Posted by: Grant | August 21, 2011

Catchup 8 – Old Posts From Bigblog Site

WA Liberal Party Votes For R. Commission Into “The Science”

Sunday 21 August, 2011 – 10:52 by Grant in Default

views (69)

15 August, 2011 · 9:48 am
WA Liberal Party State Conference Motions – UPDATE

The WA Liberal Party debated and heavily passed a motion that was revealed on Saturday, that a royal commission should be held into the science of climate change.

The motion was rubbished before the conference by Colin Barnett, with the Premier saying that the move was ‘not sensible’.

Liberal MP for Moore, Mal Washer, has criticised his fellow party members for supporting the motion, calling it ‘utter lunacy’.



The SMH buried it here at the end of the article….

Gillard shines in Labor gloom
Phillip Coorey
August 15, 2011.

” …Yesterday, the WA Liberal Party defied the wishes of the Premier, Colin Barnett, and passed a motion at its state conference calling for a royal commission into the science underpinning climate change.

Despite Coalition policy recognising that humans contribute to climate change, the grass-roots motion was seconded by the federal Liberal MP, Dennis Jensen, who does not believe in climate change. It has divided the WA federal Liberals.”


The AUS ABC Disgraced itself AGAIN…

Is the ABC biased? Do we even need to ask?

The state Liberals (the conservative party, who are in government in this state of Western Australia) voted overwhelmingly in favor of a Royal Commission on climate change science.

Now that is a news story all by itself. It could have had headlines like: “Liberals demand climate scientists be put to the test”, “WA Liberals demand answers from Climate Science”.

Instead the ABC makes its headlines from almost the only person in the room who disagreed:… “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Stuff I Missed During The Week

Sunday 21 August, 2011 – 10:46 by Grant in Default

views (15)

Australia will send $57bn a year overseas by 2050, Treasury modelling shows
Terry McCrann
August 20, 201112:00AM

” ….It’s astonishing that a government could blithely commit to throwing away — it’s not even like foreign aid — $57bn a year of our national income.
It’s even more astonishing that the formerly credible Treasury department could conclude that throwing away that money every year would have almost no negative impact on our economy.
And even more startling yet that all this is of no interest to the media or the broader commenteriat.
I am not aware in the weeks that have elapsed and all the hundreds of thousands of words and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of learned commentaries on the issue, that anyone other than Henry Ergas in this paper on August 3, has even noted, far less discussed, this bizarre and simply insane aspect of the carbon dioxide tax. And Ergas didn’t quite take it the level I’m discussing…. “


If you are wondering why your Super has failed you, it could be Greenies. This has already happened in AUS. A lot of Super has gone into wind turbines.

Monday, February 01, 2010

” …Guess what? The man responsible for looking after the fat pensions of the boys and girls at the BBC is a climate change fanatic, and he is part of an international group of investment managers who bust a gut to invest in ‘climate change’ schemes. He’s called Peter Dunscombe, and he runs the £8.2bn corporation pension fund, advising trustees on a day-to-day basis about their investments…. “

” …Update: I’ve been going through the latest BBC Pensions Trust report, and it reveals that Helen Boaden, who is the overall boss of the BBC’s news and current affairs operation, was appointed to the trust in 2008. So the woman who tells environment reporters such as Roger Harrabin and Richard Black that the science is settled also works to maximise the returns of the pension fund with Peter Dunscombe. I thought that needed spelling out fully, just in case any subtleties might be missed…. “


The “Scientific American” Greenie below mentioned the New York summer heatwave as Global Warming, so I must mention this astounding piece of Freezing Cold in NZ.
This is not surprising. Sun Spots have gone very, very quiet. disappeared in fact, and Climatologists are worried about Global Cooling for the next 2 decades at least.

Freak snowfall has NZ reeling
August 16, 2011.

” …Heavy snow was falling in Wellington and was starting to settle in the city. There were also reports of snow falling in New Plymouth, Rotorua and parts of South Auckland.
The MetService head forecaster, Peter Kreft, said the polar blast was ”of the order of a 50-year” event and warned it could last for days. The level of snow that had fallen in Wellington had not been seen since at least the 1970s, he said…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Irish Scientist.

Friday 19 August, 2011 – 06:04 by Grant in Default

views (106)

How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature
By Stephen Wilde – Mon Apr 25, 12:08 am

” …I think that there is a plausible mechanism whereby those tiny solar changes could be amplified enough by natural features of the Earth’s climate system to achieve the observed outcome. This article also shows how the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has failed to account for the various real world observations that have been accumulating since the late 1990s. The ideas set out in this article provide a potential solution and progress my earlier New Climate Model found here by focusing on the effect of solar variability…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Green Jobs – NOT

Friday 19 August, 2011 – 06:02 by Grant in Default

views (15)

Germany’s green power push cools in the face of cutbacks, competition
Graham Lloyd
August 18, 201112:00AM

” …And Phoenix, a solar photovoltaic company, has reported a 60 per cent sales slump to E141m.

Not all of Germany’s solar companies are in the red but it has been a dramatic turnaround for a sector that has always had a special status in the country that has led the world in rooftop solar rollout.

But as demand increases, production of solar technology is increasingly moving to China which will soon account for 85 per cent of all solar-cell production.

Germany is still the world’s largest solar market, with about 54 per cent of all systems installed, but almost half of all new systems installed in Germany come from Asia.

German manufacturers cannot compete with China on price, but price is not the only problem they face.

The German government can no longer afford to continue its generous rooftop subsidy scheme in the face of falling prices.

The feed-in tariff has been cut from 33c to 28.74c per kilowatt hour, dampening demand.

Meanwhile, German chemical giant Bayer has warned that rising electricity prices may force it to relocate its manufacturing base to China…. “

More Green Jobs – NOT

Previous green job postings.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

NON Scientific American.

Friday 19 August, 2011 – 05:58 by Grant in Default

views (15)

The Greenies at Scientific American have been forced into a debate at last and FAILED dismally.

Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas
In making a case against CO2 as a greenhouse gas, the Galileo Movement relies on irrelevant facts while omitting pertinent ones
By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate  | August 16, 2011 |

” …But carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere do absorb the outgoing long-wave radiation.
So while their concentrations are miniscule, their effect is anything but: If the atmosphere didn’t have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases, New York City would be covered in ice sheets – not sweltering  – on a typical summer afternoon. The globe’s average temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit lower… “

THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE – The lie is in the FACT that the the Earth’s GHG is Water Vapour, on average about 10,000ppm in air compared to CO2 at 390ppm. If “the atmosphere didn’t have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases” The Globe would warm less than 2 degrees. It requires an extremely esoteric computer model and a huge assumption, that CO2 is going to cause a permanent rise in global humidity, to produce the claimed catastrophe.

I won’t dignify this trite pap by refuting it any further.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

PDF – The Lindzen-Choi Paper

Friday 19 August, 2011 – 05:53 by Grant in Default

views (10)

Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
1 Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U. S. A.
2 Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea
(Manuscript received 23 February 2011; revised 22 May 2011; accepted 22 May 2011)
© The Korean Meteorological Society and Springer 2011

Abstract: We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.

Key words: Climate sensitivity, climate feedback, cloud, radiation,

1. Introduction… “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

At Last! Onya Governor Perry!

Thursday 18 August, 2011 – 04:50 by Grant in Default

views (21)

If only our Conservatives can find a way out of their pro-“Climate” mistake.
Let’s have an epiphany – a sudden shock, horror, moment – which requires an “urgent investigation” into the science.
The investigation into “The Science” that the US Congress has had and the AUS Parliament never bothered with.
The triggers for such an inquiry are coming thick and fast now.

Perry and Romney split on global warming
As the primary season kicks into gear, Republican presidential hopefuls are hitting the road and meeting voters in Iowa , New Hampshire and other early primary states.
By Philip Rucker, Thursday, August 18, 1:25 AM

” …Perry goes on to write: “It’s all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight. Al Gore is a prophet all right, a false prophet of a secular carbon cult, and now even moderate Democrats aren’t buying it.”

At his New Hampshire campaign stop on Wednesday morning, Perry said: “I do think global warming has been politicized. … We are seeing almost weekly or even daily scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing our climate to change. Yes, our climate has changed. It has been changing ever since the Earth was formed. But I do not buy into a group of scientists who have, in some cases, have been found to be manipulating data.”…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Excellent Reference Scource

Thursday 18 August, 2011 – 04:46 by Grant in Default

views (14)

SPPI Collection of Papers as of July 2011, UPDATED
Written by SPPI
Wednesday, 03 August 2011 00:00

PDF here –

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

MSM – We’ll Just Try To Ignore Him Then.

Thursday 18 August, 2011 – 04:44 by Grant in Default

views (10)

Here is a distinguished, calm, statesman with a serious, articulate, well reasoned, argument who is just impossible to attack. What do you do when the planet itself is making fools of half your viewers and half the Federal Parliament? Nothing, just ignore it and hope it will go away and leave you alone!

Thank you, President Klaus
by Bob Carter
August 8, 2011

” …During his visit, President Klaus presented lectures on climate change and related matters in Perth, Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, reaching a combined audience of more than 1300 persons. He also reached many thousands more Australians through the television broadcast of his address to the National Press Club in Canberra.

All who attended or have viewed these lectures, including particularly Senators and MPs, received an insightful and dispassionate briefing on the science, economics and politics of the currently “hot” global warming issue. The balanced (and historically wise) advice given by the President contrasts markedly with the alarmist hysteria that accompanies most press discussion of global warming and the government’s related plans to implement a penal carbon dioxide tax, in Australia.

Quadrant Online applauds the IPA for its initiative in hosting President Klaus’ lecture tour.

On behalf of all Australians, we thank the President for his generosity in visiting us and for his inspirational lectures. As a final token of appreciation, we reproduce Professor Bob Carter’s fitting thank you and tribute, which was delivered at President Klaus’ last (luncheon) function in Brisbane, on August 1…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Another Good Question.

Wednesday 17 August, 2011 – 07:28 by Grant in Default

views (41)

Note that these people are not given millions of dollars to see IF Greenland is melting they are given millions of dollars to “Study the thining Icecap”.

So sad what these people have done to science.

Monday, August 15, 2011
Question: If Greenland’s ice has been thinning so fast since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, why were World War II-era planes found buried under 260 feet of ice in 1988?
PhotoBlog – Scientists study thinning of Greenland ice sheet

AP’s Brennan Linsley did a nice job capturing the spectacular beauty of Greenland’s Ice.
1988:  World War II Planes Found in Greenland In Ice 260 Feet Deep – New York Times

Six American fighter planes and two bombers that crash-landed in Greenland in World War II have been found 46 years later buried under 260 feet of ice, searchers said today.

CD410: Airplanes Buried in Ice

Ice cores are claimed to have as many as 135,000 annual layers. Yet airplanes of the Lost Squadron were buried under 263 feet of ice in forty-eight years, or about 5.5 feet per year. This contradicts the presumption that the wafer-thin layers in the ice cores could be annual layers.
Posted by Tom at 1:37 PM

Also here

The lost squadron
Deeply buried missing planes challenge ‘slow and gradual’ preconceptions.
by Carl Wieland

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Sunday Catch-up

Sunday 14 August, 2011 – 09:54 by Grant in Default

views (18)

Catholics Warn Of Green’s Anti-humanity.
Like the Pope and Cardinal Pell, Peter Finlayson regognises a false faith when he sees it.

AD 2000
The Carbon (dioxide) Tax: a religious perspective
Peter Finlayson

” …The carbon tax is but a legal ploy for forcing our (mineral and energy) resources to remain untouched. It joins the long-time successful challenge by the Greens and other groups who demanded that water flow out to sea where its (edible) creatures could enjoy an unmolested existence!

Without coal, society will depend for its energy on renewable sources, which scientists have warned will be very expensive and cannot match fossil energy, thus enforcing a reduction in living standards. Energy-dependent industry will be forced to downsize with inevitable flow-on effects on economic development.

At the same time measures to lower national (and global) population will emerge to reduce the human ‘polluters’ to a level that will accommodate society within the limited resource and economic base permitted by a nature-oriented world. The Green’s sustainable human population estimate for Australia is seven million.

The dilemma for many environmentally conscious Australians is that the anti-humanity focus of the Greens’ policies is completely at odds with the Judaeo-Christian principles governing a balanced relationship between humanity and nature. Successive popes have stressed that nature is at the service of humanity which may use and develop its natural resources, always mindful of the obligation to safeguard nature for the benefit of future generations, while emphasising that nature must not be glorified.

The blame for the political rise of the Greens-dominated environmental lobby can include a sympathetic media, influenced by the clever Greens’-driven propaganda campaign that began fifty years ago, along with the failure of orthodox science to be more outspoken, especially those employed in the public sector.

In addition, according to anecdotal information, the religious education system, in encouraging an environmental consciousness, has failed to get the correct balance between a (Christian) humanity-centred and a (atheistic) biocentric focus, in accord with Christian principles. Sadly, a number of influential clergy and religious have also lost sight of a human development imperative within a theology of the environment.

Peter Finlayson is an active Catholic in the Ballarat Diocese and an agricultural scientist who has worked in many developing countries.”


Aussie Anti-Green Site – 3 million Hits In July.
If the mainstream electronic media suddenly find themselves loosing the public, and a lot money, this could be the reason.
Very impressive in a country of just over 20 million people.

Andrew Bolt
Tuesday, August 09, 2011 at 02:43pm Three Million Hits

“Good heavens, but July was a monster for us:  274,417 unique browsers logged on to give the blog a record 3,022,755 page impressions.

Thanks very much indeed. The carbon dioxide tax may be killing the Gillard Government, but it’s an ill wind… “


Featured Videos
Climate Change Myths: Separating Fact from Fiction
Aug 6, 2011
Joe Bastardi on global warming debate

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Go Perry!

Saturday 13 August, 2011 – 06:24 by Grant in Default

views (113)

Is this the next president of the U S of A?

Rick Perry black and white on green issues
Texas Gov. Rick Perry doesn’t believe in global warming science.

“Rick Perry’s likely entry into the GOP presidential race comes without the green skeletons many of his rivals have tried to shed.

Unlike Mitt Romney, the Texas governor doesn’t believe in global warming science. And unlike Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman, there are no viral ads of Perry touting the virtues of bipartisanship as a solution to climate change.

Yes, Perry was once a Democrat and even served as Al Gore’s state chairman during the 1988 White House campaign.

But conservatives who dismiss mandatory federal policies on global warming say they’re willing to let Perry’s Gore connection go. After all, his Austin track record has lately been all about blasting the Obama administration’s green agenda, from lawsuits to daily praying for the president to reverse… “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Oopsie – Next President Please

Saturday 13 August, 2011 – 06:22 by Grant in Default

views (25)

“Yes, you elected a congress adamantly opposed to it, but that’s not going to stop me” would seem to be political suicide, but as Regan once said – “there you go again”.
“Yes we can” – elect a new president.

White House advances its energy policy without help from polarized Congress
By Andrew Restuccia and Ben Geman – 08/11/11 05:11 PM ET

“The White House is serving notice that, when it comes to energy policy, the president doesn’t always need Capitol Hill.

President Obama, during a speech Thursday in Holland, Mich., urged Congress to quickly pass a slew of bills on issues ranging from patent reform to trade deals. But one topic was conspicuously missing from his to-do list for lawmakers: energy legislation.

Obama instead touted steps his administration has taken without Congress, including the new vehicle-fuel economy standards announced in recent weeks.

“Think about it. That’s what we got done — and by the way, we didn’t go through Congress to do it,” Obama told workers at an advanced battery plant. “But we did use the tools of government — us working together — to help make it happen.”… “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

EU Airline Tax – Off Like A Lead Balloon

Saturday 13 August, 2011 – 06:17 by Grant in Default

views (29)

Take your arrogant, elitist, Airline Carbon Tax and shove it up your large pink european ar*eholes.
You do not rule the world anymore. GET OVER IT!!

I am old enough to remember when only the rich “Jet Set” could afford to fly on the fancy new Boeing 707’s.

Airlines fight EU rules on air quality
Fees could cost carriers billions
By Tim Devaney

” …The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is looking at a bill — the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011 — that would make it illegal for U.S. airlines to participate in the program. The panel hopes this will persuade the EU to drop the plan.

“Now you’ve got the United States really up in arms,” said Justin Harclerode, a spokesman for the committee.

If enacted, the legislation could force domestic airlines out of the EU and result in retaliatory expulsions by the U.S. against European airlines.

The bill, which is receiving bipartisan support in the House, could get a markup as soon as Congress reconvenes in September…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

The Slick That Never Was

Saturday 13 August, 2011 – 06:12 by Grant in Default

views (17)

First he fluffed his oath and then he rushed off to inspect a slick which never arrived – it was all uphill since then – “yes we can” became “well, we tried”.

WHOI study reports microbes consumed oil in Gulf slick at unexpected rates
August 1, 2011 article
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

“More than a year after the largest oil spill in history, perhaps the dominant lingering question about the Deepwater Horizon spill is, “What happened to the oil?” Now, in the first published study to explain the role of microbes in breaking down the oil slick on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) researchers have come up with answers that represent both surprisingly good news and a head-scratching mystery…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Excellent Speech – Where Is The MSM?

Saturday 13 August, 2011 – 06:06 by Grant in Default

views (23)

When they agreed to back off “Climate” in exchange for removing their licence fees, the Mainstream Media in Australia consigned themself to irrelevence.
What they have fail to recognise is that they are not alone in the market.
More and more people are hearing the news contained in this speech elswhere and realise they are not getting all the news and facts they require from Seven Nine and Ten.
Unfortunately the planet itself is mocking them – brrr – “yeah I got 12inches of Global Warming in my front yard this spring”
As the big retailers and the big newspapers are finding out, the big electonic media no longer “rule OK”.

Climate is a non-problem. What is happening is Cooling
Archibald Speech Rally Canberra 16th August 2011

My first duty to you today is tell you what is happening to the climate.  What is happening is cooling.  The oceans started cooling in 2003, and the atmosphere is following.  There has been no warming since 1998.

In fact, the temperature of planet today is almost the same as it was when satellites first started measuring it in 1979.  No one under the age of 32 has experienced global warming.  Some of us predate that and remember the heavy frosts of the nineteen seventies.  Those frosts are returning, and worse.  Solar activity is weakening, and will remain weak for another 22 years…. “

David Archibald is a Perth, Australia-based scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, oil exploration and climate science.  After graduating in science at Queensland University in 1979, Mr Archibald worked in oil exploration in Sydney and then joined the financial industry as a stock analyst.  Mr Archibald has been CEO of multiple oil and mineral exploration companies operating in Australia.  He has published a number of papers on the solar influence on climate.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

News Limited Not Intimidated I See.

Wednesday 10 August, 2011 – 07:44 by Grant in Default

views (43)

So sad what these people have done to science.

One man’s palentologist is a “climate scientist” (Tim Flannery) while another man’s palentologist (Phil Watson) is a “very articulate amateur”.

“Scuse me, scuse me, Mr Media Watch,  your prejudice is showing!

Message and the messenger victims of debate
Chip Le Grand
August 08, 201112:00AM

” …”Even the low end of projections of sea level rise by 2100 will produce challenging coastal issues that society must consider,” he said. “It is up to science to provide the best information to society and up to scientists and engineers to stick to the science. Phil should be lauded for his analysis of data that sheds more light on sea level rise.”

Instead, Phil Watson was carpeted by his employer, the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, and prevented from giving interviews. Despite his prominent role and previously published work as team leader for the department’s coastal unit, he was given no opportunity to promote his peer-reviewed research published in the Journal of Coastal Research…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Watch Morano In Full Flight – Spectacular!

Tuesday 09 August, 2011 – 05:31 by Grant in Default

views (60)

Morano on ‘the death of a thousand cuts of the manmade global warming movement’
Published: 1:37 AM 08/07/2011

Mark Morano runs the big Climate Depot website.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Wind Turbines Slaughter Eagles.

Tuesday 09 August, 2011 – 05:28 by Grant in Default

views (25)

What a bizarre world we live in.
Years ago we banned DDT to save the eagles, which turned out false, and now we are slaughtering them to “save the planet”. Cuckoo, cuckoo.
Poor birdies, with friends like that they just don’t need enemies!

Greenspace Environmental news from California and beyond
Eagle deaths investigated at LADWP wind power generation site
August 2, 2011

” …An internal DWP bird and bat mortality report for the year ending June 2010 indicated that overall bird fatality rates at Pine Tree, were “relatively high” compared with the 45 wind energy facilities elsewhere across the country.

DWP officials acknowledged that as many as six golden eagles have been struck dead by wind turbine blades at the 3-year-old Pine Tree facility, which is designed to provide 1.4% of the city’s goal of a 20% renewable-energy portfolio…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

The Biofuel Disaster Continues

Tuesday 09 August, 2011 – 05:26 by Grant in Default

views (27)

Ironically biofuels are actually a pop culture artifact. Greenies hate them – with good reason – biofuels would need to take over a signifigant part of the Earth’s surface to go anywhere near replacing fossil fuels. The fact that people starve in the process is of no interest to them, but their beloved green wilderness is threatened.

The Extraordinary Collapse of Jatropha as a Global Biofuel
Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/es201943v
Publication Date (Web): August 2, 2011
Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society
Phone: +86-10-62888322; e-mail:

” …It appears to be an extreme case of a well intentioned top down climate mitigation approach, undertaken without adequate preparation and ignoring conflict of interest, and adopted in good faith by other countries, gone awry bringing misery to millions of poorest people across the world. And it happened because the principle of “due diligence” before taking up large ventures was ignored everywhere. As climate mitigation and adaptation activities intensify attracting large investments there is danger of such lapses becoming more frequent… “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Good One! Funny

Sunday 07 August, 2011 – 13:47 by Grant in Default

views (40)

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Items I Missed During The Week

Sunday 07 August, 2011 – 13:41 by Grant in Default

views (25)

Gore FAIL – Gore starts cussing in climate talk
Posted on August 6, 2011 by Anthony Watts

” …The model of media manipulation used then, Gore said, “was transported whole cloth into the climate debate. And some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!” Gore exclaimed…. “

“When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again,” he continued. “There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! … It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the goddamn word climate. It is not acceptable. They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.”


A news service for the people of Michigan from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Professor: Skeptics of Man-made Climate Change Aren’t a Fringe Group
By Jack Spencer | Aug. 5, 2011

” …“It will almost certainly be colder,” he explained. That was the sort of politically incorrect answer that has gotten Taylor in trouble with the man-made climate change crowd for years. About three years ago Taylor, now 63, left his post as Oregon State University professor and is now a private-sector climatology consultant. Capitol Confidential interviewed Taylor via telephone on Aug. 1.
The following are excerpts from that interview. CC.

There are those who describe climatologists who don’t believe in man-made climate change as being on the fringe. Is that true?
“Absolutely not. It’s very much in the mainstream now…. “


Book Review: Reporting On Climate Change, Understanding the Science
by Jonathan DuHamel on Aug. 02, 2011,

” …The book seems to be written for a junior high-school level of comprehension which I presume is how ELI regards journalists lacking scientific training.
I found many apparent errors and contradictory statements in the book. I document some of them below.
On page 3, in their explanation of the Greenhouse Effect, ELI makes the common mistake of attributing the high surface temperature of Venus to the high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, there is no greenhouse effect on Venus because sunlight cannot penetrate the thick atmosphere and reach the planet surface.
A more fundamental error is made on page 4 with the explanation of the Coriolis effect…. ”


9 June, 2011 4:23PM AWST
Fossils uncover a different take on climate change
By Jane Kennedy

When he began his PHD studying fossils and climate change, Dr Geoff Deacon had no idea his area of expertise would become as topical, political and controversial as it is today…. “

Listen here –


The Climate Time Bomb Dud
By Art Horn
Posted on Aug. 01, 2011

” …Here is a list of some of the “Climate Time Bombs” listed in 1994 by Greenpeace. They will all sound very familiar.

Climate Time Bomb Claim #1
in 1994…Greenpeace claimed a significant increase in global average temperature in the last 140 years is due to burning fossil fuels. The proof is that eight hottest years on record have all occurred since 1980.

Climate Thuggery
July 29, 2011, 10:04 am
By Peter Wood

” The techniques vary. The results, however, are similar: What cannot be established by transparent science can be imposed by coercion and intimidation.

John Mashey, who was the subject of my initial criticism, exercised his right to post replies on Innovations and elsewhere to my initial article.  He is welcome to express his opinions, but the pretense that he is defending science or academic due process wears thin. His replies posted to The Chronicle and elsewhere come in the company of some very irate people. Many of them seem to think that only those who accept the premises of their own sectarian version of climate modeling have a right to speak in this debate. Anyone else is fair game for—what shall I call it?  It goes well beyond scolding.

For example, one of Mashey and Mann’s supporters has made it her business to contact by telephone and e-mail NAS trustees, members, employees, and others with leading questions about my views on climate change and sustainability.  Her questions… “

38 Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of The Grassland Society of NSW
Pseudo-science: a threat to agriculture?
D.C. Edmeades
agKnowledge Ltd, PO Box 9147, Hamilton, 3240, New Zealand

On what principle is it that when we see nothing but improvement behind us,
we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us.’
Thomas Macaulay 1830

“Abstract: The case for agricultural science is asserted, but in the context that science is under threat in contemporary society because of the adoption of post-modern philosophies which give credibility to pseudo-science and give rise to what is now being described as Post-Normal Science. The author examines the question − Is there a legitimate argument to take to science managers, scientists, politicians and society to say pseudo-science is dangerous and should not be tolerated? It is concluded that science must be asserted and it must regain its proper moral high ground in society. To achieve this there must be changes to science policy and to how science is managed. Science, at least government (publicly) funded science, must be returned to its normative function…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Arctic Tipping Point – NOT

Saturday 06 August, 2011 – 07:07 by Grant in Default

views (73)

Have another Latte’ dear and don’t worry your little greenie head about the Arctic tipping point anymore.

Well here’s a surprise – NOT – the Arctic ice is not going to reach a tipping point after all. Even though humans are emitting unprecedented volumes of “carbon”, “natural forcings” still rule and losing even 50% of arctic ice doesn’t produce a “tipping point” to runaway global warming – whodivethunkit.

While Antarctica is a continent surrounded by deep ocean, the Arctic is a deep ocean surrounded by continents. The arctic ice cap is a thin crust of ice subject to the vicissitudes of wind and current.
While Antarctica contains 80% of the globe’s fresh water as ice, the Arctic, with the exception of Greenland, is floating ice which has no discernable effect on sea level when it melts.

The theory that an albedo effect arises when the arctic ice melts – ice stops reflecting heat when it melts – is patently absurd anyway because there is no heat to reflect at these extreme latitudes – the sun is at a very low angle all year round and actually disappears for a few months. Now we see that historically the Arctic ice has disappeared before, by 50%, and, voila!, no global warming.

Just keep getting it WRONG – don’t they?

4 August 2011
Arctic ‘tipping point’ may not be reached
By Matt McGrath Science reporter, BBC World Service

” …The researchers concluded that for about 3,000 years, during a period called the Holocene Climate Optimum, there was more open water and far less ice than today – probably less than 50% of the minimum Arctic sea ice recorded in 2007.
But the researcher says that even with a loss of this size, the sea ice will not reach a point of no return.
“I think we can say that with the loss of 50% of the current ice, the tipping point wasn’t reached.”
The idea of an Arctic tipping point has been highlighted by many scientists in recent years. They have argued that when enough ice is lost it could cause a runaway effect with disastrous consequences…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

The USA Backlash

Friday 05 August, 2011 – 04:12 by Grant in Default

views (243)

This Time Magazine Greenie laments the targeting of his beloved Environment Protection Agency by the opposition Republican Party, or GOP.

What conservatives have missed all over the world is that they have no environment issues of their own.
They have been duped into following the issues of “The Left”.

Conservatives need their own environment agenda and they need to be pushing it.

The GOP have even given their new environment department a name – the ESA – Environment Solutions Agency

Going Green
The GOP’s Hidden Debt-Deal Agenda: Gut the EPA
By Bryan Walsh Tuesday, Aug. 02, 2011,8599,2086421,00.html#ixzz1U57wHkQx

” …To which you might react: Well, duh. In recent years the Republican Party has defined itself as staunchly anti-EPA and generally anti–environmental protection. Whether that means opposing legislation to curb climate change or new rules to promote energy-efficient lightbulbs, if it can be considered green, then the majority of the GOP is almost always against it. That antigreen ideology has only been stiffened by the rise of the Tea Party, and Republican presidential candidates on the campaign trail are fighting to see who can come across as more hostile to environmental regulations.

So Newt Gingrich — who once wrote a book called A Contract with the Earth, all the way back in 2007 — and Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann have both called for abolishing the EPA, while Mitt Romney has come under intense criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh for daring to admit that man-made climate change might just actually exist. Sarah Palin summed up the prevailing GOP attitude when she had this to say while attending a motorcycle rally at the start of her recent cross-country bus tour: “I love the smell of emissions.”…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Big USA Poll

Friday 05 August, 2011 – 03:55 by Grant in Default

views (34)

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
Wednesday, August 03, 2011

” …The national survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 29-30, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC . See methodology .

Voters have been almost evenly divided on whether human activity or long-term planetary trends are to blame for global warming since May of last year .

Regardless of the cause of global warming, adults remain divided on whether to take action or not. While 40% believe Americans should take immediate action to stop global warming, 42% suggest waiting a few years. Americans were just as divided back in February 2009 .

But 47% now believe the media makes global warming appear to be worse than it really is, down from 54% in February 2009 .  Nineteen percent (19%) say it makes the situation look better than reality, while the same percentage (19%) thinks the media presents an accurate picture of global warming. Another 15% are undecided.

Out of three scenarios, 30% of Americans say a period of dangerous global warming is likely to occur, while just four percent (4%) say a dangerous ice age is more likely. Half of adults (50%) say something in between is most likely to happen. Another 16% are not sure. These findings are little changed from past surveys.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) are following news stories on global warming at least somewhat closely, while 32% are not…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Human Carbon Dioxide? – Or NOT!

Thursday 04 August, 2011 – 06:15 by Grant in Default

views (102)

It is another Greenie psuedo-science claim that the istope ratio of C12 to C13 proves that it is human CO2 causing the trivial, trace, gas to increase by a trivial trace amount, but that is patently false. The isotope ratio only proves, at best, that humans are burning a lot of fuel. The istope data suggests a causal link, but it does not prove it as this professor says here…

New research: warmth produces these carbon dioxide concentrations
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 at 02:19pm

Professor Murry Salby, chair of climate at Macquarie University, has unleashed on global warming alarmism in a lecture this week to the Sydney Institute.

Salby has worked at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, and is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, due out in 2011.

Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.

But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.

I’ve summarised this from just a rushed hearing of his lecture, not having access to his notes or the charts he produced on the evening. His findings, he says, have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication, so more will follow.

Some other highlights of his talk:

He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.

“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.” The climate models used by global warmists suggest we should have twice the warming we’ve actually seen recently.

Listen here.

Dr Roy Spencer has suspected something similar.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

The Previous Big Greenie Fake

Wednesday 03 August, 2011 – 03:27 by Grant in Default

views (73)

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Malcolm – Minister-for-lost-causes

Monday 01 August, 2011 – 05:13 by Grant in Default

views (184)

Poor Malcolm Turnbull is the LNP’s Minister-for-lost-causes.
First he failed with the republic.
Then he tried to bring the party into the middle ground with an extreme left doctrine which the public tolerated and then turned on, resulting in “The Right” coming back and deposing him.
Then he got shunted into opposing the NBN on behalf of “The Right” which everybody else actually thinks is a very good idea (Abbott has a sophisticated sense of humour!).
His legacy is the tonnes of toxic mercury he introduced into our environment from his unnecessary compact fluoro light bulbs.

Malcolm Turnbull’s climate politics
by Bob Carter
July 25, 2011

” …To the degree that Mr. Turnbull intended to say that he supported the use of scientific method for public policy making, that is a laudable intention. Here’s the method in action.

The hypothesis of the day is that dangerous global warming is being caused by human-related carbon dioxide emissions.

Recalling that the mixing time of the atmosphere is about one year, to test the hypothesis we need a record of global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide over a period of several years. Here’s that record, based upon the IPCC’s preferred data sources (the HadCRUT global temperature record and CDIAC atmospheric gas data).

Over the last 10 years global average temperature has decreased by ~0.05 deg. C, and atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by ~5%.

The hypothesis fails, for not only has the increase in carbon dioxide failed to result in dangerous warming, but no measurable warming has occurred at all.

Carbon dioxide is indubitably a greenhouse gas, so it is important to note that these facts do not tell us that our emissions have no effect on global temperature. Rather, they indicate that the theoretical human-caused warming is so small that it cannot be detected against the background of natural climate forcings, feedbacks and variation. Scarcely dangerous then.

Mr. Turnbull tells us that his preferred expert advisors on all this have been scientists from CSIRO and Professor Will Steffen from ANU. Tellingly, he refers to these persons as “our scientists and our science”, with a sense of proprietorial ownership, and they are of course the core members of Australia’s IPCC set.

Is this the same CSIRO whose sea-level advice, based on similar computer models to those used to generate alarmist global warming advice, was described on the front page of Friday’s Australian by Dr. Howard Brady of Macquarie University as “in essence ridiculous”? And is this the same Professor Steffen whose scientific advice to the Multi-party Committee on Climate Change has been shown to be grossly flawed by an independent scientific audit ( )?

If so, then perhaps the time has come for Mr. Turnbull to consider seeking advice from alternative, truly independent scientists who do not worship at the altar of the IPCC, and who understand the importance of contestability amongst different working hypotheses in science. There are many such persons to choose from…. “

Permalink | Comments (3) | Leave a comment

Jo Nova In The Australian

Monday 01 August, 2011 – 05:10 by Grant in Default

views (28)

Climate change suspect must be given a fair trial
Joanne Nova
From:The Australian
July 30, 201112:00AM

” …If, hypothetically, there are scientific gaps in the theory of man-made global warming, for the most part we are leaving it up to volunteers to find them. It’s as if the government has funded a team of QCs for the prosecution, but spent nothing on legal aid for the defence.
In law, if there is no defence, it’s a sham.
In business, if there is no competition, it’s a monopoly.
In science, if there is no debate, it’s propaganda…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Alarm Alarm Alarm

Sunday 31 July, 2011 – 09:31 by Grant in Default

views (270)

Carbon cop handed tough new powers
Sid Maher
July 29, 201112:00AM

“A NEW carbon cop will be given sweeping powers to enter company premises, compel individuals to give self-incriminating evidence and copy sensitive records under a carbon tax package that will force about 60,000 businesses to pay 6c a litre extra for fuel.

The tough new powers of the Clean Energy Regulator were included in the fine detail of the carbon tax package released yesterday, which enshrines national emissions cuts of 12 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year after 2016, if the government of the day rejects targets proposed by its Climate Change Authority…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Some Items I Missed During The Week

Sunday 31 July, 2011 – 09:01 by Grant in Default

views (348)

Indian study shows climate change is probably caused by natural factors
By: Kelvin Kemm
29th July 2011

“In January, India’s Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, said: “There is a groupthink in climate science today. Anyone who raises alternative climate theories is immediately branded a climate atheist in an atmosphere of climate evangelists.

“Climate science is incredibly more complex than negotiators make it out to be . . . Climate science should not be driven by the West. We should not always be dependent on outside reports.”… “

The Global Warming Hoax: How Soon We Forget
By F. Swemson

” …With Fox anchors and conservative bloggers arguing that those “green” jobs are simply far too few to fuel a strong recovery, the fact that they’re based on junk science, and aren’t economically viable on their own, gets little if any mention.

The truth is that CO2 is a beneficial trace gas that exists in such small quantities in our atmosphere, that the idea of it playing any significant role in determining our climate is simply silly.  CO2 comprises less than half of 0.1% of our atmosphere, and only 4% of it comes from human activity.  That’s 16ppm, or 1 part in every 62,500 parts of our atmosphere.  CO2 is plant food, and a key component in all life on earth.  Plants need CO2 to grow and produce oxygen.  They feed animals (including ourselves).  Animals in turn consume oxygen and plant-based foods, and exhale CO2.  Without CO2, nothing could be green!  This brief video showing the effect on plants of increasing atmospheric CO2 is quite striking.

Ironically, the audacity of their lies about CO2 are overshadowed by the most obvious part of the Hoax.  The fact is that warming is good!  Throughout history, man, as well as all other living creatures, has thrived during the earth’s warm periods, and suffered and starved during the cold ones, a lesson that we’re about to be reminded of in the coming years…. “

Thursday July 21,2011
By Daily Express reporter  

Carbon offsets have already run out of credit
July 20, 2011
Juilie Bishop

” …It is alarming that the Prime Minister has given no indication that she is aware or has any understanding of the recent history of the operations of international carbon credit markets.

Just six weeks ago, the World Bank reported that the international market in carbon credits has suffered a debilitating collapse and expressed doubt about the ongoing viability of global markets… “

Another dud green investment in solar
Monday, July 25, 2011 at 10:41am

” …The $2.5 million state- and federally-funded sun farm was built at Umuwa in 2003.
Another $1 million was spent upgrading it in 2008, but it has not been running for the past year…
Energy Minister Michael O’Brien said the solar technology was flawed and is no longer economically viable… “

Natural Gas, More Polluting than Coal? Only According to the IPCC. A Note from Cementafriend
Posted by jennifer, July 29th, 2011 – under News, Opinion.

“METHANE is the major component of natural gas (>94 percent) and coal seam gas, which are claimed to be good clean fuels on the basis they have a lower carbon content than coal or oil.
Is this the same methane from the backsides of farting cows that is considered to be a bad greenhouse gas and 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide? And the same methane that when escaping as a fugitive (lost through leakage) gas from coal mining is considered bad?
This is contradictory.
In the following note I consider how potent methane actually is as a greenhouse gas and then compare energy equivalents per heat absorbed all in carbon dioxide equivalents.
Methane (CH4) only absorbs significant radiation from the earth’s surface at around 288K, in the small range of 7.4-7.8 micron. By eye the absorption is less than one tenth that of CO2, see the Diagram (double click on the image for a larger view).
Yet we are continually told that methane is 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2…. ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

See The Greenie Squirm

Saturday 30 July, 2011 – 15:37 by Grant in Default

views (259)

Squirm, Greenie, squirm.

Well, if the UN IPCC can get away with abolishing the Roman Warm and the Medieval Warm and the Little Ice Age in the “Hockey Stick” graph, what’s wrong with a little “exaggeration” on polar bears? I mean we’re saving the planet here!

NEVER YET MELTED BLOG 28 Jul 2011 Drowned Polar Bears and Scientific Misconduct
” …News Agency story –
The Inspector General interview transcript – – (excerpts) had me, for instance, in stitches.
Disclosing as it does the level of rigor of methodology being employed:… “

NEW YORK TIMES Report on Dead Polar Bears Gets a Biologist Suspended By FELICITY BARRINGER Published: July 28, 2011

IBD EDITORIALS Junk Science Unravels Posted 07/28/2011 07:02 PM ET

” …The Environmental Protection Agency placed polar bears on the endangered list in 2008, four years after Monnett’s observation and two years after Gore’s movie filled audiences’ heads with nonsense. But the claim that man-made global warming is a threat to polar bears has been debunked and the scientist who ginned up the narrative is now under scrutiny.
• NASA data show that between 2000 and 2011 our atmosphere didn’t trap as much heat as had been previously thought.
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Roy Spencer, a research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who co-wrote a new paper explaining the findings, said this week…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

A Big Question

Friday 29 July, 2011 – 08:53 by Grant in Default

views (91)

While our politicians fight passionately over measures for a trivial 5% cut in “emissions” with competing plans, perhaps we are losing the big picture.

The big question is – Why?

Where are we going with Climate Change?

There are TWO alternative means of generating electric power – nuclear and hydro.

Existing wind and solar methods are now a demonstrated failure. It is not a matter developing a technology – the invention of new technology cannot be forced – it could take decades.

There is also NO alternative liquid fuel. Biofuels are also now a demonstrated failure and a disaster to humans and the environment.
– the invention of new technology cannot be forced – it could take decades.

By all means encourage invention, but be prepared for a long wait.

We live in a prosperous, egalitarian, society based entirely on cheap, abundant fossil fuels. To try to force the invention of alternates by pricing and rationing fuel is anti-human and just favours the elite.

The next time some Greenie tries to tell you how you should suffer to save the planet tell them to find a real solution to Climate Change or just F_ OFF and don’t come back without one.

Permalink | Comments (1) | Leave a comment

Greens Surrender The High Moral Ground.

Friday 29 July, 2011 – 08:21 by Grant in Default

views (54)

We get so much better politics from the two main parties. Surely there is no place in government for these alarming Alarmists?

HERALD SUN Green agenda has parallels with excesses of communism July 28, 201112:00AM Miranda Devine

Czech President Vaclav Klaus says the climate change movement is a threat to democracy. Herald Sun

“IN a serendipitous coincidence of timing, in the space of two hours this week, Australians were afforded a sharp, momentary insight into the two opposing ideological mindsets that are competing for the soul of our nation.

In a Sydney hotel on Monday night, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an economist who fought against communism, was warning of the new threats to our freedom he recognises in the doctrine of global warming.

Almost simultaneously, in a Hobart casino, Greens senator Christine Milne was unilaterally announcing, on ABC-TV’s Q&A show, that the Government would be conducting an inquiry into the section of the Australian media that she finds “extreme(ly) bias(ed) against action on climate change”…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

President of the Czech Republic @ Press Club

Friday 29 July, 2011 – 08:19 by Grant in Default

views (29)

Monckton is slightly eccentric and easy to mock, the distinguished, staid, President of The Czech Republic is much more difficult to deprecate.

Czech leader Vaclav Klaus rails against carbon tax Joe Kelly From:The Australian July 26, 20112:59PM

“THE President of the Czech Republic has likened climate change to a totalitarian philosophy similar to Communism which will inhibit democratic freedoms.

President Vaclav Klaus used an address at the National Press Club in Canberra today to attack the “arrogance” of global warming advocates and warned of the futility of trying to fight the climate.

Mr Klaus said supporters of climate change action sought to suppress the free market, dictate prices and exert greater control over society. He said those who had not experienced life under a centrally planned communist regime did not place the same premium on freedom.

“We experienced communism, central planning and all kinds of attempts to organise the society from above. I feel obliged to warn against the arguments and ambitions which sound very similar to those we had to resist decades ago,” he said…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Globe Is 70% Water – & Just Ain’t Warmin’ Innit!

Friday 29 July, 2011 – 08:16 by Grant in Default

views (174)

Reassessing biases and other uncertainties in sea-surface
temperature observations measured in situ since 1850, part 2:
biases and homogenisation

J. J. Kennedy,1N. A. Rayner,1R. O. Smith,2D. E. Parker,1and M. Saunby1

Abstract. Changes in instrumentation and data availability have caused time-varying biases in estimates of global- and regional-average sea-surface temperature. The size of the biases arising from these changes are estimated and their uncertainties evaluated.
The estimated biases and their associated uncertainties are largest during the period immediately following the Second World War, re ecting the rapid and incompletely documented changes in shipping and data availability at the time. Adjustments have been applied to reduce these e ects in gridded data sets of sea-surface temperature and the results are presented as a set of interchangeable realisations. Uncertainties of estimated trends in global- and regional-average sea-surface temperature due to bias adjustments since the Second World War are found to be larger than uncertainties arising from the choice of analysis technique, indicating that this is an important source of uncertainty in analyses of historical sea-surface temperatures. Despite this, trends over the twentieth century remain qualitatively consistent.

HOCKEY SCHTICK BLOG Saturday, July 23, 2011 New paper shows unprecedented decrease in ocean warming since 1992

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Dramatic New Paper

Friday 29 July, 2011 – 08:07 by Grant in Default

views (50)

Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613; doi:10.3390/rs3081603
Remote Sensing
ISSN 2072-4292
On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from
Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance
Roy W. Spencer * and William D. Braswell
ESSC-UAH, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Cramer Hall, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA;

More here…

FORBES MAGAZINE New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism Jul. 27 2011 – 3:23 pm James Taylor

” …Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

The Great Barrier Reef – NOT

Monday 25 July, 2011 – 07:46 by Grant in Default

views (140)

QUADRANT MAGAZINE Environment Fishy Science on the Great Barrier Reef Walter Starck

” …The Great Barrier Reef is a national icon and the success of the starfish threat in releasing government purse strings founded a substantial new industry for the region. “Saving” the reef from various purported threats has continued for almost half a century. This has entailed a total expenditure in the hundreds of millions of dollars with no real threat ever being confirmed and, of course, no solution ever being found. As old threats lose credibility and public concern fades, new ones always seem to be found.

Following the starfish plague, overfishing became a major concern. This generated more millions in research and culminated in the creation of a vast complicated array of green zones comprising about a third of the entire region where the already highly restricted fishing activity is prohibited entirely. While there is voluminous evidence to refute the existence of a threat from overfishing, just one fact alone demonstrates the utter absurdity of this claim…. “

” …Most importantly, they find little or no statistically significant differences between reefs which are fished and those where fishing is prohibited. This is not surprising in view of the low level of fishing on the Great Barrier Reef. However, the good news that there is no threat from overfishing does not suit the GBRMPA and the reef salvation industry. Their budgets, and indeed their very reason for existence, have come to be centred on saving the reef from threats, and the idea that any of the threats might not be real is unthinkable. Despite the massive effort and cost of the surveys, they show the opposite of what is wanted by the salvationists and so have not been published.

Similar clear evidence exists that sundry other purported threats to the Great Barrier Reef have no basis in reality and that it is in fact in a near pristine natural condition. Not surprisingly, the excellent condition of the Great Barrier Reef is only admitted by the reef saviours in the context of attributing this to their own research and management while seeking further funding…. “

” …By the last years of the twentieth century the environmental movement along with its attendant eco-salvationist research industry and various eco-bureaucracies were strongly established and thriving; but they were beginning to outgrow the threats which had nurtured their previous growth. Just when it was needed, global warming, the mother of all environmental threats, was discovered. As it started to gain public recognition all the key socio-economic sectors quickly began to join in. Politicians, bureaucrats, activists, academics, the media, business, entertainment and NGOs all signed up wholesale for a place on the global-warming bandwagon. To borrow a line from an old song, “My God how the money rolled in.” In research alone the global total has been somewhere north of $100 billion. In business and finance trillions were in the offing…. “

“Walter Starck has a PhD in marine science from the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Miami. He was a pioneer in the study of coral reef biology and the development of undersea technology”.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Sunday Blog Summary

Sunday 24 July, 2011 – 13:30 by Grant in Default

views (189)

Some items I missed during the week

WUWT The BBC Endeavours to Provide More Biased Coverage on Climate Change Posted on July 23, 2011 by justthefactswuwt By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”

Find a vast video Resource On Climate Change. A veritable who’s who on the science, the politics and the economics from the recent Heartland Conference.
Put a face and a voice to many regulars you see on this blog – Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Fred Singer, Robert Mendelson, Scott Denning, Roy Spencer, Patric Micheals, Mark Morano, Anthony Watts, Larry Bell, Harrison Schmitt (astronaught) Cris Horner etc., etc.
Heartland Conference Videos

THE AUSTRALIAN Shoe leather and welcome worn out Dennis Shanahan July 22, 201112:00AM

” …The second chance Gillard had for people to have a second look at her and the carbon tax once the compensation package was announced two weeks ago appears to have passed. It’s not just the poor polling – the worst Labor has had – but also the difficulty the government is having in getting its message across.
Ministers are reporting difficulty in getting access to radio stations – metropolitan and regional – to talk directly to listeners about the carbon tax. Unless the Prime Minister is calling there is a resistance to having ministers as guests and perhaps a reluctance from some ministers to appear.
Even Greens’ leader Bob Brown, who negotiated the carbon tax with Gillard and has it as a condition of supporting the minority Labor government, has been on leave while the Prime Minister cleared her agenda for a month to wear out her shoe leather travelling the country…. “

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Alan Jones Or The CSIRO?

Sunday 24 July, 2011 – 13:14 by Grant in Default

views (220)

The AUS PM Sorry-stupid-I-had-to-lie-to-you-to-get-elected Julia Gillard has said she prefers The CSIRO to Alan Jones, a talkback radio shock jock, yet the CSIRO itself always issued this disclaimer that they were not to be held responsible for computer modelled predictions in case someone took the politics seriously and lost a lot of money.

They were later forced to remove the disclaimer which proves that they are just a mouthpiece for the government.

It didn’t matter by then, of course, because almost the whole country has since taken “Climate Change” seriously and lost a lot of stupendous amount of money – and it’s only just started!

Alan Jones, a right winger (just a little left of Gengis Khan) simply noticed that all those behind “Climate” were Leftists and smelt a rat.
The further he dug, the smellier it got.

We still, of course, cannot rely on computer model predictions 10 years later  – climate, like weather, is a coupled non-linear chaotic system (In chaos theory, the butterfly effect) and no amount of computing power is going to change that.

The UN IPCC, the authority on AGW relies almost entirely on computer modelling.

More on the CSIRO here –
More evidence that the CSIRO is Just wrong on global warming Andrew Bolt Blog Friday, July 22, 2011 at 06:17am

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Sorry for the Lack of colour

Sunday 24 July, 2011 – 12:59 by Grant in Default

views (51)

you would think that the largest telecommunication company in the country would be able to run and mantain a webblog program, but no.

It hasn’t been coding the HTML properly for some time now.

I haven’t been able to access my blog options properly for months.

You may notice all the code showing thru on the comments – those annoying “nbsp;” things.

Now it is just not coding the HTML at all, so, sorry, no colour in the text.

I may have to move this blog after many many years of poor service to a more reliable place and just refer to it here on bigblog.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Yes Virginia, The Globe Is Not Warming – Scientist.

Sunday 24 July, 2011 – 12:45 by Grant in Default

views (55)

The world’s most brainy climatologist has some fun with the pathetic attempts to explain away the simple FACT that the UN IPCC “natural forcings” are now proven powerful enough to cancel out the alleged human “Climate Change” produced by a huge, almost exponential, rise of fossil fuel burning. Nothing.

ROY SPENCER BLOG  Oh, the Insensitivity! More on Ocean Warming 1955-2010 July 21st, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

“The evidence for anthropogenic global warming being a false alarm does not get much more convincing than this, folks…. ”

“The bottom line is that the relatively weak warming of the ocean since the 1950s is consistent with negative feedback (low climate sensitivity), not positive feedback. The ocean mixed layer and the atmosphere convectively coupled to it loses excess heat to outer space before it can be mixed into the deep ocean.

In other words, Trenberth’s missing heat is not in the deep ocean…it’s instead lost in outer space… ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Forbes Mag. Disses NASA’s GISSes

Friday 22 July, 2011 – 09:02 by Grant in Default

views (92)

Attempts were made to dismiss the computer modeller-activist James I’m-being-supressed-by-deniers Hansen, the Al Gore science advisor. Unfortunately they failed. Just like Hansen’s doomsday computer models themselves failed and he is now scrambling to accomodate a stalled global warming.

FORBES MAGAZINE NASA’s Inconvenient Ruse: The Goddard Institute For Space Studies Jul. 19 2011 – 3:40 pm

” …One would certainly believe that they could be relied on to give us the real scoop.  Unfortunately, one might be very wrong, at least regarding the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

First of all, GISS is actually only a climate modeling shop that relies on surface (not satellite) data that is mostly supplied by others. And even some top NASA scientists consider the dataset produced by GISS inferior to data provided by two other principal organizations, the… ”

” …NOAA and NASA have both received legal Freedom of Information Act  requests for unadjusted data and documentation of all adjustments they have made in order to assess the reliability of their reports in keeping with a Data Quality Act requiring that any published data must be able to be replicated by independent audits. And both have resisted these requests… ”

” …The American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center also filed a FOIA lawsuit in the federal district court in the U.S.  District Court in Washington, D.C. on June 21, 2011 to force NASA to release records that pertain to James Hansen’s outside income-producing activities which have brought him at least $1.2 million in the past four years alone…. ”

” …In a Jan. 29, 2006, New York Times interview Hansen charged that NASA public relations people had pressured him to allow them to review future public lectures, papers and postings on the GISS website. Yet in January 15, 2009 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works-Minority Committee, his former boss John S. Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program, took issue with the interference charge, stating: “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen has embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claim of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

Dr. Theon also testified that: “My own belief concerning anthropogenic [man-made] climate change is that models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit”.  He observed: “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modeled in the observations, nor explain how they did it…this is contrary to the way science should be done.” He then went on to say “Thus, there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy”.

Many members of the newly reconstituted U.S. Congress who are determined to cut non-essential government spending are very likely to agree. Perhaps this circumstance will substantially chill the overheated atmosphere surrounding NASA GISS operations.”

Permalink | Comments (2) | Leave a comment

Save The Planet – Eat a Greenie

Thursday 21 July, 2011 – 09:10 by Grant in Default

views (125)

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Don’t Miss Monckton At The Press Club Today

Tuesday 19 July, 2011 – 05:51 by Grant in Default

views (80)

Catch it on AUS ABC channel 2 and NEWS24, around noon maybe newsradio if you’re in your car?

Still not interested in questioning “The Science”, (why start now, 15 years too late!?) the snivelling syncophants at the Canberra Press Club put up an economist up to debate Monckton!

What’s that old cliche’ – put 15 economists in a room and you’ll get 20 opinions!

But let us be thankfull for small mercies, and Alan Jones, et. al.

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB The Climate Change Debate Richard Denniss V’s Lord Christopher Monckton July 19, 2011

Dr Richard Denniss is the Australia Institute’s Executive Director. He is an economist with a particular interest in the role of regulation. Prior to taking up his current position he was an Associate Professor at the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the Australian National University where he continues to hold an adjunct appointment. Richard has also worked as Strategy Adviser to the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Bob Brown, Chief of Staff to the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, and lectured in economics at the University of Newcastle.

Richard has published extensively in academic journals, is a frequent contributor to national newspapers and was the co-author of the best selling Affluenza (with Dr Clive Hamilton) and is the co-author of An Introduction to Australian Public Policy: Theory and Practice (with Dr Sarah Maddison).

Lord Christopher Monckton is Chief Policy Advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute. He was Special Advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher from 1982 to 1986.

Monckton is a widely recognized commmentator on climate sensitivity. His climate change lecture to Cambridge University undergraduates was later turned into a full-length feature film (funded by SPPI) titled Apocalypse? NO!. Recently, Monckton has devoted his work toward challenging the so-called “consensus” of scientists on climate change. Along with giving lectures and writing scholarly analyses, Monckton has testified before a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives.

POSTSCRIPT See the video of the debate here –

Permalink | Comments (1) | Leave a comment

Philosophy Unhinged

Monday 18 July, 2011 – 08:43 by Grant in Default

views (630)

This professor from Notre Dame poses for the Wanker-of-the-year Award.

NEW YORK TIMES July 12, 2011, 4:01 pm On Experts and Global Warming

The Stone is featuring occasional posts by Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, that apply critical thinking to information and events that have appeared in the news.

Experts have always posed a problem for democracies.  Plato scorned democracy, rating it the worst form of government short of tyranny, largely because it gave power to the ignorant many rather than to knowledgeable experts (philosophers, as he saw it). But “the ignorant” are right, the world is not warming and the “knowlegable experts” were wrong, the Globe is not warming! But, if, as we insist, the people must ultimately decide, the question remains: How can we, nonexperts, take account of expert opinion when it is relevant to decisions about public policy? Simple, we emperically test their scientific hypothesis and if it is wrong we change it.

Once we accept the expert authority of climate science, we have no basis for supporting the minority position. Oh my. Oh my, my – can’t believe he actually said that! My dear fellow, there is NO such thing as “expert authority” in science. ALL science can be modified and changed by a single person with testable, reproducable, evidence!

To answer this question, we need to reflect on the logic of appeals to the authority of experts.  First of all, such appeals require a decision about who the experts on a given topic are.  Until there is agreement about this, expert opinion can have no persuasive role in our discussions.  Another requirement is that there be a consensus among the experts about points relevant to our discussion.   Precisely because we are not experts, we are in no position to adjudicate disputes among those who are.  Finally, given a consensus on a claim among recognized experts, we nonexperts have no basis for rejecting the truth of the claim. I repeat, ALL science can be modified and changed by a single person with testable evidence!

These requirements may seem trivially obvious, but they have serious consequences.  Consider, for example, current discussions about climate change, specifically about whether there is long-term global warming caused primarily by human activities (anthropogenic global warming or A.G.W.).  All creditable parties to this debate recognize a group of experts designated as “climate scientists,” whom they cite in either support or opposition to their claims about global warming. No they don’t. Prior to the Green political movement inventing it, there was no such thing as “Climate Science” You could count the number of climate scientists on the fingers of your hands. Since then the newly invented disipline has been the exclusive haunt of  Green environmentalists. In contrast to enterprises such as astrology or homeopathy, there is no serious objection to the very project of climate science. Yes there is. Climate Science was only applicable over time scales of centuries  until the Leftist UN IPCC took it over and started an imperative. The only questions are about the conclusions this project supports about global warming.

There is, moreover, no denying that there is a strong consensus among climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. Yes, they are almost all Greenies — in their view, human activities are warming the planet. — or they wouldn’t be getting such huge amounts of government largess for it!  There are climate scientists who doubt or deny this claim, but even they show a clear sense of opposing a view that is dominant in their discipline. Since it was taken over by the environment lobby. Nonexpert opponents of A.G.W. usually base their case on various criticisms that a small minority of climate scientists have raised against the consensus view. If there are any “various criticisms” they deserve to be reported, examined and debated – not rejected out-of-hand as invalid because they are not popular!  But nonexperts are in no position to argue against the consensus of scientific experts. But there is so much to argue about – I mean they just keep getting it wrong and modifying it!  As long as they accept the expert authority of the discipline of climate science, they have no basis for supporting the minority position. Non experts are perfectly entiled to raise the issues brought up in the 900 or so peer reviewed scientific papers (Cited here ) which dispute the consensus. Critics within the community of climate scientists may have a cogent case against A.G.W., but, given the overall consensus of that community, we nonexperts have no basis for concluding that this is so.  It does no good to say that we find the consensus conclusions poorly supported.  Since we are not experts on the subject, our judgment  has no standing. But we “non experts” can point to those 900 plus peer reviewed anti Climate Change papers – they have a lot of standing!

It follows that a nonexpert who wants to reject A.G.W. can do so only by arguing that climate science (you’re confusing yourself again, climate science is NOT Climate Change and Climate Change is not climate science. Climate Change is a purely political artifact) lacks the scientific status needed be taken seriously in our debates about public policy.  There may well be areas of inquiry (e.g., various sub-disciplines of the social sciences) open to this sort of critique.  But there does not seem to be a promising case against the scientific authority of climate science. What? So a doomsday prediction dressed up as science, based on computer modelling, that a trivial increase in a trivial GHG is some how going to overheat the planet by causing a permanent increase in global humidity has scientific authority? – yeah – right!  As noted, opponents of the consensus on global warming themselves argue from results of the discipline, and there is no reason to think that they would have had any problem accepting a consensus of climate scientists against global warming, had this emerged. But it HAS emerged!

Some nonexpert opponents of global warming have made much of a number of e-mails written and circulated among a handful of climate scientists that they see as evidence of bias toward global warming. But unless this group is willing to argue from this small (and questionable) sample to the general unreliability of climate science as a discipline, they have no alternative but to accept the consensus view of climate scientists that these e-mails do not undermine the core result of global warming. Wank, Wank, wank – ‘scuse me, ‘scuse me, prof,  your prejudice is showing!

I am not arguing the absolute authority of scientific conclusions in democratic debates. Yes you are! It is not a matter of replacing Plato’s philosopher-kings with scientist-kings in our polis. We the people still need to decide (perhaps through our elected representatives) which groups we accept as having cognitive authority in our policy deliberations. And whether they will be the Greenies or not! I say not! Nor am I denying that there may be a logical gap between established scientific results and specific policy decisions.  The fact that there is significant global warming due to human activity – but, but, there is no “signifigant warming” – there was some warming – perfectly normal warming – but it stopped and it hasn’t come back – does not of itself imply any particular response to this fact.  There remain pressing questions, for example, about the likely long-term effects of various plans for limiting CO2 emissions, the more immediate economic effects of such plans, and, especially, the proper balance between actual present sacrifices and probable long-term gains.  Here we still require the input of experts, our self-appointed Greenie experts, but we must also make fundamental value judgments, a task that, pace Plato, we cannot turn over to experts.

The essential point, however, is that once we have accepted the authority of a particular scientific discipline, we cannot consistently reject its conclusions. The authority of ANY scientific disipline is based entirely on the scientific method, by which all science is subjected to discussion, debate, and review of evidence, reproducable review of evidence, and a consensus that can be, and often is, changed. Science that cannot be argued and changed is, by definition, simply not science QED.  To adapt Schopenhauer’s famous remark about causality, science is not a taxi-cab that we can get in and out of whenever we like.  Once we board the train of climate science, there is no alternative to taking it wherever it may go. That must, as I just said, embrace the possibility of being proven wrong. If it cannot be proven wrong then it is not science. Climate Change will brook no denial. It is philosophical dogma, not science.

Permalink | Comments (3) | Leave a comment

Sunday Summary

Sunday 17 July, 2011 – 09:00 by Grant in Default

views (317)

Some stuff I missed during the week.

FORBES MAGAZINE Why hasn’t the Earth warmed in nearly15-years?

ICECAP Australia Ski Season Shaping Up To Be Best In Decades

See THAT Video “Julia, why did you lie to us”?

Julia’s “silly old bugger” moment.

The mall walkabout that went horribly wrong!

Funny how a multibillion dollar “Climate” industry can fall apart in 2 min 32 seconds!

WUWT Archibald: Solar Based Climate Forecast to 2050

” …Since then, the prognostications of astute scientists with respect to Solar Cycle 24 amplitude have come to pass. Some commentators though are over-reaching and predicting a recurrence of the Maunder Minimum. We now have the tools to predict climate out to the mid-21st Century with a fair degree of confidence, and a repeat of the Maunder Minimum is unlikely. A de Vries Cycle repeat of the Dalton Minimum is what is in prospect up to the early 2030s and then a return to normal conditions of solar activity, and normal climate…. ”

DAILY TELEGRAPH Carbon tax means $300 power bill surge, says NSW Treasury Simon Benson and Gemma Jones July 16, 2011

HERALD SUN Column – Howard rejects what Gillard says he’d back Andrew Bolt Wednesday, July 13, 2011 at 06:40am

” …Yes, says Howard, he did promise to bring in an ETS by 2012, but that was always conditional on the rest of the world moving to something similar.

“I indicated at the time we would act in concert with the rest of the world, and not ahead of it,” he says.

Otherwise, big Australian emitters would simply lose business to other countries without an ETS or carbon dioxide tax, costing us money and jobs, without cutting global emissions.

Howard concedes he did not always make this as clear as he should have, but points to his speech to the Liberal Party federal council in June 2007, in which he spelled out his caveat:… ”

See the Moncton Lecture for yourself.


During  his 2011 tour of Australia, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley wowed a Sydney audience with a withering demolition of the so-called “consensus” that human influence is responsible for modern “global warmng”. Most of this brilliant address has been recorded in a sequence of  three segents on YouTube:

Part 1:

Part 2

Part 3:


Don’t forget Monckton at the Press Club on Tuesday – Historic.

The Climate Change Debate Richard Denniss V’s Lord Christopher Monckton July 19, 2011

– should be live on Channel 2 and News24.

Permalink | Comments (2) | Leave a comment


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: