Climatism


English: DhammaYatra for Lampatao River Basin,...English: DhammaYatra for Lampatao River Basin,no.11,2010 Dhamma Cooling vs Global Warming (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Great Global Warming SwindleThe Great Global Warming Swindle (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 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
Germany's Energy Dilemma - is U.S. Far Behind?
4 days ago
Following the disaster at Fukushima, Japan 4 years ago, Germany's leaders decided to phase out nuclear power. Now, the nation faces a major quandary. Charging down the politically correct, global warming path and radically cut greenhouse gas emissions, they find a problem. Because they are dropping nuclear power, over 40% ...

truthandaction.org

 Duplicitous: US Coal Exports soar as O’blahblah announces new emissions restrictions on US coal fired power plants. 

When Scientists Still Did Science















oldephartte 
#1

You have to pay attention to the backstory right on the IPCC site itself to understand Anthropogenic Global Warming ( rebranded as climate change ) is treated as a given - and scientific exploration of the topic missing in action. There is a simple reason scientists can go no further than parroting opinions ( which they consider facetious, requiring proofs ) : there can be no measurement of data from events which have not occurred. The whole issue is an exercise in activism cloaked as prophecy. i.e. How gullible are you, really ? Facts are not merely hard to pin down or technically difficult to understand, but non-existent.
Nor is the epithet 'denier' anything less than an exercise in pejorative evasion : smear differing opinions with Strawman Argumentation of the Poisoning the Well subgroup of Logical Fallacies : when you have nothing substantive to further your argument, Shoot the Messenger and posit false choices, so excluding rational analysis.

 Not a Lot of People Know That  Dec 1, 15  Last 4 months  5 - 8 months  9 - 12 months

Climate Lessons  Dec 1 -15

 Climate Updates  2015-08-10











( Debate ? I can't find any ! )

This Company Removes Carbon Dioxide from the Air and Turns It Into Useful Fuel
5 days ago
Greenhouse gases pose a real and significant threat to the world's ecosystems. These gases, primarily Carbon Dioxide (CO2), are responsible for deteriorating the delicate balance of nature. Now, in an attempt to reverse the trend of global warming, Carbon Engineering, a tech startup based in British Columbia, Canada, plans to ...
iindustrytap.com

Satellites: Earth Is Nearly In Its 21st Year Without Global Warming
3 weeks ago
Michael Bastasch Daily Caller After September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 22nd year without statistically significant warming trend, according to satellite-derived temperature data. Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville's satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend. For 21 years there's been no warming ...
grumpyelder.com

The Global Warming Stall Is About to Turn 21
3 weeks ago
According to satellite measurements, there is still no global warming - for two decades and counting. Michael Bastasch writes at the Daily Caller, "Satellites: Earth Is Nearly In Its 21st Year Without Global Warming." After September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 21st year without statistically significant warming trend, ...
politicaloutcast.com

No Study Supports Global Warming Affecting Himalayas: Minister Prakash Javadekar
3 days ago
Global warming is the increase of Earth's average surface temperature due to effect of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels or from deforestation. This traps heat that would otherwise escape from Earth. Interestingly, no study has so far supported the theory that global warming was causing natural calamities in ...
medindia.net

Global Cooling - the Real Inconvenient Truth

Climate Reality at JoNova Apr 2 2014

Still Waiting for Greenhouse ( disputed data )

Greenpeace co-founder testifies to Congress about global warming

( Lubos is p.o.'d - and makes sure to point out some home truths )

Global Warming Hysteria is Pouring Down

 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.”

 Breaking the Set

Open Peer Review Journal
associated with tropopause
1
Connolly Scientific Research Group. Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
Atmospheric pro les in North America during the period 2010-2011, obtained from archived weather
balloon radiosonde measurements, were analysed in terms of changes of molar density (
D
) with pressure
(
P
). This revealed a pronounced phase change at the tropopause. The air above the troposphere (i.e.,
in the tropopause/stratosphere) adopted a \heavy phase", distinct from the conventional \light phase"
found in the troposphere. This heavy phase was also found in the lower troposphere for cold, Arctic winter
radiosondes.
Reasonable ts for the complete barometric temperature pro les of all of the considered radiosondes
could be obtained by just accounting for these phase changes and for changes in humidity. This suggests
that the well-known changes in temperature lapse rates associated with the tropopause/stratosphere regions
are related to the phase change, and not \ozone heating", which had been the previous explanation.
Possible correlations between solar ultraviolet variability and climate change have previously been ex-
plained in terms of changes in ozone heating in uencing stratospheric weather. These explanations may
have to be revisited, but the correlations might still be valid, e.g., if it transpires that solar variability in u-
ences the formation of the heavy phase, or if the changes in incoming ultraviolet radiation are redistributed
throughout the atmosphere, after absorption in the stratosphere.
The ts for the barometric temperature pro les did not require any consideration of the composition

of atmospheric trace gases, such as carbon dioxide, ozone or methane. This contradicts the predictions of
current atmospheric models, which assume the temperature pro les are strongly influenced by greenhouse
gas concentrations. This suggests that the greenhouse effect plays a uch smaller role in barometric
temperature pro less than previously assumed.
...
we will analyse
9
weather balloon data taken from public archives, in
10
terms of changes of molar density with pressure, and
11
related variables. By doing so, we discover a phase
12
change associated with the troposphere-tropopause
13
transition, which also occurs in the lower tropo-
14
sphere under cold, polar winter conditions. We
15
nd that when this phase change is considered, the
16
changes in temperature with atmospheric pressure
17
(the
barometric temperature pro les
) can be described
18
in relatively simple terms. These descriptions do

19

not match the radiative physics-based infra-red cool-

20

ing/radiative heating explanations used by current
21
models. We present theoretical explanations of these
22
simple descriptions from thermodynamic principles 

Wednesday, March 19, 2014


Climate Capers

Monday, March 17, 2014


Climate Resistance

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

Mar 11 2014

 SORCE

Home Page of the SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE)

The GWPF, Crok & Lewis, and Positioning Sceptics

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’. 

Donna Laframboise on Green NGOs & the UNFCCC

Climate Science, How She Is Done

Ex NASA Scientists: The Science is Clearly NOT Settled

Robert Wagner article . Opening paragraph

 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.  

Concerns about visas for scientists to attend scientific meetings

 Ice Age Now / Science Decapitated

 Henk Tennekes' Resignation from Dutch Academy

Scientist's Climate Change Dissent Vindicated

Marchesa's Climate Blog  

Consensus, what consensus? Four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

The Myth of 'Acidification' of Oceans

Marine life, including that part that fixes CO2 as the carbonate in limestones such as coral reefs, evolved on an Earth with CO2 levels many times higher than those of today, as reported by Berner and Kothaval. It may be true to say that today’s marine life is getting by in a CO2-deprived environment.

Marine life depends on CO2, and some plants and animals fix it as limestone, which is not generally re-dissolved. Over geological time enormous amount of CO2 have been sequestered by living things, so that today there is far more CO2 in limestones than in the atmosphere or ocean. This sequestration of CO2 by living things is far more important than trivial additions to the atmosphere caused by human activity. 

 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

Roy Spencer and WUWT Cut and Run on own Greenhouse Gas Challenge

Written by John O'Sullivan
Dr. Roy Spencer threw down his “put up or shut up” challenge (May 10, 2013) to Principia Scientific International (PSI) demanding PSI prove they possessed a better climate model than the discredited greenhouse gas “theory.” PSI's model accounts for all the incoming and outgoing solar energy on Earth without any need to factor in the alleged heating effect of carbon dioxide (CO2). As such, PSI promptly did "put up" and now Roy has been shut up.
The consensus view held by most government climatologists since the late 1980's is that the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) is real and “settled science.” At the extreme end of the spectrum are the alarmists, such as James Hansen, Michael Mann, etc, who have claimed the current rise in CO2 levels will trigger the GHE into causing dangerous global warming. Meanwhile leading lights in the skeptics' camp, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Anthony Watts, etc. hold moderate views believing any increase in CO2 will only cause “some warming.” What makes PSI the heretics in this debate is that we assert that CO2 is empirically proven to be a cooling gas. As such it can contribute no warming whatsoever. Backing our claims are our eight peer-reviewed papers (see under 'Publications' on our site).

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 

OZ To Loose Ministry Of Truth On Bloggers

Posted on March 3, 2012 by SOYLENT GREEN
I saw this first at Ozclimatesense, but the link is to Simon at ACM because he has created a new site to allow Aussies to fight this–while they still can…
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.
Look out for our alien overlords in the FCC to make another similar move after the SCOAMF is re-elected.

Soylent Green new site

And leads off with  pron

President “All Of The Above” Bans Oil Production in PETROLEUM Preserve

Not content to merely bankrupt the coal industry, His Wholly Reluctance has decided that all energy prices need to “necessarily skyrocket.”
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.


NOAA is serious about including attribution of extreme events as part of its proposed National Climate Service. 
The assumption that extreme weather events “demand explanation” is strange in and of itself; most people assume that weather “happens” and are mainly concerned about having a good forecast with advanced warning.  Those wondering about the climate connections might be interested in whether or not this was an El Nino year, or of course we expect more Atlantic hurricanes since it the active (warm) phase of the AMO, it was the “pineapple express,” there was a big blocking pattern that brought in warm air from Africa, etc.
Since Hurricane Katrina, the issue of whether global warming is contributing to specific extreme events has been discussed in the media by scientists.  Exactly what would someone do with the information (if they could assume it accurate) that 5% less rainfall would have fell in Pakistan without global warming   (95% of the rain would still cause massive flooding)?  Would this help people adapt better to extreme events (there is already a large adaptation deficit in most places)?  Would it provide fodder for litigation or the “blame game” to motivate more international humanitarian assistance?  Would it help build political will to support CO2 mitigation policies?  Can you think of other things people might do with such information?  Do any of these reasons seem valid/useful and potentially worth U.S. taxpayer dollars to provide such attribution service?

Learning to love uncertainty

Knowing the limits of what science can tell us, and understanding the worth of failure are all valuable tools that would improve people’s lives.
Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of Aix-Marseille, emphasised the uselessness of certainty. He said that the idea of something being “scientifically proven” was practically an oxymoron and that the very foundation of science is to keep the door open to doubt.
“A good scientist is never ‘certain’. Lack of certainty is precisely what makes conclusions more reliable than the conclusions of those who are certain: because the good scientist will be ready to shift to a different point of view if better elements of evidence, or novel arguments emerge. Therefore certainty is not only something of no use, but is in fact damaging, if we value reliability.”
Uncertainty is intrinsic to the process of finding out what you don’t know, not a weakness to avoid

Daniel Hernandez, Intern Who Helped Save Giffords: Political Discourse Has Become "Completely Destructive"

the Sustainability Institute applies systems thinking, system dynamics modeling, and organizational learning to economic, environmental and social challenges.

Top Ten Ways Climate Interactive and C-ROADS Delivered Results in Copenhagen

(January 19, 2010) The Climate Interactive team, led by Sustainability Institute, delivered big results in Copenhagen at the UNFCCC's COP15 climate conference.More (+)

Sustainability Institute calls for tapping Systems Thinking Potential in UN Process

COPENHAGEN, DENMARK (December 8, 2009) Bas de Leeuw, Executive Director of the Dana Meadows Sustainability Institute in the USA pointed to the untapped potential of systems thinking for better achieving the sustainable consumption and production agenda. Individuals need to be empowered to “be the change in the world they want to see", he said. More (+)

CO2 Science

www.co2science.org/
Copenhagen Concerns · The Scientists Speak · CO2 Truth-Alerts · Feature DVDs ... on your own web page, or to watch them on YouTube in a higher resolution. ...

 Editorial Weaknesses in Our Knowledge of Land-Ice/Sea-Level Interactions: A recent review of the subject reveals a number of inadequacies that greatly limit our ability to accurately forecast future changes in sea level.
Journal Reviews
Abrupt Climate Change Simulations: How good are they?
Predicting the Course of Climate Change Over the Next Decade: ... and being correct. How difficult -- or easy -- is it?
The Seven Deadly "Sins of Omission" that Plague Projections of Future Spatial Distributions of Marine Life: What are they? ... and just how deadly are they?
Primary Production in the Bering Sea: How has it responded to recent climate change? ... and how is it expected to respond in the future?
Semi-Arid Grasslands in a CO2-Enriched and Warmer World: How are they likely to fare? 

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 crystal ball has a crack in it. Wowsers. It's 'science', remember ? Bollocks. It's G.I.G.O. on steroids while busily violating Scientific Method. )
  • 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

At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.

.... according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as  those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

 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.

Trade war begins

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 bloc

Lewandowsky: ethical considerations for "moon landing denier" paper

The Freedom of Information documents received recently from the University of Western Australia (and discussed here) 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:
  • institutions and researchers for the ethical design, conduct and dissemination of results of human research; and
  • review bodies in the ethical review of research.
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.
.....
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

 

Climate model output is now “data”

Both [Seth] Wenger [a fisheries researcher with Trout Unlimited in Boise] and [Dan] Isaak, a fisheries biologist at the U.S. Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station in Boise, were a part of a team of 11 scientists who said trout habitat could drop by 50 percent over the next 70 years because of a warming world. The paper, published Monday in the peer-reviewed science journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, predicts native cutthroat habitat could decline by 58 percent.
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.

AndyG55 says:
12/05/2011 at 1:31 am
Wasn’t there someone by the name of Jones, who commented in an email.. something like..” the problem is.. none of the models are correct” !
then.. ” Its only a model.. its doesn’t need to be correct”
That’s AGW for y’all !!!

 Climate Depot

UK Met Office accused of Propaganda: 'Notice (Central England temp) graph begins just before 1780. Yet CET series actually began in 1659, so why did not Met show full graph?'

 

Campaigns rise as carbon tax comes into play

....protest against the carbon tax on the steps of state Parliament. Controversial broadcaster Alan Jones was joined by federal Liberal Victorian MPs, including Sophie Mirabella and Bruce Billson, to denounce the scheme.
Mr Jones said some businesses would collapse as they found themselves unable to remain competitive after passing the tax on.
He said Prime Minister Julia Gillard had shattered the public's faith in politics by backflipping on her pre-election pledge not to introduce the tax.
Advertisement
"What this one person has done ... is to diminish the image of parliament and politics in the eyes of the public," he said.
"The notion of global warming is a hoax, this is witchcraft.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/campaigns-rise-as-carbon-tax-comes-into-play-20120701-21ai5.html#ixzz29RdyM35U

CO2 Cannot Cause Any More "Global Warming"

These links;
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Saturated%20Greenhouse%20Effect%20Theory.pdf
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/13/ferenc-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-c02-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming/
is a paper by Dr. Miklos Zogoni based on work done by Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi a Hungarian Physicist - SATURATED GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY - it is a brilliant piece of work that convincingly shows that the Earth's CO2 is automatically kept under control by natural processes involving mainly water vapour.
The conclusion is that, since the Earth’s temperature does not depend on our CO2 emissions in any way, trying to limit our emissions is bound to be entirely ineffective in protecting the climate from warming.
Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," but he claims NASA refused to allow him. 
Solar Chord Science ( Book promo )
Frederick Bailey's innovative work of science (dubbed Solar Chord Science) very precisely explains all significant cycles of the past several hundred years and now presents as a reliable model for forecasting of forthcoming warming and cooling cycles of both global and regional impact.
Solar Chord Science is founded entirely on the fundamental principles of Solar System science defined by Isaac Newton in his Principia of 1687; Newton's brilliant analysis and discovery is even more relevant today than ever previously as the controversy over climate cycling continues. Were more within the formal scientific Establishments to revert to Newtonian science it is predictable the level of controversy would quickly recede.
Bailey's analysis has been positively reviewed by several leading scientists who have taken the time to study and understand it deeply. In 2007 Bailey co-authored a scientific paper, regarded by many peers as a classic work**, with Professors Will Alexander, David Bredenkamp, et al. The key principles in Bailey's Solar Chord science played a vital part in Alexander et al's research findings.
** Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development - W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe and N Willemse. [Paper was originally published by Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering in June 2007 - a pdf copy is attached below]
Professor Alexander tendered this observation about his colleague Frederick Bailey's research -
 Professor William Alexander, Professor Emeritus, University of Pretoria, South Africa
"For nearly two hundred years scientists have struggled to find explanations for the undoubted linkage between processes in the solar system, including the Sun itself, on our climate. Fred Bailey has studied the linkage and produced some new insights that are certain to advance our knowledge on this previously intractable problem - "Monumental"

Alexander, Bailey et al Paper (.PDF | 925K)
Climate Change Science
One of the goals of the Friends of Science Society is to educate the public through dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective technical information on the scientific merit of the Kyoto Protocol and the global warming issue. The science of climate change is complex. Unfortunately, politics and the media has affected the science. Climate research institutions know that they must present scary climate forecasts to receive continued funding - no crisis means no funding. The media presents stories of climate disaster to sell their products. Scientific research that suggests climate change is mostly natural does not receive much if any media coverage. These factors have caused the general public to be seriously misled on climate issues resulting in wasteful expenditures of billions of dollars in an ineffective attempt to control climate. This document gives an overview of climate change issues as determined by a comprehensive review of the state of climate science.

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming


As Galileo was to the Catholic Church, anthropogenic climate change skeptics are to the Church of Settled Science

 
.

Sivan Kartha: Getting the facts right on KyotoHow to DealImage via Wikipedia

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 )

Climate, etc.

 Reversing the direction of the positive feedback loop

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.

 Reporters Without Borders Internet censorship ...Image via WikipediaEducation versus indoctrination

The 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.
Dangerous Geoegineering Experiment to Increase Whiteness of the Clouds Funded by Bill Gates
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/environment/humans/chemtrails/news.php?q=1274156093

 
Rain o'er me

Documentary examines geoengineering and the checkered history of weather modification

http://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.

SOME POINTS TO PONDER:

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

PNAS Climate Change Expert Credibility Farce

Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Tue, 06/22/2010 - 15:01
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

Steven Chu: China Giving U.S. a Clean Technology "Sputnik Moment"

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

Education versus indoctrination

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? 

 Subscribe to climatechangedebate
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangedebate/

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)