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”.

Above is a plot of the relative number of google searches for “Global warming” (blue) and “Climate change” (red).
Global warming is one of the early great causes on the internet, rising steadily for the first few years of recorded searches until it’s peak in 2007. Then almost as suddenly, it went into terminal decline which nothing but Climategate seemed to be able to altar. (Climategate can be recognised from the peak in “climate change”).
In contrast “Climate Change” has remained pretty level except for one event: Climategate. This suggests those with an interest in Climategate tend to favour “Climate change” rather than “Global warming” strongly suggesting that a change in the relative frequency indicates rising scepticism.
But there is also a strong yearly trend. One might think this is related to temperature but it is not. To understand this trend we fist need to recognise that the strongest pattern is one that fits with the academic year. The biggest drop is exactly when we’d expect the opposite: in the hottest part of the year. This corresponds to the long summer break away from PC indoctrination. The other big drop is Xmas/New Year which being observed at the same time across much of the world, also provides another strong dip. But other holidays are at different times, so if we look only at the English statistics below we can see a very distinct relationship to the academic year for both search terms:-

Now, because the English schools have pretty much the same holidays, we can not only spot the Easter breaks but even half term holidays. And looking below at the 90day trend we can see that globally the weekend is the time least people search for “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”. By my estimation (looking 2010-2015) searches for “global warming” fall to around a 1/5 their term time value in the summer, he figure is slightly less with “Climate change” with around 2/3. This suggests 80% of all “interest” in”global warming” and 66% of “interest” for “Climate Change” is generated directly by academics. And the fall in “Global Warming” at half terms indicates this indoctrination is occurring in Schools (Universities don’t have the same half terms). Talk about indoctrination!

The decline of Global warming

However, the key point of this article is that except for a very few blips, interest in “Global warming” has been declining whereas “climate change” has hardly changed. Since “Global Warming” is clearly the more PC term/alarmist term, it will (was) a momentous occasion when that threshold is crossed. So “when will or has ‘Global Warming’ dropped below ‘Climate Change’?”

Looking a the last 90 days, January 2015  starts with Global warming higher globally, and we are clearly heading toward parity with almost the same.

But if we look at the last 30 days we can see that March started with “Global Warming” just higher, with Global Warming higher on only 4 days out of 16 (25%) but it ends with “Global Warming” just lower than “Climate Change” so that …
Globally 9 out of the last 14 days (64%) “Global Warming” has been beaten by “Climate Change”.

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.

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 →