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.

Sometimes one doesn’t need to know any German to understand Eike’s articles.

Energie-Effizienz-Programme sind ein weiterer grüner Flop

Here’s the gist of it:

Energy efficiency has long been touted as a means of political leaders in the fight against climate change without damaging the economy. Included was the premise of a policy both for reducing the consumption of fossil fuels as well as the supposed fact that the consumer save money.

The rationale is that consumers act shortsighted if they refuse to insulate their homes or buy more efficient equipment. They should be pushed in this direction.

But a new study challenges that assumption into question. The investigation in households, public subsidies were availed to their houses from the weather to “upgrade”, revealed that regarding the investment. Efficiency cost far more than they save. Thus, the consumer could not at all act irrationally when they renounce such subsidies: the programs are simply much less advantageous than their proponents believe. (EIKE)

In other words, consumers are acting rationally by rejecting fads that cost them money and it is the gullible academics pushing gullible technology who are being … gullible.

Whilst it’s been pretty obvious that Republicans understand the climate issue and are very sceptical, I was beginning to worry that Democrat candidates might become sceptical and rather than having the show down to end the scam, we might just have got a love in (followed by the usual political inaction).
Fortunately, Democrat voters are still gullible enough to believe in the climate garbage “Dems, GOP Still Disagree on Global Warming“. Hopefully even if the Democrats can field a candidate with the common sense to listen to those like Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics their own parties will force them into the alarmist camp and we’ll get the show down we sceptics want.
But as we sceptics know, the alarmists will do anything to squirm out of a head to head debate on climate which they know they cannot win.
But …
the other big problem is that the global warming scam is starting to fall apart so quickly that it might be over before the presidential election. That might sound a good thing, but we can’t just let the academics and scammers get away with what they have done. They should pay for their appalling behaviour. The public has to see that such behaviour will not be tolerated and those most culpable should end up in jail.
We cannot let them  slither away into the undergrowth to join the next scare bandwagon.

There’s a strory doing the rounds that Ivar Giaever, a scientist who shared the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics, challenged Mr. Obama in a July 1 speech at the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting in Lindau, Germany.

“I say this to Obama: ‘Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong.’ He’s dead wrong,” Mr. Giaever said in a video of his 30-minute speech posted on the website Climate Depot, which first reported the story.

But how is a sceptic to deal with this? Ivar, is just a person and as likely to be wrong as any alarmist. A year ago, he would clearly have been bucking the trend and indeed potentially risking his career and reputation, but now it is almost trendy to be a sceptic.
So what is Ivar claiming:
“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,”

That is just a statement of the fact that there is no problems anyone can identify linked to global warming.

“Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.

Been there done that – totally agree.

“Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

True

“the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position”

There speaks someone talking about the problems of academia and from the perspective of a group who still believe that people are gullible enough to actually listen to them.

“Giaever accused NASA and federal scientists of “fiddling” with temperatures.”

I’d certainly convict them of fraud if I were on a jury.

“The other thing that amazes me is that when you talk about climate change it is always going to be the worst. It’s got to be better someplace for heaven’s sake. It can’t always be to the worse,”

How long did it take him to realise this?

That’s about all I can find to criticise (except I don’t really like the colour of his shirt – not really cream nor brown, kind of “sitting on the fence” sort of colour.
But apart from the shirt – Ivar presents a very good summary of all that is wrong with the global warming scam. So well worth reading:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

I thought I would set myself a challenge: how much did academics get right about the climate. I probably missed a few things, but the answer is “not much”.
I’m going to ignore the stupid academic argument that climate is any period longer than their retirement date (so no chance of being proved wrong) and instead use the pragmatic definition that “climatology” is the subject of understanding the behaviour of the atmosphere over periods significantly greater than the yearly seasonal cycle.
So what did those studying this area actually get right? When I checked what was predicted against what actually happened, the only claims with any credibility were:

• A rise in CO2
• Some melting of Greenland (but I’ve since seen evidence to doubt that one)
• A rise in rainfall (again I’m not certain about this as I recall that when I last checked there was no trend)
• Sea level rise (not as a result of late-twentieth century warming, but because there has been a steady underlying rise)

But what about the theoretical basis? Can any theories about the climate be said to have been proven largely correct or even generally accepted?

• Natural variation – correct! (but as most academics publicly strenuously deny natural climate change, it’s hardly a point in their favour).
• CO2 warming – I am convinced that theoretically rising CO2 should lead to higher temperatures, but I have yet to see ANY evidence proving this theoretical connection (but see below).
• Greenhouse warming – I have yet to see any description of greenhouse warming from academics that fits the actual physics. That is not to say that the academics don’t understand the greenhouse effect, just that I’ve yet to see proof they do understand how the greenhouse effect really works (and usually when I start thinking this way I find they don’t know!). As such, given the clear lack of understanding of academia and the clear complexity of the climate, I would need to see firm evidence of the effect of CO2 before I could say for certain that it actually causes any warming let alone significant warming.
• Ice-ages … there is no real understanding of the ice-age cycle.
• Changes of CO2 & temperature over 100s of millions of years. A few: oxygen from photo-synthesis & “rusting of the planet”. Perhaps the link between CO2 levels and plant evolution (probably disputed).
• Geological Carbon cycle – disputed
• Geological nitrogen cycle – I’ve never heard any suggestions
• Thermal expansion of the crust (Caterpillar theory) – denied and/or ignored.
• PDO, Atlantic Multi-decadel, El Nino … some understanding of what symptoms appear, but I’ve yet to see any understanding of why they occur or their role in the climate.
• Solar activity – probably one of the biggest breakthroughs in our understanding of the climate and in science in general is the understanding of how solar activity could affect the climate. Those involved deserve noble prizes – denied because it did not fit the eco-politics of academia.
• Greening of the sahara – not understood
• Urban heating from cutting down plant growth (either not understood or intentionally hidden)
• The role of particulates and e.g. how reducing atmospheric pollution could have been partly responsible for the increase in temperatures after the 1970s clean air acts (either not understood or intentionally hidden)
• The role of volcanoes in cooling the climate (accepted, but lacking credibility when human emissions are then denied as a reason the climate was cooler in the 1970s)
• That the sun keeps us warm (I was getting desperate) and that our temperature is affected by our distance to the sun.
• Moon? (Again I’m tugging at straws – as I’ve nothing much to say about the moon and climate.)

---

Any others?

It’s come to my attention from Cedric that the quote below may not apply to CO2 as I originally thought but likely includes the potent greenhouse gas: water vapour. As such the title of my article might be misleading.

Reblogged: Ian Plimer, geologist, blows up the enviro crusade with a few observations

For almost the last year, we’ve been seeing reports from alarmists in effect saying “when the El Nino comes – this will prove its warmer and that will save the dead parrot”.

Continue reading →