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

Donations:
Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter
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 31, 2012

Fresh News on Anthony Watts' pre-publication paper.

Hitler's reaction to the Anthony Watts paper.....

NO WIN - NO FEE

From Larry Pickering's Face book Site -






Apart from having the sort of head you’d never get tired of kicking, AWU boss Paul Howes’ record of protecting workers’ interests is abysmal.
Police can’t act without a complaint and there are no complaints coming from Howes or the HSU East’s Williamson. It is no secret as to why.

When someone like the HSU East’s Kathy Jackson files a complaint, Bill Shorten shuts her down by placing the union in administration. Anyway, Craig Thomson is nothing but a small fish among schools of sharks in an ongoing feeding frenzy.

Howes’ union crony and co-Rudd assassin, Bill Shorten, does nothing either. (Except to plead it's an isolated case.) In fact, he goes to extreme lengths to obfuscate the blatant theft.

Left wing law firms have become union savvy and unions have become Left wing law firm savvy. Paul Howes, makes no effort to recover those stolen members’ funds. I wonder why.

The Gillard Government is a creation of corrupt unions, is stacked with ex-unionists (more than 50 of them) and protected by corrupt union bosses. The people who could bring down this corrupt Government (Craig Thomson, Doug McClelland and Ian Cambridge) have either been dumped or promoted to the union controlled FWA.

Oakeshott and Windsor will not walk the plank for the sake of this nation.

As an official of the ARU I quickly learnt the modus operandi of major unions. It wasn’t pretty then... it’s grotesquely ugly now.

The silence is deafening from the Left wing law firm, Slater & Gordon, as accusations continue to fly from credible sources.

It seems strange that a law firm would not immediately sue or at least take out an injunction against its accusers. Well, here you go boys, I’ll make it easy for you.

• You (Slater & Gordon) have been complicit in fraudulent activities involving AWU officials.
• You aided and abetted union officials in the theft of funds rightfully belonging to AWU members.
• You knew the accounts those stolen funds moved into and out of were fraudulent accounts set up by a certain Julia Eileen Gillard, your Partner.

How’s that? Enough for you yet?  Okay, here’s some more:

• You aided and abetted a Bruce Morton Wilson in the dispersal of those stolen funds.
• You represented your client (the AWU) in clear conflict of interest.
• You provided a loan to Bruce Wilson when you knew the loan assisted in the fraud.
• You have done nothing to recover or assist to recover funds misappropriated by your clients, Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt.
• You refuse to release documentation detailing the above.

Is that enough boys, or should I go on? Come on, it's not that hard, surely. Sue me! You’re a law firm aren’t you? You can even give yourself mates’ rates.

There are more than 250,000 people who will see this article via blogs, 10,000 viral emails, Facebook, “The Pickering Post” and its Facebook. God knows how many they will share it with!

I notice you have bumped up your TV advertisements to convince people of your newfound “ethics”. Are you feeling the pinch?
Waste of money I’d say. Oh, unless it’s not yours.

What is it you say, “No Win, No Fee”? Well, you won’t win this one, so you’re home free. You can’t really lose can you?

Oh, yes you bloody can... and you know it!

You are a disgrace and menace to the industrial law you espouse, the people you represent and to the legal profession in general.

Come clean or come get me, you thieving, degenerate shysters!

Potential Cheap Method of Desalination.

Graphene is an atomic-scale honeycomb lattice
made of carbon atoms. Image: Wikipedia.
Graphene is an allotrope of carbon. Its structure is one-atom-thick planar sheets of sp2-bonded carbon atoms that are densely packed in a honeycomb crystal lattice.[1]  Source Wikipedia

The availability of fresh water is dwindling in many parts of the world, a problem that is expected to grow with populations. One promising source of potable water is the world's virtually limitless supply of seawater, but so far desalination technology has been too expensive for widespread use.

Now, MIT researchers have come up with a new approach using a different kind of filtration material: sheets of graphene, a one-atom-thick form of the element carbon, which they say can be far more efficient and possibly less expensive than existing desalination systems.

Read more at MIT News: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/graphene-water-desalination-0702.html



Seems like a promising idea......but wait, graphene is an allotrope of the dreaded "pollutant" carbon.

Oh-oh! Carbon tax.

ASSESSING THE WEATHER STATIONS

NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 298 

by Vincent Gray

JULY 30th 2012

Image: WUWT
ASSESSING THE WEATHER STATIONS




Anthony Watts, Evan Jones, Stephen McIntyre and John R Christy have published in draft form a new study on US weather stations at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al-2012-figures-and-tables-final1.pdf

They apply a new methodology which makes allowances for every possible interfering factor such as proximity to heat sources or concrete,  asphalt, runways, tarmac and buildings, area weighted and distance weighted, and quality of equipment and maitenance. They apply these to thirty years of US temperature records from 1979 to 2008.

Using the new Leroy 2010 classification system on the older siting metadata used by Fall et al. (2011), Menne et al. (2010), and Muller et al. (2012), yields dramatically different results.

Using Leroy 2010 methods, the Watts et al 2012 paper, which studies several aspects of USHCN siting issues and data adjustments, concludes that:
These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 – 2008.
Other findings include, but are not limited to:

  • Statistically significant differences between compliant and non-compliant stations exist, as well as urban and rural stations.
  • Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.
  • Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.
  • Urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites.
  • The raw data Tmean trend for well sited stations is 0.15°C per decade lower than adjusted Tmean trend for poorly sited stations.
  • Airport USHCN stations show a significant differences in trends than other USHCN stations, and due to equipment issues and other problems, may not be representative stations for monitoring climate.

Also see a lecture that was presented at the recent Heartland Sceptyics conference

http://climateconferences.heartland.org/andrei-illarionov-iccc4/

Professor Illaniaov shows that the current method  of assessing Russian weather stations exaggerates the few (only 4) stations with records before 1859 and impose the urban heating from these stations on the whole set, however large. Since Russia has 11.5% of the total land area of the world.it has a large influence on global figures, which are themselves affected by a similar error..


Cheers
Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035

"It's not what you don't know that fools you. It's what you do know that ain't so." ~Josh Billings

Sustainability is impossible. There are only two directions; forward and backward.

The BEST of advice: Don't live in the PAST


The Sydney Morning Herald has an article today ( reprinted from the New York Times):(LINK)
Cartoons by Josh

How I saw past the hot air on climate (LINK)

Richard Muller writes of his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
Study (BEST):
 Three years ago, I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.   
.............
Our results show that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by about 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past 250 years, including an increase of five-sixths of one degree over the past 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this rise is from humans' emission of greenhouse gases.

The trouble is in his first three words ~ Three years ago - Richard is living in the past. Even in the past, co-author of his paper,  Judith  Curry, an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, accused him "of  trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped."(LINK)
However, a new pre-print paper has changed all that (LINK)
 Roger Pielke Snr writes: (LINK)
This paper is a game changer, in my view, with respect to the use of the land surface temperature anomalies as part of the diagnosis of global warming.
In direct contradiction to Richard Muller’s BEST study,  the new Watts et al 2012 paper has very effectively shown that a substantive warm bias exists even in the mean temperature trends.  This type of bias certainly exists throughout the Global Historical Climate Network, as well as what Anthony has documented for the US Historical Climate Reference Network.
Roger adds:
(Muller's) latest BEST claims are, in my view, an embarrassment. 
Let's not forget that, although his paper has been floating around in the scientific arena,
Muller's study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but he says he plans to do so at some point. 

Jo Nova writes (of the Watts paper): (LINK)

Assuming that no major problems are found, the pieces of the jigsaw fit and pass the common sense test. Yes, hot air rises off concrete.
  1. There goes half the warming trend. The most accurate thermometers in the right places are not recording high trends. High estimates come from combining good records with poor ones then adjusting that up.
  2. They show Mueller and BEST’s latest exaggerated claims of 1.5C are meaningless.
  3. They show that only class 1 and 2 stations (which are placed well, not next to concrete, car-parks, or air-conditioners) give reliable data and the warming trend from these stations is much lower than the warming trend from Class 3, 4 or 5 stations. It’s what we always knew — thermometers near artificial heat sources are measuring artificial warming, but it’s not the global kind.
  4. Mueller, BEST, GISS, Hadley and all the others should have removed the data from poor stations entirely. No amount of statistical chicanery can correct the artificial warming effect no matter how you adjust, blend, or homogenize the data.
  5. Worse, the adjusted data shows an even warmer trend than the warmest and worst stations. That casts a very dark shadow indeed. How honest or impartial are the scientists who adjust data from stations with thermometers near air-conditioners and create more warming? Bad stations have been adjusted up, instead of down, and then the good stations were adjusted up to match the now-really-awful-bad ones. The stench of failure and a lack of dedication to the truth in on show…
You don’t need a PhD to know that thermometers placed in car parks are not measuring global warming.

Monday, July 30, 2012

Vale Alex Stuart


Alex Stuart

1944-2012


Alex was a dedicated member of the Sceptics and, for our first campaign - the Bradfield By-Election - he first thought of the NO CARBON TAX motto and the symbol as seen in the page header above.


Alex was also the Chairman of the Australian Environment Foundation  (LINK)
Alex Stuart was born in Canberra, grew up in Asia, and went to high school in Victoria.  He graduated in economics and political science at the University of Melbourne and pursued graduate studies in the UK and US.  After starting a business career overseas, Alex was active in international trade in beef and pork products, and later managed the American food manufacturing subsidiary of Dalgety & Co.  He was appointed Regional Director of the Americas for Austrade and has subsequently been active in new ventures and technology-based small business.

Another part of his multifaceted life was as a member of the Northern Beaches Hash House Harriers (NBH3).


The NBH3 have made the following YouTube tribute.






STUART,   Alexander Hamilton.
Passed away suddenly,
July 23, 2012. Aged 68.
Loving partner of Susie. Former husband of Marcia, loving father of Stephanie, Julia, Catharine, Andrew (Zander) and Tessa, brother of Charles, James and Sabrina.

Much loved and will be sadly missed.

Gillard and Wilson: Call for a Royal Commission.


From the AWU to the HSU, millions of dollars of unions members funds have been stolen.

There have been no prosecutions, no Royal Commissions, and with the AWU - the media has been gagged.

Now Michael Smith - a commentator courageous enough to put his job on the line - uncovering the scandal which has engulfed the trade union movement in Australia.

See also  Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson and Union Funds  (LINK)









Sunday, July 29, 2012

Steffen: AGW and LIES


Steffen: AGW and LIES.
by NCTCS Secretary Anthony Cox
Montage Image: Dallydom Pix (copyright used with permission)
Professor Will Steffen is part of the road show which is the Climate Commission. This is a government funded talk-fest which travels around telling people that the world is going to end.

It is reminiscent of Ray Bradbury‘s 
Something Wicked This Way Comes;  
certainly Steffen is ‘dark’ about humanity’s prospects. Tom Quirk and John Mclean have both written accounts of evenings spent under the spell of the Climate Commission. Their accounts make the events sound like revivalist meetings with doom and gloom being offered unless the ‘snake-oil’ on sale is taken by the sinning masses.

The Climate Commission reminds me of those men who use to stand on street corners and prophesise Biblical sourced catastrophes. This is probably because the AGW concept is very like the Eden myth; a time of natural harmony until Mankind upsets the applecart by taking knowledge in the form of using fossil fuels and polluting pristine nature. Steffen and ilk are the equivalent of stern faced priests issuing repent edicts.

Flannery is Steffen’s fellow spruiker. Flannery is a joke; a joke at the expense of the Australian public with his failed predictions for which he gets $180,000 PA, his sponsorship by Panasonic, his support of dud green energy projects which have sucked up $90 million of taxpayers’ money, his love affair with Gaia, whatever that is, his rabbiting on about sea level rise while maintaining a week-ender by the sea which seems to have upset the locals and various ‘shock-jocks’ and more predictions of all sorts of problems for the punters in the Western Suburbs, which is a long way from the sea and Flannery’s week-ender.                 (Ed: See also Flannery's Failed Fable  - LINK)

In short Flannery is a public nuisance; a very expensive public nuisance.

Is the fashionably stubbled Steffen any better?  He is better credentialed than Flannery with degrees and a PhD related to AGW. But he is prone to fanciful notions such as the Anthropocene, which, with its negative connotations, would seem to contradict the Gaia prophecy Flannery is fond of making.

Steffen is also fond of litigating against humanity for its crimes against nature; like Flannery Steffen appears to approve of the crime of Ecocide, which Flannery describes as: “the heedless or deliberate destruction of the environment”. This is seriously weird and pretentious.

It is pretentious because it assumes that humanity is powerful enough to destroy ‘nature’; it is weird because it assumes that since humanity has interfered with nature that now humanity is responsible for preventing any further change in nature.

It is also pathological in a misanthropic way which leads to an assumption that nature would be better off without humanity. I wonder where Steffen and Flannery stand on that continuum between wanting to litigate Ecocide against humanity, worship Gaia and wanting humanity to be extinct.

Steffen also shares Flannery’s prognosticatory sleight of hand skills. But like Flannery, Steffen is also found wanting in terms of what he has said before. In a recent article Steffen used the Black Saturday fires in Victoria to illustrate how bad AGW is and how worse it is going to become. However, as Bolt noted, in an earlier interview Steffen had stated that the fires and the Victorian drought were not due to AGW.

This goes beyond wanting to have your cake and eat it too; if this sort of contradiction were done in a court under oath it would be perjury. Why isn’t Steffen taken to task for such outrageous contradictions? For the same reason Flannery isn’t.

In the same article in which Steffen possibly perjured himself about a connection between extreme weather, bushfires and AGW he also advocates Sweden as alternative to the fossil fuel economy of Australia.

This comparison with Sweden is not in the ‘out and out-lying’ category as the fire connection is but it neatly showcases a couple of other forms of lying which we have come to expect from the advocates of AGW.

In his panegyric about Sweden Steffen asserts that Australia can, like Sweden, rely on renewable energy to transition away from fossil energy. Steffen neglects to mention that Sweden has only been able to do this by investing heavily in Nuclear and Hydro energy, 2 forms of non-fossil fuel which the Greens are steadfastly opposed to, as Professor Davidson points out.

This is lying by omission.

Professor Davidson notes other truth discrepancies in Steffen’s comparison with Sweden; for instance Steffen notes that Sweden has economically outperformed the G7 nations and that Australia should again follow in Sweden’s example. This lie is the lie of cherry-picking, a mainstay of AGW science; cherry-picking is where you pick data which supports your position while ignoring relevant data which doesn’t. The relevant data which Steffen ignores here is that while Sweden outperformed the G7 nations, most of which are basket-cases, Australia outperformed Sweden by some margin. Why would Australia want to emulate a nation which is doing worse than us?


 taking vigorous action on climate change will damage or slow the economy. Quite the opposite seems to be the case.

In fact the evidence is at best neutral for Steffen’s dismissal and, when other nations are looked at, adverse. Spain for example, more than any other nation in Europe, has invested in typical green energy such as wind and solar; Spain’s CO2 emissions have remained steady but it is now the economic pauper of Europe with 24% unemployment and all the other attendant economic woes.

This form of lie is the ½ truth or in pure political terms, spin.

Steffen is a propagandist, an alarmist who is prepared to tell lies and exaggerate to promote his theology. This is the basis of the AGW message; all the leading exponents of AGW do it; Kofi Annan, Nobel prize-winning economist Thomas Schelling, the grand-daddy of AGW scientists, Hansen with his invocation of Venus on Earth as the inevitable result of AGW; and who can forget Hansen’s little ‘trick’ when he gave his 1988 speech to members of congress about warming when the air conditioner wasn’t working; perhaps Hansen was already aware of research which shows that people believe AGW when it is warm and don’t when it is not.

The template for exaggerating and lying by the AGW believers was described by the late Professor Steven Schneider:

On the one hand, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but...which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs, and buts.
"On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

We know that this is done automatically by AGW scientists because the emails have revealed the lacuna between what these scientists say publically and what they say privately.

To say one thing publically and another privately is hypocrisy; hypocrisy is another form of lying.

Steffen doesn’t feature prominently in the email exchanges but he is mentioned in dispatches and from early in the piece.

Steffen is part of the AGW furniture; he does “scary scenarios”, contradicts himself and assiduously promotes the AGW narrative. People forget that this narrative has been adjudicated upon, in a real court, unlike the pretend court Steffen has played in. That court was the English High Court where Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth was taken to hearing by an irate parent. The court’s findings were remarkable. By agreement the parties assumed AGW was real and narrowed the litigation to whether the consequences of AGW, as depicted in Gore’s film were real.

The court found that all 11 core consequences of AGW claimed by Gore to exist were either exaggerated or unrelated to AGW. In short the film was largely based on lies.

AGW is an issue which is based on exaggerations, hypocrisy, scare-mongering, failed predictions, in short lying. To a lesser or greater extent all its leading exponents use these tactics to promote the cause. Steffen is one of those leading exponents.

Blogs agog: What's up with Anthony.

Anthony Watts made an announcement and updated it on WUWT - (LINK)
Something’s happened. From now until Sunday July 29th, around Noon PST, WUWT will be suspending publishing. At that time, there will be a major announcement that I’m sure will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature.
This set the blog world agog
In Australia, if you stay up and watch the Olympics, as the competition winds down,  you will be able to go to WUWT and see What's Up at 5am Monday morning.  As Simon says: "Thanks, Anthony! It had better be worth it!"

Cartoons by Josh
UPDATE:

BEST is not best, as Josh puts it - Skewered by TITANthony.

See WUWT Press Release HERE

See also analysis by Dr Joanne Nova - HERE

The big news is out on Watts Up: Half the trend is due to badly placed thermometers and erroneous adjustments

A Sceptic smarter than Al Gore

Paul Mulshine in an opinion piece for New Jersey's nj.com:

A global warming skeptic who's a lot smarter than Al Gore

Ever since the 1980s one of my favorite authors in the realm of science has been Freeman Dyson.

The Princeton physicist has written books on a wide range of topic, from the potential perils of nuclear weapons to discoveries in the human genome.
Paul mentions that he is reading a book "Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship." about Dyson written byhis son George.
He thus gets a good laugh at all of the simplifiers of science, such as Gore and the rest of the what I like to call the climate scientology cult.

Anyone who knows anything about science realizes that something as complex as the Earth's atmosphere offers too many variables to be understood in a matter of mere years.
Research is just beginning into the role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, yet the climate scientologists claim to know exactly what effect each tiny increment of CO-2 will have on the environment.
See other NCTCS posts on Freeman Dyson HERE and HERE.

Read more of Paul Mulshine's article HERE.


H/t Marc Morano

 

Friday, July 27, 2012

Avoiding Another Kyoto Commitment

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition (www.climatescienceinternational.org). For the past nine years Mr. Harris has been working intensively with a growing team of independent scientists and engineers to promote a sensible approach to a range of energy and environmental issues. He has thirty years experience working as a mechanical engineer and project manager, science and technology communications professional and media and S&T advisor to a former Opposition Senior Environment Critic. Mr. Harris has Bachelor and Masters Degrees in Mechanical Engineering (thermo-fluids and energy focus).

Tom has written a piece  for PJ Media (link) and expanded it in part 2 for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (link)

 

Avoiding Another Kyoto Commitment

by Tom Harris

Rethinking Stephen Harper’s climate strategy (Part 1)

U.S. experience shows that Canadian government must lead public opinion if we are to avoid another Kyoto

The 15 year battle in Canada over the Kyoto Protocol ended last week when the Federal Court ruled that the Stephen Harper government's withdraw from the agreement was legal. Countries that do not meet their emission targets and did not withdraw before the end of 2011, as allowed by Kyoto’s Article 27, will soon have to face the music for having violated the treaty. Thanks to our Government’s clear thinking, Canada will not be one of those nations.
But the Canadian Government, and many others in developed countries, have not been so clear-thinking when it comes to future international climate commitments. Unwittingly, they are getting us back into another Kyoto.
At the climate conference in South Africa in December, delegates from 194 countries, including Canada and the U.S., agreed to the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. Under this agreement, the Canadian, American and other governments pledged to work with the UN to establish, by 2015, a global apparatus to force countries to enable legally-binding greenhouse gas reduction plans starting in 2020. Environment Minister Peter Kent boosts the plan, saying repeatedly, we support the establishment of a single, new international climate change agreement that includes greenhouse gas reduction commitments from all major emitters.”
The Durban plan advances, “in a balanced fashion”, the UN asserts, the implementation of the December 2010 Cancun Agreements that Canada, the U.S. and many other countries say provides the framework for future legally-binding deals. U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern stated that the Cancun Agreement “is a very good step and a step that’s very much consistent with U.S. interests and will help move...the world down a path toward a broader global response to changing – to stopping climate change.”
But western counties are being hoodwinked again. Cancun has an opt-out clause for developing countries that allow them to agree to legally-binding emission cuts but then never actually carry them out. Developed nations do not have this option. Cancun states this twice, as follows:

  •  “...Parties should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries, and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries…”

  • “Reaffirming that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing country Parties, and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs…”

Since actions to significantly reduce GHG emissions will usually interfere with development priorities, developing countries will soon realize that an agreement based on Cancun will not limit their emissions. Such a treaty would then work in the same asymmetric fashion as Kyoto.
Under the Cancun Agreement, UN monitoring is to be much more intrusive in developed countries than in developing countries.
For example, the world is expected to simply believe China when they assert that certain domestic GHG reductions have been accomplished - the UN cannot inspect. This has the strong potential to result in significant reporting fraud as has occurred in a number of other fields concerning China (see here and here for recent examples). International inspection and monitoring of developed countries’ emissions will be very strict, however. Here is a sample of what is to come if the UN get their way. It is hard to imagine the UN “rebuking” China “for poor reporting of progress to cut greenhouse gases” or “ordering” China to do anything, as they have done with Australia.
If a Cancun Agreement-based treaty becomes international law, we will have little idea of what emission cuts will actually be happening in countries such as China. Once again, there will be anything but a level playing field between developed and developing countries no matter what politicians say.
In the final analysis, the only really significant difference between a Cancun-based greenhouse gas reduction treaty and Kyoto may be that developing countries are expected to submit their intended emission cuts to the UN. But their obligations to carry those cuts into effect would appear to be essentially meaningless. The current approach is clearly designed to persuade the United States to participate in an agreement for binding international emission limits. Then, the U.S. and everyone else would be effectively included in an extension to the Kyoto Protocol after all.
The only solution that makes sense for Canada and the U.S., and indeed all developed nations, is to get out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) that spawned the Kyoto, Cancun and Durban agreements in the first place. Like Kyoto, the FCCC text lays out simple steps for withdrawal, stipulating that, “Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from any protocol to which it is a Party.”
But the Canadian government is afraid to do this, thinking they must wait for public opinion to change before they can take sensible action. Learn why this approach is a serious mistake in part 2 of this article. (below)

Rethinking Stephen Harper’s climate strategy (Part 2)

U.S. experience shows that Canadian government must lead public opinion if we are to avoid another Kyoto

In part 1 of this article, I outline how developed nations are being hoodwinked by the United Nations again on climate change. Our governments are pulling us into another Kyoto Protocol where only developed countries will be held to emission limits. Canada, and all developed nations need to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) that spawned the Kyoto, Cancun and Durban agreements in the first place.
Last month’s Angus Reid public opinion poll found, almost three-in-five Canadians still believe that global warming “is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities.” Government strategists have obviously therefore concluded then that they must continue to play along with the climate scare until public opinion changes. Consequently, the Government continues to support alarm, telling us that “scientists agree”, we are causing a climate crisis and so we must reduce GHG emissions to prevent a two degree temperature rise. That none of this makes sense is immaterial. Government cannot lead public opinion, they assume.
But recent research shows that this is not the case at all.
In “Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S.” published in February in the scientific journal Climatic Change, Professors R. J. Brulle of the Department of Culture and Communications at Drexel University in Philadelphia, J. Carmichael of McGill University and J. C. Jenkins of Ohio State University showed that the stated positions of politicians and other “elites” in society is the major factor driving public opinion. Their analysis, based on the construction of “aggregate opinion measures” from 74 separate surveys over a 9-year period, supported the 2009 conclusion of Harvard University’s Susan McDonald that “When elites have consensus, the public follows suit and the issue becomes mainstreamed. When elites disagree, polarization occurs, and citizens rely on other indicators…to make up their minds.”
Brulle and his colleagues showed that, beginning in the first quarter of 2006 and continuing until the third quarter of 2007, when prominent Republicans worked with the Democrats in support of the dangerous human-caused global warming hypothesis, the public was far more supportive of this position. ”These elite cues worked to increase concern about this topic”, Brulle et al said, as did the release of Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth.
But starting in 2008, the Republicans split with the Democrats on climate change, and coupled with increased unemployment, this led to a sudden drop in the fraction of the public who ‘"worried a great deal" about climate change”’ – see graph here.
Brulle explains, “when politicians focus on climate change, their statements are transmitted to the public via the media. The media will cover the issue if it deemed newsworthy. This then influences public opinion. So by not talking about climate change, the politicians diminish media attention to the issue, and thus public concern goes down.”
There are important lessons in this for Canada’s Conservative Government:
1 – Support for the climate scare remains significantly higher in Canada than in the U.S. largely because the issue has become mainstreamed with all party support in our country, while political opinion on the issue is polarized in America. Clearly, Environment Minister Peter Kent’s strong advocacy of the climate scare must stop if the Government wants Canadian public support for action “to stop climate change” to diminish;
2 – Climate alarmism needs to be quietly purged from Canadian government Websites and other communications. Even a neutral stance is preferable to David Suzuki-like proclamations on Environment Canada’s Website.
3 – The Government must talk about the issue much less. Instead of making child-like assertions about stopping climate change, which is of course impossible, they need to quietly set the stage so that the public can more frequently hear the voices of qualified, independent skeptics. Supporting an advertised-as-neutral climate science and energy conference, inviting in experts from all reputable points of view, would be a start. So would occasionally bringing up, in the House of Commons and interviews, the growing credibility of the worldwide skeptic (AKA “realist”) movement, as a reason for going slow on (and eventually cancelling) greenhouse regulations.
The Harper government has made a small start on this already, with the Senate leading the way. On the morning of December 15, 2011, The Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources heard from four expert witnesses about the science and economics of climate change – see here. This was the first time since 2005 that scientists who do not accept the hypothesis that humanity’s carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous global warming were permitted to testify before a Canadian government committee. This was followed by important climate realist speeches in the Senate by Senator Nancy Greene-Raine of British Columbia and Senator Bert Brown of Alberta. Hearings into the realist view of the science of climate change should be repeated by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development as soon as possible. Listening to scientists from only one side of this intensely controversial issue, as this committee has done for many years, is irresponsible.
4 – Kent and his cabinet peers should support adaptation to climate change as a more cost effective and humane approach to the file, devoting the bulk of our resources to helping real people today cope with deadly threats such as droughts and floods. Putting the vast majority of climate change monies into vainly trying to stop what might happen late in the century, as is happening around the world today, is irrational and immoral, the Government could say.
Simply waiting for public opinion to change while the Government itself helps feed the fire that threatens to burn down our economy, is obviously a serious mistake. It’s time for the Canadian government to help lead public opinion if Canada is to avoid another Kyoto.

Mann-made Global Warming.

Steven Goddard, on his Real Science blog shows

History Of How The Hockey Stick Was Manufactured

IPCC Graph
There wasn’t any hockey stick prior to the year 2000.
The 1990 IPCC report showed that temperatures were much cooler than 800 years ago.

 Steve then details, with graphs, the original IPCC graph showing the MWP and the LIA (See image) followed by Briffa's tree proxies; 1975 NAS report; NCAR graph; USHCN daily temperature data; GISS graph; etc etc

Hansen getting rid of the 1910-1940 warm period gave Mann cover to claim that something was wrong with Briffa’s trees – and throw them out. This opened the door for the creation of hockey stick.
Once the flood gates opened, they went nuts – erasing the MWP and LIA, erasing the 1930s and jacking up recent temperatures. All over the world, the past got cooler and the present  got warmer.

Real Science concludes:
And now we have this completely manufactured temperature trend. The spike that we see is indeed Mann-made, and Hansen-made.

See all at Real Science.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

‘Climate models are flawed’ ~ Lindzen

Richard Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology in MIT’s department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and is the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

 He recently addresses Sandia National Laboratories' Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series.

Richard Lindzen, a global warming skeptic, told about 70 Sandia National Laboratories researchers in June that too much is being made of climate change by researchers seeking government funding. He said their data and their methods did not support their claims.
“Despite concerns over the last decades with the greenhouse process, they oversimplify the effect. Simply cranking up CO2 [carbon dioxide] (as the culprit) is not the answer” to what causes climate change."
For 30 years, climate scientists have been “locked into a simple-minded identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. … That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” Lindzen said.

There is little evidence that changes in climate are producing extreme weather events, he said. “Even the IPCC says there is little if any evidence of this. In fact, there are important physical reasons for doubting such anticipations.”

Real-world observations do not support IPCC models, he said: “We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”
He disparaged proving the worth of models by applying their criteria to the prediction of past climatic events, saying, “The models are no more valuable than answering a test when you have the questions in advance.”


Read more at LabManager and WUWT.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

HOMOGENIZATION


 NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 297

by Vincent Gray

JULY 24th 2012

HOMOGENIZATION

Teaching of science and mathematics is now in rapid decline in our schools. Science has been replaced by the pseudo subject "the environment" and you are lucky if you can get a school leaver or even a graduate  who can give exact change, let alone complete an income tax form.

As a chemist I deplore the current ignorance of basic chemistry.. All chemicals are "toxic". The whole universe, including all living things and all food substances, is  made out of  chemicals and toxicity is a matter of entirely dependent on concentration and degree of supposed harm   So for that matter, is radioactivity.

When I worked for the Forensic Division of the DSIR the police were always bringing in  unknown white powders for identification . If they were crystalline a quick look under the microscope would find common salt (cubic) and sugar (anorthic). A flame would tell you flour, chalk (red colour) and soap powder (yellow flame). A pH test would give citric acid. I do not recall any other. Yet today it takes weeks with sophisticated computerised machines to identify these. If they are spilled on the road it is a national emergency and a media event. You even have to put on goggles and protective gear to deal with ordinary salt.

Statistical mathematics has basic assumptions which render its use invalid if they are not met.

In order to obtain any sort of average there are several essential conditions before the result  should be believed.

The sample must be random. and representative. This requirement is built in to all industrial quality specifications.

I remember an occasion when I worked for the Coal Research Association when a shipment of coal from Lyttleton to Japan was rejected because the  Japanese got a different value for its analysis than we did, so it had to return. Getting a random, representative sample before analysing it was quite an exercise.

People doing public opinion surveys and medical experiments often fail to get a truly representative sample, so their predictions must always be questioned. TV polls are useless and I often wonder whether the few set-top boxes which enable the TV people to decide how many people view ads really work.

It is quite impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth's surface as we cannot put measuring devices in a random representative manner over the entire surface. 71% is ocean and there are large regions of desert, forest,, mountain and ice. the temperature is also strongly dependent on time and altitude so it would have to  be instantaneous. Since this is impossible, it is also impossible to claim that the average is increasing or decreasing. There is therefore no logical or scientific basis for the claim that there is "global warming", a steady increase in the average temperature of the earth's surface..

Temperature measurements at weather stations are a valuable guide to local weather. Efforts are made to reduce variability by the use of standard measuring equipment and screens, but these have changed over the years. but  no weather forecaster would ever claim figures more accurate than the nearest degree Celsius. They never use decimals of a degree.

Efforts to make use of these measurements to provide a very poor substitute for a global average are  not only defeated by the lack of representivity. No weather station ever measures a daily average temperature. Even the most modern automatic weather stations, which are capable of providing a daily average, have never done so

Instead , until recently, only the maximum and minimum are measured. The average of these two does not give a mathematically acceptable average.                                                                      

Then, the observations when plotted against value,  must be symmetrical; otherwise there is no recognisable average. Gary Kerkin recently plotted distribution curves for two sets of maximum and minimum measurements from New Zealand weather stations and found they were bimodal, that is to say there were two maxima. The arithmetic average therefore is not the most probable figure.

Even if they were symmetrical they have to mimic the Gaussian bell curve upon which the mathematics depend. Without that you cannot calculate the variability. It has become conventional to calculate the "standard deviation" or "standard error" which is performed readily from a "scientific" calculator. or a computer spreadsheet. It is common practice to regard two standard deviations from the mean as representing 95% of the observations; in other words  there is one chance in 20 that any individual measurement will fall outside it. This figure tends to be adopted even when the chance of falling outside this range is unacceptable, such as adverse reactions from a new drug..

The processing of individual maximum and minimum temperatures into what is termed the "annual global temperature anomaly" consists of the averaging  of a whole year of individual figures. subtracting the average minimum from the average maximum., carrying out this procedure for every weather station in a 5ºx5º box on a map,  averaging all the boxes, and then subtracting them from the average of all the boxes for a reference period. Each of these procedures incurs large inaccuracies for each average, which when added up must surely amount to several degrees, yet the figures obtained are regarded as constants without any inaccuracy for each year in a time series. These unexpected constants are called "data" and many people seem to think that they are accurate representations of global temperature. A nominal inaccuracy is sometimes claimed, but is far below what it should be.

 This sequence is then subjected to a statistical procedure called "linear regression", again, a calculation available  on every "scientific" calculator and every computer spreadsheet. The objective is to seek to determine a "trend" which can be of value in future temperature prediction..

However the mathematics behind the theory of linear regression mean that it can only be used if all the samples are obtained in identical circumstances, with only one  variable as the argument. It should only be used for short period time series where identical samples can be guaranteed. It is quite unsuitable for annual climate time series since conditions always change over time, and any "trend" exaggerates the importance of the least known and least reliable earliest measurements. Its use for "trends" of "Global temperature anomalies" is quite illegitimate, as it  tends to identify past bias but not trends of the temperature variable. It is also unsuitable for long-term sea level trends, since earlier sea level measurements are prone to downward bias from the action of storms, local ground subsidence and dredging of harbours. ""Trends" should be based on recent, most reliable measurements in both cases.

 Not only are weather stations  not representative, the extent that this is  so changes  every second as stations are removed, added, or altered somewhere in the world. A genuine "temperature anomaly" is impossible.

This is so obvious that even  the scientists who have the effrontery to claim validity for this system consider that it needs to be "corrected" for "uncertainties. The process by which they do this is called "HOMOGENIZATION". At last I have got round to the title of this Newsletter..

The procedures used for "homogenization" are difficult to discover and seem to be largely intended to cause the "trend" in the "temperature anomaly" to rise. The success in this objective is modest, less than one degree per century and even this has petered out during the past ten years. These "corrections" can only concern a very few of the differences between the many non standardized weather station observations.

There have been very few attempts to check whether their assumptions  can be justified. Anthony Watts found that such a simple matter as changing the screen treatment from whitewash to latex paint made a difference of about half a degree, but this correction is never done. There are many studies which show that weather stations are affected by increases in local buildings, the use of concrete or local traffic, but no "correction" is applied. Since glass is a cooled liquid, liquid in glass thermometers read high if not regularly calibrated, but calibration certificates do not seem to be part of the archives,. No study has ever been done to find out whether changing the location of a site makes a difference by parallel studies with both sites. Gaps in the record are "guessed" by taking the average of "neighbouring" sites, which are sometimes far away. Recently it was found that when Bolivia failed to supply measurements for two years in a row, they took the average of the nearest sites, on the warmer coast of South America, and compounded the  error by adding an amount to compensate for the high elevation of the country of Bolivia. This made Bolivia the warmest place in the world for two years.

The most recent scandal has arisen because two Greek scientists Steirou and Kotsoyannis  (attached) have uncovered another error in "homogenization" which should be obvious.

It is assumed, not only that all the "mean daily" temperatures were obtained under identical circumstances, but that they are independent of one another. Well, all of us know that this is not true. The temperature one day not independent of the next day or the one before. They found that if you assume wrongly that they are independent and put it into the "homogenization" it automatically reduces the older figures and increases the more recent figure. so you get an increased "trend" which helps you "prove" global warming.

Another "homogenization" procedure that is dubious is that it is assumed that "Outliers" of more than three times the standard deviation should be eliminated. Now it happens to be true that the Gaussian Bell curve is often useful near the average, but rarely so at the outliers, which usually occur much more frequently than the maths assume. This why we are always getting "hundred year" extreme events such as floods or heat waves that occur more frequently. To eliminate outliers altogether seriously damages the result.

S and K found that important changes in thermometers and screens were not allowed for.

Weather stations have recently changed to automatic measurement, but there has been no comparison on the same site, between the automatic equipment and the previous system to see whether it makes a difference. Automatic measurement means that there there is not even an observer at the site at all so anything that goes wrong may not be known.

This half-baked unscientific system is helping to justify stopping the building power stations, running cars or prospecting for oil and gas.

Cheers

Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035

"It's not what you don't know that fools you. It's what you do know that ain't so."  ~ Josh Billings

Sustainability is impossible. There are only two directions; forward and backward.

Finkelstein and Dick Smith.


Finkelstein and Dick Smith.

by NCTCS Secretary Anthony Cox.

Dick has recently written a scathing letter to the CEO of the Murdoch press in Australia. It is a terrible letter; arrogant, aggressive and elitist; and ironic and hypocritical given his referral to the “occupy” movement and the usual default position for rich moralists, the perils of “growth” and the virtues of sustainability.

 Dick is an avid supporter of AGW and, like the recent Finkelstein report, makes the connection between perceived defects in the media presentation of the news and how AGW is described to the general public by the media. Dick says this:
When friends ask me why your organisation runs such opposing views on climate change - on Fox News’ claims that it’s all bunkum to The Australian newspaper occasionally claiming it’s accepted science – I am able to say,“it’s simple. It’s all about making more money.

This is wrong at so many levels. Firstly, the real money is and has always been in supporting AGW. The amount of money supporting AGW is vastly greater compared with the money which is supporting sceptics.

Secondly, big business has overwhelmingly been financially supportive of AGW. Big business includes oil and fossil fuel companies, the usual villains of the AGW scam narrative.

However, by far the main source of funding of the AGW scam has come from government. This Green/ALP government is already spending and will eventually spend $13.2 billion on Green energy schemes in the next few years.

This is despite the fact that Green energy does not work, and therefore any money spent on it will be wasted. But the fact that it is government money which is being splashed around means that there will always be spivs and conmen around with their snouts in the trough.

How does Murdoch benefit from this? Does Dick offer any evidence for his claim that Murdoch will benefit from his papers’ alleged opposition to the scam of AGW? No, he doesn’t; he just makes a typical accusation of the sort which the alarmists use as their stock in trade, which incidentally makes no sense; Dick simply says Murdoch will get money by taking a contrary view about AGW.

I can personally assure Dick that this approach does not make money.

Is Dick a supporter of the Finkelstein report which advocates greater control of the media, particularly the Murdoch media? It looks like it; he calls opposition to Finkelstein “claptrap” and goes all sanctimonious by wishing Finkelstein regulations were not necessary but he “can see why they are being proposed”. With his superior insight, then like Finkelstein, Dick will also think the average person will be tricked by the Murdoch press’s opposition to AGW. That is, Dick thinks the average reader is irrational and likely to be stirred up by false news.

Dick even resorts to the old chestnut that the Murdoch media is 70% of the total media. Dick says to Murdoch:
As you control 70% of the print media is Australia

This is claptrap. According to Parliamentary Library figures Murdoch publishes 32% of Australia’s print media but has over 70% of the readership. Murdoch is indeed the preferred source of news by the Australian average reader. Opposition to Murdoch is therefore a minority position.

It is also an arrogant and elitist position. Dick likes to pretend he is just an average punter but he is not. He shares the same elite position about AGW which informs the Finkelstein report. Dick also shares the tendency towards misanthropy which motivates the Green ideology. Dick thinks there are too many people in Australia and the world. He wants a negative population growth for Australia. Obviously Dick is offended by the numbers of people spoiling his right to enjoy nature untrammelled.

This sort of misanthropy is dangerously hostile to humanity because its logical end is that humanity is a blight and threat to nature. Is that what Dick wants? No people? If no people then how many; is the Chinese ‘solution’ to population something he would endorse? If not, what methods would he use to enforce his demands for a negative population?

Has Dick even considered the growing evidence against AGW? He may be surprised to know that a court case has just concluded in New Zealand. In New Zealand the temperature record is prepared by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research LTD [NIWA], which is their equivalent of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology [BOM].The New Zealand temperature record was challenged for being misleading and showing a temperature trend of 0.91C per century when the raw data showed a small trend of 0.23C; and even when the NIWA’s own criteria for adjusting raw data was used only a trend of 0.34C was found. NIWA had exaggerated the true trend by nearly 300%.

The Defence which NIWA filed was remarkable. Basically NIWA disowned the temperature record and said compiling an accurate record was not part of their duty.

During the court proceedings it became apparent why NIWA had chosen such a Defence. As part of the Defence it was argued that NIWA did not have a duty to pursue a standard of excellence in its activities; Counsel on their behalf argued that what NIWA aspired to was:

This is in contradiction to the pronouncements of certainty and public declarations of “the science is settled” which have framed the context of the NZ temperature record and its employment as justification for policy.

It also contradicts the essence of government service to the community which funds the government’s various agencies and rightfully expects those agencies should work for the public’s benefit.

It is a desperate Defence which can only be explained as a muddying of the waters and an attempt to obfuscate a plain interpretation of the role of government instrumentalities and their attendant duties.

It is also a clever Defence because if NIWA succeeds in having its functions not classified as duties then no breach of duty can be levied against it.

The ramifications for the BOM Australian temperature record are profound because that temperature record is compiled in a similar fashion to the New Zealand one. It would seem that a similar court action would be feasible against BOM.

Is the Defence by NIWA the sort of evidence which Dick relies on? And does he support such legal action against agencies like NIWA because the media exposure of the defects of the AGW evidence is censored in a way recommended by Finkelstein and there is no other option?

Dick is no doubt comforted by the fact that both of the major political parties in Australia, not only subscribe to the evidence for AGW, but seem to approve of Finkelstein’s approach to bringing the media’s misreporting [sic] of this evidence to an end.

AGW is a highly controversial concept, but freedom of the press is not. The evidence against AGW is growing. For Dick to base his support of Finkelstein and less media freedom on the truth of AGW is not only controversial but wrong.