Posted by: Grant | November 24, 2014

Google Tackles “Climate” – It Needs A Miracle

~meI could have told them that!
Meanwhile the futile attempts so far to stop the weather changing by “the left”  only attack the poor and disadvantaged at home and abroad and make fools of the proponents.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Spectrum magazine needs congratulating for having the guts to publish this realistic assessment despite the huge research lobby that has grown up around it - well done. Engineers do – Scientists dream.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change
Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?
By Ross Koningstein & David Fork
Posted 18 Nov 2014 | 20:00 GMT

~scientist” …Starting in 2007, Google committed significant resources to tackle the world’s climate and energy problems. A few of these efforts proved very successful: Google deployed some of the most energy-efficient data centers in the world, purchased large amounts of renewable energy, and offset what remained of its carbon footprint.

Google’s boldest energy move was an effort known as RE<C, which aimed to develop renewable energy sources that would generate electricity more cheaply than coal-fired power plants do. The company announced that Google would help promising technologies mature by investing in start-ups and conducting its own internal R&D. Its aspirational goal: to produce a gigawatt of renewable power more cheaply than a coal-fired plant could, and to achieve this in years, not decades.

Unfortunately, not every Google moon shot leaves Earth orbit. In 2011, the company decided that RE<C was not on track to meet its target and shut down the initiative. The two of us, who worked as engineers on the internal RE<C projects, were then forced to reexamine our assumptions.

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope—but that doesn’t mean the planet is doomed…. “

Posted by: Grant | November 24, 2014

Channel Nine Winners

melKochie2With the exception of a few resident greenies, Aussie Channel Nine TV network have always reported “Climate Change” well, lately reflecting the backlash.
Channel Seven on the other hand, well, they seem to have backed a real loser.

“Do you believe in man-made global warming?

The final tally  was:    Yes: 38,311     No: 84,240

Nine poll shows 69% of Australians “don’t believe” in man-made global warming « JoNova

Posted by: Grant | November 17, 2014

G20 2014 – Climate C. Dead – Just won’t Lie Down

Capture-1The Australian and Canadian Prime Ministers, et. al., nearly succeeded in keeping Climate Change out of the final Communiqué.

The lame duck US president forced it back on again - “Congress, Congress? We don’ need no stinkin’ Congress”

His deafening silence on the issue during the recent US mid term election campaign would indicate an on-going cynical contempt for an electorate that have clearly spoken on the issue.

This says it all really -
While he supported The US President, and insisted that “Climate” be put on the agenda – here – The Indian Prime Minister put his hand out for some of the $100billion p.a. bribe promised by Obama, muttered platitudes about Ghandi and the environment and stayed on in Brisbane to sign up to buy 11 billion tonnes of our thermal coal! -
Indian mining giant Adani signs $1bn deal to develop Carmichael mine in central Queensland
Business News

Business and Finance News   The Courier-Mail

G20 Leaders’ Communiqué Brisbane Summit, 15-16 November 2014

” …19. We support strong and effective action to address climate change. Consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its agreed outcomes, our actions will support sustainable development, economic growth, and certainty for business and investment. We will work together to adopt successfully a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC that is applicable to all parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris in 2015. We encourage parties that are ready to communicate their intended nationally determined contributions well in advance of COP21 (by the first quarter of 2015 for those parties ready to do so). We reaffirm our support for mobilising finance for adaptation and mitigation, such as the Green Climate Fund…. “

Weird speech makes Obama odd man out 
The Australian  |
November 22, 2014 12:00AM
Paywalled – full text here -,d.dGc

” …Obama’s self-indulgent folly was in striking contrast to the masterful performances of China’s President Xi Jinping and India’s new Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Xi and Modi have both achieved almost everything they wanted from Asia’s season of summits. Obama has achieved almost nothing.

The other big winner from this summit season was Abbott. Despite the damage Obama inflicted on him, Abbott emerged from APEC, the East Asia Summit, the G20 summit which he hosted, and the separate bilateral visits of so many world leaders, with huge structural wins…. “

And the Guardian throws in the Towel (must have finally noticed the polls!) -


Posted by: Grant | November 12, 2014

China US Climate Non-Deal

CCapture-1hina has indulged the lame duck US President with a meaningless “deal” on “emissions”

US and China strike climate change deal 
Business Spectator

The deadline for Mr Obama’s new pledge is in more than a decade’s time but he only has two years left in his presidency and faces a Congress controlled by Republicans in both houses, which will make passing crucial environmental legislation more difficult.”

“Climate change does not feature on the agenda at the Brisbane summit, which will bring together the largest economies in the world and the biggest emitters.

Climate change was on the agenda at the previous eight G20 summits.”

It is so amusing to see the AUS ABC greenies getting all excited by this non-deal.

Obama has been reduced to making policy on the run abroad.

The Congress will actively act to resist Obama’s climate change folly. It will certainly not approve any measures. The opinion polls clearly show the public don’t care.
China has not committed even to a specific amount of cuts, instead just setting a vague goal to peak emissions by 2030 or earlier.



EDITORIAL: China’s climate con is another Obama scam
President’s greatest foreign ‘breakthrough’ would cripple the U.S. economy
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES – - Wednesday, November 12, 2014

” …What this agreement does is provide convenient cover for the Environmental Protection Agency as it prepares to take unprecedented unilateral action to shut down power plants with new rules on ozone, cross-state air pollution and power plant “greenhouse gas” emissions.

If these rules are allowed to take effect, a pummeled economy will take still greater hits. Carbon dioxide will take a dive along with the economy. To what end? Mr. Obama says “it puts us on a path to achieving the deep emissions reductions by advanced economies that the scientific community says is necessary to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change.”

Mr. Obama doesn’t enumerate what said “effects” are, and for a reason. There aren’t any. The planet hasn’t warmed for 18 years, the seas aren’t rising, there haven’t been any killer hurricanes since 2005. None of the predictions of climate doom have come true, or even close.

China’s promise isn’t new. The Cato Institute’s Patrick J. Michaels observes that China pledged to reduce carbon dioxide at a United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen five years ago. China understands the deal, like the talk, is meaningless. The members of China’s Central Committee can laugh at the gum-chewing rube who has thrown away America’s global economic advantage. The Chinese leaders are grateful, of course. He has given them the opportunity to catch up.”

Posted by: Grant | November 4, 2014

Historic – BBC Balances Its Reporting

To the Greenies at the the AUS ABC – please note – new word - i-m-p-a-r-t-i-a-l – it’s in your Charter – look it up - here -


The BBC have been dragged kickin&screamin’ to impartially report Climate Change in the UK.
In this report, Benny Peiser of GWPF ( ) adroitly sidesteps 2 landmines laid by the sneering presenter and then makes a fool of him (and the cliché video overlay!) with calm, reasoned, sensible, argument – refreshing to see.


More Videos from GWPF
UTube playlist

Posted by: Grant | November 3, 2014

New UN IPCC Report – FAIL

Same old same old.

The UN IPCC continue to parley a large increase in a trivial GHG, and the perfectly normal increase in global temperature since the Dalton Minimum, into an urgent problem.

They still lack definitive science to confirm the hypothesis that global temperature will somehow agitate the atmosphere and cause “extreme weather” while it also calms the atmosphere and causes drought and heatwaves.

They maintain their superstitious fears with selective data, statistics, modelling, anecdote and by a perverse definition of science by a Leftist political consensus.

They do acknowledge their massive failure to accurately take “natural forcings” into account in their prognostications, but fail to correct it.

In the face of stalled temperatures they have switched to an energy metric, the solar/global energy balance and the ocean energy sink.


Synthesis Report – SYR AR5
1 November 2014

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. “
But did humans cause it?
Since they started the Global Warming scare in the late 1980′s the Globe has continued to warm slightly and unremarkably following the Little Ice Age or Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830).
Records began in Europe when the thermometer was invented around 1750 . 
At present the Globe is hovering - since 1998 – at around 0.2oC above the average since satellites began global measurements in 1979 -
A short period of Arctic ice decline has been countered by a large increase in Antarctic Sea Ice.
Sea level has continued the long slow rise seen since the last ice age – so what?

” …Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m (Figure 1.1). The rate of sea-level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia…. “
There is simply no acurate way of measuring sea-level rise to that accuracy over that time period. Are they seriously suggesting they know, for sure, what the sea level rise was, for instance, from 1001–1110?!

They try to minimise and explain away the massive failure of “111″ of their “114″ climate models – (actually they were ALL wrong) ” …For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations…”
” …Natural internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change. The difference between models and observations may also contain contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (the latter dominated by the effects of aerosols)….

and they say -
“…The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since AR4. Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea-level rise; and it is extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate…. “

Nobody has ever measured the amount of bad weather over the whole Earth before the modern era and there is no worrying trend for any metric in the modern era. Citing isolated bad weather as a global trend is spurious. Lies, damned lies and statistics. There is no actual science for the Causes-all-the-bad-weather Theory.
Climate, of course, always has and always will change.

It is fundamental flaw in Green philosopy that the Earth is perfect and unchanging and we can blame humans for any changes.


Aussie Reaction
Where is “Climate Change” in the popular culture?  This exchange would indicate it is a dead dog,

This Aussie morning TV “Today” host brings up the subject with former ALP numbers man, Graham I-was-never-an-alarmist Richardson.

And hasn’t Mark Butler changed his tune since the ALP lost government? They were going to repeal the carbon tax BUT only so they could go straight to a price on carbon – oh – so they then vigorously opposed the repeal of it - Mmmm. 

Speaking of dead dogs, this was the attitude of Mark Butler in campaign mode as Climate Change Minister Oct. 2013 -


Posted by: Grant | October 31, 2014

Aussie Emissions Follies.

Politics finds its own level.
Nobody is alarmed anymore, but politically nobody is going to tell the million householders with useless Chinese solar panels on their roofs that they were made fools of.

al-gore2Al Gore rushed down-under, leaving a huge trail of “carbon pollution” behind his executive jet, to shore up the world’s first carbon tax.

He failed.

The Australian Government have now implemented their own emissions reductions scheme, the Direct Action Plan.

The Direct Action Plan spreads a harmless fixed amount of money around the industries who reduce their “emissions” and bid for a share of it.

“The Left” have consoled themselves that they have saved the furniture.

“The Right” have congratulated themselves on their re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The Government still have the big problem of the mandatory Renewable Energy Target which caused the skyrocketing power bills. “The Left” have the problem of stuffing more huge power bills down the throat of the now unconvinced electorate. 

October 30 2014(6:51am)
A pretend review in exchange for a pretend fix to a pretend problem

AndruBoltFollow me closely here. The Abbott Government will pretend to consider introducing an emissions trading scheme in exchange for Clive Palmer supporting its plan to pretend to tackle what it pretends is a problem that it pretends can be stopped:

Welcome to the wacky world of global warming:… “

” …In June, standing alongside warmist guru Al Gore, he promised not to back the government unless it agreed to legislate for an emissions trading scheme:

CLIVE PALMER: In voting against the abolition of the Climate Change Authority, Palmer United senators will move an amendment to establish an emissions trading scheme. This scheme would only become effective once Australia’s main trading partners also take action to establish such a scheme…

AL GORE:  I have appreciated the opportunity I have had to meet with Clive Palmer and the discussions that I’ve had with him, and I congratulate him and his party on this outstanding statement that you’ve just heard.

But now:

Four months after describing Direct Action as a “token gesture” and a waste of money, Mr Palmer announced he would support the government’s $2.55 billion emissions reduction fund, the centrepiece of the plan. He capitulated on his demand for the introduction of an emissions trading scheme that would be zero rated until major international competitors moved on climate change… … “


bernie Poor Bernie what will his Climate Change Authority inquiry into an ETS do? Whatever the theory, there is now no real “Trading” of emissions. The price collapsed, as did the market, as did the trading.

Carbon credits market is neither free nor worth anything
Joanne Nova |
The Australian  |
July 31, 2013 12:00AM

Posted by: Grant | October 25, 2014

EU Reaches “Binding Agreement” – NOT!

Never letting the facts get in the way of their “Climate Change” reporting, AUS ABC “Lateline”, in a short, dutiful, item claims that EU leaders have reached a binding agreement to cut emissions by 40% - - WRONG!

The EU is not a sovereign state and they are very unlikely to expel any members for non-compliance because they will all fail to meet the target and they all know it.
Germany, the largest member just got rid of its nuclear power plants and is significantly boosting its coal power generation because “renewables” have failed them.

This more professional assessment -

EU leaders adopt ‘flexible’ energy and climate targets for 2030
Published: 24/10/2014 – 06:42 | Updated: 24/10/2014 – 12:14

- points out -

A special “flexibility clause” was added to the final text”

“the (EU) Council can revisit the targets anytime” (French President)

“But the efficiency and renewables targets were watered down”

“The EU level target is not legally binding at the national level or EU level and will be reviewed in 2020 “having in mind” a 30% EU-level target, according to the summit conclusions.”

“The renewables target of at least 27% is binding at EU-wide level but, after opposition from countries such as the United Kingdom, it will not be binding at national level.”

“the 40% emissions reduction target is going to be broken down to individual member states based on their GDP per capita”

“Free allowances of carbon emissions to poorer countries will continue”

“”I said that we will not return from this summit with new [financial] burdens, and indeed there are no new burdens,” Kopacz (Polish PM) told Polish reporters.”

The EU were in the 195 nations who all solemnly entered into the “binding” Kyoto Protocol in 1995 – this is what happened -

global total

Posted by: Grant | October 18, 2014

Professional Journalism 101

For the cheap sensationalism reporters and editors in the Mass Media, this is how a spectacular scientific claim should be reported.

Someone at Lockheed Martin has claimed a Fusion Reactor breakthrough.

Here, Channel Nine gets the story and goes to other Fusion researchers who point out how difficult that has proven over five decades and urge caution – “They have an interesting design for a Fusion Reactor, but there are many interesting designs”.

This has NEVER, repeat NEVER, been done with Global Warming, now Climate Change. The plausible, entertaining, little anecdotes from Green activists are just published completely unchallenged – why complicate a good sensationalist doomsday story with any inconvenient facts and debate?!



Posted by: Grant | October 17, 2014

Catalyst – See The Greenie Squirm.

Squirm Greenie squirm.

AUS ABC have let us down very badly on “Climate Change”.

Their science flagship, “Catalyst” now attempts to explain away the lack of Global Warming.

Waiting, waiting, waiting….


Thursday, 16 October 2014
Global Warming Pause

The above piece is notable, if not historic, in that it actually presents a counter argument to Climate Change instead of dismissing it outright as denial.

It otherwise completely fails to explain the collapse of oversimplified claims made by the UNIPCC that “natural forcings” are too weak, too long term or too short term to be having any significant effect on global temperature and could thus be ignored by the Climate Change Alarmists.

The 15+ year “hiatus” in the face of huge “emissions” now proves that “natural forcings” cannot be ignored.  The Alarmists have a fundamental problem.
They cannot dismiss “natural forcings”, but they cannot quantify them to take them into account.
They have modelled and “projected” a system that they did not and still do not fully understand.

They cannot even claim that this is a “hiatus”. “Natural forcings” may just go on neutralising Global Warming for decades or centuries to come.

The viewer will not understand this feeble Catalyst attempt because it is pure obfuscation, just the latest in a long list of feeble explanations of an epic failure.
Read them all here and find links which debunk them.

Monday, July 28, 2014
Updated list of 52 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming

“1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
19) “Ahistorical media”
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations
30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific [paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]
31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”
32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”
36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry's take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]
39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”
40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:
The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”
41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:
The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.”
[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they "surprisingly warm" the climate]
42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:
“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis]
43) Ocean Variability:
“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the "pause"] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.”
44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:
” I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – Josh Willis
45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:
“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the 'pause'] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler]
46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:
“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler]
47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both
“this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler]
48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:
 It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]
49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:
” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]
50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway:
“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”
51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]
[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] ["pause" due to natural variability]
52)  ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend

Older Posts »



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 152 other followers