I had a search today to find out whether those involved in Ringberg had finally come to their senses. Reading Climate Etc and some other blogs I was reminded of this scenario:
Wile is running and suddenly finds himself to have run over a cliff. But in the cartoons he still keeps running as if the ground were still there. That’s where we are with climate sensitivity. The ground is the “2C” limit and they still present the same rubbish they always have as if that “2C” limit were written in stone, except the pause shows that all their knowledge encapsulated in those climate models is wrong. They know nothing – but still they keep pumping out the same rubbish … the legs keep going ….
But whether or not Wile believes it or not, sooner or later physical laws dictate what happens next.
Mother earth aka “God” is a climate sceptic. And mother nature dictates what happens next, not a bunch of useless academics with their failed theories at Ringberg.
This is what sorts out engineer-scientists from academic-scientists. We both use the same physical laws of the universe, the difference is that engineers know that they have to be right because if a bridge falls down, we get sued. In contrast academic-scientists like those at Ringberg are purely academic and if their predictions fail – what happens? They have another all expenses paid by the public purse conference like Ringberg to all get around and discuss why they aren’t complete failures and present such wonderful results as this:
The only actual evidence that one presenter gave after which he said “I’m very very very very very very very confident climate sensitivity is over 2C” (I added a few extra very’s for humour – but it was hilarious even without them).

After I examined global temperatures I made a forecast of around 0.35C cooling by 2030 unfortunately, this trend is embedded it much larger natural variation, so whilst cooling is the best bet, there’s still a significant chance of warming.
However, whilst cooling isn’t inevitable, it is the most likely trend in the next few years so I can’t help taking a peak at the global temperature:-

And so I can’t help noticing that on Roy Spencer’s site, whilst small, the global temperature has seen three successive drops taking it from “on the high side of the pack” to “on the low side” and appearing to head toward “zero”.
However, as it’s now dropped around half of the total added cooling I’m predicting over the next 15 years and the 13month average regularly sees swings greater than the prediction, there’s no way I can claim this is anything to do with long term cooling.
But at least it’s in the right direction!
Just looking by eye, there’s possibly a 1 in 4 chance of a significant down swing before the next set of Scottish and US elections!

My hunch is that the most likely ultimate funder of the global warming scam was the single biggest beneficiary: China.
However, I’ve got an open mind and perhaps Saudi and Russian money were also involved. Russian: because they never really stopped the cold war and causing western economies to rot from the inside due to global warming hysteria was an ideal way to destroy us. Saudi Arabia, because paradoxically, the whole global warming fad has focussed on increasing energy prices – thus increasing profits for oil companies and countries like Saudi rather than reducing use and thereby creating a glut.
However, I think the evidence Saudi and other similar groups are funding anti-fracking protests is beyond doubt. And it is very clear that anti-fracking groups are completely gullible and being led by the nose by their commercial sponsors.
As for feminists – I’m sick and tired of the hypocrisy of feminists. I’ve noticed they are only feminists when the issue is against western men. When any other race is being sexist, even in the most extreme way – they seem to endorse the behaviour even when it occurs in their own country.
And it’s also clear to me men are the true victims as the following stats show:

1. Far more men died in WWI and WWII than women. This was a sexist war and I’ve yet to here any mention of women volunteering to die in the place of men.
2. Men still die earlier than women even in peacetime. As a result, by rights men should receive disproportionately more funding on healthcare, earlier retirement, etc. to compensate. In fact, we don’t really have equality of retirement let alone equitable treatment (earlier retirement) for men yet.
3. Far far more young men die from suicide than women. It’s obvious that we need to address this issue by making a society in which male attributes are valued particularly for younger men.
4. Far more men go to prison than women. Again this is clearly a very sexist attitude of society. And again, we need to understand how to give young men the sense of worth and place in society that means they do not commit crimes.

In other words, because men and women are not the same, what we get with feminist based “equality” is a society which is actually totally and wholly unfair to men. Because “equality” doesn’t act equally: it takes away from men what they value: jobs, career, etc. but fails to give us anything “equal” which women have in child care etc. which we value, and so women get equal access to everything they could want from family to career, but men who tend to have a narrower focus have less of what we value … and to cap it all … we still die earlier, retire later, commit more suicide, have more chance of going to jail and for all this how do women treat us? They call us sexist!

Around 400 people drown each year in the UK, so one might assume that there is a CONSENSUS about how people should treat people who have drowned. And that CONSENSUS is that “an abdominal thrust should be performed only after ventilation has been shown to be ineffective and then only to remove a solid foreign body.”
(Climate sceptics will immediately spot that I’m flagging this as highly suspicious by referring to the “Consensus” – because in climate this usually means scientifically baseless)
However this consensus appears to be in sharp contradiction to the evidence:

“There have been numerous reported cases which state that the Heimlich Maneuver worked when all other lifesaving measures failed. In fact a Patrick Institute study found that in a series of unconscious, non-breathing pulseless drowning victims, 87% survived when the Heimlich Maneuver was performed, whereas only 27% survived when CPR was performed without the Heimlich Maneuver. According to University of Houston Professor John Hunsucker, in a study conducted for the National Pool and Waterparks Association, that in 27 drowning incidents reported by NPWPA trained lifeguards, 24 victims responded by breathing from the Heimlich procedures alone and only three required CPR after the Heimlich was administered.”

So the evidential base (if this is a correct appraisal of that evidence) is very clear: the Heimlich manoeuvre works and the evidence appears to totally contradict the expert CONSENSUS.
So, it is very interesting to read why the “experts” appear to reject the evidence (see The Heimlich Controversy in Near-Drowning Resuscitation). These seem to fall into the following categories: Continue reading →

I was catching up on a few articles and this one really does resonate with my own views:

Claim: Graduates shunning climate studies

from Economic Times of India article:

Why not enough people are working on climate change in India

The claim was that not enough good mathematicians and physicists were going into climate “science” – however who would want to go into a subject that actively shuns real science?
Because what really struck me from what I saw of Ringberg was just how incompetent the those people working in the area seem to be and just how religiously sure they are of their own views despite their manifest incompetence. And just to drive home the point I will show the graph that says everything anyone needs to know about this subject:
And this is the only actual evidence from which someone was able to say “I am very very confident that the feedbacks will give more than 2C” (I paraphrase). They did of course have their models – models that completely fail to predict what the climate actually does … but because of their 97% “consensus”, they don’t need evidence, science, physics, maths.

Doug Brodie send an email “Dear campaigner/blogger, Scottish EET Security of Supply Inquiry The Scottish government’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee recently set up a Security of Supply Inquiry, inviting submissions. …”
Unfortunately I was busy but a few hours before the deadline I did manage to pen a very quick submission in about an hour explaining why the basis of the policy was bullshit:
I wish to make a submission regarding the policy goal of a “largely decarbonised electricity system”. This goal is premised on the belief that Carbon Dioxide, known until recently as a beneficial plant food and whose beneficial effects can be seen in increased harvests globally and generally greening of the planet, is somehow “dangerous”.
The reality is that this viewpoint is not supported by science except in so far as calculations based on the HITRAN database of spectral admission and absorption indicate that a doubling of CO2 is expected to warm. I am aware of two estimates for this warming. The first one of 0.6C is based on the HITRAN 2008 data (Hermann Harde) and another of 1.2C which is used by the IPCC is based on out of date data (HITRAN 1998).
This amount of warming is low enough that almost no serious commentators suggest the effects would be harmful. Therefore the science only supports the beneficial effects of CO2 both as a plant food and as modest warming.
In contrast, please note that cold is the most significant threat faced by us in the UK and in Scotland. This is shown by the 37,000 extra winter deaths (Healy) in the UK. This amounts to 1million since the global warming scare started in 1988. Also reports suggest up to a quarter of Scotland’s population died in the colder period of the 1690s leading directly to our loss of independence (Cullen). Even in India more people die in the winter than summer.
Therefore this policy of decarbonising the electricity based is not based on sound science.
Instead, it is based on highly speculative estimates of “Climate sensitivity” or “feedbacks”. Remarkably I was unable to find anyone in the group of experts working on these feedbacks who had any relevant qualification or experience on feedback in temperature systems. Instead, their estimates are based on the unsupported assumption that the warming in the 1970s to 1990s was driven by a coincidental rise in CO2.
But with little information on CO2 levels before 1958, the estimate of climate sensitivity is largely based on just 6.5 decades of measurements. However, of this 5.5 decades, the first decade (1960s-70s) was dominated by what is now referred to as the “Global cooling scare”. The last decade and a half by what has become known as “The Pause” (Haseler) with no significant rise in temperature (none according to RSS and no surface record has warmed at even the lowest predicted trend since 2001). Therefore only 3 out of these 5.5 decades shows the required warming that is necessary to support any positive feedback effect from CO2.
However, despite this appalling lack of evidence, various academics with no professional qualification, experience or skill in the area of “feedbacks” have falsely asserted they are “very confident” that there is massive positive feedbacks and therefore a very high climate sensitivity.
However, not only are these high climate sensitivities unscientific in nature, but they are unscientific in practice as they do not predict the climate as shown by the failure of all models to predict the pause. Therefore, rather than merely accepting the policy goal of “decarbonisation”, I would strongly advise the Scottish government to seek a second opinion.
The world may be the biggest “greenhouse” we experience, but it is nether-the-less, like any other greenhouse: a temperature stabilised system for which there is one group people who are undoubtedly qualified to assess it. These are the engineers who have experience of temperature systems with feedback. I therefore strongly suggest that rather than meekly accepting bad advice, you seek a second opinion from those with credible expertise, experience and skills in the area of feedback systems, temperature control or monitoring.
References

• Cullen, Karen (2010) Famine in Scotland – the ‘Ill Years’ of the 1690s; ISBN: 9780748638871
• Harde, Hermann (2014) Advanced Two-Layer ClimateModel for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2; Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change, Volume 1, Number 3, pp.1-50, 2014 [Online: http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/846]
• Harde, Hermann (2013) Radiation and Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere: A Comprehensive Approach on a Molecular Basis; International Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 503727, 26 pages [Online: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/]
• Haseler, Mike (2009) Memorandum submitted by Mike Haseler (CRU 30) to House of Commons inquiry into Climategate. [Online: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we32.htm]
• Healy, JD (2002) Excess winter mortality in Europe: a cross country analysis identifying key risk factors; J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:784-789 doi:10.1136/jech.57.10.784

A remarkable event has occurred. “Global warming” the blue eyed boy of the politically correct and environmentalists has fallen down the ranking and behind the more scientific and impartial: “climate change”.

Google Trends 2004 to present – “Global Warming”(blue) & “Climate Change” (Red)

Google Trends 2014 England only – “Global Warming”(blue) & “Climate Change” (Red)

The decline of Global warming

Google Trends (last year) – “Global Warming”(blue) & “Climate Change” (Red)

Google Trends (last 90 days) – “Global Warming”(blue) & “Climate Change” (Red)

Google Trends (last 30 days) “Global Warming”(blue) & “Climate Change” (Red)

Regional trends (Main English speaking

However, compiling the plot of English academic year, I noticed that this change has not been uniformly globally. So, below is the approximate dates at which “Global warming” became less important than “climate change” for various English speaking areas:

• 2008: Scotland
• 2009: Australia
• 2013: England, UK, Canada
• 2014: US, Philippines
• 2015: S.Africa?
• >2015: India (Still 4:1 in favour of “global warming”)

Now, the first shock for me is that Scotland isn’t down below India. Because generally those most zealous for the global warming fad tend to have the highest interest in “Global Warming”. So those India, S.Africa, etc. tend to where we now find the bigger interest in this issue, also tend to favour “global warming”.
My perception is that Scotland is amongst the most pigheadedly anti-industry/CO2 regimes in the world. So, was sure it would in amongst the “johnny come lately alarmists”. Apparently not.
Google Trends

UK Climate Policies To Cost £90bn Between Now And 2020

As Paul Homewood puts it:

This is close to the figure of £89bn quoted both in the Telegraph article and by Angela Knight last week.

£90.6bn equates to £3485 for every household in the country. I cannot recall Ed Davey ever telling us this.

But it gets worse in Scotland!

That figure provided by Paul Homewood is for the UK. But the Scottish government & media are more or less in the pay of BIG WIND. They have created a regime whereby we in Scotland pay more than England for the disastrous unscientific policy of filling our landscape with birdmincers. Continue reading →

On 23rd June 1988, James Hansen went before the Senate having allegedly** “went in the night before and opened all the windows, … So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room [and] it was really hot.” Hansen then stated falsely that he was 99% certain that the recent temperature rise was caused by humans – a figure so utterly wrong it is even rejected by the IPCC.
In the 27 winters that have followed, according to research by J D Healy “Excess winter mortality in Europe: a cross country analysis identifying key risk factors” (J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:784–789):

England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland—both collectively (as the UK) and separately—all share very high seasonality coefficients. The highest level is found in England (19%, 31 000 excess deaths), followed by Wales (17%, 1800 deaths), Northern Ireland (also 17%, 800 deaths), and Scotland (16%, 3100 deaths). Overall, the UK exhibits an average seasonality rate of 18%, which represents about 37 000 annual excess winter deaths. (Online: Excess winter mortality in Europe)

From this we can estimate the total number of deaths in the UK during those 27 winters since this scam started as

37,000 x 27 years = 999,000

That is as near to 1million excess winter deaths. If that doesn’t count as a Holocaust what does?
Also See: Fuel Poverty and Health, Energy Action Scotland

**This allegation originally came from Timothy Worth:

And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

… What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …  So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony.
Interviews – Timothy Wirth | Hot Politics | FRONTLINE | PBS

He now claims he lied about this deception. This admission of his dishonesty, is covered by Breitbart in a suitable disdainful way.