Yet again, I wake up today to see another article “Massive Tampering With South African Temperatures“. And to put this in context, people are already in Jail for the UK LIBOR rate fixing scam. And as far as I can see, not only is this scam more widespread, but it’s been going on for much longer – so why is no one in jail?
Showing an original temperature doing this:

Has been turned into this:

So, this appears to be blatant fraud. And from the article: “Massive Tampering With South African Temperatures” it appears most if not all South African temperatures have been fraudulently changed this way. And these reports highlighting fraud in climate records are coming in regularly. Here’s just a selection of the latest articles:

• “Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets
• Record Crushing Fraud From NOAA And NASA Ahead Of Paris
• NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000
• Both NOAA and GISS Have Switched to NOAA’s Overcooked “Pause-Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Data for Their Global Temperature Products

But please note: these are only the frauds which show up using publicly available evidence. There is little doubt that if such fraud is being committed openly, then far more will be hidden where it cannot be seen. Climate is corrupt and it’s sickening that governments actively condone these criminals. Worse, now that governments are standing in line to receive money, there is no doubt that many will be “improving” their temperature stations to ensure their country is shown warming.
And it is clearly fraud, because none of this warming is appearing in the Satellites.

No doubt the delusional Biased Broadcasting Company commissioned this hugely expensive poll at my expense (we have no choice but to pay for this political fifth columnist party in the UK) – with the intention of “proving” to world governments that everyone else was as mad as the BBC.
So, first, let’s recap the physical information: Satellites show no warming for 18 years, this is corroborated by increasing Antarctic ice , global sea ice which is normal and Greenland surface ice which has increased since 1990. There have been no increases in severe weather, droughts or floods. In contrast, both NASA and NOAA have been shown to be fabricating the far from global surface temperature measure.
So, on the one hand we have fraud, fabrication and  bogus surface temps, on the other we have overwhelming physical evidence that the world is not warming and the only nearly global measurement of temperature showing no warming.
So, only a totally delusional eco-nutter would even consider hugely expensive and usually counter productive measure recommended by fraudsters and scamsters.
But, no! This is the Biased Broadcasting Company:

Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries.
All told an average of 42% of those polled want their government to play a leadership role in setting ambitious targets .. compared with 63% in 2009.

As the poll will undoubtedly have falsely stated the science (there is none supporting current warming) and it will undoubtedly have totally ignored the mega-huge cost, probably totally hundreds of thousands of pounds per person through out lifetime. There is absolutely no doubt that if the real state of science (none supporting) and the real cost were known, that the figure would be less 42% and nearer to 4.2% or even the most recent US figure of 97% who did not believe climate was a number one priority.

As a non-believer, this is a strange post, however since I realised that the Carboniferous period nearly saw the first collapse of life on earth – and we were only saved by dry rot fungus – I’ve realised the earth was heading toward another calamity before humanity came along and (for the meantime) to save planet earth.
But first some basic biology. Plant need CO2 to grow. And without CO2 there would be no plants, and without plants there would be no animals, and without animals or plants there would be none of us humans.

So, lets review the evidence of CO2 over geological time. Above is a graph showing CO2 and temperature. As you can see there is no correlation between temperature. However what we also see are two very distinct minimums of CO2 level. The first occurred around 350million years when it is thought that plants evolved that produced Lignin. This is a hard material, and whilst it allowed plant to grow much taller and resist attack by fungi, but it had the huge problem, that it was so resistive that plant material was not decomposed by the then fungi. The result was that plant material started to pile up, forming huge geological deposits we call “Coal”. The problem as we can see is that all this plant material locked up carbon and prevented it being turned into CO2. And as a result CO2 levels – the essential plant food of life – collapsed.
Then around 250million years ago, it appears that “dry rot” fungi developed that had evolved a means to decompose lignin. This massively boosted CO2 levels –  we then go into the age of dinosaurs.
However, from around 180million years ago, we start seeing the second collapse of CO2 until around 20million years ago we reach the second CO2 desert period. That didn’t look to be a problem until I started looking at ice-cores.
If you’ve studied climate, you will be familiar with the ice-age cycle:

The plot above shows the regular “heartbeat” of the ice-age cycle which we tend to think as “normal”. However, if we look at a measure giving us a longer view, the current 100,000 year cycle is far from normal. Before the current 100,000 year there was a period of around 1million years with around 40,000 year cycle, and before an even shorter/more irregular cycle.
Indeed, what seems to be happening is that the “heartbeat” of the ice-ages is slowing down. The interglacials such as we live in now, are in the overall scheme of things pretty short periods. And one seems to happen is that there is a rapid period of warming causing the world to come out of glaciation – that period last a few 10s of thousands of years – and then the planet slowly sinks back down in the dry cold period of glaciation.

Could the CO2 desert be causing current glaciation

So, far no one has come up with a clear understanding of how the glaciation cycle works. And although I’ve previously suggested a few mechanisms, from CO2 triggering plant grow – which then leads to more water vapour (a powerful greenhouse gas) to gas release from volcanoes directly heating the earth through increased air pressure, I’m yet to be convinced I’ve found the answer.
However, it does seem possible that the reason we have entered this glaciation period is a result of the “CO2 desert” conditions the world is currently experiencing. Indeed, if you believed the global warming alarmism – you would have to believe the drop in CO2 was causing the cooling.
And so if you were an alarmist – you would have to believe that all that CO2 being tied up in geological processes was gradually killing the world.
For it does seem that the world’s “heartbeat” has been slowing and if the 100,000 year cycle were to have lasted just over 1millino years as the 40,000 year cycle did before, then we were not short off what could have been the last “heartbeat” before the earth was forever held in the icy grip of a perpetual ice-age. One which would only get worse and worse as more and more CO2 were tied up until we had a snow-ball earth devoid of life.

God

So, if I were religious – it would look to me that “God had created man-kind to save the world”. That is to say – the whole intention of “God” would appear to have been to create human civilisation to unlock all the CO2 that had been caught up in carboniferous coal deposits and thereby keep this wonderful planet going for a few 100million years more.

The plot was transparent, the leading lady failed to articulate even the simplest moral narrative, the costumes would have done credit to the emperor, there was no build up to any climax, and the ending was a complete fizzle.
The best film I’ve seen this week (discounting 1million years BC – which I don’t count because no other film could possibly compare with this masterpiece)

UK climate diplomats face axe after COP21 Paris summit
UK scraps £1bn carbon capture and storage competition
Spending Review: Support for fracking and green energy, DECC budget slashed
(Source Bishop Hill)

I must be getting old (or more likely there are now too many) because I’m starting to forget all the various climate scandals that are current – so here’s a quick rundown (As I remember them):

1. RICOgate – attempts to silence sceptics using “lawfair” and smear tactics – now linked to  Sen. Whitehouse
2. #NOAAgate (aka Pausebuster study) – the refusal to comply with congressional subpoena from – ongoing and likely to hit the news WUWT
3. #NASAgate – the warming adjustments to their temps now showing to be “massively altered” by German professor
4. Yeo’s apparent perjury in his libel case where the judge described his evidence as “implausible”, “unreliable”, “not honest”,”dishonest”, “untruthful”, “untrue” and “unworthy of belief”. Bishop Hill
5. Stern’s “Economy with the truth” whereby he was shown to have lied in a letter to the FT
6. Mann on trial for libel against Steyn – Mann is attempting to delay – but it just looks worse for him the longer he keeps it going.
7. Shukla’s Gold (a part of RICOgate) – lawsuit filed – original Climate Audit 
8. Scandal at the UK supreme court (failed to comply with FOI law regarding political bias on the issue of climate) more
9. Arctic sea ice false claims (Another Milestone Of Failure By Climate Experts)
10. The ongoing stupidity of Charlie and the impossibility of him being a constitutional monarch when he cannot stop being involved in eco-politics and makes provably false claims linking Syrian terrrorism to Climate.
11. The likely power cuts in UK (coming soon)
12. The ridiculous accusations against Exxon (all big oil profit from the scam – perhaps Exxon are the least corrupt – which may be why they are being picked out?)
13. The BBC are legally obliged to be impartial. They interpret that as “impartial between those we like and damn the rest”. As a result BBC bias on the climate is so rampant, that they libel sceptics, falsify their reporting on climate and generally act like a pseudo political party denying access to  any who don’t toe the line. It’s as easy to find a reasonable summary of the science supporting us sceptics on BBC output as it is to find a summary of reasons to sell off the BBC. See Tallbloke
14. 28gate, was a meeting of 28 eco-political activists (including one from China) held by the BBC in order to decide how to exclude sceptics. It was and remains illegal. Delingpole
15. The corruption & conspiracy to pervert justice of the Climategate inquiries. At least one criminal act was committed by the University of East Anglia in the climategate scandal. That crime has never been prosecuted, nor was the conspiracy to commit that crime. Furthermore, there was then a conspiracy to cover up that crime by those in the establishment. Arguably, this is the most serious scandal of all – because those who committed this crime, were very highly placed, the act was a conspiracy and it was done with the intention of perverting justice. (see The Climategate Inquiries)

Changes

1. Added, climategate, 28gate and BBC unlawful bias. Added “RICOgate” which broader than Shukla – and now is linked to Sen.Whitehouse
2. I’ve reordered (roughly) to make those with most recent coverage at the top

A couple of people have been going on about “this year being warmest ever” which is probably not true (see link), however, it did start me wondering. Because 1/f type noise as present in the climate, tends to have long term trends, it is inevitable that there’s more chance of seeing the warmest or coolest at the end of the trend than would be the case for what I called “scientific noise” (white Guassian).
But I’d never attempted to put a figure on it. But now with data over 7000 runs from my 1/f noise generator, I can quickly check that out. The data is divided into “decades”. So I checked how many of the 7335 decades had the last highest. In my data that is 8.68%. By pure chance with 16 decades, we would expect any one decade to be high 6.25% of the time. So in 1/f noise, the last decade is “warmest ever” 40% more times than expected (for both 16 and 10 decades)

0.372926	16 “decades”	10 “decades”	5 “decades”
Runs with last highest	637	8401	26930
Total runs	7335	58680	102690
% of total with last “highest ever”	8.68%	14.31%	26.22%
Expected %	6.25%	10%	20%
Ratio to that expected	1.39	1.431	1.311

That means since 1958 (when CO2 was started to be measured) we have 5 whole decades. According to normal “scientific” noise, there’s a 20% chance of the last being highest. But because it is 1/f type noise, there is a 26% chance of it being highest. If we then count “lowest” (as the period started with a global cooling scare), then there was over 50% chance that we would now be having either a global cooling or global warming scare right now.
Note: this is without fabricated global temperature data – it’s almost certain if the data is being warmed by the likes of NOAA and NASA

I came across this article: “What would it take to prove global warming” which as the evidence shows the climate researchers don’t even vaguely understanding climate, was setting the bar too high with: “A full understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms.” Climate academics are centuries away from even starting to understand why global temperature changes. So, I wanted to suggest a more pragmatic series of tests (not based on understanding, but on measurable criteria)

A significant difference in temperature.

But during the period of CO2 increase there has been no change significantly different from normal variations
I struggle to understand why anyone has any problems understanding that climate changes and that if e.g. we look at the longest proxy for global temperature (the Central England temperature). There is nothing at all unusual about the present period. Indeed, there was much more warming from 1690 to 1730, and there are several other periods where similar warming occurred (1890-1940, ~1815-1840). I’ve done the analysis and there is nothing abnormal with current temperatures.

Significant indications of trends in multiple proxies such as severe weather, droughts, floods,  etc.

But there are no such trends
In contrast, there is no adverse trends in severe weather, droughts etc. The only significant trends are a REDUCTION in hurricane activity and a very odd “increase in the most intense bits of rain” (which is almost certainly because modern equipment can measure these short duration bursts – whereas older equipment did not).

Global Ice would need to be reducing – particularly surface ice which would respond most if there was current warming.

But surface ice is growing both on sea and land
Because glaciers take time to respond – they build up in cooler period like the little ice-age and  by my calculations on the time it takes for heat to get into the ground, take around a century to melt, they are not good indicators of current warming. Instead, the key metric is not ice locked up in a glacier slowly responding over centuries, but surface ice responding to the temperature now.
And much to the howls of indignation of alarmists,  none of the ice metric for current temperatures show current warming. Antarctic ice is increasing. Global sea ice is normal, Greenland surface ice has increased since 1990.
Moreover, having looked at the correlation between Milankovitch cycles and ice-core metrics, there are clearly “discontinuities” showing periods when Antarctic ice has melted removing (as I recall) around 16,000 years of ice. As we known, the world did not end in a firey ball as a result of that melting. So we are a long way away from such “doomsday” as rather than thawing, ice is melting and accumulating.

Convincing proof that the models work

In contrast, not one predicted the pause
To put it simply: all that the climate researchers know about the world’s climate is encapsulated in their models. Thus we can very easily test whether they understand the climate at all by the skill with which they predict the climate. Not one predicted the pause, thus we can conclude that “all they know” is not much at all.

An end to the culture of lying and deceit in Climate

Even with the best will, people tend to push their own views of what the data means, so any good analyst will take this into account and try to determine if their is bias and take account of it. But in climate, bias is so endemic it is almost impossible to guess how much the data has to be “recalibrated” to remove bias. That doesn’t disprove warming – but it does mean that anything & any data coming from anyone pushing warming has to be treated with the most utmost extreme caution. Indeed, the tendency is often to say “it must be partly right” – but when such extreme bias is present, it usually indicates that the opposite of what is being said is true (see graph).
There is now no doubt that temperature measures are being dishonestly altered, that data is being adjusted and that there has been a wholesale campaign to promote a blatantly political view under the guise of “science”. Like an ice-berg, it is certain, that for each instance of data manipulation and falsification that we get to know about, there are many many more. Worse – not once have colleagues of those concerned “blown the whistle” on the clear fraudulent behaviour that have taken place. So, not only is data being manipulated, but there is no one willing to blow the lid off the scam. That means there is a lot more fraud to be uncovered!
And what does happen when someone independently checks the “global warming” data – they find “cooling” (so much for the sceptics – like me- saying “we think it must be partly true!”)

When the adjustments are removed from the NASA temperatures, we find all the warming has been man-made, not in the climate, but in NASA.
Note, this one study doesn’t “prove” cooling – instead it proves NASA cannot be trusted (and that cooling may be present). And because there is pretty much the same “Climategate” culture of “hiding the decline” that affects all surface measurements, we only have satellite data – and even then – because the culture of deceit is so endemic, we cannot blindly believe the satellite data. (Note one group producing satellite data are sceptics)
And “blind” is the operative word, because as a result of this infestation of liars and cheats – and because nothing ever said about climate has ever withstood the test of real data – the world really has no temperature & no climate data that can be trusted.
So, to be blunt, I would personally sack every single person currently involved in compiling climate data. NASA, NOAA, the Met Office. I would stop any involvement of any academics. And then I would set up an entirely new organisation – ideally in a country that hasn’t been party to the scam – where sceptics have not been attacked and repressed –  and where high level of integrity are still maintained. (And certainly not under the EU or UN which are about as corrupt as one can get on this subject)