Climate Quacking Carbon Accounting Climate Ignorance - Compounded with Interest
Cold Hard Climate Climate Commentary - GHGs Living in the Truth or Dying in Lies
A bit off topic, on propaganda The Big Lie Kicking Against the Pricks
Related misrepresentation Blaming and Realism : Big Oil's Damages
Corals on the Great Barrier Reef Climate comments from Energy Discussion Forum
John Christie Climate Change Testimony Climate Science Climate FUD
Extremes of Climate Castigation Mudslinging as 'climate science' Destroying the Greenhouse Effect Disqussion - opit Global Warming Denial Machine
Climate in Contention
International Climate Science Coalition
Climate of FUD
Duplicitous: US Coal Exports soar as O’blahblah announces new emissions restrictions on US coal fired power plants.
When Scientists Still Did Science
I am a climate skeptic who believes in global warming
'Forecast the Facts' demands newspaper namecalling
Disparity between IPCC scientific reports and political summaries requires a solution
Climate Reality at JoNova Apr 2 2014
Still Waiting for Greenhouse ( disputed data )
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010, “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
Partridge “…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.” This, he concludes: “is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.”
Monday, March 17, 2014
Politics has colonised science, whether or not climate science has understood the object of its study. The point is not to say that people should be free to lie, but that it is an unfortunate consequence of saying that people should be free to speak the truth
Home Page of the SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE)
Martin Durkins’ film, The Great Global Warming Swindle (aka TGGWS) was broadcast on Channel 4. TGGWS rightly or wrongly suggested that variations in solar output might be indirectly driving changes in the planet’s temperature. This may or may not have advanced science or the public’s understanding of the scientific arguments. But what it did reveal was the uglier side of the argument in favour of action to mitigate climate change. The climate change establishment mobilised against the film, calling for its censorship. “Free speech does not extend to misleading the public by making factually inaccurate statements”, complained Bob Ward, the charmless leader of this new inquisition. But free speech means nothing if it does not mean the freedom to make misleading statements, either in good faith or bad. My claim here might raise eyebrows. But the obvious problem with Ward’s claim is that individuals like him will shut down any reasonable debate on the basis of ‘factual accuracy’ once the state has determined it knows best what is or isn’t ‘factually accurate’.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Science isn't about joining the herd. Science isn't about confirming someone else's work. Science is about looking at the world, looking at the current explanation, deciding that the world is wrong and you are right, and then going out and proving it.
Like medieval inquisitors, supporters of climate change "science" don't debate the issue, they insult, intimidate, smear and ridicule.
Real scientists are by nature skeptical, it is a defining characteristic of science.
Since its origins, the IPCC has been open and explicit about seeking to generate a ‘scientific consensus’ around climate change and especially about the role of humans in climate change
Dr. Spencer has disputed PSI's science for several years. But as Postma's rebuttal showed, Spencer appears not to have even read it. As more scientists have increasingly agreed with PSI's position Spencer has felt the need to publish his own theoretical model of the GHE. Of course, the mere fact Spencer feels he must resort to his own pet theory of the GHE proves how little faith he has in that of others.
But strangely for a so-called “skeptic” of the “science” of the alarmists Spencer still relies on the calculations of key doomsayers, Kiehl and Trenberth, with his latest model
They will have the power to impose a “code of ethics”, force you to print views you don’t agree with as part of a ‘right of reply’, take you to court, and even make you take pieces down! Even personal blogs that get only 40 hits a day will be covered! To make matters worse, the SuperRegulator “would not have to give reasons for its decisions” and the decisions “would not be subject to appeal.” Even climate change websites in other countries like Watt’s Up With That will be covered by this!
While this super-regulatory agency is ostensibly designed to quash all anti-government policy speech, it is clearly aimed at climate skeptic blogs–and they really don’t like Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair…
4.33 One of the conclusions reached in the report was this: The two biggest News Ltd tabloids—the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph—have been so biased in their coverage that it is fair to say they ‘campaigned’ against the (CO2 Tax) policy rather than covered it.
Soylent Green new site
And leads off with pron
To that end he has ordered his minion Ken Salazar to put 11 million acres specifically set aside by congress for oil production off-limits to…wait for it…oil production.
Salazar says his plan “will help the industry bring energy safely to market from this remote location, while also protecting wildlife and subsistence rights of Alaska Natives.” He added that the proposal will expand “safe and responsible oil and gas development, and builds on our efforts to help companies develop the infrastructure that’s needed to bring supplies online.”And what is he putting on federal land instead? You guessed it–Batshredders and Unicorn Fart Collectors.
The Interior Department set aside about 285,000 acres for commercial-scale solar in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. The federal government will offer incentives for development, help facilitate access to existing or planned electric infrastructure and ease the permitting process in the 17 zones.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict* future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
- The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
- This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
Treating ‘perfectly normal, degenerative changes in our spine as abnormal and painful conditions’ makes us anxious and fearful.
In turn, we treat our backs as fragile, delicate structures prone to damage and ‘require endless instructions on how to sit, stand, bend, work and lift’.
‘People also often misdiagnose themselves, or accept a mistaken diagnosis that attributes their back pain to an injury that occurred long ago that suddenly flares up again,’ he adds.
As a result of all this, we become anxious about our backs, says Sinfield. And that anxiety is creating what he calls Tension Related Pain (TRP).
This is where a slow accumulation of anxiety and stress over many months, even years, can cause the arrangement of muscles, nerves, tendons and ligaments to tighten and change — restricting blood and oxygen supply.
‘Muscles deprived of oxygen can build up deposits of lactic acid, triggering pain, spasm, tingling or numbness,’ he says, adding that this pain can easily be confused with the pain that caused the back problem in the first place.
All this prevents patients from recognising that pain is harmless muscle tension which, he says, can be dissipated through exercise (to stretch and build muscle, boosting blood and oxygen flow), relaxation and knowledge.
Knowledge means learning to stop worrying about your pain, and thinking about the impact of emotions on your health.
Unfortunately, he says, ‘as a result of the powerful and widespread misconception that backs are inherently fragile, most people will reject a diagnosis of TRP.
They refuse to believe their pain is not only from a physical cause and they fear a TRP diagnosis somehow reveals them as being emotionally weak.’
These views about the origins of back pain are controversial. But many experts agree that tension can exacerbate long-term pain, even if their explanation for why this happens differs from the one Sinfield proposes.
Chinese government held off because it disapproves of the EU’s intention to regulate greenhouse emissions of foreign airlines operating to and from the 27-country blochere) suggest that Prof Lewandowsky submitted a substantial amendment to an existing Ethics Committee ("EC") approval, which had already been used for one study, in order to use it for the now infamous "moon landing denier" paper (see here).
The amendment was approved by an administrative officer in the EC in less than 24 hours, and I currently have an email in to the head of UWA's Ethics Office with a number of questions regarding the conduct of the approval of the amendment. The text of the email is reproduced at the end of this post.
However, notwithstanding the above, I have spent a little time researching the Australian National Statement of Ethical Conduct in Human Research (which can be found here). The introduction provides some background to the Statement's purpose:
The purpose of this National Statement is to promote ethically good human research. Fulfilment of this purpose requires that participants be accorded the respect and protection that is due to them. It also involves the fostering of research that is of benefit to the community......
The National Statement is therefore designed to clarify the responsibilities of:
The National Statement will help them to meet their responsibilities: to identify issues of ethics that arise in the design, review and conduct of human research, to deliberate about those ethical issues, and to justify decisions about them.
- institutions and researchers for the ethical design, conduct and dissemination of results of human research; and
- review bodies in the ethical review of research.
Does the research raise questions regarding "respect"? Given Prof Lewandowsky is on the record, well prior to the research being carried out, that he was of the opinion that climate scepticism was linked to far-fetched conspiracy theory ideation (see here), it could be argued that there was a substantial risk of humiliation or disrespectful treatment of participants, given that it may be argued that the intention of the research was to make that link - which in itself is objectively demeaning (either to the participants or a subset of the "wider community"). Even if it did not reach the threshold for "harm" could be regarded at least as a "discomfort".
The emails to "sceptical blogs" stated:
" … I am seeking your assistance with a web-based survey of attitudes towards climate science (and other sciences) and skepticism [sic]. The survey has been approved by the University's ethics committee and carries no risks for participants."We will see what kind of approval the survey received in due course, no doubt.
What benefits did the research provide? Evidence that climate sceptics have a psychological inability to accept climate science, linked to an acceptance of wacky conspiracy theories? It would be easy to reach the conclusion that the purpose of the research was simply to confirm a belief already held and portray sceptics in a negative light, in order to make a political point.
Campaigns rise as carbon tax comes into play
Hat Tip Haunting the Library
- Ignore the Elephant, Blame the Mouse: Global Warming and Food Security.
- Farmers to be Paid to Stop Cows Farting? New Carbon Credit Plan Floated.
- UK Electricity “Set to Become Unaffordable” Within 3 Years Independent Report Finds.
The two men, who have devoted their lives to scientific research, say they depend on the scientific method and peer review to judge the quality of the research that underscores their findings. The climate predictions are based on 10 of the 20 climate models developed independently worldwide that all show the world is getting warmer.
Campaigns rise as carbon tax comes into play.
Climate change is caused not just by today’s carbon emissions, but by carbon accumulated in the atmosphere due to years of emissions. If you gauge emissions on a historical basis, developed countries are responsible for more than 75 percent.
If we talk of countries’ capability with respect to solving the climate problem, it is clear that the great majority of financial and technological wherewithal resides in the North. The developed world controls approximately three-quarters of the world’s GDP. If one takes into account that a much higher fraction of GDP goes toward meeting very basic needs, such as food, shelter, and medical care, then the North controls more like six-sevenths of the world’s discretionary GDP.
( And we wonder why small countries ran for their lives at Copenhagen )
There has been a particularly toxic positive feedback loop between climate science and policy and politics, whose direction has arguably been reversed as result of Climategate.
International efforts to deal with the climate change problem were launched in 1992 with the UNFCCC treaty.Wait a minute, what climate change problem? In 1992, we had just completed the first IPCC assessment report, here was their conclusion: “The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. . . The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.” Nevertheless, the policy cart was put before the scientific horse, justified by the precautionary principle. Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy.
- At the heart of the IPCC
is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC.
These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy
process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of
science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown,
inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of
influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which
has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.
Image via WikipediaEducation versus indoctrinationThe Wikipedia defines indoctrination as:
Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.No one out there seemed to be clued in to my entry behaviour. They seemed primarily involved in one of two things. First, disseminating not things that would help me think for myself, but convince me one way or the other. Second, things which I could perceive had educative value, but which were presented at too demanding a level. I was often referred to scienceofdoom, and all sides seemed to think that site is worthy. But it started at too high a level, and from my viewpoint rapidly went stratospheric. I needed something to bridge the gap between entry behaviour and that.
- Testimony follow up
- Best of the greenhouse
- Climate model verification and validation
- Skeptical discussion
- Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect
- Waving the Italian flag. Part I: uncertainty and pedigree
- Raising the level of the game: Part II
- Skeptics: make your best case
- Raising the level of the game
- The Principles of Reasoning. Part II: Solving the Problem of Induction
- Engaging the public on the climate change issue
- What have we learned from Climategate? Part II
- Principles of Reasoning. Part I: Abstraction
- What have we learned from Climategate?
Rain o'er me
Documentary examines geoengineering and the checkered history of weather modificationhttp://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-22-owning-the-weather-documentary-geoengineering
Geoengineering had its coming out party earlier this year when White House science adviser John Holdren told reporters that he had mentioned it to President Obama as a possible, admittedly desperate, option to combat climate change. Before then, the idea of hacking the planet was largely outside the realm of public discussion, which is why few people know that when Lyndon Johnson became the first president to be warned about global warming, his science advisers offered up geoengineering as the only possible solution.
This insistence upon the manipulation of nature as the answer to the climate problem is the subject of a new documentary called Owning the Weather, which chronicles attempts over the last century to unlock the planet’s most mysterious and intricate of systems for both personal and societal gain. Director Robert Greene makes the case that the large-scale, biosphere-altering effects of geoengineering can’t be understood without examining smaller scale weather modification, such as cloud seeding to produce rain.
- A Fast, Cheap Way to Cool the Planet (online.wsj.com)
- Governor Of Katrina-Ravaged Louisiana Tries To Block Climate Change Regulation (thinkprogress.org)
SOME POINTS TO PONDER:Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Tue, 06/22/2010 - 15:01
Climate is just the sum of weather. So if you cannot forecast the weather a month in advance, you will not be able to forecast the climate 50 years in advance. And official meteorologists such as Britain's Met Office and Australia's BOM, are very poor forecasters of weather. The Met office has in fact given up on making seasonal forecasts because they have so often got such forecasts embarrassingly wrong. Their global-warming-powered "models" just did not deliver
Here's how that "97% consensus" figure was arrived at
A new, purportedly scientific report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is claiming that more “top” environmental scientists believe in global warming. Moreover, the report also claims that the scientists who do believe in global warming—now re-labeled anthropogenic climate change (ACC)—have higher credibility than those who do not. All of this is based on an “extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data.” Citing such data is like saying “most of the people who write for conservative magazines are conservatives.” In other words, the study is devoid of factual significance and possibly purposely misleading. More propaganda from the sinking global warming ship.
A strange Green/Left conceit: They seem to think (e.g. here) that no-one should spend money opposing them and that conservative donors must not support the election campaigns of Congressmen they agree with
In a speech at the National Press Club, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu made the case for more R&D in the U.S., especially in the energy sector ("the 2010 federal budget is $3.6 trillion, of which 0.14 percent went for research and development related to energy"). Dr. Chu explains why this is essential for both economic development and to meet environmental challenges, and he compares China's progress in clean technologies and energy to the wake up call that was the launch of the Sputnik satellite by the Soviet Union. Image by David_Reverchon via Flickr
Randy Olson at the Benshi has a post entitled “A moment in climate history: when Al Gore tried to brush aside the entire climate skeptic movement.” Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” is a fascinating study in education versus indoctrination. Olson rails against the climate movement for it’s unwillingness to take a critical look at Al Gore’s movie, which he characterizes as “the single most important piece of global warming mass communication to date.”
Olson’s essay is primarily concerned with the treatment of skeptics.
Gore symbolically dismissed the ENTIRE climate skeptic movement in his movie in this one scene that cited 928 climate papers affirming human-caused global warming, then said zero papers disagree with this “consensus.” It came from Naomi Oreskes Science paper. Certainly the substance of what he said was true. But the style of delivery sent a condescending, dismissive message to the already-enormous climate skeptic movement that “you don’t even deserve to be recognized.” Which might have been fine had they been a trivial group of crackpots. But they weren’t, as they forcefully showed with Climategate. And thus it failed as a tactic.
Gore’s dismissal of the skeptics seemed to signal to the climate establishment that this was the appropriate strategy. More importantly, you saw the major environmental groups involved with global warming simply turning a blind eye to this significant opposition force. There existed an opponent, but no one wanted to look them in their eyes. I was amazed in 2007 that virtually no one had been to see some of the major climate skepticsm(Singer, Michaels, Morano, Hayward, Gray) to interview them for a film previous to me. There was just a big campaign to “ignore them and they will go away.” Aside from Naomi Oreskes (ironically the source of the numbers Gore cited) who was engaged in direct and blunt combat with them, no one seemed to be taking them on through any sort of mass media.
And then there was Climategate. Literally overnight the, “there is no debate,” voice vanished. The science and environmental communities finally learned there is a debate — not through effective leadership and communication, but by having their noses shoved in it.
I have been criticized all over the blogosphere for discussing topics that I am not a particular authority on, or winging it is certain discussions. Since I don’t view myself as any particular arbiter of “climate truth,” and I allow some pretty freewheeling discussions over here and don’t flag commenters for stating “mistruths” or providing “misinformation,” I am viewed by some as misleading and confusionist. How can we strike the best balance for true education, and I’m assuming here that education and understanding should be the goal?
- So Al Gore didn't invent global warming? Who knew? (scienceblogs.com)
- Climate Change Scheme in Jeopardy: Scramble on to Retool Messaging Effort (michellemalkin.com)
- About Al Gore and Those Ethanol Subsidies (kylesmithonline.com)
- Junkscience.com Responds to Al Gore Attack on Koch Industries; GoreFacts.com Aimed to Counter KochIndustriesFacts.com (prnewswire.com)
- Climate Tycoon Al Gore Urges You To Vote No On Proposition 23 (cehwiedel.com)
- An 'ARE YOU SMARTER THAN AL GORE?' energy quiz (csmonitor.com)
- Al Gore: corn ethanol sucks, but I pushed it for political reasons (minx.cc)
- Al Gore Opposes Corn-Based Ethanol Subsidies (independent.org)
- Al Gore: The Media Has Failed in Covering the Climate Crisis (huffingtonpost.com)
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.(See "Sun Oddly Quiet—Hints at Next 'Little Ice Age?'")
The announcement yesterday stunned many people because the AAS confidently placed the Sun in the Maunder type minimum category, which caused a vastly colder climate than Dalton. The reality of a Dalton type minimum occurring right now has long been obvious.
This cold climate producing sun (less solar irradiation/infrared hitting Earth and increased cosmic rays hitting Earth causing more clouds) is already starting to impact Earth (even the troposphere) with cooling. Also, the entire ocean is cooling (and ocean currents are going back to colder patterns), arctic ice is back to normal, volcano activity is very high, and the past 3 winters have been among the snowiest and coldest on record in the Northern Hemisphere.
It is time to title another Grand Solar Minimum and the next Little Ice Age.
- Sunspot Drop Won't Cause Global Cooling (wired.com)
- Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade (thetruthiswhere.wordpress.com)
- Out: global "warming". In: new Little Ice Age. (crushliberalism.com)
How Well Do Scientists Understand How Changes in Earth's Orbit Affect Long-Term Natural Climate Trends?The notion that scientists understand how changes in Earth's orbit affect climate well enough for estimating long-term natural climate trends that underlie any anthropogenic climate change is challenged by findings just published.
- Climatologists Forecast Completely New Climates
- Meteorologists See Future of Increasingly Extreme Weather Events
- Astronomers Discover That The Earth's Magnetotail Charges The Surface Of The Moon
- Defusing the Methane Greenhouse Time Bomb (scientificamerican.com)
- Utah State Rep: Climate Change Is Conpiracy To Control Populaton (alan.com)
- Arctic sea ice vanishing faster than 'our most pessimistic models': researcher (calgaryherald.com)
- Industrialised nations' carbon cut plans 'are pathetic'