Monday, 31 January 2011

Are Greenies warming the Planet by Protesting?

Null Hypothesis reports the following facts:

The average person takes 24,000 breaths a day, breathing in approximately 6g of carbon dioxide, but breathing out around 800g during the same time. Over a year, you personally will add a net 290kg of CO2 to the atmosphere, just by exhaling. Multiply that by a global population of 6.5 billion and it adds up to a criminal 1.88 gigatonnes.

If we each merely cut out one breath in three, we could decrease the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere each year by a staggering 0.63 gigatonnes. That’s 0.63 billion tonnes - the same effect as saving 5 million acres of land (an area the size of Wales) from deforestation, or recycling 192 million tonnes of waste instead of trashing it.
Or saving an area a third the size of Tasmania (16 million acres). But here's the clencher. Null hypothesis goes on to point out that if you exercise, you breathe more and harder. During a strenuous half hour exercise session "we could be expelling an extra 8.3g of carbon dioxide."  So, do your bit Greenies, Stop Exercising.

And remember, protesting - marching around, chanting slogans and waving banners around is like excercising.

Save the planet!  Stop Greenies Protesting.

Saturday, 29 January 2011

Does Greens Senator Christine Milne want to bankrupt Australia?

Newly crowned Australian of the Year and Chairman of the CSIRO, Simon McKeon, says that the wind is evaporating. We know that a paper written by Gabriel Calzada Álvarez PhD (here) concluded that green jobs needed heavy subsidies and non-green jobs were lost.
Our research shows that that price was very high. Here are some highlights from our study:
  • For every 1 green job financed by Spanish taxpayers, 2.2 jobs were lost as an opportunity cost.
  • Only 1 out of 10 green job contracts were in maintenance and operation of already installed plants, and most of the rest of the working positions are only sustainable in an expansive environment related to high subsidies.
  • Since 2000, Spain has committed €571,138 ($753,778) per each "green job,"
  • Those programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs.
  • Each "green" megawatt installed on average destroyed 5.39 jobs elsewhere in the economy, and in the case of solar photovoltaics, the number reaches 8.99 jobs per megawatt hour installed.
Spain has already attempted to lead the world in a clean energy transformation. But our research shows that Spain's policies were economically destructive. 

Now we find that Europe is turning it’s back on Wind Energy. From the Globe and Mail 26/1/11

The Spanish and Germans are doing it. So are the French. The British might have to do it. Austerity-whacked Europe is rolling back subsidies for renewable energy as economic sanity makes a tentative comeback. Green energy is becoming unaffordable and may cost as many jobs as it creates. But the real victims are the investors who bought into the dream of endless, clean energy financed by the taxpayer. They forgot that governments often change their minds.

Meanwhile, in the Great Southern Land, it was reported in the Australian that Christine Milne said "with the clearest of brows and the sternest of expressions, that wind and sun are already fully grown viable alternatives to fossil fuel power..."

Does Ms Milne want to ruin Australia’s economy?

Friday, 28 January 2011

Who is running NSW? An unaccountable rabble.

Cowardly Kristina Keneally gave NSW a Christmas present. She shut down parliament or, more correctly, she prorogued NSW Parliament. Now, to the best of my understanding, the act of proroguing is the act of discontinuing Parliament without actually dissolving Parliament.

Why did she do this?

She didn't want the details exposed for her Government's power sell-off. So, for more than a month, the state has been rudderless, no parliament running the state but an unaccountable rabble running us.

We believe that the details of the shady sale should be brought to light and so, we are requesting the Governor Marie Bashir to recall Parliament.

We ask that you write to The Climate Sceptics and we will forward the replies to the Governor - Her Excellency  Professor Marie Bashir.

==============================Cut and Paste into your e-mail...
The Governor of NSW

We want the Parliament of NSW recalled NOW.
email address:

Thursday, 27 January 2011

Something in the Wind

There is something in the wind. The winds of change or, more precisely, the winds of climate change.

The newly crowned (do you say crowned? and is he a republican?) Australian of the year Simon McKeon thinks that Climate Change (nee Anthropogenic Global Warming) has caused the winds to evaporate.

Mr McKeon is a famed sailor. In 1993 on his sailboat YPE he established the 500 metre world record. Although it was beaten in 2004 by a windsurfer, his record still stands for a C Class Cat.

McKeon, the recently appointed Chairman of Australia's CSIRO, therefore should know something about winds. The Age reported in 2008:
"In the last few years, that wind has … evaporated," Mr McKeon says.
This observation helped convince him to begin minimising carbon emissions.

He obviously hadn't studied this report:

Global warming increasing the dispersal of flora in Northern forests

As a result of stronger winds caused by global warming, seeds and pollen are being carried over longer distances. An increase in temperature of only a couple of degrees may increase the dispersal of plants in Northern forests and the spread of plant species into forest clearings after felling or forest fires. 

and here's some-one else who hadn't read that report. The Jerusalem Post reports that

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

BBC and ABC - AGW Propaganda Organisations

Peter Sissons is a broadcast journalist from the UK. He was a long time newsreader on the BBC. He retired in 2009 to write his memoirs. The Daily Mail is serialising the memoirs. The latest episode talks about the BBC and  Man-made Global Warming:

For me, though, the most worrying aspect of political correctness was over the story that recurred with increasing frequency during my last ten years at the BBC — global warming (or ‘climate change’, as it became known when temperatures appeared to level off or fall slightly after 1998). 
From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC’s coverage of the issue was, and how much more complicated the climate system was than the over-simplified two-minute reports that were the stock-in-trade of the BBC’s environment correspondents
After the inauguration of Barack Obama the BBC reported that scientists had calculated that he had just four years to save the world. They omitted the fact that it was the opinion of James Hansen.

The BBC’s editorial policy on ­climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’. The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus.
Joanne Nova reported also on "How the BBC became a propaganda arm of the UK government (and WWF) "
According to Montford and Newbery, the key event was a BBC seminar at Television Centre entitled Climate Change – the Challenge to Broadcasting, which was made up of ’30 key BBC staff’ and ‘30 invited guests’. The ‘key speaker’ was Lord May of Oxford (the Royal Society President who also happened to be a WWF trustee and environmental activist).
Are we in Australia better off  with "OUR" ABC? Well, the ABC.s charter requires impartiality:

The Board requires the ABC to demonstrate impartiality in two ways:
•    As a creator, broadcaster and publisher of news and current affairs content, the Board
requires impartiality at the content or program level. This means that each program or item of news and current affairs content must be impartial in accordance with the requirements set out in Section 5; and
•    As a creator, broadcaster and publisher of opinion and topical and factual content, the Board requires impartiality at the platform level (i.e. the individual television or radio network, or on ABC Online). This means that while individual items of content can take a particular perspective on an issue, the ABC must be able to demonstrate at the platform level that it has provided its audiences with a range of different perspectives on the subject under consideration. Individual items of opinion and topical and factual content must themselves meet the requirements set out in Sections 6 and 7 respectively.
Mr Maurice Newman
Well, that should makes us better off than Britons and their BBC, shouldn't it? In March 2010, the Chairman of the ABC, Mr Maurice Newman addressed ABC journalists, program-makers and managment-

Climate change is a further example of group-think where contrary views have not  been tolerated, and where those who express them have been labelled and mocked.  In his ABC Online blog last October Chris Uhlmann wrote a piece called In praise of the sceptics.  ‘“Climate science we are endlessly told is “settled”’ he wrote.  “But to make the, perfectly reasonable, point that science is never settled risks being branded a “sceptic” or worse a “denier”…one of those words, like “racist”, which is deliberately designed to gag debate…You can be branded a denier if you accept the problem and question the solutions.”
This collective censorious approach succeeded in suppressing contrary views in the mainstream media, despite the fact that a growing number of distinguished scientists were challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.
Then came the sensational revelations of unprofessional conduct by some of the world’s most influential climatologists exposed by the hacked or leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Institute.  This was followed by more evidence of dubious research and politicised advocacy contained in scientifically unsupported claims and errors in the IPCC 4th Assessment, including in the carefully vetted Synthesis Report.  Questionable methods of analysis resulting in spurious temperature data have added further doubts on the underlying credibility of the science.

Mr Newman was criticised by Christopher Warren, the Federal Secretary of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance in a letter the next day:
I was concerned to read yesterday the remarks made by ABC chairman, Maurice Newman, to a gathering of journalists, program-makers and management on Wednesday.
Since his speech I have been contacted by a number of Media Alliance members from the ABC’s news and current affairs team who have interpreted Mr Newman’s remarks as an attempt to influence the ABC’s line on climate change.
 The ABC's line on Climate Change? What line? Aren't they, under their charter, supposed to be impartial? On the ABC's children on-line pages, they had a depiction of the average Australian as a pig. Too much carbon production causes the pig to explode, leaving behind a pool of blood.

Senator Fifield said of the quasi life-expectancy calculator:
"Do you think it's appropriate that the ABC portray the average Australian as a pig and is it appropriate for a website obviously geared towards kids to depict people who are average Australians as massive overweight ugly pigs, oozing slime from their mouths, and then to have these pigs blow up in a mass of blood and guts?"

The ABC also runs an forum called: "Ask an Expert" on Climate Change. In answer to the question: "How can scientists tell that climate change is due to greenhouse gases, rather than part of a natural climate cycle?" the reply included:

Climate models driven by scenarios of greenhouse gas and aerosol (small particle) emissions estimate a rise in temperature of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees by 2100 assuming no actions to reduce climate change. While this is comparable to previously occurring climate change, it is occurring at an unprecedented pace and the changes would affect a larger and less mobile population.

What was the reaction to Chairman Newman's address? Well, Greens Senator Christine Milne advised the ABC journalists "to ignore the anti-science nonsense peddled by the Chair of their board and instead increase their strong coverage of climate change." Ben Eltham writing on newmatilda said "Maurice Newman's attack on the ABC's editorial standards shows he is unfit to remain chair of the national broadcaster."
And the President of the Friends of the ABC, Mal Hewitt, had this to say: "Chairman of the ABC Maurice Newman’s somewhat eccentric attack on the ABC’s perceived failure to provide an adequate voice to climate change deniers, despite ample evidence to the contrary...."

Gee, I would like to see some evidence of that ample evidence.
The last budget figure for the ABC that I have seen was $1.13B. I remember when they used to advertise that it cost us a few cents a day. The sometimes accurate Wikipedia tells me that it is now 7.1ç per day. I am not getting my money's worth.

Questions on floods, dams, and funding

Letter to the editor - by Leon Ashby - President The Climate Sceptics

Questions on floods, dams, and funding

Dear Sir / Madam,
I believe Australians like its leaders to be consistent and logical so I pose these questions regarding the recent floods and the Federal Government funding response.

Will the politicians who believe extra CO2 causes floods (e.g. the Greens) be consistent and advocate more CO2 to help the Murray River flow more regularly?
Will the politicians who say extra CO2 causes Global warming and droughts (ALP, Greens & half the coalition) support  building more dams (to provide us with more water and reducing flood impacts on downstream towns)?
Is there a government politician who will stand against a tax for raising $10 billion for flood repairs for our own country, because we don`t tax for the $10 billion of overseas and development aid we pay each year? and
Is there a government politician calling for businesses to assist the "Flood rebuild" that will lead from the front and call for a pay cut for themselves as well?

Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics

Quotable Quotes

Quotable Quotes:

Well informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value.
- Editorial in the Boston Post, 1865

Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.
 - Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859)
Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy

Men might as well project a voyage to the Moon as attempt to employ steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean.
- Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859)
Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy

This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.
- Western Union internal memo, 1878

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
 - Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
 British mathematician and physicist

Television won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.
- Darryl F. Zanuck, Head of 20th Century-Fox, 1946.

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.
- Ken Olson, President of Digital Corporation, 1977

The Internet will catastrophically collapse in 1996.’
- Robert Metcalfe, internet inventor

Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.
- Popular Mechanics, 1949

We have reached the limits of what is possible with computers.
- John Von Neumann, 1949

I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
- Thomas J. Watson Snr., IBM Chairman, 1943

Carbon Dioxide is a dangerous pollutant             - Barack Obama  POTUS 2009

Saturday, 22 January 2011

2010 the 'warmest' year? Well, sort of.

Well, the News is out and 2010 is the hottest year ever. Well, sort of. In fact most of the last 10,000 years were warmer. 2010 would be 9099 out of 10,000.  On ABC's AM, Professor Bob Carter explains that the warming trend has levelled if 1998, 2005 and 2010 are similar temperatures whilst CO2 has risen 5% (here in update)

Now, a study published in the Indian Journal Current Science (reported here) -a paper by U R Rao, former chairman of Indian Space Research Organisation, released by Environment minister Jairam Ramesh.
"Consequently the contribution of increased CO2 emission to be observed global warming of 0.75 degree Celsius would only be 0.42 degree Celsius, considerably less than what predicted by IPCC," the paper said to be published in Indian Journal Current Science had said. This is about 44 % less than what IPCC had said.

Ramesh in 2009 had released a similar scientific paper saying that the IPCC's claim that most Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 was wrong. A few months later, after a review the IPCC regretted the error. If Ramesh latest bid gets globally recognition, it can alter the rules of UN run climate negotiations of 200 nations.
(Thanks to Marc Morano) 

UPDATE  29/1/11
Clegg, B.F., Clarke, G.H., Chipman, M.L., Chou, M., Walker, I.R., Tinner, W. and Hu, F.S. 2010. Six millennia of summer temperature variation based on midge analysis of lake sediments from Alaska. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 3308-3316.

What was learned
The results of the study are portrayed in the accompanying figure, where it can be seen, in the words of Clegg et al., that "a piecewise linear regression analysis identifies a significant change point at ca 4000 years before present (cal BP)," with "a decreasing trend after this point." And from 2500 cal BP to the present, there is a clear multi-centennial oscillation about the declining trend line, with its peaks and valleys defining the temporal locations of the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages Cold Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age -- during which the coldest temperatures of the entire interglacial or Holocene were reached -- and, finally, the start of the Current Warm Period, which is still not expressed to any significant degree compared to the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods.

UPDATE 2  31/1/2010   From Energy Tribune.

Reluctantly, alarmists and their cheerleaders in the media changed their tune and the promise of warm and snowless winters with ‘global warming’ morphed into global warming means cold and snowy winters. ABC News even said cold and snowy winters would be the new norm because of global warming. Non sequiturs like that have sadly become ‘the new norm’ in the wacky world of the mainstream media.
In Australia, the government’s Bureau of Meteorology and university alarmist scientists promised major drought and blocked dams and flood mitigation projects, but when devastating floods occurred this summer, they blamed that on global warming and again enviros and government agencies escaped the blame. Other scientists had warned that changes in the Pacific would lead to a return of the flood years like 1974, but they were ignored by agenda driven, green leaning government.
(From CO2 Science)

Friday, 21 January 2011

Prince of Precaution

This fella, Prince Tim, perhaps he could become the Australian of the Year.

Ladies and Gents - Here is the bearded Prince Tim:-

Thursday, 20 January 2011

The Green Climate Monster

Green Climate Monster

Australian Climate Madness

Over at Australian Climate Madness, Simon has written a beautiful piece on the Green Climate Monster. a wonderous beast who just "happens to have the same initials as general circulation models - that's pure coincidence of course." 

He adds: "After many minutes of painstaking research, Australian Climate Madness has decreed that all unusual or severe weather events of whatever nature, anywhere in the world, are solely the mischievous work of the Green Climate Monster (he gets bored easily)."

It's worth a look - the link is in the title above. Nice work, Simon.

CO2 is No threat - A CARBON TAX is - Corvette Z06

CO2 is No threat - A CARBON TAX is
Press Release

The Climate Sceptics are sponsoring a front runner in Bathurst 12 hr race on Feb 6th

A favorite for this years Bathurst 12 hour race will be sponsorsed by The Climate Sceptics political party.

The Corvette ZO6 driven by Paul Freestone, Hayden Pullen and David Seiders is one of the more fancied cars in the Class C section of the Bathurst 12 hr race being run on Sunday 6th February.

The message on the car will be "CO2 is No threat - A CARBON TAX is"

President of The Climate Sceptics Leon Ashby is thrilled with the sponsorship deal because "this is one of the first bunch of sportsmen prepared to thumb their nose at green extremism and publicly say CO2 is not effecting the climate and  the Carbon tax debate is a big con."

Mr Ashby says "The reason the sponsorship deal was done was as much the driving teams decision as ours. They have researched the information from web sites like ours and recognise a carbon tax will do nothing for the environment but it will force up power and food prices and cost Australian jobs. Like us, they cannot believe how uninformed the Australian public is on this issue. We then simply worked out a deal."

Ashby, the Environmental award winner and former farmer believes an environmental and political message mixed with car racing is long overdue. He explains that Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but makes plants grow faster. "It is really a green gas, but the greens have demonised it."
"We hope this sponsorship arrangement will start to get rid of our guilt with cars and realise that with modern engines and unleaded petrol, very little pollution occurs nowadays. And as far as global warming goes, the planet will be fine - the latest reports about to be released are likely to show Sea levels are dropping and global temperatures have been flat since 1998 levels. These facts should be recognised."

Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics

Australian Driver Magazine has reported on the story:

Controversial Sponsorship for 12 Hour Entrant

“It’ll probably be quite controversial in some quarters, but it’s something we really believe in,” Pullen said.
”They have some great policies. One very close to our hearts is the party's word they will work towards more of our fuel taxes going towards funding our national highways transport infrastructure.”


Prime 7 News Report:  Here

Tuesday, 18 January 2011

Lies, damn lies, and Stephan Lewandosky

Stephan Lewandosky has written a piece for ABC Unleashed. He talks about the joys of cherry-picking and then includes this:
" warming is a hoax because it’s snowing in England."
(Sorry, that's a bit of cherry-picking of my own .)

The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party members -

David Stockwell and Anthony Cox
- have submitted their reply to ABC Unleashed. It may or may not be published by them.

Lewandowsky and the numbers of Global Warming.

Professor Lewandowsky says: “Statistics, when done properly, provide a robust and revealing tool to understand reality.”
He is right; statistics can help us understand the why and how of our physical world; good statistics can even help us prepare for our future. Have the statistics of anthropogenic global warming [AGW] helped us understand our physical world and helped us prepare for our future?

Lewandowsky warns us that “Single events carry little information” and to use single events to prove AGW is untrue is "cherry-picking." In Lewandowsky’s opinion one cold British winter [actually there have been 3] does not a summer make. Rather it is the long-term changes which prove AGW, the reduction in the Arctic ice-cap, the rising seas and the increasing temperature.

This is true. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change [IPCC] says that a minimum of 30 years have to be taken into account before any conclusions about changes in the physical reality of climate can be made. On that basis the Arctic ice-cap was smaller in the 1930’s, and warmer, according to leading researcher Professor Petr Chylek. Sea levels have been rising for the last 10 thousand years, since the current interglacial or warm period began, at rates of increase much more rapid than the rates of today. And temperature has been increasing in the modern era since 1850 well before AGW is supposed to have begun.

This is the point about statistics; they are only as good as the information or data: the raw numbers. “Cherry picking” a section of data is not the only way of corrupting a statistical analysis; omitting or changing the data can do it as well. For instance Lewandowsky says “the Arctic icecap has shrunk by an area roughly equivalent to the size of W.A. since 1980”. It sounds bad doesn’t it? It must be AGW. But this is the statistical technique of omission. What the Professor has not mentioned is that the Antarctic has increased in size since 1980 by an area roughly equivalent to 2 W.A.’s. So, overall ice levels have increased.

Lewandowsky has used 2 graphs to prove that the full range of data will reveal the truth and allow people to so readily understand that they can predict the future. The 2 graphs show identical data but with different headings; one an imaginary share price and the other the official temperature record of the IPCC, NASA GISS.

Even if we accept the NASA GISS temperature record as accurate does it really represent reality? Reality from the AGW viewpoint is that the increases in CO2 have caused the temperature trend.
CO2 can’t have. CO2 has been increasing during the 20th Century at a constant rate but the temperature anomalies show many periods with cooling. Is it “cherry-picking” to focus on these cool periods?

No; for 2 reasons. Firstly, some of the cooler periods are longer than 30 years and so represent a climate period. It is legitimate to regard a cooler period as a contradiction to AGW and that some other factor is affecting the climate.

Secondly, Lewandowsky has not considered that there may be a better physical explanation for the temperature record; choosing an inferior explanation for temperature is called the technique of false correlation. In fact there is a better explanation than CO2.

The better explanation is the Sun. The measure of the Sun’s influence on the Earth’s climate is called the Total Solar Irradiance [TSI]. TSI is a measure of the absolute intensity of solar radiation, integrated over the entire solar irradiance spectrum which is incident to the Earth’s atmosphere. That is, the sunlight reaching the atmosphere. Measurements and estimates of TSI have been made as far back as 1600. Figure 6.5 of the last IPCC report, AR4, shows the variations in TSI over this period according to a number of studies.

So, how can we show whether TSI is a better explanation than AGW for the temperature trend shown by NASA GISS?

We can show this through statistics. Dr Geoffrey Glassman has compared the correlation between TSI and the temperature record over the 20th Century and found a 90% correlation. By comparison meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo calculates a statistical correlation between CO2 and temperature of only 42%.

Both the science of TSI and AGW are supposedly well established yet the amount of money being invested in AGW is vastly greater than that being spent on TSI with less than half the statistical justification. This may be good business but it is not good science. Lewandowsky says that for statistics to be effective one should use “All the data, for the entire globe, and for all available years.”

But Lewandowsky has not met his own criteria of “All the data”. The NASA GISS record is NOT the complete temperature record of AGW. The complete record is Michael Mann’s hockey-stick.
The hockey-stick is a 2000 year temperature record based on dendro-climatic or tree-ring data. The hockey-stick purports to show an even temperature until the 20th Century when temperature increases at the same time as CO2.

We have already seen that TSI is a better statistical explanation for 20th Century temperature but what is the best explanation for the rest of the 2000 years?

The best explanation is not CO2. A new paper which was published with the honour of occupying the entire edition of a major research journal, The Annals of Applied Statistics, shows this. The paper is by 2 expert statisticians, Blakeley McShane and Abraham Wyner, who show that current temperature is not exceptional and that prior temperatures during what is known as the Medieval Warm Period [MWP] were as warm and probably warmer than today.

In the spirit of Lewandowsky’s study we showed his graphs to David Stockwell’s school-age daughters who also thought the trend would be up. However, when the girls were shown a graph of the MWP consistent with McShane and Wyner’s analysis, they extended the graph downwards. The conclusion, perception of trend direction depends on the duration examined.
More importantly, when asked if this was a good way to predict the future global temperature of the planet they said “Of course not!” Smart girls.

McShane and Wyner’s study is a major contradiction to AGW. Real data, the same used by AGW, a variety of statistical methods, including those relied on by AGW, fail to show anything unusual about the present temperature; and that includes Lewandowsky’s record extremes which the IPCC has shown to have occurred 9 times over the last 1000 years.

With the past and the present statistically defeated for AGW what can AGW do? As Lewandowsky shows, like any fortune teller, it looks to the future where, statistically, anything is possible.
Predictions are the stock in trade of AGW; all the AGW experts have used statistics to tell us what the future climate will be. The results have been statistically improbable in that they have all been wrong at both the short term and the long term. For instance, in the short term the MET, England’s national weather service, has predicted mild winters from 2008; the winters have been some of the coldest in the last century. In 2005 the MET predicted a cold winter; it was mild.

In Australia the Bureau of Meteorology [BoM] and CSIRO have predicted on the basis of climate model projection that the severity and intensity of droughts will double by 2050. David Stockwell has published a peer-reviewed comparison of their models with the observations, which shows droughts DECREASING over the last century, broadly in line with INCREASING rainfall over the period. The claim of increasing droughts in Australia was based only on model simulations and was premature. This is a classic case of the statistical method of garbage in, garbage out.

In 2007, CSIRO and BoM scientists Power and Smith published a paper claiming that the Southern Oscillation Index [SOI] has shifted to a permanently lower level. This echoed a claim by leading AGW NASA scientist Jim Hansen that one of the consequences of AGW might be permanent El Nino ('small boy') conditions, leading to persistent droughts in Australia. In a peer-reviewed statistical analysis David Stockwell showed that the change in the SOI was not statistically significant and the apparent decrease largely due to a run of El Nino events during the late part of the 20th Century.

The recent floods in Australia and around the world have shown Stockwell’s analysis to be correct. Despite comments by prominent AGW scientists like David Karoly, Ian Lowe and Tim Flannery, the same experts who were predicting worse droughts, these are entirely natural conditions; the flood records for Queensland show that in the past, before AGW began, there were bigger and regular floods.

As Professor Stewart Franks notes natural variability is creating the weather not AGW.
Lewandowsky in his study has gone to the public for vindication. One can only hope his study instructions were not as forthright as the condemnation in his article of the “damn liars” who “deny climate science”.
The general public is the ultimate arbiter and that is as it should be in a democracy. Science and statistics are the handmaidens of public decision making and they should be transparent and honest, “crystal clear” as Lewandowsky says. If they aren’t then the numbers will not stack up.

The numbers of AGW don’t stack up and Lewandowsky’s test subjects will be left to decide whether “lies, damned lies, [or] statistics” best describes AGW.

Sunday, 16 January 2011

BLOOD in their HANDS

I am getting increasingly angrier by the hour. Although the flawed AGW CO2 hypothesis has been falsified, the pushers of the AGW poison still blame any climate event on their mythical warming.
Is it still warming? Well, not according to this chart from Hadley-CRU:-

There is a lot of disinformation being spread by the Warmists.

The misinformation Industry is going full steam ahead:

SMH 14/1/11
When we talk about climate change, we mostly talk about complicated economic policy, markets and reports. But we need to start talking about what climate change actually looks like - and we don't need to look much further than Queensland.

Hispanically Speaking News 14/1/11
Coal, oil, and natural gas all send carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when we burn them, and scientists say that this extreme weather is a direct result of those emissions.

AP -Stockholm 14/1/11
Though you can't make a direct link between Australia's killer floods and climate change, they do hold a warning for the future: Scientists predict such extreme weather events will increase both in intensity and frequency as the planet warms.
Academia is also not faultless, promoting the Alarmist agenda.

Exam board accused of 'brainwashing' pupils with inaccurate climate graph

Britain’s largest exam board has been accused of “brainwashing” pupils by forcing them to use an inaccurate temperature graph that exaggerates the scale of global warming.

An Inconvenient Truth for Australian schools I think it is a form of child abuse to force feed a flawed film on our schoolchildren. 

And on and on the Alarmist spin rolls out the rear-end emissions from male cattle.

It is a terrible thing to say, but blood is on their hands.  Instead of saying, we're so sorry - we were wrong to say AGW would cause droughts, as you can see above,they are now saying that the floods are due to AGW.

James Delingpole's column (written by Guest Queenslander Memory Vault) exposes the hypocrisy:
Queensland floods: but at least the 'endangered' Mary River cod is safe, eh? (here)

"Back then we weren’t nearly as clever and learned as you think yourselves to be today. Back then we had this silly notion that climate was cyclical, and if we didn’t prepare for it, we would have a repeat of the same tragedies to deal with in “about thirty years”.....
"Instead we had “post modern” minds like Tim Flannery “advising” the government that because of Anthropogenic Global Warming, SE QLD would be perpetually in drought from then on. “Forget dams and flood mitigation programs”, intoned the wise Dr Tim – “build desalination plants instead”....
"But then I remember that the world is in the capable hands of much cleverer people than those silly scientists back in the Seventies who believed climate was cyclical. Now the decisions are being made by clever people like Dr Tim Flannery
– and you.

That is when I weep for my fellow Man."

Andrew Bolt covered the same thing here.
The drought that warmists said might “never break” just did 

"The warmists who once claimed the drought was caused by global warming are now claiming they predicted these floods."

So, we must not let the Warmist Alarmist Greens get away with the lie that AGW caused the floods. We should write to our national papers, our local papers, We should also continually barrage our politicians to stop them installing a debilitating Carbon (Dioxide) Tax.

See also: Known Floods in Brisbane. (BoM)
               Models are worthless  (C3 Headlines)
               Self-referential lunatic asylum

Friday, 14 January 2011

A taxing problem -CO2

Letter to the Editor by President Leon Ashby

Climate Denial and Severe Floods

Dear Sir / Madam
              Many supporters of a carbon tax are calling "climate sceptics"  climate deniers and claiming extreme weather events like floods will increase unless we adopt CO2 reduction measures. These ideas are total bunkum.
 Climate Sceptics  observe the regular changes of climate from warmer to colder and dryer to wetter etc. We realise it's all natural variation happening since long ago and nothing (of any consequence) to do with mankind. This includes the regular extremes of rainfall and destructive flood events as we are now seeing in Queensland.

 The death toll from Australian floods demonstrates the severity and constancy of severe floods.  It includes 61 deaths at Clermont in 1961, 36 deaths in Melbourne in 1934, 22 deaths in Northern Tasmania in 1929, 14 deaths in the Hunter Valley in 1955, 14 deaths in Brisbane in 1974, 11 deaths in Brisbane 1893, 6 deaths in the Charleville and Nyngan floods in 1990, and 3 deaths at Katherine in 1998. Interestingly Brisbane's biggest flood was in 1841.

 So should extra CO2 from the last 50 years be blamed for our floods? Clearly not, because dangerous floods have always happened.

And what are the facts about the Governments plan to reduce CO2?
Well, Australia plans to reduce its CO2 emissions by 5% by 2020.
This will amount to impacting the atmosphere by one part in 100 million*

* Greenhouse gases are 1% of atmosphere
CO2 is 3.6% of all Greenhouse gases
Man-made CO2 is 3.4% of all CO2
Australia's proportion is 1.5% of all manmade CO2.

We are planning to reduce our amount by 5% in the coming decade. That is the equivalent of reducing a 100 km string by just one millimetre.

The logic of climate fear mongers is staggering.

Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics

Thursday, 13 January 2011

Peering at IPCC's Peer-Review

  The IPCC and the Peer-review Process.

The IPCC promoted the falsehood that all their supporting documentation was peer-reviewed. IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri, in 2007 insisted that the quality of the science "is absolutely first rate. You know there may be someone who knows a lot about glaciers. We will get him to write something on glaciers and send it to the writing team. "
and then goes on to mention peer-reviewed - "The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature."

Again in 2008 he insisted that the IPCC process was based on peer-reviewed.

"People can have confidence in the IPCC's conclusions," he said."Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. I'm not sure there is any better process that anyone could have followed."

Roger Pielke Jr explains that movement of the IPCC away from peer-review on his blog:

Review by Donna Laframboise
Yet that may be the IPCC on a good day. Chapter 5, from Working Group 3's report - which I randomly chose to examine next - is far worse. Only 61 of the 260 references relied on in that chapter have their feet firmly planted in peer-reviewed literature – an abysmal 24 percent. Put another way, three-quarters of the material cited there is grey literature. In a chapter devoted to something as tangible as the transportation sector. [CORRECTION: 64 references were peer-reviewed, bringing the overall percentage to 25 percent. Please accept my apologies.]
Research by No Frakking Consensus

It is surprising to find that there are ill-informed people who still believe that the IPCC relies entirely on Peer-reviewed papers.

Tuesday, 11 January 2011

Doctor, Doctor, What's wrong with the (doctored) figures?

Everyday we get bombarded with facts and statistics. It can be very confusing to the average layman. 

Since the middle of 2010 we were told 2010 was or was going to be the hottest year on record.
2010: Warmest year on record – Science Fair  17/5/2010  (Great “science,” Science Fair.)
2010 is warmest year ever  Deccan Herald 18/5/2010  (Amazing statement made after only 5 months)
2010 0n track to be hottest year – aljazeera  17/7/2010

Probably a reaction to the statements in May saying that after less than half a year they claimed that 2010 was the Warmest Year EVER, by July they had tempered their statements. Meanwhile, In July, Ken Stewart on Joanne Nova’s site reported that Australian Temperatures had been adjusted. …What he found was that the raw records showed only a 0.4 degree rise, less than the rural records which went from a raw 0.6 to an adjusted 0.85 (a rise of 40%). What shocked him about the urban records were the adjustments… making the trend a full 70% warmer. The largest adjustments to the raw records are cooling ones in the middle of last century. So 50 years after the measurements were recorded, officials realized they were artificially too high?

Also in May. we learned that the official archivist of New Zealand’s climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) had managed to doctor the figures. 

The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA’s doctoring of that data is indefensible

IPCC expert  reviewer, Vincent Gray has reached the same conclusion in his NZ CLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 260 issued today: “One can only conclude that average temperatures in New Zealand cities have not changed significantly since records began.
In September, Paul Macrae on False Alarm wrote, discussing NASA-GISS massaged figures: “….the temperature estimates from the other three major climate monitoring agencies—the Hadley Meteorological Centre (HadCrut), University of Huntsville at Alabama (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)—all show temperatures for the last decade considerably lower than the GISS estimate. In fact, they even show some cooling. The latter two agencies, UAH and RSS, rely on satellite data, which many regard as more reliable than ground temperature estimates.”

So, where does that leave us? As A. A. Milne (Via Winnie the Pooh) said:When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.” It doesn’t matter how many others are looking at it. There’s an old saying – You can look but you’d better not touch.

The latest Satellite-Based Global Temperatures from Dr Roy Spencer of UAH.

As I said at the start, the different figures can be very confusing to the layman. I do know that the UAH figures are not massaged, not doctored. Although satellite records only started back in 1979, you can see basically a level trend line from `79-97 and a level trend line from `2001-2010 with a step up. (See Professor Bob Carter’s falsification of the AGW hypothesis.)

Today, Mr Des Moore, Founding Director of the Institute of Private Enterprise, has contributed an article to Quadrant-on-Line:

Climate inquiry needed

by Des Moore
January 9, 2011

Those familiar with the climate debate will naturally be aware that the rise in average official temperatures of 0.74C over the 20th  century was an inherent component of IPCC’s conclusion of a future of dangerously high temperatures unless governments acted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
But how to interpret the fall of 0.7C in the average Australian temperature for 2010? Clearly one year’s temperature doth not in itself maketh a new trend and believers in the IPCC’s conclusion are tending to portray it as either a one-off or even an unusual form of continued warming. But it is pertinent to give the development a perspective that differs from that conveyed by the believers. 
Des examines statements made by AGW “scientists” and sponsors and concludes:
“This latest display of highly questionable opinions and supposedly factual statements by “experts” strengthens the case for a proper independent inquiry.” 

 “The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.”  A. A. Milne quote