JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Former NOAA Meteorologist tells of years of censorship to hide the effect of “natural cycles”

Pierre Gosselin has a great post: Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles”.

David Dilley, NOAA Meteorologist, tells how for 15 years work on man-made climate change was pushed while work on natural cycles was actively suppressed. Grants connecting climate change to a man-made crisis were advertised, while the word went around to heads of departments that even mentioning natural cycles would threaten the flow of government funds. Speeches about natural cycles were mysteriously canceled at the last minute with bizarre excuses.

But jobs are on the line, so only retired workers can really speak, and no one can name names.

We can corroborate David Dilley’s remarks. Indeed, he is probably just one of many skeptics hidden in the ranks of NOAA.  Way back in 2007, David Evans got an email from a different insider within NOAA, around the time he started talking publicly about the missing hotspot. The insider said, remarkably: “As a Meteorologist working for [snip, name of division] it has been clear to me, as well as every single other scientist I know at NOAA, that man can not be the primary cause of global warming and that the predictions of “gloom and doom” due to rising temperatures is ridiculous”.

So there are probably many skeptics at NOAA, but given the uniformly aggressive public stance of NOAA apparently none of them can speak until after they retire.

Gross Suppression Of Science …

By P Gosselin on 26. August 2015

In the mid 1990s government grants were typically advertised in such a way to indicate that conclusions should show a connection to human activity as the cause for anthropogenic global warming. The result: most of the research published in journals became one-sided and this became the primary information tool for media outlets.

According to some university researchers who were former heads of their departments, if a university even mentioned natural cycles, they were either denied future grants, or lost grants. And it is common knowledge that United States government employees within NOAA were cautioned not to talk about natural cycles. It is well known that most university research departments live or die via the grant system. What a great way to manipulate researchers in Europe, Australia and the United States.

The uninvited phenomenon

Dilley was invited to speak about natural cycles, but just before the event mysterious “staff shortages” meant his speech was canceled. Oddly, a different speech suddenly appeared in it’s place.

It’s always the way, someone at an institution is keen, then just before the event, something changes:

All seemed well as I prepared for the lecture. But then came the manipulation and suppression of views. Just four days prior to the lecture, three people from the University of Maine viewed our web site (www.globalweatheroscillations.com). The next morning, just 3 days prior to the June 29th lecture, I received an email from Eagle Hill stating that my “lecture is canceled due to a staffing shortage”. Upon checking their web site, the calendar did show my lecture as being canceled, but carried the notation that “we hope to have a different lecture on the 29th”.

So what happened with the staffing shortage? A news service called “The Maine Wire“ interviewed the President of Eagle Hill, and he said that the University of Maine “felt some people in the audience may be uncomfortable hearing Mr. Dilley’s lecture”.

Read it all Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles”

Maybe the “staff shortages” meant they couldn’t hire enough security staff to hold back the packs of students protesting someone who dared disagree with their programming. After all, this is a University.

h/t The Great ClimateDepot

 UPDATE: David Dilley replied in comments. Perhaps you can ask him something about his work…?

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (139 votes cast)
Former NOAA Meteorologist tells of years of censorship to hide the effect of "natural cycles", 9.6 out of 10 based on 139 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/q4becyd

222 comments to Former NOAA Meteorologist tells of years of censorship to hide the effect of “natural cycles”

  • #

    Not the first again?

    This pretty much reflects retired politicians, public servants, defence chiefs, etc, etc. There are very few members in any organisation that still there after speaking out.

    491

    • #
      Mike

      That’s not entirely true in my opinion bemused.
      Here in Australia there is still some reporting/speaking/talking about “natural cycles” per se [Not caused by unnatural molecules like those that have the properties of being herbicide or pesticide/etc runoff from plantation forestry along water ways or any other agricultural pursuits or industrial pastime/process that occurs close to waterways]. Absolutely not caused by unnatural molecules in the blackwater. Not even excess CO2, just the absence of oxygen molecules and completely natural and not caused by any anthropogenic molecule/industrial activity/pastime. Just natural floods. “a natural phenomenon”

      “Blackwater events can occur naturally as a result of floods and are a natural phenomenon due to the convergence of a number of conditions.”

      “What is blackwater?

      Blackwater is oxygen-depleted water caused by the decay of organic matter. The decay process darkens the water and the oxygen in the water is consumed, sometimes at a rate faster than it can be replenished. This can result in a low level of dissolved oxygen that may cause stress to fish, crayfish and other aquatic animals. When the dissolved oxygen reaches a very low level it can result in fish deaths.”

      You can observe that these events are usually in Australia that seems to have a monopoly on this type of event as i have not found any similar reporting elsewhere. A uniquely natural Australian phenomenon from what i can obtain doing a Google search at this time. Others might find different results to mine and so my comments might not reflect the views of others on this site or other sites. Mike

      416

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        Mike, blackwater rivers are common in the southeast USA. This occurs when the organic matter is decaying. The process and the particulate matter color the river nearly black. They also stink if my memory is correct.

        110

        • #
          Yonniestone

          The occurrence of Anoxic water happened to appear in a movie I watched last night called ‘Black Sea’ where a privately funded salvage operation covertly recover gold from a sunken German U-boat using an old submarine, they mention the lack of oxygen at the bottom of the black sea can preserve old wrecks from ancient Roman times.

          110

        • #
          Mike

          Ok, so the decay process occurs twice. It decays once while it is sitting around waiting for rain, and then, it decays again when it rains.

          As Mr. Gurdjieff said: “Wish or not wish, conjury you must believe because all life consists of conjury.”

          21

        • #
          Mike

          An organic matter

          IMO it is far more likely the pesticides/herbicide/fertilizer/other chemicals and silt from plantation forestry or other agricultural practice are vastly more concentrated if not diluted with sufficient rainfall. In this case, the river system is delivered with a powerful hit like acid in an artery figuratively speaking. Especially the initial runoff. The first use of a teabag produces stronger tea than successive uses of the teabag.

          Australian flora are not adapted to high levels of nutrients in the soil and so this so called natural ‘blackwater’ event is not a natural cycle, especially in Au in my opinion.

          Wikipedia: Human caused anoxic conditions

          “Eutrophication, an influx of nutrients (phosphate/nitrate), often a byproduct of agricultural run-off and sewage discharge, can result in large but short-lived algae blooms. Upon a bloom’s conclusion, the dead algae sink to the bottom and are broken down until all oxygen is expended.”

          ‘Natural cycles’ are deemed natural in the context of this blog when the higher powers decide they are. The rest is conjury.

          03

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        It is easier to say that Australia is just plain odd.

        Any flora that relies on a forest fire, to germinate its own seeds, has to have a warped sense of humour.

        300

        • #
          Ron Cook

          Rereke,

          “Any flora that relies on a forest fire, to germinate its own seeds, has to have a warped sense of humour.”

          Love that statement you made, wish I’d thought of it.

          R-COO- K+

          70

        • #
          Bruce White

          Not so much the fire but more so the smoke.

          Australia is a very old land and the soil is very low in nutrients and the theory is the fire has changed the landscape in the last 200+ years toward more fire resilient species that rely less so on natural decay to obtain nutrients from the soil. Instead the fire lays down ash which quick-track nutrients into the soil and encourages some young plants to grow.

          How ever in many of the mountainous areas the case is different and they thrive using insects, bugs and animals turning over leaf litter to lay down layers of nutrients.

          As Australia is a harsh country it ensures only the toughest survives!

          Hopefully our silly land managment agencies stop burning everything in sight and stop trying to play god!

          Apparently any patch of bush older than 15 years must go!

          26

      • #
        mark

        Yes, a couple of years ago the greenfilth in the DSE artificially flooded the Barma redgum forest. That winter a flood naturally occurrd that washed out this water quickly followed by a huge fish kill due to anoxic water…no link to all the water stagnating in the Barma forest.

        70

        • #
          RodM

          I know the Barmah Forest is alongside the Murray River about mid way along the Victoria/NSW border but what and where is the DSE?

          00

          • #
            mark

            Department of Scorched Earth….they pumped near gigalitres of water into the forest to imitate a flood. Then, a REAL flood occured, washing out the stagnant water.

            10

    • #
      Gee Aye

      the message is… if you have no message just be quiet

      164

      • #
        AndyG55

        “if you have no message just be quiet’

        And therefore we will never see another Gee-aye comment ! :-)

        283

      • #
        Tom O

        No no, that is wrong. If you don’t have the CORRECT message, just be quiet. People with only 5 working brain cells can’t handle the stress of trying to interpret two messages, and decide which carries more weight.

        On a different subject, am I the only one that has noticed that the research propaganda seems to always “solve” problems, even only imagined ones? I was brought up to believe that science actually only suggests, it never actually solves anything. It may point to a conclusion that appears to be a solution, but in fact it still remains in the probabilistic area, even if highly likely.

        250

        • #
          Tel

          Even worse than that, they CAN decide for themselves which carries more weight, which is why they must never be allowed that luxury.

          80

        • #
          Manfred

          Spun research, aka. klimate propaganda is politically, institutionally and socially prohibited from ‘solving’ the non-problem invariably because uncertainty and speculation must remain the key elements of the legislatively installed precautionary principle. The bar of evidence required to invoke the legislatively installed precautionary principle is speculative suspicion.

          The obvious and ultimate UN Climate Change™ ‘solution’ has been well tried for different reasons before in history with variable results ranging from 6 million to 70 million, and all numbers in between. As the lingua franca of the Paris-ites evolves beyond stridency into the unthinkably extreme, and their hypocrisy grows more blatant, it strikes me we indeed edge closer to unthinkable solutions, seen already with cold deaths, sterilisation and bizarre toxic chemical geo-engineering.

          In the realm of publications, climate ‘science’ articles reliably fail to actually ‘solve’ anything because:

          1. The conclusion must lead to a requirement for a further clarification of uncertainty…and therefore for further funding. Subsequent findings will fail to reduce emergent uncertainty.
          And/or
          2. The conclusion raises an entirely new question…which therefore requires further funding for investigation.

          3. The klimate propaganda researched ‘solution’ NEVER has a stated ‘end-point’ — a glaring red flag.

          ie. in the case of defined UN Climate Change™ the elimination of direct and indirect anthropogenic influence upon atmospheric composition and land usage.

          4. Climate ‘science’ specialises in seamlessly weaving the uncertainty of modeled findings with the certainty of empirical findings, deliberately conflating reality into a policy driven fantasy, in the name of catastrophe, further funding, and unsustainable Green policies. The ‘why?’ is self-evident.

          5. The relative uncertainty of empirical data sets is promoted in order to further diminish certainty. Recurrent ‘adjustments’ further undermine certainty, whether justified or not.

          60

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      bemused. Under Obama the process of suppressing speech (not free anymore)disagreeing with his brand of Politically Correct progressive-ism is particularly thorough and with swift retribution. I would look for the number of retired govt. employees who remain silent to me far in excess of a majority. First, their retirement pay, health care, and life insurance benefits may be at risk. Second, they may want a job after retirement and these require listing your previous employer, supervisor, email, address, telephone, and so on. The person may find them self blackballed by the government and former supervisor. The threat is real and their memory is long. Only the most courageous and patriotic will ever speak up.

      190

      • #

        I’m sure that some of that goes on here as well. My original comment reflects many years of observing people in high positions only speaking out after retirement, well knowing that speaking out while employed will mean the end of their career. I saw one highly respected and senior individual once state a truth and within weeks he was removed from his position and not long after he resigned. That incident sent many waves of anger through the workforce, but little could they do about such things.

        70

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    In conjunction with this, watch David Dilley on Utube, https://youtu.be/w4hbKF5-qUE. It’s a devastating critique of Warmist pseudo-science by an eminently qualified scientist. I’m surprised that Utube haven’t taken it down yet.

    491

  • #
    King Geo

    David Dilley, former NOAA meteorologist, reveals an example of the gross deception in the field of Climate Science. Climate Science is no longer “science” – is has now de-generated into “non-science” and has globally spread like a pandemic costing the Earth’s Global Economies US$ trillions in the process.

    Seeing David’s name reminds me of that famous 1979 December Ashes Cricket Test Match where the Perth WACA Scoreboard read like this

    “LILLEE CAUGHT WILLEY BOWLED DILLEY”

    Well on a hot Summer’s December day in Perth in 1979 (December 18 to be exact) England’s Graham Dilley removed one of the world’s greatest ever cricketers – the one and only Dennis K. Lillee with the help of his team mate Willey. Let’s hope David Dilley 36 years later can (Willey or Won’t He), with his influence, assist in removing many of the current crop of so called “Climate Scientists” who are wreaking so much damage with their “non-scientific fantasy research”. It is simply “not cricket” to let this farce continue.

    272

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      The all-time greatest comment from TMS during an England v Windies test. ” The Bowler’s Holding, the Batsman’s Willey”. I heard it on BBC Radio 4 long wave.

      261

      • #
        AndyG55

        I was but a child at the time.. and didn’t understand ;-)

        My father and older brother were doubled over in fits of laughter. !!

        132

      • #
        King Geo

        Magical commentary “” The Bowler’s Holding, the Batsman’s Willey”. Michael Holding bowled with such ferocity back in that era that I suspect Willey didn’t make much of an impact on the scoreboard.

        70

      • #
        cheshirered

        Brian Johnston on Wiki:

        Among his other gaffes were: “There’s Neil Harvey standing at leg slip with his legs wide apart, waiting for a tickle”, which he uttered when Harvey was representing Australia at the Headingley Test in 1961.[11]

        130

      • #
        Phillip Bratby

        What about the one when Ian Botham, whilst batting,had overbalanced and tried, but failed,to step over his stumps, and Aggers said “He just didn’t quite get his leg over”.

        30

    • #
      Glen Michel

      At silly or in the gully?

      00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    Maybe another natural cycle?

    “It’s not a good day to be a green or a crony capitalist: the government has announced the results of its consultation on feed-in-tariffs and it makes pretty ugly reading for all those who feed at the trough of government subsidies.”

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/8/28/fits-to-burst.html

    180

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    The concept of Man Made CO2 causing Global Warming fails absolutely at a very low level of analysis.

    The basic concept is that CO2 may absorb “rebounding” or “re-emitted” ground origin Infra Red radiation originally derived from incident Solar irradiation of the Earth.

    As I recall, all ground origin IR is taken up by CO2 in the first 30 metres or so above ground.

    If there was a hotter Sun then it may be absorbed in the first 40 metres.

    There is a lot of absorbing capacity; adding more CO2 will not increase the amount of energy “captured” .

    The only way to make the Earths “hotter” is to get the Sun to pump out more energy to start with.

    The concept is referred to as the Asymptotic effect and is either not understood, and that is understandable, or ignored as an inconvenient truth by the True Warmer Believers.

    CAGW is a sham of religious and political origin but is is certainly NOT a scientific proposition.

    KK

    313

    • #
      TedM

      “As I recall, all ground origin IR is taken up by CO2 in the first 30 metres or so above ground.” Not quite correct Keith. As I understand it little IR reaches the earths surface from the sun. SWR that is absorbed at the surface is converted to heat and re-radiated as IR. Two narrow bandwidths of IR are absorbed by CO2, much of which is also absorbed by water vapour which has absorption bandwidths much wider than CO2, and also overlap with CO2 absorption bandwidths. I’m not sure that CO2 does all that much, or how much happens in the first 30 metres.

      I’m happy to be corrected on this if any of my comment is in error.

      100

      • #
        TedM

        Think I may have misinterpreted the sentence I quoted from Keith above. If so apologies Keith.

        40

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Ted

          No contradictions there.

          My comment should have included a lot of “Ifs” because the model of ground origin IR is only relevant if a lot of factors are ignored in this simplified approach.

          eg when the CO2 picks up energy it will disperse it to other gas molecules in the air and be ready to absorb more.

          Then we have convection etc. I used a very simplified approach but CO2 is still not the driving force of world atmosphere that it is claimed to be.

          Additional CO2 is basically an irrelevance.

          KK :)

          60

    • #
      gai

      Paraphrasing Dr. Brown a physicist at Duke University

      “What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon?
      That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is in the order of a meter.

      That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO2 molecule.

      When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO2 molecules around.

      In other words near the surface back radiation, aka a ‘resonantly re-emitted’ photon is a RARE EVENT.
      source

      In laymen’s terms, the CO2 graps the energy and hands it off to nitrogen or oxygen molecules which warm and then rise. Therefore CO2 near the surface aids convection and does not send the energy back to the ground.

      Dr Happer in his lecture for physics grad students at UNC agreed and further stated that the time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere. Dr Happer also answered my question about where CO2 energy is radiated instead of being handed off via collision. Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface.

      Here is a graph showing where CO2 radiates:

      http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/stratospheric_cooling.jpg

      The legend with the illustration:

      Figure 2.15: Stratospheric cooling rates:
      The picture shows how water, carbon dioxide and ozone contribute to longwave cooling in the stratosphere. Colors from blue through red, yellow and to green show increasing cooling, grey areas show warming of the stratosphere. The tropopause is shown as dotted line (the troposphere below and the stratosphere above). For CO2 it is obvious that there is no cooling in the troposphere, but a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. Ozone, on the other hand, cools the upper stratosphere but warms the lower stratosphere. (ibid)

      What is amusing is this is from Scott Mandia ‘The Caped Climate Crusader’s website. (Thanks for the help scott.)

      The black dotted line is the tropopause and you can see water is dumping energy just under the tropopause (the pink splotches surrounded by dark blue) while CO2 is dumping energy from just above the tropopause and up (the big yellow streak on the left) just as Dr. Happer, and Dr Brown stated. Ozone is the smaller yellow streak on the right. The kilometers are on the scale to the left and show a height similar to the one Dr Happer stated in his lecture.

      What is NOT mentioned is the fact that CO2 is radiating energy in the stratosphere and NOT in the troposphere.

      80

    • #
      AndyG55

      And within the time taken to re-emit said photon, the CO2 will collide with billions of other atoms, passing any energy gained to the other atoms.
      There is not actually any CO2 re-emittance/radiation below about 15km altitude!!

      With convection and conduction, CO2 absorption is just another pathway for cooling, but the whole process is controlled purely and simply by the atmospheric pressure/temperature/density gradient via the lapse rate.

      The only thing that can alter this gradient in the troposphere is H2O because of its immense latent heat capacity and its ability to exist in three different phases at normal atmospheric temperatures.

      Oh and thanks gai, I’ve been looking for the source of that first graphic for a while. :-)

      82

      • #
        AndyG55

        Again the little zero, non-entity cowardly red thumbs.

        If you have something against my posts,

        please have the intestinal fortitude to at least say why.

        Or is it just that the truth HURTS you ?

        If I am wrong, then correct me….

        I DARE you to try, you insignificant little imps. :-)

        61

  • #
    mmxx

    Boot-leather meteorologists with years of experience understanding natural climate phenomena sadly do not rate in this socio-political power play passing itself off as climate science and climate policy.

    Cloistered academics and global bureaucrats have settled on their preferred climate change model.

    The heat is on in September 2015. It’s Paris or bust bustle for places at the next UN IPPC round robin talkfest to be held at an even better first-class destination.

    211

  • #
    Manfred

    Utterly sickening in a Dr Strangelove kind of way, and consequently quite unsurprising, as the required eco-political institutional line relentlessly suppresses science, integrity and the natural order of things.

    The eco-delusion is descending into pure farce. The detonation moment as empirical reality finally separates from modeled fantasy and political adjustments is surely not far away.

    151

  • #
    el gordo

    Dilley is mildly alarmist, talking of food shortages and political dislocations caused by global cooling, nevertheless I have a lot of time for cyclists.

    ‘The coldest point in the coming cycle, he said, will be the years 2025 through about 2050.

    ‘Dilley’s conclusions in many ways echo those of former NASA scientist John L. Casey, who just last year recorded a warning on the issue.’

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/mankind-threatened-by-global-cooling-not-warming/#J7ASW35HZMVRuLXL.99

    150

    • #
      Mike

      In my opinion, although i too have time for ‘cyclists’, extinction and war/reciprocal destruction have been doing very well without any help from the weather/climate.

      80

      • #
        Lucky

        Yes, but. Despite what the ‘Hockey Stick’ falsely claims, weather and climate have changed over time. There seems to be a correlation with warmer weather and better human comfort and civilization. When temps were high there was the Minoan culture, the growth of Rome, and grapes grown in Iceland.
        With colder temperatures it was v.v.
        There are reports of Roman garrison commanders who were overwhelmed. The attackers were men women and children in packed ranks of hundreds, often unarmed, sometimes without clothing. All starving.

        110

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Grapes grown in Iceland?
          Not likely, you are probably thinking of the inhabitants finding grapes growing in Vinland (Newfoundland) where they don’t grow today.
          When the Vikings first settled in Iceland they grew korn. This might have been wheat, but certainly barley & oats. They couldn’t grow any of the 3 for 400 years during the Little Ice Age (& afterwards). Indeed only restarted growing oats & barley in the 1920′s. Some people suggest that means the Medieval Warm Period was, well, warm and the Little Ice Age was cold, but as the CO2 level didn’t change that couldn’t be right, could it?

          70

          • #
            RB

            was told that the Icelandic bread was made of crushed dry fish, and also that foreigners could easily spend a night with the farmers´ daughters if they had the very rare and desired bread to give to the girls´ fathers…
            In conclusion it can be stated, that one of the characteristics of Icelandic food ways in the old days, is a lack of corn. Icelanders grew some corn in the first centuries of habitation but it virtually ceased in the late Middle Ages due to the deteriorating climate

            10

    • #
      AndyG55

      “nevertheless I have a lot of time for cyclists.”

      Time to get them in my cross hairs ;-)

      92

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Alternating global warming and cooling cycles have historically occurred and ended like clockwork every 220 to 230 years, with nearly 4000 cycles occurring during the past half million years. The last global cooling cycle began around 1795, or about 220 years ago.’

    Finally a hindcast to fiddle around with.

    140

  • #

    “For people inside science and especially inside climate science, who know what’s going on but are staying quiet, I’d say examine your conscience.”

    https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/its-not-rocket-science-its-a-matter-of-conscience/

    Pointman

    240

    • #
      AndyG55

      The fact that they stay quite proves they have no conscience.

      154

      • #
        AndyG55

        typos.. again….. !!!

        stay QUIET !

        80

      • #
        Bill

        or are moral cowards?

        80

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        Well AndyG55. What you say may be true, I would need to be in their circumstance to know. But I do believe that it is the bravest and most patriotic that speak up.

        Do you imagine that it could be that some or many of the people using screen names other than their real names are afraid to identify themselves because of government, university, non-profits, and cronies benefiting from government largess that would punish them? Is there a correlation?
        Causation?

        90

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Do you imagine that it could be that some or many of the people using screen names other than their real names ….”

          Not so much “afraid”.. just need to keep an income coming in, and know that if they do say something openly under their own name, there is a very good chance the next research contract might not eventuate.

          I know this for a fact.

          50

          • #
            Kevin Lohse

            The swarms of jack-booted indurrlectuals,(sic), Saul Alinsky’s Army of the Long March through The Institutions, have a lot to answer for. One day, there will be a reckoning.

            30

      • #
        Tel

        Basic theory of evolution: the ones with both a conscience and a clue left some time ago. The current crop are what remains.

        90

      • #
        gai

        I do not think you are being quite fair. Many of these people are already coming to the work as indoctrinated idealists. By the time they wake up they have wives and children and mortgages.

        It takes a very very special person to stand up to the pressure of being not only fired but black balled. You risk never ever working in your field again and having student loans to pay while you are stuck flipping hamburgers and your wife left you taking your kids.

        This pressure is not just on those in science but those in any field who are honest and in conflict with the wishes of their employer. As regulations make it harder and harder for small businesses to exist. The mavericks are culled from the herd and left with no real options except welfare and burger flipping. This serves as an example to others who might want to break ranks and flout their ‘masters’.

        (And yes I have been fired and finally blackballed and lost my entire life savings as a result. Honesty carries a very very high price tag.)

        90

  • #
    thingadonta

    I hate to say it, but from years of work within government science, within university science research, and within private industry, they all point to the same thing: scientific investigation generally doesn’t function very well without funds.

    It generally costs money to find things out. Not always, but more often than not.

    But in an age of economic rationalism and intense competition, which is also often a good thing, what this sometimes does is make science and scientists beholden to stretching needs when there isn’t always one, and tends to also promote those who blindly follow exaggerations and self-interest. It also actually tends to promote those who aren’t necessarily very good scientists, because they don’t have the capacity to see through the subtleties in an argument. They are just good at hiding and fudging what they already believe, and following the same.

    What is needed is a re-examination of what science is, and how communities relate to, and fund it, because ever since the time of the Greeks- when private entrepreneurial tradesmen and seafarers who were also separate from the state and state gods are first thought to have begin a systematic examination of the natural world(see Farrington’s book ‘Early Greek Science’, ever since this time-I don’t think the west has ever properly and fully resolved how to conduct ‘non profitable science’ in a fully transparent, fair and functional manner.

    170

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Another illustration of what someone said here the other day:

    Climate is to scientist as witch is to doctor.

    170

  • #
    Dave in the states

    What David Dilley experienced illustrates is that academic freedom does not exist in the fields of climatology and meteorology anymore. There has not been for a long, long time. How many academics and scientists inside academia, government bureaus, and even the private sector, know the truth but dare not speak out?

    I know of some. But it is not my career and reputation that will be kissed goodbye, so I can not judge them. Even well established scientist pay a steep price for the basic time honored practice of academic freedom and extending the same to others.

    150

  • #
    janama

    O/T – if you want a yawn here’s Professor Flannery’s latest ideas. ho hum.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programitem/pgzEGJkaO6?play=true

    30

  • #
    bit chilly

    any organisation that benefits from public funds should have them withdrawn for stifling contrary opinion on any subject. in this case, the practice of good science always has and always will,depend on contrary opinion. otherwise ,whatever it is, it is not science.

    170

  • #
    tom0mason

    David Dilley, former NOAA meteorologist tells of years of censorship to hide the effect of natural cycles and now speaks out. He joins the ever growing list of professors, Nobel Prize Winners, scientists, paleontologist, and other meteorologists, who do not buy into the idea that CO2 levels control global temperatures.

    Some of them are listed here –

    Quote by Delgado Domingos, environmental scientist:

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”

    Quote by Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy:

    “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism….I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect….Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

    Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Physics, Ivar Giaever:

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”

    Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis:

    “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren’t worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It’s that simple.”

    Quote by Martin Keeley, geology scientist:

    “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”

    Quote by Eduardo Tonni, paleontologist, Committee for Scientific Research, Argentina:

    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”

    Quote by George Kukla, climatologist, research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University:

    “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid.”

    Quote by James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist:

    “Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story.”

    Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service:

    “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist….Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets….The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists….some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts….In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”

    Quote by Claude Culross, organic chemistry:

    “Dire predictions of catastrophe from that bottomless pit of disasters du jour, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are based solely on computer models that amount to poorly crafted mathematical opinions, not experimental proof….There is no proof that man-made carbon dioxide causes additional warming, or that carbon-dioxide reduction would reduce warming.”

    Quote by Ritesh Arya, geologist, specializes in hydrogeology and groundwater resources in the Himalayas:

    “There is urgent need to put the phenomenon [global warming], which had not been triggered off suddenly, in the right perspective….There is a hype of global warming created by western mass media and there is a need to redefine the whole concept.”

    Quote by John Takeuchi, meteorologist:

    “The atmosphere has periodic warming and cooling cycles. The sun is the primary source of energy impacting the earth’s surface. That energy heats the land and the seas, which then warm the air above them. Water vapor and other gases in the atmosphere also affect temperature….Oceans are the main repository for CO2. They release CO2 as their temperature rises – just like your beer. This strongly suggests that warming oceans – heated by the sun – are a major contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    Quote by Peter Dailey, director of atmospheric science, AIR Worldwide:

    “There is now a near consensus that global air temperatures are increasing, however, there is no consensus on how this has affected the temperature of the world’s oceans, and in particular in the Atlantic Ocean, or how much of the recent warming trend is attributable to man’s activities….For the layman, there is sometimes a tendency to regard every new ‘discovery’ or scientific finding from the latest published paper as an inviolate fact….In reality, rarely is there ever a last and final word in studies of complex systems such as earth’s environment. Rather, science is a dynamic process based on the scientific method in which researchers test hypotheses leading to new discoveries, but also reexamine earlier theories and try to improve, build upon, or extend them.”

    Quote by Mark Paquette, meteorologist, Accuweather:

    “The earth’s climate is ridiculously complicated, and carbon dioxide is not the only thing that influences the climate that is changing. In fact, probably EVERYTHING in the earth’s climate system changes at one time or another. So, earth’s changing climate can not be entirely attributed to carbon dioxide levels rising.”

    Quote by Ian McQueen, chemical engineer:

    “Carbon dioxide is not the bogeyman – there are other causes that are much more likely to be causing climate change, to the extent that it has changed….Carbon dioxide does have a small warming effect, McQueen said, but 32 per cent of the first few molecules do the majority of the warming. The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, he said, is currently at 380 parts per million; if that were upped to 560 parts per million, Earth’s temperature would only rise about 0.3 degrees.”

    Quote by Art Raiche, former chief research scientist, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization:

    “The suppression of scientific evidence that contradicts the causal link between human-generated CO2 and climate has been of great concern to ethical scientists both here in Australia and around the world….The eco-hysteria that leads the Greens, as well as the left-leaning media, to attack any person who attempts to publish science that contradicts their beliefs is a gross example of the dangerous doctrine that the end justifies the means.”

    Quote by Kevin Warwick, professor of cybernetics-University of Reading, England, research in artificial intelligence, control, robotics:

    “I am afraid that I do not hold with the theory of ‘global warming’ – there will always be climate change….Big thing here is – do we know what we are doing that is bringing about climate change? At present the answer to this is NO.”

    450

    • #
      tom0mason

      Maybe I should have put this first –
      Natural cycles or as Thomas B. Gray former head Space Services branch at the NOAA and a researcher in NOAA’s Environmental Research Laboratories once said :

      “Nothing that is occurring in weather or in climate research at this time can be shown to be abnormal in the light of our knowledge of climate variations over geologic time…The claims of those convinced that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is real and dangerous are not supported by reliable data.”

      390

    • #
      Warren Latham

      Dear Tom,

      A superb response, very nicely written (concise) and more to the point … ABSOLUTELY BLOODY SPOT ON !

      Regards and Thanks,
      WL

      150

    • #
      Winston

      So, the Will Harper quote is the money quote. Essentially, Al Gore, a non- scientist, a mentally and morally deficient political jerk, causes a Princeton University Physicist to lose his job because he has doubts about the alarmism being based on a good scientific foundation.

      And yet, warmists have the hide to suggest that they have the consensus among scientists (when any scientist who diverges from that consensus loses his job/ tenure), and they complain that the debate is stilted in favour of skeptics (yet even a scientific illiterate like Gore can commandeer the debate without a skerrick of knowledge behind him over someone whose knowledge far exceeds his own).

      Even if CAGW were real (it isn’t), and even if the motivation to act was pure (which it isn’t), how can alarmists, or even appeasers/ apologists like Gee Aye, live with themselves that scientific method can be so easily and obviously perverted?

      If I were an alarmist, I would want, at the very least, to know that the science was rock solid, that any doubts or gaps in the knowledge were completely water-tight and beyond reproach, and that everyone with knowledge in the area under discussion were given every opportunity to make their case. Only in that way could I be certain that I was on the side of truth, that my position reflected a genuine concern for the environment, and that the alarm raised was justified and warranted the social upheaval being caused in its name.

      Yet, such concerns seem to be trivial in the eyes of the alarmists and their acolytes and appeasers. As such, they are beneath contempt, and I look forward to exploring every legal avenue to see them deprived of their ill-gotten gains obtained through passing off a falsehood as fact for personal gain. They deserve nothing less.

      71

  • #
    Bill

    Not limited to NOAA unfortunately. Here in Canada, we have the various Harper haters constantly shrieking about the “muzzling” of scientists when nothing of the sort is happening. Our Public Service Act requires anyone in the federal public service making public statements to the media to get clearance to do so as those statements affect public policy, may disclose national security matters etc. That’s fine when the liberals were in power (we have a severely liberal dominated public service) but suddenly when the conservatives form the government, it’s “muzzling”. Interestingly enough, there have been fewer restrictions on public statements under the conservatives than the libs, and those only where they affect national policy. Also interesting is that that act was passed during the Pearson Liberal Government, but nobody ever talks about that.

    Contrast this to:

    universities (bastions of free thought that they are) which forbid and block anyone from doubting CAGW with threats against their academic and professional lives, prevent speakers who don’t support radical anti-Israel nonsense from being heard, and actively foster attacks on a certain political party (hint: not the green, NDP or Liberal parties) while also pushing a socialist/liberal agenda at the students.

    A public service that actively tries to influence the public in this election to the point of advertising outright falsehoods, including in the workplace.

    Public education (K-12) that actively engages in green brainwashing (greenwashing?) with CAGW and other myths.

    Our national broadcaster (CBC) actively taking a role in the election campaign-all against one party, with the aid of the remainder of a complicit media.

    CBC, again, fully buying into the CAGW myth and drinking far too much of Suzuki’s kool-aid, having no balance in its reporting whatsoever.

    Public media that makes no pretence of balance or being free of bias towards the election underway.

    I am truly looking forward to watching how this all pans out, with another conservative government in Canada despite the worst the media etc can do.
    I could list for hours, but I’m sure you are getting the point…

    201

    • #
      AndyG55

      Bill.. editing your comment for Australia. Not many changes needed at all !

      Universities (bastions of free thought that they are) which forbid and block anyone from doubting CAGW with threats against their academic and professional lives, prevent speakers who don’t support radical anti-Israel nonsense from being heard, and actively foster attacks on a certain political party (hint: not the green, or Labor parties) while also pushing a socialist/regressive agenda at the students. ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔

      A public service that actively tries to influence the public in this election to the point of advertising outright falsehoods, including in the workplace. ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔

      Public education (K-12) that actively engages in green brainwashing (greenwashing?) with CAGW and other myths. ✔✔✔✔✔✔

      Our national broadcaster (ABC) actively taking a role in the election campaign-all against one party, with the aid of the remainder of a complicit media. ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔

      ABC, again, fully buying into the CAGW myth and drinking far too much of Flannery and other climate fools’ kool-aid, having no balance in its reporting whatsoever. ✔✔✔✔✔

      Public media that makes no pretence of balance or being free of bias towards the election underway. ✔✔ (One paper makes a reasonable effort. The FauxFax papers however, are monumentally biased !!)

      I am truly looking forward to watching how this all pans out, with maybe another semi-conservative government in Australia despite the worst the media and the ABC etc can do.

      181

      • #
        Bill

        Thanks Andy, somehow, I was holding out hope that things were better down under.

        40

        • #
          William

          No, not really.
          We of “conservative” bent had invested high hopes in Tony Abbott and his Liberals. He was very good as the leader of the opposition; we erroneously took this a predictor of his performance as PM. But he took a deep drink of Kool Aid after he got elected and decided that he would rather kow-tow to those on the left that would never vote for him, as opposed to those that actually did vote for him.
          As a result I, and pretty much everybody I know, are at a loss as to who to vote for in the next election.
          We are all pretty much resigned to a Labor government after the next election, and all of us being required to learn how to speak Greek.
          All as we freeze from all the Global Warming we have been getting over the past four very cold winters.

          71

          • #
            Oksanna

            Would have thought the answer was easy. Vote for insane policies that, if implemented as proposed (unlikely), will bankrupt the nation, or moderate policies by pollies who got rid of the carbon tax as they promised to do, have abolished or de-fanged a couple of taxpayer-guzzling climate quangos, and are also trying to wind back the RET, and, almost forgot, have put in place measures to keep a watchful eye on the bat- and bird-chomping wind turbines. Oh yeah, and tried in vain to give moderate voices a place in policy input and formulation (Lomborg’s Consensus Centre gig). Choice could not be clearer, could it?

            50

            • #
              AndyG55

              As I said a couple of threads ago…

              The Liberal Party needs to become proper conservatives…

              … or they will become nothing.

              60

            • #
              AndyG55

              There is no room for three left wing parties in Australian politics. !!!

              Libs -> centre-left wishy-washy.

              Labor -> far-left totalitarian socialists.

              Greens -> far-loony-left staunch anti-human communists.

              120

            • #
              William

              Oksanna:
              The choice is not as easy as you suggest.
              Certainly, the current government did a couple of good things when first voted in. But since then? Other than trivial dusting around the edges: Nada. Gay “Marriage”? Who gives a damn?
              They have demonstrated a level of political nous that would embarrass a five year old in a kindergarten sand box. I cringe every time I watch their latest bungle.
              Similarly, they have demonstrated a level of political cowardice that make Neville Chamberlain look like Rambo. Witness their responses to the ABC and the attack on the Royal Commission into Union Corruption. Pathetic.
              They have allowed their political enemies to set the political agenda, allow themselves to be the punching bag for every disgruntled left wing lunatic, and have allowed the opposition to become the defacto government.
              In other words, they are total and complete duds. Remember, I am saying all of this as a long time Liberal supporter, campaign worker, and donor.
              So if I am reluctant to vote for this rabble, why would anyone else?

              62

            • #
              tom0mason

              The politically left are the usually good intentioned people who through ignorance, and/or stupidity, and/or lack of experience never see the faults in their policy theories. Cause and effect is a mystery to the political left. They usually hurt others by their continual repeating of past failure.

              The far left don’t care who gets hurt by enacting policy; as long policy is enacted and maintained at any cost. The far left cares very much that someone, anyone (but not themselves) is punished when the policy fails.

              00

  • #

    NASA selling the last of it’s credibility: German Media on the Prophets of NASA: “Prophesizing Gigantic Floods” – 200 Years in the Future!

    Pierre Gosselin detects a change in the green media:

    For example Germany’s normally politically correct, devout green NTV here has the article bearing the title: “NASA prophesizes gigantic floods“.

    Prophecies are more the sort of things one typically expects to hear from prophets. …

    NTV writes of an organization that seems to fancy itself as having visionary power to see the end of the world. NTV tells us:

    An unavoidable sea level rise of at least one meter in the coming 100 to 200 years is the result of the latest research data.”

    The NTV report then cites NASA prophet Tom Wagner:

    NASA scientist Tom Wagner says that when the ice sheets break down on each other, even the risk of a sea level rise of three meters over the coming 100 to 200 years is thinkable.”

    … And again the prophecy of doom gets repeated at the end of the article by prophet Steve Nerem:

    ‘Things will probably get worse in the future,’ prophesizes Nerem as a result of global warming.”

    Prophets; not scientists.

    Fire sale in Paris?

    220

    • #
      AndyG55

      “An unavoidable sea level rise of at least one meter in the coming 100 to 200 years is the result of the latest research data.”

      Did someone really write that?

      Sorry, but research data DOES NOT cause REAL sea level rise…

      …..only in “climate science™ ” !!!

      91

      • #
        Annie

        i was about to comment on that AndyG55 but see I need not.

        30

      • #

        It’s simply an erroneous translation. The original:

        Ein Anstieg der Meeresspiegel um mindestens einen Meter ist neuen Forschungsdaten zufolge in den kommenden 100 bis 200 Jahren unvermeidlich.

        Although English is a Germanic language, it’s not always simple to translate German to English. Preserving nuances is usually impossible. A sentence can take a few seconds to translate … or a couple of hours.

        30

      • #
        AndyG55

        Ok, I apologize for not realising it was a translation issue.. me bad. :-)

        Its just sounded like so much that comes from “climate science™” ;-)

        20

    • #
      Len

      Profits rather than prophets.

      20

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    Unlike the green organizations that are pure propaganda, and some government departments that are the same,NOAA at least has some good people and core competencies. I live in Florida and I trust them on this: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gtwo.php?basin=atlc&fdays=2.

    I don’t trust them much to tell me it’s the first time I’m likely to evacuate in ten years.

    A few politicians are promising to “reform” government agencies like NOAA. I find this terrifying! “Reform” from within government seems to mean that the good, hard-working, competent people go while the politically correct stay.

    I’ve never seen effective government reform outside of bankruptcy court.
    I think I finally understand. The people who go into government are politically inclined, and they do political things first.

    A politician has two ends: a thinking end and a sitting end.
    His or her livelihood depends on holding the seat, whilst the other end atrophies.

    181

  • #
    KR

    Suppression of science?!? There’s a quite relevant video of Richard Alley here addressing this very subject.

    Scientists are human, and you don’t go into science unless you have sufficient ego and desire to learn something that nobody else knows. If there was sufficient evidence, supportable evidence, otherwise, someone in the last 1.5 centuries would have demonstrated that it wasn’t warming, or that the warming wasn’t caused by us.

    The fact that the vast majority of scientists agree about AGW is because the evidence doesn’t support any other views.

    229

    • #
      KR

      And by “demonstrated”, I mean demonstrated with sufficient evidence to convince others. As opposed to easily disproved papers full of errors, which seem to make up the majority of published ‘skeptic’ works.

      230

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Welcome back, KR.

        I see you persist in the myth that the vast majority of scientists agree with the AGW theory while ignoring the thousands of scientists who disagree with that theory. You on the AGW side complain so much about cherry picking, yet you pick the 97% of about 75 scientists over the thousands who see no evidence for AGW. Now that’s really cherry picking. :-(

        By the way, it’s still true that the burden of proof rests with you who claim warming. After all, you claim something is happening, not the skeptics. Skeptics are only asking for credible evidence. And still to this very day we don’t get any. So we’ve nothing to prove and you do. Given that, you really should get busy and come up with some empirical evidence or stay quiet.

        343

        • #
          KR

          “…while ignoring the thousands of scientists who disagree with that theory…”

          And who would they be? Where are the “thousands” who have presented the evidence to the contrary? Where have they exhibited the ego present in any scientist and published their work to disprove AGW? Choosing the 3% (mutually contradictory and oft-refuted) of papers that agree with your perception is cherry-picking. Going with the majority, which have not been refuted by the evidence, is IMO a far more reasonable choice.

          Did you take a look at that Richard Alley video? It’s only a minute and a half long, and quite succinctly states its case.

          Evidence for AGW has certainly been presented, starting with Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius over a century ago, continuing through the hundreds of papers published each year. Ignoring that evidence (as many here seem to) doesn’t invalidate it.

          323

          • #
            tom0mason

            KR,
            It’s all about CO2 because …?
            Like the UN-IPCC, you assert that Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius must be on the correct line of reasoning about this very watery planet’s climate. A planet that is irradiated by a variable sun.
            It’s all about CO2 because …?
            Because the sun’s variation, and all that water has a negligible effect? As does all the other coupled and interdependent parameters that make up our natural planet’s systems.
            It’s all about CO2 because …it’s reasonable?
            No it is not!

            253

            • #
              KR

              All of those have an effect, anthropogenic CO2 has never been the sole forcing on the climate.

              However:

              Over the last half-century or more natural forcings such as changes in sunlight have been slightly declining, while anthropogenic changes such as CO2 forcing have been increasing rapidly – dominating the balance. The data indicates that global temperatures would have dropped perhaps 0.1C over that period from natural forcings alone – but they have instead risen sharply.

              AGW. Not because it’s ‘reasonable’, but because that’s what the evidence shows.

              332

              • #
                James Bradley

                KRap,

                “The data indicates that global temperatures would have dropped perhaps 0.1C over that period from natural forcings alone – but they have instead risen sharply.”

                That should last phrase should properly read – but continually homogonised data now shows temeperatures rising sharply.

                You should add the *’bits and pieces’(20.0.2.1.1) just to present the whole story, I mean for balance so the reader wont form the conclusion you’re a lobbyist batting for the warmist side.

                243

              • #
                KR

                James Bradley – As I’ve stated previously in similar discussions:

                It could be argued that it’s better to look at raw temperature data than data with these various adjustments for known biases. It could also be argued that it’s worth not cleaning the dust and oil off the lenses of your telescope when looking at the stars.

                I consider these statements roughly equivalent, and (IMO) would have to disagree.

                329

              • #
                James Murphy

                KR, please show us where we can find the study, or studies explaining what the climate would have done if CO2 concentration didn’t change. What sort of model, or models were used?

                I am very curious to know how one can differentiate between natural variability and human influence with an accuracy of 0.1 degree. I really do wonder at the magnitude of the error bars on such models, that is, if the error bars are present.

                You see, it is indeed up to you to have all the facts at your disposal, because it is you who is putting forth the argument. Unlike you, and your like-minded climate warriors, you’ll find people here are quite willing to discuss matters with which they do not agree, rather than doing the equivalent of putting ones fingers in ones ears and screaming “denier, denier” like a petulant and spoiled child.

                222

              • #
                KR

                James Murphy – IPCC AR5 Ch. 10, Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional, and the corresponding primary literature references, as well as Ch. 9, Evaluation of Climate Models and its references.

                All with appropriate error bars, I’ll note.

                Claims that “it’s a UN conspiracy and not to be trusted”, despite the primary references, and thereby rejecting the last 150 years of science, will IMO not be convincing rebuttals.

                425

              • #
                James Bradley

                KRap,

                Mate, you’re just regurgitating the meme.

                All the CO2 based climate models failed, modelled predictions show increasing divergence from real observations, therefore CO2 based climate models prove CO2 is not a forcing factor, increasing or otherwise.

                Please keep up and at least have a go at responding to James Murphy’s request (Hint – IPCC reports are not a scientific study).

                Why do you mention ‘conspiracy’ is it a Freudian thing with you, uppermost in your mind perhaps.

                BTW – The current GISS/NASA graphic representations – with error bars – from 1880 to 2015 – shows a modest .67c/century warming trend, which would put it slap dab in the middle of natural fluctuations.

                150 years of scienc? You warmists wiped the first 100 years of data because it showed a cooling trend – read Jennifer Marohasy, Judith Curry etc – and replaced it with computer modelled simulated data massaged into a warming trend.

                263

              • #
                KR

                James Bradley

                The following quote from you is the very essence of a conspiracy theory:

                “You warmists wiped the first 100 years of data because it showed a cooling trend [...] and replaced it with computer modelled simulated data massaged into a warming trend.”

                Enough said. I don’t forsee further conversation on the topic with you being reasonable.

                218

              • #
                tom0mason

                KR,

                “AGW. Not because it’s ‘reasonable’, but because that’s what the evidence shows.

                I agree that AGW is not ‘reasonable’ but it is banal! So where is the evidence that this planet’s climate (not an incomplete and error filled computer model one) is outside normal natural variations?

                223

              • #
                GI

                KR,

                Bradley presented a fair argument, obviously you prickeled at the fact that believers have managed to homogonise the raw data from the late 1800′s to mid 1900′s to reflect artificial warming, get over it, the least you can do is respond and refute rather than use the old diversion and obfuscation of confected outrage.

                Better to admit you have no evidence and learn, rather poor form to run away with your tail between your legs.

                133

              • #
                GI

                KR,

                You are related to Harry Twinotter aren’t you…

                111

              • #
                Oksanna

                They disabled comments on Richard Alley’s video clip to which KR linked. The answer to Alley’s rhetorical question is found here in this very post on JoNova’s site (Where are the scientists who disproved global warming, where the evidence, where the next Einstein?) and was a no-brainer: The scientists who contested or even merely failed to support the AGW theory by producing valuable dissonant evidence, were shut down. They could not shout from the rooftops, instead they lost their jobs. Their lectures were cancelled, like Dilley’s lecture was shut down.

                E.B. Hall’s adage which captured the essential Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” does not apply in climate science. Instead, KR, in this new, emerging discipline, in the 2009-2010 revelations, we saw an altogether different approach to diverging views:

                “In an odd way (the death of John Daly) is cheering news!” – Phil Jones

                “Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are just trying to find if we’ve done anything wrong.” – Phil Jones

                “We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide behind.” – Phil Jones

                “In our discussion of possible participants in Bern…the last two on the list (with question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to consensus and progress.” – Michael Mann

                “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” – Michael Mann

                “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.” – Ben Santer

                Conflicting theories and scientific disputes are the life-blood of science. But your putative straw Einstein, KR, apparently risks not only being cancelled, bullied out of peer review journals, or sacked, but maybe even getting a black eye. You are barracking for an approach which is dead-set serious about stymieing competing climate research. You lack credibility. But, hey, you already know all that.

                131

              • #
                James Murphy

                KR, well, I have to admit I was (perhaps foolishly) expecting a bit more effort on your part than just pointing to the IPCC reports and references when i asked for something quite specific. Still, if that’s all you’ve got, then bad luck, really.

                You mentioned a very specific case, and here’s what you said in case you forgot:
                “…The data indicates that global temperatures would have dropped perhaps 0.1C over that period from natural forcings alone…”

                I want to know where this figure comes from, which paper was it? I also think you probably meant to say ‘model’ instead of ‘data’, but then, many people can’t tell the difference, which is part of a wider problem with the way science and engineering are taught these days.

                90

              • #
                tom0mason

                From http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/weekend-unthreaded-90/#comment-1740801

                Bevan Dockery
                August 30, 2015 at 7:40 pm · Reply

                The Global CO2 – Temperature Setting

                The Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville releases a “Global Temperature Report” on a monthly basis. The report for November 2014 at [1] by Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center, summarised 36 years of global atmospheric satellite temperature measurement. Extracts from the report are, quote:
                “The fastest warming spot is in Baffin Bay, where temperatures have risen 0.82 C per decade since 1978.”, and, quote:
                “The fastest cooling area is in East Antarctica near Dome C, where temperatures have been dropping at the rate of 0.50 C per decade.”

                The 36 year graphical summary appeared on the Web site at [2]. It shows warming towards the North Pole, minimal change in the Equatorial zone and cooling around the South Polar region.

                The closest CO2 recording station to Baffin Bay in the Arctic was Alert in northern Canada, where the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been 1.69 ppm per annum with a standard error of 0.028, for the period December 1978 to December 2013. The average of the monthly concentration values for 2013 was 397.75 ppm.

                The closest long-term CO2 recording station to Dome C in the Antarctic was the US station at the South Pole where the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been 1.67 ppm per annum with a standard error of 0.007, for the period December 1978 to December 2013. The average of the monthly concentration values for 2013 was 392.69 ppm. The difference of 5.06 ppm between the two stations should mean that the temperature conditions at the South Pole would be similar to those at the North Pole about 3 years earlier under the thesis that increased CO2 concentration causes increased atmospheric temperature. The data for Alert and the South Pole were taken from the Web site of the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases at [3].

                Comparison of the CO2 conditions at the two stations shows that they have no perceptible difference in slope, that is, the rate of change of CO2 concentration with time. However there is an obvious difference in character. The Alert data shows a clear seasonal cycle with an amplitude greater than 10 ppm for each year. This is the seasonal life cycle whereby as temperature increases during Spring, life forms proliferate absorbing CO2 and causing its concentration to fall. Then in Autumn, the temperature falls, the seasonal life forms die, release CO2 and cause its concentration to rise. That is, as temperature rises CO2 concentration falls and as temperature falls CO2 concentration rises, the exact opposite of the claim by the IPCC that increased CO2 concentration causes an increase in temperature.

                The large seasonal amplitude at Alert relative to that at the South Pole is due to the large land mass in the Northern Hemisphere with its extensive cover of forest demonstrating that biological sources are a major contributor to the Earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration.

                The temperature conditions at the Polar Regions, taken from the Satellite Lower Tropospheric temperature data provided by the Earth System Science Center, the University of Alabama in Huntsville at [4] gave a rate of increase of 0.444 degrees C per decade for the North Polar region for the period December 1978 to December 2013. At the South Polar region the rate of change of temperature was -0.001 degrees C per decade during the same period.

                This is supported by satellite recording of the ground conditions which are provided by the National Snow & Ice Data Center at [5]. In the Arctic, the sea-ice extent reached a Summer minimum on September 16, 2012, of 3.41 million square kilometres, the lowest seasonal minimum since satellite recording began in 1979. Meanwhile the Antarctic sea-ice extent reached a maximum, since recording began, of 20.11 million square kilometres on September 22, 2014. Note that this is more than 2.5 times the area of the Australian continent so it not an incidental local weather effect. At its maximum it covered one twenty-fifth of the Earth’s surface.

                For comparison, the Observatory at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, has been the standard reference for the value of the Earth’s CO2 concentration . For the period December 1978 to December 2013, the rate of increase in CO2 concentration was 1.71 ppm per annum with a standard error of 0.012 ppm and an average for 2013 of 396.52 ppm using the data supplied by the Scripts Institute at [6]. The Satellite lower tropospheric temperature for the same period over the Tropics zone, Latitude 20 degree South to 20 degree North, increased at the rate of 0.068 degrees C per decade.

                In summary, the rate of change of CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory was greater than that at either Alert station or the South Pole by less than 2% indicating that there is little difference in the rate of change across the whole of the globe. The Observatory is on the Northern boundary of the satellite Tropics region over which there was minimal change in temperature. At the Alert station, the rate of change of CO2 concentration was less than at Mauna Loa but the nearby Baffin Bay recorded the greatest rate of increase in temperature of anywhere on the globe. At the South Pole station the rate of change of CO2 concentration was slightly less than at the Alert station but the nearby Dome C recorded the greatest rate of decrease in temperature of anywhere on the globe.

                This shows that the measured changes in CO2 concentration have had no detectable effect on the global temperature as demonstrated by the opposite responses for the sea-ice extent at the two Poles. This is what has happened in reality. It is not opinion, theory or computer simulation and must negate the IPCC propositions on increased CO2 concentration causing, not catastrophic climate change, but any detectable temperature change whatsoever.

                References:
                [1] http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/november2014/NOV2014GTR.pdf
                [2] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/03/global-temperature-report-november-2014/
                [3] http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/
                [4] http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
                [5] http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
                [6] http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv

                30

          • #
            tom0mason

            KR,

            2 more lobbyists for you –

            Topper Shutt, chief meterologist, Washington D.C. Channel 9:

            “Global warming is such a politically charged issue that we are losing our perspective on the issue and more importantly losing an open forum from which to discuss the issue. If we lose the right or comfort level to openly discuss and debate this issue we will not be able to tackle it efficiently and economically.”

            Don Aitkin, University of Canberra, founder and past chairman of the Australian Mathematics Trust:

            “Why is there such insistence that AGW has occurred and needs drastic solutions? This is a puzzle, but my short answer is that the IPCC has been built on the AGW proposition and of course keeps plugging it, whatever the data say. The IPCC has considerable clout. Most people shy off inspecting the evidence because it looks like science and must therefore be hard. The media have been captured by AGW (it makes for great stories), the environmental movement and the Greens love it, and business is reluctant to get involved.”

            222

          • #
            Manfred

            You need to define AGW precisely first.
            The UN definition of climate change is all encompassing, embracing indirect and direct anthropogenic influences upon atmospheric composition and land usage, which makes refutation impossible, so it fails the test of non-contradiction and falsifiability.

            So, if by AGW you imply the theoretical possibility of a trivial, unmeasurable radiative forcing due solely to anthro CO2, that is the anthropogenic contribution of the infinitesimal fraction of 4%, of the 0.04% (atmos total CO2), this remains to be empirically seen. You’ll have noticed that the last 19 years have been a trendless interval in temperature, in spite climbing CO2 levels, which are established to lag temperature increases in any case. You’ll need to provide full account of all feedbacks and forcings before you engage in your theoretical exercise, and certainly before you consider developing and implementing policies based on your theoretical findings.

            But you needn’t worry. None of the science really matters. This has been shown repeatedly. Implementation relies solely upon maintaining the deranged eco-political Green fantasy, which reassuringly is imminently about to fail. You see, the required intellectual wattage is unsustainable.

            111

            • #
              Manfred

              ….and having defined AGW and quantified it, you then need to show that the present climate variation does not lie within natural variation.

              60

          • #
            Konrad

            ”Evidence for AGW has certainly been presented, starting with Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius over a century ago”

            Garbage KR. None of those individuals presented “evidence” for AGW.

            In 1859, Tyndall showed that CO2 could absorb LWIR. In 1860 he showed that if conductively heated CO2 would emit LWIR. No matter how much garbage modelling and calculation you stack on top of those lab experiments, those experiments are not evidence for AGW. All they show is that CO2 can absorb and emit LWIR. So what?

            For AGW to be even remotely possible, two things would be needed -

            First the surface without radiative atmosphere figure for this ocean planet would have to be lower than 288K. Empirical experiments indicate 312K is a fair figure. What did the climastrologists use as their foundation figure? Those idiots chose 255K! They actually tried to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to SW translucent IR opaque oceans being intermittently illuminated by solar SW! People that inane deserve no respect.

            Second, surface incident LWIR would need to be able to heat or slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool. Empirical experiment proves this false.

            And as to your repeated ridiculous claim that no known natural forcing could have cause the minuscule 0.8C warming after the little ice age? Climastrologists are so bad they couldn’t work out that the oceans were a SW selective surface! How could you possibly quantify the effect of cloud cover changes or solar spectral variance without including this fact?!

            61

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          “…while ignoring the thousands of scientists who disagree with that theory…”

          And who would they be? Where are the “thousands” who have presented the evidence to the contrary? Where have they exhibited the ego present in any scientist and published their work to disprove AGW?

          KR,

          I see that you also persist with two other myths: that someone saying you have no evidence has to prove anything; and second, that it is possible to prove the negative with regard to AGW (or anything else).

          If you wonder why you get such a negative reception, look no farther. You can’t think straight. You do not recognize logical fallacies either in yourself or in others.

          As for the thousands who disagree, I think you know damn well where to find the list of them. But if you admitted that fact, you would expose yourself to yourself. I expect that’s a frightening concept to you — finding out that you’re just one more plain old everyday failure at straight thinking.

          21

      • #
        tom0mason

        And by “demonstrated”, I mean demonstrated with sufficient evidence to convince others –
        As Harlan Watson, U.S. negotiator at UN Climate Change convention said:

        “The Kyoto protocol was a political agreement. It was not based on science.”

        242

        • #
          tom0mason

          Or as Vincent Gray, climate scientist, expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports said:

          “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain’t so.”

          or,
          John McLean, climate data analyst, Australian Climate Science Coalition said:

          “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement ['it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years'] is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers [of IPCC report] just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis.”

          193

          • #
            KR

            tom0mason – You’ve quoted two lobbyists associated with think-tank funding (see here for tracing of Heartland Institute monies almost completely funding the ACSC, the NZCSC shows up in Heartland Institute 990 forms).

            Where’s the science? Where are the papers with the evidence?

            325

            • #
              tom0mason

              KR
              Are these people not professionals too? They both work seriously analysing climate data and outcomes, they have both independently (and like so many others) come idea that UN-IPCC’s theory that man-made CO2 governs the weather/climate is just a myth.

              Where is the science that verifies the UN-IPCC’s assertion that human generated CO2 alters the climate? Where is the science that proves that this is not just more natural variation?

              231

              • #
                KR

                Professionals – yes, I would agree that they are. Professional lobbyists.

                That doesn’t mean, of course, that what they say is automatically wrong. But a paid lobbyist can be guaranteed to not present the whole story, but rather only the bits and pieces that support their framing. And many if not most will misrepresent the evidence against their position.

                So again – where are the papers? Where is the evidence that could convince others? Where are the scientists who would be the next Einstein?

                325

              • #
                KR

                Sorry, this should have been part of the previous post:

                The evidence regarding anthropogenic influences? That is what’s in the corpus of literature on the subject that the IPCC surveyed.

                If you want it in (relative) brief, I would suggest looking at S. Wearts Discovery of Global Warming site, which is an exceedingly well laid out and readable precis of the history behind that knowledge, with links to critical pieces of primary literature.

                As I said before – ignoring the evidence doesn’t invalidate it.

                225

              • #
                tom0mason

                KR,

                My point is this is all about politics not science.

                The UN has not shown anything that is not within normal climate variation. The UN has however asserted that man-made CO2 causes AGW without any verified observations to validate their stance. It is nought but a theory, an unverified theory, a very useful tactic in politics but useless to progressing our knowledge and science. CO2 trace atmospheric levels have risen slightly from a very low level but global temperatures have not risen at the UN-IPCC’s ordained rate.
                The model of CO2 controlling this watery planet’s climate is a broken model but useful to the UN to frightening the Western nations into taking foolish actions.

                The bottom line is that it is all just natural climate variation, unless you know of a validated and verifiable proof to the contrary.

                223

              • #
                KR

                tom0mason – The observations supporting AGW have been made, repeatedly. Top of atmosphere forcings have changed (experimentally tested, Harries 2001 and others) and temperatures have risen well within the expected margins given short term variations. No natural variations have been identified that can provide a sufficient counter example – and doing so requires ignoring GHG forcings and all the spectroscopic evidence.

                You seem to be pushing UN conspiracy theories – and you are certainly ignoring the corpus of evidence developed over the last 150 years, including that which I’ve pointed you to. I don’t think I have anything further to say to you in that regard.

                424

              • #
                tom0mason

                You seem to be pushing lobbists conspiracy theories – and you are certainly ignoring the corpus of evidence developed over the last 150 years, that disputes all of the unverified CO2 controls temperature theory.

                222

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Where are the scientists who would be the next Einstein?”

                Well if you look in the ranks of those who call themselves “climate scientists™”, you are NOT going to find them !!

                Once the cooling trend starts to bite a bit harder, they will all be consigned to the dustbin of history.

                And won’t that be fun to watch. :-)

                231

              • #
                tom0mason

                KR,

                Dr. David Evans, Mathematician & engineer who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic, said —
                “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical.”
                Is he one of your ‘Professional lobbyists’?
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                Of course, as the climate-gate emails have shown, there are some very active ‘Professional lobbyists’ in the ‘climate science’ sphere

                242

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor KR, you are flogging a dying horse..

                You do realise that there is absolutely no CO2 warming signal in the whole 36 years of the satellite data don’t you?

                The only warming came from the SOLAR force 1997-2001 El Nino at the end of the series of strong solar cycles in the latter half of last century.

                The slight natural warming before the El Nino has been cancelled by the slight natural cooling after.

                I repeat because I don’t think you will understand otherwise….

                There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signal in the whole 36 years of the satellite data.

                213

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Of course, as the climate-gate emails have shown, there are some very active ‘Professional lobbyists’ in the ‘climate science’ sphere ”

                That’s about all that is left. Any real scientist has walked out ages ago.

                And don’t forget the ™ on the term “climate scientist™”… to differentiate from real scientists.

                182

              • #
                tom0mason

                If it ever gets out of moderation I have replied ….


                tom0mason
                Your comment is awaiting moderation.
                August 29, 2015 at 5:55 am

                71

              • #
                tom0mason

                KR,

                So are these all ‘Professional lobbyists’ too?

                Dr. Jim Buckee, who holds a PhD in Astrophysics from Oxford University, lectured about climate change at the University of Aberdeen: “[climate skepticism] is the dominant view in professional science circles. I know lots of people in universities and so on and quite often they have to retire before they can say what they want because it’s so frowned upon- Any dissension is like a heresy. People are stamped on so they can’t be heard.”

                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic.
                “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles.
                About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted.
                PATTERSON SAYS HIS CONVERSION “PROBABLY COST ME A LOT OF GRANT MONEY. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists want me to go.”
                Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics when he said:
                “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,”

                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.”
                “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” he said.

                242

              • #
                tom0mason

                KR,

                Are these professionals just ‘Professional lobbyists’ –
                Dr. Hans Jelbring, Swedish Climatologist of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University said —
                “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”

                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, slammed the UN IPCC saying:
                “the biggest ever scientific fraud” and – “A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

                142

              • #
                AndyG55

                Furthermore, any suggestion that the satellite data is not a reasonable proxy to the surface temperature is rejected by comparing UAH/USA48 against the USCRN and ClimDiv series.

                All three series have a COOLING trend since UHCRN was established in 2005, and UAH USA48 actually has the smallest cooling trend. RSS is cooling at a slightly faster trend than UAH globally , but the comparison absolutely VALIDATES the satellite temperature series against the un-manipulated, un-tainted surface data.

                GISS shows a large warming trend since 2005, un-validated by anything except those sets that plug into the massively corrupted data coming out of Gavin and Tom’s little nest of climate temperature cookers…

                …and is therefore proven to be monumentally WRONG !!

                172

              • #
                James Bradley

                KRap,

                ‘Conspiracy theories’ again.

                Show us the ‘Tropical Hot Spot’.

                152

              • #
                tom0mason

                Reply to KR
                August 29, 2015 at 6:16 am

                Your cited source appears to be derived from his earlier 2000 paper where Harries wrote that “progress is excellent, on-going research is fascinating, but we have still a great deal to understand about the physics of climate.”

                Warning against excessive hubris, Harries went on to say “we must exercise great caution over the true depth of our understanding, and our ability to forecast future climate trends.” As an example, he stated that our knowledge of high cirrus clouds was very poor, noting that “we could easily have uncertainties of many tens of W m-2 in our description of the radiative effect of such clouds, and how these properties may change under climate forcing.” This state of affairs was extremely disconcerting, especially in light of the fact that the radiative effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content is in the lower single-digit range of W m-2, and, to quote Harries, that “uncertainties as large as, or larger than, the doubled CO2 forcing could easily exist in our modeling of future climate trends, due to uncertainties in the feedback processes.” Furthermore, because of the vast complexity of the subject, Harries rightly declared that “even if [our] understanding were perfect, our ability to describe the system sufficiently well in even the largest computer models is a problem.”

                Not quite as definite as you seem to think.

                01

            • #
              James Murphy

              Yet again KR, you have no scientific basis for your argument, all you have is accusation after accusation, hoping to discredit people based on guilt by association. Show us the science, show us the unimpeachable, genuine, accountable science instead of your ridiculous attempts to escape any real discussion.

              202

              • #
                KR

                See #20.1.1.1.4.

                “…accusation after accusation, hoping to discredit people [and science] based on guilt by association…” describes more ‘skeptic’ blog posts than I can count. Personally, I prefer to go by the literature and the evidence, as I’ve tried to point to here.

                324

              • #
                Konrad

                Oh, you’ll go to the literature will you KR?

                Here’s what that pal reviewed dross says – the surface of earth would average 255K were it not for the addition of a radiative atmosphere.

                That 255K figure for “surface without radiative atmosphere” is utterly wrong. It is derived by simply imputing 240 w/m2 of average solar insolation into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with absorptivity and emissivity set to unity. But this effectively treats our deep SW translucent oceans as SW opaque and constantly illuminated and ignores that hemispherical SW absorptivity is asymmetric with hemispherical LWIR emissivity for water.

                71% of our planets surface is an extreme short wave selective surface, nowhere remotely close to a “near blackbody”. Empirical experiment shows that sun alone could drive the oceans to around 335K were it not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere. A better estimate of global average “surface without radiative atmosphere” is 312K. Given the current average is 288K, this tells us the net effect or our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling not warming. As there is no net atmospheric radiative GHE, global warming due to CO2 is a physical impossibility.

                That inane 255K figure is the permanent burning shame of the climastrologists. They got the “basic physics” of their “settled science” utterly wrong. 97% of climastrologists are assclowns, and you fell for their pseudo scientific rubbish.

                132

              • #
                GI

                KR,

                Good call, then why don’t you go post all you knowledge and expertise on SKS. I’m sure you’ll get plenty og kudos from its one or two respondents.

                Yes, that’s why, no readership, no acknowledgement, trecognition for your attention seeking behaviour.

                11

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘Where’s the science? Where are the papers with the evidence?’

              The paradigm shift is just around the corner, be patient.

              182

          • #
            tom0mason

            KR,
            Are these just lobbists?

            Dr. Ian D. Clark, Paleoclimatologist professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence, saying —
            “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe. However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Dr. Claude Allegre, Geophysicist and a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown”.

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Dr. Nir Shaviv, Astrophysicist and one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change, said —
            “Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.”
            Also see his paper at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004JA010866/pdf

            184

            • #
              KR

              Clark has certainly been associated with the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise institute, as well as being listed as a good media source for Exxon via the CEI.

              I don’t know about the other two and their associations.

              Shaviv’s cosmic ray hypotheses fail due to incorrect modeling and timing of Solar System passes through the galactic plane, lack of evidence tying cosmic rays to climate, and the fact that over the last half century cosmic rays have tended towards what should be a cooling and not warming influence.

              I’m not aware of any peer-reviewed Allegre papers presenting evidence on climate. His popular press books on the subject have been rather a disaster.

              114

              • #
                tom0mason

                KR,
                Nav Shaviv’s cosmic ray hypotheses has no merit? So where is your paper on modeling and cosmic rays debunking Shaviv’s cosmic ray hypotheses?

                And you seem to assert that anyone with associations with Heartland Institute is worthless, this only highlights your political bias, not scientific thinking.
                If science is about anything it is about doubt and skepticism, it is not about genuflecting before UN-IPCC’s broken consensus of improbable ideas.

                32

              • #
                KR

                See Overholt et al 2009, a direct rebuttal of the Shaviv galactic plane hypothesis.

                02

              • #
                tom0mason

                And the argument goes on see –
                http://www.nature.com/articles/srep06150?WT.ec_id=SREP-639-20140826

                Nir Shaviv’s cosmic ray hypotheses appears to have merit, judgement however, as in many things in research is still to be settled.

                So refreshing to see real science here, unlike the scientific nonsense about CO2 as promulgated, without verification or validation, by the UN. As Bevan Dockery said on a different thread on this site, /2015/08/weekend-unthreaded-90.

                August 30, 2015 at 7:40 pm · Reply

                The Global CO2 – Temperature Setting

                The Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville releases a “Global Temperature Report” on a monthly basis. The report for November 2014 at [1] by Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center, summarised 36 years of global atmospheric satellite temperature measurement. Extracts from the report are, quote:
                “The fastest warming spot is in Baffin Bay, where temperatures have risen 0.82 C per decade since 1978.”, and, quote:
                “The fastest cooling area is in East Antarctica near Dome C, where temperatures have been dropping at the rate of 0.50 C per decade.”

                The 36 year graphical summary appeared on the Web site at [2]. It shows warming towards the North Pole, minimal change in the Equatorial zone and cooling around the South Polar region.

                The closest CO2 recording station to Baffin Bay in the Arctic was Alert in northern Canada, where the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been 1.69 ppm per annum with a standard error of 0.028, for the period December 1978 to December 2013. The average of the monthly concentration values for 2013 was 397.75 ppm.

                The closest long-term CO2 recording station to Dome C in the Antarctic was the US station at the South Pole where the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been 1.67 ppm per annum with a standard error of 0.007, for the period December 1978 to December 2013. The average of the monthly concentration values for 2013 was 392.69 ppm. The difference of 5.06 ppm between the two stations should mean that the temperature conditions at the South Pole would be similar to those at the North Pole about 3 years earlier under the thesis that increased CO2 concentration causes increased atmospheric temperature. The data for Alert and the South Pole were taken from the Web site of the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases at [3].

                Comparison of the CO2 conditions at the two stations shows that they have no perceptible difference in slope, that is, the rate of change of CO2 concentration with time. However there is an obvious difference in character. The Alert data shows a clear seasonal cycle with an amplitude greater than 10 ppm for each year. This is the seasonal life cycle whereby as temperature increases during Spring, life forms proliferate absorbing CO2 and causing its concentration to fall. Then in Autumn, the temperature falls, the seasonal life forms die, release CO2 and cause its concentration to rise. That is, as temperature rises CO2 concentration falls and as temperature falls CO2 concentration rises, the exact opposite of the claim by the IPCC that increased CO2 concentration causes an increase in temperature.

                The large seasonal amplitude at Alert relative to that at the South Pole is due to the large land mass in the Northern Hemisphere with its extensive cover of forest demonstrating that biological sources are a major contributor to the Earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration.

                The temperature conditions at the Polar Regions, taken from the Satellite Lower Tropospheric temperature data provided by the Earth System Science Center, the University of Alabama in Huntsville at [4] gave a rate of increase of 0.444 degrees C per decade for the North Polar region for the period December 1978 to December 2013. At the South Polar region the rate of change of temperature was -0.001 degrees C per decade during the same period.

                This is supported by satellite recording of the ground conditions which are provided by the National Snow & Ice Data Center at [5]. In the Arctic, the sea-ice extent reached a Summer minimum on September 16, 2012, of 3.41 million square kilometres, the lowest seasonal minimum since satellite recording began in 1979. Meanwhile the Antarctic sea-ice extent reached a maximum, since recording began, of 20.11 million square kilometres on September 22, 2014. Note that this is more than 2.5 times the area of the Australian continent so it not an incidental local weather effect. At its maximum it covered one twenty-fifth of the Earth’s surface.

                For comparison, the Observatory at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, has been the standard reference for the value of the Earth’s CO2 concentration . For the period December 1978 to December 2013, the rate of increase in CO2 concentration was 1.71 ppm per annum with a standard error of 0.012 ppm and an average for 2013 of 396.52 ppm using the data supplied by the Scripts Institute at [6]. The Satellite lower tropospheric temperature for the same period over the Tropics zone, Latitude 20 degree South to 20 degree North, increased at the rate of 0.068 degrees C per decade.

                In summary, the rate of change of CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory was greater than that at either Alert station or the South Pole by less than 2% indicating that there is little difference in the rate of change across the whole of the globe. The Observatory is on the Northern boundary of the satellite Tropics region over which there was minimal change in temperature. At the Alert station, the rate of change of CO2 concentration was less than at Mauna Loa but the nearby Baffin Bay recorded the greatest rate of increase in temperature of anywhere on the globe. At the South Pole station the rate of change of CO2 concentration was slightly less than at the Alert station but the nearby Dome C recorded the greatest rate of decrease in temperature of anywhere on the globe.

                This shows that the measured changes in CO2 concentration have had no detectable effect on the global temperature as demonstrated by the opposite responses for the sea-ice extent at the two Poles. This is what has happened in reality. It is not opinion, theory or computer simulation and must negate the IPCC propositions on increased CO2 concentration causing, not catastrophic climate change, but any detectable temperature change whatsoever.

                References:
                [1] http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/november2014/NOV2014GTR.pdf
                [2] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/03/global-temperature-report-november-2014/
                [3] http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/
                [4] http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
                [5] http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
                [6] http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv

                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                I understand that in science nothing is for certain, nothing is set in stone, do you?
                I also understand CO2 is not the problem, the politics and policies of the UN certainly are.

                21

        • #
          tom0mason

          KR,

          So are these all ‘Professional lobbyists’ too?

          Dr. Jim Buckee, who holds a PhD in Astrophysics from Oxford University, lectured about climate change at the University of Aberdeen: “[climate skepticism] is the dominant view in professional science circles. I know lots of people in universities and so on and quite often they have to retire before they can say what they want because it’s so frowned upon- Any dissension is like a heresy. People are stamped on so they can’t be heard.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic.
          “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles.
          About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted.
          PATTERSON SAYS HIS CONVERSION “PROBABLY COST ME A LOT OF GRANT MONEY. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists want me to go.”
          Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics when he said:
          “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.”
          “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” he said.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems and has published peer-reviewed papers, said –
          “The whole thing is a fraud.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Dr. Hans Jelbring, Swedish Climatologist of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University said —
          “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, slammed the UN IPCC saying:
          “the biggest ever scientific fraud” and – “A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. Art Raiche, former Chief Research Scientist with Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, said –
          “The suppression of scientific evidence that contradicts the causal link between human-generated CO2 and climate has been of great concern to ethical scientists both herein Australia and around the world.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics, said —
          “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded… it’s fraud.”
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Ivar Giaever, Nobel prize winner for physics, said –
          “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, scientist and chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, AUTHOR OF 200 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS and former Greenpeace member, said –
          “Real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Dr. Michael Beenstock of Hebrew University Professor and an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.” said –
          “Predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” —

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. George T. Wolff, Atmospheric scientist, and former adjunct professor in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Michigan and has authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies in the fields of ozone, sulfates and Aerosols, said –
          “For too many in the (Climate Science) field, critical thinking, the basis for all scientific inquiry, is not only absent, it is disdained.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino said —
          “Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing an Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Hans von Storch a UN IPCC Lead Author, said —
          “Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth… By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public’s trust.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Willis Eschenbach, Climate researcher who has published climate studies in Energy and Environment journal and had comments published in the journal Nature, said —
          “I am definitely a critic of the IPCC, they are doing their job abysmally poorly. Rather than advance the cause of climate science, they impede it through their reliance on bad statistics, bad economics, and bad data”.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. Will Happer, Award Winning Physicist, and Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, WHO HAS PUBLISHED OVER 200 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences, said —
          “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. Jim Sprott, Consulting Chemist and Forensic Scientist of Auckland, NZ, said —
          “The much-vaunted IPCC scenarios are patently wrong. The manmade climate change proposition fails”.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Hal Lewis, prominent physicist resigned from American Physical Society, saying —
          “Global warming the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. Dennis Hollars, Astrophysicist said —
          “What I’d do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that’s all it’s worth.”
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. Roger W. Cohen, an American Physical Society (APS) fellow,said —
          “I was…appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Michael J. Myers, Analytical Chemist who specializes in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing said —
          “…man-made global warming is ‘junk’ science.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          KNMI the Dutch meteorological institute statement said:
          “We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis, Greek Earth scientists of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, statement said —
          “We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” —

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Eduardo Zorita, from the UN IPCC’ said —
          “I really do not see how the IPCC can help policy makers”, and also —
          “The Summary for Policy Makers is co-written by government officials & scientists, & thus it seems that it is result of some type of obscure negotiations. This leads to all sorts of wrong incentives, also for scientists. In some countries, a criterion for promotion is whether your work has been cited by IPCC, this gives already an idea about how IPCC reports are misused for goals totally alien to intended purpose”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Brekke senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo, renowned Norwegian Solar physicist and expert; has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth and served as a referee for scientific journals said
          “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”
          and also
          Dr. Pal Brekke, warns global temperatures may “actually fall in the course of a 50-year period”.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. Reid Bryson, Meteorologist and the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic.
          Bryson was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Physicist chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming.
          “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added.

          Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. Tad Murty, Climate researcher and former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic, Murty explained on August 17, 2006 his change of heart saying —
          “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself, I switched to the other side in the early 1990′s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained.
          Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part —
          “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. Ian D. Clark, Paleoclimatologist professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence, saying —
          “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe. However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. Claude Allegre, Geophysicist and a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown”.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. Nir Shaviv, Astrophysicist and one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change, said —
          “Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.”
          Also see his paper at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004JA010866/pdf
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Dr. David Evans, Mathematician & engineer who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic, said —
          “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical.”
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Of course, as the climate-gate emails have shown, there are some very active ‘Professional lobbyists’ in the ‘climate science’ sphere

          174

      • #
      • #
        el gordo

        ‘The fact that the vast majority of scientists agree about AGW is because the evidence doesn’t support any other views.’

        Surely the hiatus proves something.

        From where I’m standing the lukewarmers are set to win the game, the extra CO2 staved off Dilley’s earlier prediction of a drop in temperatures around 2008.

        71

    • #
      KR

      Has anyone actually watched that video on the suppression of science? I would be genuinely interested in responses…

      219

      • #
        Yonniestone

        I’ve said it before that anyone attempting to convey a science presentation whilst impersonating Mildew Wolf will not be taken seriously!

        120

      • #
        James Bradley

        KRap,

        If the video is ‘warmist’ then its existence can only prove the ‘warmist’ meme isn’t suppressed, but any science dissenting the ‘warmist’ meme is suppressed.

        You know, like otherwise, the ‘warmist’ meme video would be suppressed itself, by the conspiracy between Big Oil, and Big Coal, and Big Gas, sorta, you know like it exists therefore it isn’t suppressed.

        Are you related to Harry Twinotter, just asking?

        172

      • #
        handjive

        .

        “If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.”
        Stanford University Professor Edward Krehbiel in 1919.
        .
        Q. What is the null hypothesis?

        The null hypothesis is that climate variation is due to natural causes.

        Q. Can this be disproved?

        It hasn’t yet.

        Until that happens, alternate theories about climate change are just that, merely theories.
        ~ ~ ~
        Re: your Denial 101x video. Yes, I watched.

        R Alley quote @0.10secs:

        “Suppose that Einstein had stood up & said, “I have worked very hard, and I have discovered that Newton got everything right, and I have nothing to add.
        Would anyone ever know who Einstein was”?

        > Perfectly described above is Al Gore (the Einstein of Global Warming) standing up in congress and saying, “the science is settled,” promoting & highlighting his IPCC “scary” movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” as proof the debate is over. Nothing more to add.

        > Maybe if Einstein had the aid of powerpoint presentation, and Hollywood … who knows …
        ~ ~ ~
        You link to a new paper from Lewandowsky & Cook/Skeptical Science et al:
        Learning from mistakes in climate research, quote;
        “We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny.”

        > The science is settled? Al Gore stood in congress and uttered 97% un-scientific truths? Oh dear.
        . . .
        Our gracious blog hostess, Jonova, shares a chapter in a book called Climate Change: The Facts, with Mark Steyn.

        Mark Steyn now has a Number One best selling new book on climate science, “A Disgrace To The Profession”
        The World’s Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science
        Volume I, reviewed by David Appell here.

        > A quote from Appell’s critique KR should remember when quoting Cook/SkS et al:

        “I found it odd that a scientist would cite a blog.
        The difference between peer reviewed papers published in major journals and blog posts is — or should be — very obvious.
        (Yes, that holds for this blog as much as any other. Blog posts aren’t science.)

        They simply aren’t in the same league, and it is very rare, if ever, you will ever see a scientist cite a blog post.”

        > Next time you see a scientist, or Obama, quote Skeptical Science’s 97% meme, remind them.

        150

      • #
        Richard

        We’re still waiting for evidence that CO2 is dirving temperature KR. That’s all we ask for.

        Here are the warming periods (according to Phil Jones) together with the CO2 we have emitted from CDIAC for the warming periods.

        Period / Length-Years / Trend-Decade / CO2 Emitted

        1860-1880 / 21 years / 0.163C / 12 gigatonnes

        1910-1940 / 31 years / 0.150C / 110 gigatonnes

        1975-1998 / 24 years / 0.166C / 480 gigatonnes

        1975-2009 / 35 years / 0.161C / 770 gigatonnes

        Apparently we emitted 3500% more CO2 between 1975-1998 than we did between 1860-1880 and yet the rate of warming stayed essentially the same. And between 1975-2009 we emitted 700% more CO2 than we did between 1910-1940 and again there was little change in the rate of warming. How do you know that what has happened to the temperature is not merely the Earth rolling on with natural cycles as it has done for eons? After all there is no anthropogenic signature in the temperature record (as shown by Phil Jones above) and the warming we have experienced is within long-term natural variation. Nothing unusual is happening as far as the rate of warming is concerned. Despite increasing our CO2 output by 3500% the rate of warming stayed the same. Where is the evidence that CO2 is pushing up temperatures?

        50

  • #
    nutso fasst

    Filtering science communication wasn’t a “scoop” when Hansen publicized it under the Bush administration, and it’s clear the Obama administration has a much heavier thumb than the Bush people. Recall Sally Jewell’s warning to Interior Department employees? Even the National Park Service has been pushing the “97% of scientists” BS, which they falsely attribute to an IPCC study on a “Common Climate Change Myths” page.

    90

  • #
  • #
    Ruairi

    To obtain a climate based grant,
    There is a compulsory rant,
    To blame all on man,
    One must and one can,
    But on natural cycles one can’t.

    140

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “NOAA Meteorologist tells of years of censorship “

    This truly is the most worrisome of behaviors in an institution historically renowned for its honesty and integrity.
    But on reflection it is the type of behavior we are seeing more and more in our traditionally (Science only, politic free) institutions.

    NASA another well known Scientific body (GISS specifically) has been polluted by the likes of Gavin Schmidt who seems to know the answers “before” he has actually produced the data.

    “We (the climate models) are skilled at volcanos… but we don’t do clouds”

    I mean seriously how are we supposed to interpret statements like this ?

    Schmidt’s “militant Activist” attitude has seriously tainted the agency’s reputation and his characteristic arrogance that seems to resemble “Captain Nemo” is doing untold damage to an otherwise great Agency. He refuses to engage any Scientist in debate (especially after his side got trounced the first time there was such a debate) and his ongoing support for the unsupportable conduct of the EAU is very disturbing.

    I look forward to next year’s election in the U.S. where “defund” and “cutback” will be the watch words :D

    I have taken Paris (COP21) off my viewing calendar and wont watch it unless of course it repeats the Copenhagen brawl that turned out to be very entertaining indeed.
    I have to admit I am still smiling at the comment TonyfromOZ made regarding “ladies of the night” flocking to Paris for the Conference.

    151

  • #

    In Australia before the BoM took over there were three prominent men in charge of three different State meteorological organisations. All three had become so familiar with the data that fine details and patterns of a cyclic nature began to be noticed by them. Charles Todd who connected the world to us via the telegraph noticed the world wide effects now known as La Nina and El nino. Clement Wragge began making weather predictions based upon the 11 year sunspot cycle as affected by some other cycles.
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/129565221
    H.C. Russell began to make predictions based upon the 19 year lunar cycle.
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/165236287
    Then along came Inigo Jones who combined numerous cycle frequencies, phases and global effects. He was so good at long range weather forecasts that a public outcry brought about the only much needed government funded rival the BoM ever had. Mis-information about Inigo Jones is now easier to find than the facts.

    170

  • #
    tom0mason

    Some believe that it’s all about science which is why this incident with David Dilly, the actions of the Royal Society, ABC’s #Talkaboutit and so many recent items on the media, reflect nothing but political maneuverings and preparing the sheeple for the Paris shindig.

    Thankfully at their heart many government understand that CO2 is not the problem, hence the take-up of coal as the primary power generating source. Thank-you China, Germany, India, Japan, and all the others for showing that reality matters. Not forgetting those that ensure its future by investing in it.

    100

  • #
    Neville

    I hope Jo and others can make a comment on this post from Tony Heller. It would seem that hot days were more common in OZ in the earlier record. Certainly from 1880 to 1940 if Tony is correct.

    http://realclimatescience.com/2015/08/hot-days-occurring-less-frequently-in-australia/

    91

  • #
    Tel

    But you can’t call it corruption!

    70

  • #
    pat

    consensus at NOAA now!

    28 Aug: UK Independent: Steve Connor:
    2015 is likely to follow 2014 and 2010 as the next record hot year
    “We really don’t have a pause in global warming. I’ve frankly never really agreed with that,” said dr Jessica Blunden, a climate researcher at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which collates records on land and sea temperatures. “We’ve continued to break heat records in the 21st century since 1998 – 2005 was a record warm year, then 2010 was a record and then 2014 was a record and now we’re getting ready to beat that record again. I disagree with the thought that there is a warming hiatus.”…
    Its (NOAA) scientists said the “hiatus” is nothing more than an illusion resulting from flaws in the way data was collected, and the fact that 2015 seems destined to break the record again underlined that…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/climate-change-a-pause-in-global-warming-not-on-this-evidence-10477342.html

    “flaws” only when the data goes against the CABGW orthodoxy.

    30

  • #
    pat

    telling it like it is:

    28 Aug: ZeeNews India: India hits out at West over climate change
    Kolkata: Ahead of the Paris meet on climate change, Power Minister Piyush Goyal on Friday said coal-based thermal power will remain the staple power source for India and denounced Western concerns over climate and environmental hazards.
    “Most Western developed countries have enjoyed the fruits of low cost affordable thermal power for the last 150 years,” the minister said at the BCCI Environment and Energy Conclave here.
    “They have built their roads and ports, railways, airports, created large infrastructure and given jobs to their people. Today, we are being told about climate change … without taking into account the concerns of the poor of India,” the minister said.
    He said since the West had reached a stage of development, it was able to explore renewable and clean alternate means of power but the poor in India have constraints on this front…
    “For the last 150 years, the West had coal – they reached a stage of development with $40,000-70,000 per capita income and want poor Indians with $2,000 per capita income to reduce use of coal…”
    He said that “even today you (Western countries) are polluting”.
    Referring to the various dictates and environmental protocols, he said: “It is very easy to sermonize but unless one practices what one preaches, it makes no sense to sermonize.”
    Goyal said India’s contribution to climate change was only 1/10th or 1/11th of what the US does and the country’s per capita carbon emission was one of the lowest in the world…
    http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/india-hits-out-at-west-over-climate-change_1664137.html

    70

  • #
    pat

    left out the first line of the headline of the Steve Connor/Indepenent/NOAA piece, which is:

    Climate change: A ‘pause’ in global warming? Not on this evidence

    (comment is in moderation for now, tho)

    30

  • #
    Neville

    A top SLR post from WUWT is a must read. Some of the comments are very informative as well.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/28/on-nasas-recent-sea-level-claim-science-isnt-broken-except-when-it-is/#comment-2016663

    61

  • #
    el gordo

    Dilley thought global cooling would start in 2008, but he was wrong on that score.

    He sees our moon as a Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM), linked to gravitational cycles.

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/david-dilley-predicts-global-cooling-now/

    51

  • #
    pat

    27 Aug: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: U.K. to End Small-Scale Renewables Aid in Blow to Solar
    Ministers plan to cut subsidies by as much as 87 percent from January and cap the budget for assistance, ending the program for new entrants after March 2019, according to the proposals outlined Thursday on the Department of Energy and Climate Change website. If it isn’t possible to rein in spending, the program of guaranteed electricity prices, known as feed-in tariffs, may close in January, it said…
    The plan would cut subsidies in January for the smallest solar projects to 1.63 pence per kilowatt-hour from 12.47 pence. Wind and hydropower rates would also be cut, with no reduction for the rate paid to anaerobic digestion plants…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-27/u-k-proposes-to-end-feed-in-tariffs-for-renewable-energy

    oh dear, another country’s reputation at stake!

    28 Aug: RTC: Alex Pashley: Mexico’s dragging energy reforms threaten green reputation
    Developing country was hailed for early climate pledge, but the Senate is being slow to sign off crucial renewables law
    Mexican lawmakers’ apathy to pass its prize climate policy is stunting the potential of its wind and solar industry, say experts, dimming its green reputation…
    The “energy transition law” paved the way for renewables to provide 35% of the Latin American country’s electricity needs by 2024, up from their 14% share last year…
    The country of 124 million people won plaudits when it unveiled its contribution to a UN-backed global warming agreement at the end of the year – the first nation classed as developing to do so…
    Amid corruption scandals and ongoing drug-related violence, climate change largely concerns ***elite groups…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/08/28/mexicos-dragging-energy-reforms-threaten-green-reputation/

    ***elite, vested interests.

    30

  • #
    pat

    read all. TonyfromOz & others might like to respond:

    28 Aug: Renew Economy: Giles Parkinson: W.A. says solar is the future as it prepares to dump coal
    The West Australian government appears to have overcome years of institutionalised resistance and recognized that the state’s energy future will be built around solar energy.
    In a landmark speech this week, Energy Minister and state treasurer Mike Nahan said solar PV would meet the daytime electricity needs of WA within the next decade. Nahan noted that solar was cheap, and democratic, and was likely to account for all new generation capacity, and it would displace the state’s ageing coal generators…
    This is an extraordinary admission for someone, who as the former head of the right-wing think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, had constantly ridiculed the prospects of renewable energy and solar in particular…
    Nahan’s comments are also in stark contrast to the findings a review commissioned by his own government last year, which bizarrely did not even consider solar as a future technology and even contemplated importing coal from Indonesia to solve future energy needs…
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/w-a-says-solar-is-the-future-as-it-prepares-to-dump-coal-63324

    30

    • #
      ianl8888

      I will be circumspect here, as I still have somewhat active clients in the WA Collie Basin deposits so confidentiality is needed

      The Collie Basin coal deposits are still huge in Resource despite being “highgraded” (cherry-picked, for lay people) for decades. There are also quite a number of smaller deposits within WA that have not been subject to detailed mine planning yet. The WA Govt only a few years ago wanted to commission a study to do just that

      Cumulative industrial issues and financing shenanigans (including international input) have conflated a difficult mess in Collie Basin productivity at the coal quality specifications required by the power stations

      I suspect that Nahan just wishes to walk away and leave the whole mess behind, but this won’t work on any front (industrial, power supply, political, financial)

      40

    • #

      Current coal fired plants in WA (excluding the 107MW plant used to supply just Worsley Alumina) have a Nameplate of 2210MW.

      Current Wind Power in WA comes in at 220MW. The power delivered from all that wind power is delivered by coal fired power in 12 days.

      I cannot understand how people who can actually check for themselves still believe that solar power especially can replace coal fired power.

      The State requires at least 60% of its power delivered on a 24 hour basis. There is no solar plant which can actually deliver that power on a year round basis.

      Just to do the theoretical actual power replacement maths, you would need a Nameplate for solar (Half Solar PV and half CSP) of 8300MW, which is around 80 huge scale solar plants, but hey, it’s all academic, because coal fired power CAN supply for 24 hours on the basis required, and solar cannot.

      The cheapest cost for that much solar power is around $48 Billion plus, and with Labor in power at both federal and State level, more than half that amount comes for the public purse, and good luck trying to find investors willing to part with that much money to make up the rest of it.

      Current age of coal fired plants. Muja – 66 years. Kwinana – 46 Years. Collie – 16 years. Bluewaters – 6 years.

      ANY solar plant – 25 years tops.

      Current solar power in WA – 10MW. Power actually delivered from that solar plant in a full year is generated and delivered to the grids in WA by those current coal fired plants in 6.6 Hours.

      This statement is one that will never be realised.

      Solar CANNOT replace coal fired power.

      Tony.

      31

  • #
    pat

    read all, ditto.

    28 Aug: Australian Financial Review: Mark Ludlow: Queensland turns its back on coal to embrace renewables
    The Queensland Labor government has flagged a dramatic shift away from the coal sector as it attempts to reach its ambitious target of 50 per cent of renewable energy by 2030.
    Despite the coal industry delivering billions of dollars in royalties and thousands of jobs each year, Energy Minister Mark Bailey said the Palaszczuk government would be doing everything it could to support the development of solar and wind projects in the state.
    This included forcing state-owned energy company Ergon Energy to purchase 150 megawatts of renewable energy from the market as well as doubling the number of homes with roof-top solar systems to more than 1 million by 2020…
    The Palaszczuk government will also conduct its own “reverse auction” to purchase an additional 40 megawatts of renewable energy.
    ***But new director-general of the Department of Energy, former AGL Energy chief economist, Paul Simshauser admitted to the budget estimates committee there had been no modelling done yet on achieving the 50 per cent renewable target by the end of the decade…
    Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche: “The government hasn’t been able to articulate the pathway to reach the target or the cost implications,” Mr Roche said.
    “It is a big leap and it has scary cost implications unless there is some radical re-setting of the cost of renewables.”
    http://www.afr.com/news/politics/queensland-turns-its-back-on-coal-to-embrace-renewables-20150827-gj9noe

    50

    • #

      pat notes this:

      The Palaszczuk government will also conduct its own “reverse auction” to purchase an additional 40 megawatts of renewable energy.

      Hmm! That instills confidence.

      That they would go with the cheapest option they can get to build an absolutely essential service.

      Oh, and note how everything stated here is expressed only in Nameplate. How easy does that make it eh!

      Oh, and 40MW of renewable energy will generate power and deliver to the grid the same power in one full year as generated by Bayswater in 33 hours.

      Tony.

      80

  • #
    pat

    29 Aug: Forbes: Thomas Landstreet: Soros Doesn’t Like Coal Stocks; He Likes Money
    (Landstreet is co-founder of investment manager Tell-tale Advisors (with award-winning analyst Frank Gristina), and founder of Standard Research Corp., which publishes research for institutional investors)
    I think George Soros used the government like a blunt object to beat down coal stocks and make money shorting them…
    The stocks of Arch Coal (ACI), Peabody Energy BTU +4.60% (BTU), Foresight Energy (FELP) and CloudPeak Energy (CLD) are on fire…
    The shares of coal stocks have soared…
    And the EPA went right to work destroying the industry (and saving the world) while Soros profited on the short side. Nice gig, huh?..
    But the second this President is gone and especially if there’s a Republican President, I would expect a huge rally in whatever coal companies still have a pulse. After all, we derive a great deal of our electric power from coal. (Turns out that uber-green Germany is building 12 coal-fired power plants)…
    I played this rally but got out too early it appears…
    Investors looking for value should keep the coal stocks on their radar and look for a better entry point. And, again, if the politics change, buy, buy, buy.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomaslandstreet/2015/08/28/soros-doesnt-like-coal-stocks-he-likes-money/2/

    30

  • #
    pat

    elitist, CAGW-infested, D.C.-based Sierra Club activist attacks coal for Kenya while Germany builds coal-fired power plants!

    29 Aug: HuffPo: Nicole Ghio: In Kenya, Proposed Coal-Fired Power Plant Threatens World Heritage Site
    (Nicole Ghio is Campaign Representative, Sierra Club International Climate Program)
    In 2015, only about 23 percent of Kenya’s 45,500,000 people have access to electricity, and this problem is particularly pronounced in rural areas of the East African country, where electrification drops to a staggering 4 percent. It’s clear that the question is not whether or not something needs to be done — it is unconscionable to leave people living in energy poverty. Rather, the issue is how do we start delivering energy services as quickly and as broadly as possible?
    Despite mounting evidence that new coal generation regularly fails to deliver energy access, especially in rural areas, Amu Power is proposing a 1,000 megawatt coal plant in Manda Bay in Lamu County, home to the World Heritage listed Lamu Old Town. Oxfam and the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) recently issued a report on energy poverty in sub-Saharan Africa showing that off-grid and mini-grid technologies are better at delivering power than centralized projects like coal plants…
    And where coal fails at alleviating energy poverty, it succeeds in spreading deadly pollution. It is this concern over the health effects of coal that spurred locals in Lamu to action, starting with a petition calling on Lamu Governor Issa Timamy to stop the coal project. While project proponents insist this will be a “clean coal” plant, saying “the only thing that comes out of the chimney is water vapor,” the truth is there is no such thing as “clean coal.”…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-ghio/in-kenya-proposed-coal-fi_b_8056608.html?ir=Australia

    LinkedIn: Nicole Ghio
    International & Trade Representative: at Sierra Club
    Washington D.C.
    As a campaign representative with the Sierra Club’s international team, Nicole works with partners around the world
    to develop and execute strategies to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. In addition, she leads the Sierra
    Club’s international organizing training program, facilitates exchanges between coal affected regions, and documents
    the impacts of projects on front line communities. Prior to joining the international campaign, Nicole coordinated
    the field program for Sierra Club’s federal Beyond Coal campaign, headed up new media work for the Club’s priority
    issues, and developed activist training programs. She received a bachelors from UCLA and masters from the University
    of Sussex.
    https://www.linkedin.com/pub/nicole-ghio/2b/766/ab9

    40

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘The combination of this massive volcanic eruption occurring some 15 to 20 years into the new global cooling cycle was instrumental in causing the year of no summer in 1816. During the next several years, nearly one third of Europe perished from famine, plague and civil unrest.’

    David Dilley

    ——–

    Don’t think so.

    Europe’s population almost doubled over the 19th century.

    50

    • #
      Mike

      Which coincides with the beginning of sophisticated population record keeping. And accurate financial book keeping.
      How Record Keeping Changed in the 19th Century

      Population records are about as accurate/reliable as temperature records in my opinion. In any case, if i cannot verify something myself, i rarely take it on face value.

      60

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘…if i cannot verify something myself, i rarely take it on face value.’

        Me too.

        I also have trouble with Dilley’s cycles, they don’t fit into my scheme of things in the 13th century.

        50

    • #
      Oksanna

      He could be talking about the cholera pandemics of the 19th century.

      20

    • #

      El Gordo….if you read history you will learn about what happened following the year of 1816. If Europe’s population doubled over the 19th century, it was during the mid to late 19th century. Plague, potato famine and civil unrest is well documented in Europe’s history. And you say Mr. Dilley’s cycles do not fit into your scheme of things in the 13th century. Familiar remark…a glacier expert did not want to except the warm period in the 1930s, the very warm period 1 thousand and 7 thousand years ago; he also said it did not fit into his scheme of things.

      50

      • #
        tom0mason

        David Dilley,

        Thank-you for joining the comments here, and I wish you well for the future.

        10

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Plague, potato famine and civil unrest is well documented in Europe’s history.’

        The Black Death a few centuries earlier wiped out a third of Europe, rats and fleas got the blame but it was just a virus.

        The potato blight was an unfortunate side effect of relying on one staple.

        Civil unrest is not uncommon in Europe and can happen at anytime, with or without the influence of climate change.

        —–

        We are waiting patiently for David Evans hindcast and a robust debate, but in the meantime I’m playing around with the 60 and 50 year cycles.

        The latter was discussed by Hubert lamb who spotted a 50 year periodicity going into the LIA but lost sight of it in the turmoil. He thought he picked it up again in the late 18th century and it all ties in fairly neatly, its like a half Gleissberg.

        If you run the clock back from now you can see it in the early 1960s and around 1910, so I’m thinking this European winter may see a tipping point.

        ——

        At the height of the MWP why did the Thames freeze over in 1200 AD? Holinshed records ‘ale was frozen within houses and cellars and sold by weight.’

        What happened in 1878-79 to cause such extreme weather around the world?

        20

      • #
        el gordo

        More precisely, 1202 AD the Thames froze solid.

        20

  • #
    pat

    thanx for the responses re WA/solar. more info here in case anyone wants to respond further:

    26 Aug: ABC: Kathryn Diss: Excess power stations face closure to bring electricity prices under control: WA Energy Minister Mike Nahan
    There is currently too much capacity sitting idle in the market and it is costing taxpayers dearly.
    Dr Nahan said several factors had driven the oversupply.
    “Given the excess capacity on a good day – 42 per cent – and also the growth of solar … and declining demand, we have excess capacity”, Dr Nahan said…
    The rapid uptake of rooftop solar panels took the Government by surprise, but it has become so popular, Dr Nahan now expects it will completely take over daytime power generation in WA.
    “Small-scale solar is growing at 20, 30 per cent a year and will do nothing but accentuate and it is actually quite cheap,” he said.
    ***A number of coal and gas-fired power plants sit idle for most of the year, waiting to supply excess demand. However, it has not been needed and those plants are costing Synergy hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
    To keep up with changing consumer trends, the Energy Minister said some traditional forms of energy would have to go but he was not keen to name which plants.
    “We have excess capacity, most of it is in Synergy’s hands, 70 per cent, so some will shut,” he said…
    Solar also poses a threat to Western Power’s grid network, as the cost of storing its energy in batteries comes down, allowing customers to disconnect.
    Mike Laughton-Smith from Solar Balance, a company which supplies battery storage systems, said it was already happening.
    “It is happening all around for simple apartment blocks in Perth, councils as owners, are realising for a very modest investment in solar power in the car park they can get a really good return.
    “They can make a good return for standard grid connect solar systems of over 20 per cent, compared to the 2 per cent they will earn on their money in the bank.
    “On top of that they can be assured that tariffs will keep on rising and they’ll keep on getting a good return for their investment in solar power”, Mr Laughton-Smith said.
    But a Finland-based energy consulting firm does not think the Government has missed the boat just yet.
    Founder and chief executive of VaasaETT Dr Philip Lewis said it could play a major role.
    “I believe that if networks can prove that they can play a major role in the future, through creating the platforms for the future smart solutions through assisting communities to provide their own solutions in the grid,” he said.
    “By enabling the demand management to happen better I think they have far more value to gain from this future than they will lose.
    “Of course, they will lose some of their traditional revenue streams and unless they are able to make that up through new revenue they will suffer.
    “But if they can prove they can benefit from new revenue they will be a stronger company.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-26/mike-nahan-tips-solar-power-to-take-over-wa-power-generation/6727558

    30

  • #
    pat

    28 Aug: Desert Sun: Sammy Roth: SoCal Edison wants to slash rooftop solar incentives
    California’s major utilities — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric — have proposed major cost increases for new rooftop solar customers…
    Under Edison’s proposal, new rooftop solar customers would be paid 8 cents per kilowatt-hour for the excess solar electricity they send onto the grid, compared to the 15 cents per kilowatt-hour they’re generally paid today. They’d also be charged a flat monthly fee based on the size of their solar system, at $3 per kilowatt, per month.
    Edison estimates typical solar consumers would see monthly bills of about $135 under the new system, compared to about $65 now — a difference of more than $800 per year. Del Chiaro’s trade group estimates it would take the average Southern California Edison customer about 20 years to break even on a solar system under the proposed changes, with payback periods of 17 years for Pacific Gas & Electric customers and 26 years for San Diego Gas & Electric customers…
    ***Edison and other utilities say rooftop solar customers aren’t paying their fair share to use the electricity grid, hence the need for changes. If they don’t start charging solar customers more, utilities have argued, costs will increase for homes and businesses that don’t have solar panels…
    ***“Solar customers remain connected to the power network, which provides them energy when the sun is not shining, when bad weather blocks its rays or when the home uses more power than the rooftop system produces,” Caroline Choi, Edison’s vice president for energy and environmental policy, said in a blog post on the company’s website…
    In Arizona, the Salt River Project — which provides electricity for much of the Phoenix metro area — imposed a demand charge earlier this year, with the blessing of state regulators. In a lawsuit against the utility, national powerhouse SolarCity alleges solar applications dropped 96 percent after the demand charge was implemented…
    Homes and businesses that sign up for the current incentive program, known as “net energy metering,” will be grandfathered into the system that exists now…
    On top of the proposed changes to California’s solar incentives, a 30 percent federal tax credit for solar is scheduled to expire at the end of 2016. Then there are the electricity rate changes approved last month by the public utilities commission, which critics say will make rooftop solar less attractive for some homeowners…
    http://www.desertsun.com/story/tech/science/energy/2015/08/28/socal-edison-wants-slash-rooftop-solar-incentives/71343552/

    30

    • #

      Del Chiaro’s trade group estimates it would take the average Southern California Edison customer about 20 years to break even on a solar system under the proposed changes, with payback periods of 17 years for Pacific Gas & Electric customers and 26 years for San Diego Gas & Electric customers…

      Surely this must tell you something.

      They’re going to halve the FIT, and they will still be paying a FIT to rooftop panel owners of well more than double the actual cost of generating grid power, and the pay back period of the rooftop system exceeds the life of those panels.

      What it tells me is that at parity, then they will never be paid back in the life of the system, without both subsidies, the original one for the fitment and then the FIT.

      And if it’s an off grid solution with battery backup for out of hours supply, then you can multiply it by a factor of three to five times.

      Incidentally, want another totally useless fact. If the average (currently 2.2KW) rooftop system was to generate power at its best case for the full 25 years, it is the same power total as what is delivered from Bayswater in just on ….. (wait for it) ….. one and a half minutes with all four units running.

      Tony.

      40

    • #
      Uzurbrain

      California has the worst property tax program of any state I have lived in (6). How much are they going to tax homeowners for on that new property (Solar Panels)?
      Now, add in that the assessed value of your home has increased by at least the value of those panels, More taxes.
      Don’t forget Insurance. A good solar panel system is going to cost about 10% of the purchase price of your home. Thus your insurance will probably also go up another 10%b especially since it is on the outside of the house, is subject to hail damage, and increases the probability of fires and also increases the fire damage – harder to get into the attic through the roof to bent the heat and help put out the fire.
      Not sure how much all of these are but they sure are going to decrease any “earnings” from your solar panels.
      And now CA is talking about “Zero-Net-Energy” homes. You get to pay for twice as much insulation, sealing, etc, to “save” 10% more energy. It will also be a condition for obtaining any government backed home loan. And you still need to buy a solar panel. – One sure way to increase the price of homes and keep people out of CA.

      00

  • #
    pat

    read all.

    ***even though fossil-fuel-based plants will be required for years to come to ensure there is no interruption in electricity supplies!!!

    also note comments by Herbert Bodner at the end about “UNCONTROLLED decline”. at some point, politicians will have to answer for this madness:

    24 Aug:Financial Times: Chris Bryant: European industrial groups hit by push to renewable energy
    After years of painstaking development, Siemens was triumphant in 2011 when its new H-class gas turbine,
    the world’s largest and most efficient, went into regular operation at an Eon power plant in Irsching, Bavaria.
    But in March this year, Eon said it planned to shut down the turbine in 2016 — because German laws that
    prioritise solar and wind energy in the electricity grid mean it is left switched off much of the time and
    has no prospect of operating profitably…
    ***German utilities are reluctant to invest in new fossil power technology because their existing coal and gas units operate well below capacity on sunny and windy days. Surplus German electricity is exported at low cost, which has also deterred new power plant investment in neighbouring countries such as Poland, industry officials say.
    Furthermore, across continental Europe a combination of weak power demand, increasing energy efficiency and an uncertain regulatory environment has weighed on spending on conventional power generation, ***even though fossil-fuel-based plants will be required for years to come to ensure there is no interruption in electricity supplies…
    ***Gas turbine demand has been hard hit in Europe because it was cheaper to burn coal imported from the US after the shale revolution there…
    Siemens has sold 75 of its top-of-the-range H-Class turbines since 2011, but primarily in the US, South Korea and Egypt; it has sold only three in Europe, including two in Germany…
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a75466b0-4656-11e5-b3b2-1672f710807b.html

    50

  • #
    Paul Vaughan

    100% guaranteed this distorts 101-level sun-climate relations:

    http://s1.postimg.org/thgs72a7j/IPO_BIAS_ERSSTV4_HADNMAT2_ICOADSSST2_5_CLIPART.png

    ERSSTv3b2 got too close to revealing sun-climate DNA so they found a way to nuke it with a mirror trick.

    Since the release of ERSSTv4 anyone trusting NOAA on climate change is a naive fool.

    Whether it’s ignorance or deception it’s dark and it’s devilish and it’s due to be fired without mercy.

    50

  • #
    Ceetee

    Slightly OT but somehow vaguely pertinent, I’ve just been listening to a radio interview with Helen Clark, New Zealands’ gift to international pluralist orthodoxy (sorry) compliments of the UN. It struck me that people like her and those pushing this crusade (Clarke is one herself) are driven by their prejudice and captive by blinkered bias. For her truth is devised and complimentary to her ingrained ideals. It’s time we held people to account to the standards that we hold, especially when they make demands from us because if we don’t, aren’t we just perpetuating the problem?. This applies to this particular scientific debate. This is why people like myself are so riled by this issue. Far too many smart people have raised valid red flags that even I can understand.The issues raised by Jo here are as plain as the nose on your face. We are paying people to devise ways of lying to us. Cut the funding……now. Make it a political issue.
    People are angry, is it any wonder that someone like Trump could make so much headway. So much to be angry about, so little leadership.

    81

    • #
      Manfred

      Ceetee, I managed a few minutes of that interview before looking for massive doses of stemetil. Congratulations on your tenacity. Ms Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme and most powerful woman at the UN prattled on in unfettered Green delusion, aided and abetted by the woman radio interviewer who acted as the simpleton organ grinder.

      The MSM must resume their critical, unbiased and grown-up role of acting as the fourth estate. So far, they seem incestuously self-absorbed, vague and delinquent. Soon, they must sense the obvious disconnect between modeled climate policy and empirical observation, particularly when they find their salaries insufficient to maintain their latte lifestyles AND simultaneously pay their power bills.

      51

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Ceetee & Manfred thumbs up x 1,000, extremely well said!

      20

  • #
    William Astley

    The suppression of scientific data that disproves CAGW will end when there is unexplained abrupt cooling of the planet. It will be interesting to see the politicians abandon AGW and the green scams and to watch the cult of CAGW try to explain how the entire scientific basis of AGW has incorrect.

    There are piles and piles of observational data and analysis results that support the assertion that majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes not the increase in atmospheric CO2. If that assertion is correct, global warming is reversible. The past cyclic warming and cooling was not caused by changes in atmospheric CO2.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
    “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
    …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. …The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature, 2012,doi:10.1038/nature11391), reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD (William: Same periodicity of cyclic warming and cooling in the Northern hemisphere), measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. …."

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: The Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years. There was abrupt cooling 11,900 years ago (Younger Dryas abrupt cooling period when the planet went from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 75% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade and there was abrupt cooling 8200 years ago during the 8200 BP climate 'event').

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

    120

  • #
    Andrew Richards

    For many/most people (including myself) it was always very difficult to imagine how an entire population could imbibe the warped rhetoric of A. Hitler and the National Socialists. The catastrophic man made global warming shyster-ism is just a modern day ‘suspend-your-disbelief’ equivalent. Where was the skepticism? Amazing how many numerate scientists swallowed this pap!!! I personally have known many. Shame on them. Shame. The human condition is more flawed than I had hitherto realised.

    120

  • #
    pat

    was planning to excerpt Figueres with Rudd on CNN for a laugh – & u can read her response to Rudd’s question re GLOBAL GOVERNANCE at the link;
    however, Stern running off his mouth trumps anything Figueres had to say. as for Rudd, u couldn’t get more stiff unless u were dead:

    Transcript: 28 Aug: CNN: Kevin Rudd with PROFESSOR LORD NICHOLAS STERN, CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT & Christiana Figueres, U.N. executive director for climate change
    RUDD TO STERN: You at the Grantham Institute recently put out a report on, given current policy by governments around the world, what is likely to be the temperature outcome for the century ahead.
    Where does that now stand?
    Have you revised your figures?
    How bad is it looking?
    How good is it looking?
    STERN: We’ve been looking at the promises that different countries have been making as to where they’re likely to be in 2030. We’re probably coming in it at greenhouse gas emissions of around 55 billion tons of CO2 equivalent a year in 2030, if you look what people are promising, maybe a little more.
    Now that’s a lot less than it would otherwise have been in so-called business as usual. That’s really worth having.
    But it’s a lot more than what we need to be if we were going to hold to 2 degrees.
    And let’s remember that if we are headed for 3.5 or 4 degrees, perhaps we can shave that down a bit on this kind of path, but that is very dangerous territory.
    We haven’t been at 3 degrees Centigrade average global surface temperature about to the end of the 19th century. We haven’t been there for around three million years. We haven’t been above four…
    RUDD: Did you say three million years?
    STERN: I said three million.
    RUDD: That’s quite a ways back.
    STERN: We have been here as Homo sapiens for 250,000. And really, our civilizations are in the last 8,000, 9,000 years, since the world warmed up, after the end of the Ice Age.
    That kind of temperature increase is pretty similar to the temperature increase that we have seen since the last Ice Age.
    And we know — can see just how radical a change that could involve. — extreme weather events, desertification.
    Probably most of Southern Europe would look like the Sahara Desert. Most of the snows off the Rockies, California’s source of water, Bangladesh underwater, the poorest areas hit strongest and earliest.
    These kinds of temperature increases are just enormous and would rewrite where we could live, where the rivers are, where the seashores are, what the weather is like. The reasons we live where we are would be rewritten. Hundreds of
    millions would have to move. And you couldn’t there would be conflict and you couldn’t turn off the reason, because it takes an awfully long time for the climate to change.
    In what, 100 years, is very fast in human history. But once that started, it’s very difficult to turn back.
    Those are the kinds of risks we’re playing for. The science is crystal clear. It’s 200 years old. It’s simple physics.
    It’s telling us that these are the risks which we face.
    RUDD: Lord Stern, thank you for joining us on the program here at CNN…
    RUDD TO FIGUERES: So is there some way in which you can sort of cut to the chase and try and give people insight in terms of what this means in terms of future
    ***GLOBAL GOVERNANCE of climate change?…
    http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1508/28/ampr.01.html

    60

  • #
    gai

    Dilley’s CV
    NWS is NOAA’s National Weather Service and warmists are now saying he did not work for NOAA. (They will grasp at any straw.)

    …Prior to forming GWO in 1992, Mr. Dilley began his weather career as a U.S. Air Force meteorologist. After leaving the Air Force with the rank of Captain, Mr. Dilley joined the National Weather Service (NWS). Duties as a senior forecaster included; preparing marine forecasts, aviation forecasts, general public forecasts, issuing weather warnings, monitoring severe weather events, and continuing to develop his ideas concerning mechanisms that control climate cycles. Other duties and assignments included; Quality Control Officer overseeing five National Weather Service Offices, and quality controlling meteorological programs at two Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pilot weather briefing centers, and the meteorologists at the Northeast Region FAA Control Center. Mr. Dilley was also Meteorologist in Charge at a National Weather Service office, and worked closely with area Emergency Management offices during severe weather events, such as hurricanes and their impacts on the region, and spring flooding potentials.

    http://www.globalweatheroscillations.com/#!david-dilley/cpfa

    60

    • #
      nutso fasst

      Please link to claims that David Dilley did not work for NOAA. I haven’t found any.

      Mr. Dilley was an employee of the NWS before NOAA was formed. It is a bit misleading to refer to him as an ex-NOAA employee, even though it may be technically accurate.

      Mr. Dilley has not worked for the NWS since 1988, which means he has never been a skeptic “hidden in the ranks of NOAA.” Global Weather Oscillations (GWO) is David Dilley’s company. You are quoting Mr. Dilley’s own self-promotion.

      10

  • #
    tom0mason

    Just as I predicted back in December, 2015 will be hottest year ever!

    20

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘The average temperature increase will be so much higher than the previous record, set in 2014, that it should melt away any remaining arguments about the so-called “pause” in global warming, which many climate sceptics have promoted as an argument against action on climate change.’

      The author appears unaware that its an El Nino year and not technically counted, but obviously in his mind the truth has less attraction than a scary yarn.

      30

  • #
    ROM

    The caravan disappears way into the distance ahead but tail end charlie err! ROM finally manages to get aboard way down at the back!

    Science today whether rightly or wrongly so, is utterly dependent for its very existence upon funding from Big Government.

    So the bureacratic powers that control funding, the all hidden, powerful but completely and no doubt deliberately low profile bureaucrats who draw up the funding proposals for dissemination out to scientists and university departments to compete for the available funding and who therefore totally control the direction that a branch of science is taking might be the real targets we should be tearing into and demanding answers from.

    The NOAA example below of the bureaucrat’s very firm funding requirements and the demand for results that must be assured and provided by any scientists and departments seeking access to that funding must just about guarantee the results of any funded research projects will provide the results the funding bureaucrats demand as the quite usual boiler plate funding document in the example below from the NOAA outlining its requirements that will have to be met by any scientists or team that gets access to the funding for that program or project.

    We all poke one heck of a lot of mostly deserved scorn at climate science and its inhabitants generally but what are the guys and gals who just want to do real science such as those examples Jo has quite rightly posted about in our headline post. what are they up against within the current all powerful, no responsibility at all, no comebacks, no checks on personal biases in setting funding requirements, Big Government bureacrat run and bureacrat directed paths that science and scientists are forced to follow if they want continued funding.

    This boiler plate example comes from a WUWT commenter who provided the following URL link to a NOAA funding proposal .
    It was a bit of a shock to myself to see just how constrained and how the outcomes of research funded in this example are almost guaranteed to provide the outcomes that the NOAA bureaucrats who drew this up demanded and wanted, no doubt with a good dose of support their own personal ideological and climate cultist beliefs injected into the funding requirements and the basis on which the funded project will run.

    Grants gov.> search grants > [ 4th down the list ] NOAA-NFA-NFAPO-2014-2003949 > Related documents > Full announcement . [ PDF or ZIP file ] > bottom Page 2 & then page 3 [ PDF ] which reads and I quote ;

    1. Long-term mission goal: Climate Adaptation and Mitigation

    An informed society anticipating and responding to climate and its impacts.

    Projected future climate-related changes include increased global temperatures, melting sea ice and glaciers, rising sea levels, increased frequency of extreme precipitation events, acidification of the oceans, modifications of growing seasons, changes in storm frequency and intensity, air quality, alterations in species’ ranges and migration patterns, earlier snowmelt, increased drought, and altered river flow volumes.
    Impacts from these changes are regionally diverse, and affect numerous sectors related to water, energy, transportation, forestry, tourism, fisheries, agriculture, and human health.
    A changing climate will alter the distribution of water resources and exacerbate human impacts on fisheries and marine ecosystems, which will result in such problems as overfishing, habitat destruction, pollution, changes in species distributions, and excess nutrients in coastal waters.
    Increased sea levels are expected to amplify the effects of other coastal hazards as ecosystem changes increase invasions of non-native species and decrease biodiversity.
    The direct impact of climate change on commerce, transportation, and the economy is evidenced by retreating sea ice in the Arctic, which allows the northward expansion of commercial fisheries and provides increased access for oil and gas development, commerce, and tourism.

    And there you have it folks. a bunch of completely unaccountable anonymous no doubt green voting and anonymous by design,bigoted biased bureaucrats laying down very precisely the whole and complete pseudo scientific base on which any research funded under this project will be based and which very tightly constrains the outcomes of any research they in their wisdom decide to fund.
    All set in in a funding concrete and based on nothing more that what appears to be their own highly biased opinions on the vaporous climate change so beloved of those who have decided they know whats best for the world and its seven and half billion human beings.

    So to stay in business scientists sell their principles and their ethics for this mess of cold indigestible Big Government bureaucratically cooked climate change porridge and we, the tax payers who are forced to funds all this crap, get scientific sounding crap of no perceivable benefit or use to man or beast in return.

    80

  • #
    Uzurbrain

    Several years ago (not many) the state legislature wanted to GIVE the state Agriculture College a ~$50,000 grant to study if the droughts followed a predictable cycle. That’s it, just see if there was a cycle that the farmers could use to determine what to plant when. The board of regents shot it down. They felt this study could/would impact the university negatively if it revealed any findings contrary to the AGW theory. Thus, the farmers are still using “The Farmers Almanac” and this is the 21st Century Questions?

    http://www.salon.com/2013/10/24/nebraska_approves_climate_denying_study_scientists_refuse_to_conduct_it/
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/nebraska-climate-scientists-heads-stuck-in-the-topsoil/
    http://www.omaha.com/news/state-climate-change-study-may-go-begging-for-scientists/article_0a3fc1ab-6103-5841-9e07-b4cdb4a1d373.html#state-climate-change-study-may-go-begging-for-scientists

    And they are teaching the new AGW Cult members

    10

  • #
    Paul Vaughan

    There’s hard proof that NOAA is corrupting the record of natural oscillations:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/former-noaa-meteorologist-tells-of-years-of-censorship-to-hide-the-effect-of-natural-cycles/#comment-1740525

    If you want to verify that remarkably trivial fact for yourself, brace yourself because you’ll need the following skills:
    1. ability to subtract one column of numbers from another in a spreadsheet.

    That’s it. Literally. No further skill is needed to verify the dead simple fact.

    Are you willing to bluntly call NOAA out on this blatant unethical distortion of recorded nature??

    So far they have not even acknowledged the fatal error. They’ve been informed of it and admitted nothing. It takes mere seconds to verify the fatal error, so they’re unnecessarily accruing additional reputation damage by not retracting corrupted v4 without delay.

    These people are due for a firm lesson on integrity and the community is remiss if we don’t vigilantly see it through all the way to completion. I advise the community to organize for this historic event. It’s a 100% guaranteed success.

    It’s so clear-cut and simple they’ll only succeed in evading correction if the community relents, so I would advise them that if their aim is to continue facing this deviously their best option is to pay off climate blog hosts to not report the fatal error. (They don’t need to worry about MSM because MSM & MSM audience don’t have a clue about how to interpret the simple graph.)

    Because the fatal error is so simple and so effortlessly verified, NOAA’s delays in admitting the fatal error and promptly retracting v4 are scandalous. One gets the impression they’re delaying until after the upcoming climate talks, but the negative impact on their reputation is more severe this way. Delaying was a short-sighted, ill-advised choice. It’s guaranteed to harden and mature the cynicism directed their way and they’ll never be able to recover from that.

    It’s clear that their leaders are choosing hubris and blunt force over integrity, so that narrows the range of viable counter-strategies. We know with 100% certainly that they aren’t playing fair in response to a dead simple, effortlessly verified, 100% administratively defensible grievance, so again: that narrows the range of viable counter-strategies that are sensibly applicable in dealing with this particular adversary. It’s pretty creepy. It’s crystal clear that the circumstance demands a high office firing (it’s not the muzzled workers’ fault) and we have to settle for no less since the offense is so over-the-top in-your-face hostile & egregious.

    I recommend that someone check into their whistle-blower protection rules. No doubt there are good people of integrity on the inside who are incredibly frustrated with their fatally naive &/or incompetent “leadership”. Some of them might want to report the failure formally, but I can’t imagine it being safe for them to do so given the darkly devilish indicators we’re seeing in clear focus.

    40

  • #
    sophocles

    My research into the research since 2003, led me to the firm conclusion five years ago that we were being gamed, that CAGW was a s`k’am and a boondoggle, and CO2 causing global warming, in the absence of natural cycles, was pseudo-science.

    Now the truths are starting to emerge. Sure, Mr Dilley’s statements can be dismissed as `hearsay’ by lack of `evidence.’ Trouble is, we don’t need to look far for evidence. There are `hockeysticks’ everywhere. Some have not been withdrawn but others have been left despite their savage maulings and debunking. The original, from that eminent scientist, statistician and mortar bomb evader, Dr. Michael Mann’s seminal erasure of the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age was an early warning, and I regard it, among many others, as support for Mr. Dilley’s allegations.

    There’s no point expending our energy on what is now known to be false. We need to carry the fight directly to the National Green Parties and pillory them. For a start.

    20

  • #

    “some people in the audience may be uncomfortable hearing Mr. Dilley’s lecture”

    This is a telling comment, illustrating the argument that “climate science” is closer to “social science” than it is to science. The “uncomfortable” argument is common among students in America, who try to protect themselves and others against ideas they disagree with by creating “safe spaces”. Cowardly academics and administrators capitulate. The cultural Marxist assault on freedom and reason continues.

    30

  • #
    Paul Vaughan

    I’m putting forward a serious challenge to the International climate discussion community to confront and correct the distortion agency we see coming from the US:

    Assignment#1 takes 2 minutes and can be done by everyone who’s serious about demanding integrity:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-13/comment-page-1/#comment-106428

    Background info on context:

    http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/26/suppression-of-science-former-noaa-meteorologist-says-employees-were-cautioned-not-to-talk-about-natural-cycles/comment-page-1/#comment-1036564

    30

  • #

    [...] website called JoNova has posted an article about the skewing of science to support the political theory of global [...]

    20

  • #

    [...] : http://joannenova.com.au/ (1) Post Views: 0 (adsbygoogle=window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});(function(d, s, id){ var js, [...]

    00