Sunday, 8 December 2013

Reality vs Virtual Reality

Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography at California State University: - What is the true nature of the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change Climate Disruption Global Weirding? Is it scientific? 

Or is it essentially political? 

Joining us to affirm the latter, and to express his concerns about current geo-engineering programmes, is Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography at California State University, Stanislaus, and long-time researcher in Quaternary Paleoclimatology.

Website: The Mind Renewed


Interview Notes:

Published on Jun 25, 2013

Warming is good, Carbon Dioxide is good, The Great Global Warming Swindle,  Tim Ball, Lies, Grant Money,

No Correlation between extreme weather events and climate change

December 8, 2013: ICSC Science Advisory Board member Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former Environment Canada Research Scientist, explains to Ezra Levant of "The Source" that recent extreme weather is nothing unusual and undoubtedly due to natural cycles.

Broadcast across Canada on The Source, with Ezra Levant on Sun Media Television.
Dr. Khandekar explains the science that shows there is no correlation between extreme weather events and climate change.
Click here to read Dr. Khandekar's report "The Global Warming-Extreme Weather Link", published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, London, U.K.

The Ocean Thermometer

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” by Viv Forbes and Helpers. 
Please pass on. We rely on supporters to spread the word.

The Carbon Sense Coalition  

10 December 2013


A print friendly pdf of this newsletter can be found at:

The Ocean Thermometer reveals
Global Warming Lies

The UN IPCC and others with a vested interest in the global warming scare have not bothered to check what sea level evidence says about global temperature changes.

Sea levels are very sensitive to temperature changes, and the oceanic indicators are currently reading “steady”.

So are all other thermometers.

Apart from bubbles of heat surrounding big cities, the thermometers and satellites of the world have not shown a warming trend for 17 years. This is in spite of some inspired fiddling with the records by those whose jobs, research grants and reputations depend on their ability to generate alarming forecasts of destructive global warming.

To explain this absence of warming on Earth’s surface, the warmists now claim that “the missing heat is hiding in the deep oceans”.

This sounds like a water-tight alibi, hard to disprove because of our inability to measure “average ocean temperature” directly.

However, the ocean itself is a huge thermometer – all we have to do is to read the gauges.

Most liquids expand when heated, and this property is used in traditional thermometers. They have a glass reservoir filled with liquid (usually mercury) and a graduated scale to measure any thermal expansion of that liquid.

Oceans have the essentials of a global thermometer – the huge ocean basins are the reservoir, sea water acts like the mercury, and tide gauges on the shore-line (or satellites) measure changes in sea water volume.

Two factors, both dependent on global temperature, are the main causes of any general rise in sea levels – how much ice has melted from land-based ice sheets like Greenland and Antarctica; and the expansion of sea water volume as ocean temperature rises.

Therefore changes in average sea levels are sensitive and accurate indicators of changes in average global temperature.

There are of course some locations where tectonic movements mean that the land is rising or falling relative to the sea, but these areas are easily identified and should be ignored in determining actual changes in sea levels.

Historically, sea levels (and global temperatures) rose steeply as the great ice sheets and glaciers melted as Earth emerged from the last ice age. Sea levels rose by 130 metres in just 10,000 years but they have been relatively stable for the last 7,000 years.

The sea level thermometer was higher than today during the Roman Warm Era, and lower than today when the Little Ice Age ended about 160 years ago. There has been no unusual spurt in recent years, proving conclusively that there is no significant extra heat going into the deep oceans, and no global warming hiding there.

If you would like to read more on sea levels and global temperature:

Sea levels and temperature changes over the centuries:

Historical evidence of changing sea levels as global temperatures changed:

Sea levels rising more slowly since 2004:

UN tells lies about sea levels:

UN/IPCC exaggerates sea level forecasts:

Sea levels not rising now:

Official Exaggeration of Sea Level rises in Australia:

Sea level rises - Predictions vs Measurements:

Rising Sea Level is not the main threat to Pacific Islands and Atolls:

Graph of sea levels in Kiribati, home of an islander claiming to be a "climate refugee".:

All you ever wanted to know about global temperature trends:

The long Central England Temperature Record:

The Environmental Multinationals have lost their Way.

Many groups have much to lose as the theory that humans are driving dangerous and accelerating global warming is progressively exposed as science fiction. Those in most danger are the multinational environmental empires and the politicians who have supported them.

Once upon a time the World Wildlife Fund was mainly about saving wildlife – now its pre-occupation seems to be how to destroy the coal industry in order to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the gas of life, and the additional carbon dioxide is known to be fuelling the green revolution which has caused increased growth of all green things. WWF is thus now anti-green.

Greenpeace also has forgotten the green bit and is now more interested in saddling us with a tax on carbon, the key element of all life.

And instead of working for refugees, Oxfam was prominent among the dozens of “charities” acting more like stop-work agitators at the climate grabfest in Warsaw. (Yes it was a grab-fest – most of the attendees were there hoping to grab a big heap of cash from a few western bunnies for “Climate Compensation”.)

See: Green groups walk out of UN climate talks

And how do Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club accept the massive environmental destruction caused by thousands of bird-killing bat-killing wind turbines with their spider-webs of roads and transmission lines? The wind mania will collapse as soon as its subsidies disappear. Who is then going to clean up their mess? Will we see volunteers from FOE dismantling derelict windmills and rehabilitating their access tracks and transmission lines and towers?

Solar Panels Frying Birds Along Major Migration Path:

Wind Turbines slaughter rare birds:

Image Source:

And why should these economic vandals be assisted by tax concessions while they spend much of their time and energy locking-the-gate on activities that could generate tax revenue such as exploration, mining, grazing, land development, irrigation, fishing, tourism and forestry? Green extremists have lost sight of their once-worthy aims to now become forces of pointless obstruction and destruction of all human activities.

And why should the CSIRO be funded lavishly by tax payers while they waste billions trying to prop up failing climate theories, models and scares?

The ice caps have not melted, the oceans are not overheating, sea levels are just fluctuating, the polar bears are thriving and the Sahara is regaining vegetation. It is foxes and cats that are destroying native wildlife, not drilling for gas. And real human pollution of the oceans, rivers and atmosphere gets little attention while green dreamers in parliament are focussed on maintaining the carbon tax.

Acknowledgement to cartoonist, Steve Hunter at:
(PS. Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Gas and Big Government have been quite stingy lately with grants to Carbon Sense so Steve has not been paid. Send us some subscriptions or we will both starve.)

All manias unravel, and the climate mania has started down this road. Already supporters are jumping ship as the reaction accelerates.

Politicians too have played a dangerous game with energy supplies.

The icy tentacles of yet another cold winter are once again sneaking down from the ice-covered Arctic and causing shivers on the northern plains of Europe and America.

Sometime soon, on a still winter night in Northern Europe, snow will drift down silently, covering the German solar panels with a cold white blanket, and quietly surrounding the motionless British wind turbines like skirmishers ahead of the invading vandals. Green power will fail, the lights will flicker, the heaters will go cold, and some people may start to recognise that reliable heat, light and power from coal, oil, gas and nuclear is humanity’s greatest asset after all.

Next morning, the BBC will report the record high temperature reached at Marble Bar in summertime Australia.

But later in the day, awkward questions will be asked in Parliament.

And, at the next election, heads will roll.

Viv Forbes
December 2013

Lies and lies about dams!

Guest Post by F.A.H.

I heard once there are lies, dam lies and then there is statistics. I never could figure out why lying about dams was so bad, but I think I got the point. Anyway, I read a report recently about people who don’t believe global warming is going to end the world unless we do just what the ones who know best tell us. I think the word for those people who don’t believe is “deniers”.

Anyway this report said that statistically being a denier is correlated with being a creationist. Another one I read a while ago said that being a denier is correlated with being a conspiracy theorist. It was true because statistics said it was. Then I remembered the one that said statistically there was a 97% consensus that climate scientists believe global warming is going to end the world and all. Well that seemed really cool and the headlines on the reports of the studies sounded like the truth was out there, I mean it was just settled and if you were a denier of that then you were just a nut.
Now, I am really into the climate thing, okay, and I just always wanted to do something to contribute to climate science. Not the icky part, the part about physics and chemistry and isotopes and measuring and observing stuff, for that you have to be an honest to goodness Qualified Climate Scientist (QCS). I know that. I thought maybe I could do the part about how true climate science is, like how people believe it, you know, using statistics.
So I asked a friend of mine who is for real a Qualified Climate Scientist if he thought I could do the part about consensus. He said, sure, as long as I stayed away from the hard part and just did consensus it would be okay. He said the guy who did the 97% thing just had a bachelor’s degree in physics, and even though that guy isn’t a Qualified Climate Scientist, it was okay for that guy to do consensus stuff. My friend said lots of the people who do the consensus part are even just engineers, or economists, or psychologists, so it is okay to do it as long as you use statistics. My friend knows I have at least a bachelor’s degree in physics so he knew I could do it too.
I thought, Great! I told my friend I was so excited about doing climate science.
But he said, no, no, no! If I tried to do climate science, not just the consensus part, then that would be dangerous. He said I should just do safe, consensual climate science. So I said okay, I will. He told me I would be okay just so long as I made sure to be safe, to use statistics whenever I did consensual climate science.
I was so excited. I went back to my computer to do some safe, consensual climate science, but when I got there I just kind of stared at the computer. I thought okay, what now? So I called my friend up and asked him. He said I needed data. So I said okay, how do I get data? He said it is easy for consensual climate science, all you have to do is google, no messy instruments or lab things. I said great, thanks, and hung up.
So first, by googling, I found this site: . It asks people “Is Global Warming a threat to the environment?” Yes or No. I thought cool, that’s just what I want. I clicked on the results for different political parties and the numbers (statistics!!) are:
Party                                    % Yes                   %No
Democrat                                 97                          3
Republican                              16                        84
Libertarian                              36                        64
Green                                       97                           3
Socialist                                   97                            3
It was so fun I found another web site (by googling!) here: that asked Republicans and Republican Leaners (RRL) versus Democrats and Democrat Leaners (DDL) if they liked different stuff like socialism and all. So the numbers (more statistics!!) were
Group                   Percent Positive toward Socialism
DDL                                               53
RRL                                               23
So now I thought how cool would it be to find out the correlation between liking socialism and believing global warming is a threat to the environment. So I combined the numbers (statistics!) like this
Party                                   % Like Socialism                  %Yes GW is a threat
Republican                                       23                                             16
Libertarian                                       23                                             36
Democrat                                         53                                             97
Green                                               75                                              97
Socialist                                          100                                            97
I had to fill in the numbers for Libertarians and Greens who liked Socialism because the Gallup poll didn’t ask them, just DDLs and RRLs. But I knew just how to do it because I had read a story about a paper about Kriging climate data. Not being a QCS, I don’t know exactly how it works but I think it is like filling in data you don’t have with what you think it should be. So I figured Libertarians are kind of like RRLs so I put in 23% for them liking socialism. Then I figured Greens seemed like halfway between Democrats and Socialists, because I read the UK Guardian sometimes and that’s just how it seems. So I filled in 75% for Greens liking Socialism. I don’t think it is exactly Kriging, so I call what I did blitzfitzkrieging, which I think means lightning fitting attack or something in German.
So, I put the numbers in Excel and did a correl(%Like Socialism,%YesGWThreat) and wow, the correlation is 0.85 between believing in GW and liking socialism. That’s really high, I think. I remember the creationist study had just 0.25 correlation between “deniers” and creationists and they said that was significant. I was so excited because 0.85 was like so much higher than 0.25 it just has to be true, I mean it is really settled. Next I needed a title for my study so first I thought “Belief in Global Warming is Correlated with Belief in Socialism at 0.85.” But then I noticed that the titles used by the guys who did consensual climate science were a lot shorter, so I just shortened it to “Global Warmists are Socialists.” And it is so cool because the statistics say it is true.
Consensual climate science felt so good I just couldn’t stop. So I noticed that 97% of each of Democrats, Greens and Socialists believed in global warming being a threat. And then I noticed, like wow, the 97% consensus study got that same number, 97%. So I did a little blitzfitzkrieging and figured the guys who did the ratings for that study were either Democrats, Greens or Socialists and did a correlation between what they believed at first and what they got from their study and OMG, the correlation is 1! I tried to think of a title for my little study on that and after shortening it I figured it should be “Consensus Raters get Results They Believe Already.”
I called my QCS friend and told him my results and he said I was doing just great. I told him I was going to keep doing consensual climate science every chance I get. He said great and just make sure I was doing it safely. I said I sure am, I am using statistics every time.