Monday, 17 December 2012

Before and after: Adjusted climate graphs

Before and after 2011- this of course vastly altered the world temperature as a result as well.

 Blue- before. Red- after.

The black line added to it is the way they made a flat average (green) slope up (red).

Here, the IPCC took the soviet-style method of rewriting history. They took their own data and sat on it, squashing a clearly warmer period known throughout written and physical historic records (plants, wine growing etc), although every book written before then also still contains it. Like this one:

What does this say about the proxy and other past records we used before they did (which were also the basis of the IPCC's very existence?).

More naughtiness from Australia

And New Zealand

You can also drop the left rather than raise the right, the result is exactly the same.
And in Austria, blue, flat, red, rises.

Form of individual corrections applied by NOAA. The black line is the adjustment for time of observation. The red line is for a change in maximum/minimum thermometers used. The yellow line is for changes in station siting. The pale blue line is for filling in missing data from individual station records. The purple line is for UHI effects (this correction is now removed).

Rather than showing two sets (before and after) this red line was the actual hockey stick of extra heat added by the USHCN. It's as if they were all under some kind of instructions to do so. The details of how they got the total are above:
Alabama, 1F in a century, all artificial

Now looking at this motley collection, what do they all have in common? Yes, they all started flat and sloped up. Don't ask why, no one knows. Feed it all into the global set and what happens to it? As above, so below, these alterations done at the local level are all collected together and form the ones we have our policies made with, although if you take the adjustments away in reverse it won't have a hockey stick at all.

Friday, 14 December 2012

Read the sea level

Tuvalu has been campaigning for compensation from the west for rising sea levels caused by their CO2 emissions, as many other Pacific islands. Sea level is like temperature, in that it is not constant but varies from place to place, just less over a short period. But it's roughly averaged, and while James Hansen is the sea's hockey stick advocate, his rises are all in his very confused mind, many yards by 2100.

There are two causes of sea level from rising temperatures, melting ice and thermal expansion, which are roughly equal. But without the temperature rise the sea will do nothing. Then a small bounce back from the loss of ice from the ice age adds a little more. Local differences are also down to tectonic plates, so Britain is tilting so one side will go higher and the other lower. Likewise many low lying islands are on a tectonic plate which is falling, but that of course is independent of the temperature. But (although they are not entirely reliable are many times more consistent than the comparable temperature records as seen in my previous entry) local sea levels are pretty easy to follow as you only basically need a man with a pole and a tape measure and far harder to cheat. Satellites do it as well now, tide gauges/bobs and are then collected and added to get the world averages per year. But as local levels can only cause local disasters here is Tuvalu's. Where is the cause of the reason they are demanding our money again?

Realistically it is relatively easy to work out the available water from ice, and extremely easy from heat. The amount required to melt is also temperature based, with a delay as the latent heat required to melt huge glaciers takes some decades before an above freezing temperature will finally melt. Meanwhile back in the present the sea is rising since the last little ice age. These coincide with solar minimums throughout history, and then return to typical averages before the next one. So we are always between one or the other, so the temperature and sea levels always rise or fall in tandem, they are never static. Seven inches is a reasonably safe rise, which we experienced in the last century, and if the temperature rose then the expansion would be fast, with a delay for the ice which would gradually follow. The progress is far closer to linear than temperature as driven by so few causes, and by 2012 that trend has continued, and unlike temperature needs an awful lot more to happen for it to rise sharply. That will make it a lot easier to project than the rest of the climate as it takes a lot to change it, and can only rise quickly after an ice age ends. After the sharp rise following an ice age it slows down to zero, and then falls again once the temperature does. It always has and always will.

The sharp rises are when the ice ages end, and can see they are regular cycles, and the temperature also rises sharply every so often, we are looking at millions of years and those patterns are both pretty regular and impossible to have human influence. Putting temperature and sea level rises into historical context is something never seen in the IPCC driven publications, as once you see how minor today's changes are everyone would pack up and go home. So far only handfuls of people come here and see it, but the material's there and should have the same effect. The red temperature diagram has swings of almost 10C, which the planet and any life upon it survived enough to maintain a healthy mix of plants and animals. Unlike other animals mankind has the gift of foresight, and the geological periods it takes for sea level alone to rise give us centuries to plan. The reason people live on coastlines near sea level and flood plains is mainly due to overpopulation and ignorance, as despite regular floods simply as the tides are sufficient to inundate New Orleans, most of Bangladesh and The Netherlands, the simple vast rise in population (which is a hockey stick and rising even more sharply each decade, and totally genuine) forces people to unsuitable land, and then to blame ourselves (we all emit CO2, it's called breathing) and try to punish everyone else to compensate them for choosing to live in a fucking idiotic place is no less than extortion.

Bottom line, you can check yourselves, the land ice (Arctic ice can't cause the rise as only Greenland contains the stuff which can and that's not likely to melt in our lifetimes, so is irrelevant), and 90% is in Antarctica which is steadily growing. If Antarctica continues to grow, without a vast and sudden melt of the Greenland glacier there is nothing there to cause a rise. Where could it come from? And for the thermal expansion you'd need (I'm sure the equation is around) a temperature rise so much beyond anything currently possible it isn't worth considering. What's the point of thinking about something which both isn't happening and whatever the Hansens of this world are spouting are almost impossible, not because of individual opinions but current and historical data. Plus the prediction of long term temperature trends beyond the huge thousands of year ice age cycles are impossible as they are chaotic. And before anyone blames CO2 the 33C greenhouse effect the UN use has 1C from CO2, which would double if it doubles unless it has positive feedback. It has increased 50% already, and the attributed rise from 0.7C was 0.4, less than expected. There are no new phenomena to cause a delayed or surprise feedback, it was never expected to be, it is either there or not, and with that experiment half run observation tells you what exactly?

Thursday, 13 December 2012

Thermometer nurse!

Imagine you are in the standard hospital ward, and each patient has the temperature chart at the end of the bed. You give them a thermometer, note the amount and write it on a graph so you can see the progress. But what if the patient was a planet, and had a pair of measurements as well? That means first you get the global mean temperature, and because taking the temperature of a planet is infinitely harder than a person (some claim impossible) they use the anomaly, the change over a period, so you can iron out any gaps and errors, supposedly.

So here is the global temperature from 1880-2012, you can clearly see the el nino peak in 2010 is higher than in 1998. But the short term diagram below it for the recent period covering them both (nb global temperature in degrees so comparing like with like) is clearly lower.

A closer look, no, still not there.

 The diagram above clearly shows the anomaly in 2010 as higher than 1998

But this one for the same period isn't quite sure. Look at the final 20 years on both.

Where's it gone now?

Still not there

If I can find close up short term diagrams for both I will add them as well, but the detail on each is quite clear enough to see the 1998-2010 peaks on both the observed temperatures and anomalies. In both you see it is higher in one and lower in the other. In both cases. Imagine the hospital ward again, while each nurse in attendance has their own temperature diagrams per patient, and the doctor has to read one with a peak on Tuesday while another is on Thursday. What is he supposed to do?
An animated comparison with explanation

Maybe this could explain part of it?

Taken from here This is not an isolated cherry pick, quite the opposite. On my long climate post here I have a series of links showing many of these, in fact wherever you can gain the original data before adjustment the same pattern appears habitually. That would be the equivalent of the nurse putting the thermometer in a cup of tea after leaving the patient each time. Then what would the doctor think?

My own conclusions, based purely on the laws of logic, tell me this. Firstly, if a building has dubious foundations, how can it be trusted? Imagine any other profession having such differences in its methods of measurements and results. If an engineer had three different sets of conflicting figures for a bridge, I wouldn't walk across it, let alone drive over it, yet they base world taxation policies solely on a group of self-interested lackeys whose very career relies on a positive result, who in any other field would be answering questions at the local nick. Secondly, these alterations for 1998, and 1934 and the entire medieval warm period before it, do not imply, but express the fact that if they needed to adjust the past temperatures down they had measured them wrong AND kept using them for many years before apparently discovering it and 'fixing' them. And oddly, if you are given the wrong change in a shop by accident all errors will even out to zero over time, but every single change here has made the past cooler and the present warmer. Only a mother or son could look at that scenario and still trust it.

This is from NASA, although possibly for the US as they have the most stations it is quite a fair sample. 1934 was the hottest year. And 1998 is still above 2010. NASA figures corrected

Monday, 10 December 2012

Avoidable policies

I have worked out something everyone needs to know and apply when it comes to their country's political problems, some you are stuck with by bad luck, and some are avoidable, or to look from the politician's side, deliberate.

This simply means when some people are put in the utter shit, often the poorest and least able to fight back, it was done to them deliberately.

I will give a few very simple examples, and with them should easily be able to recognise the same principle elsewhere, and see basically (language alert) what total fucking bastards the people are who made them. Here are some doozies:

1) Low interest rates: Max Keiser has just given the exact figures of winners and losers from low interest rates, twice as many people lose than win. That is because for all the money saved by mortgage holders, twice as many pensioners and investors lose, thus shrinking the economy, deliberately.

I will add something he didn't, ie high interest rates put house prices down for new buyers, so more people gain by them as they pay less in the first place. Sellers never lose as most trade up and spend less overall as the discount on what they are buying will usually be bigger than the nominal loss they are taking, which is almost guaranteed not to be a loss as the prices almost always go up, just not quite as much.

2) High energy prices: In Britain we have no energy price caps or regulations. No, none at all. The continent do, so as the companies there (gas and electricity are monopolies as there is only one supply, however many 'suppliers', just like the railways) have limited profits they have bought all ours and charge as much as they can before too many people would default. That is avoidable as the rest of the continent avoids it with regulations.

3) The Euro: Greece could recover if allowed to devalue their currency, that has never been in dispute, but besides the residents not understanding enough about economics (how many voters do?) to campaign to leave, they could be released from it, but instead will revert to a third world country as had they left through bankruptcy it may have destabilised the ambitions of a united Europe, which is little different from what Hitler wanted to create. Or possibly Mussolini. Therefore everything has been shifted in order to siphon money and policies to guarantee Greece's debts, while they suffer unnecessarily as they don't get the money, it just services their existing debt directly. Of course the debts wouldn't evaporate if they left the Euro, so that is barely a consideration. In fact they would be better off, probably leading to lower interest payments and a better chance of paying them.

4) The Common Agricultural Policy: The Common Market is based on price fixing, which is illegal for private businesses. They burn and bury food annually simply to keep the prices up. That is a crime against the people.

5) Green taxes: The British/EU (there is little difference now) green taxes mean the already record energy prices are expected to double in a decade, rising to an average of £2,500 a year. Of course (plus petrol) besides stoking inflation as everything manufactured and transported uses energy so has to be factored into the price, hits the poorest the most as they pay the same for it all but is more of their total income. Only poor people die of cold, 3,000 people a year in Britain. Totally deliberate.

Now you have some examples, you are probably voting these bastards in. Why do I say that? Well, in Britain ALL THREE MAJOR PARTIES almost totally agree on these policies, so if you vote for them they will continue. They won't get us out of the EU, or repeal the green taxes, or regulate foreign energy companies, so in the end they have not done this but if you voted for them you have. Every single Labour, Conservative and LibDem voter has chosen these policies. You don't have to. UKIP are an escape route, you only need one alternative as more would dilute the vote and keep them out. I'm not recommending any party personally, but explaining what you get depending who you pick. The same is applicable worldwide, as even if there's a tiny party offering an alternative, if you vote for them they will get in. You can't be screwed in a democracy more than a 5 year term if you vote them out. That's our only power at the moment unless we are given referendums on more policies, which we clearly won't. Don't blame them, blame yourself.         

Sunday, 9 December 2012

(Copied) The green agenda

Having read this on another blog it was so clearly set out I have copied it over. I can see it, he can see it, and many others can, but a tiny minority of the total. Meanwhile the average Joe, who trusts authority and rarely if ever (despite the arrival of the internet) checks what they are told, so are also used to slap down any opposition to the collective reality. But they can't keep it up forever.

tckev on said:
Perhaps the powers that be would be just a little more subtle. Perhaps we are being softened-up.
1. Get the majority to believe in some fictitious coming calamity. Say, CO2 causes excess global warming.
2. Propagandize the coming misfortune of many people worldwide – ensure your population feels very guilty about their perceived misuse of fossil fuels.
3. Remove, as far as possible, all industries perceived as misusing fossil fuels, and replace them with inadequate systems that will ensure all prices rise, especially the price of fuel – all fuel. Impose ever more onerous restrictions on import and use of fossil fuels.
4. As global temperatures fall keep propagandize the local hot spots. Ensure every unusual weather event, be it wet, cold, stormy, calm, dusty, or hot gets blanket coverage on all media and ensure that the rise in CO2 get mention each time. Give the whole event a catchy name – say Climate Change.
5. As transportation, food, and health requirements get more expensive and very difficult to maintain, the government, the well connected, and the rich and powerful just have to wait. About every 10-12 years there is a very cold weather, sooner or later (about 100 year – it’s about due) a flu pandemic will come around and decimate the population. In the meantime add more burdens to the ordinary person – restrictions of travel, local no go areas, food shortages, etc.
The government of the day just has to sit on its hands and wait. As each small calamity occurs few people notice how many have succumbed; we’re all too busy trying to stay fit and healthy. By the time it’s too late the government explains that it would be wrong to allow burning fossil fuel, after-all they have signed treaties and made promises to the rest of the world not to.

Sunday, 2 December 2012

It speaks for itself

In law, there is a term which means the evidence is so clear it speaks for itself. Like this:

This study, where the correlation (unlike CO2) is so close it overshadows all lesser evidence, is from 2001, 11 years ago. Why hasn't anyone found it apart from a few of us online? Further studies have confirmed this to be the case, so why does the fraud continue, while the obvious cause of temperature variations is right in front of them? As David Icke says, follow the money. But you've read this so you know different now, pass it on until everyone else does as well.

Saturday, 24 November 2012

Agenda 21 plans for depopulation by starving the people

Copied over directly, this is now impossible to suppress since the dawn of the internet.

While investigating the WHO and UN role in the biological weapons attack called the A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) pandemic of 2009, criminal intelligence (CI) agents from Canada and the US have stumbled upon a covert and sinister plan to kill off as many as 3 billion people by food malnutrition. The organization
that is responsible for preparing for the murder of 3 billion people is called the Codex Alimentarius Commission. It was established in 1963 by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Their officially stated purpose is to develop international food standards to protect consumer health and to facilitate fair trading practices in foods. Today, there are 181 member governments including Canada. CI agents have uncovered the real purpose of this WHO / UN organization – to murder 3 billion people. How will they murder some 3 billion people?

It was Henry Kissinger, who in 1974 conceived the idea of the food genocide to control world population – less people to consume world resources – more for the rich nations (elites) to exploit the sources of the world to satisfy their greed. On December 10, 1974 the US National Security Council under Henry Kissinger prepared a classified study ‘National Security Study Memorandum 200 (Full text of NSSM 200 (governmental source – pdf file)) – which falsely claimed that the worldwide population growth poses a great threat to US national security interests.

US Air Force weapon of mass destruction military installation called HAARP – live cam image from November 29, 2010. Red arrow points to military truck parked at installation and lights are clearly shown to be on at each of the trailers. HAARP is active and is responsible for causing recent earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, heat waves and monsoon rainfall that caused major flooding.

Classified UN documents reveal that 1 billion people will be killed by starvation as UN trade agreements and WHO health moratoriums will forbid any country from selling and exporting any food to targeted regions for depopulation. Starvation of 3 billion people has already begun as the United States has been using its weapon of mass destruction called HAARP to control, alter and intensify the weather of the targeted nations. This past summer HAARP was used to create a heat wave in Russia, resulting in the near complete destruction of its crops. Also this past summer the US used HAARP to cause the massive flooding in China and Pakistan – an attempt to wipe out the crops of China and Pakistan resulting in the mass starvation of their populations. 2 billion more will be murdered by diseases and illnesses associated with malnutrition from crop destruction, pasteurization and irradiation. The Codex Alimentarius Commission will be responsible for causing disease and illness from malnutrition by implementing the 2 latter killing instruments. The Codex Alimentarius Commission has begun this process by labeling the life sustaining nutrients (vitamins, minerals and enzymes) in our foods as poisons. Now that nutrients are classified as poisons they have been given the authority by the United Nations to eradicate all nutrients in our foods. They have already begun the eradication process by pasteurizing (exposing to high heat) and irradiating (exposing to radiation) all of our food. Milk was the first to be targeted for eradication as milk is the most important life sustenance on Earth. It is packed full of vitamins, minerals and enzymes. All essential for keeping us healthy and alive. Next was eggs. Another very important food that keeps us very healthy and alive.

With the recent false declarations of E. coli contamination in fruits and vegetables the member nations of The Codex Alimentarius Commission have been ordered to pasteurize or irradiate all fruit and vegetables. Why? Pasteurization and irradiation destroys all of the nutritional value of our food. These processes don’t eliminate the microorganism they claim they are killing in our food. It kills the organisms and everything else including the vitamin, mineral and enzyme content of our food. Furthermore pasteurization and irradiation doesn’t clean or filter out the bad organisms in our food it just kills them and when we drink or eat pasteurized or irradiated foods and beverages we are consuming the dead, rotting and disease and illness causing bodies of the organisms. Because all of the vitamins, minerals and enzymes have been destroyed by pasteurization and irradiation your body can’t stop or fight off the disease and illnesses caused by consuming the dead and rotting organisms.

Who is behind this mass murder of 3 billion people?

In the investigation of the WHO and UN plans for murdering 3 billion people there is one region of the World that seems to have been exempted. The only region that is not being targeted for mass depopulation are the countries that made up old Europe. Why everywhere else but old Europe. Because, according to information written in the classified UN documents, Canada, the US, China, Russia, Pakistan, the Middle East and Africa are nations populated with people who are considered inferior races. The only superior race of people is the Aryan Race. Adolf Hitler started WWII to reinstate the Aryans as a master race of Indo-Europeans. The Aryans are supposed to be Nordic in appearance and directly ancestral to the Germans. During WWII the Nazi SS officers and soldiers were put in charge of slaughtering all inferior races of people by whatever means possible, including; war, famine, poison, biological diseases and mass executions. Today the UN has been put in charge of slaughtering as many as 3 billion people.

Very few people realize that the UN was created by former high ranking politicians and war criminal officers of Nazi Germany. Even fewer people know that an International organization existed during WWII and it was that League of Allied Nations who were responsible for the defeat of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. Immediately after WWII the League of Nations was destroyed by the Nazi Germans in retaliation for defeating them in WWII. In its place the Nazi Germans formed the UN. The UN (the negative prefix un means – Opposite of; contrary to: unrest.) was formed to bring about global unrest. Once global unrest was achieved a New World Order governed by “The Four principles” (The Fourth Reich) – * One Leader * One Budget * One Programme and * One Office would be implemented. To have an understanding of the clandestine agenda of the UN you must have an understanding of the meaning of Reich. Reich is the territory or government of a German state, as the Holy Roman Empire (the Vatican), or First Reich , from 962 to 1806; the German Empire, or Second Reich, from 1871 to 1919 (Germany’s WWI); the Weimar Republic, from 1919 to 1933; and the Third Reich, from 1933 to 1945 (Nazi Germany’s WWII). The Nazi formed United Nations launched the “Delivering as One” initiative in 2007 – the Fourth Reich. Today Germany is once again the leader of the new and Fourth Reich. A former Nazi German Youth – Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger ( served the Third Reich for at least 4 years) is now leader of the Vatican – the original or First Reich.

The Nazi war criminals also formed many of the International and national organizations we have today, including NATO (created by commanding officers and ex-multinational conscripts that made up the German Waffen SS army units), the CIA (created by former Gestapo agents to spy on, sabotage, torture and kill agents, military personal and political figureheads of the Soviet Union ), the WHO (created by former Auschwitz death camp scientists and physicians), NASA (created using former Nazi rocket scientists who were smuggled into the US in Operation Paperclip).

Now that our governments have been ordered by the Nazi UN to begin pasteurizing and irradiating every consumable food the only question left to ask is “how much time do we have left before we starve to death from eating?”

A viewer just reminded me of a very important historical fact that relates to this story. I was reminded of the fact that the Royal Family of England, namely Queen Elizabeth II and the House of Windsor, are actually descendants of the German arm of European Royalty – the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family. Due to anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom during the German Reich World War I, George V of the United Kingdom changed the name of his branch from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor in 1917. The same happened in Belgium where it was changed to “van België” (Dutch) or “de Belgique” (French). The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is a German dynasty, the senior line of the Saxon House of Wettin that ruled the Ernestine duchies, including the duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The House of Wettin is a dynasty of German counts, dukes, prince-electors (Kurfürsten) and kings that once ruled the area of today’s German states of Saxony, the Saxon part of Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia for more than 800 years as well as holding at times the kingship of Poland. Agnates of the House of Wettin have, at various times, ascended the thrones of Great Britain, Portugal, Bulgaria, Poland, Saxony, and Belgium; of these, only the British and Belgian lines retain their thrones today. This historical fact means that Germans rule the United Kingdom, Canada and a host of other Commonwealth Nations. The head of state in Canada is the sovereign or Queen of Canada (a German from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) . The Queen’s powers are exercised by the Governor General of Canada except when the Queen is in Canada. The Governor General, like the sovereign or Queen, is not political and remains above politics. That would suggest that Canada and other Commonwealth Nations are servants of the German Reich.

Source: Short URL:

Thursday, 22 November 2012

What bloody consensus?

My question is, what percentage do you technically need to be considered to have a consensus? My second is if PhD scientists do not agree what makes all of them wrong and the others right if all other things are equal, as they are?

Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

Dr. Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."

Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."

Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."

Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."

Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers."

Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."

Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."

Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."

Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."

Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."

Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980's. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."

Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."

Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."

Dr Kenneth Green: "We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority."

Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen."

Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."

Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."

Dr Georg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,"

Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."

Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."

Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."

Dr. Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."

Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."

Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."

Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."

Dr Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a "consensus of thousands of scientists" are both a great exaggeration and also misleading."

Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."

Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."

Dr Johannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine."

Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system."

Dr Jan Pretel: "It's nonsense to drastically reduce emissions ... predicting about the distant future-100 years can't be predicted due to uncertainties."

Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists."

Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the "science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."

Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."

Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites--probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?"

Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change."

Dr Roy Spencer: "The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal."

Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."

Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."

Dr Robert Watson: "The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."
Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."

Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."

Dr. Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines... a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication."

Sunday, 18 November 2012

It's the IQ, stupid

The comparison between global warming and traditional frauds going back to the old testament can be demonstrated by a single example, showing both the scam itself and more importantly the exploitation of those of weaker minds (sadly the majority or it wouldn't ever be possible) who take things on face value however obvious it is to others it's nonsense.

Women Empowering Women was a perfect example, where women (obviously) paid thousands for membership, of what was simply a chain letter. They used standard, Anthony Robbins-style high powered sales meetings, fake winners like the mock auctions on Oxford Street, and random cheques to real people to suck them in. All that happened were those at the bottom paid those at the top until the police moved in, but before this happened the BBC interviewed many members, explained how it works, and the majority said they'd carry on paying.

Full story here

This basically meant someone had thrown some money away on a promise of making some (they didn't know or care where from) and when it was explained why very few of them would, and all that happened was new members paid old ones until they ran out (each level requiring double the last membership) nearly all didn't understand it. It's not complicated. The only requirement to 'win' was getting there early, lasting long enough to be paid off, and leave. But even so, some had won and paid more to stay in. They invited friends and family, who of course came too late and lost everything, and still defended it.

You have to be damn stupid to not just fall for this, as everyone can make a mistake, but not understand it's a con when told in very simple terms, and stupidity occurs when you make the same mistake twice or ignore advice you are making one.

Now take this phenomenon elsewhere, from every other pyramid scheme and scam, to global warming:

1) Could you tell if no one told you?

2) How do you know the figures are accurate?

3) Have you noticed the majority of reports are based in the future, many outside your lifespan?

4) Have you noticed the widespread use of induction, taking specific weather events and claiming it's because of global warming?

5) Are there inconsistencies, where you find different data for the same areas such as temperature and sea levels?

My background is in law, not science, but both use scientific method and require a similar level of evidence before reaching any conclusion. If something doesn't seem quite right (imagine watching a police show interviewing a suspect or defendant in court), any experienced investigator will almost instantly pick up the inconsistencies and pull the subject apart with direct questions. If their oppo then gives a different story the jury will at least know someone has to be lying.


1) This is of vital importance. Can you tell the planet is warming, let alone why? Even with all the measurements available science struggles to keep up, with massive land based gaps and adjustments for them, and impossible to record every single weather incident. But program weak minds and they will look for any trouble, just as people scratch when you mention fleas, and then filter out everything which does not support their search. The rulers know this and exploit it.

2) Many major reports including from the IPCC have been revised. Past temperatures, including the entire Medieval Warm Period were wiped, and when new methods become available (usually computer programs, or in the case of the non-melting Himalayan glaciers, someone went and looked), so basically climate figures are estimates which may be close or in the glacier's case, 300 billion tons a year out (as opposed to zero). The same applies for investments and other memes such as solar panels, where the ponzi subsidies are the only source of return, the panels themselves simply being the vehicle for the pyramid to operate.

3) Science must be observable. If the IPCC place all their disastrous ends between 2050 and 2100 (bearing in mind this was in the 90s) it is impossible to know either way. If you can't test your theory you haven't got a theory.

4) Despite the IPCC saying not to judge any short term weather either supporting or disproving global warming, the media (backed up by unlimited scientists) use every single hot and extreme weather event as almost absolute proof it is real. Having such double standards is the trademark of propaganda, not science.

5) Just like criminal interviews, if you keep coming up with more than one set of data for the same are, someone's lying. In criminal trials however the defendant is entitled to do all they can to avoid conviction. In business and science it is simply fraud. Even if displaying varying temperature diagrams from report to report is a sign the providers are not certain.

These five alone, especially when added together, ought to raise major alarm bells with the intelligent, which will come as no surprise to see they have. But take Buddha's main human weaknesses, greed, fear, and ignorance (only anger is left, but used later on), combine any one with a lowish IQ and you have a formula to scam the world, and because of the fear/greed addition (fear in this case, combined with greed to silence the intelligent businesses who profit from it with vast subsidies mainly from poor people on their energy bills) make even the averagely intelligent stupid, as fear and greed drop the IQ temporarily to moron level. Because of the second stage of dismissing data, they have an almost watertight formula, one which like the pyramid schemes, only ends when time makes the truth become revealed to all, the money has long gone and the people feel as stupid as they are.

But simply being aware of the truth in any form may be enough to gain one person at a time. So by explaining a psychological phenomenon exploited by the more intelligent but lacking a conscience I am teaching as many people as read this how and why global warming is a pyramid scheme based on fear and greed, fear of your children's future welfare propped up by the greed of scientists and companies making billions (like Al Gore alone) from the scheme.

Bernie Madoff, the South Sea Bubble and Women Empowering Women are pure and perfect examples of such a scam, but of course they can be made as complicated as you wish, but the model behind them can never change, you lose everything unless you are very lucky or running the scam. So a few people have invested in wind and solar at the start and taking our hard earned money getting interest or power rebates ten times over market rate (52.5% a year for ten years for wind farms) but they have still stolen the money in the same way the 'winners' do in any pyramid scheme. But the formula always works out the same. The few become rich from the many, who only discover it after it's too late. But this scam is set to last so long we can get enough people to find out before we're all using fire to replace our gas and electricity again.

Friday, 16 November 2012

A list of known climate errors and anomalies

The media and politicians treat the climate figures with certainty, and the rare times they report incidences of major error they sweep it away and say it makes no difference to the big picture. But when you see them all in one place do they actually become the big picture itself?

Alaskan glaciers defy the trend

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.
That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle.

NASA satellite finds new CO2 replaces stronger water vapour

Temperature satellite found to be 10X higher than reality

The ocean acidification claims exposed

Climate refugees predicted in the millions by UN

Climate refugees are the effects of dangerous climate change, 50 million predicted by 2010 by the UN. Don't make predictions, some people save them and bring them out if they're still alive to do so. There weren't any. Pretty well covers the rest then as all based on the same figures.

Sea level rise is falling

Increased clouds do not increase warming

Tree rings can grow from CO2 alone

Tree ring proxy data used to create a good part of the rise in Michael Mann's hockey stick diagram turns out to use trees which also grow (as many do) larger simply from more CO2 as it acts as a fertiliser. So much so greenhouses use around 1200ppm as it makes the plants grow far bigger. So instead of the rings demonstrating a higher temperature they are showing at least half the increase was simply caused by the gas claimed to raise the temperature. And they've got PhD's?

BEST temperature analysis finds changes may be natural
After checking the recent temperature records for authenticity, Berkeley University's team found them generally correct, but added this at the end which papers such as The Guardian, who made it one of the biggest headlines of the year, forgot to include themselves, making the whole thing appear to be man made rather than:
“Such changes may be independent responses to a common forcing (e.g.greenhouse gases); however, it is also possible that some of the land warming is a direct response to changes in the AMO region. If the long-term AMO changes have been driven by greenhouse gases then the AMO region may serve as a positive feedback that amplifies the effect of greenhouse gas forcing over land. On the other hand, some of the long-term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.” 

Japanese satellite finds CO2 emitted by unpopulated areas only. Media miss it. 

Yes, the only satellite designed to measure where CO2 is emitted from released its findings in 2011, amazing the seven readers who could find it that it turned out not to come from industry after all. Phew, that was a relief, if anyone actually was told that is.

Natural causes dominate extreme weather This one's direct from the UN so had better bloody listen.

"Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios
generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three
decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain."

Tell the politicians!

Some leaked emails:

Phil Jones reveals the Department of Energy supports hiding temperature data: 'Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data'

"I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about."


#4133 Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review.
what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got.

[and later]
Unsatisfying, perhaps, since people will want to know whether 1200 AD was warmer than today, but if the data doesn’t exist, the question can’t yet be answered. A good topic for needed future work.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.*** (Kevin Trenberth)

Climate follows natural 60 year cycles 

Northern Europe probably warmer in the past 

More major uncertainty raised. 2000 year tree ring study shows Europe was indeed warmer twice in the past. And if one continent appears to have been overestimated, what about the others?

US govt agencies fixed the data 

James Hansen's errors corrected, temperatures fall 

"1998 was not even the hottest year of the last century.  This is because many temperatures from recent decades that appeared to show substantial warming have been revised downwards." 

This was written in 2007 and they are still using the old figures despite correcting them for themselves. That is not science is it? 

Real temperature in 2010 way below IPCC's lowest estimate
If the models can't estimate the future temperatures with any degree of accuracy, how can they predict anything more complicated?

20th century warming is normal   The first similar paper of many to follow

Himalayan glacier data made up for decades

"The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."

Oh yes? And the cheque's in the post. Yes, they 'assumed' the ice had melted but had never actually measured it.

James Hansen predicts the future in 1985

Yes, as anyone with a brain could work out, he was wrong, by about a factor of 100. But the UN still use them as the basis of their entire policies.
"To summarize, Hanson et al. believe that it is quite possible Earth could end up ice free with CO2 levels of 350 ppm which is well below where we currently are. Because the melting of Antarctic ice takes centuries there is time to lower the "tipping point" level of CO2 before it is too late. When Antarctica was last ice-free, sea levels were 70m (~230 feet) higher than today."
They are now 396ppm in 2012, the temperature is the same as it was in 1996.

James Hansen predicted temperature and sea level rises of a few degrees and feet by 2020 at the latest in the 80s. In 2012 the temperature rose less than half a degree and the sea by a couple of inches. He continues to make similar predictions to this day although clearly nowhere close to reality from the beginning.

CO2 vs temperature. No correlation.  Solar activity vs temperature, very clear correlation

Emperor penguins, whose long treks across Antarctic ice to mate have been immortalised by Hollywood, are heading towards extinction, scientists say. Based on predictions of sea ice extent from climate change models, the penguins are likely to see their numbers plummet by 95% by 2100. That level of decline could wreak havoc on the delicate Antarctic food chain. The research is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. --BBC News, 26 January 2009

Nearly twice as many emperor penguins inhabit Antarctica as was thought. UK, US and Australian scientists used satellite technology to trace and count the iconic birds, finding them to number almost 600,000. The extent of sea ice in the Antarctic has been relatively stable in recent years (unlike in the Arctic), although this picture hides some fairly large regional variations. --Jonathan Amos, BBC News, 13 April 2012

any chance of a 'sorry' as well? Thought not.

CO2 effects on sea level 'undetectable' Sea level changes driven by natural causes

CO2 power halves when doubled, to eventual zero

Yes, when CO2 doubles from 260 to 520 ppm (minus any feedback) 1C would be added, double that and 0.5C is added etc, meaning it becomes so little effective after 500ppm or so any further rises are entirely irrelevant. I am not aware of this diagram being in any dispute, just ignored by those who make policies.

Dissenting scientists- no possible consensus here

.we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols..

More gross errors 

 "It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ..."

Compare with Himalayan glacier errors to see a pattern not an isolated example.

 Nobel laureate denies global warming
He's not alone

In contrast to Crutzen and Molina, Giaever found the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case:

“What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”

He disagreed that carbon dioxide was involved and showed several charts that asserted, among other things, that climate had even cooled.

A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today - despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.

"We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, one of the scientists leading the study. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy."

NASA reduce doubling of CO2 to 1.64C rise

Temperature errors exposed

Solar effects discovered

"Paper finds climate is 'highly sensitive to extremely weak' changes in solar activity
A paper published in Science by the esteemed geologist Dr. Gerard Bond and colleagues finds that "Earth’s climate system is highly sensitive to extremely weak perturbations in the Sun’s energy output, not just on the decadal scales that have been investigated previously, but also on the centennial to millennial time scales."

Norwegian universities can find no warming

IPCC estimates three times higher than reality

Not the hockey stick

Hottest year ever? Nope Temperatures were higher from 4-800 years ago regardless of a medieval warm period or not. Although that was also in the IPCC records until 1995 when they replaced it.

Remember those tree rings? He's had to correct them. Yes, finding CO2 makes tree rings grow on its own they've had to dump the old diagram after all before someone gets into trouble.

We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.

ie 'we got it wrong, sorry everyone'

Sea level measurements turn out to be wrong

The satellites weren't aimed at the surface, apparently, so reading around double the actual level, but the data still contributed to the graphs for many years.

More and more, Arctic ice loss many times less than thought as the data has since been filtered:

After a summer of absolute media overload, the Grace satellite has just refined its findings and found the loss of Arctic ice to be many times less than previously thought, as the spurious data was so great it took them this long to filter it out. The loss is now within the error margin, ie negligible. Which is logical going by the lack of warming for over 15 years now.

Here it is

" While overall ice loss on Greenland consistently increased between 2003 and 2010, Harig and Simons found that it was in fact very patchy from region to region.

In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.

The rate of loss of ice from Greenland is estimated at 199.72 plus-or-minus 6.28 gigatonnes per year. So the possible acceleration of losses is only barely larger than the margin of error in the readings: it's very difficult to tell the supposed loss curve from a straight line."

I'm sure both the IPCC and media will take this on board and change their approaches accordingly </sarc>

Read more here: