This is a superb video – and I just love the computerised voice which seems to me to be one of the climate model computers expressing their views to their idiot programmers:

Also, note the way this is clearly a massively funded project utilising the latest CGIs, high profile (i.e. well paid) celebs to read their lines produced by a committee of highly funded PR consultants … or maybe not!

I was a surprised to read the Guardian article Climate change: world’s wealthiest understand, but only half see it as threat, because it was filled with statements of gloom for alarmists:

People living in the world’s wealthiest nations generally understand what climate change is but in many countries just half perceive it to be a threat, new research has found.

While more than 75% of people in Australia, the US, UK and most of the rest of Europe were aware of climate change, far fewer considered it to be detrimental to themselves or their families.

In Russia, despite widespread understanding of climate change, less than 50% of people thought it was a risk to them.

What is remarkable, is that this is what is being written in the world’s most upbeat eco-zealot paper (only kept alive by money from an automobile magazine) regurgitating something from another global warming propaganda rag: Nature Climate Change.
Usually Nature Climate Change spin the numbers to put the best gloss on them and then Guardian increase the spin add bells knobs and whistles to make it seem the world loves global warming. But not this time. It’s almost as if they’ve lost their will (perhaps it’s the summer cold?). If this is the best they can do,

…. things must be pretty dire in the alarmist camp.

 

I spotted this superb letter by Charles Boyd which is well worth the read:

July 28, 2015
Global warming propaganda

To the Editor:
After years of suffering through the writings of global warming cultists I keep hoping that the overwhelming contradictory scientific evidence and thorough debunking of anthropogenic global warming alarmism would result in scientific truth and the scientific method winning out soon. I was certainly wrong in that belief. Once again a global warming diatribe by self-appointed expert, Jeffrey Bada, has proven conclusively the prophetic words (written by William M. Briggs, PhD):
“How long does it take for an expert who has, year upon year after year, made predictions of unrealized doom, an expert hailed heeded and hearkened to by the whole world, to admit error? Answer: forever. He never will, and neither will most of his admirers.”

<snip>
Read more

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)