EU green group funding.

Following on from #Frackinggate – the allegations by NATO that green groups are funded by Russian oil, Andrew Montford has another post at  Bishop hill which caught my attention:

There is, however, an even more sinister element. As we see the march of globalisation progress, the Green 10 (all of them funded by the EU, except Greenpeace – the WWF between 2007-2012 having grabbed a massive €53,813,343 for its services to itself and the EU empire), are supporting their paymaster, “promoting EU environmental leadership in the global political arena”, helping it act at a global level.

This is from EUReferendum. Unfortunately, it isn’t clear who is and who is not being funded by the EU. So I did a search and found this:

Had Mr Farage been better briefed, he could have pointed out that the WWF has been paid nearly €54 million from EU funds in the six year period from 2007 to 2012, the RSPB were paid more €14 million, and that Friends of the Earth Europe are primarily funded from public funds. Its work programme in 2013 cost €1,368,059.00, of which the EU contributed €751,064.00 (54.89 percent). Likewise, the EEB gets most of its funding from the taxpayer.
The best bet, though, would have been to add up the Green 10 subventions for the period 2007-2012. We start with WWF grabbing €53,813,343, Birdlife is lead recipient for funds worth €25,680,683, Naturfreund gets €2,862,371, Bankwatch takes €8,178,095, the EEB is lead recipient for €13,186,263, Climate Action Network gets €2,240,616, HEAL (as EPHA) takes €4,622,921, Transport & Environment, takes €2,172,353 and Friends of the Earth was lead recipient for grants worth €13,674,033.
Putting these nine together, with Greenpeace the notable exception, the Green 10 minus one are primary or lead recipients of funds to the tune of €126,610,677 disbursed by the Commission between 2007-2012
(Link)

This is a very different story from that on Bishop Hill where it is suggested the 53 million is split between 10 NGOS. Instead EUReferendum suggest the WWF alone are getting the €53,813,343. Friends of the Earth are getting another 13million, the Climate Action Network 2million and no doubt many of the other have a radical environmental agenda.

Posted in Climate, greenblob | 1 Comment

My best estimate: less than 1C warming if CO2 level is doubled.

I keep making this argument in bits, and have been meaning to put it together but have never had the time. So rather than putting it off again, I’ve decided to put my assessment of the impact of CO2 on global temperature in this very quickly prepared post. Note, because it is quick, I’m assuming a reasonable competence by you the reader.
First we look at the ubiquitous “global warming graph”.
gwSecond we do what any decent engineer would do and look at the frequency components of this graph:

Fig 1: Variability of observed global mean temperature as a function of time-scale (°C2 yr–1)  from figure 9.7 IPCC (2007)

Fig 1: Variability of observed global mean temperature as a function of time-scale (°C2 yr–1)
from figure 9.7 IPCC (2007)


As you will see it rises almost linearly which is typical of 1/f noise. And it is so suspiciously straight line that it looks like 100% random noise. The only “deviation” is at lower frequencies (higher periods >50yr) which is because you only get one or two cycle of 50/100year periodic noise in a 150years of data. This is to be expected. (As is the way you see more “detail” at higher frequencies – which is because there are more such cycles in the dataset)

Initial conclusion: It is consistent with pure noise.

Continue reading

Posted in Climate, Proposals | 6 Comments

Has Connolley given up on Catastropic Anthropogenomorphic Warming?

I usually only read the toad’s articles as a headline on uClimate, but I couldn’t help looking at this one (sorry).
From what I can see, he’s given up on the “doomsday” man-made warming and is now arguing that there still might be a problem from very low levels of man-made warming. So if we are not heading toward a catastrophe as the Toad now seems to be arguing what are we heading toward?

Catastrophe: “an extremely large-scale disaster, a horrible event.

In climate terms, does this mean Toad is now predicting less than 2C warming, the level Stern says is unacceptable? The level at which the huge benefits from warming are thought to be overtaken by harm (if one assumes the “scientific” aka “the worst possible imaginable – or worse” scenarios. )
To avoid anyone else having to go to Toad’s blog, I’ve reproduced the article below (And if Toad wants to complain, may I remind him that he refused to help me get a totally scurrilous and false article removed which not only breached my copyright but intentionally libelled me and many other people.)
Anthropogenomorphic: In my view, people invent big words to pretend that simple ideas are complex and falsely give the impression those using them have “special” knowledge. But, in my experience if someone uses these “big” made up words when there is are perfectly good shorter word, it often means they are trying to hide the fact they haven’t a clue what they are talking about.

If it isn’t catastrophic we’ve got nothing to worry about, have we?

Continue reading

Posted in Climate, greenblob | 22 Comments

The $10,000 Global Warming Challenge!

The $10,000 Global Warming alarmist Challenge!
I have heard global warming alarmists make all sorts of statements about how the science supports their claims of man-made climate change. I have found all of those statements to be empty and without any kind of supporting evidence. I have, in turn, stated that it is not possible for the alarmists to prove their claims. And, I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.
I am announcing the start of the $10,000 Global Warming Alarmist Challenge. The rules are easy:
1. I will award $10,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global warming is currently occurring;
2. There is no entry fee;
3. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.
That’s it! I know you are not going to get rich with $10,000. But, tell me, wouldn’t you like to have a spare $10,000? After all, the alarmists all claim it is a simple matter, and it doesn’t even have to be original. If it is so easy, just cut and paste the proof from somewhere. Provide the scientific evidence and prove your point and the $10,000 is yours!
If someone can provide a proof that I can’t refute, using scientific evidence, then I will write them a cheque.
But, I am sure I will never have to because it can’t be proven. There is no scientific evidence for global warming and no one can prove otherwise.
Any takers?
NOTES:

  1. The scientific method means a Scientific hypothesis about a data set that is tested against real data from that data set.
  2. By current warming I mean a rise in surface temperature data over the previous 15 years (So no “the ocean eat my heat” responses please).
  3. I am the final judge and my response to anyone who enters is this will be: “there is currently no warming, no one predicted this and so I will not be paying out any money”.

Explanation
The reason I’ve put out this challenge is to show that any numpty can put up a challenge asking for evidence. But unlike all the other numpties (like this) asking for evidence to disprove man-made global warming – for which there is no funding at all, I’m asking for evidence that proves man-made global warming something which has received 100s of millions if not billions and is supposedly “settled science”.

Addendum

It has righly been pointed out that Peter Laux issued a very similar challenge which is on Dennis Rancourt’s Climate Guy blog. http://climateguy.blogspot.se/2010/11/10k-climate-challenge.html
The comments are worth reading.

Posted in Climate | 69 Comments

Oh no not more evidence they've fabricated the data.

There was a time I’d get excited by this kind of story – but there was a time that I thought newspaper journalists would care two hoots about it.
Cue the deafening silence from the press:

Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres – NASA and NOAA – have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century “global warming”.

The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show “climate change” before and after the adjustments.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA

Posted in Climate, Fails | 3 Comments

Greenpeace in the News

Here are some recent stories that have in some way been linked to green peace

Posted in Climate, greenblob | 6 Comments

Something's changed

There was a time when I would comment on line as the only skeptic and wait months before a good news story came along.
Then we had climategate – it gradually became respectable to be a skeptic, and after a few years, I started to find the one or two alarmists were being answered by so many skeptics on the forums, that it was difficult to have a conversation.
Slowly the number of “good news” stories rose until by the beginning of this year, I would say the pro-skeptic stories were clearly more numerous than the pro-warmist.
However, recently I’ve noticed not only a resurgence in alarmists – but also a drop in skeptic posts – but also a massive increase in quality “good news” stories in the “media”.
#Frackinggate was an obvious example – and perhaps the first example of a large scale media coverage of a skeptic-like story since climategate, and then today (possibly from the same stable) comes news that Greenpeace aren’t exactly green nor at peace internally. Related to this was the Holywood sting catching celebrities  willing to take money to undermine the US economy. The other mega story was the US officials who refused to back Obama’s rantings on climate. Not forgetting the academic who was “fired” for helping the GWPF. And then there have been many other minor stories like the “expected” falling apart of the climate talks.
Is this internal war in the green groups? Is it a growing hostility by officialdom to these green groups and their poisoning of the western economy? Is it increased funding to skeptic lobbyists?
Whatever is happening, the GWPF seemed to have stepped up a gear and I would guess are now issuing twice the stories they were a few months ago. Is this just a passive response because there are more stories – or are they somehow involved in creating more stories?

Posted in Climate, Media | 4 Comments

#Frackinggate – which major news outlet still holding back?

When the BBC – or at least BBC world service – finally covered #frackinggate,  it seemed we skeptics had finally got all the press to cover this story.
That mainstream news outlet is WattsUpWithThat.com
And to rub salt into the wounds – even the warmists like grist are starting to cover the story.
And whilst I would love to comment as to why Watts will not be covering it – it wouldn’t be ethical.

Posted in bbc, Climate | 6 Comments

#frackinggate – BBC finally mention it!

Latest news – the BBC world service (not quite the BBC news)
Listen to the first few minutes. This contains the original statement by Rasmussen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p020wmlm

Posted in bbc, Climate | 1 Comment

#frackinggate – great analysis by Sun News!

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2014/06/20140620-095409.html
Video: http://bcove.me/4i04fl0y
“They[Greenpeace/span] didn’t bother to do an audit of themselves to see have we been the victim of a sophisticated trick by a malevolent government – they just said ‘huh us?  We’re perfect”

Posted in Climate, greenblob | 6 Comments