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

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.

Hansen: Scaremongering Again as Usual.

This should in actual fact be the standard response to warmist scaremongering as it sums up precisely what it is they are permanently promoting -

"In a move of ruthlessly aggressive desperation, resort to data vandalism of an unconscionable nature."

So it continues as we witness more false and hysterical claims made by Mann about doom and gloom. Will we fry in our beds tomorrow, the next day, the next decade or next century ?
They claim we will but the general consensus is that we do not know enough about the climate or the weather to even come anywhere near having a guess let alone predicting it as a certainty. Those so called self proclaimed "experts" like Mann, Gore, Jones and McKibben made fallacious claims to further their own pockets rather than state anything that can be witnessed or proven. All we have seen so far in regards to the weather report of the future is questionable, erroneous "models" and they do not even release the maths behind it, just in case. It is a farce, in order to test the farce, go outside and hear the birds, watch the grass grow and the trees wave in the wind (depending where you are ofcourse). Have you noticed anything that will endanger your life ?

Whaaaaaaaa!!! We are all going to fry...

Hansen is back at it!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here–and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend

All the ‘extreme weather’ is caused by ‘climate change’.

He really said, “It’s worse than we thought.”

This is the level of intellect and intelligence of those warmist sheeple. Here is the explanation on how and why there are droughts. It is all about daylight savings, ya know. That extra hour of sunlight is a killer and an unmeaseruble disaster waiting to happen, ya know.

Somebody protect me from these lunatics please.

Next we have the warmist's study and release methodology. It is how they operate in order to keep the fear in place and keep the funding coming.

The World according to Cate Blanchett.

Whaaaaa!!! we are going to be BBQd in a thousand years time

One wonder why Blanchett behaves like a typical blonde, assuming it did not come out of a bottle ofcourse. Blanchett is another one of those preachers in the Church of Global Warming, following the Gospel of Gore. One that now stands that discredited that not even the temperature they have relied on can even be verified as being correct or untouched or even manipulated.
Blanchett lined up for the Carbon Tax and Global warming ads the Gillard Government rammed down the throats of the population. They needed some "starlet" to promote their inane drivel and there she was, all ready and willing to toss her hat in with the Biggest Hoax the World have ever seen or witnessed or paid for.

But Blanchett will not be sidelined or misdirected as she is so determined and so completely sure that everyone will eventually fry in their beds overnight or be BBQd because as we all know she ain't no scientist but that is ofcourse besides the point. Her only claim to fame is the odd movie made in left wing Hollywood where indoctrination into their stupidity is mandatory. Cate demonstrates that well.

 More drones to the lies.

PLANET CATE

Tim Blair – Wednesday, June 01, 2011 (4:44am)

“Everything that is wrong with the human race.” – Cate Blanchett’s opinion of leaf blowers, October 2007.
“The arts binds communities, it liberates demons, it challenges authorities, warms our hearts and cools our tempers.’’ – but it can’t get leaves off your driveway. Cate speaks out in 2008.
“He liked talking to blonde artists, he said, because they existed just a fraction ahead of culture.” – at the 2020 Summit, Cate recalls a previous meeting with President Bill Clinton.
“The arts operate at the core of human identity and existence.” – Cate in 2010. Employment is probably important, too.
“Our job is to change reality, to challenge it, not prove it and explain it.” – Cate can sometimes be difficult to understand.


Cate consults expert reality-changer Peter Garrett

“We change people’s lives, at the risk of our own. We change countries, governments, history, gravity. After gravity, culture is the thing that holds humanity in place, in an otherwise constantly shifting and, let’s face it, tiny outcrop in the middle of an infinity of nowhere.” – according to Cate, without culture (and, credit where it’s due, gravity) we’d be floating around like fungus spores.
‘’It’s in the mind of the artist the future is imagined. You say that loudly in this country, and you sound pretentious …” – oh, hardly at all, Cate. Honestly.
“Finally doing something about climate change.” – Cate’s line in the controversial “Say Yes” carbon tax promotion.
“Cate Blanchett has dismissed attacks by Tony Abbott and other opponents of a carbon price, saying she will continue to do all she can to tackle climate change.” – Cate isn’t backing down, the SMH reports.
“Blanchett hits the big stage in Britain.” – on May 26, Reuters announces that Cate will fly to London for a major theatre production next year. Still doing all she can to tackle climate change.

IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress.

One does wonder if there are any principles left in the AGW science community, where they would outright lie in their statements to congress. Surely that is a jailable offense and one that should be followed up in this case. Jail one and the rest will finally get the picture that by telling obvious lies about the climate will end you up in jail and not on the speech circuits earning millions of dollars as some have already done. Don't mention the hockey shtick though.

IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress

The politicization of climate science is so complete that the lead author of the IPCC's Working Group II on climate impacts feels comfortable presenting testimony to the US Congress that fundamentally misrepresents what the IPCC has concluded. I am referring to testimony given today by Christopher Field, a professor at Stanford, to the US Senate.

This is not a particularly nuanced or complex issue. What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress. Below are five instances in which Field's testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate. Field's testimony is here in PDF.

1. On the economic costs of disasters:

Field: "As the US copes with the aftermath of last year’s record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters and this year’s massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear."

What the IPCC actually said: "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"

Field's assertion that the link between climate change and disasters "is clear," which he supported with reference to US "billion dollar" economic losses, is in reality scientifically unsupported by the IPCC. Period. (More on the NOAA billion-dollar disasters below.) There is good reason for this -- it is what the science says. Why fail to report to Congress the IPCC's most fundamental finding and indicate something quite the opposite?

2. On US droughts:

Field: "The report identified some areas where droughts have become longer and more intense (including southern Europe and West Africa), but others where droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter."

What the IPCC actually said: "... in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America ..."

Field conveniently neglected in his testimony to mention that one place where droughts have gotten less frequent, less intense or shorter is ... the United States. Why did he fail to mention this region, surely of interest to US Senators, but did include Europe and West Africa?

3. On NOAA's billion dollar disasters:

Field: "The US experienced 14 billion-dollar disasters in 2011, a record that far surpasses the previous maximum of 9."

What NOAA actually says about its series of "billion dollar" disasters:  "Caution should be used in interpreting any trends based on this [data] for a variety of reasons"

Field says nothing about the serious issues with NOAA's tabulation. The billion dollar disaster meme is a PR train wreck, not peer reviwed and is counter to the actual science summarized in the IPCC. So why mention it?

4. On attributing billion dollar disasters to climate change, case of hurricanes and tornadoes:

Field:  "For several of these categories of disasters, the strength of any linkage to climate change, if there is one, is not known. Specifically, the IPCC (IPCC 2012) did not identify a trend or express confidence in projections concerning tornadoes and other small-area events. The evidence on hurricanes is mixed."

What the IPCC actually said (p. 269 PDF): "The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados"

Hurricanes are, of course, tropical cyclones. Far from evidence being "mixed" the IPCC was unable to attribute any trend in tropical cyclone disasters to climate change (anywhere in the world and globally overall). In fact, there has been no trend in US hurricane frequency or intensity over a century or more, and the US is currently experiencing the longest period with no intense hurricane landfalls ever seen. Field fails to report any this and invents something different. Why present testimony so easily refuted? (He did get tornadoes right!)

 5. On attributing billion dollar disasters to climate change, case of floods and droughts:

Field: "For other categories of climate and weather extremes, the pattern is increasingly clear. Climate change is shifting the risk of hitting an extreme. The IPCC (IPCC 2012) concludes that climate change increases the risk of heat waves (90% or greater probability), heavy precipitation (66% or greater probability), and droughts (medium confidence) for most land areas."

What the IPCC actually says (p. 269 PDF): "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"

and (from above): "in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America"

Field fails to explain that no linkage between flood disasters and climate change has been established. Increasing precipitation is not the same thing as increasing streamflow, floods or disasters. In fact, floods may be decreasing worldwide and are not increasing the US. The fact that drought has declined in the US means that there is no trend of rising impacts that can be attributed to climate change. Yet he implies exactly the opposite. Again, why include such obvious misrepresentations when they are so easily refuted?

Field is certainly entitled to his (wrong) opinion on the science of climate change and disasters However, it utterly irresponsible to fundamentally misrepresent the conclusions of the IPCC before the US Congress. He might have explained why he thought the IPCC was wrong in its conclusions, but it is foolish to pretend that the body said something other than what it actually reported. Just like the inconvenient fact that people are influencing the climate and carbon dioxide is a main culprit, the science says what the science says.

Field can present such nonsense before Congress because the politics of climate change are so poisonous that he will be applauded for his misrepresentations by many, including some scientists. Undoubtedly, I will be attacked for pointing out his obvious misrepresentations. Neither response changes the basic facts here. Such is the sorry state of climate science today.

Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 8/01/2012 12:04:00 PM

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

Carbon Tax: Australian Labor Government Stupidity.

 It's not Australia that needs a carbon tax, It's China who should be reducing theirs. One does wonder where that stupidity in Gillard's Labor government is derived from. Not only has the Australian Labor Government sold it's soul for thirty pieces of silver, it has and continues to steal ever more from taxpayers under false and obvious dishonest guises.

Take a look at the differences between the pollution in China (NO CARBON TAX) and Sydney in Australia (A $23per Ton Carbon Tax). Have a good, clear look at the difference and now have a think about the stupidity of the Labor government, influenced by their marxist Green partners in the Government and wonder whether or not those children in charge have any idea as to what they are doing.

One sure needs a tax on pollution

Andrew Bolt

Reader Julian and his wife were in Beijing last week and Sydney the week before. Julian asks:

One of these countries recently introduced a carbon tax to reduce pollution. Guess who..?

The top image is in China, the second is in Sydney with the Opera House behind. Now who needs the carbon tax more ?

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 

 

 

Weatherspark: New Weather Program, BBQ data Free..

Weatherspark is a new weather assessment program that shows temps from around the world, from four different weather information gathering service. The fascinating operation of this enhanced and comprehensive program is the fact that you can check weather back to 1950s as the start date. It means that if the information is available, you can check the same day back to 1950,1960,1970, 1980 to the present day. Which is ideal if you are suffering from global warming hysterics. This program gives you comparisons to the four different weather forecasters and also an analysis between the forecasters and their accuracy as compared to actual daily temperatures.

There is a plethora of information available and will take hours to go through. Covering every area of weather from every part of the globe. Check out your own position and see what the weather was like in the 50s compared to today.

Weatherspark

Cool Things You Can Do With WeatherSpark

Get the weather presented in graphs.
Get long range historical and current radar. US only.
Compare the weather in San Francisco to New York. Great for vacation planning!
View past forecasts to see how well they match what actually happened.
See if global warming is happening.
Check out the monsoon in Mumbai. The rainclouds are so strong that the temperature actually dips in the summer.

Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists.

Erm!! the globe is cooling, no, warming erm no..Take a pick.

The good people from GWPF are referring to that feral crowd commonly known as "greenies", a term used to describe a bunch of beings who love trees more than the inhabitants of this planet. This is the same crowd that banned DDT, even though studies showed it had no long term harmful affect. They thereby condemned millions of people to death via malaria which the DDT was used to destroy those dangerous bugs that was causing so much destruction and harm to human life. But they just do not give a damn about that whatsoever. Totally and completely unmoved.

These are the same people, the same uncaring lunatics who determined that the poor in India should not have any hydro electricity but should die from lung disease by burning manure and other nefarious elements on their cooking stoves, mostly women and children. That made those greenies feel a lot better about themselves as well.

Yep. everything is warming but only inside, more logs on the  fire.

So now we have the Global Warming lunacy, an event totally controlled by the weather and completely disproved as being either catastrophic as claimed as well as being a natural action as precedence has already demonstrated from past weather conditions. But no, they prefer the hysterics and all those wild exaggerated, hysterical claims that people are going to fry in bed, alive. All types of suffering will be endured and the entire population of the planet will shrink by 4,5 billion in the flash on an eyelid. They have been saying that for twenty years, TWENTY YEARS. Have a walk outside and see if they are telling the truth !

Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists And The Fatal Cult Of Antihumanism

The anti-global-warming crusade against carbon-based energy is the latest assault on progress and improvement. Zubrin is correct to call the climate-change movement a “global antihuman cult.” Its assaults against dissent, embrace of messianic leaders, and apocalyptic scenarios reveal a debased religious sensibility rather than scientific rigor.

 For more information on the subject have a read here and you may want to allocate quite a few hours to ensure you comprehend it..

Also this article where we can suggest that you follow the money. That's the bottom line..

Scientist Garth Paltridge:
Climate science has transformed itself from a research backwater a few decades ago into one of the greatest public-good scientific cash cows ever devised. In Australia, for instance, there is a separate federal Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency specifically devoted to implementing (buying?) the social change required to limit global warming. The livelihood of many of the climate scientists within the CSIRO and elsewhere is now dependent on grants from that department. It is not a situation conducive to sceptical outlook and balanced advice. When a tendency toward postmodern science is mixed with a single, generous and undoubtedly biased source of money, it is not surprising that things can go very wrong very quickly.

 That’s your money he’s talking about. The public cost of warming activism extends well beyond the carbon tax.