The state of California has embarked on a 25-year green power odyssey in an effort to reduce the amount of CO2 we place into the atmosphere, all aimed at leading the world in an anti-climate change crusade for humanity.

Beginning in 2030, 50 percent of all electrical power produced for our regulated utilities will be mandated “renewable” energy. This definition under the current law includes energy from solar, wind and small hydroelectric facilities built, or to be built, over that time frame. It excludes residential solar installations and existing large hydroelectric projects such as energy produced from Hoover Dam.
While some of this new power will be “infill” development (smaller solar projects that may be placed in vacant or brown-field urban areas), most of it will be new development in areas of the state where sunshine and wind are most plentiful, our more remote inland desert regions including much of the Inland Empire.
Read more: Stop These Things

To coincide with #COP21, I’ve added a tweet button to uClimate.com (which includes the #cop21 hashtag). So please get tweeting.
I’ve also, taken the chance to undertake a few other changes which I’ve been planning to the layout of uClimate.com also hopefully to speed up the site as well as a new mobile version intended to make it easier to view on small screen devices.

The people responsible should be locked up in jail.

I finally got around to reading the great article in the Spectator about Judith Curry:

‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed

Which is interesting, because she’s starting to understand the “boundary problem” of academia which rejects anything it doesn’t like as “outsiders” and should any “outsider” dare to propose anything scientific, the response is to attack them as “pseudo-science” and “science deniers”.
However, far more important is this phrase:

Any such projection is meaningless, unless it accounts for natural variability and gives a value for ‘climate sensitivity’ —i.e., how much hotter the world will get if the level of CO2 doubles.

As I wrote in Formal concepts of noise within Science climate science lacks any concept of “natural variation”. The consequence, is that it assumes the climate is driven by “external forcings” – and then it divides up any changes between those “drivers”. And because CO2 is a conveniently increasing “driver” that starts being recorded in 1958 -leaving only a decade of “global cooling” to be explained – and alongside temperatures till 1998 – it was very easy to assign the total temperature rise to CO2. (By using a scaling factor increasing the predicted warming from CO2 on its own of 0.6-1.2C** by fabricating “mythical” feedbacks to raise the CO2 warming as high as 5.8C.
Thus by (falsely) asserting that there was no natural variation – and therefore there was nothing else could have caused the change – by ignoring the patently obvious changes in the historical record of CET that proved natural variation has always been present – by picking just a few select “drivers” that were then the only things allowed to explain the (naturally varying) global temperature – ignoring the fact the curves did not fit, and that there was one almighty pause from 1998 when temperatures did not rise but CO2 levels did – the alarmists (falsely) justified up to 5x increase in the expected warming from CO2 from around 1C up to 5.8C.
That was not just unscientific, it was criminally fraudulent – as this fabrication of a link  was intentionally hidden from the gullible politicians so that they were wholly misled about the validity of this scaling resulting in fraudulent predictions.

Natural Variability explains all the 20th century climate change

The simple fact as I demonstrated in Proof: recent temperature trends are not abnormal is that we expected climate to vary as it did in the 20th century. So, far from seeing anything abnormal, what we saw was the normal natural changes that have occurred in the earth’s climate for billions of years and will continue to occur for billions of years and nothing any of us do can change that.
And once we accept that simple provable fact, that all the 20th century change can be explained by natural variation – there is absolutely no need to invent bogus mythical feedbacks to scale up the supposed effect of CO2 from 0.6C (latest Hitran calcs) or 1.2C ** to up to 5.8C warming as they did. Instead, the best we can say is that “CO2 is expected to cause some warming – but the scale of that warming is less than natural variation – so we cannot attribute previous warming, nor can we predict any more warming than around 0.6-1.2**C in the next century
 
**The 1.2C figure is that still used by the IPCC, but it is way out of date & now arguably fraudulent because calculations by Hermann Harde using the later versions of the HITRAN database give a much lower figure. This smells of fraud – because there appears to be no reason why an older figure would be used except that it gives a higher figure of warming.

Earlier this year, following a few colder years in Scotland I wrote: “What should define the start of the next ice-age?” to which I suggested “the first year in which ice remains continuously on the Scottish mountains.” I must have been more misled by the notorious UEA (of Climategate) lie that “Children won’t know what snow is” as I had assumed that permanent snow did not occur in Scotland. And I was partly right, because in 2003 & 2006 there was no permanent snow. But as the graph below shows, permanent snow is now increasing rapidly:

Which – should those predicting a catastrophic drop in solar activity leading to cold be right:

And if my own findings re the previous sudden & massive drop in global temperatures some 8-12,000 years after the interglacial starts (we are now 10,000 years in) is right, if as well the North Atlantic Oscillation is going to start causing cooling leading to additional cooling in the next 20 years then it may well be that 2006 was literally the beginning of the next “ice-age”.

Am I being serious?

I’d like to put in some massive caveat: “of course I don’t think it will happen”. However, we are now seeing things on the one-year, decadal, century and millennium that all indicate that (within those time bands) we have or will see cooling. I’d like to say the above video has blown the issue out of all proportion and moderate cooling may come, but now nearly as bad as they suggest. But most of all, I’d like to point to credible climate data from honest organisations – not ones from those acting fraudulently fabricating warming adjustments so that no one at all knows whether we are currently seeing cooling.
So seriously – I haven’t a clue what it means except it is another nail in the coffin of the “global warming” fraud, and hopefully when the dust is settled – when we finally have credible climate data we can trust – we might then know whether or not there’s anything at all to be concerned about.

Has Naomi finally learnt a bit of science and come around to the sceptic view? Sadly the answer is no.
Instead, it’s not the farce of a conference being held to stop global warming – after 18 years without any of that warming according to the only reliable global temperature (corroborated by growing Antarctic, global sea ice and Surface Greenland ice). Instead the farce she is protesting are 24 completely imbecilic and frankly dangerously suicidal climate extremists. Who are so crazy, they just don’t have the mental capacity or empathy to understand that if the Paris police are already over-stretched are organising the protection of 10-40,000 visitors at a time of war (some 200 events have been cancelled), then they simply do not have the man-power to baby sitting these morons.
But no! Naomi Klein would rather the French Police were forced to shut down #COP21 (which I would be more than happy to see) than that her climate extremist friends were prevented from endangering their own, their gullible friends and worst of all the French Police and public’s safety by staging a totally pointless & illegal protest.
Source in the Guardian – but as they are another bunch of dangerous Climate extremists I’m not linking to them.

After Yeo, former Chairman of the UK climate change committee, was caught in a sting operation selling himself to greens, the judge described his evidence as “implausible”, “unreliable”, “not honest”,”dishonest”, “untruthful”, “untrue” and “unworthy of belief”. Bishop Hill – he is now being investigated for perjury
As a result of so many current scandal stories, my original list “Current Scandals” has been somewhat buried.
So I’ve created a new page on the menu: Current Scandals

Like everything in Climate, polar bear numbers are another area of corrupt data which are turned into flagrant lies by the on-line eco-fascists.
Above is the official polar bear estimate from 1981 to date (See PolarBearScience for more details). As you can see, the population is currently at the highest on record.
So, how has this news been reported?

Nothing

The climate corruption continues! The Media are fed story after story using graphs drawn from the population peak downwards, but they never get to see the real story of a growing Polar bear population.

The satellites showing no warming for 18 years and growing global polar ice do not suggest the ice is melting, but suppose it were, how would that affect polar bears? According to research Polar Bears’ Condition Unaffected by Reduced Summer Sea Ice.

So even the predictions of massive decline are corrupt.

Corruption, Corruption, Corruption

Like all areas of climate scam, we again see overt corruption of the data to try to falsely backup alarmism. This time, the “official” graph (below top) removes what it claims are “inaccurate” figures – but what the lower graph reveals is that these are not “inaccurate” so much as embarrassing figures which don’t support the corrupt propaganda:

 
 

According to the blog “Sunshinehours” estimates of the human plastic content in the oceans – much like the human contribution to climate – have been vastly overstated. It was estimated that there were some 1million tonnes. That’s 170g per member of human race. It now turns out that the real figure is closer to 7-35ktonne. That is 1-6g per person.
Read in detail: sunshine hours

Note: with so many articles now showing lies, corruption and fraud – I just don’t have the time to check them in detail – and yet another accusation of lying looks credible – but please read and decide yourself. 
When the notorious evil Lewandowsky wrote a paper in which he examined the way that when the public are told a lie, even if that lie is retracted, they tend to remember the lie, he started what is arguably the most evil and immoral episode of politics and science since the Nazi and their equivalent propaganda: “BIG LIES”.
Because not only has Lewandowsky embraced the “lie first” and retract it if necessary approach in his own work, but every climate alarmists is using the Lewanddowsky technique. For now we hear that even with their bogus warming adjustments, neither NOAA nor NASA, despite claiming 2014 was the warmest “evah”, did not manage to fabricate enough warming. Now from the reference frame we have:

 A direct proof that the professional alarmists are intentionally lying
As I discussed in detail, the surface temperature record significantly disagrees with the satellite datasets when it comes to the question whether 2014 was a warmest or near-warmest year.
Satellites answer this question with a clear “No”: 1998 was 0.3 °C warmer than 2014. This difference (decrease of temperature) is rather safely greater than their error margin which allows you to say that the global mean temperature as defined and calculated via the RSS methodology, for example, almost certainly didn’t peak in 2014. (If it did, it would be no big deal, anyway, but it did not.) The year 2014 was tied on the 6th and 7th place among the 36 according to the RSS AMSU satellite methodology, for example.
(See more: Reference Frame ; further comment Climate Depot)