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

Monday, August 18, 2014

IPCC Wrong (yet again) - Professor Fred Singer


Fred Singer, American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, has written a piece for American Thinker with the title:


Climate Science Does Not Support IPCC Conclusions

where he addresses the two main science issues of general concern:

  1. future temperatures
  2. future sea level rise (SLR)
Global average surface temperature (GAST)
....the concern seems to be to remain below 2 deg. It should be recognized that this limit is entirely arbitrary. There is no established scientific basis for assigning special significance to it; it just happens to be the “Goldilocks” number. Here is what I mean: If one were to choose 0.5 deg, people will say “we’ve already seen that and nothing has happened.”  However, if we were to choose 5 deg, people will say, “we’ll never see that much warming -- hence of no significance.” That is why 2 deg may have become the alarmists’ choice. 
After discussing Climate Sensitivity (CS) and how,  according to the IPCC CS dropped from 4.5 to about 2.5 deg,  Professor Singer arrives at the conclusion:
In my view, CS may actually be close to zero. This means CO2 has very little influence on climate change -- probably because of negative feedback.
 It is rather amusing that the Summaries talk about increasing
certainty for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) --
while at the same time modeled temperatures increasingly
diverge from those actually observed
I don't know why Prof Singer bothered, but during his discussion,  he (re) addresses the disgraced MBH98 hockey stick.

Sea Level Rise (SLR)

His opening remark:

SLR (sea level rise) shows no acceleration in 20th century 

OK! Say no more!

But no! If one of the Global Warming Nazis had made such a statement, we Realists would ask for some explanation, some justification. So.....
AR4 [2007] still produces reasonable values for SLR.  But by the time AR5 came around, we can see a rough doubling of the lowest and highest estimates – as shown (in black) in S-7.  
We now look at the summary result (from chapter 13 of AR5) in some detail in S-8 – and pose the crucial question:  Is there reliable evidence for acceleration in SLR associated with temp rise and CO2 increase during the 20th century?  As we shall see, the answer is NO.
Prof Singer's conclusion
My best estimate for the year 2100 is a further SL rise of about 15cm [see S-7] and continued rise thereafter of about the same value (18cm/cy) -- independent of any short term temp fluctuations. In my opinion, there is nothing we can do about this natural rise, which will continue until the next Ice Age -- when sea level will drop as ice accumulates in the Polar Regions and on glaciers. Meanwhile, we should follow the Dutch example: relax and build dikes. 
Read More at American Thinker (LINK

Saturday, August 16, 2014

IPCC does not seek to tell the truth

PATRICK J. MICHAELS and PAUL C. "CHIP" KNAPPENBERGER have hit the nail on the head again with their latest column for the CATO institute.

A Clear Example of IPCC Ideology Trumping Fact

They get into it with the first two sentences:
When it comes to global warming, facts often take a back seat to fiction. This is especially true with proclamations coming from the White House
After listing a few groups pushing the AGW deception, they continue:
We have documented this low regard for the facts (some might say, deception) on many occasions, but recently we have uncovered  a particularly clear example where the IPCC’s ideology trumps the plain facts, giving the impression that climate models perform a lot better than they actually do. This is an important façade for the IPCC to keep up, for without the overheated climate model  projections of future climate change, the issue would be a lot less politically interesting (and government money could be used for other things … or simply not taken from taxpayers in the first place). 
What is the cost of this deception, this obfuscation?
 The IPCC is harming the public health and welfare of all humankind as it pressures governments to seek to limit energy choices instead of seeking ways to help expand energy availability (or, one would hope, just stay out of the market).
Everyone knows that global warming (as represented by the rise in the earth’s average surface temperature) has stopped for nearly two decades now. 
The article does some great analysis of "the science" and is worth a read - HERE - especially because, after their details they end with:
Taking the IPCC at its word is not a good idea.


Friday, August 15, 2014

Inconvenient Truth of Alarmists' failed predictions

Source: Living Green
Why do people still listen to the alarmist scientists? Their threats of doom and gloom have failed to materialise over and over again.


TIPPING POINT.
Take for example the threat of the tipping point. It has not happened in all the long long time of the world's existence. It didn't happen when atmospheric CO2 was at 7000 ppmv, so why would it happened with CO2 at four hundred ppmv?

That point alone should make the alarmists objects of ridicule.

97% CONSENSUS.
All alarmists who mention the consensus should be laughed out of the room, have their grants taken away. This false consensus has been exposed many times in many places.

Lawrence Solomon, back in 2010 wrote (link)
This number (97%) will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. 
See also the many links to 97% consensus on this blog.

TIM FLANNERY.
Look at Australia's Mammologist Tim Flannery. Andrew Bolt has exposed many of Flannery's flawed failed predictions: (link)
After all, Flannery once claimed the Arctic ice could melt completely away by, er, last year.
He claimed Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane could be all out of water by, oops, a couple of years ago now.
Yet no matter how many dud predictions Flannery makes, almost no scientist ever corrects him.
It’s as if they don’t care how wrong he is in the warming cause.
Would you buy a used car climate prediction from this man?



GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS.
I used to keep track of the weather predictions on a calendar, adding the next days predictions etc. It used to look like this

MON......TUES......WED......THURS......FRI.....SAT.....SUN....
Rain       Clearing    Fine       Showers     cold     showers  fine
             Rain       Clearing    Fine       Showers     Fine    showers
                           Rain       Clearing    Fine        chilly     Fine
etc etc

It's no wonder that the GCMs used to project future climate are just as disastrous.

95% OF CLIMATE MODELS AGREE: THE OBSERVATIONS MUST BE WRONG

NO SNOW.
How about Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of University of East Anglia who said:  
Within a few years children just aren't going to know what snow is. Snowfall will be a very rare and exciting event. 
What happened? Just last winter: (link)

LONG-RANGE weather forecasters have warned that Britain should prepare for heavy and persistent snow for up to THREE MONTHS with winter 2013 set to be the worst in more than 60 years.
ICE FREE ARCTIC. 

How many times have you heard that the Arctic will be ice-free by.....

For instance, take this report from the Christian Science Monitor (Are THEY scientists?) from June 1972: (link)

Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2,000.

The reality? (link) The Arctic wasn't ice-free in 2000. In fact, since then
Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record. There is more sea ice now than there was on this date in 2002.

The alarmist's failures go on and on and still the MSM publish their next prediction of doom. 


When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?


Parasitic Power Producers

 

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared by The Carbon Sense Coalition
Please pass on. We rely on our supporters to spread the word.


www.carbon-sense.com

15 August 2014


Promoting Parasitic Power Producers

Wind and solar are parasitic power producers, unable to survive in a modern electricity grid without the back-up of stand-alone electricity generators such as hydro, coal, gas or nuclear. And like all parasites, they weaken their hosts, causing increased operating and transmission costs and reduced profits for all participants in the grid.

Without subsidies, few large wind/solar plants would be built; and without mandated targets, few would get connected to the grid.

Green zealots posing as energy engineers should be free to play with their green energy toys at their own expense, on their own properties, but the rest of us should not be saddled with their costs and unreliability.

We should stop promoting parasitic power producers. As a first step, all green energy subsidies and targets should be abolished.

The Miracle of Green Energy – by Steve Hunter  www.stevehunterillustrations.com.au
Viv Forbes,17th July 2014

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

The myth of the moderate Muslim part 2

by Anthony Cox

I have written about how Islam is not moderate and Muslims cannot be moderate if they practice their religion. The reason is simple; Islam offers a complete package; it prescribes its own legal system, its own economic, banking and trading system and social and political parameters. It is a contradiction in terms for Muslims to say they are law abiding if to be a Muslim means you must support laws other than the laws of the host nation.

Australia is a secular democracy. Our legal and political system is based on the separation of church and state. That separation is one of the great inventions of mankind. It allows people to worship their own religion without allowing any religion to force itself on the rest of society.

Islam does not support that separation. In every host nation Islam seeks to introduce aspects of its legal system, Sharia. They range from parallel marriage systems to halal certification which many food sources and outlets subscribe to and pay vast amounts of money to Islamic authorities.

In an ironic move Australia’s first Islamic politician Ed Husic was sworn into parliament using a Koran. The significance of that was entirely missed by Australia’s political and media classes. The fact that many of Australian politicians depend for their survival on Muslim votes is well known:



Himalayan Glaciers - The Truth



(UN) Skeptical (NON) Science writes (link)
Globally glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate. There are still situations in which glaciers gain or lose ice more than typical for one region or another but the long term trends are all the same, and about 90% of glaciers are shrinking worldwide. 
A peer reviewed paper published in Current Science refutes this, at least as far as the Himalayan Glaciers are concerned. In CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 106, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2014  (pdf)
The results of the present study indicate that most of the glaciers were in a steady state compared to the results of other studies carried out for the period prior to 2001. This period of monitoring almost corresponds to hiatus in global warming in the last decade.
The Paper:
Bahuguna, I.M., Rathore, B.P., Brahmbhatt, R., Sharma, M., Dhar, S., Randhawa, S.S., Kumar, K., Romshoo, S., Shah, R.D., Ganjoo, R.K. and Ajai. 2014. Are the Himalayan glaciers retreating? Current Science 106: 1008-1013.

CO2 SCIENCE reports (link)

What was done
With their curiosity thus piqued, Bahuguna et al. conducted a study "to find the change in the extent of Himalayan glaciers during the last decade using IRS LISS III images of 2000/01/02 and 2010/11." And in doing so, they say that "two thousand and eighteen glaciers representing climatically diverse terrains in the Himalaya were mapped and monitored," including the glaciers of the Karakoram, Himachal, Zanskar, Uttarakhand, Nepal and Sikkim regions.

What was learned
The all-India team of eleven researchers found that 1752 glaciers (86.8%) were observed having stable fronts (no change in the snout position and area of ablation zone), 248 (12.3%) exhibited retreat and 18 (0.9%) of them exhibited advancement of snout," such that "the net loss in 10,250.68 sq. km area of the 2018 glaciers put together was found to be 20.94 sq. km or 0.2% (±2.5% of 20.94 sq. km)."

Read More at CO2 SCIENCE

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Good Science Being Undermined

  • Email Received from John Droz Jr of AWED (Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions)

John writes of the disgraceful dismissal of one of the world's leading noise researchers, joining a growing line of excellent scientists sacrificed by the religion of man made global warming.


As you probably know, a passion of mine is defending my profession (Science) from assault. 

This is approaching a full-time job, as those promoting political or economic agendas are painfully aware that real Science is a major threat to their aspirations — so they are aggressively attacking it on multiple fronts. (See ScienceUnderAssault.info.)

We now have yet another distressing example, where a leading scientist has lost his job — apparently for the crime of being a conscientious, competent academic, focused on quality research (instead of chasing grant money).