Wednesday, 9 November 2011


NOVEMBER  9th 2011


by Vincent Gray

Several issues have arrived so I will try to fit them all into one Newsletter


Donna is a Canadian Journalist, feminist and photographer. She runs a website and a blog "No Frakking Consensus".  She has published The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert as a "Kindle" document by for a very modest price. They supply software to read it on a computer plus bonuses of Pride and Prejudice, Treasure Island, Aesop's Fables and the Oxford Dictionary. Donna's book is a shocker. She has analyzed the last IPCC Report and its history to show that they routinely lie.

For example:

There are repeated claims that they only consider peer-reviewed papers and this claim is used to reject papers that are not. She organised a survey amongst her contacts who found that about 39% of the papers in the 2007 Report were not peer reviewed.

The scientists are claimed to be "top experts" whereas there are numerous examples where established experts have been contradicted, rejected , or resigned and "Lead  Authors" are students,  only recent PhDs, or "Modelists" without practical experimental experience.

Approved papers may be used before publication, inserted after deadlines  so the reviewers never see them, or they are written  to order to answer criticism or justify unsupported opinions

Many Lead Authors and "Coordinating Lead Authors" are prominent members or associates of "activist" organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife fund. They even participate in publications of such organizations.

I may say that I am not at all surprised. I decided to concentrate on the WGI (Science) section, where it is bad enough. The other volumes WGII (Impact) and WGIII (Mitigation) are so openly politically prejudiced that I could not stand anything they say.


Finance for "Research"  is  routinely available just before the next IPCC Report, or meeting of the FCCC, in order to "prove" that the more controversial pronouncements of the IPCC are correct. The temperature record is in big trouble at present as even the heavily biased "Temperature anomaly" record has shown no rise in 13 years, and the UK Met Office is in the doghouse for forecasting warm winters for several years of unprecedented cold.

As the Durban meeting of the FCCC at the end of this month faces disaster, proof  that temperature was rising became urgent and donors were sort on the basis of the most marketable acronym to describe the results. You could hardly think of a  better one than BEST , so the Berkeley  Earth Temperature Study was born. Since this study included two alleged "sceptics" (no longer said to be "deniers") it was bound to be objective. Richard A Muller , the leader of the study had actually criticized the "Hockey Stick" fraud and been squashed by Michael Mann himself. Judith Curry had secured the breakthrough if a full page photograph in "Scientific American" where no sceptic has otherwise been allowed  before or since.                                            

There  was however one snag. Despite the fast track automatic peer review system available only to warmists it turned out to be impossible to publish the results in a Journal in time for  the COP17 meeting of the FCCC in Durban at the end of November, so the conclusions had to be announced prematurely to the Press without the backup material necessary to find out whether it can be substantiated.  However the publicity secured, together with the catchy acronym will doubtless be paraded at Durban as support for yet more regulation  of greenhouse gases.

The study claims that more rigorous checking of the "data" has obtained the same answer as the original studies by Hadley and GISS. There is no influence of urban heating, despite the overwhelming evidence of Anthony Watts and his audit. They have even produced yet another version of the "Climategate" "Hide the Decline"  with a graph (attached) by failing to show the recent absence of a rise

They claim to have gathered together all the original data after we were told that much of it was lost, or, according to Climategate, faked. They have not tried to find if taking an average of maximum and minimum introduces a bias, They assume that stations outside the USA that have not been audited and "rural" stations, do not have an urban effects. They assume that the changes in samples, locations and measurement technique have no effect, and worst of all, having carried out all this analysis of original observations, they have not attempted to "estimate" the accuracy of their individual annual points.

On top of all this. maybe there is some warming after all. There could be fluctuations longer than 200 years. There is the sun and the ocean oscillations and human efforts to reduce cooling by convection and evaporation. Why should carbon dioxide be involved?

They probably targeted Judith Curry as somebody who is comparatively young, new to the field, and easily manipulated. It is to her credit that this has been unsuccessful, and her blog "Climate Etc." is already one of the BEST sources of reliable information.


The Kyoto Protocol expires the end of next year. Three countries. Russia, Canada and Japan have stated they will not join a sequel. Emissions from Kyoto countries are falling and those from non-Kyoto countries have risen. Increased emissions from China last year alone equalled Canada's total. Kyoto emissions are now only 16% of the total and falling, so even renewing Kyoto is a losing game. It would take several years before a new one could be ratified so there would be a gap with commercial uncertainty. The coming COP17 meeting of FCCC in Durban has the impossible task of some sort of deal with developing countries, as well as the unlikely new Kyoto. Some developing countries may respond, but they would not sign anything unless there is a prior binding comprehensive agreement by the Kyoto countries. Mission impossible.


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"

Back to the Dark Ages (3)

A Dark Day in Australia

In my corner of the world it's the 8th of November, 2011. On this date across the ocean in Australia something terrible happened (it's already November 9th there now).

A minority government led by Julia Gillard passed 18 pieces of legislation that, collectively, ushered in a brand new, nationwide carbon tax. This is the same Gillard who, on the eve of a national election in 2010 made a clear, unequivocal statement:
I rule out a carbon tax. [backup link here]
According to the Sydney Morning Herald  two weeks ago, a public opinion poll found that 2 out of 3 Australians were opposed to the carbon tax (59% versus 32%). Yet in a blog post Al Gore now says the passing of this legislation means that:
the voice of the people of Australia has rung out loud and clear. [backup link here]
Reasonable people can disagree about many things when it comes to climate change. But it is not OK to rule out a measure just prior to an election and to then ram it through afterward - especially when you're perfectly aware that two out of three of the citizens you're supposed to serving oppose this measure.

Nor is it OK for Al Gore to spin this as a victory for the people of Australia. What a contemptible thing for him to say.

First, the Australian public was lied to. Then its views were ignored. Whether we are climate activists or climate skeptics surely we can agree that this isn't how democratic government is supposed to work.

Donna Laframboise is the author of a new book exposing the IPCC called The Delinquent Teenager (see HERE and HERE) Donna is from Toronto, Canada. See also Donna interviewed about her book HERE. 
To buy Donna book as a paper back or in PDF form see her blog No Frakking Consensus.