Wednesday, 4 May 2011

Scientists for Sale claims Garth Paltridge.

In an article entitled A Less-Than-Noble Consensus in The Australian Financial Review, Garth Paltridge poured a bucket on the so-called Scientific Consensus.

Garth is a retired atmospheric physicist and has worked as a Senior Research Scientist for the Radio and Space Research Station, Buckinghamshire, England, a Research Scientist and later Chief Research Scientist at the CSIRO and as a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation in Geneva where he was involved in the early development of the World Climate Program. As well as many peer-reviewed papers, his most recent work is
The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming

 His "Less-than-Noble" Opinion piece begins:

We hear that Julia Gillard is happy to have the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Academy of Science on her side while making her arguments for a carbon tax.   Well of course she is.  She and her predecessors bought them.  And bought them good.  Over the last couple of years her Department of Climate Change (the DCC) gave them 27 million dollars in the form of research grants.   That pays a fair swag of the salaries of the CSIRO and Bureau climate scientists who make up the majority of all employed climate scientists in Australia.
He mentions that University climate  researchers also benefit from the Government's largesse and that they get their money fairly easily  from the DCC whereas normal University research funds which come mainly from the Australian Research Council are not as easily obtained. 

The average climate scientist is extremely reluctant to go against the tide of official opinion set by the research activists of his field, whatever might be his private thoughts on the matter.  Loyalty to colleagues gets in the way, and perhaps also the seductive attraction of a ‘noble cause’.  With those sorts of justification, it is much easier for an idealistic scientist to be mindful of the fact that, when Julia buys people, they have to stay bought if they want to continue in the game.
The sting is in the tail of Garth's comments:
Would ‘big-oil’ funded research be any less reliable than this?

The Oldest Thermometer Record In existence - NO WARMING?

This set of graphs is from Hadley's Met Office. (See comment below) As the graph states,
"Overwhelming Evidence supports AGW but the oldest Thermometer Records Do Not!"
The oldest thermometer records over multiple centuries has NOT been adjusted for urban heat islands. It shows less than a degree of warming over centuries.

Hadcet data can be found at
Attached graph can be found at

Greens and Greenhouses

ENVIRONMENTAL VIEWS                            MAY 2, 2011


Churchville, VA—In the April 21st issue of the far-left New Republic, associate editor Bradford Plumer asked his readers whether the Greens’ climate strategy had been a “total flop.” He said the Greens had helped elect Barack Obama and a filibuster-proof majority in both Houses of Congress, and approved Obama’s Cabinet and “czars.” The President was expected to roll over the climate deniers.

“Instead,” says Plumer, “the climate push was . . . a total flop. By late 2010, the main cap-and-trade bill had fizzled out in the Senate; not a single Republican would agree to vote for it. Greens ended up winning zilch from Congress, not even minor legislation to boost renewable electricity or energy efficiency. Worse, after the 2010 midterms, the House GOP became overrun with climate deniers, while voters turned apathetic about global warming.”

Plumer wants to know who or what to blame. Was it strategy? Money? A failure of Presidential will? None of the above. The Greens and Obama are failing on emission controls for the simplest of reasons. The earth stopped warming. 

James Hansen told the Senate in 1988 that the earth would thenceforth do nothing but get rapidly warmer, dictated by rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.  For a time, Hansen’s predictions seemed to be accurate—but then after 1998 the warming trend stopped. CO2 concentrations continued to rise, but the temperatures didn’t. The public began to wonder if the previous warming-with-CO2 had been a coincidence.

Then came 2007, and a sharp drop in global temperatures! The computer models’ predictions had failed. The mainstream media kept mostly silent about this unnerving development, but the blogs and talk radio didn’t. This was itself a key change in the public persuasion machinery, which had previously been unanimous in its promotion of man-made warming.

The lack of public panic on temperatures has been supported by the satellites, arguably the best source of global temperature information ever devised. The alarmists kept shouting “record high averages” but the satellites have revealed only a modest increase since 1979, and no recent upward temperature trend.

The skeptics also note that the thermometer record has recently trended both upward and downward—in 30-year spurts. Those spurts now appear linked to a 60-year cycle in the Pacific. In 2008, NASA said its satellites confirmed the Pacific moving into a cool phase, which is likely to last 25 years.  The sunspot index has just been through an ultra-long minimum, which also suggests colder temperatures. Is this another climate step-change?

Climate legislation now hinges on the temperatures over the next three years or so. A cooling trend will endorse the solar cause of warming. A resumption of warming will re-endorse the greenhouse theory.

But the public isn’t waiting. They’ve already “gone apathetic,” to quote Plumer. Concern about global warming has dropped 12 percent in America since 2001, according to a March Gallup poll. We’ve had a series of obviously colder, snow-filled winters. Several of the IPCC scare stories have been proven wrong. The fear of man-made warming has dropped below critical levels. 

Prediction: Global warming is a dead issue unless the planet can be persuaded to start warming again, quickly. Don’t blame the President or the eco-ad campaign. Blame the thermometers. 

Dennis T. Avery, a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., is an environmental economist. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years. Readers may write to him at PO Box 202 Churchville, VA 2442; email to Visit our website at www.

Tornadoes and Truth Twisters

A fresh report Today of another tornado hitting New Zealand's North Island (Here) will have all the doomsaying Global Warming Alarmists coming out of the woodwork.  Let's examine some aspects of tornadoes......

Dr Roy Spencer says:
"If there is one weather phenomenon global warming theory does NOT predict more of, it would be severe thunderstorms and tornadoes.
Tornadic thunderstorms do not require tropical-type warmth. In fact, tornadoes are almost unheard of in the tropics, despite frequent thunderstorm activity."
Meanwhile, what do the Alarmist/Warmists say?

Kevin (We can't account for the lack of Warming) Trenberth:
It is irresponsible not to mention climate change.The environment in which all of these storms and the tornadoes are occurring has changed from human influences (global warming).
Michael (eliminate the MWP) Mann:
Climate change is present in every single meteorological event, in that these events are occurring within a baseline atmospheric environment that has shifted in favor of more intense weather events.
Meanwhile Think Progress  has instead chosen to adopt the Pat Robertson model and claim Divine Justice for those redneck Republican climate change deniers in the south. The congressional delegations of Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists and from Gaia.

Tom Nelson recorded an MSM media inconsistency when he reports that

Newsweek blamed cooling for tornadoes in the 1970s; now they blame warming for tornadoes: Inevitably the devastating tornadoes that killed more than 300 people in the US prompted Newsweek to ask: "Is (man-made) global warming responsible for wild weather?" The answer, it found, is “yes”.

Another Newsweek article cited “the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded”, killing “more than 300 people”, as among “the ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically”. But that article was published on April 28, 1975, when Newsweek listed the US tornado disaster of 1974  as one of the harbingers of GLOBAL COOLING heralding the approach of a new ice age.

So do scientists agree with Professional Alarmists like Trenberth and Mann?

New Scientist says:
But according to researchers, a confluence of seasonal oscillations in weather patterns, rather than climate change, is to blame. And growing populations mean that grim casualty figures from such events may become the norm.
"I don't think there's any way of proving climate change is responsible for the weather patterns this week and week before," says meteorologist Howard Bluestein, of the University of Oklahoma in Norman.

AFP reports: Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University said it would be "a terrible mistake" to relate the up-tick to climate change.

Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), also dismissed Thursday climate change as a factor in the deadly tornadoes: "Actually what we're seeing is springtime," he said.
"Many people think of Oklahoma as 'Tornado Alley' and forget that the southeast United States actually has a history of longer and more powerful tornadoes that stay on the ground longer."

Imy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: "We knew it was going to be a big tornado year," he said. But the key to that tip-off was unrelated to climate change: "It is related to the natural fluctuations of the planet."

Also from NOAA:

NOAA Scientist Rejects Global Warming Link to Tornadoes

By James Rosen    Published April 28, 2011

A top official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rejected claims by environmental activists that the outbreak of tornadoes ravaging the American South is related to climate change brought on by global warming.
Greg Carbin, the warning coordination meteorologist at NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma, said warming trends do create more of the fuel that tornadoes require, such as moisture, but that they also deprive tornadoes of another essential ingredient: wind shear.