Stephen Goddard has found a gem of a news article. 1979 : Before The Hockey Team Destroyed Climate Science.
Drs Leona Libby and Louise Pandolfi projected world temperatures in 1979 for the next 70 years and got results that, 30 years later, appear to have been broadly correct if out by 5 – 7 years. Ironically, they used, of all things, … tree ring data (going back 1,800 years). The critical difference was they assumed that the climate changes in natural cycles.
St Petersburg Times, Jan 1 1979
Prediction: Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold.
Scientific audit of the Climate Commission Report “The Critical Decade – Climate science, risks and responses”
Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks, William Kininmonth
PART I – INTRODUCTION, DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
For PART II – SCIENCE AUDIT see the Full PDF file of Part I & II
Also posted at Quadrant Online, May 30, 2011
The Key Messages summary of The Critical Decade opens with a ringing statement of hyperbole:
Over many decades thousands of scientists have painted an unambiguous picture: the global climate is changing and humanity is almost surely the primary cause. The risks have never been clearer and the case for action has never been more urgent.
This declaration establishes two things. The first sentence signals that the report is committed to repeating the conclusions of the 4th Assessment Report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), conclusions that are essentially reliant on computer modelling and lack empirical support. And the second signals that the report is long on opinionated analysis and political advocacy but devoid of objective risk analysis.
These same characteristics apply to the scientific [...]
Thanks to the Global Warming Policy Foundation we can finally See the Light!, and it shines from Germany’s green government advisers.
Get Ready. To save the world you must give up the right to vote. To cool the planet, you will forgo the right to have a say in the laws of your land. Why? There are gifted, anointed higher beings out there (who knew?) and they are smarter than the masses. They may not know what an 8-sigma-tree is, but they know how to control the weather.
Through their benevolence you and I will live in a bountiful land, where there will be no more floods or droughts, no more record hot days, or blizzard filled cold ones. Instead life will be perfect. Every asylum seeker shall find what they seek, every climate scientist will have their own suite, and thus and unto infinity, the glorious bliss of perfect weather will descend upon the poor and worthy people of all lands, starting with Germany.
The gifted elite who have the Vision have given up trying to convince or persuade the stupid throngs of doctors, geologists, engineers, lawyers, businesspeople and other heathen fools (like NASA astronauts) who “don’t understand” their [...]
Robin Williams is supposedly one of Australia’s top science communicators. He, and the ABC, continue to support ad hominems, name-calling, and are running scared of a real scientific debate. Williams will not allow skeptics to explain their views on his show, except in comments on stories, and then apparently, even that was too much, and a raging thread (for the Science Show) mysteriously disappeared for days when it got too hot. BobFJ has been dedicated in tracking it, and keeping the pressure on the anti-science pronouncements of Williams et al. Here we have all the fun of the so called “Science” Show meeting the author of Un-Skeptical-Science, with half-truths and irrelevancies broadcast across the continent thanks to the taxpayers of Australia. — JoNova
Guest Post by Bob Fernley-Jones (aka Bob_FJ)
In addition to regular readers of Jo Nova, those familiar with John Cook’s misleadingly titled website “Skeptical Science” may be shocked by what follows. Some will also likely recall Jo’s article; Robyn Williams shreds the tenets of science. It largely covered the awful Robyn Williams interview of Bob Ward of 2/Oct/2010, and resulted in strong ridicule of the ABC going viral around the world. Well, lo [...]
GetUp have pulled out all stops and produced their most convincing science and economics advert to wow “the nation’s decision makers” (they actually use that phrase). Don’t hold your breath waiting for the cost-benefit analysis though — the closest they get to science is a picture of a chimp. The jokes though, could go over well with the under-ten-set.
If this the progressive movement maturing, I can only say congratulations to them, they’ve made double digits.
The reasons to eschew our cheapest form of energy, to pay even more tax to not-build-more-hospitals-schools-and-roads (and not do more medical and physics research) is so obvious, apparently, that any brainwashed 13 year old can see it. It’s all to do with piggy banks and caricatures of what the business world is like. Get it?
Watch the video here: http://www.getup.org.au/fund-solutions-not-pollution
As you watch it, ponder that someone in GetUp either thinks this will impress “decision makers”, or else cynically thinks the people who donate to GetUp are stupid enough to believe that. “Our team of media buyers are searching for availabilities in the programs that we know decision makers watch“. As if our Senators and M.P.’s have time to watch TV… [...]
Greg Hunt tried to explain the Coalition policy on coal power stations on the 7:30 Report last night. It wasn’t a good look. This is what happens when they deny the science telling us that there is no need to reduce CO2. That’s a harsh criticism, because they are closer to reality than the ALP, but ultimately, as long as they say “we need to reduce CO2 by 2020″, and “the science is settled” they are stuck trying to move the immovable mountain.
Chris Uhlmann does a good job trying to fill in the gaps in the reasoning, and Greg Hunt looks silly denying the obvious. Coal provides the cheapest source of energy around, so if we replace it with anything else there will be extra costs. Hunt keeps waving the magic fairyland contradictory combination of “we’ll only use the cheapest alternative” and “we won’t do anything to raise costs.”
The real problem here is that the Coalition are not free to speak about a science theory. Each time they step slightly outside the politically-correct-line they are bullied and derided, which would be fine if it was just by the Greens, but isn’t fine when it includes most of the [...]
The latest Climate Commission report has created a media frenzy all over Australia — though on the plus side, I know a few skeptics who have been interviewed on radio stations in the last 24 hours.
As usual, the well funded team produce a long 72 page effort that says very little that’s new. Curiously the graphic designers didn’t try as hard as they normally do. Where are the full color shots of a fragile Planet Earth? Where are the mandatory fields of baked-dry-mud? Maybe clip art is trendy now? Or maybe, just possibly, this document was slapped together at the last minute by a desperate department on the run from the crashing polls?
Apart from the sea of logical errors and half-truths, what is a sad mark of the times, is that despite all the taxpayer money, they can’t even produce a statement they will stand by. This is NOT a document that underscores decisions with billions of dollars at stake. It’s just for general information, and if the weather gets cold instead of warm, if people drown in floods they didn’t predict or build desalination plants that won’t be needed, it’s not their fault. “Don’t sue me”.
ABC Unleashed knocked back this reply (below) from Cox and Stockwell. The ABC is OK with publishing unsubstantiated smears, and doesn’t feel any need to muddy the water with inconvenient facts.
The essential point here is that Cox and Stockwell noticed that Hansen was inadvertently admitting the models have major flaws. Hansen effectively acknowledges the magnitude of the error by the models is almost half the entire forcing blamed on human emissions of CO2. Hansen thought he was making the point that it’s all awful and worse than we thought, because if aerosols have been cooling the planet more than we expected, then CO2 has been heating it more than we expected too! But in order to claim that, he had to first admit that the models (shock) had been wrong all along. In the end, it’s a speculative war of unknown fudge-factors.
Why does this matter so much?
The alarmists are always telling us that we know CO2 matters because they can’t explain the rise in temperatures without CO2. It’s all argument from ignorance and a fallacy from the beginning. Then when their models didn’t reproduce the cooling from 1945 – 1975, they “discovered” aerosols.
Clostridium Botulinum is one of the toughest bugs around. And its toxin (a neurotoxin) is also one of the most deadly, yet strangely popular at the same time. Yes botulinum toxin is also known as BoTox and tiny quantities paralyze nerves. Small quantities can be fatal as nerve damage progresses to respiratory failure.
In it’s spore stage you can boil the bug to no avail — it’s one of the reasons boiling isn’t enough for tins, or sterilization of lab equipment. To kill these spores you need 121C in an autoclave (or pressure cooker). The toxin itself can be destroyed at 100C.
A million acres of land are producing corn for biogas plants in Germany.
German “Green” Biogas Plants Producing Deadly Botulism – “Could Be Catastrophic To Wildlife”
By P Gosselin on 19. Mai 2011 No tricks Zone
German sporting and dog magazine Wild und Hund reports that thousands of domestic and wild animals are falling ill from tainted waste from green “climate-friendly” biogas plants, which is then used as an agricultural fertilizer in fields.
While half a million people starve each year we feed 6.5% of the world grain to cars. Image credit: "Corn for cars", From Viv Forbes. Click on the image to read the carbonsense post.
After I wrote Wasting money on climate change betrays sick in The Weekend Australian, Fiona Armstrong of the Climate and Health Alliance replied with Climate action has clear public health dividend. Here’s why she’s missing the main point (saving lives).
Fiona Armstrong claims that there are substantial health gains possible from climate action, and waved the banner of scientific integrity and “fact”. Unfortunately for Armstrong, the mortal facts from countries all over the world show that more people die in colder weather. Any statistic that suggests climate change is killing people only survives as long as we ignore the number of people saved.
Medical studies rarely show such unanimity. The results stand whether you look at seasonal or daily temperatures, extremes or averages, cold locations versus warm ones, or the trend in flood deaths and droughts. No matter where you live, whether you ail in your heart, or your lungs: You’re less likely to die in warmer weather.
If we could control the planet’s thermostat, [...]
18 contributors have published
1996 posts that generated