Sunday, 29 May 2011

Say Yes to an Election

How can Unions finance an Ad like this? The imposts of the tax on carbon dioxide will cause unemployment for union members by causing some businesses to close their doors and some businesses to move offshore.

How dare they depict a colourless invisible gas like CO2 with picture like that.

And that power station pictured. That is a decommissioned South London Power station at Battersea.
Battersea Power Station

As Radio 2GB's Andrew Moore says: "(Julia) can't even tell the truth about lying!"

There is NO-o-o Kyoto for US, Russia, Japan and Canada.

Even as Australia's (Two Party) Multi-Party Climate Change Committee are beating each other over the head trying to decide whether we will have a crippling $10/tonne tax on carbon dioxide, or a $100/tonne tax that will put Australia out of business, Big Pond News (link in title) report that:
Russia, Japan and Canada have confirmed at the G8 they will not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at UN talks later this year and the US has reiterated it will remain outside the treaty, European diplomats say.
Bonny Symons-Brown of AAP reports:
The Business Council of Australia is calling for a low initial carbon price of $10 a tonne, increasing slowly to minimise the need for household and business compensation. The Greens say its laughable.

Saturday, 28 May 2011

Tim: They're Trampling on the Truth

Dr. Tim Ball is widely recognized as one of Canada’s first qualified climate scientists and has long been one of the most prominent skeptics taking a stand on corruption and unethical practices. Two exponents of the global warming scare Ball has targeted, professors Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver, are now suing him for libel.
Many suspect the David Suzuki Foundation is funding Vancouver libel specialist, Roger D. McConchie who is representing both Weaver and Mann against Ball. Suzuki is reported as wanting skeptics like Ball “put in prison.
(Above from WUWT)   Dr Tim Ball's page is HERE.

Tim Ball talked this week with 2GB's Alan Jones (LISTEN) as part of Alan's series on the Galileo Movement.

Tim Ball explained how the whole hoax started. Tim talked about:
"....Maurice Strong setting up the IPCC.  He very deliberately did it.  He set up the United Nations Environment Program and then he worked through that with the World Meteorological Organisation and the IPCC was set up by them.  That meant that every government weather agency around the world was involved in the IPCC.  They appoint the scientists that they want to be on it and they also of course provide the funding and that has meant that the funding has only got to one side of the debate and Strong knew this.  But this is why he organized it that way through the WMO."
Ball then said there was an important point.  He served on commissions of enquiry and he thought they would be independent and politically free.  He continued:  
  The first commission of enquiry I served on set the terms of reference which limited what we could look at and in other words pre-determine the results.  When Maurice Strong set up the IPCC the first thing they did was set the definition of climate change that we will look at are only they changes caused by human activity.  They don’t look at natural variability and you can’t possibly determine what effect natural effects are having if you don’t know how much it varies naturally and then they wrote their computer models only looking at human causes so they pre-determined the results and of course as I say very few people are aware of how narrow their definition of climate change is. 

As to the science of AGW, Tim said
"The IPCC  created a false positive feedback which doesn’t exist in reality."
When asked about the 90,000 CO2 measurements recorded over the last 182 years and were some omitted, Ball replied:
Yes, not omitted but they manipulated them.  Starting in 1812 because we were starting to learn about the composition of the atmosphere scientists starting measuring CO2 in the atmosphere – they produced about 90,000 atmospheric measurements and these were known about but starting with a British chemist by the name of Calender he just selected a few in the lower register that is below 250 parts per million and then claimed that that was representative of the pre-industrial CO2 level.  A German by the name of Dach re-examined all of that data and showed that the actual pre-industrial level was 360 ppm which is not a lot different from today.  But you see what they have to show is that it was the industry that was causing the increase in co2 that manipulated the data.

When asked by Alan Jones Is it true that during the Great Depression CO2 levels continued to rise, Ball replied:
That’s correct.  But in fact in the 20th century the global temperature rose the most from 1900 to 1940 and CO2 levels from humans were minimal.  And then from after the war 1940 to 1975/1980 human production of CO2 increased dramatically but global temperatures went down during that period .  So at no point does the temperature record match with not only human CO2 but natural CO2.   

Alan asked is it true that the oceans contain 50% more CO2 than the atmosphere.

Absolutely.  The oceans are the main controller of CO2 and when we mentioned sources of CO2 because the oceans are by far the largest and again there we don’t know within 10 gigatonnes annually how much goes in and out and again that exceeds the amount they claim humans produce.  But the oceans- the amount they absorb depends on the temperature, and the colder the water the more they absorb; the warmer the water the more they release.  
Consensus is not a scientific fact.  As Einstein said - I could be a 100 facts right but I have only got to have one wrong and I am out of business.  There is an awful lot of scientists and a growing number disagree and the more scientists look at, the more they see what nonsense it is .... I also know because of law suits like I have that an awful lot of scientists are afraid to say anything or speak out....   So there is all kinds of intimidation and limitations on why scientists won’t speak out.  Plus of course their funding is in danger. 

Alan asked aren’t scientists meant to be skeptical and and put the onus of proof on those making the claims?

Well of course and that is what amused me when I was called a global warming sceptic.  Well, all scientists are sceptics.  Yes, the normal scientific method set up by Karl Popper is that you create a hypothesis based on certain assumptions and then other scientists test and challenge and try to disprove that hypothesis.  What’s happened in the case of global warming hypothesis is - and Richard Lindzen said this 20 years ago -  that the consensus was reached even before the research was done and then, of course, what they did was they marginalized anyone who dared to question so they were attacked like I was – oh you were paid by the oil companies and all these other things – so they very effectively thwarted the scientific method.  Now what that has done for them, Alan, means that if you say that the science is settled and it isn’t just Al Gore that said that there are some of the IPCC people who have said it – then you are on a treadmill.  Because if data comes up that shows you are wrong you are either going to cover it up or alter the data.  And that is what they have been doing.

Alan asked about the law suit against NIWA for doctoring the records to make warming appear much more than the reality:

Yes, what they did was they lowered the older temperatures and that of course increased the slope of the curve upwards to make it look like warming was going greater.  And there is a good example by the way that the government were ready to go to court - but at the last minute they backed off and said oh we will set up a commission of enquiry.  As soon as I heard that, I knew that the fix was in.  And who did they appoint but people from the Australian weather office who had been playing the same game.  One of the things that people don’t know is they not only they modify every weather record around the world but they have reduced the number of weather stations that they used to determine global temperatures and as Ross McKittrick said in a wonderful study that you can explain all of the supposed warming of the 1990s simply by showing how they reduced the number of stations they were using to achieve their record.

Alan asked isn’t the data skewed to produce higher temperatures?
Absolutely.  And that urban heat island effect- by the way- we have known about that – Professor (Chandler) at the University of London, was doing studies in 1952 of the heat island of London and so we have known of the distortion but the question is how much do you allow for that in the estimates of the real temperature that you are measuring.  And we know that they are not using that properly.  The other thing is that in all of the early records they were using basically only land based stations and we know that those were warmer than the ocean ones and as you correctly say we have got virtually no record for the oceans of the world, we have virtually got no records of the deserts of the world which are 19% of the land surface, we have virtually no record for the nature forest regions of the world, and the mountains regions of the world.  And we have no record for the arctic ocean yet they keep telling you it is getting warmer up there.  We have got no weather stations on the arctic ocean.  So everywhere you look none of this bears any investigation, Alan. 

Alan asked isn’t it true that the only place in the world where CO2 increases precede temperature increases is in the UN IPCC climate computer models?

That’s correct and of course that pre-determines the result.  But of course one of the things is that we know is that they now say they don’t make predictions.  After the first 2 reports they changed from making predictions to creating scenarios and they did that because their predictions were so wrong and even their scenarios which give a range of temperature increase from a low range to a high range even their lowest estimates of what the temperature would increase have been wrong.  The temperature has in fact been cooling since 2000 and of course that created that wonderful comment from those leaked emails from East Anglia.  It’s a travesty that we can’t account for this.  Well mother nature wasn’t playing along with their game.  They got caught with their pants down.
On being a sceptic and the Law suit against him:
".....the thing that has concerned me is that my family don’t suffer and in terms of my ability to earn money and get research funding - it’s hurt me tremendously, no question.  But I don’t regret it.  If you see the truth being trampled on you just gotta speak out and by the way, Alan, having said that, the one thing if you do that is to keep right in front of your forehead is that if someone shows me I am wrong I have got to be the first one out there to say I am wrong but nobody’s done it yet.

For More of Alan Jones go to TCS blog - the Galileo Movement HERE
Talking to Richard Lindzen, Malcolm Roberts and David Karoly.

For YouTube Videos of Tim Ball go HERE.

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

Reply the ABC:Drum refused to publish

Anthony Cox and David Stockwell wrote an article called: "Honest Jim: the science is not settled," which was
Honest Jim.
published on the ABC:DRUM.

The DRUM and Geoff Davies countered with: 

Climate science and James Hansen misrepresented.
When Cox and Stockwell submitted a reply to the ABC, the ABC refused them the right of reply.

At a time when the Gillard Green Coalition is trying to substantiate its despised carbon (dioxide) tax and has issued a rushed flawed report by Will Steffen (see previous) , the ABC, Man-made Global Warming propagandists (see here) probably though it unwise to publish the reply.

So, here is their reply:

Hansen Redux: service and disservice.


We thank Dr Davies for his response to our recent Drum article, as it provides an opportunity to discuss additional elements of the long, but interesting paper by Dr James Hansen.
There are many areas where we agree: the main being that most computer models of climate (1) have over-estimated the rate at which heat is being absorbed by the oceans, and (2) that the corresponding net human-made climate forcing is unrealistically large. Davies explains “All climate modellers know there are inaccuracies and poorly-constrained factors in the models.” Part of the reason for our original article was to inform the general reader, who is not a climate modeller, and is in general not accurately informed of the uncertainties, that these are very significant, pressing issues with the models. For instance from Hansen’s paper:
“A substantial effort is underway to isolate the causes of excessive vertical mixing in the GISS ocean model (J. Marshall, private communication)” [page 20]
“Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing [from aerosols] is untenable” [Abstract]
By Hansen’s own account, the magnitude of the error by the models is almost half the entire forcing generally attributable to warming from human emissions of CO2 [AGW].This is a new development. It is not 'business as usual' as Davies portrays.
The widening gap between models and reality is shown by comparing the projections of Hansen’s 1988 paper where he predicts the future temperature from 3 scenarios of CO2 emissions. These 3 temperature scenarios were: (A) a rate of CO2 concentration growth at about 1.5% per annum; (B) decreasing CO2 growth rates and (C), growth of CO2 ceases after 2000. While CO2 levels have increased at a rate even greater than in Hansen’s scenario A, which should have led to temperatures increasing at a rate greater than scenario A, temperature has actually increased at a rate LESS than offered by scenario C
Davies's main complaint is that our article does not adequately highlight Hansen's so-called “Faustian bargain”. This is that humanity has been getting away with CO2 emissions because aerosol cooling has been masking the CO2 heating. While we did mention it in the interests of balance, the problem is that the trade-off is a classic strategy of irrefutability of an auxiliary hypothesis, ala Popper, by correcting other errors such as ocean heat uptake and ocean warming with unmeasured aerosol cooling.
At this stage Hansen’s remedy of greater cooling from aerosols is only speculation; speculation that contradicts Hansen’s previous work which concluded some warming from aerosols. We wholeheartedly agree with Hansen on the need for direct empirical measurements of aerosols to diminish this major source of uncertainty. But this has not been done and in fact nearly all the forcings that Hansen relies on to support the worsening of AGW are, according to the IPCC’s 4th report, either unmeasured or very uncertain. Yet we are told by Davies that he and Hansen are certain of their effect, in conjunction with CO2, on the climate. How can that be?
This blurring of the distinction between fact and speculation is habitual in climate science and exasperates scientists from other fields.
Our article did not review well-known views, such as Hansen’s argument for CO2 climate sensitivity. It focused on the new information, which was the overestimation of heat absorption in the ocean by Hansen’s computer models. This is not in dispute. Davies concedes this. Like Hansen, Davies assumes that the estimation of the cooling effect of aerosols by the computer models must be less than the actual cooling by aerosols. Why? Because, he claims, the evidence for global warming by CO2 is NOT supplied by the models, but by other ‘real’ evidence.
In making the claim that the case for AGW does not rest on computer models and is therefore not vulnerable to the aerosol uncertainty, Davies unfortunately reverts to the churlish falsehood that:
This misconception is part of the disinformation put about by the professional deniers funded by the likes of ExxonMobil.
If this is the case, then why then have IPCC computer modelling studies been used to determine the contribution of CO2 to global warming in the last half-century and why has Hansen been at the forefront of that process?
As noted, in our original article we did not deal with the wider issue of AGW, but in respect of Davies’ distinction between the computer models and ‘real’ evidence we can say that the ‘real’ evidence shows even greater departure of models from reality, as the most recent forcing estimates of 0.23 Watts per meter squared is significantly below the 0.6 Watts per meter squared predicted by Hansen from the GISS model for the time period 1993 to 2003 (see here).
In addition we are not professional deniers funded by anyone.
We are, however, familiar with Hansen's palaeoclimatic ‘real’ evidence for 3C ‘fast’ climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling, as we are with a number of other findings of ‘fast’ climate sensitivity of less than 1.5C: Douglass, Shaviv, Spencer, Schwartz, Lindzen, Idso, McKitrick, and Scafetta to name a few. 
The main palaeoclimatic ‘real’ evidence put forward by Davies concerns the infamous CO2 lag where CO2 changes supposedly follow temperature changes. Using the same graph, which Davies does to illustrate this supposed lag of a few hundred years, Frank Lansner, also retired, shows that, in fact, there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature. The supposed lag of CO2 disappears when the graph is examined properly. The graph shows that temperature actually drops when CO2 is at its maximum levels and therefore maximum warming capacity. Davies like other people makes the mistake of only looking at the graph when both temperature and CO2 are increasing not when CO2 is increasing and temperature is DECREASING. This lack of a relationship between CO2 and temperature is also seen in the recent record with temperature going the opposite direction to CO2 from 1940 to 1976. Then, as now, an unmeasured human aerosol cooling effect is invoked. 
The remainder of Davies's article are obvious non sequiturs
He thinks the statement that “the world's most prominent expert on the use of computer models for understanding of the Earth's climate” implies “that Hansen is a great believer in the accuracy of computer models.”
He thinks the statement “free from the restraints of peer review” implies “that Hansen was engaging in a sly trick.”
It is not clear why, but Davies repeatedly draws attention to the draft status of Hansen's paper (which has since been published at the Cornell archive), and so creates the impression that it contains significant inaccuracies. We simply found it refreshing that uncertainties raised by climate sceptics over the years are beginning to be acknowledged by someone like Hansen – that sea level rise has decelerated from 3.1 to 2.3 mm/year, the importance of enhanced indirect solar influences proven in recent cosmic ray studies, that CO2 sinks are not becoming less efficient, the large uncertainty associated with aerosols, clouds, and of course, that the climate models are more uncertain than are usually portrayed – but fear these may fail to make the final version.
Once again, we ask the question, based on the poor performance of the models against observations in recent years: do we really have an adequate scientific case that demands a policy response? More generally if policies are implemented on the back of a one-sided presentation of the science, then it is those policies and science which do society a “disservice”, not us.
It is not as though Climate sceptics do not have much of a case, as Davies implies; he should read the views of around 80 prominent climate scientists, geophysicists and related hard scientists expressed in a letter to the US Congress 8th February 2011:
Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.
Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth's seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.
Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.
Dr Davies should rethink his position.

Climate Commission Science Report Key Messages

The first cheat is in the name of the committee: MULTI-PARTY CLIMATE CHANGE COMMITTEE.
Oh really, how many is Multi? Well, would you believe only two parties? That's right - according to this mob of government-bought "commissioners, Multi = two. Spread your arms a bit further, Professor Steffen.

So, who are these expert scientist - the bread in the above Gillard sandwich? Well, first you have Tim Flannery. Is he a climate expert? Well, figure it out for yourself. This man, who is sponsored by Panasonic, wrote a book called "The Weather Makers." In a recently published volume "The Weather Makers - Re-examined (link)," it is alleged that The Weather Makers is shown to contain
  • 23 misinterpretations, 
  • 28 contradictory statements,
  • 31 untraceable or suspect sources, 
  • 45 failures to reflect uncertainty, 
  • 66 over-simplifications or factual errors, 
  • 78 exaggerations and over a hundred unsupported dogmatic statements, many of them quite outlandish.
Note also that it was Professor Flannery who said that even if all carbon emissions stopped today, it would take 1000 years for the atmosphere's average temperatures to drop.Tim Flannery worships at the temple of GAIA, even though the originator of the GAIA theory, James Lovelock, has since reversed his thinking.

Dr David Evans (soon to tour with Lord Monckton) has pointed out some interesting items about Professor Flannery:

Tim Flannery made several bogus predictions about never ending drought and of various Australian cities running out of water, which encouraged those cities to buy unnecessary desalination plants. Now we find out Flannery was working for Siemens, and Siemens makes parts for desalination plants, and Siemens got fined $2 billion by the US and Europe for winning government contracts by bribery. Flannery says his work for Siemens was "voluntary". He does not ever have an undergraduate degree in science, but in English. So, obviously, the ABC and the ALP go to him for climate science rather than a real quantitative scientist who has not made wildly wrong predictions -- what does Flannery have to do to rule himself out? (What did Upton Sinclair say, about a man not seeing something if his job depended on not seeing it?)
Is the other Professor,  Professor Will Steffen, a climate scientist? To again quote David Evans:
No, he's a crystallographer (Chemistry) His papers are all about the effects of the IPCC's projected changes, not on understanding or modeling the climate. If the IPCC is wrong, all his papers and his position and his unit at the ANU are all worthless.
Professor Steffen was on radio with Steve Price and Andrew Bolt and couldn't answer a direct question.
Listen here ( about half way along).

The Report:
1. There is no doubt that the climate is changing. The evidence is overwhelming and clear.

OK so far. Climate has been changing since the beginning of time.

Global surface temperature is rising fast; the last decade was the hottest on record - See Ice Age Now here and TCS here.

3. Human activities – the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation – are triggering the changes we are witnessing in the global climate. This is an unproven, in fact falsified, hypothesis.

Professor Bob Carter is leading a team of scientists who will make an analysis and rebuttal of this report. He has already addressed most of the matters in articles he has written:
A Dozen Global Warming Slogans  and Global Warming - an essential reference.

Saturday, 21 May 2011

Lord Monckton, Jo Nova and Starvation
From Joanne Nova's blog:
Speaking of starvation, while nearly half a million people die from a lack of food each year, some 6.5% of the worlds grains, and 8% of the vegetable oils are now fed to cars instead of people. Arguably action against climate change is a net killer, and we’d save people by doing nothing at all to stop carbon dioxide emissions.
Also from Joanne's blog, the Skeptics Handbook is available for download, Carbon follows temperature by 800 years in the Vostok Ice Cores and posts by Dr David Evans

Joanne Nova is a freelance science presenter, a professional speaker, TV host, radio presenter, author and blogger. Over 200,000 copies of The Skeptics Handbook have been distributed in four countries and translated into 11 languages. Jo was a prize winning graduate of molecular biology and Associate Lecturer in Science Communication at the ANU.
Joanne Nova's blog can be found at:

Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, building the carbon accounting model that Australia uses to track carbon in its biosphere for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.

 Dr David Evans says: The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.........

Dr David Evans and  Joanne Nova will be joining Lord Christopher Monckton in his forthcoming tour of Australia. Tour details are now being finalised.

We are looking for sponsorship of this tour from citizens, both corporate and individuals, who are interested in a transparent debate on the science and a rational approach to Australia's future well being and prosperity. We believe all fair-minded citizens want a better future without having to sacrifice the progress we have made.

You can deposit funds into the following account:

Westpac Bank - Lord Monckton Tour Account
BANK BSB:  035612
Account:  253068

Projected Schedule: 
Tuesday 28 June   Speech for International Conference in Perth
Thursday 30 June  PM – Hancock Lecture
Wednesday 6 July  The Starlight Room at Wests New Lambton; start 7pm
Thursday 7 July     The Wesley Theatre, the Wesley Conference Centre; start 6.30pm
Friday 8 July          North Sydney Leagues Club auditorium; start 7pm
Saturday 9 July      AM - No Carbon Rally Speech Sydney 
Sunday 10 July      Day – BOAO Forum Perth
Monday 11 July     BOAO Forum Perth
Wednesday 13 July
    07:00-08:30      The Southport School Business Breakfast at Versace Hotel – Gold Coast
   19:00-21:00       Brisbane Broncos Leagues Club awaiting confirmation
Saturday 16 July
  15:00-17:00       Presentation at Noosa Town Hall
  19:00-21:00       repeat Presentation at Noosa Town Hall

Saturday Fun - Dartboard

Created by Les Ashbourne.

Thursday, 19 May 2011

The Weather Makers Re-examined

Tim Flannery’s best seller under the spotlight of climate change realism
D Weston Allen
  •  400 pages 
  • 100 plus illustrations 
  • 300 plus peer-reviewed references 
  •  well indexed
The Weather Makers Re-examined is the first comprehensive review and critique of
The Weather Makers – the 2005 best seller that propelled Tim Flannery to become the Australian of the Year (2007) and now the Panasonic Climate Change Commissioner for the Gillard Government.

Leading IPCC reviewer, Vincent Gray PhD., calls Dr. Allen’s Re-examinedthe most knowledgeable and comprehensive indictment of the global warming bandwagon.”  A former Director in the US Department of Energy, William Happer PhD., tells the author, “The people of the world should collectively thank you, and maybe they will some day.”

Dr. Allen puts every chapter of Tim’ Flannery’s thesis on global warming alarmism under the spotlight of the most up-to-date scientific realism - in climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, the reliability of the temperature records, sea levels, glaciers, the true state of the Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland, the Great Barrier Reef, extreme weather events, acidification of the oceans, oscillating Atlantic and Pacific currents and much more.

The Weather Makers is shown to contain
  • 23 misinterpretations, 
  • 28 contradictory statements,
  • 31 untraceable or suspect sources, 
  • 45 failures to reflect uncertainty, 
  • 66 over-simplifications or factual errors, 
  • 78 exaggerations and over a hundred unsupported dogmatic statements, many of them quite outlandish. (A brilliant Spreadsheet that documents all this available on request.)

Always a scholar and a gentleman, Wes Allen never uses ad hominem arguments, but treats Tim Flannery with courtesy and respect. His predilection for cautious understatement, however, makes for some humorous one-liners. For example, he says that after Flannery has diagnosed his beloved Gaia as suffering from a raging life-threatening fever, “he prescribes the equivalent of a homeopathic remedy.”

With CC Commissioner Flannery now leading the charge for a government carbon tax to mitigate runaway global warming, the timing for the publication reviewing the science of The Weather Makers Re-examined could not be better. There are few things more powerful than a quality book whose time has come. The Weather Makers Re-examined is such a book.

$39.60 posted free anywhere in Australia. Irenic Publications, 57 Duranbah Road, Duranbah NSW 2487.   Order directly from


It appears that not one of the scientists who have gone into bat for the government's program to stop Climate Change are willing to enter into discussion with Dr. Weston Allen.  He has sent a copy of his book The Weather Makers Re-examined to Tim Flannery without a word of response. He has sent a copy of his book to one of the scientists, Professort Kurt Lambeck, who has put his name to a document put our by the Australian Academy of Science in defence of what is regarded as Climate Change orthodoxy. Dr. Allen has received no reply from this scientist either.  In the view of these very authoritarian scientists, it appears they are insisting that their pronouncements are beyond argument or discussion. They support the steps being taken toward subjecting us all to a carbon dictatorship.

The points raised hereunder by Dr. Wes Allen are more or less a digest of some of the key points found in The Weather Makers Re-examined, a 400-page book that puts the theories and claims of Dr. Tim Flannery ( author of The Weather Makers) to the sword of the best peer-reviewed science.

Dr D Weston Allen

MBBS, FRACGP, Grad Dip Phys Med

(Address phone and email suppressed)


Professor Kurt Lambeck

Research School of Earth Sciences

The Australian National University

Canberra , ACT 0200, Australia

Dear Professor Lambeck

I would greatly value your opinion on my enclosed complimentary copy of The Weather Makers Reexamined, a comprehensive critique of Professor Tim Flannery’s well known book published in 2005.

I would particularly appreciate you critique of chapter 15 (relating to sea level rise) in which I quote you fairly extensively and borrow one of your illustrations. The impact of sea level rise on pacific islands is covered in chapter 32.

You will note that I do not call into question the fundamental science on global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions, but rather the many unwarranted catastrophic and alarming predictions found in The Weather Makers, countering them with sober scientific facts drawn mostly from peerreviewed literature. While I have attempted to be objective in my critique, there may well be some errors and biases in my work that need to be brought to my attention. Thus far the only criticism has been that I have missed some of Flannery’s errors.

I note that you have read and commented on Ian Plimer’s contrary book, Heaven & Earth. On ABC’s Lateline (27/04/2009), you said: “He has ignored a lot of information and he has twisted, I believe, a lot of information. There are a lot of references to various papers, some of mine included in that, but many of them are simply misquoted or misrepresented. . . . The science... It's sloppy. I think there's no other way, I would normally say go back and write it again.” You also told Robin Williams: 'Heaven and Earth is not a work of science, it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist'. Further, in reviewing his book on Ockham's Razor, you wrote: If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material but the critical analysis is missing. Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved.

Rewrite!. . .

To give his arguments a semblance of respectability the book is replete with references. But the choice is very selective. Plimer will quote, for example, a paper that appears to support his argument, but then he does not mention that the conclusions therein have been completely refuted in subsequent papers. Elsewhere, he refers to a specific question raised in published work but does not mention that this issue has subsequently been resolved, has been incorporated in subsequent analyses, and is no longer relevant. Or he simply misquotes the work or takes it out of context. An example of this is a reference to my own in the Mediterranean where he gives quite a misleading twist to what we actually concluded. Other examples can be identified in this section, and throughout the book. Together they point to either carelessness, to a lack of understanding of the underlying science, or to an attempt to see the world through tinted spectacles.

My review of The Weather Makers comes to similar conclusions, and I wonder why no one from the Australian Academy of Science has likewise critiqued it. Why has bad science slipped under the AAS radar? Is it perhaps because The Weather Makers is politically correct whereas Heaven and Earth is not?

I also note that you provided the foreword to The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers (SCC:Q&A), put out by the Australian Academy of Science in August last year. I was pleased to see that you emphasised the uncertainties involved in climate science and the assumptions and difficulties involved in the various scientific and economic models. I understand that scientists who see ‘potentially global and serious’ consequences of the science can become passionate advocates for action, and this can affect their objectivity. I note that a number of members of the ‘expert Working Group’ are passionate advocates. Funding sources can also influence objectivity, and I note that the AAS document was funded by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency with an inherent bias, its very existence being dependent on there being a potentially catastrophic future problem. I have the following concerns and questions about this AAS document:

Summary: That ‘Earth’s climate has changed’ is incontrovertible, but whether ‘greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause’ (p. 2) is still uncertain. Why was natural variability (discussed in #4 below) largely ignored? Since climate models significantly overestimated the very modest warming that has occurred so far this century, why does the SCC:Q&A give credence to model projections of 7:C? When correctly pointing out ‘the overall upward trend of average global temperature over the last century’, and when relating 21st century model projections to ‘pre-industrial temperatures’ (p.3), why was no mention made that Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age? Why give the impression that the ‘chance that it will be more severe’ is on par with the ‘chance that climate change will be less severe than the current estimates’?

1. What is climate change? When defining climate change as that persisting ‘for an extended period, typically decades or longer . . . usually 30 years or more’ and pointing out that El Niño oscillations last ‘only for up to a year or two’ (p. 4, Box 1), why not also point out that many ocean oscillations (PDO, IPO, AMO etc) also last for 20-30 years? Why not point out the strong correlation between these and changes in climate, frequency of El Niño/ La Niña events, hurricanes and cyclones? Although SCC:Q&A acknowledges that ‘some views are different’ from the positive feedback amplification theory presented on water vapour, why not mention equally important negative feedbacks from evaporation and cloud formation?

Why show no negative feedbacks at all in Figure 1.1? Why no mention, for example, of increased photosynthesis reducing atmospheric CO2 and increasing evapotranspiration?

What is ‘a significant fraction of CO2 emissions’ and where is the evidence that it ‘remains in the climate system for hundreds to thousands of years’? While the observed cooling of the stratosphere (p. 5) may be partly due to increased greenhouse gases, what about reduced solar UV radiation1 and ozone levels (mentioned on p. 11)? And can the fact that nights have warmed more than days also be at least partly due to the urban heat island effect (UHI)?

2. How has Earth’s climate changed in the distant past? While it is true that ‘several million years ago, global temperature was several degrees higher than today’ (p. 6), why not point out that that was also true of the Eemian about 120,000 years ago and of the Holocene Climatic Optimum just 7-8 thousand years ago? I agree that ‘Records are sparse in the Southern Hemisphere’ but not with the statement that ‘those available indicate little or no correlation with warming in the Northern Hemisphere during the Medieval Warm Period. Recent evidence shows a strong correlation.

3. How has climate changed in the recent past? Despite ‘extensive efforts to avoid or correct such problems’ (Box 3), has urban heat contamination been adequately removed from surface temperature records? In chapters 3 and 16 of my book I show that Professor Richard Lindzen is almost certainly correct in his explanation for the missing upper tropospheric ‘hot spot’ predicted by climate models. The problem lies not so much with the models or the observations of upper tropospheric temperature, but with the surface temperature records, particularly ‘over the past 50 years’ when warming ‘was nearly twice the rate of that for the past 100 years’. Even on the CRU/GISS/NCDC temperature record in figure 3.1, the 1970-2010 gradient is not much greater than the 1910-1945 increase. Had SCC:Q&A selected 1880 and 2008 as the end points, the temperature increase would have been less than 0.6:C – not ‘more than 0.7:C’. Figure 3.3,showing increasing record hot days and diminishing record cold days, reveals further such bias by going back only to 1960 (a cool interlude) – why not go back to 1900? And why not show the latest satellite temperature data, which still shows a little less warming than do the amalgamated surface records (Box 5)?

While ‘the rate of loss of ice from Greenland has risen since the 1990s’ (p. 9), could it have been even greater before satellite observations began? What about Gerdel’s 1946-56 observations3? What about the papers published last year in Nature Geoscience 4 5 showing that the earlier estimates using GRACE were not properly corrected for glacial isostatic adjustment, that the sea floor under Greenland is falling more rapidly than was first thought and conclusion “that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted." And what about the Wada et al (2010)6 calculations of groundwater extraction, which has more than doubled since 1960 to 734Km3 annually, which found that it might be contributing as much as 0.8mm annually to sea level?

How extensive is our understanding on all these aspects of climate science and how much uncertainty does SCC:Q&A really acknowledge?

4. Are human activities causing climate change? While it may be true that ‘atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide began to rise two to three hundred years ago, after changing relatively little since the end of the last Ice Age’ (p. 10), considerable smoothing occurs in ice cores (on which such statements are based) as air bubbles gradually seal over tens to thousands of years. 7 Studies of stomatal frequency in tree leaves buried in peat deposits indicate levels of over 330ppm for centuries during the early Holocene, rising as high as 348ppm 8 (equal to 1987), and up to 320ppm around 1000AD, 1300 and 1700.9

Why would an august academy of science say that CO2 is ‘making sea water more acidic’ (ibid) rather than slightly less alkaline?

SCC:Q&A downplays the role of the sun to ‘only about 10% of the global warming since 1750’ (Box 7). Scafetta and West (2006)10 found a strong correlation between Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past 400 years and three reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI), and estimated “. . . that the sun contributed as much as 45 percent to 50 percent of the 1900-2000 global warming and 25 percent to 30 percent of the 1980-2000 global warming.” ‘The sun may have grown slightly cooler since 1960’, but the solar magnetic flux did not, and CERN recently confirmed Svensmark’s studies on cloud formation.

11 Krivova and Solanki (2003) 12 found a strong correlation between cosmic ray flux and global temperature prior to 1985, and the recent reduction in sunspot activity and solar flux may partly explain the reduced rate of global warming this century.

While it may well be true, is there now sufficient data on submarine volcanic activity to categorically state that ‘the combined annual emissions from volcanoes on land and under the sea, averaged over several decades, are less than 1% of CO2 emissions in 2009’ (Box 8)?

5. How do we expect climate to evolve in the future? The statement that ‘Continued “business as usual” reliance on fossil fuels is expected to lead to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels by about 2050, and possibly a tripling by about 2100’ is based on faulty assumptions.13 14 The present fairly linear atmospheric CO2 trajectory is for well-below doubling over the entire century. Whereas SCC:Q&A projects ‘a long-term warming of global air temperature of around 3:C (within an uncertainty range of 2:C to 4.5:C) in response to a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere’, the IPCC AR4 states that “The transient climate response, based on observational constraints, is very likely larger than 1⁰C and very unlikely to be greater than 3.5⁰C at the time of atmospheric CO2 doubling.”

The argument that the warming would continue for a very long time after the point of doubling is contradicted by the statement that ‘If society were to shift rapidly away from using fossil fuels . . . warming later this century and beyond would be significantly reduced (see Figure 5.1).’

The document fails to point out that, since Australia’s contribution to global emissions is less than 1.5%, drastic unilateral reductions would make almost no difference to global temperature. Given that recent research has progressively lowered climate sensitivity towards 1:C or perhaps even less, to say that ‘This emission pathway . . . would be expected to produce a warming of around 4.5:C by 2100, but possibly as low as 3:C or as high as 7:C’ seems like unwarranted scaremongering.

6. What are the consequences of climate change? Why pick 1990, which was cooler than 1980, to reference a likely warming of half a degree by 2030 in Australia? When the global sea level has been increasing steadily at about 3mm/yr for several decades, why predict a rise of 15cm over the next two decades? Would not 6cm be more accurate? And why repeat the error that ‘oceans will become more acidic’ unless employing the scare tactics of propagandists? Predictions of extinctions, social unrest and dangerous tipping points and the depictions of floods, bushfires and coral bleaching are all designed to play on the emotions of the reader.

7. How do we deal with the uncertainty in the science? While acknowledging that ‘the exact amount of warming that will result from any particular trajectory for future greenhouse gas emissions cannot be projected precisely’, SCC:Q&A leaves the impression that the science is far more settled than it really is. The document fails, not so much in what it states as in what it omits. My advice to the Australian Academy of Science is the same as yours to Ian Plimer – rewrite! The Academy and science itself is in danger of falling into disrepute if climate science is not taken more seriously.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Wes Allen

1 Voiland, A. 2010: SOURCE’s solar spectral surprise. NASA


2 Broxton W. Birda,1,2, Mark B. Abbotta, Mathias Vuilleb, Donald T. Rodbellc, Nathan D. Stansella,1, and

Michael F. Rosenmeiera 2011: A 2,300-year-long annually resolved record of the South American summer

monsoon from the Peruvian Andes.

3 Gerdel, R. W. 1961: A climatological study of the Greenland icde sheet. Folia Geographia Danica, IX.

4 Wu, X. Heflin, M. B., Schotman, H., Vermeersen, B.L.A., Dong, D., Gross, D., Ivins, E.R., Moore, A.W. and

Owen, S.E. 2010: Simultaneous estimation of global present-day water transport and glacial isostatic

adjustment. Nature Geoscience, 3 (9): 642 DOI: 10.1038/ngeo938

5 Bromwich, D.H., and Nicolas. J.P. 2010: Sea-level rise: Ice-sheet uncertainty. Nature Geoscience, 3 (9): 596

DOI: 10.1038/ngeo946

6 Wada, Y., van Beek, L.P.H., van Kempen, C.M., Reckman, J.W.T.M., Vasak, S., and Bierkens, M.F.P. 2010:

Global depletion of groundwater resources, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2010GL044571, in



7 Barnola, J.-M., P. Pimienta, D. Raynaud, and Korotkevich, Y.S.. 1991: CO2-climate relationship as deduced

from the Vostok ice core: A re-examination based on new measurements and on a re-evaluation of the air

dating. Tellus 43(B):83- 90.

8 Wagner, F. Et al 1999: Century-scale shifts in early Holocene atmospheric CO2 concentration. Science 284:


9 Kouwenberg, L. Wagner, R., Kürschner, W., and Visscher, H. 2005: Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the

last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. Geology, 33:33-

36. DOI: 10.1130/G20941.1

10 Scafetta, N. And West, B. 2006: Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface

warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 33: L17718 doi: 1029/2006GL02714.

11 Svensmark, H., 2007: Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges. Astronomy and Geophysics. 48,12: 18-1.24

12 Krivova, N. A. and Solanki, S. K. 2003: Solar total and spectral irradiance: Modelling and a possible impact on

climate. Proc ISCS 2003 Symposium.

13 Knorr, W. 2009: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Geophysical Research

Letters, Vol. 36,L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613

14 Gurney, K.R. and Eckels, W.J. 2011: Regional trends in terrestrial carbon exchange and their seasonal

signatures. Tellus 63B: 328-339. 

Wednesday, 18 May 2011


by Vincent Gray
Dr VINCENT GRAY is a research scientist with a wide experience in five countries (UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China), in laboratories studying petroleum, plastics, coal, timber, building, and forensic science. He has published widely and for the past 12 years he has specialised in climate science. He is an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
MAY 18th 2011

In Newsletters Nos 263 264 and 265 I provided a summary of the work of some of  the main pioneers of the "Greenhouse Effect", Fourier, De Saussure, and Arrhenius, when compared with the modern promoters Trenberth et al. I showed that all of these writers failed to describe the true function of a greenhouse or to apply it to the behaviour of our climate. It is possible to have some sympathy with people who were active before much of currently accepted Physics was established, but there is no excuse for the present day deficiencies.

Since these were written I have found the following very useful material on the web which have supplemented and modified my opinions

de Saussure's Hot Box
Timothy Casey The Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain
Hans Erren. Arrhenius was wrong
Hans Erren  Langley Revisited

Casey  is outstanding as he gives a whole series of essays with full scientific references. He gives the complete translation by Burgess (1837) into English of the 1924 and 1827 Fourier papers and comments on both the 1824 and 1827 papers.  He also gives a full text and commentary of Tyndall's work. His comments on the misunderstandings are brilliant.

Erren tackles Langley and Arrhenius;  

It looks as if I will have to split my comments up into instalments. This one deals with Fourier

I have misjudged Fourier, and I am not alone. Casey has persuaded me that he did actually provide a correct explanation of the behaviour of a greenhouse, and its application to the climate.However, he lived in an age where many concepts in physics had not yet been properly formulated so he used language to describe his views which has been universally misinterpreted.
Fourier believed that space was filled with aether, which had a common temperature resulting from the radiation coming from all the stars  everywhere in the universe. On its own, the earth would have the same temperature of the aether, which he reckoned was just below that of the coldest places on earth, the he had to explain where the extra heat of the earth came from.

He considered that there was no net heat from the sun ( Fourier 1824 page 165)

"The solar heat has accumulated in the interior of the globe, the state of which has become unchangeable. That which penetrates in the equatorial regions is exactly balanced by that which escapes at the parts around the poles. Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself."

So he considered that the extra heat came from "what is peculiar to itself", the residual heat of the earth which was still cooling from its original formation.

When he added this in it was not enough, so he had to find some extra heat

Fourier 1824 page 154 reads

"In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described. The heat, coming in the state of light to the solid earth, would lose all at once, and almost entirely, its power of passing through transparent solids: it would accumulate in the lower strata of the atmosphere, which would thus acquire very high temperatures. We should observe at the same time a diminution of the degree of acquired heat,"
This is a description of convection, which, he admits, is a cooling of the heated earth. so it is not an additional source of heat.  He seems to think it has the power of "accumulating" to "acquire very high temperatures". 
This is nonsense. .

He was led to this theory from the experiments of his friend de Saussure with his solar heated "hot box", which was a miniature greenhouse

(Fourier 1824 page 154)

"The theory of the instrument is easily understood. It is sufficient to remark, 1st, that the acquired heat is concentrated, because it is not dissipated immediately by renewing the air; 2nd, that the heat of the sun, has properties different from those of heat without light. The rays of that body are transmitted in considerable quantity through the glass plates into all the intervals, even to the bottom of the vessel. They heat the air and the partitions which contain it. Their heat thus communicated ceases to be luminous, and preserves only the properties of non-luminous radiating heat. In this state it cannot pass through the plates of glass covering the vessel. It is accumulated more and more in the interval which is surrounded by substances of small conducting power, and the temperature rises till the heat flowing in, shall exactly equal that which is dissipated".

Again he talks of heat being "accumulated" by convection, that is by cooling the earth. The main reason the hot box and the greenhouse are warm is that the air that was heated by convection by day keeps the cooling earth warm by night. Nobody seems to realise this.

Fourier's statements have been interpreted by many (including myself, the above: Hot Box website, Arrhenius, and Tyndall) to mean that Fourier thought that infra red rays are trapped by glass, explaining the action of a greenhouse. Fourier says something different, that the heat  "is concentrated", and"ceases to be luminous"  and "has properties different from those of heat without light."  He is struggling to say it becomes ordinary heat which can be transmitted by his pet mechanism, conduction, and so induce convection, a concept which hardly existed at the time

It is amazing that so many people have accepted the idea that glass traps infrared, since it can be so easily shown to be wrong. I possess a  wood burning stove with a glass front where it is  immediately obvious that the infrared rays from the burning fuel undoubtedly pass through the glass.

But Fourier in 1824, despite his understandable limitations, came very close to the correct theory of the action of a greenhouse and of the earth's climate, when everybody else since then, .Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callandar Trenberth and everybody connected with the IPCC,  have failed altogether to understand either of them.


Vincent Gray

"To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact"    - Charles Darwin.

Tuesday, 17 May 2011

The Galileo Movement, Alan Jones and Richard Lindzen

Case Smit (above) John Smeed (below)
Australia has many bodies trying to expose the AGW hoax; trying to get the real "science" to the people.
There is, of course, us i.e. The Climate Sceptics Party, and the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party; there is Viv Forbes' Carbon Sense Coalition; Ray Evans and the Lavoisier Group; the Australian Environment Foundation; among others and then there are the bloggers who are contributing to the enlightenment of the science including Joanne Nova; Malcolm Roberts; Jennifer Marohasy; Australian Climate Madness
and the few marvelous columnists in the MSM who look outside the circle, who investigate instead of republishing party handouts -

Foremost is Andrew Bolt and then (in alphabetical order) Akerman (at sea), Albrechtsen, Blair, Devine etc and the amazing cartoonist Zeg.

So, do we need another body?

Introducing the Galileo Movement. The Galileo movement has been formed by two amazing men. This daring pair of retired engineers risked their own money to promote the last Australian tour for Lord Christopher Monckton.

(We are trying to raise money for another tour by Christopher (See Lord Monckton Tour)

Now, they have set up The Galileo Movement.

Our objective is to expose misrepresentations pushing a 'price on carbon dioxide'.

We care about freedom, security, the environment, humanity and our future.

 Alan Jones launched the Galilieo movement on his 2GB Breakfast show by talking to the foremost "climate" scientist - Richard Lindzen.  HERE.
Alan then talked to the movement's project director, Malcolm Roberts. HERE. 
To get the other side, Alan spoke to David Karoly HERE.
Next Alan Spoke to Dr Tim Ball - see post HERE

Four Letter words beginning with "C" - Care, core and Cure

Malcolm Roberts discusses "C" words - Climate Change and the UN IPCC nee UNEP
Malcolm is the project director for the recently formed Galileo Movement. Malcolm talked to 2GB's Alan Jones about the Galileo Movement here.

Sunday, 15 May 2011

Prue McSween

Prue McSween debates man-made Global Warming and the Carbon Dioxide Tax based on a lie with three for the Alarmist side. Thanks to cartoonist Zeg - Here are Zeg's words:-

Indeed and the beautiful and eloquent Prue MacSween spells it out as it is to the dismay and disgust of the Useful Idiots that shares the screen with on this weekends Sunrise. Two of the most unfunniest and untalented clowns on the box, Andrew O'Keefe and Tim Ross, look like the fools they are as they just cannot do anything but blurt out the old Al Gore and Prof. Flim Flammery lines that we are all going to drown and the whole world is acting fast on this Carbon Cap and Trade bulltish.
You see the problem is for these fools, that so many of them in the Lame Stream Media have with this issue now, is that they all ran to this Global Warming Scam so piously and standing united on their so called moral high ground, attached their colours to this mast of Global Deceit. Ofcourse some already know that they made a mistake. Like most of these self deluded left wing twitters, white anters and naval gazing hand wringers, they cannot admit that they were ever wrong and are either silent hiding in the debate shadows now, hoping that nobody remembers what they proclaimed to be the greatest moral challenge of our time and that we will just let their participation in this massive Ponzi Scheme of the Globalists go unrecorded and unnoticed or they will continue to fall own their swords of denial and just proclaim that the end is coming and we will all be sorry, until the day they die.
I for one have an extensive memory and physical list of all of the public supporters of Anthropological Climate Change and if it takes my entire life I will continue to expose these fools and liars for just what they are and have already done........ mark my words because that is a future . event that will happen! Watch this clip, it's funny to watch these knuckleheads squirm in the face of truth and logic.

Saturday, 14 May 2011

The Global Warming Doctrine is Not a Science

Vaclav Klaus and Co2 bubbling beer
Czech President Vaclav Kraus was an invited speaker to the Repeal the Climate Act conference near Cambridge 2011 Extracts from his address:

I will talk about the Global Warming Doctrine (GWD) because  this doctrine, not global warming itself, is the issue of the day and the real danger we face. This set of beliefs is an ideology, if not a religion, which lives more or less independently on the science of climatology. Climate and temperature are used or very often misused in an ideological conflict about human society. It is frustrating that the politicians, the media and the public, misled by the very aggressive propaganda organized by the GWD exponents and all their fellow travelers, do not see this. I hope today’s conference will be a help in this respect.

The politicians – after having lost all other ideologies – welcomed the arrival of this new one. They hope that the global warming card is an easy game to play, at least in the short or medium run. The problem is that they do not take into consideration any long-term consequences of measures proposed by the GWD.

Nils-Axel Morner (sea level expert)- The IPCC is wrong!

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner - Sea level specialist - was an invited speaker to the Repeal the Climate Act conference near Cambridge 2011

"Everything the IPCC is saying about sea-levels is wrong! Sea is not rising."

See also: Fake Sea Level Rise approved by NASA in Climate Fraud - here


The NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group is based at the University of Colorado. It made the announcement last week that it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series.
UPDATE from Heartland's James M Taylor :


Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as alarmist computer models predict, the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a scientifically unjustified 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series.

Human civilization readily adapted to the seven inches of sea-level rise that occurred during the twentieth century. Alarmists, however, claim global warming will cause sea level to rise much more rapidly during the coming century. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gives a mean estimate of 15 inches of sea-level rise during the twenty-first century. High-profile alarmists often predict three feet. Some even predict 20 feet.

Satellite measurements show global sea level has risen merely 0.83 inches during the first decade of the twenty-first century (a pace of eight inches for the century) and has barely risen at all since 2006. This puts alarmists in the embarrassing position of defending predictions that are not coming true in the real world.

The University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is coming to their rescue. The NASA-funded group claims glacial melt is removing weight that had been pressing down on land masses, which in turn is causing land mass to rise. This welcome news mitigates sea-level rise from melting glacial ice and shows another of the Earth’s remarkable self-adjusting processes.

However, it is very inconvenient for alarmist sea-level predictions. Therefore, instead of reporting the amount by which sea level is rising in the real world, the Sea Level Research Group has begun adding 0.3 millimeters per year of fictitious sea-level rise to actual sea levels.

A link to a good discussion of the “Sea Levelgate” scandal appears below, along with links to other important climate news stories of the week.

-- James M. Taylor

Climate Scare is over - Roger Helmer MEP

Climate Change is entirely natural; the idea that by changing our energy policy we can change the climate is just nonsense...

See comment by  NikfromNYC - Here are his links
Tide gauges refute alarmism:
So do thermometers:
So does the global average:
So do dozens of temperature reconstructions, e.g.:
So do astronauts:
So do serious left wing intellectuals:
But at least psychopaths support it: