All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

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, 3 May 2016

The Science isn't settled!

Note the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2
In the face of a monolithically climate alarmist academia, media and government, several courageous individuals are working to unsettle the purportedly “settled science” of climate change, arguing that carbon dioxide atmospheric enrichment provides manifold benefits for mankind, that flawed economic models are being used to justify anti-capitalist and destructive public policies, that mild warming of the planet ought to be celebrated and fighting back courageously against those who wish to chill free speech by using the law to litigate science. 

This is their story. 

Featured speakers include Mark Steyn, international bestselling author and commentator, Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton, Dr. Craig Idso, Founder Former President and Current Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace and author of “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout—The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist,” Dr. Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and Research Chair in Energy, Ecology and Prosperity at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Dr. Richard Lindzen Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, Bruce Everett, a Specialist on Global Energy and Petroleum Issues and Adjunct Associate Professor of International Business, Fletcher School at Tufts University and Roger Kimball, Editor and Publisher of The New Criterion. 

For more from The New Criterion and CO2 Coalition’s March 2016 ‘The Climate Surprise’ conference, check out The New Criterion’s YouTube channel at
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNewCriterion     (Published on Apr 25, 2016)


Sunday, 1 May 2016

More CO2 still greening the Earth

NASA via WUWT
The shrill keep speaking of carbon pollution. This is a double lie.

The late Bob Carter wrote in his book; "Taxing Air:"

Why all this talk about carbon instead of carbon dioxide? 
Because it evokes the image of dirty smokestacks, long a thing of the past in Australia.
Since the 1970s, green lobby groups have come to realise the power that resides in defining the language used in environmental debates — generally by substituting deliberately emotionally-charged words for factually accurate ones. 
To further compound the lie, the shrill tack "pollution" onto carbon. Again from "Taxing Air:"
Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless gas that occurs naturally in the atmosphere. Moreover, it is vital for life on Earth. Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is taken up and incorporated into vegetation during growth through the process of photosynthesis; carbon dioxide is returned to the at- mosphere during respiration and decay of dead biomass. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial to plant growth. 
This blog has repeatedly published studies that show how CO2, rather than being a pollutant,  is increasing the biomass; eg here, here, here and here

The Australian has a piece by John Ross headed:

Forests suck more CO2 during drought

Climate models have been turned upside down by a research finding that US forests sucked CO2 from the atmosphere ­despite being in the grip of one of the nation’s worst droughts. 
New modelling of carbon take-up during 2012 has con­cluded that the country’s flora absorbed more carbon than it emitted, at a time when the most severe drought since the 1930s, a notorious dry spell known as the Dust Bowl period, was enveloping most of the US mainland. 
The finding questions conventional wisdom that drought turns terrestrial flora from a sink into a carbon source, as expiring plants release trapped CO2 into the atmosphere.
The Paper:

Warm spring reduced carbon cycle impact of the 2012 US summer drought   Wolf et al
Carbon uptake by terrestrial ecosystems mitigates the impact of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but the strength of this carbon sink is highly sensitive to large-scale extreme climate events. In 2012, the United States experienced the most severe drought since the Dust Bowl period, along with the warmest spring on record. Here, we quantify the impact of this climate anomaly on the carbon cycle.
Another paper released this week also confirms CO2 greening the environment.

Greening of the Earth and its drivers

Nature Climate Change
 
 
doi:10.1038/nclimate3004
Received
 
Accepted
 
Published online
 

If all the extra leaves growing because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere were laid end to end, it would cover a space twice the size of the continental U.S. That's the conclusion of a new study conducted by 32 scientists and 24 institutions.
About 85% of Earth's ice-free land is covered by plants, and each year photosynthesis soaks up about one quarter of the nearly 10 billion tonnes of carbon emitted by humans.
Dr Canadell said the greening has surprised scientists who expected to see more browning, given the increase in droughts associated with global warming.
While the researchers found between 25 to 50 per cent of all vegetated areas of the land have become greener, only 4 per cent have become browner. (link)
Another  of the 32 scientists commented:
“We were able to tie the greening largely to the fertilizing effect of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration by tasking several computer models to mimic plant growth observed in the satellite data,” says co-author Prof. Ranga Myneni of the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University, USA.
AND still the shrill, without a single peer-reviewed paper to prop up their crumbling hypothesis, still refer to invisible, vital-to-life carbon dioxide as carbon pollution.

Reality comes to starry-eyed Greenie

The following is an extract from a post on HuffPost Green by Amy Porterfield Levy:

A confession

I cringe at how naïve I was when I first got into this, all wide-eyed and excited to save the planet (I cringe at that phrase now too.) Then, I got called a climate change denier because I suggested nuclear power should be in the clean energy mix since it’s, you know, CLEAN ENERGY. I felt like a big dumbass, holding out my hand with all the nice little stats about nuclear safety and radiation and my hooray-for-baseload-power excitement. I thought, “Oh, if people weren’t so scared of nuclear power, then we could stop burning coal and everyone could have air-conditioning as good as mine and not die from spoiled food. This is awesome!” Not so fast. Not only was I a denier but I was a… right-winger?
So, I cried and cried and couldn’t figure it out. At first, I thought people assumed I was a shill for the big, powerful Nuclear Industry Lobby until I realized that the nuclear industry is a sad, fat dinosaur with one leg dragging behind it, crying for everyone to wait up. (I think their lobby is just a few old guys in golf sweaters, handing out pamphlets.) It started to make sense though when I saw an interview with an activist I really like and admire, Naomi Klein. When asked about nuclear power, she rejects it and says:
“I understand why people looking at the current power configurations as they are, believe that we need these centralized solutions that are less threatening to our elites.”
Part of an article on Huff Post Green by Amy Porterfield Levy.

Amy says that anyone who diverges from the Green orthodoxy is sc reamed down with the "denier" tag. On Naomi Klein, Amy writes:

......it sounds like her social movement is more important to her than not burning fossil fuels. That’s when a dim bulb went off over my head: Maybe the social movement is more important to a lot of these people than the HOT CLIMATE part.


- See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/hey-environmentalists-stop-being-such-dicks/#sthash.6zlgiMox.dpuf

H/t Andrew

Sunday, 24 April 2016

The Conversation - NOT

Post by Anthony Cox

Tyrants and fundamentalists have a defining quality. They are intolerant of criticism. Islam killed its critics at Charlie Hebdo and brave individuals like Ayaan Hirsi Ali are under permanent death threat because of their truth telling about Islam.

Alarmists are not at the stage of Islam; yet. But they censor, censor, and censor; alarmists accuse sceptics of insanity, of mental disorder; they want to jail sceptics, lock up sceptics, sue sceptics; Judges want to use the law to stop sceptics; Gore and 17 democrat US state A-Gs are going to sue Oil companies to find out when they knew about AGW; and academics want the death penalty for deniers.

Maybe alarmists are as bad as the Muslims.

In Australia under the Rudd/Gillard governments the Finkelstein report attempted to muzzle discussion about alarmism.

The reason for this suppression and aggression is two fold; 
  1. firstly alarmists are fundamentalists; and 
  2. secondly their theory (sic) has no credibility; they cannot defend it by the usual rational discourse of science so they behave as all fundamentalists do.


The Conversation is part of this fundamentalism and typically it is funded by the public while censoring the public. Many of my fellow sceptics are subject to oppression at The Conversation as I have been in the past.

In a recent post at The Conversation by Marc Hudson this trait of censorship is endorsed. The general theme of the Hudson essay is that fossil companies knew about alarmism in the 1970s and have been complicit in preventing information about alarmism from getting out. There are a number of ironies in this puerile essay.

Firstly big oil has been a supporter of alarmism. This support is to no doubt to mute the hysteria of alarmism and also to be in the queue for subsidies for renewable energies. The fossil companies have not distinguished themselves by standing up to the alarmists as their support for the chimera of CO2 capture and clean coal has shown.

Secondly in the 70s the prevailing theory from the hysterics was an impending ice age.


Source
Before the cooling hysteria of the 70s both cooling and warming had been previously predicted by the alarmists. The only consistency in alarmism is that it is wrong and never concedes that it is wrong.

Hudson ignores the pathetic failures of alarmism and gloats about the imminent demise of coal because of Peabody Coal’s Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition. This is glaringly wrong. Coal continues to be the world’s dominant power source. Brendan Pearson, chief executive of the Minerals Council describes the comparison between fossils and renewables:
 Let’s do the maths. Last year wind and solar ­energy produced the equivalent of nine days of global primary energy needs. Coal produced 109 days and fossil fuels combined produced 313 days of the world’s ­annual primary needs. Despite all these power sources, 1.3 billion people still missed out on electricity and a further 1.7 billion only had partial access.
Pearson goes on to also point out the immorality of alarmism:
 Halting or limiting coal or fossil fuels output will simply mean that those with no or partial access to electricity would have to wait much longer in the dark.
This aspect of alarmism is often ignored. Alarmism is based on an assumed moral superiority. Alarmism is saving the world gloat alarmists. But in fact what alarmism is doing is condemning millions to energy poverty and even death. 

Alarmists are hypocrites.  


The hypocrisy is compounded when it may be the case that Germany the poster child of renewables is likely in the future to need coal powered energy from China which is building coal power stations.

Source
The real reason that Western coal companies are struggling is not because the world is using less coal.

The reasons are the Saudis and OPEC are over-producing oil to wipe out the fracking boom particularly in the US which along with Australia has oil equivalent reserves potentially larger than those in Saudi Arabia

Secondly China has been stockpiling coal in the recent down turn ; that down turn has passed and China’s usage is increasing again.

Naturally Hudson endorse the plan by Gore and his 17 democrat A-G’s to sue the fossils via the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). But Gore’s censorship is typical half-baked alarmism. As Hans von Spakovsky notes:
Walker (the A-G initiating the action) didn’t actually get a court in the Virgin Islands to issue the subpoena; he simply issued it himself. 
Subpoenas that are not issued by a “court of record” and that are not part of a “pending judicial action” cannot be domesticated in another jurisdiction like the District of Columbia where CEI is located and was served with the subpoena. This is the type of basic error that one might expect from a young law firm associate, not the attorney general of a U.S. protectorate. 
But more fundamentally, CEI is objecting on First Amendment grounds, citing to court cases prohibiting the compelled disclosure of the type of information and documents that Walker is trying to obtain. Grossman claims that the subpoena “violates the First Amendment because it constitutes an attempt to silence and intimidate, as well as retaliate against, speech espousing a particular viewpoint with which the Attorney General disagrees.” 
CEI asserts that the subpoena is also “invalid because the underlying investigation is pretextual, is being undertaken in bad faith, is intended as a fishing expedition, and is in support of an investigation of charges that have no likelihood of success.”

Hudson’s pitiful article is in itself of no importance. But it is symbolic because it continues the attack by alarmism against science, truth and the best interests of humanity.

The Conversation is anything but a conversation and should be defunded immediately.


Anzac Day: 25th April, 2016



They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.Lest we forget.


IPCC's Devil Leader

Source: WUWT
Cliff Richards sang Devil Woman.

She's just a devil woman 
With evil on her mind 
Beware the devil woman 
She's gonna get you 
She's just a devil woman 
With evil on her mind 
Beware the devil woman 
She's gonna get you from behind
With a few more years, he could have sung of the IPCC's Devil Leader  Rajendra Pachauri:
He's just a devil leader 
With evil on his mind 
Beware the IPCC leader  
He's gonna get you 
He's just a devil leader 
With evil on his mind 
Beware that devil leader 
He's gonna get you from behind


Have you heard much from the Australian Media of the lecherous (alleged?) Rajendra Pachauri?

Googling "Rajendra Pachauri Sex Trials" brings up

Eventually, at 45 in the Google list, the Alarmist Sydney Morning Herald appears with

UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri accused of sexual harassment


Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel-Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has withdrawn from next week's talks due to "issues demanding his attention", the UN body said on Sunday 
His cancellation comes after Delhi police said Dr Pachauri, 74, was accused of sexually harassing a 29-year-old researcher from his Delhi-based think tank The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).
And "our ABC" comes in at position 73 with

IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri to miss meeting over sexual harassment case:
A TOP UNITED NATIONS climate change official has pulled out of a key meeting in Kenya next week as Indian police investigate a sexual harassment complaint against him
This blog, with a small red-face, came in four places behind "our ABC"
Meanwhile, a story in the Calcutta-based Telegraph suggests that Pachauri has long treated female staff members “like little girls” by lifting them off the ground as one might do with toddlers in North America. Based on the above two women’s accounts, plus “interviews with two long-term [TERI] employees,” the article implies that physical contact and sexual innuendo have long been part of Pachauri’s modus operandi.  
The UK Telegraph has also pointed out via columnist Christopher Booker  the reluctance of the MSM to report the sexual foibles of this former "darling" of  the MSM:
After two years of police investigation into charges of sexual harassment of his employees, Dr Rajendra Pachauri has finally been removed from his position at the Energy and Resources Institute (Teri), formerly the Tata Energy Research Institute, which he ran for 35 years.Plucked from obscurity in 2002 to become chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Pachauri was long hailed as one of the world’s leading climate experts, even though, as a former railway engineer, he had no qualifications in climate science whatsoever.
Pachauri was under fire for the 2007 report:
In 2010 he came under worldwide fire for having very actively presided over the IPCC’s 2007 report, when it was revealed (not least in this column) that nearly a third of its citations were not from scientific sources at all, but from propaganda leaflets and press releases from climate activist groups, such as Friends of the Earth and WWF. Even when the IPCC had to apologise for one particularly ludicrous WWF-inspired claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all disappear by 2035, Pachauri clung on to office and simply hired the man responsible to work for him at Teri. 
The sting is in the tail of Christopher Booker great piece:
 it is perhaps unfortunate that his eventual downfall should have come about for a sexual scandal and not for his controversial conduct as head of a hugely influential global body that he was never equipped to run in the first place.

Songwriters: Cliff Richard - Devil Woman Lyrics
JOHNNY RAY BARTEL, BILL BATEMAN, LESTER BUTLER, PAUL V. JR. SIZE, DAVID LEE BARTEL