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

Donations:
Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

“Climate is and always has been variable. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually.” ~Professor Tim Patterson

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Australian Flag Day

September 3 is Australian National Flag Day

Australian National Flag Day is an opportunity for individuals, community organisations, local authorities, businesses and schools to celebrate with pride the anniversary of the Australian National Flag.

Australian National Flag Day, proclaimed in 1996 as a national day, celebrates the first time the flag was flown on 3 September 1901.  On that day Prime Minister Edmund Barton announced the winners of a competition to design a flag for Australia. A large flag, 5.5 metres by 11 metres, was flown over the dome of the Exhibition Building in Melbourne.  At that time the flag was known as the Commonwealth blue ensign; later, the flag became known as the Australian National Flag. (source)

PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA

 The Hon Tony Abbott MP       

                                                              

 “Under this flag we have found unity in our diversity and respect in our differences. Together, we have built a modern nation on the idea that all of us can get ahead provided we are prepared to “have a go”.

The Australian National Flag consists of three parts set on a blue field. The first part is the Union Jack, acknowledging the historical link with Britain. The second part is the Southern Cross (a constellation of stars only visible in the Southern Hemisphere), representing Australia's geographical location in the world. Finally, the Commonwealth Star represents Australia's federal system of government. Originally, the Commonwealth Star had six points (for the six states), but in 1908 a seventh point was added to represent the Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia. 

Errors and frauds of global warming science -

The Russian word for truth is Pravda and Gary Novak, writing for Pravda.ru, exposes some of the truths, errors and frauds of global warming science. (Re-blogged from Pravda.ru)

Errors and frauds of global warming science

01.09.2014

By Gary Novak
Modern global warming science began in 1979 with the publication of Charney et al in response to a request from a U.S. governmental office to create a study group for answering questions about global warming. Charney et al modeled atmospheric effects and drew the conclusion that the average earth temperature would increase by about 3°C upon doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. 
Charney et al did not have a known mechanism for global warming to base their modeling on. Their publication was total fakery stating deliberate absurdities, such as modeling "horizontal diffusive heat exchange," which doesn't exist. 
In 1984 and 1988, Hansen et al did similar modeling but added a concept for heat produced by carbon dioxide, which they derived from assumed history. Over the previous century, a temperature increase of 0.6°C was assumed to have been caused by an increase in CO2 of 100 parts per million in the atmosphere. Their modeling then had the purpose of determining secondary effects, primarily caused by an assumed increase in water vapor. In other words, a primary effect was based upon the historical record, while secondary effects were modeled. 
This is the approach taken to this day, while refinements are developed. There were major problems in using history for the primary effect. Firstly, the historical effect included secondary effects which could not be separated out, and no attempt was made to do so. This means the assumed primary effect included secondary effects. Secondly, there was no place for other effects in attributing the entire history to CO2. 

Therefore, an attempt to determine the primary effect was made by Myhre et al in 1998 (4) by using radiative transfer equations. Those equations only show the rate of depletion of radiation as the concentration of a gas increases. They say nothing about heat. An impossibly complex analysis would be required to evaluate the resulting heat, but no such analysis was mentioned in the publication by Myhre et al. Even worse, Myhre et al added more atmospheric modeling in determining the primary effect including the effects of clouds. 

These publications cannot be viewed as honest. They lack a consistent logic and fabricate conclusions with no scientific method at arriving at such conclusions. Furthermore, these publications are not science as the acquisition of evidence, since modeling is the projection of assumptions with no method of acquiring evidence. Modeling may be a tool for sociologists and politicians but has no place in science. Science attempts to verify through reproducible evidence, while modeling is nothing but an expression of opinions with no new evidence being acquired. 

Even after Myhre et al supposedly determined the primary effect (said to be 5.35 times the natural log of final carbon dioxide concentration divided by prior concentration-a three component fudge factor) there was no known mechanism for carbon dioxide (or any greenhouse gas) creating global warming. 

In 2001, three years after Myhre et al's publication, the IPCC described the mechanism this way: "Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm [sic] band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band's wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation..."

Saturation means all available radiation gets used up. Heinz Hug stated in his publication that saturation occurs in 10 meters at the center of the absorption curve for the 15µm band (http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html#ten). On the shoulders of the absorption curves are molecules which have stretched bonds causing them to absorb at slightly altered wavelength. It is supposedly these molecules which do the heating for greenhouse gases, because they do not use up all available radiation; and therefore, more of the gases absorbs more radiation. 

Scientists said that 5% of the CO2 molecules were effective on the shoulders for creating global warming. This roughly means that radiation would travel 20 times farther before being absorbed. But 20 times 10 meters is only 200 meters. Air mixes in such a short distance, which means there is no temperature change. Absorbing radiation in 200 meters is no different than absorbing it in 10 meters. In other words, the 5% claim was nothing but a fake statement for rationalizing. The shamelessness and gall of making up this subject on whim and then claiming it is science is unprecedented. Real scientists are not that way. 

Since this mechanism would not stand up to criticism, scientists changed their mind about the mechanism a few years ago and said the real mechanism occurs about 9 kilometers up in the atmosphere. (The normal atmosphere, troposphere, goes up about 17 km average.) Trivial rationalizations were used, mainly that the absorption bands get narrower at lower air pressure, so they don't overlap with water vapor. 

There are two major problems with the analysis for 9 km up. One, there is not much space left for adding heat. And two, the temperature increase required for radiating the heat back down to the surface is at least 24°C up there for each 1°C increase near the surface-not accounting for oceans (http://nov79.com/gbwm/satn.html#upa). Oceans will absorb the heat for centuries or millennia, which means 70% of the heat disappears during human influences. So the total would need to be 80°C at 9 km up to create the claimed 1°C near ground level. No temperature increase has been detected at 9 km up due to carbon dioxide. 

Notice that the fakes didn't have a mechanism and didn't know where it was occurring 30 years after the first models were constructed in 1979 (said to be only off by 15%) and 10 years after the fudge factor was contrived for pinning down the primary effect, which the mechanism is supposed to represent. How could they get the primary effect (fudge factor) without knowing whether it was occurring at ground level or 9 km up? 

Why do nonscientists assume it is self-evident that greenhouse gases create global warming, when scientists cannot describe a mechanism? Extreme over-simplification appears to be the reason. They assume that absorbing radiation is producing heat. Guess what? A jar of pickles absorbs radiation but it doesn't heat the kitchen. Total heat effects are complex, and they equilibrate. 

What really happens is that the planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. Cooling results in an equilibrium temperature which is independent of how heat gets into the atmosphere. It means greenhouse gases have no influence upon the temperature of the planet. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so low that all biology is on the verge of becoming extinct due to a shortage of CO2 which is needed for photosynthesis. There was twenty times as much CO2 in the atmosphere when modern photosynthesis evolved. Oceans continuously absorb CO2 and convert it into calcium carbonate and limestone. The calcium never runs out, and the pH of the oceans never drops below 8.1 for this reason. It's the pH which calcium carbonate buffers at. If not, why hasn't four billion years been long enough to get there.

Monday, September 1, 2014

Ice Free Arctic? We need Prediction free Gore

Source Video: PJ Media
The Alarmists predicted an ICE FREE ARCTIC

Al Gore: (5 Dec 2008)
Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. He told them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally: (link)

"At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." "The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."

WHOOOOOPS! 

  • Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore's warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row
  • An area twice the size of Alaska - America's biggest state - was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice
  • These satellite images taken from University of Illinois's Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated
Source: Daily Mail
The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres. 
 

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Property Rights Australia: Hearing into new Queensland Resources Bill

Originally Posted by Dale Stiller on Evacuation Grounds

Qld parliament AREC Chair Ian Rickuss & Deputy Chair 
Jackie Trand. Photo sourced Qld Country Life
On behalf of property Rights Australia, chair Joanne Rea appeared before hearing at MacKay 20th August  into the Mineral & Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill. The following is Joanne's opening statement to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee

Property Rights Australia believes that this Bill severely erodes many of the protections and rights of landowners for the benefit of resources industries. In fact we believe it to be one of the greatest abrogations of landowner rights since the Vegetation Management Act 1999.

Some of our concerns are outlined in our submission but it is not exhaustive. They are concerns that are shared by many landowner representatives and by legal professionals specialising in representing landowners. PRA highly recommends thesubmission by Shine lawyers.

We have heard the Premier and Ministers say, when asked about landowner concerns that the resources companies and related infrastructure will create very many jobs and the royalties will fund infrastructure. Such statements imply that resource development and landowner concerns are mutually exclusive. This is not the case.

 We are constantly told of the billions of dollars in revenue which will benefit the state and we are well aware of the above average wages and conditions paid to mine workers and contractors. However, landowners are approached with an attitude of penury and meanness.

If resource companies want a relatively trouble free path they should approach landowners with a fair offer of recompense from the beginning, negotiate in good faith, not waste their time, apply pressure, bully, ignore concerns, renege on agreements and use various other bluff and deception tactics. They should also be mindful of local knowledge. Lobbying Government for changes to legislation which erode the rights of landowners because they are getting resistance to their unfair tactics is unacceptable.

Landowners feel that they have been thrown to the wolves with the lack of protection of their property rights under pieces of legislation like this. Commercial agreements alone are not possible without built in protection when one party to negotiations is an unwilling party whose time commitment is a cost and the companies who have full time paid professionals. This factor is frequently taken advantage of.

The balance of power in negotiations with resource companies has always been in favour of the resource companies and changes to legislation including those in this Bill have eroded almost every bargaining chip landowners may have had and handed the entire box and dice to the resources companies.

The superior fire power of the resources sector has won the day with this proposed legislation and the property rights of landowners are being disregarded. This is not the treatment that we expect from any Government which should be should be concerned about private property rights which are the cornerstone of our free market system.

All in all there is too much left to regulation rather than in the legislation, there are too many things which are not defined and landowner’s rights have been severely curtailed. This legislation should be deferred and taken back to the drawing board. It is entirely inappropriate that resource companies have damaged their own reputations as honest and good faith negotiators and then ask the government to fix their problems by legislation which damages landowner’s rights to the enjoyment of their property. It is very obvious that this legislation was “industry directed” for the benefit of resources companies and that landowner rights will be severely damaged. PRA does not support the further erosion of property rights by yet another government. It would appear that there are no major parties whose philosophical principle is to uncompromisingly to protect private property rights, a valuable and recognised cornerstone of our society and the ability of businesses to operate securely.


Saturday, August 30, 2014

Climate Change and Renewable Energy Target Scheme

Des Moore

Director - Institute of Private Enterprise

Cartoons by Josh
The adoption by the Abbot government of one of the two alternative recommendations in the Renewable Energy Target (RET) Review of policy on subsidising the production of energy from renewables (wind and sun) would involve:
  • either eliminating subsidies to new investment in renewables;
  • or limiting subsidies to 20 per cent of actual electricity demand in 2020 instead of an estimated 26% under existing policy (it is now about 17%).

The Abbott government’s decision on RETs is as important as the decision to repeal the carbon tax because a continuation of subsidies would imply acceptance of dangerous global warming. Indeed, no matter which of the alternatives is used to continue subsidies that would risk locking Australia into having a continued high proportion of energy from a highly inefficient source –either 17 or 20%. Of course, the postponement of any substantive scheme to reduce subsidies would avoid the almost certain political need to provide now some program of compensation to power producing businesses for their “lost” investment. But it would miss an opportunity unlikely to readily re-appear of establishing a scheme which over time eliminates or reduces subsidies.

The need to go further than the RET Review proposes is highlighted by the enormous cost imposed by the use of renewables, either reflected in electricity prices or in the cost to taxpayers of financing the subsidies which reduce the effect on prices. The review itself estimates that if subsidies continue under the existing scheme an additional $22 billion would have to be provided on top of the $9.4 billion already provided. Alternatively, to the extent that the costs are passed on in higher electricity prices, they will reflect the estimate by expert Alan Moran that the cost of electricity from wind mills is 2-3 times more than from fossil fuel plants and the cost from solar is much higher even than wind mills.

Relevant to this is the outdated basis of the policy of subsidising of renewable energy. That is based on the belief that continued usage of fossil fuels (coal) will cause temperatures to increase to dangerous levels. But since the subsidies were started under the Howard government, uncertainties about the dangerous warming thesis have increased to the point where there is now no justification for retaining policies which aim to reduce fossil fuels usage. That signal needs to be sent.

My letters published today (see below), which suggest that temperatures have almost certainly risen by much less than the BOM has published, provide only one example of the uncertainties. A policy which starts to phase out the provision of subsidies to investments in renewables would indicate that the government is moving away from policies involving the reduction of emissions.


Importantly, The Australian continues its lone wolf role in exposing apparent deficiencies. It is reported, for example, that while a review panel in 2011 cleared the BOM as having world best practice, that organisation has not carried out the panel’s decision to clearly explain its adjustment technology.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

BOM temperatures need a second opinion (Letter published in AFR, 29 August, 2014)

Important questions arise in addition to those posed by scientist Jennifer Marohasy regarding the adjusted (“homogenised”) temperatures published by the Bureau of Meteorology

Comparing the bureau’s adjusted temperatures for Melbourne and Laverton (about 18 kilometres away), for example, shows that the minimum temperature for Melbourne increases over time at a much faster rate than it does for Laverton (0.22+/-0.04 degrees C per decade faster).

This means the warming effect from Melbourne buildings close to recording thermometers is overlooked by BOM.

Excessive reductions by BOM to Darwin’s temperatures before 1941 (when the recording shifted to the airport) have also created an unwarranted upward bias.

Unsurprisingly, international temperature databases do not use the BOM adjusted figures for Darwin.

Arguably, the BOM should also at least draw attention to the reason for the 0.4C jump in adjusted temperatures between the average for 1910-1978 and subsequent periods. This jump is clearly due to natural rather than human influences.

There is a strong case for an independent inquiry into the adjustment methodology used by BOM.

Des Moore (Statistician)  & Tom Quirk (Physicist)
Melbourne Vic

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


BOM’s method doubts (Letter published in The Australian, 29 Aug 2014. Square bracketed bits deleted by Ed)

In responding to David Karoly’s rejection of [scientist] Jennifer Marohasy’s research suggesting the adjusted [(homogenised)] temperature records published by the Bureau of Meteorology have an upward bias,  Michael Asten draws attention to adjusted temperatures for two weather stations which seem to confirm that (Letters, 28/8).

But comparing BOM adjusted temperatures for Melbourne and Laverton (about 18 kilometres away) suggests the same bias. Such a comparison shows that the minimum temperature for Melbourne increases over time at a much faster rate than it does for Laverton [(0.22+/-0.04 degrees C per decade faster)]. This means the warming effect from Melbourne buildings close to recording thermometers is overlooked.

It is surprising that [neither Environment Minister Hunt nor] the BOM have explained the adjustment procedures and why they suggest an upward bias. There is a strong case for an independent inquiry into BOM’s methodology.
Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic  

Thursday, August 28, 2014

When Global Warming Stopped....

Chris Dawson
Chief Executive Officer and Director
Lord Monckton Foundation

Image: WUWT
Where Global Warming stopped 18 years ago, in preparing for Natural Climate Change ‘going forward’, are we looking at Global Cooling as a possibility? If not, why not?

What happens to our democratic public policy debate when 99% of journalists and 99% of politicians are scientifically illiterate?
“.…to restore the primacy and use of reason in science and public policy worldwide, especially insofar as they may bear upon the rights of the people fairly and fully to be informed, openly and freely to debate, and secretly by ballot to decide who shall govern them, what laws they shall live by and what imposts they shall endure….”
When Global Warming stopped, did anyone ask why the settled science wasn’t working?

When Global Warming stopped, did anyone ask about the basis and the source of the two core tenets of the Global Warming faith, as indelibly and unquestioningly imprinted in the minds of journalists and politicians, namely that:

  1. 97% of scientists said they were very concerned about Global Warming; that it was happening, that it was dangerous, that it was unprecedented, and that we must act now.
  2. The Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming science is settled and the general scientific consensus (over 97% of all scientists) says a) human carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of, b) increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide which is the main cause of, c) our current global warming which is unprecedented, accelerating and dangerous and which is the main cause of, d) melting ice caps, rising sea levels, increasing storms, droughts, floods and extreme weather events and, e) if we don’t act now by reducing carbon dioxide emissions and paying large amounts of cash to third world dictators and UN bureaucrats we will reach an unstoppable unimaginable catastrophic tipping point.

The ‘97% of scientists’ is pure fabrication and the ‘Settled Science is clearly unSettled by an absence of warming’. Few journalists or politicians ever questioned these tenets of faith. Why?

Suppose a journalist, perhaps even you, received a copy of an internal Secret Government Report via Wiki-leaks or an A4 envelope from a senior public servant containing information on the most expensive and disruptive Public Policy Program Australia (or any western democracy) has ever seen. What would you do with it?

And suppose the Report stated categorically and with convincing supporting evidence, that in addition to the failure of the so called Settled Science Models (SSM) to match reality, that no proper Due Diligence has ever been conducted by any Australian Government Agency or any government agency anywhere, on said Public Policy, you would at least examine and check out the key points wouldn’t you?

However, the fact of the matter is that 99% of our politicians and 99% of the fourth estate are scientifically illiterate and we are therefore vulnerable as a Nation, as Eisenhower warned in his farewell address as he stepped down from the US presidency. In that same speech, where he famously warned of the danger of the Military Industrial Complex, he made one other powerful prescient warning that now haunts all western democracies:
“…..In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. 
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. 
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
I’ll repeat and underline the last statement, “…..we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

The most expensive and disruptive Public Policy ever perpetrated on the western world by a small clique of activist alarmist scientists, politicians and green carpet-baggers, a scientific and technological elite if you will, is that of Catastrophic Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (CAGW).
As the Scottish journalist Charles Mackay in 1841 in his book, ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds’ illustrated, sometimes an ill-informed political elite and a propaganda prone crowd can believe almost anything. In propaganda terms, tell the Big Emotional Lie loud enough and often enough and You Will be believed.

In our First Journalistic/Scientific Experiment/Observation we will look at the 97% of all Scientists myth.

97% of ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE that CAGW is happening. Now where does this widely cited statistic come from?

Even though Science works on the basis of empirical evidence, many journalists and politicians are influenced by consensus and so if 97% of all SCIENTISTS AGREE that CAGW is happening, then a journalist or politician isn’t going to need to look at the scientific evidence is she? Who am I to argue with 97% of all scientists, is the catch cry!

The hypothesis that a consensus of 97% of ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE that CAGW is happening, is therefore a very POWERFUL public relations line and fits the narrative that almost all scientists around the world are so concerned about CAGW that we must do something now before it is too late.
But does the evidence support the hypothesis?

You can read one source of this 97% powerful PR myth in Cook et al (John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce) 
AbstractWe analyse the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Read the paper HERE

The second line of this abstract alone (….We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW), itself destroys the paper’s very dubious 97% conclusions.

Our contention is that:

  • the paper had erroneously and gravely over-claimed 97.1% “scientific consensus;
  • the authors had tried to conceal that they had categorized only 64 abstracts out of 11,944 as explicitly endorsing the “scientific consensus” as they had defined it;
  • even then, the authors had miscategorised 23 of the 64 abstracts as endorsing that “scientific consensus” when the 23 had not in fact endorsed it;
  • the authors had failed to disclose that their effective sample size was not 11,944 nor even 4014 papers but just 119, rendering the entire exercise meaningless;
  • on the basis that one of the authors now says was intended, that author says they had meant 87% consensus (not 97%) among just 73 abstracts (not 4014);
  • the true “scientific consensus”, after correcting an obvious error in the newly-asserted (and still strange) basis for calculation, would be 34% of just 119 abstracts;
  • the authors had failed to admit that only 1% of the 4014 abstracts they marked as expressing an opinion had endorsed the “scientific consensus” as they had defined it;
  • the authors had failed to disclose that only 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts had endorsed that “scientific consensus”;
  • the authors had not adhered to a single definition of “scientific consensus”; and
  • that one of the authors, in a public scientific forum, continues in defiance of the truth to assert that 97.1% had “said that recent warming is mostly man made”, when very nearly all of the abstracts had neither stated nor implied any such thing.
Read our background notes HERE


In the next day or so we will send you a detailed, evidence based discussion on point 2, the collapse of the CAGW hypothesis, above.

Should anyone wish to follow up on any of the actual science in more detail or if any journalist or politician wishes to interview Lord Monckton on any of the above or anything else for that matter, for example during his Visit to Australia between the 10th September and the 1st October 2014, please feel free to contact me.

Christopher Monckton is in Australia to catch up with friends and to meet with any journalists, politicians or business leaders who wish to be brought up to date with the latest trends in international climate research and climate policy.

Regards

Chris


“…The Lord Monckton Foundation shall conduct research, publish papers, educate students and the public and take every measure that may be necessary to restore the primacy and use of reason in science and public policy worldwide, especially insofar as they may bear upon the rights of the people fairly and fully to be informed, openly and freely to debate, and secretly by ballot to decide who shall govern them, what laws they shall live by and what imposts they shall endure.”

Chris Dawson
Chief Executive Officer and Director
Ph: 03 9878 3333 - Int’l: (+61) 3 9878 3333 - Mobile: 0409 805 425
PO Box 14, Nunawading LPO, Nunawading VIC Australia 3131


Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Climate

 NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 334

by IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray

AUGUST 26TH  2014

CLIMATE

The Free Dictionary says
CLIMATE 
“The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.”

Dictionary.com says 
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.”

The Oxford English dictionary has
“The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.”
The common feature of all these definitions is that CLIMATE is essentially local and is confined  to a particular region or area.

A region or area may be quite small (there is even such a thing as a microclimate) but in order to have a climate the region or area must be fairly uniform. Local climates can be very different and it is not possible to provide a meaningful global average. There is no such thing as a GLOBAL climate.

Climate involves an interrelationship with a large number of meteorological and geological influences. It is very difficult, even in a more or less uniform region, to derive a scientifically or mathematically acceptable average. Climate observations hardly ever comply with  requirements for uniformity and symmetry which are needed to make use of standard statistical models.  The observations are often irregular, bimodal or skewed. Attempts to apply the popular normal distribution often claim a false uniformity or run into problems with rare events for which there are too few samples to assess regularity. The term average, therefore, often applies only to a “range” or to an opinion as to what is typical, normal, or unusual.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Glossary AR5WGI) defines “Climate” as follows:
Climate
 “Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months, to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, Precipitation and wind.”
But then we have the following
“Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.”
This concept of climate is different from the dictionary definition and accepted meteorological practice. It is also claimed to include a statistical description.

The Climate System is defined by the IPCC as follows (Glossary AR5WGI)
“Climate system
The climate system is the highly complex system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere, and the interactions between them.
The climate system is actually a heat engine, The sun supplies radiant energy. the exhaust system is radiation to outer space, It provides yhe means for life on earth and changes to the five major components of the IPCC definition: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere, and the interactions between them .

No part of this climate system is ever in equilibrium. It can be considered to consist of a very large number of three dimensional infinitesimal elements, each with an array of climate properties which change perpetually. Such a system could not possibly be provided with an overall statistical description, either transitory, or as an average, for any period,  from  current technology..

Meteorologists already provide the best that can be done in supplying a statistical description of individual localities from numerical models for each individual area, locality, or region which is used to forecast future behaviour. Its success is limited by the reliability of the physics, and the effects of chaos and complexity, to only a few weeks ahead with a very limited accuracy.

The climate system, as defined and operated by the IPCC cannot possibly equal the best of the current essentially local meteorological procedures.

It follows that no scientific or mathematically acceptable statistical description or potential future forecast is possible from the IPCC global Climate System

Cheers

Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035
New Zealand