Scottish Sceptic

There is a commonly heard argument that the truth must lie somewhere between the sceptic and warmist position and on that basis many intelligent people assume that there “must be something in the warmist argument even if it isn’t all correct”.
On this basis many people think the truth must lie between the 1C warming that you get when considering the warming effect of CO2 and the 6C of  warming the zealots of the religion come up with.
So, what’s this got to do with FM radio. Well, … (deep breath) Continue reading →

I’ve just read the so called “paper” on Extra Terrestrials and it is the worst kind of nonsense and may as well be prepared by primary school kids given the lack of any knowledge or ability to draw inferences from human history let alone any concept of what really might happen if alien lifeforms ever contacted us.
Why do civilisations make forays into the wilderness? Continue reading →

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth’s atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.
This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by scientists at Nasa and Pennsylvania State University (Guardian)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
What a bunch of paranoiac twats. Come on, even if aliens did exist, even if there were actual physics that allows them to make the journey to earth, even if they bothered to make the huge journey to earth … would they seriously be bothered with a civilisation that can hardly send a couple of dozen people to its moon for a vacation let alone populate another planet let alone another star system.
This is star trek meets daffy duck!

Last week, I was wondering how long it would be before we saw the fall of global warming. I had decided that after the CERN report and running up to the “there’s no increase in extreme weather but we’ve tried to put the best spin on it IPCC report”, we would see the whole scam crumble.
But now after the recent stream of damning science I’m wondering it if will all go before I get back.
 

A polar bear has mauled a young British tourist to death and seriously injured four others in Norway, authorities in the country have confirmed.
The governor’s office in Svalbard district confirmed all those involved were male and had been camping near the remote Von Postbreen glacier.
She said one of the group shot the bear, and the rest were in shock.
(Source: BiasedBroadcastingCompany)

Very sad news! Any death is regrettable but the death of the worldwide icon for global warming is particularly sad. But as someone’s family will be suffering a loss I will leave my comment at that.
Addendum
I was intrigued by the way the polar bear researcher changed with scientific misconduct  hit the headlines when it seemed a pretty small issue without much relevance today many years after their “discovery” of dead bears “drowned because of ice loss”.
Obviously a story about single furry animal is far more interesting to a lot of people than real science and real scientific misconduct. On that basis, I wonder whether this one single attack will do more to undermine the image of polar bears and through that discredit the global warming scam than any real science.
The fact is that anyone that knows about polar bears knows they are vicious killers and it should be no surprise given the increasing Arctic tourism that someone would be killed. The death rate from polar bears will never match that of driving children to school, but the ability of the British public to react aversely to minuscule risk has never ceased to amaze me.
Personally, I think it is fantastic that these children were able to go to the Arctic. I wish I could afford it for my own children and I don’t think the sad death of one individual should ever lead to a mass campaign to smother all children in cotton wool (unless the risk is from their own parent’s driving)  … but it always has in the past!

Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans

Judging by the speech Murry Salby gave at the Sydney Institute, there’s a blockbuster paper coming soon.
Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. He’s been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he’s spent time at the Bureau of Meterology in Australia.Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels. (MORE)

Comment
There has never been a theory that has been so accepted by so many scientists and for which there is so little scientific evidence for and so much scientific evidence against.
It reminds me of a neighbour I had who decided to remove their upstairs fireplace (against my explicit advice). I think they asked to borrow some tools because I popped around and when I saw what they had done, I immediately went outside and the chimney had a visible tilt as they had simply removed all its support on one side, meaning nothing was holding it up except a few flimsy 4 inch ceiling  joists. Putting a ladder up beside the chimney, the whole massive 6foot x 6foot x 2foot block rocked too a fro at the slightest touch.
As far as I could tell, there was nothing keeping that chimney of more than a tonne of bricks from crashing through the roof splintering beams and killing anyone who was stupid enough to still be in the house. But still my neighbour was unconcerned and talked about getting  a friend in to look at it later.
I didn’t wait, I simply called the fire brigade and told them it was an emergency.
The doomsday manmade warming “theory” is like that chimney. Everything tells us that it ought to come crashing down creating havoc as it falls, but there are nut cases who really still believe it is sound.  It may still sit there but surely, by now, it is ready to fall. How long can it last?

Having listed all the scientific evidence that now contradicts doomsday global warming, I thought I should list everything that supports the theory.
And I searched and I searched and eventually I’ve found something!!
Here it is from the BiasedBroadcastingCompany  Friday, 16 March, 2001, 14:17 GMT:

A team of UK-based scientists have published evidence which they say proves unequivocally that global warming is real.
Comparing data obtained from two satellites which orbited the Earth 27 years apart, they found that significantly less radiation is now escaping into space than was previously the case.

So comparing a satellite that presumably was in orbit around 1970 they found that it gave different readings from one around 2000. Or as Scientific American put it:

The researchers looked at the infrared spectrum of long-wave radiation from a region over the Pacific Ocean, as well as from the entire globe. The data came from two different spacecraft the NASA’s Nimbus 4 spacecraft, which surveyed the planet with an Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer (IRIS) between April 1970 and January 1971, and the Japanese ADEO satellite, which utilized the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) instrument, starting in 1996. To ensure that the data were reliable and comparable, the team looked only at readings from the same three-month period of the year (April to June) and adjusted them to eliminate the effects of cloud cover.

So, that’s pretty conclusive: after the data has been manipulated to remove the biggest effect on climate (clouds) which are supposedly the key to their positive feedbacks, after measuring for a massive three months using two entirely different instruments flying different orbits measuring over a tiny bit of the globe …. it’s conclusive proof.
Whereas when Roy Spencer produces a paper using a single set of data from 2000 to 2011 covering the whole globe … what is the response from the alarmists it was “too short” a period.

Re: Opinion poll reported in GWPF
If we take the 19% who believe “the media make global warming appear less serious than it is” as a base line of zealots, that suggests the vast overwhelming majority of people who are not zealots believe the scientists falsified global warming research, that’s an incredibly high percentage.
In a real sense this is the worst of all possible scenarios. The “science” community continues to deny there is any problem even though 7 out of 10 people believe there is. The result is that they will continue to believe their corrupt inquiries have settled the matter and there is no need to take further action – so no action will be taken and so nothing will be done to improve the confidence in climate “science”.
The result will not only be a continued lack of confidence in climate “science” but that lack of confidence will spread to all the other ‘science’ which has steadfastly endorsed the corrupt methods of climate “science”.
Climategate was a totally missed opportunity to restore public trust, indeed the reason confidence in the “science” is so low is precisely because they intentionally missed the opportunity to out the unacceptable behaviour exposed by the climategate emails. And like an infection this perception that science is corrupt will spread and spread until the public believes all science is corrupt because (almost) all of it has steadfastly refused to condemn the patently corrupt methods of climate “science”.

And now that the BiasedBroadcastingCompany has decided it is unable to criticise the “science” and broadcast contrary views, where will the pressure come that is need to make climate “science” (indeed all science) clean up its act? Not from the BBC that’s for sure! Which means that public distrust in climate science and science in general must grow until it reaches a point where even the likes of the BiasedBroadcastingCompany realise that impartiality and trustworthiness is determined by what the public see as impartial and trustworthy rather than what the BiasedBroadcastingCompany and Royal Society tell us is impartial and trustworthy.