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.

Apocalypse - Apocaholism.

Pending apocalypse is the endless scream we hear from the hysterics, world round. In order to make ludicrous as well as childish, unfounded claims, just like those religious freaks once did on a constant basis, has now been taken over by the left wing menagerie of lunatics who have actually made the claim that lying or exaggerating the facts, is a normal and accepted practise those misanthropes indulge in.

They "feel" justified, as they do whenever they scream that "the globe is warming and we're all gonna fry and die" hysterics that continuously surfaces from said plotters like Hansen, Gore, Jones, Trenberth et al as well as other apocalyptic screamers of doom and gloom.

Meanwhile we sit back and see exactly how correct they are or were or claimed to be. Let's see, the sun is still shining - check, the grass is still growing - check, the sun still gets up every morning - check. So where, may one ask is all this apocalyptal carnage and destruction those soothsayers keep stating will one day happen, when will it actually take place or are they just hoping or putting it out there just to see who falls for their Apocaholism ?

ADDICTED TO DOOM

Tim Blair – Wednesday, August 22, 2012 (3:03pm)

Matt Ridley on apocaholism:

Over the five decades since the success of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 and the four decades since the success of the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth in 1972, prophecies of doom on a colossal scale have become routine. Indeed, we seem to crave ever-more-frightening predictions—we are now, in writer Gary Alexander’s word, apocaholic. The past half century has brought us warnings of population explosions, global famines, plagues, water wars, oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, falling sperm counts, thinning ozone, acidifying rain, nuclear winters, Y2K bugs, mad cow epidemics, killer bees, sex-change fish, cell-phone-induced brain-cancer epidemics, and climate catastrophes.
So far all of these specters have turned out to be exaggerated. True, we have encountered obstacles, public-health emergencies, and even mass tragedies. But the promised Armageddons—the thresholds that cannot be uncrossed, the tipping points that cannot be untipped, the existential threats to Life as We Know It—have consistently failed to materialize. To see the full depth of our apocaholism, and to understand why we keep getting it so wrong, we need to consult the past 50 years of history.

(Via the GWPF)

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.

How the Warmist Lost: They Lied and lied and lie....

Greater stupidity one would be pushed to find. Not only are these drones promoting a hoax, they actually believe it as well.

One does not have to search far to find how much those warmists have lied, threatened, induced fear and manufactured data to suit their own agenda. They are and have been totally and completely dishonest and forced other scientists to their way of thinking or get fired, replaced, removed from science sites or receive a bashing at the hands of the Global Warming media like the Guardian in England or the New York Times in the US and many more. Both those scandal sheets have a lot to answer for and it is about time they were held accountable for their gross neglect and exaggerations, the misinformation and the gross mismanagement of news and articles concerning that Global Warming Fraud.

Someone has to pay and a lot are guilty.

How we won

Andrew Bolt August 05 2012 (5:15am)

Apparently just a few of us knuckle-draggers have now won the debate, with barely a skerrick of support as we’ve taken on politicians, warmist scientists, academics, public broadcasters, most journalists, teachers, climate commissioners, green entrepreneurs, Hollywood, the United Nations and countless billions in public funding.
So declares warmist Professor Robert Manne, Australia’s “most influential public intellectual” - whose credentials must now be questioned, given this result.
According to Manne, the victory of the “denialists” - a term he’s chosen to exploit the Holocaust - should simply not be:

What is clear, however, is that a rational citizen has little alternative but to accept the consensual core position of climate scientists. Discussion of this point should long ago have ended.

Note the assertion that discussion “should” have ended, even though Manne implies that some scientists do indeed still question what he vaguely describes as “consensual core question”. There is an antipathy here to the questioning mind that is unbecoming in an academic. Sinister.
And Manne immediately betrays the real problem in having a mind as closed and unquestioning as his own. A mind too gullible:

In 2009, two scientists from the University of Chicago published in Eos the result of a survey they conducted among a group they called “Earth scientists”. They discovered that among those who called themselves climate scientists and who had published recently in the field, 97.4% agreed with the proposition that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”.

Define “significant”, for a start. But then look at the methology of this survey Manne cites:

The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth - out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer - those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor - about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

The real result is based on the views of just 75 of 10,257 scientists. Manne thinks this is decisive. This says everything.
Now, someone of a properly sceptical disposition, as all true scientists and journalists should be, would actually question many other statements made by warmist scientists and people like Manne. And they’d find them to be even dodgier than Manne’s survey, which would naturally then make people start to doubt what else they were being told. And with further doubt came further evidence of exaggerated claims and busted predictions. And it’s this process - one involving not denialism but questioning, not claims but evidence - which is handing sceptics their “victory”.
Consider. It is sceptics who exposed the following warmist claims as false:

The Himalayan ice would melt by 2035.
The Arctic ice would vanish in 2008 or 2012.
The world would warm significantly over the past decade or more - and certainly much more than it has.
Polar bears are vanishing.
The Greenland ice sheet was melting fast.
Australia’s carbon dioxide tax would make a difference to the climate.
The Great Barrier Reef would now bleach every second year.
Reefs faced devastation from a warming world.
Australia’s drought would be “permanent” or the “new climate”
The ”rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”
The sea level rises have accelerated.
Hurricanes would get worse.
Decreasing ice on Mt Kilimanjaro was evidence of warming.
Antarctic ice was declining.
The world was warming so fast we’d be down to just a few breeding pairs in the Arctic by the end of the century.
Snow in Britain would almost vanish.

All these claims proved to be false. Manne would have accepted them.
This explains our victory.
(More from Jo Nova.)

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.

Robert Manne: Gospel according to Church Gore.

Grass still growing-check, trees still alive-check,Sun still shining-check

Manne the academic, and as with all academics, they are so convinced that all wisdom and knowledge has been installed into their limited thinking brain, assume that they are blessed with the all seeing and all knowing eye of a supreme being. Incapable of erring or making wrong statements or even the odd decision although the odd few have had to eat humble pie over the last few years as their rantings have been exposed for the stupidity and close minded drivel it was. Manne is ofcourse another one of those pie recipients and on the odd occasion, may actual state that someone else got the meaning wrong.
Mann is ofcourse a self invented historian of Australian History, a positions that he undertakes with both eyes shut and tunnel vision sharply tuned. Being a left winger allows and promotes that you know. They can only ever be correct and every else is totally and completely wrong. I wonder what it would take for this academic to wake up before he is tapped on the shoulder and informed that his time is up.

WHY WON’T THESE EASILY-MANIPULATED MORONS AGREE WITH ME?

Tim Blair – Saturday, August 04, 2012 (3:56pm)

Super genius Robert Manne’s famous brain deals yet again with terrible denialism:

Manne defines “denialists” as “orthodox members of a tightly knit group whose natural disposition is not to think for themselves”.

Yet somehow these drones are easily able to resist the powerful intellects of Manne and his global army of consensus bunnies. It’s a mystery. Maybe they’ll be convinced by the latest from
wild-eyed enviropath Bill McKibben:

The planet does indeed have an enemy – one far more committed to action than governments or individuals. Given this hard math, we need to view the fossil-fuel industry in a new light. It has become a rogue industry, reckless like no other force on Earth. It is Public Enemy Number One to the survival of our planetary civilization …
This industry, and this industry alone, holds the power to change the physics and chemistry of our planet, and they’re planning to use it.

Not to worry, Bill. The fossil fuel industry is opposed by another, even greater power, able to bind communities, liberate demons, challenge authorities and change countries, governments, history, gravity and reality. It’s called acting. McKibben is also unfamiliar with a force that can change streetlamps. We in the extra chromosome community refer to it as fire.
(Via Mike H. and Catallaxy)

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.

Global Warming: The Farce. Temperature Stations Wrong.

Follow the distortions, the lies, the mis-information and the people involved.

It does not matter how big the lies are or how many people are involved in the fraud. The truth will eventually out those who have maliciously and intendedly deceived the public and they should be facing charges for their deliberate deceptions.

There is now no excuse for the "Global Warming" hysteria to even exist, for anyone to utter those same lies and exaggerations, as they have been for so long. It is now way too embarrassing for anyone to utter the AGW lies as it will single them out as being part of that conspiracy as well as being part of the team that was solely interested in filling their pockets with taxpayer's loot, under false pretenses. They should be roundly ashamed and bought to justice. The entire saga is a total and complete disgrace to all involved.

New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

Posted on July 29, 2012 by Anthony Watts

 

PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.

Chico, CA July 29^th, 2012 – 12 PM PDT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A comparison and summary of trends is shown from the paper. Acceptably placed thermometers away from common urban influences read much cooler nationwide:

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.
The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.
Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years of work by Anthony Watts and the many volunteers and contributors to the SurfaceStations project started in 2007.

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.

WUWT: Has Been Dr.Mann-Handled.

One of the most viewed AGW sceptic sites on the web is ofcourse WUWT (Watts up with that), which has a view rate of about 100 million hits per year.

• Blog Stats

  • 118,871,240 views

Those hits on this one single site would outstrip every AGW hysterics site by about a thousand to one and it's growing daily.
Enter Dr Mann (the hockey shtick exaggerator), one ignorant and delusional academic who is apparently a bit dim about the hit rate of this site and makes some delusional remarks, just as a child would...

It is the usual case that whenever one is confronted about their lies and exaggerations, Mann also resorts to childish retorts and ridiculous starwman arguments. A practice that only those with no other arguments can come up with. Pathetic response for a supposed academic.

Roger Sowell questioned this self elevated, mighty in his own mind, academic about his delusional hockey stick study. Leaving the sad impression, as other studies have demonstrated it, to being a complete and total farce. It just does not stand up to scrutiny or questions either..

Roger Sowell says:

June 27, 2012 at 2:21 pm

Dr. Mann enjoyed worldwide fame prominence when his Hockey Stick graph was given such a prominent place in the IPCC report.
As everyone now knows, thanks to Steve McIntire, the peer-review on the hockey stick paper failed to uncover the fatal flaws.
The Little Ice Age did exist. So did the Medieval Warm Period even though the hockey stick graph essentially eliminated both.
Mann’s debunked work no longer has a prominent place, and that most likely rankles.
It is quite interesting that Mann chose to evade the actual question and instead discussed the unintentional switch of the name Briffa for Bradley.
A gentleman would have gently corrected that minor error then answered the question.
But, as I stated during the TV interview with David Nazar at PBS KOCE, it may be that Mann has been advised by his attorneys not to speak about such things until the litigation is resolved.

The entire article gets better as it goes along. Check that out for yourself.

Ever more evidence about Michael Mann and his conniving and scheming as shown in the Climategate email release..

Lord Leach, Nature, WUWT and Skeptical Science (SS)

Climate Fraud is the total and complete scam that has so far cost taxpayers BILLIONS for no benefit.

There are a few things that appear to be changing in regards to the AGW hysterical rantings. When one has a look at the calibre of people involved in exposing this fraud has definitely expanded as we see here -

Lord Leach of Fairford weighs in on Nature’s ‘denier’ gaffe

Posted on June 20, 2012 by Anthony Watts

I’ve still not received any reply from Nature Climate Change editor Rory Howlett to my query about why he allowed the term “deniers” in scientific literature (Bain et al), and neither has Bishop Hill to my knowledge. Lord Leach however, has weighed in, and has sent me his letter for publication here with permission. – Anthony

It appears that the compulsive liars in the AGW fraud are reaching desperation level as they are now and have been in the past, naming or calling anyone who fails to follow their lockstep a "denier", akin to being a "Holocaust" denier. Even though there is ofcourse now comparison to that claim, they use it as a put down to discourage any competing or challenges to their completely incorrect model based assumptions. The weather bureau has problems predicting tomorrow's weather let alone next week or next year or next century that those claiments swear black and blue is 100% true, as far as they concerned, with no margin of error.

They are of the opinion that everyone else besides themselves are uter and complete morons and only they have the insight to predict the future weather just like a sooth sayer or magic glass ball viewers claim they do. It has been demonstrated that the temperature gauges have been placed in the wrong place (in front air con duct and on top of tarmac, at airports) as WUWT site owner has already demonstrated via a peer reviewed study. That result has already darkened their claim dramatically plus they have also been shown to include questionable assumptive information in their models as well. One AGW study used one single tree ring study when 1400 were available because it fitted their deceitful and dishonest claims.
 

Dear Dr Howlett,
The use of the term “denier” does your journal a disservice, both for its vagueness and for its insulting overtone.  
What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures. What, then?
A “denier” denies certainty on a complex and still young scientific subject. A “denier” questions assumptions about the near irrelevance of solar, oceanic and other non-anthropogenic influences on temperature. A “denier” prefers evidence to model projections. A “denier” tests alarming predictions against actual observations. In short, a “denier” exhibits the symptoms of a genuine seeker after scientific truth.
I wish the same could be said of “consensus” writers – or that they showed the same restraint and courtesy towards different opinions shown by sceptics such as Watts Up With That
Yours sincerely
Rodney Leach
Lord Leach of Fairford

There are also deceitful sites like Skeptical Science (SS) which is run by a CAGW fanatical and compulsive liar, who makes endless claims regarding that fraud, only to be constatntly demonstrated for the compulsive sharlatan they are like. Paid stoolies,payed to spread the lies, as every one of those frauds are. There is no evidence that everyone will BBQ in their beds over nigh or the next week or the next century, as it has been all made up using false and questionable information and even if it does warm a degree or two, the world would benefit from it. But the fraud continues.

The Global Warming Scam.
Global Warming Commentary.

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..

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.

Anne Rose and the AGW Scare Mongering - Hand in Hand.

Takes the same effort to be stupid then it does to be smart. G20 Manage.

There appears to be no limitation to the obvious lies and misinformation coming from lunatic lefties such as  Anne Rose. Another one incapable of recognising the bleeding obvious and concentrating solely on the tunneled visioned hypocrisy of the AGW crowd. The precondition to belonging to this group is a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance as well as selective reasoning ability that allows one to believe other members of that same lunatic group.

One has to wonder how far they will go to completely submerge themselves into that delusion and what it will finally take for them to surface and actually admit that they had or have absolutely no idea whatsoever about what was really going on.
Following the delusion is the order of the day, even though there are thousands who can prove her wrong as well as over half of the population who has had a think about the AGW scare mongering has decided it is precisely that - scare mongering.

But do not let a good lie, a religious conviction, stand in the way of a good fairy tale. Fascinating that this is an example of the future generations demonstrating how the education system has failed them miserably already and prefer to follow delusional trends while claiming they even possess some grey cells capable of the thought process. I have my doubts.

Designer conscience

“SOY latte with honey” was climate-change warrior Anna Rose’s choice of coffee at a cafe.

It gets worse:

“There has been a massive campaign of misinformation and confusion and doubt,” she says.

And then the head of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition proceeds to demonstrate just that:

At the moment, Australia is on track for at least a one-metre rise by 2100.

But as usual, to be blatantly and obviously stupid one needs more words and Rose does not fail there either. She has swallowed that AGW ruse hook, line and latte.

And then the head of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition proceeds to demonstrate just that:

At the moment, Australia is on track for at least a one-metre rise by 2100.

False. Note that even the alarmist CSIRO projects a maximum rise of 0.8 metres, and likely rises of much less:

Note that since publication of the AR4, Pfeffer et al. (2008) have argued that a rise in excess of 2 metres is “physically untenable,” and that a maximum rise of 0.8 metres (near the upper end of the IPCC AR4 projections) is more plausible.

Note also that the observed sea level rise over the past 20 years is just 3.1mm a year (or 31cm per century) and falling:


Undaunted, Rose goes on:

it is not the polar bears and Barrier Reef, although they are affected

False.
From Canada’s Globe and Mail in April:

The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.
The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.

Lord Leach and Nature "Denier" Name Calling Gaffe..

Baghdad Bob even agrees, "the argument is settled".

I have always wondered why the AGW hysterical crowd always wallowed in name calling rather than stating actual facts, specific to the argument. One wonders why anyone would call someone a denier, denier, when in actual fact they had nothing else to offer in relation to the argument at hand. It demonstrates a childish and immature response, where one would scream "liar,liar,liar" when someone told the truth and one wanted to at least challenge that truth with something besides a shame faced response or a stance of guilty, like looking at the floor while trying to hide one's obvious guilt.
Shameless editors of magazines and warmist scientists alike, suffer from this same reactive response. Instead of proffering a verifiable response or arguing their stance, they resort to name calling, Mann and others of his ilk are masters of it. They have inturn bought science into ill repute, destroyed it's once great reputation and dosed it with kerosene and applied a match. For the sheer purpose of pushing their own religious doctrine while making a considerable amount of money in the process. Lying about AGW is very profitable as they can clearly demonstrate.

But they continue on their childish path and would do endlessly if there were not some people who wander on a higher moral ground, who rise above the name calling and finally call them to account. About time they did as well.

An introduction here by Anthony Watts, wondering the same thing as I - (follow the link for more of the article).

Lord Leach of Fairford weighs in on Nature’s ‘denier’ gaffe

Posted on June 20, 2012 by Anthony Watts

I’ve still not received any reply from Nature Climate Change editor Rory Howlett to my query about why he allowed the term “deniers” in scientific literature (Bain et al), and neither has Bishop Hill to my knowledge. Lord Leach however, has weighed in, and has sent me his letter for publication here with permission. – Anthony
=========================================================

Dear Dr Howlett,
The use of the term “denier” does your journal a disservice, both for its vagueness and for its insulting overtone.  
What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures. What, then?
A “denier” denies certainty on a complex and still young scientific subject. A “denier” questions assumptions about the near irrelevance of solar, oceanic and other non-anthropogenic influences on temperature. A “denier” prefers evidence to model projections. A “denier” tests alarming predictions against actual observations. In short, a “denier” exhibits the symptoms of a genuine seeker after scientific truth.
I wish the same could be said of “consensus” writers – or that they showed the same restraint and courtesy towards different opinions shown by sceptics such as Watts Up With That
Yours sincerely
Rodney Leach
Lord Leach of Fairford