Get Lost: Mann and the Mythical Hockey Shtick.

Mann is somewhat upset that someone has actually questioned his manipulation of the facts regarding the Global Warming Hoax, he is ofcourse one of the prime movers of the hysterics pertaining to that. No one should have the temerity to question as scientist of his "calibre", as he is all seeing and all knowing, and science in his view should not be questioned by anyone except the followers of the great AGW hoax. Just to keep the faith and ensure those billions keep rolling in.

The fact that scientists like Mann, Jones and others have continually discouraged, threatened and banned other scientists who have opposing views, appears to be an irrelevance. This is not how science should be encouraged or pursued but it is what they have blatantly done. Check the emails exposed from the UEA releases and read for yourself how these manipulators have conned the public especially when they could not explain why is was so cold. Best thing to do is to hide it and deny it's existence, which is exactly what they did. Snake oil salesman does not even come near to explaining their dishonest and blatantly illegal behaviour. Illegal, because they have used public funding to manipulate the facts.

How dare anyone question Mann and the suspicious hockey stick, which has been completely destroyed by the facts. So now he is suing those that want to expose him.

August 22, 2012 1:15 P.M.

Get Lost

My response to Michael Mann.

By Rich Lowry

So, as you might have heard, Michael Mann of Climategate infamy is threatening to sue us.

Mann is upset — very, very upset — with this Mark Steyn Corner post, which had the temerity to call Mann’s hockey stick “fraudulent.” The Steyn post was mild compared with other things that have been said about the notorious hockey stick, and, in fact, it fell considerably short of an item about Mann published elsewhere that Steyn quoted in his post.

So why threaten to sue us? I rather suspect it is because the Steyn post was savagely witty and stung poor Michael. Possessing not an ounce of Steyn’s wit or eloquence, poor Michael didn’t try to engage him in a debate. He sent a laughably threatening letter and proceeded to write pathetically lame chest-thumping posts on his Facebook page. (Is it too much to ask that world-renowned climate scientists spend less time on Facebook?)
All of this is transparent nonsense, as our letter of response outlines.
In common polemical usage, “fraudulent” doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud. It means intellectually bogus and wrong. I consider Mann’s prospective lawsuit fraudulent. Uh-oh. I guess he now has another reason to sue us.
Usually, you don’t welcome a nuisance lawsuit, because it’s a nuisance. It consumes time. It costs money. But this is a different matter in light of one word: discovery.
If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.
And this is where you come in. If Mann goes through with it, we’re probably going to call on you to help fund our legal fight and our investigation of Mann through discovery. If it gets that far, we may eventually even want to hire a dedicated reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on Mann.
My advice to poor Michael is to go away and bother someone else. If he doesn’t have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two about the law and about how free debate works in a free country.
He’s going to go to great trouble and expense to embark on a losing cause that will expose more of his methods and maneuverings to the world. In short, he risks making an ass of himself. But that hasn’t stopped him before.

Here is why Mann is suing the Review -(Ed)

Football and Hockey

By Mark Steyn

July 15, 2012 6:22 P.M.

Comments

141

In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:

I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.

Paul Krugman, Another New York Time pretend Journalist.

Kruger, another overinflated left wing NYT pretender.

If anyone were to ask any left wing loony what one plus one would equal, they would have to have a committee meeting to decide how they would go about lying to giving five for an answer. So dishonest are those individuals that every thing that comes out of their mouths would first have to be admitted to a bullshit detector. Speaking of lunatics, have a look at those rampant clowns declaring that we are all going to fry for Christmas and they are not referring to the turkey.

Paul Krugman is another member of the left wing/socialist/communist scribblers at the New York(Pravda) Times Central Committee. Another scribbler who is of the opinion that his version of the truth would not be checked or even commented on. They honestly believe that the plebes and minions are way too stupid to discover anything that obvious. This comes about becuase Kruger thinks the sun dawns when he arises and the Earth rotates around this miserble lying excuse of a human being. One wonders if they do attend a special course in "How to Lie and pretend you're always correct". They all seem to be of that same arrogant ilk.

The Internet has done wonders exposing these trash inducing journalists and exposing them for what they are all about.

Professor Bjorn Lomborg fact checks warming alarmist Paul Krugman:

Consider Paul Krugman, writing breathlessly in The New York Times about the “rising incidence of extreme events” and how ”large-scale damage from climate change is happening now”.

He claims that global warming caused the current drought in the US midwest and that supposedly record-high corn prices could cause a global food crisis.

But the UN climate panel’s latest assessment tells us precisely the opposite: for “North America, there is medium confidence that there has been an overall slight tendency toward less dryness (wetting trend with more soil moisture and runoff)”.

Moreover, there is no way Krugman could have identified this drought as being caused by global warming without a time machine: climate models estimate that such detection will be possible by 2048, at the earliest.

And, fortunately, this year’s drought appears unlikely to cause a food crisis. According to The Economist, “price increases in corn and soybeans are not thought likely to trigger a food crisis, as they did in 2007-08, as global rice and wheat supplies remain plentiful”.

Moreover, Krugman overlooks inflation: prices have increased sixfold since 1969 so, while corn futures did set a record of about $US8 ($7.60) a bushel last month, the inflation-adjusted price of corn was higher throughout most of the 1970s, reaching a whopping $US16 in 1974.

Finally, Krugman conveniently forgets that concerns about global warming are the main reason that corn prices have skyrocketed since 2005. Nowadays 40 per cent of corn grown in the US is used to produce ethanol, which does absolutely nothing for the climate but certainly distorts the price of corn at the expense of many of the world’s poorest people.

(Subscription required.)
UPDATE

It takes meteorologist Professor Roger Pielke Jr a single graph to demonstrate Krugman is a Nobel idiot.
But Melbourne’s Greens swallow Krugman’s rubbish gladly

Maybe Greenland’s Ice Sheet Isn’t Melting as Fast as We Thought.

Yep, it's almost completely disappeared. Won't be long now. They'll start farming it.

The endless misinformation released by the IPCC as well as the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming fanatics never ceases. Not only are they now at the stage where anything they state regarding the planet has to be run through a "Lie Detector" before it is even considered and then the final test is checking the figures. They are still of the opinion that "MODELS", those soothsayer's astrological rantings must be 100% correct, well, just because.

It would appear that fellow soothsayers at the BBC have also had a revelation, a wake up call, as they have been the worst over the last decade at promoting CAGW and ignoring any discent and erasing any comment of all their forums or articles that did not toe the hypocritical company hysteria. Such hypocrites.

One would question the guess work of anyone would prophesied anything to do with the future. Even Nostradamus was not 100% correct with his guestimates, but allowing biased warmists, idealogical stunted scientists to dictate the action of the weather in a hundred years or a thousand years time, does border on lunacy. Their guestimates have already been soundly proven to be either falsified, gossly exaggerated,completely incorrect or just downright lies.

On Second Thought, Maybe Greenland’s Ice Sheet Isn’t Melting as Fast as We Thought

By Greg Pollowitz

August 6, 2012 12:46 P.M.

BBC:

Ice loss from Greenland’s vast sheet may happen mainly in short bursts, research by Danish scientists suggests.

They used aerial photos dating back to the 1980s to plot shrinking of glaciers around the island’s northwest coast.

In the journal Science, they show that most of the ice loss happened in two periods – 1985-1993 and 2005-10 – with relative stability in between.

They say it will be hard to project sea level changes from Greenland ice melt until these patterns are deciphered.

A complete melt of the ice sheet would raise sea levels globally by about 7m, but it could take centuries for this to occur.

Last month, Nasa released evidence showing that ice melting had been observed across virtually the whole extent of the Greenland ice sheet, unprecedented in the satellite era.

Days earlier, an iceberg twice the size of Manhattan broke away from the Petermann glacier in northwest Greenland.

Dramatic though those events were, neither means much on its own for the long-term picture.

The last global climate assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 said that “dynamic” melting – where ice loss suddenly accelerates, for example because sea temperatures rise – was too poorly understood to be accurately modelled.

The new Danish paper is one of a number that have emerged since in an attempt to improve understanding.

Thin data

In recent years, satellites have found fast rates of retreat in a number of Greenlandic glaciers, as well as an overall loss of mass as measured by the Grace mission, which detects minuscule changes in the Earth’s gravitational field.

But other studies suggested the rapid retreat was not consistent.

With the two most important satellite missions – Grace and ICESat – dating back less than a decade, there is obviously a danger that scientists will decipher accurately what is happening now and assume this is a constant pattern.

The rest here.

Prof.Hansen Fiddling the Temperature Again.

The master snake oil salesman still hard at it as the New IPCC report approaches,get lies in early.

There is apparently no difference between cherry picking results or downright lying. These UHI results are all indeed now questionable. But Hansen (Snake oil for all) does selectively cherry pick anyway, just to make his Hysterical Global Warming (we're all gonna die) claims surface at an convenient moment. Again and again this main driver of the AGW scare and hoax, keeps on keeping on, with a range of manufactured graphs than any reasonable scientist would be too embarrassed to show, let alone lay a name on it.
Hansen has no such hesitation as he is an embarrassment to the science he claims to represent. He has to go. One should only be allowed to lie and embarrass the good name on NASA for so long.

U.S. Surface Temperature Update for July, 2012: +1.11 deg. C

A question asked on Dr Roy Spencer's Site regarding Hansen's questionable cherry picking.

Peter Hartley says:

August 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

It is interesting that the trend is quite close to the Watts et al (2012) trend of +0.155 deg C/decade for the Class 1/2 stations using their new classification system. While you do not have to worry about TOBS bias by definition, they were criticized for ignoring TOBS bias when using max and min observations only. Perhaps the similarity of their results with yours suggests that the TOBS bias adjustment (the largest adjustment made to the official temperatures) is unjustified.

Another thought — I wonder how many of your specific synoptic reporting time observations pertain to stations they have classified according to siting criteria? It might be interesting to look at the fixed time of day observations for stations in different Classes. Perhaps your co-author Christy, who also co-authored the Watts et al paper might be interested in following up that issue.

New Zealand AGW Weather Fiddlers Now in Court.

Fiddling the results on NZ weather temps no in court.

The IPCC as well as other global warming scientists have been making grandiose claims about the Planet frying during our lifetime and deriving some of that information from the results manufactured in New Zealand. It has been demonstrated that the weather results from NZ are worse and even more bogus than Al Gore as well as the Hockey Shtick.

Currently they are in court fighting out the result of those manipulations and it does appear to be the case that the shannanigans continue as they try to hide or cover up their manipulated data as we have always expected.

Par for the course of the Global Warming Church is that one must be a compulsive, ignorant liar. As that apparently is all we ever hear and see presented as all else is conveniently hidden from view, stats are doctored and the faithful are told what they want to hear.. Criminals, the lot of them.

Kiwi sceptics in court.

The discredited NZ temperature record is in court as skeptics mount a legal challenge to the data tampering which has artificially created a warming signal. The NIWA record was vetted by the warmist  Aussie Bureau Of Meteorology but the adjustments must be a little strong even for the BOM as NIWA is refusing to release the report following established Team procedures used by Mann et al.
We wish our Kiwi cousins good luck. John O'Sullivan has the story:

New Zealand skeptics of man-made global warming score historic legal victory as discredited government climate scientists perform U-turn and refuse to allow a third party peer-review report of official temperature adjustments to be shown in court. Skeptic lawyers move for sanctions likely to prove fatal to government’s case.

New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) are reeling after what may prove a fatally embarrassing admission that it is breaking a solemn undertaking given to parliament. NIWA had assured ministers that it would disclose a third party peer-reviewed report of its science for courtroom verification as part of its defense against a petition in the case of NZ Skeptics-v-NIWA.

NIWA’s decision renders an almighty self-inflicted wound to the government agency’s already dire credibility. But worse, the move will be regarded as contempt of court and thus permits the court to grant the plaintiff’s motions for punitive sanctions, including summary judgment. As such, this would bring a swift victory for skeptics with profound legal ramifications around the world. In the sparsely-measured southern hemisphere the New Zealand climate data is critical to claims about a verified global temperature record.

Prof.Dr. John Christy Lays out the Facts. CAGW a Farce.

Gee! sun still shining, crops still growing, still raining and still here. What CAGW !!

There is nothing more satisfying than witnessing the truth being finally told to the Senate inquiry by John Christy. Nothing warms the heart more, one wonders if his stellar advice will be taken on board or just tossed over the side as they have done in the past. To those supporting the CAGW theories, this could put an end to their "snout in the trough" of public funding drying up so it will be interesting to see how many of those thieves and liars respond.

The one who howls the loadest would have the most to loose...

Video: John Christy’s stellar testimony today – ‘The recent anomalous weather can’t be blamed on carbon dioxide.’

Posted on August 1, 2012 by Anthony Watts

From The Senate EPW Jim Inhofe Press Office, well worth your time to watch.

Dr. John Christy, Alabama’s State Climatologist, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing on global warming and stated:
“During the heat wave of late June and early July, high temperature extremes became newsworthy. Claims that there were thousands of records broken each day and that “this is what global warming looks like” got a lot of attention.
However, these headlines were not based on climate science. As shown in Figure 1.3 of my testimony it is scientifically more accurate to say that this is what Mother Nature looks like, since events even worse than these have happened in the past before greenhouse gases were increasing like they are today.

Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.
A climatologist looking at this heat wave would not be alarmed because the number of daily high temperature records set in the most recent decade was only about half the number set in the 1930s as shown in my written testimony. I suppose most people have forgotten that Oklahoma set a new record low temperature just last year of 31 below. And in the past two years, towns from Alaska to my home state of California established records for snowfall. The recent anomalous weather can’t be blamed on carbon dioxide.
See also his written testimony here

The BEST Result: Muller Fails to Confess the Obvious.

Anyone notice a hockey shtick at all ?

If only the BBC could be trusted to come up with some truth instead re-peddling the usual CAGW hysterics. The usual "we are all going to fry" caper has actually run it's course and we only have a few of the hangers on trying their luck to cash in on the so called "scoop".

The recalcitrant Richard Muller has already been badly beaten down by Judy Curry, who was a co-author of one of the papers that was supposed to clear things up once and for all. When Muller hit the MSM with those results, which were somewhat questionable, Curry lashed out and told all and sundry that she does not support the final analysis. Oops, Muller left to rot in his own freshly created mire. Here that saga continues as we have Muller doing it all over again. One would have imagined that one would learn from previous cock-ups, but not Muller.

Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans

 

 The results confirm the warming trend seen by other groups using different methods

Continue reading the main story 

 

A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures.

In a US newspaper opinion piece, Prof Richard Muller says: "Call me a converted sceptic."
Muller leads the Berkeley Earth Project, which is using new methods and some new data to investigate the claims made by other climate researchers.
Their latest study confirms the warming trend seen by other groups.

Is this the best they can do or is it just the easiest way to promote the AGW lies and misinformation. Muller has been on a few MSM sites over the last few days, claiming that he was once a skeptic, low and behold, he has changed his mind. There is definitely more money in lying about the climate than there is in actually doing one's job properly as a scientist and do the research properly without encroaching one's political views into it.
Strangely enough, His previous paper was recommended to be trashed, shredded and flipped into the garbage bin, as it was the work of someone's imagination than actual fact. Anyway, we have these pathetic CAGW hysterical high priests all vying for the research dollars with plenty of pocket money to boot. Too bad for Muller though as the arse is just about to drop out of the whole farce and he has left his timing a little too long. He is demonstrating that astrophysics does not train one to being practical or honest or truthful but instead, seeks the money in order to sell their soul to the highest bidder.

From the site of Professor Ross McKitrick

BERKELEY EARTH STUDY REFEREE REPORTS: On September 8 2011 I was asked by Journal of Geophysical Research to be a reviewer for a paper by Charlotte Wickham et al. presenting the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature ("BEST") analysis of the effect of urbanization on land surface temperatures. This work is mainly associated with Richard Muller and his various coauthors.  I submitted my review just before the end of September 2011, outlining what I saw were serious shortcomings in their methods and arguing that their analysis does not establish valid grounds for the conclusions they assert. I suggested the authors be asked to undertake a major revision.
   In October 2011, despite the papers not being accepted, Richard Muller launched a major international publicity blitz announcing the results of the "BEST" project. I wrote to him and his coauthor Judy Curry objecting to the promotional initiative since the critical comments of people like me were locked up under confidentiality rules, and the papers had not been accepted for publication. Richard stated that he felt there was no alternative since the studies would be picked up by the press anyway. Later, when the journal turned the paper down and asked for major revisions, I sought permission from Richard to release my review. He requested that I post it without indicating I was a reviewer for JGR. Since that was not feasible I simply kept it confidential.
   On March 8 2012 I was asked by JGR to review a revised version of the Wickham et al. paper. I submitted my review at the end of March. The authors had made very few changes and had not addressed any of the methodological problems, so I recommended the paper not be published. I do not know what the journal's decision was, but it is 4 months later and I can find no evidence on the BEST website that this or any other BEST project paper has been accepted for publication. [Update July 30: JGR told me "This paper was rejected and the editor recommended that the author resubmit it as a new paper."]
   On July 29 2012 Richard Muller launched another publicity blitz (e.g. here and here) claiming, among other things, that "In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects [including those related to urbanization and land surface changes] unduly biased our conclusions." Their failure to provide a proper demonstration of this point had led me to recommend against publishing their paper. This places me in an awkward position since I made an undertaking to JGR to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process, but I have reason to believe Muller et al.'s analysis does not support the conclusions he is now asserting in the press.
   I take the journal peer review process seriously and I dislike being placed in the position of having to break a commitment I made to JGR, but the "BEST" team's decision to launch another publicity blitz effectively nullifies any right they might have had to confidentiality in this matter. So I am herewith releasing my referee reports. The first, from September 2011, is here and the second, from March 2012 is here.

Climate Change: Just a mention, gets you a Grant.

The photoshopped polar bear on dimishing ice. CAGW lies..

The entire CAGW theory and it's hallucinatory projections appears to be at an all time high. All that is required to receive taxpayers dollars is to include the words "climate change" and heh, presto, here's the money.

This level of stupidity is unsurpassed, the lies and exaggerations just keep on coming and it's the Labor Government under major lunatic Gillard and those whacko marxist Greens who are promoting precisely that great lie.

One wonders what level of ignorance and hysteria one has to approach and foster in order to inhale all that drivel, what level of soul selling is involved and also how does one reach such a level of dishonesty. Hopefully some day in the future, those charlatans will be exposed for the charlatans they really are and are forced to repay those tax dollars which should have gone to schools and hospitals and the odd road in bad state of repair.

How to write a modern grant application 

Andrew Bolt

July 25 2012 (8:15am)

How do you get a grant from the Australian Research Council? Just add the words “climate change” to your otherwise undistinguished grant application. Philippa Martyr demonstrates the extremes some researchers have gone to - and been rewarded for:

Civil Engineering: “This project will develop innovative light gauge steel roofing systems with considerably increased wind resistance and reliable design rules for cold-formed steel codes worldwide. It will contribute to the Australian government’s goal of increasing building resilience against future extreme and more frequent wind events caused by climate change.” ($320,000)
Political Science: “Commonsense says that claims about how social and political life ought to be arranged must not make infeasible demands. This project will investigate this piece of commonsense and explore its implications for a number of pressing issues, such as climate change, multiculturalism, political participation, inequality, historical justice, and the rules of war.” ($408,587)
Psychology: “Climate change represents a moral challenge to humanity, and one that elicits high levels of emotion. This project examines how emotions and morality influence how people send and receive messages about climate change, and does so with an eye to developing concrete and do-able strategies for positive change.” ($197,302)

Journalism and Professional Writing: “This project will examine the use of news management or ‘spin’ by Australian governments. Is it a legitimate tool of government in the face of a hyper-adversarial news media or a technique which undermines democracy? It will examine ‘spin’ in connection with policies on climate change, economic policy, indigenous policy and asylum seekers policy.” ($95,000)

Literary Studies: “The project will devise and develop a new ‘cultural materialist’ paradigm for science fiction studies and apply it to a case study of science fictional representations of catastrophe, especially nuclear war, plague and extreme climate change.” ($239,000)

Read on for more astonishing examples from the great green gravy train. UPDATE
Digging deeper, we find the winner of the journalism grant is former communist turned journalism academic David McKnight, who earlier received nearly $200,000 - or $3 a word - to write a predictably hostile book on Rupert Murdoch.
Dr Roberto Soria was onto this earlier this year (along with JoNova):

And by the way, number of winning projects that propose to test whether climate change is real or catastrophic: zero. The climate-change industry has really become a monster out of control.

Some of those projects would not have got a cent, if the government wasn’t under the influence of this collective hallucination.

There’s a whole parasitic class of academics who make a good living off the catastrophic climate change myth, and the larger this class grows, the more difficult it will be to burst the bubble. Anyway, just in case you think this is just sour grapes, it is not. I actually won a grant myself this round, and it is one of the few projects that will do absolutely nothing for or against climate change But I am sad to see so much research money wasted for nothing.

JoNova has had cause to chide McKnight for his writing on global warming:

Here’s a UNSW “Senior Research Fellow” in journalism who contradicts himself, fails by his own reasoning, does little research, breaks at least three laws of logic, and rests his entire argument on an assumption that he provides no evidence for.

The Age, More Comedy on AGW and the Arctic Ice.

Gillard: Spreading the Carbon Tax, just to stay in Power. taxing Aussies into poverty.

Two great things about this post from Here, one is that it covers two of my favourite topics, which are the juvenile antics of the Australian "The Age" newspaper, a fantasy, pretend fish and chips wrapper which promotes it's favourite hysterical topic of AGW, it really stands for "another great w..k". They believe it is an actual, genuine, serious topic, that they can use to demonstrate how on the boil they really are. It's more comedy than journalism ofcourse, but they pretend otherwise.

Always Hot In The Cubby House

THE SILLY’S little green imp Ben Cubby keeps the faith – the faith in cherrypicking, that is. The Arctic is melting, he tells readers, advising that the cracking pace at which ice is vanishing represents “the impact of warmer air and water temperatures” which “can be directly measured”.

Yes, it can be directly measured – as it was back in March, when ice levels were up and nudging the 1980s average. Somehow, perhaps because he was too busy being a carbon-tax supporting quality journalist, the easily distracted Cubby neglected to mention that little fact.

WUWT has all the charts, some of which show declines while others describe increases. Fairfax shares should be so lucky.

The Cooling Planet and the CO2 Reduction.

As the Global Warming hysteria increases to a crescendo, it appears that all their fake and false claims are all but exposed, once again.

Amazing Shale: US CO2 Emissions Plummet Towards 1990 Levels

by John Hanger (via The GWPF)
America’s carbon emissions may drop back close to 1990 levels this year. That result would have been thought impossible, even at the end of 2011. But the shale gas revolution makes a reality of many things recently thought impossible. Shale gas production has slashed carbon emissions and saved consumers more than $100 billion per year. Truly astonishing!
For US energy-related carbon emissions, fuel switching to gas is back to the future.  After the first quarter, the USA’s 2012 emissions are falling sharply again and may drop to 1990 levels, or just slightly above that important milestone, according to data in EIA’s latest Monthly Energy Review.

 As you can see on the above graph, Shale is the most affective alternative to the ever decreasing level of all those nasty CO2 molecules that the environmentalists have been blaming all along. It would appear that not only are levels decreasing but we won't be barbequed in our sleep overnight. Is that not great. Catastrophic Global hysterics would sensibly be a claim of the past and all those models that have been claiming otherwise are just another joke.

Too bad the CAGW Labour Government in Australia have not got the message yet as they have just introduced the highest "Carbon" tax on the Planet which will do absolutely NOTHING to cool the planet. It appears to be cooling down itself as the SUN goes into a cold period and will do until at least 2035.

The Sun has changed its character

Posted on July 2, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Guest post by David Archibald
A number of solar parameters are weak, and none is weaker than the Ap Index:

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition.

Global Warming is a farce

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs 

 

 

When Will Jones et al, Tell the Truth on Global Warming?

Waaaah, Waaaaah, We are ALL going to FRY, Whaaaaa!!!! Give me a break children..

Why is Phil Jones exaggerating or hiding facts about the data used to generate items like the "hockey stick" or the "Hide the Decline" statement. Why is he hiding the data to one lot of scientists and freely supplying them to others. Why are we getting all those excuses and blatant un-truths, if Jones has nothing to hide ?

It has always been the case that the main instigators of the CAGW hysteria should supply their data in order for it to be checked and verified. That is and should be standard scientific proceedure. Their is nothing odious or hidious about a request for data in order to test someone's theory unless one has something to hide ofcourse. Jones appears to be that someone as Patrick J Micheals explains..

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

And also this -

 It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).

Be aware also that Patrick Michaels ain't no amateur either..

– Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know

But ofcourse the fun continues as both Mann and Jones have some major questions to answer and it's not about their studies but more about their ethics and integrity. Jones has now stepped down from his position at UEA and will ofcourse move into some other US left wing university where both ethics and integrity are used to wash the bathroom floor.

 Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.

.

Hubert Lamb, One Honest Climate Scientist.

One normally meets a blatant obvious lie with such incredulity as to respond with their mouth open. Why, because the lie you have just been told is that obvious and that blatant, that the mind has only one response and everything else is forgotten. That is how the majority of people reacted when faced with the blatant chicanery by the CAGW pseudo-scientists, when those UEA (Uni. of East Anglia)  emails were released. One wondered how it was possible for a group of scientists to blatantly and obviously lie about the weather. Not only that, but they colluded and adjusted data and studies of what was supposed to be "peer reviewed"(now know as Pal Review) climate information to be used as guidelines to an ignorant public and government.

Their methods worked well as we have seen billions of dollars wasted on copious useless methods that were supposed to reduce carbon in the atmosphere and has in actual fact achieved absolutely nothing noticeable at all. The entire CAGW is a total scam waiting to be exposed but unfortunately, the main stream media have fallen for those lies as well and refuse to ask the apporpriate questions or practise any level of journalistic integrity on the subject. It has all become a major farce of gigantic proportions and it's still growing in magnitude as we have just witnessed at the latest energy wasting, CO2 inducing RIO20 carnival.

Meanwhile the old scientists, those who still have/had integrity and were not affected by political bullying, have records and studies that shows what happened in the past. The honest, untainted and true version that is.

Hubert Lamb was one of the leading climatologists of his time, indeed described in one obituary as the greatest. He spent most of his career at the UK Met Office before founding and becoming the first director of the Climatic Research Unit. He wrote many books, but perhaps “Climate: Present , Past & Future” was the most significant. Here we review Volume 2, amounting to 836 pages, which particularly looks at climatic trends over the centuries.

Here we have a scientist with obvious integrity and un-influenced by politics, who would study the facts and declare the truth of what he had studied. That was how it was originally done.  There are a lot of honourable scientists right now who are totally disgusted by the actions of the CAGW alarmists, those who stand to make money from their own dishonesty and lies.

Quotes from Lamb's Huge Books on the topic.

It was after 2000-1500 BC that most of the present glaciers in the Rocky Mountains south of  57 ^o N were formed and that major re-advance of those in the Alaskan Rockies first took place.
And at their subsequent advanced positions – probably around 500 BC as well as between 1650 and 1850 AD – the glaciers in the Alps regained an extent, estimated in the Glockner region, at about 5 times their Bronze Age Minimum, when all the smaller ones had disappeared.

More information on this topic..