I was about to leave the office when I get called in: “Mike just a quick word please …” usually that means I’ve f*cked up … “but not this time  thanks for all the work, but we’re moving on to new work and we don’t need you any longer”.
F*ck that came out the blue!
So, here I am in the toilet leaving them one last present. After all this time working for Farpol Oil this is how the pricks pay me back! F&$@!!! Call me in at the end of the day and tell me to f*ck off home – I’ll show them!
They forgot my laptop has WiFi. Now only I have access to the server!! I’ve changed all the passwords and whilst I’m having this last dump this is a quick note to tell you the truth about Farpol Oil:

The truth about us sceptics.

We’re all paid!

Yes it’s just one big con!

Farpol Oil is and always has been the secret lobby organisation behind all us so called “sceptics” (what is it with these English and their spelling!). Like all skeptics I’m a fraud and I only write this crap because I’m paid.
So, goodbye, cheerio and thanks for all the fish.
(This message will no doubt self a few hours but don’t believe it).
And … one last think – they are stingy! And their coffee tastes like shi

---

Addendum: Obviously this is an April fool. But the next article is no joke:

The silent holocaust of
1million climate victims in the UK

Where have all the alarmists gone?
No CO2 warming!

Where have all the alarmists gone?
Long time paused!

..

Where have all the alarmists gone?
Gone to new scares everyone.

When will we ever learn
When will we ever learn

(Apologies! I’ve found myself humming this tune a few times recently. With another morning and almost no alarmist stories in the news worth commenting on – I found myself singing it again and so thought I’d have a go putting some words with the tune)

From the “I told you CO2 was a plant food” stable comes this story:

“Analysis of 20 years of satellite data has revealed the total amount of vegetation globally has increased by almost the equivalent of 4 billion tonnes of carbon since 2003. This is despite ongoing large-scale deforestation in the tropics. ,…  we found unexpectedly large vegetation increases in the savannahs of southern Africa and northern Australia. The increase in Australia occurred despite ongoing land clearing, urbanisation, and big droughts across other parts of Australia. … The main cause of this strong growth over the savannahs came from higher rainfall, particularly in recent years, although higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere may have helped plants there to grow more vigorously. ” (Link)

There’s been a recent spate of stories hitting the news to the effect that the 2C limit is too high. From the number and uniform tone, these are clearly part of an orchestrated campaign. So what is this campaign?
The obvious answer is that the alarmist propaganda machine has got wind that the climate academics can no longer ignore the pause. This can only mean one thing: the spectacular failure of the models to predict the pause will is threatening to force them to modify them predictions to below 2C. That’s hardly surprising. There was only ever three decades of warming after the 1970s global cooling scare. So now with 18 years of pause it is increasingly difficult to just ignore it.
But if they drop the predictions below 2C – bang goes any reason for all those birdmincers. That must be why they need to lower the bar below 2C.
But that in itself would be crazy. We’ve seen no adverse trend. Global sea ice is back to normal, no adverse trend in extreme weather, droughts, floods and snow are just as common as they always were. The only actual global trends appear to be a reduction in hurricanes and an increase in CO2 which is boosting crop yields worldwide.
Just as the evidence from the pause shows that CO2 does not cause the warming predicted, the evidence shows there’s less of a threat than predicted.
So, they must be desperate if they are trying to get this 2C limit lowered.

When I said: “Inhofe: finally the big guns are firing” December last year, I knew it wouldn’t be long before he hit home.
Now the US Senate has passed a bill blocking a carbon tax by what looks to me like a massive 58 to 42 majority with four democrat senators crossing the floor to join republicans. When even Democrats see the writing on the wall, we know its over!
This shows how much impact Inhofe has had as the Chair of the environment committee. Now Ted Cruz, a presidential candidate (and a good one from what I’ve seen) has come out guns blazing strongly for Inhofe’s position. Whether Cruz was first & Obama responded, or Obama started and Cruz attacked, Obama was crazy enough to start a political witch hunt against decent academics who happen to be sceptics. It has misfired!

Obama was stupid enough to push an issue he cannot win, Cruz then sprung the trap on him, pushing climate right up the political ladder. The ill-advised Obama is now floundering like a fish out of water on a subject where he is clueless.
In contrast Cruz who’s must some of the most shrewd political advisers around and is also a very capable candidate has come in almost from nowhere to win the debate.

You’ve got to admire this Senator from Texas!

But this is by no means the end for Obama. Senator Inhofe is planning to hold hearings into those compiling the temperature records. Obama may be licking his wounds but there’s more to come! Since before Climategate I’ve believed there was scientific misconduct amongst those compiling the global temperature but it’s been hard to prove even though Tony Heller’s done an excellent job. But being scientific, the temperature itself, will not be the focus of these hearings. Instead all Inhofe need do is to expose the sleaze and incompetence of those compiling the temperature records and let the public see how slippery these characters are. They cannot come out of any hearing with Inhofe looking good.

It’s my guess Obama saw this investigation coming and too late he worked out how much it would damage him. His only way out was to try pre-emptive attacks against the academics who were the “witnesses for the prosecution”  to try to undermine their credibility.
That’s why the Obama camp have been running a massive campaign trying to pin the label of “denier” sceptic scientists, Inhofe and now Cruz. But not only has that campaign failed, it backfired. He got no dirt whatsover to throw at the academics.
Now the “witch hunter” is being hunted and having to defend his alarmism at a time when even the Climate academics are having to admit that no temperature record shows even the lowest predicted warming of the IPCC.
Obama has made a noose for himself, put his neck in it and given Cruz and Inhofe the opportunity to pull the lever and let Obama drop. Obama’s only way out was this desperate attack on sceptics as “deniers”, he failed.

Instead it is now the alarmists on the back foot as this Senate vote shows.

My guess, is that the alarmist academics who have been the blue eyed boy of people like Obama will have thought they were immune from scrutiny. So they will have been far too cocky and there will undoubtedly be plenty of dirt to be found by Inhofe and Cruz. In contrast we sceptics have always been under attack and if there was any dirt to be found it would have been found by now.
Now, it’s not us sceptics who will be on the defensive. Instead it is the alarmists. And unless the temperature were to suddenly rise – which I think is unlikely – this global warming scam is over.
 

The Global Warming War

This is a really fun summary of the debate and funny.

There’s nothing I dislike more than evil people who set out intentionally to destroy the reputations of others knowing they don’t deserve it. Ever since I read Lewandowsky’s research and discovered he had done research into how a lie sticks even after it is retracted (in that case Iraq WMD), I have strongly suspected Lewandowsky intentionally falsified data (or at least the analysis) intending to harm the reputation of the decent people who are sceptics. It appears to me he expected that even if he had to retract the article, that it would not matter because he believed that all the public would remember is the original lie.
Hopefully that research is also bogus and the public are less gullible than Lewandowsky thinks they are.
But as former Chairman of the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum I know that sceptics are all altruistic people who far from benefiting from being sceptics or believing in some conspiracy, are very much forced by their training and education in science and engineering to hold the views they do despite their own personal wishes and almost without exception to their own personal cost. Continue reading →

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99KFz7RtZaM
Apparently this video has now been pulled. It was a mixed bag both talking about global cooling and possible global warming. I wondered if I spotted Hansen in the first scene but was going to take a closely look later. I guess from the mix of themes it was produced around 1980. The title suggested it might have been shown on the BBC, but it was long and I didn’t get to the part I remember most distinctly which would be the last 10 minutes, so I still don’t know if this is the film they showed. However I didn’t obviously recognise it.

[As JK rightly highlights I stated ECS as 1. It should have been stated as a temperature. Using a typical figure for the effect of CO2 without feedbacks this would be 1C. However, that 1C figure is itself disputed. Prof Hermann Harde suggested a 30% lower figure based on latest HITRAN data which I understand would be ~0.6C. To avoid going into this complexity, please read ECS as meaning Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity relative to Equilibrium Climate sensitivity without feedbacks (~1C)]
After watching Andrew Dessler “Noddy” presentation on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, I was left in fits of laughter by the contrast of his shear arrogance & lack of experience with feedback systems and the appalling data in this graph:-
You could read anything you like into that and he did! He may as well have shown this:
Continue reading →

I’ve been dealing with another one of those vile internet bullies who keep trying to write the global cooling scare out of history.
What really shows their low IQ, is that Hansen wasn’t saying anything different from what most intelligent people would still readily accept today: “we are heading toward another ice-age some time”. The only difference is that we had a cooling period in the 1970s and it was suggested this could be the beginning. I understand that was the original reason for forming the IPCC – so the IPCC stems out of this global cooling scare.
OK, it was “sexed up” by broadcasters like the BBC. We don’t have the evidence to show how much Hansen himself did to promote this scare, but we do know his colleagues did their part and without evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to conclude that Hansen supported them.

There was a global cooling scare and that’s a fact

Even the first paper to mention “global warming” by Broecker in 1997 was trying to explain the lack of cooling that had been predicted as a result of finding apparent cycles in the Camp Century Ice Core. Broecker suggested that CO2 “global warming” was the reason the predicted global cooling had not occurred. It is really that cut and dried.
Back to this alarmist bully. What they most disliked is that I said people like Hansen believed in global cooling.
For a real scientist, that wouldn’t be a problem. After 40 years of new data real scientists are allowed to change their view – indeed it is the mark of a real scientist that they do change their view when new data comes in.
So, only the greenblob fanatic would worry if Hansen changed his mind. The simple fact is almost everyone did accept that global cooling was likely sooner or later and so it’s patently ridiculous to suggest Hansen was in the very small minority who didn’t.
However, the real reason I’m posting this, is that whilst they are a dying breed, like all lost causes the last few people are the real fanatics. So just to make sure that if I ever meet another one of these fanatical bullies I want to have the evidence to hand. So I’m posting this newspaper clipping I found that clearly shows Hansen put his name to an article predicting global cooling.
Note that there’s not the slightest hint he objected to this inclusion of his name supporting the assertion made presumably by his boss. There’s no hint of a contrary view and I’ve no doubt there’s no letter from Hansen objecting to his name supporting this global cooling assertion.
So, unless or until someone supplies evidence from that time showing he disagreed, it is true that Hansen did support this global cooling.

For heaven’s sake – after watching the programs – as a school kid we all talked about how it would happen at school,
… so arguably even I was part of this global cooling consensus.

U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming

By Victor Cohn Washington Post Staff Writer
Jul 9, 1971
The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disasterous new ice age a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.
Dr S.I.Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says that:
[not yet done]
…
They also had available a computer program developed by Dr.James Hansen there to study the optical properties of the clouds of Venus. They applied the same program to make what Rasool called the first sophisticated calculations of fuel dust’s sunlight-scattering properties.
They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere. The fuel particles they do worry about are sulphates, nitrates and hydrocarbns, with the largest single source sulfur dioxide converted to sulfates.