This week it appears that many top … I was going to say people  but will be only academics … are meeting at the Max-Planck institute in Ringberg ostensibly to talk about “climate sensitivity”. But in reality it will be to work out how to respond to the criticisms (indeed fact) that the climate models have failed.
Unfortunately, it is pretty easy to predict what will happen. The best we can hope for is that they will say “sceptics rightly recognised there were problems”. However what is entirely predictable is that whatever they admit (in complex language opaque to all but us sceptics), the narrative will be that sceptics are to blame. I suspect we will be criticised for attacking them which no doubt they will say is the reason it took so long to decide something was wrong. Hypocritically, we will then be attacked for not being willing to work with them (when not one sceptic will have been told let alone invited to Ringberg), for misunderstanding the science (when we were the only ones who correctly predicted the pause), etc. etc. Academics will be portrayed as victims and sceptics as the nasty bogeymen who do not recognise the true “unadulterated brilliance” of the academics.
The reality, is that they haven’t a clue what caused the pause. But such is the power of group think that there a real danger that if you put a lot of like minded people in a room with a planet full of parameters they can cherry pick and tweak, that they will manage to convince themselves that “something” caused the pause: that “the models work but needed tweaking”, and that they will effectively say that “sceptics misunderstood the climate but just happened to misunderstand in a way that just happened to fit this ‘pause explainer'”. Continue reading →

I’ve been searching on and off all day looking for my daily dose of shoving the temperature data showing its not warmed at anything like the lowest IPCC prediction they made in 2001 down the throats of the few remaining alarmists. And I cannot find one discussion going on line a the moment.
I am seriously concerned! I am suffering withdrawal symptoms!
Have they withdrawn, routed, changed sides, all attending some international climate meeting in a phone box somewhere?
No doubt normal alarmist service will resume shortly – but what if it doesn’t? What will I do then?

Dear Barack Obama & David Cameron,
Any Democrat, Tory or any other politicians who are still extolling the virtues of  Global warming, seeing the flop of Naomi Oreskes’s hatefest film: “Merchants of Doubt” will now know that they have been very mistaken: the public are no longer swallowing the global warming lies!

Oh dear!

What a shame you didn’t listen to us sceptics when you had the chance to change your policies! What a shame you continued listening to those public sector zealots obsessed with the idea that the private sector fossil fuel economy that gave our nations are wealth is evil. What a shame you gullibly fell for the lies from those so obsessed with their hatred for industry and “evil” icon: CO2, that they labelled this essential plant food as a pollutant.

Did it never occur to you that you were being led to attack vast constituencies of your own voters?

This is what happens to you politicians when you get into power and stuck inside the political bubble. You become surrounded by sycophants telling “the emperor” that some transparently awful policy is just what the public want. And they lie to you about “deniers” telling you these “deniers” are evil and that “deniers” have no understanding of the science. And you fell for these lies?
This is what real sceptics, those real flesh sceptics who vote actually think:

And whilst you have been in the political bubble, this is what has really been happening to global temperatures as CO2 rose and plants worldwide have flourished from rising CO2:

My Apology to Obama & Cameron

Maybe I should apologise to you: because if I had been prepared to work for free for months last year after the survey of 4-5000 sceptics; if had been prepared to read through the hate filled papers of academics about us sceptics; if I had been prepared to go through the ritual humiliation of peer review by those same academics who so hate us from the private sector;  if I had then put in vast efforts of time and money to try to force you to listen, … then perhaps, I might just have been able to warn you about the results of the survey of sceptics.

You would have known that we sceptics are really quite a sane sensible well qualified bunch, that we are no different from the “scientists” in the public sector except we understand the real economy and they don’t. You would have known sceptics are on the whole just as competent (or arguably more) to judge so called “Global warming” as those academics. You might have understood that sceptics are really very well respected members of society who individually are part of the key opinion group on science.
In short, it was totally daft for you politician to ignore us! Yet you did!
And if you had known that, you wouldn’t now be stuck with this political poison.
So, sorry Obama, sorry Cameron, sorry to the hate-mongers like Kerry, sorry to the gullible idiots like Milliband. Sorry Jo Swinson my own MP. Sorry … to every politician who were so keen to jump on the bandwagon of hate directed against vast swathes or your own electorates.
To misquote one notorious politician:

“Go home to your constituencies and … prepare for humiliation.“

regards,

Mike Haseler BSc.MBA

The Academicene is a period in earth’s history marked by the PC boundary. The PC boundary is usually characterised by a rapid increase in paper, much of it apparently for no purpose.
Although modern scholars dispute the timing even some dispute its existence it is widely believed by the sceptics to coincide with the end of the change from GC to GW paper.

This is a very straightforward competition with very simple rules.
Count up every time you can get an alarmist to call you “denier” and then report back. The person who gets the highest count will win the prize of “Shear Denier”.
I will then send them this luxurious prize:

 

Yesterday I tried to find out from Richard Betts of the UK Met Office at what point if I was confident of my forecast that I should make it known if I was predicting cooling. He didn’t reply but after thinking about it, I’ve decided that I would criticise an academic for keeping quiet. So whilst I am very hesitant to do so, I’m going to issue my first and very provisional estimate of global temperature out to 2030.
But first an apology is due to Girma Orssengo. When I first saw suggestions of a 60-70 year cycle in the global temperature in WattsUpWithThat, I was extremely dismissive adding comments suggesting that sceptics were falling for the same mistake as alarmists and mistaking natural variation for patterns.
After further of the variation of climate trends with time, I’m having to rethink that criticism. For around a week since I wrote that article I’ve been pouring over the graphs and trying to understand how the information should best be interpreted. Whilst I am still very uncertain of what is best, each time I look at it I’m coming to the same conclusion and that is that I cannot simply dismiss the 60 year cycle which Girma Orssengo identified. But neither can I say for certain it is real or has predictive power. Continue reading →

For years scholars have argued over the lcoation of St.Patrick’s birthplace. But almost by accident I stumbled on convincing evidence that Old Kilpatrick, the location given in three out of the five lives of the Saint always was the correct place.
So how did people come to reject something as well substantiated as this?
The full article is available on line so I will only provide a summary here. However, for the sceptic what is intriguing is why evidence for the obvious location at Old Kilpatrick has been rejected and described as myth and why there been such a concerted campaign to locate it anywhere but Glasgow.

Summary of the Case for Old Kilpatrick

Three out of the five lives of St.Patrick locate his birthplace near Alt Clud or Dumbarton Rock. Using this information we can identify the other name associated with his birthplace “Nemthur”  as the Roman Fort of Nemeton or Old Kilpatrick at the western end of the Antonine wall. 

This is further supported by the similarity of the modern name Dumbarton the next place in the Latin text called “SUBDOBIADON” or “SUB-DOBIADON”. Together with evidence that there was an early Christian community & late Roman occupation in and around Old Kilpatrick and Glasgow this proposal confirms Old Kilpatrick as the Birthplace of St.Patrick.

As such the Roman names of the principal forts (from East to West) along the Antonine wall can be identified using a note to Nennius which says the wall had seven forts. The Ravenna Cosmology lists six up to MEDIO NEMETON. But if this is considered as two names “MEDIO” & “NEMETON” it gives seven making NEMETON, the last fort which is a perfect fit to Old Kilpatrick & Nemthur the place of St.Patrick’s birth.

From this we can identify the principle forts along the Antonine wall (running East to West) as: Carriden (VELUNIA), Mumrills (VOLITANIO), Castlecary (PEXA), Barhill (BEGESSE), the two next principle forts (COLANIA & MEDIO) are less certain but can be tentatively identified as Balmuildy (MEDIO) and Kirkintilloch (COLANIA) leaving the final Fort of Old Kilpatrick as NEMETON.
Continue reading →

Any sceptic who knows any academics will know some who are sceptical of catastrophic or “doomsday” warming who are afraid to speak out. So hopefully they will all begin speaking out when someone as prominent of Prof Kelly of the Royal Society speaks out against that same society and says they are wrong.
There is a simple rule in science and that is theories are tested by weather 🙂 … whether they predict the evidence and whether the theories work. Therefore it is the cardinal rule in real science that no evidence or indeed contrary views are repressed.
However, western science has been living through a dark age of repression. Because for decades science has been decided not by whether the theories work, not by whether the climate behaves as predicted, but whether the theories are politically correct.
Even at this moment President Obama is conducting a hate campaign against ordinary decent American scientists who dare to speak up … not for anything political, violent … but simply for daring to say the evidence & science does not support the political belief in catastrophic global warming.
Those who were there will remember that in a similar way Tony Blair told us in Britain that the evidence was “unequivocal” that Iraq president Sadam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Unlike the US where many factors were taken into account, in the UK it was on this basis alone that Blair demanded that the British parliament went to war. It turned out that claim was a totally bogus lie. It turned out the “unequivocal evidence” was nothing of the sort. Any evidence there was was “sexed up” and it is widely believed by many people in the UK that much of the evidence itself was fabricated solely to delude the British public and parliament.
But there was one brave sole who stood up to be counted. Like the noble Prof Kelly who has spoken out for science against the Royal Society, his name was also Kelly, a Dr Kelly. He let the press know the evidence could not support the conclusions it was being used to support. He met his death, whether it was by his own hands or another we do not know, but we do know his death was undoubtedly the responsibility of the British establishment either by intention or neglect.
Whether or not the Iraq war could be justified as Bush did in the US, the fact is that the perpetrators of the horrific events of 911 were in Afghanistan – a region almost ignored as Bush pushed for war in the middle east an area that has been in turmoil ever since leading directly to the rise of ISIS. So if only in hindsight, history will judge the Blair-Bush invasion of Iraq as a failure leading to ISIS. It singularly failed to make Iraq stable or save the population from repressive murdering regimes.
We can only guess what would have happened if the true state of evidence were known about WMD. But we can be certain that without the lies over WMD, if the UK had gone to war it would have been by popular support which would have vastly reduced the potential for home-grown terrorists that have since emerged.
The important thing is like Climate, we know for certain that many of those at the coal face gathering intelligence were completely deluded about Sadam’s “WMD”. We know there were widespread doubts but only one brave sole dared to speak up. And the many like Dr Kelly who did not speak out are perhaps more culpable than any for for both Dr Kelly’s death and all the lives lost in Iraq in the war and since. Indeed, I’ve always felt that it was highly likely that Sadam would actively encourage rumours of WMD because it would make him look a threat and therefore less vulnerable to outside aggression – an obvious possibility that seemed impossible for these “intelligence” agencies to conceive.
But like Iraq WMD, in the area of climate we have also seen this wholesale fabrication or at least “sexing up” of the evidence. Normal weather events seen regularly were sexed up as “Weather of Mass Destruction”. Scientists who did not support the political “consensus” like Salby were hounded out of their jobs. And eventually those at the coalface of gathering intelligence became so deluded by their own sexed up evidence that even in the face of increasing evidence that their predictions were wrong, they laughingly increased their confidence that they were right.
Now is the time to speak up
From my analysis of the past temperature of the planet, I guarantee that sooner or later temperatures will drop below the current level. And when that happens, if this whole “carbon capitalist”, “anti-western industry” scare has not imploded before, it certainly will certainly implode at that point. And I doubt the public who have had £100s if not £1000s stolen from us through our electricity bills at a time of great hardship economically will be in any mood to forgive. Those not speaking up, will be treated no differently from the last few zealots as they all are left “holding the baby” of failed science.
At that point, people like Prof Kelly who speak up for the evidence against the “consensus” will be applauded. But those who wait until there is no choice but to accept the evidence that the models have failed, will be booed off the lectern.
So, academics now have a simple choice. Not speaking up puts you in the same camp as deluded zealots. So, you have a simple choice. You can speak up for science now or suffer the indignity and lack of credibility when this delusion is exposed for what it is,

it’s your choice.