Scottish Sceptic

As the following graph shows from google trends, since 2007 interest in global warming has been slowly dropping with less and less people showing any interest … that is until just recently when we’ve seen an upswing bucking the trend:

As you can see the top global warming line (blue) has been on a steady decline until just very recently it went dramatically up. So, I started delving into this effect. First I looked at the regional trend and could not see any specific country that seemed to be a “hot spot”**. So, next I tried thinking of things like “global warming scam” to see whether I could see what aspect of global warming interest was triggering this response. It appears to have been a rise in interest particularly from the beginning of December. And this wasn’t just because the annual COP because nothing had happened like this before. Finally as I ran out of ideas I tried: Continue reading →

Well, we’ve done it. The world leaders may have been delusional, they may claim it as something historic (which it is but for the wrong reasons). But fortunately it seems that for all the rhetoric the “agreement” is nothing but empty promises and hot air as it has been at every International conference of the clowns since Climategate.
The laughable thing is that now the evidence against this scam was so completely overwhelming.

• The best measurement of global temperature come from the satellites – because they are corroborated by meteorological balloon data.
• The best measurements from satellites show no warming for 18 years.
• The worst indication is the surface data – because it is not global with vast areas of Africa and S.America not being measured at all as well as much of the ocean, because the data is heavily corrupted by urban heating and because it is beset with fraudulent adjustments to the extent that all the warming from 1940 can be attributed to these adjustments alone.
• And despite the massive adjustments, not one single dataset predicted to warm by at least 1.4C to 2100 has warmed at even that lowest predicted rate since the IPCC made that prediction in 2001.
• CO2 is a plant food and is good for the planet. Without CO2, there would be no plants, no animals and no humans (this is the utopia the greens really want – no living thing and especially humans to spoil the earth).
• Rising CO2 is leading to record harvests – this is a bad thing for the UN – because the UN makes its money by “helping the poor farmers” (then money is syphoned off by the UN and corrupt local officials). And if the public knew that the world’s farmers were being helped by them by producing CO2 and that the UN are useless, who would give money to the UN to supposedly help the poor?
• Extreme weather is not increasing – indeed, the only real trend is that hurricane activity is decreasing. But again, if the world knew this – how would all those who make their money from telling everyone else they can prevent them, continue to justify their jobs?
• Floods are not increasing, droughts are not increasing – but again those who make their money from these droughts by urgent “appeals” twanging heart strings by implying its the public’s fault, need the public to feel guilty, otherwise how would they line their pockets? And when floods, droughts, or anything else happens, as they always will, if we didn’t believe they were our fault, how would these evil “disaster chasing” people syphon off the money?
• Polar bears are doing fine – but again, evil people who make their money flying and driving fossil fuelled vehicles in the the snowy wastes to “prove” they are not doing well and penalise those living there who have to live with the ever increasing numbers of polar bears, don’t want the public to know that polar bears are doing fine. They don’t want the public to know that there is no need for the people who waste so much fossil fuel on these public paid all expenses holidays to the poles supposedly to count polar bears.
• Antarctic ice is growing, global sea ice is normal, Greenland surface ice has grown since 1990 – and again, those who make their money by wasting huge amounts of fossil fuel travelling to these places to monitoring the “melting ice”, have no incentive at all to let the public know that they are not needed.

Continue reading →

This was perhaps one of the most important parts of the testimony where Prof Curry puts the whole issue of surface data versus satellite, of bogus adjustments of sparse and non-global stations versus near global satellite measurements.
No one in the future is going to believe we used the surface data when we knew it was so bad:

To the Editor Nytimes:

To the Editor:

I believe that federal employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have altered temperature data to try to refute an 18-year plateau in global temperatures that numerous other scientific studies have reported.

A Dec. 4 editorial, “The Latest Attack on Climate Science,” and a Dec. 8 Op-Ed essay by a climate scientist, Michael E. Mann, “The Assault on Climate Science,” unfairly described my efforts to get the American people the facts.

Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. But NOAA inexplicably omitted satellite data to reach the conclusions it wanted.

Federal employees whose salaries are paid for by American taxpayers have an obligation to be open and honest. Current law allows official communications to be made public, and that is why I have subpoenaed NOAA communications about its study. The American people have a right to know the real motivations behind this study, which are clearly suspect.

The climate is always changing, and human activity likely plays a small role. But what climate alarmists say is sometimes untrue and often exaggerated. We should rely on good science, not science fiction, when we evaluate climate change.

Alarmists like Mr. Mann seek to promote a political agenda, then claim to feel intimidated when anyone asks questions. But claiming that the debate is settled is the opposite of the scientific method.

If NOAA has nothing to hide, why not provide the evidence to support the agency’s claims?

LAMAR SMITH

Washington

The writer, a Texas Republican, is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

A self sustaining malign politico science nexus supporting itself and excluding all other voices – it is at odds with scientific enquiry across the centuries

In light of the fantastic performance by Ted Cruz more or less demolishing the whole stupid argument for global warming alarmism, I would be interested to know if any of the old crew that use to edit Wikipedia global warming articles would be interested in getting together.
If so, please leave comments below.
or contact me through the usual means.
 

It looks like being a terrible Xmas for big oil. Firstly Ted Cruz absolutely demolished the alarmists at his hearing leaving the forum nerds with no ammunition left to throw at us sceptics. So, bang goes any prospect of rising energy prices by some kind of cap and trade or carbon tax.
Secondly the destruction the world economy caused by the vile religion of carbon extremism is now causing the world economy to hiccup again dropping demand. And far from oil running out as they had promised it would to the carbon extremists, with fracking the world is awash with oil and consequently prices are tumbling.
The result is that the price of petrol may come down below £1 a gallon in Scotland.
But the bad news is here is Scotland many jobs rely on oil – so not only have we got an insane government in one of the colder countries of the world trying to destroy jobs and cool the planet to the detriment of us all. But they are also heavily reliant on oil (the word hypocrite and SNP is commonly used).
Source: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14133458.Petrol_prices__to_drop_to___1_before_Christmas_/
(but please do not visit them as they are one of the most sickening newspapers I know)

Reading the first reactions to the Ted Cruz inquiry, it seems that partially as a result of Trumps “interesting” statements on Muslims, and partly as a result of his stunning performance on climate, the Clinton camp are are aiming their attacks toward Ted Cruz.
But back to climate. The issue being picked up by “The Blaze” are:

• John Kerry#’s prediction of ice-free Antarctic by 2013
• The failure of the computer models during the “pause”
• 18 years without warming

The alarmist National Journal has a rather odd headline suggesting that Cruz played the “victim card” as a “climate heretic”.

“I be­lieve that pub­lic policy should fol­low the ac­tu­al sci­ence and the ac­tu­al data and evid­ence, and not polit­ic­al and par­tis­an claims that run con­trary to the sci­ence and data and ana­lys­is,” Cruz said
Ju­dith Curry, a Geor­gia In­sti­tute of Tech­no­logy pro­fess­or, said there’s been a “chilling ef­fect” on her own re­search and that she no longer ap­plies for gov­ern­ment grants be­cause she thinks they won’t get fun­ded.
Cruz denies that glob­al warm­ing is hap­pen­ing or that man has played a role and has made his “full-out deni­al” a key point in his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign, [false – I understand Cruz’s view to be that there is no evidence the change we have seen was manmade and good evidence it is natural]
However, au­thor Mark Steyn and Curry chal­lenged Mar­key after his ques­tion time had ex­pired for not giv­ing them time to re­spond, launch­ing a spir­ited back-and-forth about what data sets and stud­ies were re­li­able for study­ing cli­mate change.
Des­pite the hear­ing com­ing as Cruz is rising in the GOP polls, he kept ex­pli­cit pres­id­en­tial cam­paign­ing out of the cham­ber and in­stead fo­cused on pro­mot­ing cli­mate skep­ti­cism. He even said that he took Demo­crats’ cri­ti­cism as a “back­han­ded com­pli­ment.”