What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Carl Sagan:- “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

A troll dropped his shit on a thread at http://wattsupwiththat.com and crept off. This is that:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

Dr James Lawrence Powell – “Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility – In One Pie Chart”

I take a couple of issues with it. Not least of which is the claim that almost 40,000 papers were read, to some extent, by this guy, albeit with some help from usual suspects, SS crackwhores Crook and Vermicelli – even if they ‘only’ read the titles and abstracts that is a lot of time invested.

This ‘scientist’ asks others to provide evidence that his and his cohort’s guesswork is erroneous. [FAIL]. Err, that’s your job. If your guesswork was falsifiable – BTW we know it is NOT falsifiable, therefore it is not graced with the epithet of ‘hypothesis’ – the FACT that no-one has done so yet is not a problem for sceptics. It is your, and your congregation’s problem. Why should this have to be continuously pointed out to you guys? You are educated?

So. At one end of this particular straw-man turkey sub Dr James Lawrence Powell claims to have read “…whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that “reject” human-caused global warming …”, Nearly 40,000 articles. and at the bottom of his ‘Hot Brown Sandwich’ we find “…We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree …” [FAIL]

That is a lot of effort spent to jump to a wrong conclusion. If I had put this much work into a project I would probably notice that I was investigating the wrong premise. After 10 years of wading in this mire I have only observed two, maybe three eccentrics who claim that there was no warming in the last quarter of the 20th Century – the rest of us seem to reject the human causation will cause a catastrophe up the road aspect to varying degree[pun intended].

He bases this conclusion on zero evidence. That elusive ‘magic bullet’ that he so wishes existed in his closed circuit of projection: “… had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies proves human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.” Fixed That For Ya Dr Powell

I read some of his stuff at http://www.jamespowell.org/Blog/Blog.php Whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that show his joy of life in the echo chambers of “… ClimateProgress.org, RealClimate.org, and SkepticalScience.com …” because I cannot comment at desmogblog where the ‘article’ is posted and his homepage does not allow commentary. Quelle sur-fucking-prise.

Also, on Thu, Dec 8 2011 he wrote “… Why is sea level rising faster than any time in history? …” [FAIL] He is a geologist. Not a very good one it would appear. The guy is a paid advocate out of the Gore mould. I wont be wasting any more time on him. 3 strikes. Get out.

… and the strawman? The entire premise of the article is that proof of warming is proof that bad monkeys did it by setting fire to things. No wonder he ‘works’ with the SS (Cook and Nuccitelli) and worships the investigative skillz of Oreskes. He is a turd eater. He is merely regurgitating prior work:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

This joker is barking up the wrong red herring.

“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”

William Shenstone :- “A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood.”

As we head into a cold and snowy “period” here in the UK….

Lest we forget______

20 March 2000

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past” Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

10 November 2001

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2001/november.html

“Bedfordshire received up to 3 cm of snow in parts, the earliest significant report of lying snow in southern England since 1980.”

25 January 2002

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2002/january.html

“…most parts of Scotland experienced a substantial snowfall.”

4 January 2003

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2627777.stm

“The snow drew youngsters to the Newcastle moor”

21 November 2004

“A cold plunge of Arctic air brought widespread snow to the Midlands and parts of the south with over 5cm of lying snow in some central parts. A temperature of -13 was recorded …”

25 November 2005

“An early snowfall affected parts of the SW of England, Wales and Scotland causing power cuts and traffic problems partly caused by the ‘Pembrokeshire Dangler’ affect.”

Tuesday 28 February 2006 – Saturday 4 March 2006
Heavy snow showers affected many districts of the UK over this 4-day period. The areas that sustained the worst of the snow were N Scotland, E Scotland, NE England, N Ireland, Wales and East Anglia. Heavy snow showers also affected CS England, NW England, the Midlands and SW England.

Monday, April 10th, 2006 – More than 13cm of snow fell in parts of Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire and southern London. In Kent, the M20 was covered with a thin layer of snow that made driving hazardous,

19 November 2007

“A deep low to the south dragged cold air up SE from an unusually cold continent … Snowfall was the key story though, with places like Sennybridge (nr Brecon) reporting 7cm and Bromyard as much as 10cm with similar amounts across parts of East Wales, Worcestershire and Shropshire.”

28 October 2008

“It snowed in London last night – the first time it had snowed in October since 1934. And as the temperatures plummeted our elected representatives voted in favour of the climate change bill…”

21 November 2009 C L I M A T E G A T E (those CRU people again)

16 Dec 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6824978/Snow-falls-in-London-for-first-time-this-winter.html

“Temperatures dropped to minus 6C in some rural areas overnight, and forecasters warned that some parts of south-east England could see 1-2cm of snow fall today.”

07 Jan 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6947586/Snow-covers-Britain-from-head-to-toe.html

“Snow covers Britain from head to toe…”

10 January 2010 Dr David Viner, head of the British Council’s climate change programme (with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad)!!!!!!

“I still stand by my prediction…”

Well, he would, wouldn’t he?

This costs us £18 billion every year attempting to cut CO2 output to equal some time in the past.

All that effort by the UK (10 years and more to come) wiped out by China in a single MONTH last year.

“They” are all in on it, incapable of joined up thinking and dragging science through the dirt by funding this disgrace with billions every year.

Every cut made by the Cleggatron rendered utterly unnecessary if we could wake them up to reality. But, if the weather/climate isn’t going to do it what then???

Nothing to See Here, Move Along….

Luther Burbank :- “We must learn that any person, who will not accept what he knows to be truth, for the very love of truth alone, is very definitely undermining his mental integrity.”

Faced with climategate, indeed everything-gate and the media avoidance of the same, it seems warranted to revisit some down to Earth views on the validity of CO2 as a “bad thing” and whether we could, or indeed should do anything at all to mitigate our contribution to the annual carbon cycle.

John R. Christy:
“Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2’s radiation properties. However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.”
“I would think a simple way to let the world know there are other opinions about various aspects emerging from the IPCC font would be to provide some quasi-official forum to allow those views to be expressed.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm

Richard S Lindzen:
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
“Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system.”

Fred Singer:
“Anthropogenic greenhouse gases can contribute only in a minor way to the current warming, which is mainly of natural origin”
“The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming.”
“The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.”

Roy Spencer:
“Mr. Carbon Dioxide was found at the scene of the crime — albeit without the murder weapon — there is no need to search for any other culprits or accomplices. The circumstantial evidence has convicted him. Even though Mr. Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on Earth, we are now calling him derogatory names, like ‘pollutant’.”
“Daily noise in the Earth’s cloud cover amount can cause feedback estimates from observational data to be biased in the positive direction, making the climate system look more sensitive to manmade greenhouse gas emissions than it really is.”
“All of this assumes that mankind is the primary cause of global warming anyway. You might be surprised to learn that there has never been a single scientific paper published which has ruled out natural climate variability for most of our current global-mean warmth. Not one.”
“A small change in cloud cover hypothesized to occur with the El Nino/La Nina and Pacific Decadal Oscillation modes of natural climate variability can explain most of the major features of global average temperature change in the last century, including 70% of the warming trend.”

Syun-Ichi Akasofu.
“It is quite likely that a significant part of the temperature rise after 1975 is due to the multi-decadal oscillation, not the greenhouse effect as hypothesized by the IPCC. The reason why the global warming trend stopped in about 2000 is likely to be due to the fact that after peaking in about 2000, the multi-decadal oscillation has started to have a negative trend. The halting is not due to a La Niña. There is nothing unusual or abnormal about the present global warming trend and temperature. There were a number of periods when the temperature was higher than the present even after the recovery from the last Big Ice Age.”

Reid Bryson.
“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.” “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

Who are these upstarts?

John R. Christy Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S., Atmospheric Sciences, B.A., Mathematics, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, Contributor (1992, 1994 and 1996) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the IPCC.
http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/NSSTC-CSPAR_Colloquia/FAL-01/christy_bio.html

Richard S Lindzen, Ph.D. Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published over 200 books and scientific papers, lead author of Chapter 7 of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

S. Fred Singer, B.E.E. Electrical Engineering, A.M. Ph.D. Physics; Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.
http://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/cvsfs.html

Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville, American Meteorological Society’s Special Award, NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#bio

Dr. Akasofu B.S. and M.S. in geophysics, Ph.D in geophysics, Professor of geophysics at UAF since 1964, director of the Geophysical Institute from 1986 until 1999, first director of the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) upon its establishment in 1998, and remained in that position until 2007. The same year, the building which houses IARC was named in his honour.
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=sakasofu

Reid Bryson Atmospheric scientist, B.A. in geology Ph.D. in meteorology, professor emeritus of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, the first chairman of the Department of Meteorology in 1948, became the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies. Most cited climatologist in the world.
http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/bryson/bryson.html

We are constantly bombarded with the meme, “thousands of papers by thousands of scientists”

Whenever (every time, so far) I have asked for 3 of those papers that claim to be showing a specific CO2 physical effect upon atmosphere I have been ignored, had the subject talked around or I have been ridiculed for denying the CO2 effect.

All those “thousands of papers” that “all the world’s scientific institutions agree” with are focussed solely on the warming, mostly with regard to those “thousands of scientists” specialist fields. Or based upon models. Or guesswork.

It got a little further toward comfortable for the majority of our kin at the end of the last century. Check.

The physical properties of CO2 allow it to interact with certain aspects of the electromagnetic spectrum. Check.

Mankind liberates CO2. Check.

CO2 in atmosphere is well-mixed.Please check.

Plant respiration cancels CO2 “heating” effect. Please check.

And, last but definitely not least, CO2 caused the warming of the last 30 years of the 20th century. Erm… Please check.

The Only Field Where all Concur is Full of Sheep….

H.L. Mencken :- “All professional politicians are dedicated wholeheartedly to waste and corruption. They are the enemies of every decent man.”

So, now, the UK Government’s chief scientific adviser John Beddington says it’s OK for me to claim the world is flat. Less than a year after he declared that cross-border conflicts and mass migration as people flee from climate change, all before 2030 by the way, were certain. This “scientist” now says “There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed” and “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism”. So, I ask, what has changed to change his point of view on the settled science of climate change?

Oh yes, LOTS of the protagonists got caught with their hands in the till, cookie jar, nurse’s bra. I have tried to refrain from gloating over the climategate stuff. I have avoided taking pot-shots at the more obvious sitting ducks but this cannot pass without some questions.

The entire environmental movement has been hacked by agenda pushers. Would those who have fallen for the “CO2 caused the tiny warming at the end of last century” prevarication now become the most loudly vociferous in denouncing the climate fraternity as they are the most grievously wounded and monstrously deceived?

No, the people who have been happily and continuously vilifying anyone who questioned their dogma can only fall back on the precautionary principle. Do they not understand that to make progress it may be in the biosphere’s best interest for us to go about “business as usual” which, so far, has not come close to dragging the global temperature anywhere near even the least worst of the doom-laden predictions of a corrupt division of a corrupt organization or, for that matter, the global economy into convulsions, as the belief in the efficacy of models did to the banking fraternity’s playing fast and loose with everyone’s money.

Will they excuse the lies, fraud and obfuscation as “necessary evils” on the path to global emissions reduction, even if this would appear to be an utterly useless course both for humanity’s betterment and the very real greening of the planet that NASA has observed?

The people who support the CRU and the UN in these matters have shown a herd mentality of epic proportion. They have allowed a fictional threat to divert much needed funds, media focus and public attention away from real and pressing problems such as deforestation, overfishing, chemical pollution, water mismanagement and other truly egregious assaults on Mother Earth.

The supposed defenders of the environment, such as WWF, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have colluded with, nay empowered, this cabal of anti-progress, anti-science and anti-human liars. They and their supporters should now be the loudest of voices shouting for reinvestigation of the records, a new broom to sweep the self-seeking from their offices and a fresh look at the science.

Yet most of the betrayed have meekly rolled over, turned their blind eye and maintained their belief, for it is now very evident that that is all it is, a belief in the “thousands of papers” by “thousands of scientists” supported by “the majority of scientific institutions” that merely show the warming and have comprehensibly failed to provide a single jot of repeatable, real world evidence that humanity’s additional CO2 caused that very beneficial 0.7C increase in delta T over the last 30 years of the 20th century.

That, it has become increasingly clear, is the only question “the powers that be” ever intended to address. They will now use every compliant tentacle to show ocean acidification, methane, speed of release and other “virtual certainties” of our continued liberation of CO2 warrant further deep intrusion into individual lifestyles and more yet taxation to cure the problems they hype. But this time they will be a little more circumspect and will attempt to shut down the blogosphere that has been the sole organ that exposed them as loons prancing around without any clothes.

The Media Evil Climate Anomaly

Friedrich Nietzsche :- “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

Copenhagen, one translation:- Bribe Haven, is now under way and our betters are scoffing at their troughs and scoffing at us. If it were not so sick it would be quite funny to see the anti-science brigade and their political masters spending everyone’s hard-earned on carboniferous limos and jets to get themselves to a bean feast orgy of mammoth proportions. Cheers, twats.

I just watched something hilarious on iPlayer. Newsnight, the BBCs premier weekday news program had Professor Andrew Watson and Marc Morano head to head on the Climate Gate issue.

The professor spent his time blustering and stuttering as well as bolstering his workmates’ science and claiming “the other side” resorts to character assassination, rolling his eyes and shouting for Mr Morano to shut up. Marc Morano tried to make his point that evidence of warming does is not evidence that CO2 did it but was constantly heckled by Watson and harassed by the (rubbish, but then, we all can’t be Jeremy Paxman) interviewer. The last word? Professor Andrew Watson:- “What an asshole”. Possibly when he thought the camera was off. The BBC apologised.

So, the guy who earned a BSc in physics from Imperial College, London, which has Piers Corbyn and Brian May, amongst others, as alumni from the same decade, and who once said about his time at the University of Reading, where he earned his PhD, “My supervisor was James Lovelock, whose view of the earth as a whole system has influenced me ever since.” seems to think that insults can be substituted for a lack of evidence in one’s chosen field.

The piece showed some weather events and the more extreme of our world’s beautiful and diverse environments and went on to say that the world has warmed.

Get with the program. Yes the world has warmed. Billions of dollars has been spent on proving the world has warmed. This is not the issue. The main argument is; Has CO2 caused the tiny warming at the end of the 20th Century? Almost no money at all has been spent on that. The “consensus” relies on the argument from authority that says “thousands of scientists agree” or such. YES, thousands of scientists agree that the Earth warmed up at the end of the last 100 years. They have been paid handsomely to do the research showing that glaciers melt and species alter their patterns if temps change. They have produced copious amounts of “peer reviewed” papers to that effect. Yes it warmed up a bit. Maybe not as much as the Medieval Climate Anomaly (their new name for the Medieval Warm Period) maybe nowhere near as much as the Roman Warm Period. It warmed upa bit. So what?

But it has stayed roughly the same average temperature since then.

The desperate “Climate Secretary” Miliband then came on and said, amongst other arguments from authority, something to the effect that this does not disprove the science.

All we ask is to be shown the particular science. The empirical evidence that links the rise in CO2 with the blip in temperature that peaked in 1998. Surely, somewhere amongst the thousands of papers produced by thousands of scientists there is one that gives some pointers to the veracity of the flawed and unproven hypothesis that so badly hankers after ‘theory’ status?

Frayed knot.

The Empire Strikes Back

Freeman Dyson :- “My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.”

AGW “believers” are such nice people. Slanderers first and foremost with a dash of recidivism as back-up. One by one their arguments are failing. Even the extrapolated ones such as “there are too many people” and “peak energy”. It is little wonder they are turning nasty in the face of massive gas/oil finds, human ingenuity in the field of GM crops and the increasingly large deviations of projected CO2 based doom from nature’s icy reality.

Arguing science with them is utterly pointless. Pearls before swine is the old expression. Been there, done that. All that is left is my scorn and ridicule for them. Not one of their “projections, ifs, buts and maybes, 95% confidence levels and strong beliefs” has come to pass. Not one. Yet their faith is upheld by… well, faith alone it would seem.

Far easier to attack the person and ignore their message. Far easier to “believe” the MOD funded Hadley/CRU unit and the Pentagon (NASA/Giss) and other arms of government such as the Royal Society and all those other “establishments” populated by formerly respected scientists than to wonder why they say what they say and who foots their bills. Far easier to believe the fairy-tale of “a global temperature” than to look at the world empirically. Far easier to concentrate on the WAIS than the continent as a whole, or the Arctic as opposed to total global sea-ice. Simplicity itself to ignore the natives of somewhere such as the Maldives and concentrate on *their* politicians’ differing story. Far easier to claim that the “chum club” of peer review is mightier than the lone patent clerk.

Trundling into a bleak future the rickety gravy train is doubtless shaking itself apart but we will all be harmed by the madness of crowds before this episode is over. All of us. Those who saw through this entirely political ruse immediately, those who came to see through it by observing the world and those who pushed the agenda and those who puffed it into existence by instigating it, promulgating it or by wishing to fall into the guilt-trip trap for whatever reason.

Praising the executioners as you are forced into the slaughterhouse is a symptom of how far the game has progressed and the lengths that those who have bought into the dream will go to prevent dissonance from disturbing their religious dream world.

Real Climate and Climate Progress, to name but two viperous collectives with the affront to name their funded houses as if they alone know what is going on, are not the type of place for free discussion of climate related hypothesis. Echo chambers only. Sandalistas screeching to the choir. No-one has the facts. The IPCC themselves warn against attempting to model a chaotic system before going on to base this entire sham on a collection of them.

That didn’t stop the idiots who were given a greater than 50% chance of living through their own birth as direct a result of far higher intellects than theirs’ utilizing fossil fuel based technologies for the greater good of their “fellow” men. Men that they now denounce, prancing around on the mother of all parliaments’ rooftop and screaming like the children they appear to be that we should not allow their yet-to-be-born offspring and all those current and future children of the 2nd and 3rd world the same benefits.

We are heading for a cold, maybe very cold, couple of decades. That there may soon not be enough electricity to keep us in the comfort to which we have begun to become accustomed, no matter our ability or desire to purchase same, is entirely down to the short-sightedness of those who never got anything “right”. Stop using (entirely sustainable) paper bags at the supermarket they shrieked and now they shout that there is a continent sized mass of plastic swirling around in the centre of the Pacific and in the trees. They were as incapable then as they are now of joined up thinking. None need worry about unintended consequences if one’s intentions are good. Duh.

That I should have lived so long to see it, with all my teeth and my intellect intact, is also purely due to fossil fuel usage. At least there is a glimmer of hope in the publication of Paul Hudson’s post on the Ministry of Truth’s own website.

The Rebel Alliance Grows Stronger…

Luther Burbank :- “We must learn that any person, who will not accept what he knows to be truth, for the very love of truth alone, is very definitely undermining his mental integrity.”

The cockroaches will inherit the Earth.

I have spent nearly two years sorting through the dust-trail of the litigation pushers on the global warming thing. I used to argue, but types like monbiot and the guy who edits (up to 600 times a day) the environmental pages of wikipedia (william conolley) are corrupt. Utterly. They avoid debate because whenever it has occurred they lose. This site:

http://wattsupwiththat.com

is overflowing with bright minds who once were convinced the globe was warming so must be forgiven for the vehemence and anger they sometimes display as a result of feeling conned, and this page:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/16/consensus-climate-science-what-would-thomas-huxley-say/

cuts to the divide between the actual science and the religious foot stamping of the cap and trade/carbon credit industry (that, by the way, will “handle” – in just two years at full flow – the same amount of cash that the entire oil industry has worked for, actuall work because they have had to produce an actual commodity not just paperwork,  since the second world war) that holds the media and public in thrall. People acted stunned when 1 oil co produced “profits” of 10 billion. Imagine how stunned they may become when trillions is “traded” annually. For what? So that the biggest polluters can “buy” their way out of trouble.

I would just ignore it all like so many do if it were not for the fact that these liars and charlatans are pushing for green this and that but current technology is not yet fit. Their subsidising of wind farms, biofool and solar (to name the three big ones) and forcing production at the expense of continued development will undo many years of hard won ground when the public (and shareholders) find out that it is all about 20 years too early to be (anywhere near) efficient. I know we have to start somewhere but they are ruining the entire movement by creating a bubble out of it. When it pops it will set everything back by decades as well as exposing the science industry as the money grabbing advocacy machine that it has become. They have been given over $50billion to “settle” the “science” of global warming and all they do is ask for more, more or less. More time and more funding. Less discussion, no dissent and zero debate. Nice.

Anyway, it’s been a while since I bothered railing against it because big brother sees cap and trade as a revenue source – even though China and India will (must) keep building coal-fired power plants and have zero intention of joining any “alliance” that the (continuously partying in tropical paradises) UN IPCC one world government machine get the west to sign on to. Their scientists (China, India, Pakistan, etc) have reported to their respective governments and told them “CO2 is good for plants, doesn’t cause “dangerous” warming and can never reach noxious levels even if everything that can burn is burned”. It is an inconvenient truth that geologists are in the best position to see the big picture as they train in chemistry, physics, engineering and earth sciences, but most of the good (best at their job) have been employed by oil companies at some time so are targeted only in that area.

Meanwhile the really noxious shit is getting buried, figuratively and literally, as the media and the green environmentalists concentrate on that vital part of the carbon cycle without which we would all perish, that exists in trace quantities (some say dangerously low) of less than 400 parts per million (when atomic powered nuclear missile toting submarines are permitted to run for months at between 4000 and 11,000 parts per million – because those levels are safe for animals and do not alter human decision making capability) and can never exist in sufficient quantities to alter the PH of the worlds oceans, if that were indeed possible due to “buffering” –
CO2 – innocent as charged, has existed at 10 times today’s level for geological periods of time while temperatures were both much higher and much lower than today, entirely swamped by water vapour as a greenhouse “forcing” and vital to a cooling world (despite what the media and all the tentacles of big brother state we have not “warmed” while the computer models have claimed we have) with an increasing population (that even if it doubled could be fed from the untouched Russian steppes alone).

Despite my anger at the likes of WWF and Greedpiece continuously avoiding real, and curable, trouble such as starvation and thirst while pushing this “CO2 is warming the globe” heap of shite uphill I am very positive in my outlook compared to 20 years ago. Why, I even find myself agreeing with a Tory!

If you need a document that encapsulates the lies, distortion and manipulation of science in duty to false ends this is it-

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf

Delivered to both houses and all senators individually but destined to be ignored as they all have their snouts in the trough. I advise everyone to read it at least once.

The poor will hurt most, as usual. The rich will stay rich, as usual.

But. Cold is coming. People will look back and shake their heads that we once thought that the tiny, tiny “warming” we have “suffered” at the end of the last century was in any way shape or form bad/catastrophic/dangerous. Cold brings the four horsemen. Warmth brings more, and bigger, plants, less death, longer lives, more drinking water(rainfall) and less desert, greater crop growing areas and more leisure time to teach our children and to discover solutions to real problems just like we always do.

All the (entirely) natural oceanic cycles have turned to their cold phases. The sun has produced less sunspots during this transition between cycles than at any time since the “Dalton Minimum” when ice fairs were held on the Thames and plague, pestilence, drought and the accompanying hunger, war and exodus were the “norm”.

Luckily, we have over 200 years of easily available coal (yep – even if another China came on stream) and oil (yep – “we only ever find oil where we look for it” the political implications of that are clear – we can’t allow the natives to make money old chap so we just don’t look for it where we can’t control it) Check out how everyone is “claiming” their continental shelf rights – although it is difficult to research – the UK just claimed a massive area around the Falklands – surprise, surprise.

As I have said before, if we don’t find cheap clean sources of energy by then we deserve to die off.

They know, that’s WHY they are so slow.

George Orwell :- “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

The nozzle of anthropogenic global warming, climate change, ACC (etc, etc, ad nauseum) funding has been spraying billions of dollars around for a couple of decades now and we still await some modern science that shows unequivically, preferably, that mankind’s CO2 “emissions” could, are, have or will significantly impact global climate or weather patterns.

I put it to you, members of the jury, that the “scientists” involved in the most massive, costly and fraudulent scam in human history know full well that CO2 is a good guy but finding him to be the enemy is lucrative, career enhancing and politically empowering.

Take James Hansen for example. Cheat; “Turn off the AC and open the windows before I give this speech to simpleton Al Gore and congress would you.” Story teller; “I am 99% certain that…blather, blather.” Activist; “I flew here today to state that vandalism is our obligation when dealing with coal fired power stations.”

He knows there is no hurry. He knows that he will be retired before the truth about CO2 comes out. He knows that his crap has been all about money, power and the little green monsters’ agenda.

How may we prove they don’t have our best interests at heart. Dangerous AGW as a result of our CO2 output is bullshit and those who espouse cap and trade, carbon credits, the premature greening of industry and forcing taxation to mitigate an unreal problem are either ignorant of the facts or wilfully misleading us.

This will lead to people believeing that ALL the policies, decisions and judgements of said politicians are false, lies and propaganda produced solely to further an ideal that they would rather we didn’t see, let alone question.

It has gone beyond the obvious lie that CO2 is bad for anyone or any living thing. It has gone beyond the fairy tales created to ensure the funding teat pumps out the milk and honey of someone else’s hard work into the pockets of proven liers, shams, fraudsters, snake-oil salesmen and ex-lawyers , ex-politicians and ex-humans.

Climate science, such as it it, has proven the idiocy of the masses and the elitist superiority complexes of the scum who rule us from the top of the barrel and will soon become the petard with which we may hoist those same leeches is justice of the divine kind.

For every cockroach there are a dozen diamonds in the rough such as Bob Carter. How do we know this? Because the slimeballs like joe romm act like wounded and dangerous animals and screech exceeding loud if someone disturbs their nightmares or steps foot in their nasty, foul smelling pits of religeous zealotry and obvious, wilful denial. In fact the word “denialists”, wielded so freely by those screeching morons who “believe” CO2 is “not good”, should be used solely for the fools who are driving us down the road to poverty and joe romm is a denialist par excellence. He has a devoted following of equally blind sheeple who orgasm at his every exxageration and the putrid filth that drips like venom from his feotid excuse for brain function. These people call for death squads to visit anyone who disagrees that the end of the world will happen because of CO2 inside the next century. Moron is too polite a word to describe these revisionist, lying, fake, backward, ill and broken remnants. Have they not noticed how cold it has become? Worldwide? Oh, but that is weather you denialist you.

So what happened here?

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1935/to:1979/trend

A fortyfive (45) year downward trend in world temperatures (you may use any of the global datasets available) as CO2 levels climbed by at least the same degree as they do today today.

They know. Don’t let go of that fact. Same with the language – it is Global Warming, NOT Climate Change that we are being clubbed with. This can be our strength when disproving their lies and tactics.

Thankfully someone with enough staff to do the job, the sanity to see the need and the desire to see it through has just produced a new U.S. Senate Minority Report;

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

Wrap up well people. This is going to be a cold winter in the Northern Hemisphere and next year isn’t going to be much better. The oceans rule World Climate, not CO2.

Heat or Eat?

 Richard S Lindzen :- “In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.”

A lot of people face a stark choice this winter. Stay warm, or eat? It would be simplistic to say that bad choices by government regarding the mitigation of CO2 emissions is the main reason, but so would blaming the credit crunch. The economic crisis, coupled with the inconvenient cold, is causing the warmista to shriek more loudly that their dissonance must be calmed. We must not, according to them, take our eye off the climate crisis. Well, here is the news:

There were several football matches postponed on Tue 28th Oct – and not just northern (UK) ones either – and we hardly ever abandon matches that have started and it is outside the “normal” time frame to do so for frost, sleet or snow. Meanwhile the blinkered UK government were spending 6 hours destroying the future economy of that once great nation by voting to pass a bill that will “limit” emissions by 80% by sometime after they have all retired. Yeah right.

A Google search for “cold weather records” produces some gems most of the time but recently we see cold records being beaten every day and snowfall extent and depth records are also increasing, and it is still not yet November.

The energy companies believed, along with most of the western world, that warm weather was going to remain the “norm” and they had better cover their margins by increasing prices before falling, or flattening, demand crushed their profits. In the face of what seems, already, to be a severe winter on the way they may have to face windfall taxes before Christmas. I think the energy companies could be the canary in the coalmine for others to rethink the way CO2 is being presented as a “dangerous pollutant” by one pretender to the ultimate crown.

Thankfully “Joe (the plumber) Average” knows a tax scam when he sees one. Recent polls, albeit asking the usual loaded questions, have revealed that roughly 18% of those questioned “believed” in man made global warming. The same respondent faces higher food bills at the supermarket, bigger heating bills and higher pump prices for most fuels as a direct result of this collective insanity that claims the gas that gives us all of the above is killing us, going to kill us or going to kill our children.

I cannot sufficiently express my contempt for the politicians who refuse to investigate the properties of CO2, the public for not standing up to be counted, but mostly, the scientists who nuzzle the teat of funding and gorge at the public trough. It gets wearying to ask the same questions of those who supposedly know. Where is the evidence that CO2 causes any kind of imbalance in the world’s energy flux? Where is the science stating that CO2 residence time is anything other than <10 years? Where is the science stating that a “runaway” effect will take place because of the above?

Here is some that shows how much of the research that would answer the above questions has been suppressed. The whole site is informative but I offer just this one paper – http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.pdf – for your perusal today.

As a species we are being asked to spend trillions of dollars to prevent an unproven future disaster yet we are apparently unwilling to part with a few millions to address the questions whose answers could prevent egregious economic breakdown, allow us to concentrate on the real pollutants and dissuade me that a power, and tax, grab is under way.

Instead, as a result of inaction and data manipulation I, for one, see that there is zero problem from our CO2 emissons that are allowing our modern world to exist, keeping us warm and feeding us and that anyone who joins the crusade to demonize the life giving gas is destitute of morals, science and the hope that mankind, as it has every time it has faced a problem, will triumph over the political darkness that claims CO2 is bad, m’kay.

It is almost as if there is a concerted effort to create and perpetuate a “big lie” around the most vital component of life we know as CO2. Every politician and most of the authority societies and unions are competing with one another to bolster this lie. It beggars belief. People will die but the perpetrators will get golden handshakes, golden parachutes and lecture circuit riches in retirement. Excuse me while I puke.

Climate Wars. Fakery, Misdirection and Obfuscation

News Release – Please report and pass on – Thank You
BBC2 ‘Climate Wars’ is FRAUD WITH LIPSTICK SAYS SCIENTIST – BBC
ATTACKED FOR LACK OF INTEGRITY AND CHALLENGED TO DEBATE
Initial response to BBC2 ‘Climate Wars’ 14th Sept 2008
from Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist of WeatherAction long range forecasters.
+44(0)7958713320 / +44(0)2079399946 , piers@weatheraction.com

1. This ‘Climate wars’ production is a shameful and desperate effort
from the BBC’s ‘green religion
department’ to shore up the failing theory of CO2 driven Global
Warming and Climate Change.
The piece, and the Global Warmers camp in general, while pretending to
be objective skilfully avoid applying sound science and provide no
answers to the mounting  evidence which refutes the crumbling Global
Warmers theory. It puts lipstick on scientific fraud but it remains
fraud.
=> They selectively report part of ‘weak’ sceptics contributions which
are muddled and AVOID proper interviews with scientists who can
soundly refute every wriggle of the Global Warmers mantra.
=> They  misrepresents the observed facts and choose ‘straw-man’
methods to attack inadequate non-CO2 part-theory as if somehow trying
to argue that if an animal is not a cat then it must be a dog.
=> They resort to the green zealots blogging method of personal
innuendo rather than discussing  the issues – ‘Smear or belittle the
messenger if you don’t like the message’

2. The Hockey stick temperature graph (claiming ‘exceptional’ world
temperatures now compared with the last few thousand years) is a fraud
and ‘improvements’ on it promoted by the IPCC and members of the
Climate Crisis industry are also fraud  – with lipstick.
For the facts see Climate Audit and Christopher Monkton:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf
For the record I concur fully with Christopher Monckton’s piece here
referenced including his conclusions.

3. Whatever may have seemed plausible 10 years ago Global Warming is
over and there is no evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a
driver of world temperatures or Climate Change – indeed the evidence
is the relationship is more the other way around:-
a) Temperatures drive CO2 levels in a number of circumstances (eg when
the world exits ice-ages). CO2 has no observed net driving effect on
temperatures. This fact is established from thousands of years of data
which the ‘Global Warmers’ refuse to properly consider.
b) World temperatures have been generally declining for about 10 years
while CO2 is rising rapidly.
c) Furthermore the period from the end of the last ice age 10,000
years ago  to about 1,000 years ago was warmer than present (indeed
Greenland is so named because it was warmer in Viking times), had LESS
ice in the Arctic and there was notably  LESS CO2 than now.
The UN Climate Committee – the IPCC – is deliberately ignoring or
covering-up these facts which show in official data.
However rather than investigating the accountability of the UN and our
elected representatives the BBC seems to want independent scientists
and the public to be accountable to the UN and governments. See links
below for information and the letter to Ban-Ki moon UN Secretary
General and Tim Yeo MP from 13 world scientists and environmentalists

4. Attempts to prove CO2 effect ‘right’ by challenging an incomplete
version of one solar theory are doubly dishonest because:
a) One theory being inadequate does not prove CO2 has any effect. The
CO2 theory already lies in tatters – refuted by data evidence. No
amount of enraged shooting at others can revive it.
b) The attacks on what the Global Warmers deem as ‘solar theory’ are
the product of disgraceful dishonesty which marks the integrity of the
scientific establishment at its lowest level since the Papal
Inquisition.
The main periodical solar activity effect – the largest observed
periodicity present in world temperature data – is the 22 yr cycle
(driven by sun-earth magnetic connectivity). Hence for aboiut half the
time the 11 year cycle of solar activity – of particles, sunspots and
radiation – will move with temperature and half the time move against
it. This is well known to solar and climate scientists. All the
pseudo-scientists have done is essentially choose time spans where the
two move in opposite directions and ignore demonstrated correlations
on longer time spans. Those who do this are either unbelievably
ignorant of their own subject or deliberately deceptive.  BBC web
‘information’ on the matter refuses to publish the truth despite
requests and in this programme avoids interviewing scientists in
Britain or overseas who research in and understand and apply sun-earth
magnetic and particle effects in provably skilled weather and climate
forecasting***. CO2 based climate and seasonal weather forecasts on
the other hand show no skill, have been abysmally incorrect for a
decade and have got worse in the last few years.

5. I challenge – and there are other scientists who can also
challenge –  the ‘Climate Wars’ programme producer to public televised
debate with himself or any scientist they want to put forward.
If they had answers to the many refutations of their theory then the
UN Secretary General or its Climate Committee (the IPCC) or the UK
Parliament Environment Audit committee (chair Tim Yeo MP*) would
respond to letters but they have all failed to answer simple requests
for evidence to support their theory and policies under which they
expect the world to be taxed and go further into food price crisis and
recession. The letter of 14th July from 13 scientists and
environmentalists across the world to Ban-Ki moon  Secretary general
of the UN – http://www.lowefo.com/pdf/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf
– has still not been even acknowledged.

Integrity in science, politics and the BBC would be a good idea.

Piers Corbyn
Astrophysicist WeatherAction long range forecasters

Next Page »