We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469

All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

“Climate is and always has been variable. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually.” ~Professor Tim Patterson

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

If Lewandowsky is a climate scientist then so am I.

Anthony Cox

Shag on Rock
Apologies to Josh
You can’t keep Lew down and he has just co-authored a paper proving the temperature is rising. Lew’s idea is that statements about the temperature pause, including by the IPCC, simply don’t take into account natural variation which in a cooling phase will suppress the AGW warming.

This idea has been around for yonks. Cohenite looked at the idea in 2008. Basically the technique is detrend for all natural factors by removing the estimate of their temperature effect and what is left should be the pure AGW signal.

Lots of people have done this; the original paper was Keenlyside et al in 2008. Easterling and Wehner in 2009 extended this concept to the usual grotesque AGW exaggeration. The previous Keenlyside et al effort predicted masking of underlying AGW due to SST driven natural variation. Unfortunately, when the ENSO is removed from temperature trends there is no post 2000 underlying AGW. Easterling and Wehner revisit this trainwreck of an idea to prove that future cooling will still have underlying AGW. Their null hypothesis [NH] really settles the matter. The NH is that there will be an “equal percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends” [p6]. This is high order virtual reality; the concept of the 100 year flood explains why. Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] climate phases have greater probability of floods during a negative phase during which time [about 30 years] there may be several 1 in 100 year floods. During the positive, El Nino dominated PDO phase there will most likely be no 1 in 100 year flood.

The same principle applies to temperature. Positive PDOs will have increasing temperature trends and vice-versa for negative PDOs. The paper doesn’t consider ENSO at all apart from an admission that it is not modeled well [p6]. Table 1 shows more positive temperature trends in the 20thC. This was due to positive PDO dominance not, as the paper claims, AGW.

The recent definitive paper on this idea by Foster and Rahmstrof in 2011 supposedly extracted a pure AGW signal after removing all natural factors. F and R are a lot of fun. They removed all the natural factors that may have contributed to temperature increase and were left with a range of 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1 as the pure AGW forcing. They calculated a rate which was constant from 1979. This should have set the alarm bells ringing for a start since CO2 was increasing exponentially during this period; if the dominant forcing factor was increasing the AGW temperature effect should also have been increasing. But it seems that their methodology was also flawed. By including a linear trend for warming in their analysis as an independent variable, Foster and Rahmstorf have demonstrated that global warming is well correlated with global warming. Furthermore Bob Tisdale shows Forster and Ramstorf were wrong to consider ENSO as an exogenous factor and to exclude it from their analysis.

Just when you think this nonsense is over along comes Lew. Lew says this:
Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.
Credit where credit is due. This is smart. Lew doesn’t remove natural variation he selects models which have natural variation in phase with AGW. AGW is now proved because there is temperature increase when you factor in natural variation.

But seriously this is a dog’s breakfast. What is he saying; that AGW is only to be measured when there is natural warm phase such as in the +ve PDO:

That is AGW is only to be shown when the world is heating through a warm natural phase as shown in the red lines? Is this because natural variation in the cool phase eliminates any AGW signal as shown in the blue lines? And surely in the warm phases of natural variation wouldn’t the warming be especially high if AGW and natural variation are working together?

Desperation and absurdity is now the stock in trade of alarmists like Lewandowsky.

A real scientific paper about Ocean Heat Content [OHC] has just been published by leading oceanographic experts Wunsch and Heimbach. They show that the deep oceans are cooling and that, logically, heat in the ocean probably comes from the bottom of the ocean due to geothermal activity not from the surface down as AGW theory insists in the most ridiculous way [see here and here]. Figure 18 from Wunsch and Heimbach sums up the nonsense about OHC:

That’s it folks; AGW demolished and Lew left like a Shag on a rock.

How Wrong Can The Age be? The Age's Dementia.

The Age, a consistent pusher of the falsified Man Made Global Warming Hypothesis, has shown some lack of journalistic integrity in their recent editorial

Repeal of carbon tax shames our nation

Take their opening sentence:-
The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists concur: the emission of greenhouse gasses as a result of human activity is contributing to a rise in temperate and to the resulting climate change that poses nothing short of an existential threat.
Three thoughts out of three wrong. Whatever happened to Journalistc Integrity? Whatever happened to Sceptical Journalism?

NewsTrust is a guide to good journalism: They write that "the best way to learn news literacy is to think like a journalist." (link)
The four Ds of thinking like a journalist exemplify these qualities. They are:
1. Doubt — a healthy skepticism that questions everything.
2. Detect — a “nose for news” and relentless pursuit of the truth.
3. Discern — a priority for fairness, balance and objectivity in reporting.
4. Demand — a focus on free access to information and freedom of speech.
Looking at the Age and their support for the global warming hoax, they have completely failed in every respect to think like good journalists.

Applying the four Ds to the above opening sentence.
"The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists"
The consensus notion has been pushed by three flawed yet peer-reviewed papers:
  1. Oreskes: LINK
  2. Doran and Zimmerman: LINK
  3. Cook et al: LINK
A sceptical journalist can easily research the validity of these three "peer reviewed" papers. Taking the last first, google search result for "cook 97 consensus" leads with three rebuttals of the paper. Lord Monckton reviewed the paper and found  0.3% CONSENSUS, NOT 97.1%
Enough said.

Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” (link)
Naomi Oreskes wrote in her paper:
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong.
That's probably the most accurate part of her paper. The US Senate Environment Committee:
FACT: Oreskes’s study contained major flaws. Oreskes did not inform readers in today’s commentary that she admitted to making a search term error that excluded about 11,000 papers –more than 90% of the papers– dealing with climate change. Oreskes also failed to inform readers that, according to one critique of her study, less than 2% of the abstracts she analyzed endorsed what she terms the “consensus view” on human activity and climate change and that some of the studies actually doubted that human activity has caused warming in the last 50 years.
Two down and one to go:

Doran and Zimmerman:

A google search of "Doran and Zimmerman" finds the word "flawed" arising frequently. One such result is the paper by Murray Goot of Macquarie University as part of the Garnault Review. (link)
Criticism of the paper has focused on the second of the two findings, the claim that ‘97% of climate scientists’ agree that the planet is experiencing anthropogenic climate change; specifically, the criticisms have focused on the nature of the sample, the number of respondents in the sample regarded as most expert in 3 the area, and especially on the wording of the questions. The first of the two findings that showed 90% agreeing that ‘compared with pre-1800s levels’ the ‘mean global temperatures have generally risen’ rather than ‘fallen, or remained relatively constant’ is relatively
uncontroversial; protagonists on both sides of the debate on anthropogenic global warming can readily agree to that.
 Although response to the first question was 3,146, the second question received only 79 responses - 77 agreed to the question:
 According to one critic the question ‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’ is a question to which ‘most climate scientists’ would say yes ‘even if they aren't concerned about future climate change’. On this view, the question was deficient at every turn. 

 The Age editorial continues:
the emission of greenhouse gasses as a result of human activity is contributing to a rise in temperate (sic) and to the resulting climate change that poses nothing short of an existential threat.
Temperate is an adjective. So, does a rise in temperate mean "more temperate?" Or did they mean a "rise in temperature?" Let's assume the latter.

According to the Alarmists, the main greenhouse gas (GHG) is carbon dioxide which they falsely label carbon. (carbon dioxide is one carbon atom bonded to two oxygen atoms. If the call CO2 'carbon', why don't they call water (H2O) 'oxygen'?)

Scientists agree that rises in temperature precede rises in  the "green house gas" atmospheric CO2. (link

What is actually happening this century?

The main data sets that the "climate" scientists use all show no temperature (temperate?) rise this century whilst the rise in atmospheric CO2 continues.


Has the Age invoked the 4Ds?

1. Doubt — a healthy skepticism that questions everything.
2. Detect — a “nose for news” and relentless pursuit of the truth.
3. Discern — a priority for fairness, balance and objectivity in reporting.
4. Demand — a focus on free access to information and freedom of speech.
I detect that they have not shown discernment, doubt their partiality and demand better journalism.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Green Grubs (Weekend Humour)

After the repeal of the despised tax on vital to life carbon dioxide, the tax that, according to IPCC Scientist Professor Roger Jones (link), would reduce, by 2100,  global temperature by four thousands of a degree, Sarah Hanson-Young(@SarahinSen8) tweeted: "climate sceptic grubs."

This got me thinking.......what colour are most grubs?

Now, I am probably wrong, but I get a strong image in my mind and that image is Green.

When I worked in the pottery industry, I worked with a marvellous industrial chemist who was great at creating and naming glazes;  Great Keppel Blue is one that comes to mind.

Perhaps, if Tom was still with us, he could create a new colour called Sarah Hansen's Grub Green.

He could also create some colours for some of SHY's fantasies, like Sea Patrol red (the colour her cheeks should have been) and economic immigrant blue for SHY's open border policy blue. 

And perhaps Earthling Brown after old Greens leader Bob. 

Perhaps Milne mauve?

And for Bill Shorten, with his pitch for (as Christopher Pyne said) a "rotten stinking carcass around his neck," could I suggest "Pitch Black?"

Remember the nematodes, SHY, they are attracted by the CO2 emissions of "green grubs" and kill them.
 It contains insect-pathogenic nematodes of the species Heterorhabditis bacteriophora that seek out actively for grubs in the soil. Attracted by CO2 emissions of the grubs they enter into their body, kill them and reproduce inside the cadaver.   (link)

Saturday, July 19, 2014

All Quiet except for hammering on the AGW coffin

spaceweather.com reports

THE "ALL QUIET EVENT": For the 4th day in a row, solar activity is extremely low. Compared to the beginning of July, when sunspots were abundant, the sun's global X-ray output has dropped by a factor of ten. Moreover, on July 17th the sunspot number fell all the way to zero. We call it "the All Quiet Event."

As July 19th unfolds, the sun is no longer completely blank. Three small sunspots are emerging, circled in this image (above) from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory.

A similar report from Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC), which is the solar physics research department of the Royal Observatory of Belgium. (link)
INFO FROM SIDC - RWC BELGIUM 2014 Jul 18 12:47:42 No C-class flares in past 24 hours from the almost spotless solar disk.
What does it mean? 

Paul Doran, Meteorologist with SI explains: (link)
...it is pretty well understood that solar activity has a direct impact on temperatures at very high altitudes in a part of the Earth’s atmosphere called the thermosphere. This is the biggest layer of the Earth’s atmosphere which lies directly above the mesosphere and below the exosphere. Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation and are highly dependent on solar activity. 
Finally, if history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a negative impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere - and where we all live. There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830. Both of these historical periods coincided with below-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many as the “Little Ice Age”. In addition, research studies in just the past couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth. This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth.

Another nail in the AGW coffin

A small but significant battle win in the war against the AGW hoax.

Headlines from around the world are noting the Abbott Government's win in reversing the useless economy destroying carbon dioxide tax; some looking on with praise but more with disdain, eg
Today's reversal of our carbon laws represents a tragedy for our politics, a travesty for public policy and a train wreck for climate action. (link)
The simple facts are that
  • there has been no global warming for 18 years; (link)
  • the man-made global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been falsified. (link)
Even so, the Abbott Government still pays obeisance to the AGW hoax. There are true believers of AGW in Abbott's front bench, the Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt included.

Friday, July 18, 2014

Death by Delay

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared by Viv Forbes 

and  The Carbon Sense Coalition.

Please pass on. We rely on our supporters to spread the word.

18 July 2014

Death by Delay - the New Green Weapon.

“The difference between taking a part of my life,
and taking my whole life, is just a matter of degree.” Anon
Special thanks to Mr. Larry Pickering for permission to
reproduce this cartoon. If you like, you can follow him on 
facebook or
visit him at 
pickeringpost.com/ Copyright L Pickering 2014

There was a time, before the baby-boom generation took over, when we took pride in the achievements of our builders, producers and innovators. There was always great celebration when settler families got a phone, a tractor, a bitumen road or electric power. An oil strike or a gold discovery made headlines, and people welcomed new businesses, new railways and new inventions. Science and engineering were revered and the wealth delivered by these human achievements enabled the builders and their children to live more rewarding lives, with more leisure, more time for culture and crusades, and greater interest in taking more care of their environment.

Then a green snake entered the Garden of Eden.

Many of the genuine conservationists from the original environmental societies were replaced by political extremists who felt lost after the Comrade Societies collapsed and China joined the trading world.

These zealots were mainly interested in promoting environmental alarms in order to push a consistent agenda of world control of production, distribution and exchange – a new global utopia run by unelected all-knowing people just like them.

Michael Gorbachev is a prominent example. Consistent open and covert support came from Hollywood, government media organisations and the bureaucracy.

The old Reds became the new Greens.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

More Heat about Ocean Heat - another nail in the AGW coffin

Anthony Cox

I have previously written about the fact that the heat in the ocean isn’t there. A Facebook commentator produced some excellent graphs based on the ARGO data which showed NO heat accumulation at any level in the world’s oceans. This lack of warming contradicts completely  (Anthropogenic Global Warming) AGW theory as put forward by such AGW stalwarts as Trenberth and England. It also has Hansen scrambling for weird and whacky explanations.

So it is plain in the ARGO era that the oceans are not warming and this contradicts AGW.

In my articles I noted that NODC graphs were shown in joules which allowed a steeper slope compared to a temperature trend. Mischievously I suggested an ulterior motive for this. Alarmism.

Another blogger has taken me to task. Rob Ryan has defended the NODC graphs and pointed out that they do indeed have temperature graphs. Indeed they do: