There’s a fundamental rule of PR, that says you don’t run a campaign supporting your opponents. As such, you don’t e.g. bring together in one video all the strongest arguments against your own view and then hope that people will magically agree with your own viewpoint (which you don’t tell them).

What’s this all about?

What is “NOT A scientists”? Or is this “nutter scientists”? Or is this a republican spoof and the arrow goes above so that it real “The not a mad scientist(s)”. It’s bonkers. It’s like some school kid had an idea for a school project and then got the presidential campaign backing to make it!
All it tells me, is that the person making the video is either extremely sloppy or can’t speak English at all (actually most non-English speakers would spot the problem with this).
So, what is this crazy video! (please tell me it’s a republican spoof!)
Just a few simple points to those school kids making this video. If you want the electorate to vote for your “Nota” Clinton:

• Don’t remind them about the pause
• Don’t remind them about the lack of evidence
• Don’t remind them just how many important & intelligent people are on the other side
• Don’t remind them that the science isn’t settled
• Don’t remind them how your opponents are the honest ones saying they are “not scientists” (but then neither are the academics zealots).
• Don’t remind them of the unruly mobs of climate protesters and their witch hunts
• Don’t remind them of the conspiracy theorists of your own side
• Don’t remind them how little could be done if it were a problem
• Don’t remind them it is a hoax
• Don’t remind them of the snow and ice

And the worst bit: if you want to make the other side look ridiculous, you don’t make a ridiculous shot-in-the-foot video like this warning the electorate that your “Not A (nutter) scientists could be president”.
Could “Nutter” Clinton be president? Not after this!

Continue reading →

For those old enough to have been around in June 1988 when Dr. Hansen (part-time environmental activist, part time “impartial” public-servant and compiler of global temperature data) told the US senate that the world was heading for doomsday, there is now one simple question:

It is now a quarter of the way to this “doomsday” and can you honestly say that you personally have seen any change at all? Can you really hand on heart tell me that if this is one quarter of the way to “doomsday”, that “doomsday” can be that bad at all?

In 2001, mainly as a result of alarmism from those like Hansen, the IPCC issued a prediction that the world would warm by at least 1.4C by 2100. It is now 2015, some 27 years after this global warming scare started, Hansen is still predicting the end of the world despite the satellites showing 18 years without warming.
The failure of the predictions of temperature rise should have been enough to discredit the alarmists like Hansen and ended this scam, but unfortunately not. They still claim the world is warming but “we can’t see it” (too true!). But then they claim the world is changing … well, it is is! These days we see natural disasters happening real time whereas back in 1988 it could take days or even weeks to hear about them.
That is not of course what they mean, instead that is the effect they rely on to convince gullible people there has been change. But what really matters is not whether we hear more about climate disasters in the media, but whether we personally experience more/any climate “disasters”.
So, the real question that matters is not whether we hear a lot more about climate disasters … but whether we personally are seeing any change at all.
We are 27/112 years (24%) on the way to what is supposed to be “doomsday”. Simple logic tells us that if we were really going to see “doomsday” in 112 years, then we would certainly see some effects within 27 years.
So, the question everyone must ask themselves is have you personally seen any change at all?
Personal note – No! I have not seen any change at all!

What follows is a true account which if it were necessary I would vouch for in court.
Like many people, although I have lived in the same place for 20 years, I no longer live where I grew up, but I regularly go back to my childhood home and I can sincerely say that in neither my present abode nor my childhood one can I see even the slightest long term change**. Snow is still something that we get some years and not others. Hot summers are something I remember from my childhood. Occasionally I have wondered whether, if I recorded the exact date that e.g. leaves started sprouting in spring, that I might be able to see some change. But if anything has changed, it really is so subtle that I need to record the exact dates rather than rely on memory of when things “tend to come out”.
However, I tried recording the date the beech leaves came out this year and far from showing warming, the leaves came out much later.
But because I am interested in this subject and therefore much more likely to notice changes than most others. Therefore it stands to reason that if I cannot see any change then most people will not have seen any change. Therefore 1/4 of the way to “doomsday” the changes (if any) are so slight that most people will not see them at all and this “doomsday” cannot be much of a change at all.
**This year has been remarkably cold, but so far it is a one-off “cold event” rather than a trend.

Listening to the radio just now (Radio Scotland) I heard that the temperature today at 12C was just 0.1C away from an all time July record for the coldest day.  This follows on from June which the Glasgow Herald proclaimed in an article headlined: “June on track to be coldest summer for 40 years“:

JUNE is on track to be the coldest summer month for more than 40 years as the persistent rainfall and low temperatures blight hopes of a turn to warmer weather.

Scotland’s average temperature up until June 15 was 9.3C, two degrees below normal and the coldest June, July or August since June 1972, Met Office records show.

(Note how despite the clearly abnormally cold weather there is not a hint of explanation, nor demand for an explanation nor any type of alarm in our country with massive fuel poverty. And that is because Scotland’s media and politicians are still obsessed with global warming. But to be honest, I’d rather have impotent politicians raving about warming than this cold summer!)
 

I’ve not read or heard any explanation for the colder weather this year in Scotland, but the immediate reason must be related to the colder temperature of the North Atlantic shown below:

A month ago I said:

“Personally I am not making any preparation or planning for unusually cold weather at the moment. However, should this period of cold continue for another month or more, or we see short periods of much colder weather, I will need to reconsider that view.”

Since then we’ve had about three days of super hot weather followed by cold cold cold. I really didn’t expect this cold weather to continue. Finally, this morning it was 10C this morning outside and 17C inside so I turned the central heating back on. This is ridiculous!
But worse! I really wish I hadn’t set myself a time limit last month – because to be frank the only thing I can think of doing now is saying “if it doesn’t get better … in a few more months…” and then … what do I do? Say “if it doens’t get better in a few years?”. So …

What now?

I was reading on WUWT the “Claim: Huge Earthquake overdue Pacific North West“, when I realised this could be affected by global warming through the caterpillar theory.
In short, increasing temperatures could be delaying “the big one”.
The caterpillar theory isn’t so much a theory as a statement of the obvious: “as the crust warms or cools over extended periods, it will expand and contract leading to plate movement”.
As I explained in my post “The Caterpillar Theory and it’s use in predicting earthquake“, this suggests that earthquakes should be affected by global warming and cooling. However, in that post I only considered earthquakes in subduction zones (areas where one crustal plate is is being pushed down under another plate). Here, we need expansion directly along the direction of movement and so the scale of the effect has to be quite massive amounting to at least a few 10s of centimetres if not 10s of meters. Continue reading →

I was scanning through the global warming stories on Google this morning** – using “show latest” – which shows me (most of) what it appearing, not what Google tell me I should read. when I suddenly spotted an article by Roy Spencer, PhD at www.drroyspencer.com/ “that’s odd” I thought, I’ve not seen a sceptic blog appearing for a while. How come that has appeared? Trying to rationalise it I decided that perhaps being an academic the Google algorithm boosted his ranking despite being a sceptic and that perhaps I had missed it before. But then a few entries later I spotted:

Watts Up With That? | The world’s most viewed site on …

Former meteorologist and weather expert Anthony Watts maintains this site, skeptical of the man-made global warming topic.

No, I had not last visited WUWT in June. Instead, last time I had found a link from Google to WUWT was in June.
Also, it must be several months since I last saw WUWT in the news feeds. This shows something has changed. Whilst, we must still assume Google is wholly biased against sceptics, perhaps the bias will now be in a less obvious and less testable way.

---

**(I can’t even find Yahoo news – and unfortunately if I change I won’t have a sense of how the global warming “story” is changing)

There’s no doubt the alarmists are getting desperate, resorting to increasingly desperate measures and now you really have to be extremely gullible to believe the nutters in the climate establishment.
One obvious one, is that Google have removed all sceptic blogs from their news feeds. As a result a blog that even  I don’t bother reading and barely anyone at all has heard of will be presented to the reader by Google in stead of the world’s most read climate site at WUWT. They will show a blog with perhaps 1/1000 the readership of WUWT instead of WUWT! That doesn’t happen by accident. Someone in Google has intentionally stopped sceptic sites from being displayed.
Another is the increasingly shrill newspaper articles. There’s no new evidence to support alarmism, quite the reverse! So, all they can do is regurgitate the same tired stories which people stopped reading years ago – and give them a new edge by making them sound even worse. Or they can launch an ever more vitriolic attack against the majority of people who are now sceptical – but all it does is reveal them as the nutters they are!
Another thing they try to do is tamper with the temperature datasets to for example “prove” there is no “pause”. That is frankly ridiculous! The pause is the discrepancy between what was predicted and what occurred. And because it is a prediction it can only be based on the datasets available at the time. They can fabricate whatever new datasets they like which they in their crazy minds believe “prove” the predicted warming occurred, but the predictions were that the datasets available at the time would show warming. None of the datasets which were predicted to warm have shown even the lowest predicted warming (e.g. IPCC 2001).
But doesn’t this mentality of changing the datasets to “prove” their bogus claims some up the real philosophy of their “science”? In real science, you assert a prediction and then test that prediction by comparing it to the measurement you predicted. In climate “science” you make a general vague assertion that “it will warm” and then if someone dares to show that the prediction was wrong, they “prove” their assertion by cherry picking data until they can fabricate a dataset with “shows” the “predicted”  warming. In other words you change the measurement to “prove” the assertion.
The gullibles
The big question now, is not whether the shrewd scientifically literate people of the world realise that global warming is a joke, but whether the evidence that the world is being lied to by the climate nutters is now so obvious that even the most gullible people with no science qualifications know it.
I can answer that quite simply: I arrived back from holiday on the west coast of Scotland. It is now well through July and there is still snow on many of the hills. I got back and lit the fire because the house was cold. We took wet suits to go into the sea, but the water was so cold just paddling that none of the children were tempted to go in.
After over two decades of alarmist drivel and constant claims the world is getting warmer, we in Scotland don’t need sophisticated thermometers to know that it isn’t true. Sane sensible people don’t need sophisticated instruments to know there is no global warming here – despite the claims “children won’t know what so is”, children in Scotland not only see snow in winter, but even in summer!
The discrepancy between the predictions and reality are now so huge that anyone with two eyes in their head can see their predictions have failed.
The nutters pushing global warming alarmism can fabricate whatever “data” they want to, but despite Google’s Nazi-style repression of free speech, despite adjusting the temperature data, fabricating papers, lying to the public about how much worse it is all getting –  it just doesn’t wash any longer.

As one of the first people to start talking about the pause, if not the first, I knew it would be important in this debate. However, I’m not sure I’ve ever tried to explain why it is so important in simple terms. The reason is that it limits the possible value of man-made warming and means that man-made warming is likely to be less than natural variation (and you have to be mental to suggest a 90% confidence that man-made warming is higher).
To simplify the argument I’m using a single metric for natural variation which is a trend. The basic argument would be the same if I used a more complex measure, but so long as we are comparing periods of not too dissimilar length, 1/f noise can be modelled as either a trend or an absolute variation – the easiest way to understand this is to imagine a system that is very slow to respond. As such a stimulus doesn’t cause an immediate change but instead a long climb. And the rate of climb is proportional to the size of the stimulus.

Global Warming

Everyone knows the “global warming” curve as shown below (also showing how it is manipulated so hardly accurate).
Just to ensure everyone understands, by “global warming” I don’t mean a measurement, but instead the whole doomsday end-of-world-non-science temperature predictions. And the pause is what those like me who discovered it =define it to be: the discrepancy between the predicted and actual surface temperature.

As the graphic to the right shows, the period of the graph for which we have measurements of rising CO2 (post 1958) can be neatly split into three distinct phases:

1. 1970s global cooling scare and predictions of an impending ice-age age
2. 1980, 90s and 2000s obsession with global warming of around 0.2C/decade (as inflated on the graph) with predictions of fireball earth, plagues of frogs etc.
3. 2010s, realisation that global temperature warming has “paused” (with 18 years of zero actual warming as shown by satellites – but obviously the human adjusted datasets are still being adjusted to show warming).

 

Simple estimate of natural variation

Continue reading →

You don’t need to be an expert to interpret this graph:

This shows the google trend for “global warming” before, during and after the release of the encyclical.

I knew at the time it was going down like a lead balloon but I had expected a bit more than just a “one Sunday sermon”. Indeed, comparing the period since the Pope’s foray into climate politics with the same period last year, it seems that if anything interest has gone down faster (from ‘A’) than last year**. This suggests that far from increasing interest, the Pope may actually have reduced interest in global warming.
Perhaps we should get the Pope to issue these encyclicals more often?
**There’s a regular dip with every academic holiday. So weekends and summer both show dips.