"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Aussie Summer has been hot but..

This map shows that 2017 has been hot but not unusual . It should be noted that this graph does not include data from the 1896 heat wave when temperatures topped 50 degrees. This is because it was removed from the BOM record because the data was "unreliable" not because as some cynics would think that it made a nonsense of global warming's "unprecedented warming". It should be noted that over 200 people died in the 1896 heat wave attesting to it's severity.

H/T to Realclimate for this graph of Australian days which  exceeded 38Degrees C


Arctic Ice Scam - the bits they don't show you.

From Real Climate. Steve Goddard has appended historical data to the satellite record which is the bit alarmists use to hysterically claim global warming is melting the Arctic. Unbelievable that so-called scientists can ignore real data.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Arctic Ice scam revealed


Official US Government research graphs that show that Arctic ice was about the same in 1945 and 1960 as the present level ,giving the lie to climate scammers claims about unprecedented melting. The Orwellian manipulation of climate data is about to end when the climate swamp is drained in the US.
Current climate graphs ignore earlier data to give the impression of continual ice loss. Note the graph below starts around 1980.
ssmi1-ice-area

Sunday, February 12, 2017

European Courts are nitwits also.

Climate change worries halt Vienna airport's third runway
A court in Austria has blocked construction of a third runway in Vienna on the basis of increased CO2 emissions. The idiocy of such a decision is breathtaking. Will this reduce the number of people coming? No! Will the number of planes be reduced ? No! Will travelers be inconvenienced? Yes!
These legal morons are denying the reality of modern air travel .
The Local in Austria has the story:
A court has blocked Vienna airport's plans for a third runway saying it would have resulted in greater greenhouse gas emissions, in a verdict described by lawyers as a first.
Austria's Federal Administrative Court said in a ruling published late on Thursday that the "positive aspects of the project cannot justify the high extra carbon dioxide pollution."
A third runway would result in a "significant" rise in greenhouse gas output, contravening the country's domestic and international undertakings to reduce emissions, a statement said.
"The airport's possibilities to reduce CO2 emissions through its own measures (such as the installation of solar panels and changing its vehicles to electric cars) were insufficient," it added.
"As far as I know this is unique that climate protection is used as an argument to block a concrete plan," Christian Schmelz, a lawyer for the airport, told the newspaper Die Presse.
Erika Wagner, head of the Environmental Law Institute at Linz University, called it a "landmark ruling".

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Major scandal at NOAA uncovered by whistleblower

Image result for climate fraud
Climate skeptics have always known that the temperature data held by NOAA was completely dodgy with temperatures in the past being lowered to create an artificial warming graph. We now have a whistle-blower pulling the plug on the shenanigans of the climate "scientists"at NOAA - the major repository of "climate data" in the world. I think this will be the first of many as the climate scam crumbles.  The Daily Mail broke the story:

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data 

  • The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
  • It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
  • America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
  • The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data

 
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

 

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

A judge who hasn't drunk the Green Koolaid shocks Greenies!


Environmentalists, expecting a free pass after tampering with a pipeline were shocked when when a judge said that catastrophic global warming was "controversial". With Trump in charge expect more of the same bringing the climate bed-wetters out in force!
The National Post has the story:
A jury was selected in Washington state on Monday in the first trial over a coordinated protest that disrupted the flow of millions of barrels of crude oil into the United States, a proceeding activists hope will serve as a referendum on climate change.
Activist Ken Ward says he will not dispute that he shut down a valve on the Kinder Morgan Inc’s Trans Mountain Pipeline near Burlington, Washington, but he will testify that such actions are necessary in the face of the government’s failure to address global warming.
Judge Michael Rickert has barred Ward’s lawyers from formally mounting a “necessity” defence or arguing that his actions were justified in light of a looming environmental crisis.
“I don’t know what everybody’s beliefs are on [climate change], but I know that there’s tremendous controversy over the fact whether it even exists,” Rickert said. “And even if people believe that it does or it doesn’t, the extent of what we’re doing to ourselves and our climate and our planet, there’s great controversy over that.”

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Whoops! Majority of Scientists do not support Global Warming Scam

Image result for global warming cartoon
The 97% of scientists supposedly supporting the scam has dropped alarmingly in a new survey where a majority believe warming is mostly natural. As Trump removes the muzzles from skeptics you can expect only the hardline cadre of true believers to remain.
Forbes has the story:
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”


The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.
The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. "In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”
The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”
The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”
Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.
One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’
Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.
People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

120 Billion euros for 5% Electricity Supply in Germany


German wind farm
Ugly Wind Towers blight a picturesque German Village.

Swiss business is concerned about the green energy plans for Switzerland given the disastrous results in Germany ,where wholesale installations of wind and solar at enormous cost and degradation of the beautiful countryside ,are really providing little reliable power.
  NoTricksZone has the story:
The Swiss online Baseler Zeitung here writes how the country’s Association for Pharmaceutical, Chemical and Biotech Companies is coming out against Switzerland’s recently proposed green “energy strategy”, saying that it is “fundamentally going in the wrong direction“.

The association fears it will lead to higher costs.

Energy politician Christian Wasserfallen “is pleased” about the message, the Baseler Zeitung writes.

The economy is slowly realizing what a threat the energy strategy poses.”

On the problems of supply reliability from sun and wind power, the Baseler Zeitung reports:

Just how little wind and sun really deliver was actually measured for example by Germany yesterday: The more than 120 billion euros worth of solar panels and wind turbines installed since 2000 delivered 4% and 1% respectively of German power demand.”

Friday, January 8, 2016

Australia - not so hot!


 UAH global satellite temperature data has been updated for December 2015. Considering that this is arguably the strongest El Nino yet rivalling 1998 it seems that the Australian December turned out pretty average contrary to the claims of our local Climerati. 


Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Thought Police attack cartoonist!



Bill Leak, arguably Australia's best cartoonist has attracted the ire of offense seeking twits on social media with his biting comment on the Paris Climate boondoggle.
He has hit back in an excellent article in the Australian  :
I don’t know an associate professor of sociology at Macquarie University called Amanda Wise, but she knows me. She knows me so well, in fact, that she’s not only able to tell me what my cartoons mean, but she’s also able to tell me what I was thinking while I was drawing them.
There I was, naively thinking that if I drew a group of poor Indian people trying to eat solar panels contained in parcels sent to them by the UN anyone seeing the cartoon would assume it meant the people in it were hungry. But, no. What I thought I was thinking wasn’t what I was thinking at all. According to Ms Wise, my “unequivocally racist” cartoon drew on “very base stereotypes of third world, underdeveloped people who don’t know what to do with technology”.
These and other startling revelations were included in an article by Amanda Meade in The Guardian on Monday. As well as being sternly reminded by the shocked Ms Wise that my cartoon would be unacceptable in Britain, the US and Canada (heaven forbid!), I was also told my cartoon was “racist” by no less an authority than Yin Paradies of Deakin University, whose research includes the economic effects of racism.
Professor Paradies didn’t think I’d made the people in my cartoon look hungry, either, but rather, in my own twisted, racist way, I’d managed to portray not only them but the entire population of India as “too stupid to handle renewable energy”.
I’ve been reliably informed my cartoon also triggered a hostile response from the sanctimonious but bloodthirsty mob who spend their time trawling the internet looking for anything they find offensive to provide them with an opportunity to join the orgy of competitive compassion and moral grandstanding that is Twitter.
Such people, understandably, are probably on a bit of a high at the moment having just spent a couple of weeks watching heroic and revered climate scientists such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Sean Penn and Robert Redford spouting a series of hypocritical platitudes in Paris that culminated in world leaders signing up to an agreement to meet again in five years so they can sign another one, thereby saving the world from an impending environmental catastrophe. Again. No wonder they’re angry. First chance I get I spoil the party by reminding them that, back here, in the real world, there are billions of people who not only lack food, health, water and education, but also have no access to electricity, and more than 20 per cent of them live in India.
And there’s something obscene about the fact that there are billions of others who’ve had all those things all their coal-power-driven lives and they’re now distributing solar panels to the world’s poor because they think that provides a virtuous, if inadequate, form of electricity for which they should be grateful. I think that’s racist, I think it’s condescending, and I think it’s immoral. But it’s also the truth, and when an impertinent cartoonist dares to tell the truth these days he’d better watch out because telling the truth is a dangerously subversive thing to do.
It has the same ability to simultaneously shock some people while amusing others that four-letter words used to have when Lenny Bruce discovered he could use them to such devastating effect that his audiences would still be laughing while he was being dragged offstage by the police and arrested for obscenity.
In court, Bruce argued he was being denied his right to freedom of speech, and so he was. But I can’t help thinking he had it easy, living at a time when the only people who had to stand up for their rights to freedom of speech were comedians who wanted to say f. k in public.
And not only that, but the only people he had to worry about offending were undercover coppers in the audience whose job it was to be offended so they could arrest him for doing his job.
These days, the undercover policemen in the audience waiting for him to swear would be the least of his worries. They’d be outnumbered 100 to one by members of the Politically Correct Thought Police Task Force, all armed with iPhones and Twitter accounts, ready to pounce the moment he said something that might not necessarily offend them but could, potentially, offend someone else.
There’s no doubt the cartoon I drew for Monday’s paper offended a lot of people. While they might not have enjoyed looking at it, I’m quite sure they enjoyed using it as an excuse to parade their moral vanity.
And, while I prefer to discover there are people who think my cartoons are funny, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t derive a certain amount of pleasure from discovering they enrage the ones that don’t.