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.

Hey, You, Get Offa My Cloud.

David Hume :-
“Truth springs from argument amongst friends.”
None of us, whether we work for the IPCC, are climate scientists or are lay, have the foggiest idea how much of the recent “tiny, tiny” warming is man made. No one who creates, sustains and protects the “models” that predict future climate can, or will, say for “certain” because the simple reason is that there are nowhere near enough observations to draw conclusions from that most important of natural climate phenomena, clouds. The very clouds that are both a result and the main cause of the much maligned greenhouse effect that stops our planet from being a permanent ball of extremely cold ice and rock. We have very little in the way of recorded observations and records of the water vapor in the atmosphere to form an opinion, let alone a theory, as to the forcings caused by, and indeed resulting from, the water of life itself that co-mingles with CO2, the life giving gas, that we all inhale and breath out every minute of every day. Every plant does the same. One of the unspoken facts about “carbon offsetting” through the provision of trees, woods and forests is that, inconveniently, a growing tree will push 200 times as much water into the air as CO2. Couple this with the, at least, 100 times greater forcing that water vapor has on tropospheric warmth than carbon dioxide and what do you get? Answers, on a postcard please, to UN IPCC, somewhere exotic (preferably warm already) – you know, the usual costly air trip away at taxpayer expense to then berate said taxpayer for breathing out, earning a living, consuming product, watching tv or anything else that can be credited carbonwise.
Back to the clouds.

A new paper (March 31st, 2008) (by De-Zheng Sun and Tao Zhang of the Cooperative Institute for Environmental Studies/University of Colorado &NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado, USA and Yongqiang Yu of LASG, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China) shows us the way:
“…underestimating the negative feedback from cloud albedo and overestimating the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor over the tropical Pacific during ENSO is a prevalent problem of climate models”
being just one of many gems contained in a paper whose abstract includes:
“…the feedbacks of water vapor and clouds—the cloud albedo feedback in particular—depend on the mean intensity of the hydrological cycle. We have also examined whether the variations among models of the feedback from cloud albedo (water vapor) in the ENSO variability are correlated with the variations among models of the feedback from cloud albedo (water vapor) in global warming. While we find a weak positive correlation between the variations among models in the feedback of water vapor during ENSO and the variations among models in the water vapor feedback during global warming, we find no significant correlation between the variations among models in the cloud albedo feedback during ENSO and the variations among models in the cloud albedo feedback during global warming.”
Paper here:
Conclusions studiously ignored by mainstream scientists – again.
Does it take a vigneronErl Happ – to validate Dr Richard Lindzen’s “iris effect” and incorporate it into a Tropical Lower Troposphere cloud theory that puts climate scientists, not to mention NASA, NOAA and the IPCC, to shame? Check out the discussion here:
It is a somewhat heated argument 😉

Some exceptions to the idiocy:

Climate scientists – and Solar physicists – should get out more. There is nothing new under the sun my arse. We will be glad of some cloud cover these coming decades.

Qs and As

Frank Lloyd Wright :-
The truth is more important than the facts.

I have a few hypothetical questions for alarmists. Hypothetical in so far as they may as well be un-uttered as no satisfying answers will be forthcoming from the quarter they are aimed at. In open forum these inquiries will either be shouted down or, as in private, skipped over as quickly as a hot manhole cover. In neither locale will their true nature or their intrinsic value be addressed. Purely for the sake of being able to look my children in the eye when they inquire of me, down the road, “did you pose the right questions dad?” I ask:

You do realize how bizarre it appears to outsiders when your focus regarding every person with whom you disagree is that they are, or have been, in the employ of the tobacco, oil, coal, or mobile phone companies etc. Anyone who has ever pocketed a shilling from a multi-national is magically and instantly rendered incapable of insightful commentary or reasoned deduction from here on in. Their prior associations preclude them from even inquisitive analysis of, let alone any deductive investigation into, further subjects and the publication or dissemination of either, for all eternity. That seems fair.

Your insistence that particular scientists, or non-scientists for that matter, are unqualified to pass judgement on climate, and indeed climatology and climatologists, and the supporters of the fairytale that mankind has more influence over it than the Sun is very close minded isn’t it? I would suggest that this shows you in a bad light. Sorry, I forget that most members of the “consensus” on the “settled science” of AGW are non-climate-scientists. This attitude precludes anyone from espousing their views, insights on and understanding of disciplines other than their own. That’s equitable, not to mention magnanimous, of you.

Do you have zero intuition? A vital part of being human is listening to our instincts. Ignore them at your peril.

Do you believe humans deserve the draconian measures being taken against them and their children and their children? Is your agenda Malthusian in everything but name? Being here now does not give you, or anyone, the right to rule on what future generations may. or may not do. You make no allowances for progress and the basic inventiveness of humans and certainly have zero faith in our ability to cure problems.

Have religion and science swapped hats? The rabid hysterical bile unleashed on anyone bold enough to stand up to the fanatics who claim there is a warming and we are guilty of it should answer this particular question.

You are joking aren’t you? C’mon, come clean. Actually you’re a denialist aren’t you. You do in fact believe that the alarmist warmers are the ones totally bereft of scientific prowess, common sense or intuition. Your training is working oh master. Grasshopper is beginning to see the light. Oceana has always been at war with Erasia.