I’ve started to wonder whether alarmists have any evidence left. So I started trawling alarmist sites to see just what they do actually cite as evidence.
Cited by Alarmists

• Increasing CO2
  → Proven
• Rising global temperature – They claim rising temperatures. However whilst 20th century warming is highly likely, the satellite record shows no recent warming. There is overwhelming evidence of one-way bias when calculating global temperature from ground stations. It is my assessment that those organisations who are most alarmist show the highest warming. This very strongly suggests that it is only the bias introduced by human upjustments that is causing any perceived warming.
  → (very likely) busted.
• Antartic ice
  Reading the following articles I cannot see any stable long term metrics for Antarctic ice. The one with the longest period (1992-2011) shows an increase. That from 2009-2011 shows a gain, 2003-2009 gain, another 2010-12 show a decrease. link, link, link
  Another site suggests very mild melting from 1979-2009 link
  In contrast this one in the notoriously alarmist site called “Nature” suggests a decrease: link
  This is very difficult to judge as there is too little evidence.
  → Possible, but certainly not proved.
• Greenland Ice
  This appears to be a credible claim link, link
  → Credible claim
• Glaciers
  On this site there is apparent decrease in Glaciers 1960-2006. However the data stops a long time ago in 2006 and I cannot find anything more up to date. This is typical alarmist behaviour when there is a contrary trend. The refreezing of Asian glaciers (link) would suggest this is the reason we don’t see more recent data. However even if the trend is toward refreezing, this doesn’t mean a total reversal.
  Some old evidence of melting pre 2006.
  → Current status is unknown.
• Snow line retreating
  This claim is nonsense (link)
  →  Busted

Continue reading →

It took me a while to find anything about the Yahoo advanced searching, so I’m posting it here for others from this URL

Advanced Search

With Advanced Web Search, you can find search results that match very specific criteria. The options you choose in an Advanced Web Search only apply to that one search.
To begin, start on the Advanced Web Search page.

Building your search

Use the following options to construct your Advanced Web Search.

Show Results With

These text boxes give Yahoo Search specific instructions about the words you enter.

Many of these Advanced Search options can also be activated by typing Yahoo Search Shortcut symbols into the basic search box.

Site/Domain

Restrict your search to sites with a specific domain suffix (the part at the end), such as .com, .edu, or .gov. For example, if you’d like to search only websites of non-commercial organizations, click the radio button next to .org to select just .org domains.
You can also use this field to search within a particular website domain, such as yahoo.com.

File Format

You can choose to restrict your search to a specific type of file. Currently, supported formats are:

SafeSearch Filter

You can choose to have explicit, adult-oriented content filtered out of your search results. We’ll use information gathered from the Yahoo Directory and our technology partners to block a large amount of explicit material.

If you’d like to keep this filter in place for all your Web searches, you can select this option in your Yahoo Search preferences.

Country

Yahoo normally searches websites from all over the world. You can use this setting to search only sites from a particular country.

Languages

Your results might include sites written in English, Japanese, Spanish, or other languages. To limit your current, advanced search to certain languages select them on this page.
To adjust your language settings for all of your Yahoo Search results, use the Yahoo Search preferences.

Number of Results

Yahoo Search normally shows 10 Web results per page. You can choose to see a different number of results per page, between 10 and 100.
You can change this setting for all of your Yahoo Search results, use the Yahoo Search preferences.

Just a few wishes:

• partial word search
• Date range search
• Pseudo Meta-tags search (author, published date, title, only search body)
• Number search
• Special character search such as “What?” (essential when searching for programming terms such as   || as opposed to | in php – one is logically or the other is bitwise)
• Number range search
• AD/BC/BP date range search. AD and BC are the way to write dates, unless you use BP (before present, which is an alternative way to date) –THEY ARE THE RIGHT WAY And let me be frank, Christians invented the calendar – so we should reflect that. Moreover, it is just the simple well understood method which only morons would reject. But because of moronic PC stupidity in academia we now have a plethora of date types so in addition to BC, B.C. & BP we now have the completely offensive BCE, B.C.E. (offensive because it denies the work of early Christian Scholars and what’s the difference of Before Christ and Before Christian Era – the simple fact is that the date is related to supposed birth of one named “Christos” by his followers. That doesn’t change by adding a letter! We still call Wednesday after norse gods, the Christians invented the present calendar and Christ does not mean anything to jews since its a Greek word meaning oily – and most ridiculous of all, when we return to common sense and everyone uses BC. Because of the pathetic stupidity of academics we’ll still have a few decades of books where dates cannot be searched properly … and most importantly of all, 128CE in many fonts on poor quality reproductions is indistinguishable from 12BCE).

For a while I’ve been noticing a distinct lack of very high profile sceptic blogs appearing in Google News feeds and some quite ridiculously low rating warmist blogs appearing as “news”. We all know that there have been isolated instances of bias, but now this effect is so great that I cannot ignore it.
Therefore I cannot continue categorising Google as being impartial on uClimate.com as their searches are now clearly and unequivocally biased toward “warmist”.
Note: This makes the decline in the number of warmist news stories on google all the more spectacular! Because they are declining relative to sceptic ones despite the policy of bias by Google.

Addendum

Just realised that if Google are so biased that I must classify them as “alarmists”, it would be unethical to use them as a search engine or to carry their ads – which involves a lot of work for me and probably a loss of the small bit of money I get in from ads.
However initial searching suggests the following:

• As a toolbar: Yahoo search
• As a home page: http://www.webcrawler.com/
• For ads Bing ads

I’m not very happy to have to be using Micro$oft, because it gained much of its wealth from useless software which it forced on consumers at great expense by creating a monopoly.
However, whereas Micro$oft were profiteers, Google are both profiteering AND trying to force a political agenda which has removed some types of websites almost completely from its searches. So it is de facto one of the biggest threats to free speech & liberty.

I am sadly disappointed by the alarmists. I was led to believe we would have weeks of laughing at crazy videos, demos and generally idiocy from the alarmist camp, but just two days after the encyclical the news is dead with nothing more than a few stragglers and a couple of ridiculous rather than amusing stories.

This has been one of the shortest duration peaks I’ve seen for any news story on global warming.

I am now seriously wondering weather the “run up” to the Dead Parrot talks this December will turn out to be more of a “run down”.

 Come on alarmists – you’re getting shed loads of public funds – what on earth are you doing with it except paying expensive marketing consultants to sit around on their fat arses?

Indeed, there’s so little news, I am starting to wonder whether it is possible that this is intentional. Have the alarmists got some idiotic academic (Lewandowsky springs to mind) producing “research” that suggests that if they keep quiet and don’t tell anyone about global warming, then that’s the way to revive the dead parrot and make the world population born again global warmists?

Indeed, it does seem that every time there is a high profile media campaign like this encyclical, that rather than increasing support, the result is that even more sceptics appear! So, there is a kind of perverse logic that says that keeping quiet about global warming will cause everyone to believe!

I’m starting to think there’s something wrong with me, because for the last few days I’ve started hearing someone singing and humming in the room when I’m the only person in it. Also, I seem to have changed my appearance with strange lines emanating from the corners of my mouth and heading up to indentations on my cheeks.
When I realised it was me making this horrible noises, I had a look on line to see what was wrong with me and found that I cannot match it to any known medical condition.
Also, despite being reported as the coldest June in 40 years – I keep looking outside and seeing how wonderful everything looks. Last night the moon was just spectacular seating in amongst the clouds. I thought it was a painting it was so beautiful.

Help!

PS. These symptoms first appeared after the announcement to end wind subsidies.

According to the Times, after recently departed UK Labour leader Ed Miliband managed to thwart all the opinion polls and grasp election defeat for Labour, he plans to help global warming the same way:

“Ed Miliband intends to take on a significant role in the forthcoming global climate change debate. In the first indication of what life will be like for the former Labour leader, a spokesman for Mr Miliband confirmed that he is turning his attention to November’s climate change talks in Paris.”

And for those in the US – Millband is part of the “borrow today – let our kids pay it back” Labour party that almost led to the UK going bankrupt – and undoubtedly would be leading us to bankruptcy if he had been Prime Minister now.

But what a twit!

In one simple act, he has ensured that not one single Tory or Republican will want to support the Dead Parrot talks.
Article behind paywall:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4475331.ece

For those who do not know, the “Dead Parrot Sketch” is a very famous sketch by Monty Python in which a customer comes in to complain about a parrot they bought from a pet shop owner. The customer complains that the parrot is dead, the pet shop owner refuses to admit the parrot is dead, despite the parrot being nailed to the perch.

I was just reading the climate depot article “Aussies get traction on the issue of ‘temperature data homogenization’ and thinking that yes, there is growing coverage of data tampering in the media and it is almost becoming widely accepted that the “academics” have been tampering the temperature record, when I suddenly realised I had the answer to the question in my last article:
“What happens to the pope [when real world data proves him wrong]”, because they can’t sack a pope.
And the answer is simple: the catholic church as one body will unite and turn against those who caused him & the whole catholic church to be misled. The pope will not be to blame but those academics advising him. And I doubt they will distinguish between the honest and the deceptive, between those who have set high standards and those with no standards.

The”news” rush from the pope’s encyclical is now well and truly over as today I see the coverage is now of sceptics pushing back. But whilst we climate sceptics might focus on the science, the climate doesn’t actually appear to have been the purpose of this document.
Instead, reading between the lines,  climate seems to have been just a useful hook on which to hitch a lot of political ideas which the climate allows to dress up as “concern for nature”. So basically, not only is “science” being abused, but also environmentalism is being used as a political tool to push a political agenda. And to do that, the catholic teachings have to be turned into pagan environmentalism, so also the catholic church itself is being abused.
And just to explain that “one world government”. To be honest, I’ve heard some sceptics talking about “one world socialist government”. I  thought they were reading far too much into what was happening. What’s more I focussed on the science because the science clearly supports us sceptics – and I thought this “one world government” was just an obsession by those on the political wing of scepticism. But now that I see what is in the Pope’s encyclical it is clear to me they were right, and so apologies for doubting you.
I couldn’t see the harm of more decisions at a world level – co-operation at a global level is a good thing. However it’s clear that those pushing the political vision in this encyclical don’t have cooperation in mind. Instead their vision will enforce a very extreme “left” utopian idea on that world government, not in the sense of helping the poor, but in the sense of behaving like extreme left regimes tend to behave (to the detriment of the poor). So we will have something very much like Stalin in Russia, with grand utopian “5-year plans” forcing everyone to comply with some utopian anti-science vision. And because those endorsing such utopian views are always totally economically & scientifically incompetent their plans “to help the poor” will instead kill millions if not billions.

It’s the politics of the utopian vision and its inherent rejection of pragmatism. Continue reading →

Well the Pope’s encyclical has come and gone and frankly it’s not made a bit of difference – except they’ll be quite a few furious republicans and other world leaders resolved to ensure this debacle never happens again – so I expect fireworks in the near future – not necessarily all going upward in celebration but many aimed squarely at certain doors.
So I thought it was time for something more light hearted:

 

MOSCOW, June 18 (UPI) — For most conspiracy theorists, questioning the moon landing is rather passe. They’ve moved on to Benghazi, global warming and GMOs.

But one official in Russia didn’t get the memo. Russian Investigative Commission spokesperson Vladimir Markin wants an international investigation into the Apollo moon missions.
Specifically, Markin wants to know what happened to the film footage of the landings. He’s also curious about where those moon rocks ended up.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/06/18/Russian-official-questions-US-moon-landing/5401434634287/
My take
After the way NASA fabricated global temperature data by knowingly employing a self-enriching environmental activist to do that job … it wouldn’t surprise me if NASA did fake the moon landings, but I’ve yet to see any evidence suggesting it.