever learn?

Thursday, 20 August 2015

‘Global Warming’ is All About Anti-Capitalist Polemics, And Has Nothing to Do, Really, With Science

In February this year, this blog posted the admission of the UNFCCC Chief, Christian Figueres:

Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

Of course the Main Stream Media, promoters of the hoax - the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), failed to report this.

Today it had been confirmed by Leftist Author Naomi Klein. It is about the Communist Revolution.

As Heartland's blog Somewhat Reasonable reports:
Liberal writer Naomi Klein’s magnum opus on the environment,This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate, is a must-read for conservatives and libertarians.  The mask is off. Klein admits progressive policies on the environment are really about what Marx and Lenin said the communist revolution desired 100 years ago — the overthrow of capitalism. This is not about science, or health, at all.  “Our economic model is at war with the Earth,” writes Klein. “We cannot change the laws of nature. But we can change our economy. Climate change is our best chance to demand and build a better world.”
Read more of "this one goofy gospel" HERE .

H/t Jim Ball


Brendon Pearson, Chief Executive of the Minerals Council of Australia announced the details of a report undertaken by economic consultancy Principal Economics

The report found that Australia’s renewable energy sector received subsidies (including the Renewable Energy Target, feed in tariffs and other green policy costs) worth $2.8 billion in 2013-14.

On an output basis, these renewable subsidies translated into almost $412 per megawatt hour (MWh) for solar technologies, $42 per MWh for wind and $18 per MWh for all other renewable sources (including hydro).
By comparison coal fired power received less than $1 per MWh and natural gas less than 1 cent per MWh delivered.
In 2013/14, these renewable energy subsidies added between 3 to 9 per cent to the average household bill and up to 20 per cent for some industrial users.
H/t IPA, Lames Paterson

Tuesday, 18 August 2015

High elevation boreal forests are expected to recede upslope, yet recent empirical studies present conflicting findings.

A recent full peer reviewed paper published in Global Climate Biology shows once again the Alarmists are wrong.

  1. Jane R. Foster
  2.  and
  3. Anthony W. D'Amato
  4. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13046

    Abstract (bold added)


    Ecotones are transition zones that form, in forests, where distinct forest types meet across a climatic gradient. In mountains, ecotones are compressed and act as potential harbingers of species shifts that accompany climate change. As the climate warms in New England, USA, high elevation boreal forests are expected to recede upslope, with northern hardwood species moving up behind. Yet recent empirical studies present conflicting findings on this dynamic, reporting both rapid upward ecotonal shifts and concurrent increases in boreal species within the region. These discrepancies may result from the limited spatial extent of observations. We developed a method to model and map the montane forest ecotone using Landsat imagery to observe change at scales not possible for plot-based studies, covering mountain peaks over 39,000 km2. Our results show that ecotones shifted downward or stayed stable on most mountains between 1991 and 2010, but also shifted upward in some cases (13-15% slopes). On average, upper ecotone boundaries moved down -1.5 m·yr−1 in the Green Mountains, VT, and -1.3 m·yr−1 in the White Mountains, NH. These changes agree with re-measured forest inventory data from Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, NH and suggest that processes of boreal forest recovery from prior red spruce decline, or human landuse and disturbance, may swamp out any signal of climate-mediated migration in this ecosystem. This approach represents a powerful framework for evaluating similar ecotonal dynamics in other mountainous regions of the globe.

Sunday, 16 August 2015

Arctic ice melt is a natural cycle.

Another debunking of one of SS (UNSkeptical UNScience)'s- so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #29

"Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle"Thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat..

SS expand on this:
Chipping away at the hoax
Arctic sea ice has aptly been termed a "canary in the global warming coal mine," a sensitive indicator of climate change; because of its importance as a diagnostic of global warming


Debunking of all 178 will be found on this page - SS "Myths" debunked.

Anthony Cox debunks another SS "myth."

Arctic ice melt is a natural cycle

Global Warmers Get it Wrong on Arctic Ice

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013 (Dec 2007)

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for

Friday, 14 August 2015

There IS NO correlation between CO2 and temperature; Another SS "Myth" debuked

Another debunking of one of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's- so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #46

"There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature"There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term.

Debunking of all 178 will be found on this page - SS "Myths" debunked.

Although SS says: "There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature," implying that man's CO2 emissions are causing the falsified CAGW hypothesisJoanne Nova has graphed the Vostok Ice Core data which show that Carbon dioxide levels follow temperature changes with an 800 year lag;
The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.
Carbon Dioxide follows changes in Temperature: Jo Nova

Anthony Cox explains why There IS NO correlation between CO2 and temperature and

Arctic Sea Ice has recovered: Debunking UNSkeptical UNScience

Another debunking of one of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's- so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #44

Debunking of all 178 will be found on this page - SS "Myths" debunked.

"Arctic sea ice has recovered"Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.
Anthony Cox  debunks Another Falsity from the BS (Bad Science) from the SS.

Arctic sea ice HAS recovered

 Figure 7:20 Link

It has. The IPCC in Far, Figure 7.20, page 224 (see above), shows the low point for Arctic sea ice was in 1974 which was before the weather satellites began in 1979 (Figure 7.20 here). 

The Arctic had much less ice 6000 years ago:-

Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum   Stranne et al -Quaternary Science Reviews

The Abstract begins:
Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years Before the Present) compared to present day conditions. This sea ice minimum has been attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth’s orbital cycles. 

In the modern era Arctic temperature peaked before 1950, causing sea ice to peak and then decline.The decline continued until 2013 when it increased. 2013 is important because it was

Thursday, 13 August 2015

Renewables in NSW produce 0.0% of all electricity generated - Prof Ian Plimer

Plants need CO2 for food
Professor Ian Plimer has written a piece on Catallaxy Files under the above heading. In his usual inimitable style, Ian asks:
.....can someone show me from basic science and mathematics that the human emissions (3% total) of plant food (CO2) drive climate change yet the 97% of natural emissions of CO2 do not. This has never been done and I’m still waiting for the proof. It’s easy to show that human emissions of CO2 don’t drive climate change and there are many scientific arguments to show that the total atmospheric CO2 does not drive climate change.
Bill, short on logic
wants 50% of electricity from renewables. How’s he going to do it?  
What is the current contribution of renewables? Where is the cash going to come from for the

Tuesday, 11 August 2015

Arctic Ice Melt IS a natural cycle

Another debunking of one of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's- so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #29

"Arctic ice
melt is a natural cycle"
Thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat.

SS say that
Satellite measurements of Arctic sea ice extent reveal a rapid decline over the past 30 years, particularly at the end of each year's annual melt season.  The downward trend and the increasing difference between seasons are in keeping with predictions of the effects of global warming
and show this graph from NSIDC:
 SS Graph ends in 2009 with an upturn

As Steve Goddard tweeted today(11/8/2015):

 Anthony Cox writes:

Arctic ice melt is a natural cycle.

Sure is. See items 44, 95.

First of all the alarmists predicted the Arctic would be free of Summer ice in by 2013.

That was wrong.

Peer reviewed papers show the Arctic had less ice in the Holocene warm period 6-10000 years ago.
The top graph shows simulated annual mean sea ice thickness [orange curve] was
much less during the Holocene Climate Optimum ~13,000-6,000 years ago
compared to the end of the 20th century at right side of graph.
The bottom graph shows multiple proxies of sea ice with darker green
indicating periods of less sea ice. Modern sea ice is at high levels in
comparison to the rest of the Holocene.