The ultimate aim of us sceptics must be for good science, that is to say free, fair** and open discussion based on the evidence where all views are welcome, so long as it is accepted that the evidence is the final arbiter (not some fake consensus).
As such, we sceptics readily accept and thoroughly endorse the right of people to disagree with us. Indeed I would argue very strongly, that the greatest compliment one person can do to another is to take the time & effort to find fault with their arguments.
Unfortunately, in the area of climate due to a number of factors (of which the rise of the internet was one), at one time, much of academia was of a single mind – or at least allowed itself to be portrayed that way. That the “debate was over”, that alternative views were not allowed and that sceptics were wrong merely for raising our concerns over the standard of work and evidence.
However, it is now very clear that increasingly academics have changed their views and that now large numbers accept that climate is a legitimate area for debate. Whilst relatively few speak out, there’s more of this kind of view being heard:

French Mathematical Calculation Society: Global Warming Crusade is absurd and pointless

As such there are now two fairly distinct camps on non-sceptics:

1. Those like the French society, who whilst they may not agree with us sceptics entirely, they have looked at the evidence and concluded that the issue needs further “discussion”.
2. Those like Obama, Lewandowsky, Tamino, Anders, and a host of other small minded people, who continue with their doomsday claim that the climate is extreme,their own self-proclaimed “omniscience” and there lies that all significant weather events are the “most extreme yet” that anyone who disagrees with them is a criminal, that free speech must be denied any who disagree with them.

I therefore feel the sceptic terminology of others needs to reflect this change. In the past we have used various terms:
Warmist
We have won the war of public acceptance of the “pause” and so the term “warmist” is no longer relevant to the actual trend. Indeed, it was never an ideal name (shortened from global warmist – as in those supporting the PR), because it implied something about future warming. Whilst I personally think cooling over the next decade is slightly more likely than warming, I don’t fundamentally object to the view that CO2 ought to cause a bit of warming (instead I would argue that we are very unlikely to see such a small change within the context of much larger  natural variation). Therefore I have had to stop using the term  “warmist”.
Alarmist
The term alarmist, came to mean those who were alarmed by the climate and those who were not. This accurately reflected a significant difference as most sceptics accepted 20th century warming, that CO2 should have a small effect, but the significant difference was about the alarm expressed about CO2.However, as the global population and academia have become less and less alarmed and as I’ve come to see the potential for rapid cooling that is possible as a result of the ice-age cycle, I have to say I was somewhat alarmed by the possibility.
So, I can reasonably see that alarm is quite possible over the climate (at least regarding cooling). And I’m not convinced we are against “alarm”, which is a judgement of the importance of the evidence so much as poor quality science, and the vicious cycle of those whose alarm causes them to look for problems and manipulate data and models to promote further alarm.
Climate extremists
But, by far the biggest concern I have for previous categorisations of the “other side” from sceptics, is that they lumped both the extreme eco-fascist alongside those who were genuinely concerned – largely based on the science (as they had available even though that “science” is highly suspect) that CO2 might have a small effect.
We need terminology, that does not condemn the well intentioned academics (even if somewhat naive about the manipulations that go on) who, whilst not being as sceptical as a real sceptic, are now at least speaking up about their concerns over the subject area of climate. Indeed, we need terminology that condemns extremisms without condemning those who reasonably put forward the argument based on the evidence they have.
Therefore I would like to encourage all sceptics to cease categorisation our opposition as “warmists” or “alarmists” and now refer to those against our position as “climate extremists”.
Mike Haseler
**Note, “fair” must mean equity of funding and not the present system where funding goes to one viewpoint not only within academia, but much worse within the public debate itself.

Looking at the “global warming” headlines today, it is very obvious that the global warming scam has now become so entwined in the US presidential race that the Republicans must know they will win this issue (here’s just a typical selection):

• Global Warming Leftists Seek to Criminalize Criticism
• Donald Trump Still Does Not Understand How Seasons Work
• Donald Trump On Climate Change: ‘Big Fat Dose Of Global Warming’ Is Needed After Cold Front Hits Northeast
• Record low this morning in Baltimore; Parts of Maryland saw first snowflakes over weekend
• Democrats: Global Warming Causes Everything From Wildfires to the Syrian War

On the positive side, this means that the scam will finally have the scrutiny it needed as professional “dirt-diggers” finally start raking through the dirty laundry, on the negative side, it is inevitable, that the science will now be largely sidelined as the discussion moves onto the politics of who is pushing the scam, who is benefiting from the scam, whether their behaviour amounts to criminal offences, etc.
Also, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the real dirt gets revealed after Paris – because the deeper Obama digs himself into  the hole – which means encouraging him to proclaim himself as the earth’s saviour or whatever he’s trying to do – the more difficult it will be for him to get out when the shit hits the fan.

Trying to understand climate extremists, is a bit like dredging a cess pit – most of what’s there is complete crap, but occasionally, and the bottom of the crap, we find something important that was flushed down the loo.
After 18 years without warming as shown by the satellites and so many credible claims of falsifying the temperature record, I just take it for granted that the “human adjusted” temperature records are crap. And after so many years engaging with the moronic climate extremists, I’ve learnt that everything they disagree with is a conspiracy (because they gullibly accept crap from some “authority” – they just assume that everyone is just as gullible and therefore everyone disagreeing with them, hasn’t looked at the evidence and formed their own views, but must have been spoon-fed their ideas by some “conspiracy”.
And so, I’ve finally worked out how they can look at the satellites and reconcile the total lack of warming in the last 18 years, without their own religious belief in “human warming”.
… it’s that there’s a conspiracy by the satellites!
Human adjusted
Where is human adjusted warming coming from?

• From countries who stand to profit from “global warming” – from handouts.
• From academics & those like NASA NOAA who profit from “global warming” from “grants”
• Urban heating – often “adjusted out” not by decreasing the present temperature but by arguing that because it gets warmer in cities – they should just lend a helping hand and make it even warmer.

Have you heard the Joke … I’m doing a study about the nature of humour … Ok it’s not funny, but isn’t that in itself funny? Have you any idea what makes one thing humorous and another not?
So, here’s a few of the accepted theories of humour. And I will attempt to create a joke to test these various theories (some less credible than others). please add comments at the end.

Relief theory – suggests laughter is a release of tension.

Joke: Have you heard WUWT is closing down – at least that’s what NOAA said. Continue reading →

The global warming scam has been dying on its feet. I have been wondering whether it would go out with a whimper or a loud bang (i.e. court cases). But of course – it is so corrupt, I forgot the bleedingly obvious :
Express: Britain would take 40 YEARS to recover from ice age caused by collapse in weather system

Mail: Could The Day After Tomorrow happen? Collapse of ocean currents would cool Earth so much that global warming would reverse for 20 years… but the planet WOULDN’T freeze over

To say I’ve completely pissed off is a massive understatement. I have not spend nearly a quarter of my life fighting the corrupt bogus snouts-in-the-trough non-science of global warming scare mongering and profiteering, just to let another equally ridiculous scare take its place.
But to be frank, this is what you get when you’ve got a subject that is rotten to the core – which is just chasing after news stories – which doesn’t care about the evidence, doesn’t care about scientific validation of research, is content to chuck out junk “science” to get cheap headline.

We sceptics won the global warming “war” at the level of the scientific evidence long ago. The human adjusted measurements of temperature might still show warming – but the fact it is the human adjustment and not the actual temperature that has the warming is proven by the satellites which show no warming for 18 years.
And anyone who knows anything about climate – whether sceptic or even climate extremists – knows that the climate has not shown any trends in severe weather, droughts, floods, snow, ice-packs are back to normal, etc. Last time I looked the only trends were a drop in hurricane activity, that there was potential evidence of some melting of Greenland – but like the Glaciers that is almost certainly a delayed result of coming out of the little ice-age. And there may just be a significant trend in rainfall. However, given how many things are measured, we expect by pure chance to find some trends that are just significant – so there is no overall significant change in the climate … except the rise in CO2 (with no apparent affects) and the continuing natural variation which does not appear to have changed one jot in its scale as shown by the Central England Temperature record.
So, this is not a “preponderance of evidence “(>50% ) it is an absolutely overwhelming damnation of the global warming doomsday scam.

Irritating climate alarmists

Continue reading →

As a non-American I was pleased to see Ted Cruz make the head of the “Sierra Club” look like an idiot for his denial of the scientific evidence for the pause from the satellites. But we’ve seen 100s of other clips – none of which did much except chip away at the global warming scam so I’ve grown content with slow but steady progress.
So, today when I saw a real preponderance of evidence for scepticism in the global warming news, I was to write another article about the “tide turning” – perhaps speculating on whether the slow progress to victory, would now turn into a rapid retreat for the climate extremists. But then it struck me that the real news was the face on all the top stories:

So, it really looks like it’s Ted Cruz’s day.

Whilst global temperature shows no sign of warming, the “Global warming”(scam) definitely shows signs of warming up as UK newspapers like the Express & Sun come out with all guns blazing  and demoralised climate extremists cling desperately to any straw floating their way – no matter who, what or how long these floaters have been digested.
However, the problem for us sceptics, is that with the demoralisation climate extremists, they just aren’t putting in the effort they used to and so we sceptics can’t get to laugh at their antics as we used to.
And with Mann about to lose his court case, Ricogate (it also looks like heading to court),  climate is becoming far too serious. So we desperately need someone with a proven track record of comedy to give us sceptics a laugh:

The White House is about to ramp up the public relations campaign for its regulations to fight global warming. The renewed PR effort comes just one month before the United Nations climate summit in Paris.
How is it doing this? By bringing on Thomas Reynolds, “a top communications strategist at the Environmental Protection Agency and a seasoned political operative, to a new position dedicated solely to messaging Mr. Obama’s global warming agenda,” according to The New York Times.
Read more:

Below is a “personal” letter I received from Ezra Levant. What I find so interesting is:

1. Globally the “public” media in Canada, UK and Australia all pretend to be “impartial” and no doubt like the BBC they have similar requirements to be impartial. But they are really no different from any other media – pushing their own agenda – except unlike any other media, the only people they have to keep on side are their paymasters in government.
2. Because of new technology, the cost of media is now falling dramatically. Where once it was necessary to have massive broadcasters like the BBC, these days, it’s almost possible for a handful of people to set up start and operate a successful broadcaster. And like the proverbial shrew and the dinosaur – the dinosaurs are never able to contemplate that those shrews will ever drive them to extinction.

Dear Mike,
Have you been watching this federal election campaign? It’s a gong show.
I don’t mean the politicians. I mean the media. Their conduct is outrageous. They’re not even pretending to be neutral. They’ve got a full-blown case of Harper Derangement Syndrome.
I call them the “Media Party”, because they’re campaigning full-tilt. You just can’t trust them to give you the straight news. Continue reading →