Michael Mann is an idiot. His Hockeystick might have started as an error in the code, but his failure to come clean and then his stupid self-proclaimed “Nobel prize”** and other lies means he has become a laughing stock.
Exxon, like every other oil company has gained hugely from the global warming scam, as idiotic energy policies pushed up the price of energy and oil (a huge boon) and opened up new “wind” sectors which all the big oil companies are dabbling in. So in one way or another they always profit – after all, what do they care how they make their money?
And as for funding Sceptics – it’s a complete lie. Because when I was Chairman of the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum, I wrote to each and everyone of the BIG OIL companies asking for help in the form of a donation. Only one replied and that was to say no in the a very short email. There was not the slightest interest at all in funding sceptics whatsoever – not on your nelly – not one penny. So, I know personally that they have no interest whatsoever in sceptics or helping our cause.
Indeed, given their disinterest in funding sceptics, and the profits they make from this global warming scam, I have to admit it has crossed my mind many times that that Exxon themselves (or a competitor) dreamed up this scheme to help “slur” us sceptics (and Exxon?), in the hope of keeping this global warming gravy train going for all those with their snouts in the trough from BIG OIL to Mann. It’s all profit to these oil companies and if anyone ought to know how devious they are it’s the greens – but they are SO GULLIBLE!
However, there’s a grubby little article someone’s written and Mann’s always good for a laugh, so if you want to read the vile rantings and fast irrelevant garbage here it is:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/12112015/michael-mann-climate-change-scientist-interview-exxon-mobil-investigation-global-warming

---

**Just to show you what a prat Mann is, let me explain why if he’s a “Nobel Prize Winner” then I and everyone else is also a winner of the same “Nobel prize”. First, he is not a member of the IPCC nor employed by it. So in no way can he claim to have got the Nobel Prize. That’s because the members of the IPCC are world governments.
However, there is a comical argument that can be used and it goes like this: because he’s part of the US (who got the prize), this means that everyone in the US also got the same award. But ironically, that argument (if true) would mean I’ve got two Nobels,  because the EU got another Nobel award for “peace”.

I was looking for the dates of COP21 – to find out when the DeadParrotTalks would be over and found that no one had commented on the YouTube video on their front page … so I hurriedly added some comments (not actually expecting them to appear) … but they did!!!

https://youtu.be/vYtQMYHU0nY

What on earth can a load of hypocrites flying to Paris to gorge themselves tell us about the climate?
The real climate has had no warming for 18 years as the satellites show, corroborated by the growing Antarctic ice, that global sea ice is at its normal level and even Greenland surface ice has grown since 1990. So the physical evidence overwhelming disproves this global warming hypothesis … it is dead, it has gone to meet it’s maker, it is only kept alive by a whole load of gullible people and others with their snouts too deep in the trough of public money to care about the poor of this world.
And what about them? Rising CO2 is causing record harvests and greening of the deserts. Isn’t that great! Isn’t it fantastic that we are helping to feed the poor without some daft UN scheme where the rich cream off the money leaving almost nothing for the poor?
15x the number of people die from cold globally as warming. In the UK alone there have been some 1 million extra winter deaths since this scam started. The bio-fuels scandal killed many poor. This whole Cop is not only unscientific, it is immoral!
Show less

Around 15 years ago, the (once) highly popular BBC Today program introduced a forum on the internet. I was an active member of that forum, with views not that dissimilar to the broadcasters: but working in industry, I was far more pragmatic and worldly and so far more aware of the need to encourage engineering, industry and profit.
However, I began to notice a new phenomenon (new to me). What I observed were individuals who desperately wanted to talk about immigration. At first, like the BBC staff, I assume they were racist, but I came to realise as I read what they wrote, that each and every time they tried to raise the subject – whilst I could see nothing wrong in what they said – the BBC moderators would just close down the discussion and ban those individuals who attempted to raise the subject.

No discussion at all – absolutely nothing – was allowed about immigration.

So, 15 years later, you can imagine how sickening I now feel to find the same intolerant BBC people, going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on …. about immigration at every news. And, far from seeing that their fascist intolerance 15 years ago was unjustified, they have the same pro-immigration views. So, I know that everything they broadcast about immigration is the most politically slanted and biased claptrap. Continue reading →

The pace of past episodes of climate change is likely to have been underestimated, according to research carried out by scientists at the University of Aberdeen and Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) in Germany with Dr David Kemp from the University of Aberdeen School of Geosciences as lead author of the study.
In a paper published in Nature Communications, the research team demonstrate how geological archives do not capture the full variability of climate change likely to have occurred in ancient times. The result, they argue, is that maximum rates of climate change in Earth’s history are systematically underestimated.
Dr Kemp explained: “Our work shows that rates of temperature change through Earth’s history scale with the timespan over which the changes are measured, meaning that the rates of recorded change are inevitably slower when measured over longer and longer time periods.
“When you look at geological changes in temperature, which can typically only be measured over thousands to tens of thousands of years, you inevitably don’t capture the detail and full variability of changes that we know from more modern records occur on much shorter timescales.”
Professor Wolfgang Kiessling, from FAU, adds that rates of warming through ancient episodes of large-scale climate change were probably much quicker than previously thought, perhaps similar to, or exceeding, the pace of warming today.
“Our work emphasises how the geological record biases the data. More recent history shows that significant climate change can occur over short periods of time, and it is these types of relatively short-term events that cannot be resolved from the geological record.”
The team emphasise that their research doesn’t negate present-day concerns over climate change, but rather highlights a gap in our understanding of ancient climate change.
“Our work doesn’t impact on how quickly climate is changing today, but instead it emphasises how the geological record is an imperfect archive of ancient climate behaviour,” explained Kilian Eichenseer, a graduate student on the study team. “Reliably comparing and contrasting ancient and modern climate change is therefore problematic.”
He added: “While there is little doubt that the current rate of climate change is unusual and something that causes understandable concern, caution should be exercised when describing modern changes as unprecedented in the context of Earth’s history, since this doesn’t take into account the clear bias that complicates the assessment of ancient rates of climate change.”

If there’s one thing I hate, it is hyocrites like these troughers flying thousands of miles off to some luxury resort, falsely claiming warming and then telling all of us who know far more about the science, the we THE LITTLE PEOPLE have to cut back whilst they gorge themselves.

Watch: Flashback 2010: Warmists Call for WW2-Style Rationing While ‘Bureaucrats Gone Wild in Cancun’ at UN Climate Summit

Until the beginning of this year I would write on forums something along the lines of: “no warming for XXX years, but there is evidence for some melting of polar ice – that is what we would expect after the little ice-age”.
Then Tony Heller pointed out that globally sea ice was back to normal (now rising).
Then we heard that Antarctic ice had been INCREASING. also sea ice.
That left one real substantial pillar of the global warming religion: there had been studies showing Greenland ice had decreased.
Now today I read this report from the Danish site: Weather, Climate and Ocean Current Surface Mass Budget of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which shows that Greenland surface ice-mass has also been increasing.

So let me now review the main evidence I had for CO2 warming:

1. Even though 69% suspect the temperature record has been tampered with, it is still safe to say there was an apparent temperature increase large enough to turn a predominate cooling scare into a warming scare. So, whilst we can’t ignore instrumentational errors and outright fraud, underneath was an apparent trend large enough to persuade those who then believed in global cooling. STILL TRUE
2. CO2 levels have risen. There’s debate about how much of this rise is due to mankind, but the fact it has risen is not in dispute. STILL TRUE
3. There is a scientific basis for the CO2 blanket. This is only large enough for a fraction of the predicted warming, but the fundamental, but small direct increase due to CO2 is based on reasonably sound science STILL TRUE
4. There are indicators that the temperature may have changed. E.g. a small change in Arctic ice NOW FALSE and Himalaya glaciers. (False?) But these indicators are all dubious. NOW: CONTRARY TO CURRENT WARMING
5. I’m going to add in sea level rise – even though the evidence points to a deacceleration of sea level rather than the necessary acceleration. NOW TAKE OUT

Now let me add in all the evidence for criminal activity:
Evidence of Criminal activity, fraud and corruption

1. Climategate showed attempts to “get rid of medieval warming” and “hide the decline”. As this research was cited when applying for funds, it amounts to fraud.
2. East Anglia University broke Freedom of Information law (but were not prosecuted due to time delay – although conspiracy to break FOI law doesn’t seem to have the same time limit)
3. The Inquiries into Climategate showed widespread and high profile conspiracy to break the law and pervert the course of justice.
4. NASA have repeated been found to have dishonestly cooled the past.
5. NOAA have broken US law by refusing to comply with a lawful subpoena from their oversight committee.
6. The fact NOAA will not disclose emails as the law requires, is very strong evidence that they have altered global temperature to fabricate a warming trend.
7. Gleick committed a criminal act when he stole emails from Heartland.
8. The continued use of out of date CO2 warming figures based on out of date HITRAN data when the new data shows considerably less warming.
9. The BBC libel of sceptics and various other hate crimes by the BBC and like minded people.
10. Shukla who syphoned off public money into a company run by all his relatives in what clearly looks extremely dubious: Uh, oh. Jagdish Shukla and the #RICO20 has captured the attention of Congress, and FOIA documents are coming out
11. The Hockeystick – which no doubt started as a mistake by Mann, but which due to his failure to come clean, his repeated and false claim to be a Nobel laureate and other daft claims and assertions and his use of this bogus material to get funds and generally benefit himself, seems to constitute fraud.

Note: the only potential “crime” by any sceptic is the alleged “hack” of emails which the information commission later ruled should have been in the public domain. So the worst that can be said, is that if any hack occurred, it merely forced the UEA to comply with the law. (although I suspect it was an insider disgusted with their behaviour).

Conclusion

With the recent scandal at NOAA whereby they and NASA fabricated warming, it is now clear that none of the surface measurements can be trusted. As such, given that Antarctic and now Arctic ice is gaining in volume and not melting, and given the widespread corruption in the subject, it is now safe to say that there is no credible evidence of current warming. With no trends in extreme weather, floods, droughts, children know what snow is, CO2 the plant food is leading to record harvests and greening deserts, etc., there is now no credible evidence of any harm and indeed significant evidence of positive benefits.
Therefore I declare that Global Warming – the theory that said we should now be seeing massive warming and catastrophic effects – is disproved.

---

Note:
The data shows surface ice level is increasing. If temperature were affecting the ice, the first place we would expect to see melting is at the surface and therefore this is strong evidence that over the period 1990-present, that Greenland has not been melting. This however is not the same as “Greenland ice-mass” (as originally written). This would need to take account of glacier calving – a process which may reflect an “excess” accumulation of ice 10s of thousands of years ago (i.e. during the ice-age) and so the rate is not a good indication of what current temperature is doing as there need not be any correlation with present temperature.

Following my previous post highlighting the emergence of humorous articles regarding Global warming The Global Warming comedy show I realised this marked an important change, but in order to explain it, I needed to publish my Social Boundary Theory of Humour.
To put it simply, the Social Boundary Theory of Humour says that we find things funny because they are at the boundary of acceptability, AND that we use humour to communicate and “discuss” these boundary. (Which rather explains why I no longer find the BBC funny!)
However, the implication of that, is that people will tend to use humour when they are unsure of the social boundary and are searching for the “social norm” or the limit of social acceptability. (We don’t e.g. ask is it OK to say “cunt” – people instead make a joke and judge the acceptability of ideas and words from the response – which is significantly different in different social groups).
In other words, the recent emergence of articles in a humorous tone, is highly indicative of a view that the social boundaries on reporting climate are perceived to have changed. So those journalists treating the subject humorously are in effect asking the question “is this the new social boundary?”.
Thus, based on the Social Boundary Theory of Humour I can conclude:

1. There has been a perceived change in what is acceptable within society regarding this subject (the moral stigma of being a sceptic has dissipated).
2. That more than likely once other commentators see the subject being treated humorously, that they too will begin using humour so that they too can explore and discover the new “socially acceptable boundary”.
3. And basically: that the Global Warming propaganda machine is failing, the fear of “crossing the boundary” to the sceptic side has disappeared and that we sceptics face the real risk of becoming socially acceptable.

Social Boundary Theory of Humour

Socially acceptable behaviour is contained within a set of unseen boundaries which are not formally taught. As young children, we learn by praise and punishment what behaviour is acceptable in the same way that we learn by the same means what places we can go, what items we can touch and what behaviours are acceptable.
However, it is a well known phenomenon that some areas are taboo from discussion. So, many parents find it difficult to talk to children about sex, or perhaps in this age, many children don’t want to hear parents talking about something they already know.
So where does this knowledge come from? As children seem to learn the socially acceptable boundaries even though they are not being formally taught or communicated.
I would like to propose a very simple hypothesis: that the main purpose of humour is to explore and demarc the boundaries of socially acceptable behaviour & thought. They are in effect ritualistic forays, toward and even beyond the bounds of acceptability, which are tolerated because these ritualised “attacks” enable society to discuss and communicate these taboo subjects.
Thus humour is in effect the formation of the question: “if someone did this – would it be acceptable”. Those “jokes” that do not push the bounds are not funny. Those jokes that go too far are deemed “unacceptable”. But in between there is a spectrum of acceptability and the response from the audience endorses and re-enforces or forms the social boundary. It is thus hypothesised that the the tone of the response from the audience, in some way communicates to everyone if or how far the boundary has been crossed. (i.e. laughter versus groans?)
In addition, by attacking other groups, humour is used to signpost the boundaries of the group: to create and maintain a group identity by denigrating “outsiders” and suggesting the insiders are superior, intellectually, socially and/or morally.
Many other theories of humour have been proposed as below. However none explain the purpose of humour or the reason why this form of behaviour would have evolved. However, it does fit in with these other theories as follows: Continue reading →

There’s a new phenomenon developing, presumably from a press sick to death with the Climate Extremists propaganda and/or gullibly copy and pasting their dumb press releases. And it’s this: headlines which just look comic! So, can you tell whether the following are intended to be serious just by their titles?

• Opinion: On global warming, will they come after hamburgers next?
• See How Global Warming Could Sink Parliament
• Global warming affecting Belgian beer
• Climate change hampers sex drive too
• Tis the season for all that global warming folly

Perhaps their expensive market “research” shows them that people like comedy, so in their gullible minds the climate extremists now reckon that if they make global warming comic people will like it?