Precision Forecasts
Dec 10, 2017
Wildfires are a natural part of nature though bad policies make the results worse

Wildfires have been in the news almost every late summer and fall. Every year, the media blames ‘climate change’. Governor Brown says these Raging Wildfires are “The New Normal,” for which he Blames Climate Change. The truth is the fires are normal and the damage done is greater because more people want to escape the urban areas and live in the hills among the trees. Ironically, government policies driven by extreme environmentalists like Governor Brown are making the fires worse.

This month, fires have spread to the Los Angeles region as strong Santa Ana winds and dry air caused the fire to spread rapidly.

image
Enlarged

Earlier in the fall, the wildfires that swept through California in October of 2017 burned 200,000 acres and destroyed or damaged more than 5,500 homes. It was widely reported these fires were the worst and most extensive and deadly ever.  And, it was widely reported that these fires were greatly worsened by Global Warming.

Actually, the number of fires and acreage affected since 1985 show the number of fires is actually down slightly though the acreage burned had increased before leveling off the last 20 years. The NWS tracks the number of days where conditions are conducive to wildfires when they issue red-flag warnings. It is little changed.

When it comes to considering the number of deaths and structures destroyed, the seven-fold increase in population in California from 1930 to 2017 must be noted. Not only does this increase in population mean more people and home structures in the path of fires, but it also means more fires.  Lightning and campfires caused most historic fires; today most are the result of power lines igniting trees.  The power lines have increased proportionately with the population, so it can be reasoned that most of the damage from wild fires in California is a result of increased population not Global Warming. The increased danger is also greatly aggravated by poor government forest management choices.

Large-scale deadly fires are not unique in the nation’s history.

“In 1871, during the week of Oct. 8-14, it must have seemed like the whole world was ablaze for residents of the Upper Midwest. Four of the worst fires in U.S. history all broke out in the same week across the region. The Great Chicago Fire, which destroyed about a third of the city’s valuation at the time and left more than 100,000 residents homeless, stole the headlines.

But at the same time, three other fires also scorched the region. Blazes leveled the Michigan cities of Holland and Manistee in what has been referred to as the Great Michigan Fire, while across the state another fire destroyed the city of Port Huron. The worst fire of them all, however, might have been the Great Peshtigo Fire, a firestorm that ravaged the Wisconsin countryside, leaving more than 1,500 dead - the most fatalities by fire in U.S. history.” Link.

Weather and normal seasonal and year-to-year variations brings fires to the west every year and other areas from time to time. This past winter was a very wet one, and in the mountains in the west, a snowy one.  Wet winters cause more spring growth that will dry up in the dry summer heat season and become tinder for late summer and early fall fires before the seasonal rains return.

The number of fires and acreage affected since 1985 show the number of fires is actually down slightly though the acreage burned had increased before leveling off the last 20 years. The NWS tracks the number of days where conditions are conducive to wildfires when they issue red-flag warnings. It is little changed.

image
Enlarged

ROLE OF DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES

People find it desirable to live in the quiet beauty of the hilly wooded developments away from the big cities-- unfortunately in areas that are vulnerable to wildfires when the strong seasonal winds blow at the end of the dry season.

The danger is aggravated by bad environmental and governmental policies. Last summer, Governor Brown vetoed a bi-partisan bill to help subsidize PGE tree removal from near power lines and transformers as the law requires. The downed trees and power lines/transformers are believed to be the cause of at least some of the fires as the sparks ignited the dry brush and the cinders and sparks are carried by the same winds that brought down the lines and transformers.

The National Park Service changed its policy in 1968 to recognize fire as a natural ecological process. Fires on federal lands were to be allowed to run their courses where possible.
In a May, 2017 congressional hearing, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said, “Forty-five years ago, we began imposing laws that have made the management of our forests all but impossible.” “Time and again, we see vivid boundaries between the young, healthy, growing forests managed by state, local, and private landholders, and the choked, dying, or burned federal forests’”

McClintock said. “The laws of the past 45 years have not only failed to protect the forest environment - they have done immeasurable harm to our forests.” In an October, 2017 House address, McClintock pinned the blame of poor forest management on bad 1970s laws, like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. He said these laws “have resulted in endlessly time-consuming and cost-prohibitive restrictions and requirements that have made the scientific management of our forests virtually impossible.”

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has promoted a change to forest management policies, calling for a more aggressive approach to reduce the excess vegetation that has made the fires worse. See more.

Ironically if CO2 has played a role, as a fertilzer it has increased the greening in wet water years like 2016/17. 

Nov 28, 2017
Breaking News: Two leading US scientists acclaim Australian climate book

Dr Howard Brady

Two leading USA scientists have acclaimed a little known book for its remarkable ability to show everyday people, not just scientists, the wonder of the climate system and how carbon dioxide is not driving modern climate change. The accolades are from world famous physicist, Emeritus Professor William Happer (who has advised President Trump on climate change), Princeton University, and Dr Willie Soon, Senior Researcher, Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics.

The short 175 page book, Mirrors and Mazes; A guide through the climate debate, was written by Dr Howard Thomas Brady, an award-winning Australian scientist who studied in the USA and went on 4 expeditions to Antarctica with the US Office of Polar Programs. The Kindle version of this book has just been released with Happer and Soon’s recommendations on the back cover. The paperback version (2nd Edition) was released earlier in March 2017.

The reader is invited to enter the climate debate, likened to a twisting maze or hall of mirrors, with dead-ends, illusions, traps - that are the lies, misinformation, over-simplifications and false prophecies.

The recommendations are:

“Mirrors and Mazes is written for intelligent laymen who like to think for themselves. The book reviews all of the issues that touch on the current climate debate:  the nature of greenhouse gases; clouds; the sun; sea level; extreme weather; polar ice; etc.

The author, Dr Howard Thomas Brady, is uniquely qualified to write this guide through the climate debate. Leaving a youthful career as a Catholic priest to pursue his fascination with science, Dr Brady made many important contributions to geology, notably in studies of Antarctica, where he did extensive fieldwork during the Ross Ice Shelf Drilling Program.

Equations are avoided, but numbers are given when essential, for example, in discussions of rising sea level, where Dr Brady is an expert. There are well-chosen illustrations and good references for those who would like to dig deeper. Dr Brady’s discussions of the complicated interplay of the climate movement with religion, politics and the media are especially insightful, perhaps because of his youthful training in theology.

I am especially fond of Mirrors and Mazes. It would be an excellent addition to the personal library of anyone who wants to understand climate facts, stripped of propaganda and emotion.”

William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Emeritus
Princeton University

“Mirrors and Mazes is a beacon of light to see through the cloudy attempts to demonize CO2 as the satanic gas of our times. It is a must read and welcome contribution to the educational aspect of this hot scientific debate.”

Dr Willie Soon
Senior Researcher, Solar and Stellar Physics Division
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

image

Nov 16, 2017
Green Energy Train to Energy Poverty

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

As I noted in Joe’s blog we are making a major effort to work with the nation’s most respected scientists to prepare rebuttals to claims from environmental groups and government agencies and to formerly reply to the CAP, USCSSP NCA travesties. As is always the case though we get accused of being shills for big oil, all work that we do is pro bono. If you can help us defer the costs of our efforts, please use the donate button in the left column. Even small amounts are appreciated.

Update: As one of the rebuttals to common claims, we hear and read that Australia and Europe are great examples of how green is good. 

Here is our rebuttal:

Claim: Europe and Australia are benefiting from their green energy policies. We should follow their example.

Facts:

One commonly heard claim is that the green energy policies are working where they have been implemented and should be a model for our national energy policies. They claim a green miracle domestically in California and savings for ratepayers in the RGGI states and high profile countries like Germany, Denmark and Australia where governments have implemented aggressive plans to replace reliable fossil fuel energy with renewables.

Instead, these policies have brought skyrocketing energy prices, hurting most those who can afford it the least, while green energy suppliers and investors in renewables rake in windfall profits. With higher prices, many companies leave the countries (or states) eventually leading to higher unemployment. Some of the hardest hit early adapters are rethinking their compliance to the original plans. In the U.S., California and the RGGI states pay the highest electricity prices in the nation. The lower gasoline and heating fuel prices thanks to fracking is hiding this for now. Meanwhile, the enviro lobby has targeted fracking and pushing electric autos.

If one were to look at the real story in the model countries and states, they would run away from the radical green agenda.

Australia’s renewable energy program has been a disaster - raising electricity prices and leading to widespread blackouts and crises when electricity was unavailable for over a week at a time, because the wind was not blowing, demand was spiking, and the country did not have nearly enough backup power during heat waves in 2016 and 2017.

According to data from the Parliament of Australia, household electricity prices for five of the seven capital cities increased between 60 and 235 percent over the last nine years. These increases were driven by programs to force adoption of renewable energy.

Power prices in the Australian renewable energy paradise of South Australia have driven 102,000 South Australians to beg for help from food charities, according to a major South Australian newspaper. Those people have been forced to skip meals so that they can pay their soaring electricity bills.

image
Enlarged

See Back to Bolted-Down industries story here.
In Europe, the rapid growth of generously subsidized renewable projects has left end users, taxpayers or energy companies with steeper bills while private investors have secured lucrative profits.

Germany’s first wind turbines will lose eligibility for surcharge subsidies paid by customers in 2021, after which only a few installations can be operated at a profit, according to the Energy Brainpool consultancy. At that point they will have to get more subsidies or will have to be shut down.

Because Germany has invested so much in expensive, unreliable wind and solar energy - and is shutting down its nuclear power plants - the country is actually building huge new coal-fired generating units that burn low-energy lignite and emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.

The result of these policies is that German businesses and families now pay the second highest electricity price in Europe, after Denmark: 45 cents per kilowatt-hour = five times what Americans pay for coal and gas-fueled electricity and nearly three times what they pay in California, Connecticut and New York.

In the Czech Republic, the government reacted to a “solar boom” by restricting feed-in tariffs and imposing a windfall tax that often hit investors that had just entered the market. The backlash affected all renewables, explaining why wind farms such as JRD’s Vaclavice project have been so rare in recent years. “Renewables were completely discredited,” declared Jan Mladek, former minister and the architect of the Czech government’s energy policy. At the end of 2010 the state said ‘we have made a mistake and you will pay for it’,” says Marek Lang, director of JRD’s energy division. Similar stories across the region have given renewable energy a bad name and triggered lawsuits and arbitration actions by foreign investors complaining of erratic and retroactive changes in subsidy regimes.

This has enabled politically powerful coal and nuclear lobbies to mount a rearguard action to persuade governments to support their interests. This has met little resistance, as environmental movements are often much weaker than in western Europe and energy pricing is even more sensitive due to lower incomes.

In Poland, the populist rightwing government has defended the country’s coal industry and is hostile to Brussels’ green agenda.

image
Enlarged

The more the move the renewable, the greater the cost to ratepayers and the more unreliable the power supply because the wind does not always blow or sun shine.

image
Enlarged

If Americans had to pay German or Denmark’s electricity rates, the results would be devastating. For example:

Virginia’s 665,000-square-foot Inova Fairfax Women’s and Children’s Hospital pays about $1,850,000 per year for electricity at 9 cents per kilowatt-hour. At 17 cents (the price in California, Connecticut and New York), the hospital would have to pay $3,500,000. That’s a $1.6-million difference. At the German rate of 45cents per kWh, Inova would have to pay $9,250,000 per year - a whopping, destructive, unsustainable $7.4-million increase in the cost of doing business and serving patients. 

How many dozens or hundreds of employees would Inova have to lay off, to make up for that difference? How many emergency and other services would it have to eliminate? What would that do to patients, especially to the poorest families?

How many workers would be laid off in America’s factories, refineries and other businesses if electricity prices double, triple or quintuple? How many families would be driven into severe energy poverty? How many businesses or entire industries would have to close? How many people would die every winter, because they could no longer afford to heat their homes properly, especially in frigid Mid-western states?

-----------

How environmental activists and liberal politicians are ‘Grubering’ America on climate and energy

MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, who was an advisor to Obama on the Obamacare act mocked the “stupidity” of American voters and boasted of the Obama administration’s ability to take advantage of it. They did that for Obamacare but also, in partnership with the environmental left for their regulatory siege, the CPP and the Paris treaty. The latest act from the last administration was the NCA CSSR atrocity.

The global warming agenda has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and ideology. Nearly 6 decades ago, President Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address to the nation, in which the president famously warned of the danger to the nation of a growing armaments industry referred to as a “military-industrial complex,” he talked about the risks posed by a scientific-technological elite.

He noted that the technological revolution of previous decades had been fed by more costly and centralized research, increasingly sponsored by the federal government. Eisenhower warned.

“Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” While continuing to respect discovery and scientific research, he said, “We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

The Club of Rome was an organization formed in 1968 consisting of heads of state, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists and business leaders from around the globe. It raised considerable public attention in 1972 with its report The Limits to Growth.

The club’s mission was “to act as a global catalyst for change through the identification and analysis of the crucial problems facing humanity”. They decided that more centralized control was needed under one world government. In their book “The First Global Revolution” in 1991, they wrote:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming...would fit the bill...It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or...one invented for the purpose.”

172 countries attended the Rio Summit in 1992 and agreed on the Climate Change Convention, which in turn led to the UN IPCC, the failed Kyoto Protocol and then the Paris Agreement.

The former head of NOAA Dr. Jane Lubchenco proved Eisenhower correct in his warning that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. In her 1999 address to the AAAS when she served as its president:

“Urgent and unprecedented environmental and social changes challenge scientists to define a new social contract. This contract represents a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding.”

Former Washington State Democratic governor Dixy Lee Ray saw the second Treaty of Paris coming. “The future is to be [One] World Government with central planning by the United Nations,” she said. “Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance.”

One World Government under the auspices of the UN is now called Agenda 2030.

It is favored by the democrats and some establishment republicans.  UN Sustainable Development Goals aim to reduce inequality worldwide by forcing individual governments and citizens alike to share their wealth. Western (US) taxpayers are targeted and their wealth would be redistributed internationally while their economies are cut down to size. Big government would control all aspects of life, where people can live, how many children couples could have, energy used, the food supply, even some have proposed how much money we could keep for the work we do, etc.

UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres stated bluntly, “Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system...” In simpler terms, she intends to replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World government and economic control.

UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer presented an additional reason for UN climate policies. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy, it is not”. It is actually about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

H.L Mencken also was prophetic in his statements “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary” and “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

The scientific elite, housed in the professional societies, our government agencies and the universities teamed with politicians, educators and the media have created what may be the greatest hoax in the history of civilization.  The latest CSSR National Climate Assessment report is perhaps the most egregious example of advocacy science in history assembling a series of wild though easily refuted claims. More to come on that.

They even invented a new science of “attribution without detection” (when you can’t find the trends you expect in the data, you claim you can read between the lines and see them anyway). This should remind you of Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow who explained to the editorial board of the Detroit News her support for carbon dioxide restrictions designed to fight global warming. “Climate change is very real. Global warming creates volatility and I feel it when I’m flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes.”

As Detroit News contributor Henry Payne noted: “And there are sea monsters in Lake Michigan. I can feel them when I’m boating.”

Contradicting Stabenow’s claims, however, NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center reported that the number of F3 or stronger tornadoes has been declining since the early 1970s and 2013 had 142 fewer tornadoes reported than any year on record.  Before this top ten Atlantic hurricane season, we had a record near 12-year period without any major hurricane landfall, beating out the 1860s by almost 4 years.

Our biggest challenge is as Mark Twain observed “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

The saddest result of policies based on bad science to achieve environmental dreams of a fossil fuel free world, is the effects of high energy costs that inevitably follows on the poor and middle class families.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which the northeast democratic governors claim has been a great success has the region paying the highest electricity prices in the nation (along with green California). Lower gasoline prices and heating fuel prices thanks to the fracking boom has eased the pain for now. But the environmentalists and green politicians want to stop that. It is already forbidden in New York State despite the rich Marcellus shale field that Pennsylvania is tapping into.

image
Enlarged

Wherever the environmental lobby wins, people lose. Power prices in the Australian renewable energy paradise of South Australia have driven 102,000 South Australians to beg for help from food charities, according to a major South Australian newspaper. Those people have been forced to skip meals so that they can pay their soaring electricity bills.

In Europe, the rapid growth of generously subsidized renewable projects has left end users, taxpayers or energy companies with steeper bills while private investors have secured lucrative profits. Over 25% of the UK households, especially pensioners are in what is called energy poverty, having to choose between heating and eating.

The result of these policies in Germany, businesses and families now pay the second highest electricity price in Europe, after Denmark: 45 cents per kilowatt-hour - five times what Americans pay for coal and gas-fueled electricity and nearly three times what they pay in California, Connecticut and New York. The more wind and solar, the higher the electricity prices.

image
Enlarged

As pundits have asked: How many workers would be laid off in America’s factories, refineries and other businesses if electricity prices double, triple or quintuple? How many families would be driven into severe energy poverty? How many businesses or entire industries would have to close? How many people would die every winter, because they could no longer afford to heat their homes properly, especially in frigid northern states?

image
Enlarged/

See how Paul Dreissen shows how Virginia joins the other clueless states that think they can save the world by abiding by the Paris Accord here

------------

Why Are We Destroying Our Grid?
By Donn Dears

Or, asked differently:

Why are we destroying the most efficient, reliable and least costly system ever devised for generating and distributing electricity?

Here are some facts:

Electricity generated by wind and solar is more expensive than electricity generated using traditional methods, e.g., coal-fired, natural gas combined cycle, nuclear and hydro power plants.

Wind and solar are intermittent and unreliable methods for generating electricity that requires backup, usually with natural gas turbines, which increases costs.

Wind and solar require expensive storage to alleviate evening ramping-up by traditional methods of generation, and to permit larger amounts of renewables on the grid which increases costs.

Promoting and subsidizing PV rooftop solar, often with net-metering provisions, increases costs.

Attempting to increase the amount of wind and solar generated electricity to substantially replace traditional methods of generating electricity will require large amounts of prohibitively expensive storage.

In addition, it’s very likely that:

Adding large amounts of intermittent wind and solar will reduce the reliability of the grid. Microgrids that are being touted by environmental groups will increase costs and complexity, with few real benefits.

In the face of these facts, we are forcing wind and solar onto the grid by:

Enacting renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that require utilities to provide a steadily increasing amount of electricity from renewables, primarily wind and solar.

Subsidizing wind and solar to encourage investing in them.

Allowing RTO/ISOs to use a dispatch system that gives wind and solar preference over traditional methods of generating electricity, which is driving nuclear and coal-fired generation off the grid, and which will ultimately also drive natural gas generation from the grid.

image
Photo by D. Dears

So: Why are we destroying the grid?

It’s not to make electricity less costly.

It’s not to improve reliability.

It’s to cut CO2 emissions.

Global warming and climate change hysteria is causing us to destroy the most efficient, reliable and least costly system ever devised for generating and distributing electricity.

Which is also a fact.

One would think that all Americans would be interested in determining whether there is a real threat from anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or climate change.

One would think Americans might be asking: Why are we destroying the grid?

Yet the media and proponents of AGW won’t allow any debate ... And in fact, try to discourage debate by calling those who don’t agree with them deniers, or some other demeaning characterization. Additionally, they propose taking legal action against “deniers”, with some legislators demanding that “deniers” be jailed.

The brochure, Nothing to Fear from CO2, is available free, at www.powerforusa.com. It provides the history of world temperatures for the past 10,000 years together with atmospheric CO2 levels and a look at natural causes for global warming.

Nov 22, 2017
Rebutting the claim that snowfall and snowcover is diminishing as the earth warms

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

See cable hour on hurricanes and snow here.

This is a brief rebuttal to claims made in the CSSR NCA released this year. We are preparing 21 such rebuttals to some bad science. Many organizations that are climate realists are doing this. This is done pro bono. We would appreciate your help as we at Icecap work with some of the nation’s top scientists. Our DONATE button is on the left. Small donations are welcome. We have to cover our maintenance fees for the site before we begin to cover our expenses. BTW we have done another cable show for HCTV reviewing this hurricane season and talking about winters including this one beginning. We will post the link and video when it is ready to go next week. By the way, the BHO posted our winter outlook on their website.

We thank you on this Thanksgiving weekend when we all give thanks for all we have, all the special people in our lives. Each year we recommit ourselves to make us worthy of your appreciation. We have surpassed 96 million page hits.

image

-----------------

Snowfall and snowcover is diminishing as the earth warms

This is one claim that has been repeated for decades even as nature shows very much the opposite trend with unprecedented snows even to the big coastal cities. Every time they repeat the claim, it seems nature ups the ante more.

They have eventually evolved to crediting warming with producing greater snowfall, because of increased moisture but the events in recent years have usually occurred in colder winters with high snow water equivalent ratios in dry arctic air.

Snowcover in the Northern Hemisphere, North America and Eurasia has been increasing since the 1960s in the fall and winter but declining in the spring and summer. Methodology changes at the turn of this century may be responsible for part of the warm season differences.

----------------------------------
Claims and a reality check

On March 20, 2000, the UK Independent, reported that “Snowfalls are just a thing of the past”. They quoted David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia “Global warming was simply making the UK too warm for heavy snowfalls. Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Similarly, David Parker, at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said that eventually British children could have only “virtual” experience of snow via movies and the Internet.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said in 2006 Scientists claim winters becoming warmer and less snowy. They published the results of the study on its climatechoices website: “Across the globe, and here in the Northeast, the climate is changing. Records show that spring is arriving earlier, summers are growing hotter, and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. These changes are consistent with global warming, an urgent phenomenon driven by heat-trapping emissions from human activities”

The IPCC and US government reports through 2007 had projected snows would become much less common as the climate warms especially in the cities. The UCS had a media workshop in the late summer of 2007 on Mt. Washington promising a dire future for the winter sports and maple sugar industries That next winter all time seasonal snow records were set for snowfall in the northeast from Concord to Caribou (and all through the western US up to Alaska).

The Technical Support Document for the EPA in 2009 (page 29) stated: “Rising temperatures have generally resulted in rain rather than snow in locations and seasons where climatological average (1961-1990) temperatures were close to 0C.”

The latest CSSR NCA had as a key finding:"There has been a trend toward earlier snowmelt and a decrease in snowstorm frequency on the southern margins of climatologically snowy areas (medium confidence). Winter storm tracks have shifted northward since 1950 over the Northern Hemisphere (medium confidence).”

Princeton Environmentalist Michael Oppenheimer and RFK Jr, in 2008 both bemoaned their children in the DC area would never get to enjoy sledding like they did as young in the 1960s.

That very next winter, the DC area and the entire Mid-Atlantic had record snowfall in what was called Smowmaggedon.

image
Enlarged

Starting in 2008, the UK and much of Europe and the Northern Hemisphere began receiving snow and cold at levels not seen since the days of Charles Dickens in the early 1800s. December 2010 was the second coldest December in the Central England temperature data back to 1659.

image
Enlarged

In the United States, the winter of 2013/14 was the coldest and snowiest ever in places since the 1800s in the Great Lakes. Along the east coast we have seen record setting snow years and 24 major impact snowstorms for the 10-year period ending 201/17. No other decade had had more the 10.

image
Enlarged

But the media continues to be oblivious to the real data as the hype machine continues to sell its story despite the failure. The New York Times had an article in February, 2014 titled ‘The end of snow.’ The article documented how snow soon was going to be a distant memory and our kids would never see it except in news reels.

The UCS from the UNH in January 2015 after the winter got off a slow snow start repeated their annual warning about the climate change induced death of the ski and maple sugar industries. But then 2014/15 set records for snowfall in Boston (back to 1872) and many other locations in the northeast into southeastern Canada. In 6 weeks over 100 inches of snow fell in the Boston area with 110.6 inches for the winter. It was also the coldest January to March period and in much of the northeast, February 2015 was the coldest month in history.

The recent snowy winters has the 10 year running mean snowfall in Boston at the highest in the entire record back to the 1880s.

image
Enlarged

It appears for the eastern areas, the 2014/15 winters snowblitz may have delivered the most snow since perhaps 1717.  That year, the snow was so deep that people could only leave their houses from the second floor, implying actual snow depths of as much as 8 feet or more.

image
Enlarged

The driver for the 2014/15 winter was the same as in the frigid winters of 1916/17, 1917/18, 1976/77 and 1977/78, 1993/94 and 2002/03 - a pool of warm water in the northeast Pacific extending south along the entire west coast.

ALARMISTS CHANGE THEIR TUNE - PROCLAIM WARMING PRODUCES MORE SNOWS

Alarmists claimed increased snow is consistent with global warming because warmer air holds more moisture. In actual fact, only 1 of the 14 years with more than 60 inches of snow in Boston was warmer than normal.

image
Enlarged

Snow is favored in COLD winters and increases with cooling not warming. In the 39 days in the heart of 2014/15 winter when Boston had 100.2 inches of snow, the melted precipitation was 5.69 inches, a ratio of 17.6 to 1. Typical snow to melted precipitation ration is 10 to 12 to 1. The big snows in recent years have come with unusually cold temperatures. Seasonal snows are high in cold winters, low in warmer winters.

They also claimed that snowcover though is shrinking especially in the spring and summer. They neglect to mention the snowcover is increasing in the fall and winter.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

The spring snow extent is diminishing. But some of this may be due to the change in the methodology for snow measurement - from a manual evaluation to an automated albedo (reflectivity) method which in 2000 had NOAA provide a user beware warning not to compare snow cover in the warmer months to values before 2000.

image
Enlarged

Nov 06, 2017
Early rebuttals of the scientifically flawed NCA

As one might expect from a UN inspired report, especially one with such a weak team of Lead Authors, this one will set a new record for these reports for bad science. the key findings often do not reflect the material continued within much as was the case with the UN reports and prior government sponsored reports.

There are a few early responses.

2016 National Climate Assessment, a Self Falsifying Prophecy

Guest post by David Middleton on WUWT

There has been some recent “buzz” about the upcoming Fourth National Climate Assessment (NC4), including some moonbat conspiracy theories that the Trump administration will try to suppress or otherwise interfere with the scientific integrity of the report.  The New York Times has already been forced to essentially retract such a claim in a recent article.

If NC4 actually builds upon 2014’s NC3, EPA Administrator Pruitt’s Red Team will have even more material to work with.

Fourth National Climate Assessment

Development of the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) is currently underway, with anticipated delivery in late 2018. Below you will find information related to NCA4, including a list of chapters, explanation of author roles, and opportunities to participate in the process.

What’s New in NCA4

NCA4 will build upon the successes of the Third National Climate Assessment. Find out more:

LEARN MORE

“NCA4 will build upon the successes of the Third National Climate Assessment"… What success?

Here’s a link to the NCA3 overview.

The first “sciencey” graphic is titled:  Projected Global Temperature Change.

image
Enlarged

And then just enlarged the Epic Failure bits to get the Red Team’s QED:

image
Enlarged

----------------

Then there is Tony Heller’s attack on the temperature claims.

Very High Confidence Of Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

Katharine Hayhoe and her partners in crime have officially released their National Climate Assessment, which includes this graph, which claims “Record Warm Daily Temperatures Are Occurring More Often”.

image

The first thing I noticed is that the text in the report does not match the graph. They say :

The Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the peak period for extreme heat in the United States

Yet the graph right below it does not show the 1930’s as being hot.

image
Enlarged

Unfortunately for Katharine and her band of climate fraudsters, I have software which does this calculation. The graph below is the correct version. Their graph is more or less correct after 1970 - but the pre-1970 data is completely fraudulent. They removed all of the hot weather from 1930 to 1954.  NOAA does not make adjustments to daily temperatures, so they can’t use that excuse.

image
Enlarged

The report claims :

Record Warm Daily Temperatures Are Occurring More Often

That is an outright lie.  Record warm daily maximum temperatures have decreased sharply since 1930 - the start date of their graph.

image
Enlarged

The number of record daily minimums has also decreased.

image
Enlarged

The US climate is getting milder, with fewer very hot or very cold days.

image
Enlarged

So why the big spikes in 2012 and 2016?

image
Enlarged

This is a classic divide by zero error. Ratios become unstable when the denominator becomes small. The numbers are meaningless. No serious scientist would release a wildly flawed and dishonest graph like Katharine Hayhoe does on a consistent basis.

See Tonys video:

See one more detailed assessment by Judith Curry.

Oct 09, 2017
Misuse of the scientific method has led to peer review failures with significant implications

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

See this excellent video from Tony Heller challenging the climate mafia and their continuing adjustment of data. No scientific method is being applied to the work of Government agencies and their cohorts like RSS.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The scientific method in science is a well established iterative process. The scientific method starts with a theory or hypothesis. The data needed to test it and all possible factors involved are identified and gathered. The data is processed and the results rigorously tested. The data and methods are made available for independent replication. Reviewers for the proposed theory must have the requisite skills in the topic and in the proper statistical analysis of the data to judge its validity. If it passes the tests and replication efforts, a conclusion is made and the theory may be turned into a paper for publication. If it fails the tests, the hypothesis or theory must be rethought or modified.

Astronomer Carl Sagan, Professor and Director of Cornell University’s Laboratory for Planetary Studies and host of the series Cosmos a Personal Voyage in a 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark explained the scientific method and encouraged critical and skeptical thinking. He emphasized the importance of recognizing the difference between what is considered valid science and which is in reality pseudoscience.

Sagan like fellow Cornell physicist/lecturer Richard Feynman argued when new ideas are offered for consideration, they should be tested by means of skeptical thinking and should stand up to rigorous questioning. Feynman lectured;

“If a theory or proposed law disagrees with experiment (or observation), it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what your name is.... If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

Sir Karl Popper, an Austrian-British philosopher and professor is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favor of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments.

image
Enlarged

It should noted a refutation of a previously accepted theory even one that has been published and widely accepted can follow the same route to review and publication as Albert Einstein observed:

image
Enlarged

The peer review process is failing due to political and economic pressures that have altered the scientific method to virtually ensure a politically correct or economically fruitful theory can never fail.

When the tests fail, instead of rethinking the theory or including other factors, there is an alarming tendency to modify input data to more closely fit the theory or models.

image
Enlarged

Also often, the authors and reviewers do not to have the proper understanding of all the factors involved and often the needed mathematical skills to properly evaluate the results.  And even if they do, the input data and methods are generally not made available to the reviewers for replication.  And in many cases, forecasts are made for many decades or even centuries into the future, so true validation is not possible, a luxury those of us who must forecast in shorter time frames (days to seasons) do not enjoy.

Also too often, the reviewers that then serve as final gatekeepers are often not only not fully capable of this kind of rigorous review, they are often biased and speed politically correct or economically beneficial work to publication while blocking or at least ‘slow walking’ work that challenges the so-called consensus science or their own often ideologically driven beliefs.

As Dr. Michael Crichton wrote “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc)”.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD FAILURE IN THE CLIMATE SCIENCES

So when greenhouse climate models fail, they don’t revisit the theory but instead try and find the right data to fit that model. All data today is adjusted with models with a goal of addressing data errors, changes in location or instrumentation or addressing changing distribution or filling in for missing data or station closures. Once you start this adjustment process, it becomes increasingly possible to the find ways to mine from the data the desired results.

With the climate models there is an increasingly large divergence with balloon, satellite and surface reanalysis data sets the last 20 years. The one model that follows the temperature is a Russian model that has roughly half the greenhouse forcing and improved ocean modeling.

image
Enlarged

John Christy 2017 has shown models without greenhouse warming agreed perfectly with atmospheric (tropical) observations.

image
Enlarged

This kind of refutation should, if scientists abided by the scientific method, spark an effort to revisit the theory but that is too politically incorrect. This kind of ideologically or politically or economically driven thinking is pervasive across the sciences (atmospheric and medical).

EVIDENCE THAT TRADITIONAL PEER REVIEW IS FAILING

There is increasing proof that the traditional journal peer review process is broken. This is true in the Medical and Scientific areas. 

See this example of one such falsified report that the author worries is a part of an epidemic of agenda-driven science by press release and falsification that has reached crisis proportions.

Other reports show an alarming number of papers having to be retracted.  Springer is retracting 107 papers from one journal after discovering they had been accepted with fake peer reviews (here).

Result-oriented corruption of peer review in climate science was proven by the Climategate emails.

In the journals, there are a small set of gatekeepers that block anything that goes against the editorial biases of the journals. Conversely, these journals and their reviewers do not provide a thorough due diligence review of those that they tend to agree with ideologically.  They are engaged in orthodoxy enforcement.

In an essay ”Has Science Lost its Way?”, Michael Guillen Ph.D wrote about Science’s reproducibility crisis.

For any study to have legitimacy, it must be replicated, yet only half of medical studies celebrated in newspapers hold water under serious follow-up scrutiny - and about two-thirds of the “sexiest” cutting-edge reports, including the discovery of new genes linked to obesity or mental illness, are later “disconfirmed.” Though erring is a key part of the scientific process, this level of failure slows scientific progress, wastes time and resources and costs taxpayers excesses of $28 billion a year, writes NPR science correspondent Richard Harris.

The single greatest threat to science right now comes from within its own ranks. Last year Nature, the prestigious international science journal, published a study revealing that “More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.”

The inability to confirm research that was published in highly respected, peer-reviewed journals suggests something is very wrong with how science is being done.
The crisis afflicts even science’s most revered ‘facts,’ as cancer researchers C. G. Begley and Lee Ellis discovered. Over an entire decade they put fifty-three published “landmark” studies to the test; they succeeded in replicating only six - that’s an 11% success rate.

A major culprit, they discovered, is that many researchers cherry-picked the results of their experiments - subconsciously or intentionally - to give the appearance of success, thereby increasing their chances of being published.

“They presented specific experiments that supported their underlying hypothesis, but that were not reflective of the entire data set,” report Begley and Ellis, adding this shocking truth: There are no guidelines that require all data sets to be reported in a paper; often, original data are removed during the peer review and publication process’

Another apparent culprit is that - and it’s going to surprise most of you - too many scientists are actually never taught the scientific method. As graduate students, they take oodles of courses in their chosen specialty; but their thesis advisors never sit them down and indoctrinate them on best practices. Consequently, remarks University of Wisconsin-Madison biologist Judith Kimble: “They will go off and make it worse.”

This observation seems borne out by the Nature study, whose respondents said the three top weaknesses behind science’s reproducibility crisis are: 1) selective reporting, 2) pressure to publish, and 3) low statistical power or poor analysis. In other words, scientists need to improve on practicing what they preach, which is: 1) a respect for facts - all of them, not just the ones they like, 2) integrity, and 3) a sound scientific method.

The attendees of the so-called ‘Earth Day’ March for Science made a lot of noise about wanting more money and respect from the public and government - what group wouldn’t want that? But nary a whisper was heard from them or the media about science’s urgent reproducibility crisis. Leaving unspoken this elephant-sized question: If we aren’t able to trust the published results of science, then what right does it have to demand more money and respect, before making noticeable strides toward better reproducibility?

Michael Guillen Ph.D., former Science Editor for ABC News, taught physics at Harvard and author of “The Null Prophecy”.

FEEDBACK ON OUR RESEARCH REPORTS

Although well received and widely distributed, our recent press release and research paper hit a raw nerve with alarmists. The research sought to validate the current estimates of Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST) using the best available relevant data. The conclusive findings were that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, which removed their cyclical temperature patterns, is totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.

Thus, despite current claims of record setting warming, it is impossible to conclude from the NOAA, NASA and UK Hadley CRU GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. This means that EPA’s 2009 claim that CO2 is a pollutant has been decisively invalidated by this research.

We had shown in prior research reports here and here how even if you ignore the adjustments, the changes observed can be explained entirely by natural factors (ocean cycles, solar cycles and volcanism). If one considers the urban heat island contamination of surface date, the idea that temperatures may actually be declining since the 1930s in cyclical fashion, very much in line with record highs.

The media fact checkers, which serve often as enforcers of orthodoxy, could not meaningfully question the data or science presented but challenged the claim that it was ‘peer reviewed’ (in the sense the peer review process has been defined today by the ‘advocacy’ journals’ (really ‘pal review’wink.

Our research reports were rigorously peer reviewed by top scientists. The reports follow the approach long used in industry often for their own internal use. The reports were prepared by author teams with the requisite skills at proper data collection, a deep understanding of the scientific factors involved and statistical skills to evaluate what best explains the observed changes.

To abide by the scientific method, the work must be capable of being replicated. Our highly qualified reviewers who endorsed it are capable of evaluating the work scientifically and or statistically. They approval includes a willingness, even eagerness to endorse the work. The data and the methodology is available for others to replicate.

Our approach follows the long accepted application of the scientific method in a world where science is too politicized.


Nov 28, 2017
Climate models fail on seasonal and long term basis - should not be used for decision making

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

CLIMATE MODELS

Climate models used operationally for monthly and seasonal forecasts and for long term climate forecasts have a serious warm bias that make them not trustworthy.

MONTHLY/SEASONAL CLIMATE MODELS

These are models or model ensembles that are run monthly or in some cases even updated multiple times a day that look at upcoming months and 3-month seasons as far as 15 months into the future. Unlike the operational models used by forecasters for the daily forecasts out a week or two, these models are coupled atmospheric/oceanic models which mean they allow the ocean anomalies to change as the atmosphere does and vice versa. The operational shorter range models don’t need to do that as the ocean changes slowly on those time ranges. The new NNME model is an 8 model blend of forecasts by month and seasons.

image
Enlarged

Here are what the component models and the blend looked like for November from October.

image
Enlarged

This was a close up look at the blended forecast for November from October. For land, there is only a small speck (the size of Queens) that is below normal in east central Africa.

image
Enlarged

Here is the actual November anomalies (with two days to go). Cold covers most of South America, Africa, eastern Australia, northern India, eastern Asia, Europe and central North America.

image
Enlarged

Here is a forecast from WeatherBELL’s Pioneer statistical model with 24 inputs (solar, ENSO other oceanic and atmospheric) for November. It is not perfect but had the right idea most places.

image
Enlarged

We hear that all the climate modelers need is faster computers so they can run the models in higher resolution. I think that just will produce higher resolution garbage until they do a better job including natural factors and oscillations etc.

BTW, here is what our statistical model suggest for this winter:

image
Enlarged

Here is what the NNME blend says

image
Enlarged

--------

ULTRA LONG TERM CLIMATE MODELS

These models run out many decades into the future and have a strong input from greenhouse gases but do not properly account for solar and natural ocean cycles.

John Christy writes about these models in testimony to congress.

“When the “scientific method” is applied to the output from climate models of the IPCC AR5, specifically the bulk atmospheric temperature trends since 1979 (a key variable with a strong and obvious theoretical response to increasing GHGs in this period), it can be demonstrated that the consensus of the models fails the test to match the real-world observations by a significant margin. As such, the average of the models is considered to be untruthful in representing the recent decades of climate variation and change, and thus would be inappropriate for use in predicting future changes in the climate or for related policy decisions.

The IPCC inadvertently provided information that supports this conclusion by (a) showing that the tropical trends of climate models with extra greenhouse gases failed to match actual trends and (b) showing that climate models without extra greenhouse gases agreed with actual trends. A report of which I was a co-author demonstrates that a statistical model that uses only natural influences on the climate also explains the variations and trends since 1979 without the need of extra greenhouse gases. While such a model (or any climate model) cannot “prove” the causes of variations, the fact that its result is not rejected by the scientific method indicates it should be considered when trying to understand why the climate does what it does. Deliberate consideration of the major influences by natural variability on the climate has been conspicuously absent in the current explanations of climate change by the well-funded climate science industry.” U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology 29 Mar 2017 Testimony of John R. Christy

When greenhouse climate models fail, there is no effort to rethink the theory. Instead agencies responsible for the data, search for and often find reasons to adjust the data to fit model projections. 

All data today is adjusted with models with a goal of addressing data errors, changes in location or instrumentation or addressing changing distribution or to fill in for missing data or station closures. Once you start this adjustment process, it becomes increasingly possible to the find ways to mine from the data the desired results.

With the climate models there is an increasingly large divergence with balloon, satellite and surface reanalysis data sets the last 20 years. The one model that follows best the temperature is a Russian model that has roughly half the greenhouse forcing and improved ocean modeling.

image
Enlarged

John Christy 2017 has shown models without extra greenhouse warming agreed perfectly with atmospheric (tropical) observations.

image
Enlarged

John Christy noted: “Incredibly, what figure 5 shows is that the bulk tropical atmospheric temperature change is modeled best when no extra GHGs are included - a direct contradiction to the IPCC conclusion that observed changes could only be modeled if extra GHGs were included.

See Tim Ball and Tom Harris’s piece on ”Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast?” - UN climate forecasts are consistently high… consistently wrong ... and used to drive policy

Nov 05, 2017
Scientific Critique of USGCRP’s 2017 Climate Science Special Report

Update: See Gordon Fulks’s ‘Climate Science Special Report’ Great Science Fiction? - Poor Science Fact! here

See how the previous cooling that climatologists all agreed on in the 1940s to 1970s, was eliminated to support the claim that CO2 was the only control knob (eliminating natural cycle in this excellent summary and paper review by Pierre Gosselin at Not a Lot of People Know That.

By Joe Bast

The Climate Science Special Report, “volume one of the Fourth National Climate Assessment,” was released a few minutes ago. The entire report can be found here.

But in August the Trump administration disbanded the interagency committee that was working on the report.

Not sure why it was nevertheless released..probably the deep state at work. Here were my reactions to this report, from my earlier review of the draft back in August.

Scientific Critique of USGCRP’s 2017 Climate Science Special Report

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a joint program of 13 U.S. national government agencies charged with developing a program to “understand, assess, predict, and respond to” global climate change. It produces reports to Congress every four years titled “National Climate Assessment.” The three reports released to date have all exaggerated the amount of global warming, the human role in that warming, the negative impacts of the same, and the certainty of the science surrounding the causes and consequences of climate change. For example, a team of climate scientists led by Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute said of the Third National Climate Assessment:

“This National Assessment is much closer to pseudoscience than it is to science. It is as explanatory as Sigmund Freud.  It clearly believes that virtually everything in our society is tremendously dependent the surface temperature, and, because of that, we are headed towards certain and inescapable destruction, unless we take its advice and decarbonize our economy, pronto. Unfortunately, the Assessment can’t quite tell us how to accomplish that, because no one knows how.”

The latest (June 28) draft of the Fourth National Climate Assessment is similarly flawed. This brief critique makes ten points which track the content and organization of the assessment:

1.  The report is a legacy product of a political regime that captured and “weaponized” this government agency to advance its agenda, much as it did to the IRS, Justice Department, and other departments. The report was written by hold-overs from the Obama administration, and represents only the very biased and politicized perspective of a small clique of government scientists on a complex issue. 

2. The report fails to provide an objective and comprehensive review of the available literature. Contrary to media reports, the report was not made available to respected climate scientists for peer reviewed. Several scientists report that their requests for drafts were rejected. [Soon and Happer, others?] The final draft shows no evidence of being informed by the efforts of critics of the Obama administration’s legislative agenda or even a single reference to the multiple reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

3. The report relies on past reports by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the Trump administration properly rejects. The report refers to the IPCC’s 2013 report as “rigorously-reviewed international assessments,” when in fact the IPCC is controversial, scandal-ridden, and its procedures fall far short of the requirements of the Data Quality Act.  [Why Scientists Disagree, pp. 38-44]

4.  The report’s most frequently quoted conclusion, “that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” is only a restatement of the opinions of activists and advocates in the field of global warming, and not a statement about the underlying science, which remains incomplete and uncertain. This is the same flawed reasoning and semantic games as used by the IPCC to make the same statement. It is not a statement of scientific fact, but rather of “some experts’ opinions” without any basis in probability analysis or scientific forecasting. [InterAcademy Council Audit, p. 61ff]

5.  The report denies the existence of the “pause” in global warming during the past 18 years or longer, something even the IPCC admits. It cites manipulated and unreliable databases when superior databases are readily available, apparently in an effort to once again “hide the decline.”

6.  The report ignores at least 27 peer-reviewed articles saying climate sensitivity is lower than the amount assumed by IPCCC and EPA. Climate sensitivity is the amount of temperature change likely to result from a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from pre-industrial times. If the climate is less sensitive to CO2 than we thought four years ago, this report ought to reflect that fact. [Cited in Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs 2015; reproduced in Why Scientists Disagree pp 66-69]

7.  The report denies extensive evidence that weather is not becoming more extreme over time and physical evidence explaining why it will be less extreme in a warmer world. It recites Al Gore’s litany of extreme weather predictions even though IPCC and independent scholars have thoroughly debunked it. [Chapter 7 of CCR-II: Physical Science]

8.  The report repeats false claims about the loss of arctic sea ice - falsifying trends and causes and making false forecasts - in order to support its narrative of catastrophic man-made global warming. Arctic sea ice is not at historic low levels, it varies naturally due to known and unknown external forcings and internal variability, and it is not evidence of a human impact on climate. [Chapter 5 of CCR II: Physical Science]

9.  The report misrepresents scenarios and computer-based simulations of future climate conditions as scientific forecasts of future climate conditions, when in fact it is well known among scientists that future climates cannot be predicted. Prof. Scott Armstrong, the world’s leading authority on scientific forecasting, and coauthors have shown conclusively that the predictions made by the IPCC, EPA, and other government agencies are merely the opinions of some experts, not scientific forecasts, and cannot provide a reliable basis for public policy.

10.  The report misrepresents sea-level rise and changes in ocean pH levels, portraying both as dire catastrophes resulting from man-made global warming, when in fact there is considerable evidence that sea level has not accelerated from its historic rates and considerable evidence that higher pH levels have positive as well as adverse effects on ocean life. [Chapter 6 of CCR-II: Physical Science]

Joe

Joseph Bast
Chief Executive Officer
The Heartland Institute

Nov 02, 2017
Exposed - the Liberal Astroturfers Behind the Global Warming Scare

by JAMES DELINGPOLE 24 Nov 2017415

In order to drain the swamp, President Trump must first destroy the Green Blob.

This is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from a series of data leaks and Freedom of Information (FOI) revelations exposing the relationship between left wing campaigners and the great climate change scam.

Global warming, it becomes clear, is primarily a left-wing political issue, not a scientific one. Green is the new red.

These leaks show how rich liberal backers - left-wing institutions like the Rockefeller Foundation, eco hedge-fund billionaires like Tom Steyer, and the various socialistic Geek Emperors of Silicon Valley - are funneling millions of dollars into sock-puppet environmental organizations both to undermine Trump’s economic agenda and to finance his political opponents both in the Democratic Party and the GOP.

U.S. Climate Alliance

This poses as “a bi-partisan coalition of states THAT is committed to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” Or so the website says. But anyone can set up a website.

The truth, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has discovered through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)-requested email correspondence, is that U.S. Climate Alliance is just a front. Its real purpose is to enable the richly funded green lobby to buy up Democrat governors - and one, token, squishy Republican governor: Gov. Charlie Baker (MA) - by effectively bribing them with free office, research and staffing facilities which they can run off books.

There is nothing actually illegal in any of this. But to appreciate how ethically dubious it is, just consider how the liberal media would respond if the roles were reversed and it were conservative politicians being provided with all these off-books services by, say, the fossil fuel industry.

Chris Horner, who initiated the FOIA for the CEI, put it like this in the Washington Times:

Mr. Horner asked how the media would react if, for example, the Koch brothers provide staffing on behalf of a Republican governor.

“This would unleash a tsunami of Pulitzers and hysteria if the political parties or priorities were changed,” said Mr. Horner. “Here is a real test for ‘good government’ activists - is this all right if the ‘right’ politicians and donors pushing the approved agenda outsource government?”

What the emails show is the intimate relationship between the liberal donors, green sock puppet organizations and Democrat politics.

Energy in Depth Climate reports here on some of the details:

Climate activist groups, most notably Climate Nexus - a sponsored project of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors -act as the press arm for these governors’ offices at no charge. They also operate as a “shadow staff” to support climate change communications efforts, and supplied research later promoted by these state governors as their own. This includes at least one for-profit contractor, raising the question who its actual paying client is.

The three main Democrat governors fronting the U.S. Climate Alliance are Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, California Gov. Jerry Brown and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

But the people actually running it are green lobbyists and activists, doing the bidding of their wealthy anonymous donors in liberal strongholds like Silicon Valley, as well as the usual liberal suspects such as the Rockefeller and Hewlett Foundations. One prominent figure is Jeff Nesbit, Executive Director of a green organization called Climate Nexus. In the emails he is revealed in close discussion with Sam Ricketts, director of Jay Inslee’s Washington DC office.

According to the Washington Times:

“How come governors aren’t even listed on the website?” Mr. Ricketts asked in a June 5 email.

Mr. Nesbit replied: “They will be! I promise. It’s controlled by WWF [apparently referring to the World Wildlife Fund]. They’re melting down over there. I’ll make sure the 9 governors are listed ASAP.”

Mr. Nesbit also wore the hat of press secretary, saying he needed to send a joint statement from Mr. Inslee, Mr. Brown and Mr. Cuomo to The New York Times.

“Do you have it? Is it approved? Is Inslee available to talk to the NYT and others today before Trump does his Rose Garden ceremony at the WH?” Mr. Nesbit asked in the June 1 email.

According to Mr. Nesbit, Climate Nexus, a sponsored project of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, provided its services free of charge and without a contract.

What becomes clear from the emails is the extent of sock puppetry - which the Green Blob uses to give the impression of representing many disparate groups, when in fact they are all just a small group of the same people wearing different hats. There is no shortage of money to support this scam.

According to the Washington Times:

Even before Mr. Trump announced his intention in June to exit the 2015 Paris climate accord, state employees in California, New York and Washington had discussed enlisting the help of outside advocacy groups.

Aimee Barnes, senior adviser to Mr. Brown, proposed reaching out to the Georgetown Climate Center, Under2 Coalition and others, saying that “it can’t always be us staff running around trying to corral each other for sign on.”

“We are fortunate that at the moment there are many resources keen to be at our disposal to support us further, but in order to make the best use of them, we need to tell them what we need,” Ms. Barnes said in a May 5 email.

Mr. Ricketts responded in a May 9 email by noting, “There’s of course a plethora of advocate and funder interest,” adding, “We can approach the different groups (G-town, Rhodium, UNF, whomever) about which of them will play a roll.”

A week later, Georgetown Climate Center Deputy Director Kathryn Zyla provided an update in an email sent to state staffers and climate change advocates.

“We also wanted to let you know that we are working with the Georgetown IT department to develop a platform that can assist this group with communications and shared resources, and will keep you posted. (Please let us know if you have any thoughts on key features for that platform.),” Ms. Zyla said in a May 16 email.

GCC spokesman Chris Coil said the group had no contract with the states. “We support state engagement on climate change (as we have done on a bipartisan basis for many years) free of charge,” he said.

Inslee senior adviser Chris Davis put in a plug for Ann McCabe and her team at the Climate Registry, calling them in a June 5 email, “Great partners who’ve covered our costs for COPs and provided extraordinary on site services and support.”

Inevitably, there is a Clinton connection to all this skullduggery:

In another instance, the Alliance released a report about economic output and greenhouse gas emissions. Although branded as their own research, it turns out that the report relied almost exclusively on data compiled by the Rhodium Group - an organization headed by a former Hillary Clinton energy and climate advisor, Trevor Houser.

Indeed, given that the central focus of the emails obtained by CEI is tapping the “plethora of advocate and funder interest” in providing support functions which were beyond the ability of the governors’ offices, it seems far more likely this pricey gift was provided to the governors by the for-profit Rhodium Group. What isn’t yet clear is which clients paid for this glossy product of a high-priced consultancy.

It’s unsurprising that the Rockefellers have found a way to exert their influence inside state governors’ offices. Climate Nexus has also been heavily involved in promoting the #ExxonKnew campaign for the Rockefellers. When the RICO 20 - a group of professors who petitioned the Obama administration to bring racketeering charges against those who disagreed with the president’s climate agenda - faced enormous backlash for their efforts to silence dissent, Climate Nexus rushed in to clean up the mess. You see, the RICO 20 was suggesting that the government prosecute individual climate skeptics, which got in the way of the Rockefellers’ plans to have the government go after energy companies.

Climate Nexus also receives funding from the Energy Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, two other groups heavily involved in backing the #ExxonKnew campaign.

The Great Republican Carbon Tax Myth

Earlier this year I reported here and here for Breitbart News on the bizarre spectacle of various Republican elder statesmen - including Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz -campaigning to “combat climate change” by agitating for a carbon tax. Naturally the New York Times got very excited at the idea that conservatives were starting to see the light.

The truth: there is next to zero support, anywhere within the GOP, for something as stupid and frankly socialistic as a carbon tax.

- During the 2016 Presidential campaign, every major Republican candidate with the exception of Lindsay Graham opposed a carbon tax May 2016, prospective GOP nominee Donald
- Trump publicly tweeted his opposition to a carbon tax in response to a news story
- June 2016, House Republicans, led by Rep. Steve Scalise, passed a resolution opposing a carbon tax
- July of 2016, the RNC adopted changes to the Republican platform opposing a carbon tax
- 2016, state GOP parties began adopting resolutions in advance of the Cleveland Convention opposing a carbon tax
- August 2016, candidate Donald Trump responded in writing to a candidate questionnaire opposing both a carbon tax and the concept of social cost of carbon

So why does this zombie concept keep clawing its way out of the grave?

Because, yet again, we’re being played by the usual suspects: a handful of extremely well-funded lobbyists using their money and influence to give the impression of widespread, cross-party demand for what is in fact only the preoccupation of such paid-up Green Blob members as Elon Musk. They planned this far in advance.

This is clear from two leaked campaign documents dating back to 2015.

One is from the National Wildlife Federation. Its strategy explicitly states that its plan is to co-opt conservatives into its carbon tax scheme:

The Wind Energy Foundation, National Wildlife Federation (NWF), EDP Renewables North America (EDPR), Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc. (RES), Pattern Energy, and Tesla Motors are working in a cross-sector coalition to enact a federal price on carbon pollution.

We believe that a carbon tax or similar price on carbon pollution is achievable in Congress within five years as part of a grand political bargain on tax and fiscal policy. The key to this success will be the effective deployment of business and conservation leaders and their networks, who will create a non-threatening, non-ideological space for conservative decision makers to engage on climate policy. We anticipate that this campaign will be complemented with efforts in the political sphere to hold accountable those who are unresponsive to our network members or to defend those who are responsive.

Note the presence of Tesla on this list: Mr President - Elon Musk is not your friend!

The other is another 2015 strategy document, floated among D.C. think tanks, created with the aim to “Engage Congress on Carbon Pricing.”

Again, the tactic used to achieve this was to reposition a carbon tax as an essentially free-market, pro-business solution in order to attract conservative support.

“Carbon Funded Tax Cuts” will stimulate GDP growth, create jobs, make U.S. companies more competitive in the global market place, make the tax system fairer, and result in dramatic climate change benefits.

Did you see what they just did there? These people are sneaky.

And the money for these campaigns - coordinated by think tanks and lobby groups like RStreet and RepublicEn - is in turn funneled via organizations like the Energy Foundation.

Here is the Energy Foundation giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to RStreet.

Here it is donating $200,000 to another lobby group Niskanen.

There’s nothing illegal about this. Just something very dishonest and deliberately misleading.

It’s called Astroturfing.

The Green Blob wants you to believe that, right now, there are a heap of disparate groups of sincere campaigners all of which just happen to share the same worthy and noble mission to combat climate change.

Except they’re really not. They’re just a bunch of liberal sock puppets, bankrolled by plutocrats on a mission to allay their rich-guilt by splashing money on “saving the planet” and green industry rent-seekers who want to rig the market in favor of their renewable energy interests.

This is not about saving the planet. This is about greed- and left-wing politics.

If President Trump is to drain the swamp he must destroy the climate industrial complex.

-------------


Trump Vindicated: Now Even the UN Confirms That the Paris Climate Accord Was a Complete Waste

James Delingpole

image

The United Nations has officially confirmed what many of us, including President Trump, knew already: the Paris climate accord was a complete waste of space.

As UN Environment admits in its latest Emissions Shortfall report, even when you add up all the CO2 reduction pledges made by all the signatory nations at Paris, it still comes to only a third of what is supposedly necessary to stop the world warming by more than 2 degrees C by the end of this century.

According to UN Environment’s head Eric Solheim, the world is heading for disaster:

“One year after the Paris Agreement entered into force, we still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future. Governments, the private sector and civil society must bridge this catastrophic climate gap.”

Another way of looking at it, though, is that President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris accord is now fully vindicated. Had the Agreement been ratified, the U.S. would have handed countries like China and India a huge competitive advantage over the American economy. But - as even the UN now admits - it would have made no discernible difference to the alleged problem of “global warming.” So what, exactly would have been the point?

Here is a pretty graph prepared by the BBC that gives an idea of this “catastrophic” emissions reduction shortfall:

image
Enlarged

The so-called ‘Paris gap’ is just a figment of the UN’s/BBC’s imagination. It gives the false impression that all those carbon reduction promises (known as INDCs: Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) made by the various signatory nations in Paris are going to make a difference.

In fact, as Skeptical Environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg calculated at the time, they dont amount to a hill of beans.

If - extremely unlikely though it is - the Paris signatories stick to their INDCs then it may reduce the world’s temperatures by the end of the century by 0.170 degrees C.

That, remember, is the optimistic scenario.

The pessimistic scenario is that will avert a mere 0.048 degrees C of warming.

Or not: let’s not forget that the margins of error in these calculations are significantly larger than these fractions of one degree.

A little understood point of the UN Paris agreement is that it left countries like India and China to increase their CO2 emissions even as the U.S. was forced to rein in its own emissions by adopting more expensive, inefficient, ‘bat-chomping, bird-slicing clean’ energy. That’s why India and China signed: they’re not stupid. It would have given them an enormous competitive advantage over the U.S.

This graph shows how toothless the Paris agreement was:

image
Enlarged

See: despite all the airy good intentions expressed in Paris, the countries of the world have no desire to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions just to appease a Green Goddess no serious person genuinely believes in.

But then, saving the planet was never the point of Paris. Rather it was, as Rupert Darwall describes in his excellent new book Green Tyranny, a scheme designed permanently to weaken the U.S. by forcing it to operate on the same constricting terms that the environmental left has imposed on Europe. Liberty-loving, free (-ish) market, democrat America is anathema to the eco-fascists and their many sympathizers within the European Union.

That’s why, had Hillary been elected and Obama’s dirty plan to sign up to Paris without Senate approval been fulfilled, it would have been game over for America’s status as the Land of the Free.

Enviro-activist billionaire Tom Steyer described Trump’s decision to pull out of Paris as “a traitorous act of war against the American people.”

Funny way of describing a decision which: lowered energy bills; created real jobs (as opposed to subsidized Potemkin jobs like the ones in the wind and solar industries); reduced the cost of living; boosted economic growth; freed Americans from the shackles of the kind of bureaucratic, technocratic, communitarian tyranny which now applies across the EU.

As Darwall notes:

The United States is now the world’s hydrocarbon superpower. Thanks to fracking it has surpassed Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s top energy producer. This abundance of hydrocarbon energy made the United States the biggest loser from the Paris Agreement. Quitting Paris turns the United States into the biggest winner from Paris. Access to cheap energy gives American businesses and workers a colossal competitive advantage in world markets as other nations increasingly burden themselves with high-cost, unreliable wind and solar energy.

We’ll come back to this. It’s important. Unless you’ve understood that global warming is - and always was - just a pretext for an economic takeover by the globalist left, you really haven’t understood the problem.

------------

Icecap Note: One of the 21 rebuttals to commonly heard claims is that “Renewables are becoming much more economically competitive, so the time has come to move away from fossil fuels”

Facts:

Not by a long shot. They are marginally competitive only because of huge subsidies and mandates - and the electricity they provide is still more expensive than coal, gas or nuclear power...and importantly, unpredictable and unreliable. It is often least available when it is most needed: on the coldest and hottest days of the year.

Fossil fuels provide the abundant, reliable, affordable energy that powers civilization...and makes our industries, livelihoods, healthcare, nutrition, living standards, leisure time and life spans possible.

Over 80% of all US and global energy still comes from fossil fuels. Most of the ‘renewable energy’ employed worldwide is wood, grass and animal dung - the fuels of poverty, misery, disease and early death. Another large portion is hydroelectric. Barely 1% is wind, solar and bio-gasoline.

There is no valid reason to subsidize and mandate renewable energy. The fracking revolution in the US has produced an abundance of oil and gas and has slain fears of “peak oil.” Nor is there any evidence that installation of renewables has the slightest effect on global temperatures. The only demonstrated effect of adoption of renewable energy is to raise energy prices to consumers and businesses.

According to the International Energy Agency, 25 years from now, total global energy demand will be 25% greater than it is today...and 75% of that world energy will still be fossil fuels.

Claims of dangerous manmade climate change is being used to drive anti-fossil fuel, pro-renewable energy agendas that cause skyrocketing energy prices in developed nations, which in turn bring lost jobs and lower living standards. Energy restrictions prevent people in poor countries from improving their living standards.

The more the move to renewable, the greater the cost to ratepayers and the more unreliable the power-supply because the wind does not always blow or sun shine.

Wind energy is also raising the electricity rates of US residents.  According to data from the US Energy Information Administration, the US average retail electricity price increased only 4.8 percent from 2008 to 2016. But electricity price increases in nine of the twelve top wind states, California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington ranged from 13 percent to 37 percent over the eight-year period. Wind systems are typically located far from cities and towns, requiring construction of new electricity transmission facilities, boosting the retail price of electricity.

image

Sadly, imposed energy restrictions prevent people in poor countries from improving their living standards. Climate change and renewable energy claims are being used by politicians, activists and crony corporate interests who want to dictate energy use, economic growth and living standards… and get richer and richer in the process. Someday someone will invent real, working alternatives to fossil fuels. But that day has not come. 

Sep 06, 2017
UN flat out lies about climate change impacts - again

See this powerful piece on how the evil forces of George Soros, Jeffrey Sachs and the UN have rope the socialist Pope Francis into their One World Government/Population Control Agenda.


FICTION:

UN chief says natural disasters have quadrupled since 1970

image

UNITED NATIONS: Secretary-General Antonio Guterres says the number of natural disasters has nearly quadrupled since 1970 and the United States has experienced the most disasters since 1995 followed by China and India.

The UN chief told reporters Tuesday that in recent days the world has seen the “dramatic aggravation” of climate change with “unprecedented events” caused by flooding from Texas to Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sierra Leone.

He said that last year 24.2 million people were displaced by sudden disasters - “three times as many as by conflict and violence.” Guterres said before the current floods, preliminary reports said 2,087 people died this year from natural disasters. He said scientists say “extreme weather is precisely what their models predict will be the new normal of a warming world.”

------------

FACT

Extreme Weather Expert: ‘World is presently in an era of unusually low weather disasters’

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

image

Professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado Boulder: “The world is presently in an era of unusually low weather disasters. This holds for the weather phenomena that have historically caused the most damage: tropical cyclones, floods, tornadoes and drought. Given how weather events have become politicized in debates over climate change, some find this hard to believe...The US has seen a decrease of about 20% in both hurricane frequency and intensity at landfall since 1900...Data on floods, drought and tornadoes are similar in that they show little to no indication of becoming more severe or frequent...Thus, it is fair to conclude that the costs of disasters worldwide is depressed because, as the global economy has grown, disaster costs have not grown at the same rate. Thus, disaster costs as a proportion of GDP have decreased. One important reason for this is a lack of increase in the weather events that cause disasters, most notably, tropical cyclones worldwide and especially hurricanes in the United States.”

Aug 01, 2017
Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers

Chris White

Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.

Agency officials admit that the problem with instruments recording low temperatures likely happened in several locations throughout Australia, but they refuse to admit to manipulating temperature readings. The BOM located missing logs in Goulburn and the Snow Mountains, both of which are in New South Wales.

Meteorologist Lance Pidgeon watched the 13 degrees Fahrenheit Goulburn recording from July 2 disappear from the bureau’s website. The temperature readings fluctuated briefly and then disappeared from the government’s website.

“The temperature dropped to minus 10 (13 degrees Fahrenheit), stayed there for some time and then it changed to minus 10.4 (14 degrees Fahrenheit) and then it disappeared,” Pidgeon said, adding that he notified scientist Jennifer Marohasy about the problem, who then brought the readings to the attention of the bureau.

The bureau would later restore the original 13 degrees Fahrenheit reading after a brief question and answer session with Marohasy.

“The bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at minus 10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted,” a bureau spokeswoman told reporters Monday. BOM added that there are limits placed on how low temperatures could go in some very cold areas of the country.

Bureaus Chief Executive Andrew Johnson told Australian Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg that the failure to record the low temperatures at Goulburn in early July was due to faulty equipment. A similar failure wiped out a reading of 13 degrees Fahrenheit at Thredbo Top on July 16, even though temperatures at that station have been recorded as low as 5.54 degrees Fahrenheit.

Failure to observe the low temperatures had “been interpreted by a member of the community in such a way as to imply the bureau sought to manipulate the data record,” Johnson said, according to The Australian. “I categorically reject this implication.”

Marohasy, for her part, told reporters that Johnson’s claims are nearly impossible to believe given that there are screen shots that show the very low temperatures before being “quality assured” out. It could take several weeks before the equipment is eventually tested, reviewed and ready for service, Johnson said.

“I have taken steps to ensure that the hardware at this location is replaced immediately,” he added. “To ensure that I have full assurance on these matters, I have actioned an internal review of our AWS network and associated data quality control processes for temperature observations.”

BOM has been put under the microscope before for similar manipulations. The agency was accused in 2014 of tampering with the country’s temperature record to make it appear as if temperatures had warmed over the decades, according to reports in August 2014.

Marohasey claimed at the time that BOM’s adjusted temperature records are “propaganda” and not science. She analyzed raw temperature data from places across Australia, compared them to BOM data, and found the agency’s data created an artificial warming trend.

Marohasey said BOM adjustments changed Aussie temperature records from a slight cooling trend to one of “dramatic warming” over the past century.

---------

You may recall in the U.S., NOAA disallowed a state all-time record low in 2009 for little reason.

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL
432 PM CST FRI JAN 16 2009

REGARDING ROCHELLE’S LOW TEMPERATURE THIS MORNING…

THE AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVING SYSTEM (AWOS) AT THE ROCHELLE AIRPORT RECORDED A TEMPERATURE OF -36F AT 745 AM THIS MORNING. WHILE THE THERMOMETER ON THE AWOS WAS RE-CALIBRATED YESTERDAY AND MAY INDEED BE ACCURATE...AWOS OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT QUALITY CONTROLLED OR CALIBRATED BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE AND ARE ALSO NOT DESIGNED FOR CLIMATE PURPOSES.

THEREFORE...THE STATE CLIMATOLOGIST DOES NOT CONSIDER THIS TEMPERATURE AN OFFICIAL MEASUREMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT AN ALL TIME RECORD LOW FOR THE STATE WAS REACHED. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING RECORD TEMPERATURES FOR THE STATE...ONLY ASOS AND COOPERATIVE OBSERVER OBSERVATIONS WILL BE USED SINCE BOTH OF THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE QUALITY CONTROLLED BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.

Please note ASOS was a tri-agency project with the leading agency the FAA. They had a low priority for temperatures. Indeed the ASOS spec has a RSME of +/- 1.8F for accuracy.

image
Enlarged

A similar attempt was made to disallow the -50F reading in Maine that winter, but pressure from the TV mets in Maine forced the NWS to accept as a new state record.

Jul 19, 2017
New report on global warming debunks government temp data

By Rick Moran

A new paper analyzing government temperature data says the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data published by NASA and NOAA are “not a valid representation of reality.” In fact, the three respected scientists who published the paper hint strongly that the data may have been fudged.

Here are the the money grafs from the paper:

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever - despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)

Using the government’s own data. the researchers showed that government agencies were able to “prove” that the Earth is warming simply by leaving out vital information.

While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

The scientists are not arguing that adjustments to temperature data are not necessary.  Over the 160 years or so of recorded temps, the weather stations where the data is gathered sometimes move, or a city grows up around them, or there is a change in sea levels where the temps are recorded.  All of these factors and more would make the data useless without “adjustments.”

The professors argue - and skeptics have been saying this for years - that it is just too convenient for these “adjustments” to almost always show an increase in temperature over the unadjusted data.  This is statistically impossible and leads to the inescapable conclusion that the books are being cooked.

What makes this paper a little different from other skeptical scientific literature on global warming is the lineup of respected scientists and experts who agree with its conclusions.  Here are a few of them with their credentials:

Dr. Alan Carlin, Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.; Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015; Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Dr. Harold H. Doiron, Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.; Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant; B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette; M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston.

Dr. Theodore R. Eck, Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University; M.A, Economics, University of Michigan; Fulbright Professor of International Economics; Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela; Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group.

Dr. Richard A. Keen, Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado; Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado; M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado; B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University.

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, IPCC Expert Reviewer; Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri; Ph.D.,; Atmospheric Science, Purdue University; M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

This paper won’t dissuade the global warming hysterics.  But in those places where the truth actually matters, it will stimulate debate and discussion.  That’s what science should be all about.

Nov 27, 2017
In Germany, Reality Is Triumphing Over Political Posturing On Climate

November 21, 2017/ Francis Menton

Germany—that’s the place where there really is a 100% consensus on the need for immediate action to solve the supposed “climate crisis.” It’s the land of the “Energiewende”—the forced transition to the use of intermittent renewables like wind and solar to generate electricity.  It’s the place where—as I noted in this post back in September -- no major political party has dissented on the need to act on the “climate” issue.  It’s the place that has happily driven its usage of renewables to generate electricity up to about 30% of the supply, and therefore its cost of residential electricity up to more than triple the average U.S. price.  It’s a place where anyone questioning the so-called “science” underlying the warming scare can expect to be greeted with derision and scorn.  And yet, somehow reality still seems to be intruding.

Over the weekend, the talks among political parties in Germany to form a coalition government collapsed.  As of now, nobody seems to know what is going to happen next.  And—even though there is little overt dissent on the virtue of reducing carbon emissions—it seems like the ever-more-evident costs of this “climate” program are starting to drive events.

Just to set the table, let me remind readers about the state of the political playing field on this issue in Germany and the rest of Europe and other major countries.  A good background article is this one from Dana Nuccitelli in the Guardian from October 2015, “The Republican Party Stands Alone in Climate Denial.” The article summarizes some work from Norwegian political scientist Sondre Batstrand, analyzing the positions on this issue of all conservative political parties from countries including the USA, UK, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Germany.  The conclusion:

[Batstrand] found that the US Republican Party stands alone in its rejection of the need to tackle climate change and efforts to become the party of climate supervillains.

That’s not the only example of over-the-top rhetoric in the piece.  For example, Nuccitelli quotes Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine on the position of then-candidate Jeb Bush on this issue:

In any other democracy in the world, a Jeb Bush would be an isolated loon, operating outside the major parties, perhaps carrying on at conferences with fellow cranks, but having no prospects of seeing his vision carried out in government.

In Germany, a political party needs to get 5% of the vote in an election to get any seats in the Bundestag.  As an indication of how correct Batstrand was, in the previous (2013) election, the only party that could remotely be considered a climate dissenter, AfD, got only 4.7% and no seats.  Another party, FDP—a free market classic liberal party and not really climate dissenters, but legitimately concerned about the costs of “climate” policies—got 4.8% and also no seats.

In the recent elections in September, those two parties suddenly got, between them, 23.3% of the vote and 24.6% of the seats.  And suddenly Angela Merkel needs one or both of them to form a coalition government.  Oh, and she also needs the Green Party.  How is that playing out?  An impasse!  Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation reports this morning:

Most remarkable: Germany’s failed and increasingly unpopular climate policies are at the core of the crisis. It also signals the collapse of Germany’s decade-old climate consensus.  While the Green Party demanded the immediate shut-down of 10-20 of Germany’s 180 coal power plants, the Liberal Party (FDP) stood by its manifesto promise of a radical reform of the Energiewende, advocating the end to subsidies for renewable energy.

Experts at the Federal Ministry of Economics had warned participants at the exploratory coalition talks that Germany will miss its legally binding 2020 climate targets by a mile and that trying to achieve its 2030 goals would risk the economic prosperity of the country.  The Ministry also warned that any attempt to force a radical reduction of CO2 emissions :by 2020 would only be possible by partial de-industrialisation of Germany.”

Climate business as usual is no longer an option for the Liberals [aka FDP]. The party fears that a fast exit from coal-fired power generation, as demanded by the Greens, would result in severe social, economic and political problems. A continuation of radical climate policies would affect Germany’s main coal regions, not least in Eastern Germany where the right-wing protest party Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) had gained significant support in the federal elections in September.

So, if you were to go around the streets of the major cities of Germany and take an opinion survey, you will find very close to one hundred percent agreement on the need to ‘take action’ on climate change immediately.  But what?  Does this mean that we will be putting thousands of coal miners out of a job, and more thousands of utility workers at coal plants out of a job, and driving the cost of electricity from three times the U.S. average to five times or maybe ten, and making our electric grid not work right any more, and by the way also “partially de-industrializing” Germany?  Wait, you didn’t tell us about those things!

image
Enlarged

I’m actually hoping that Chancellor Merkel does a deal with the Greens and maybe the S
DP, and continues down her road of green folly.  The real world needs some concrete examples of actual disaster to teach us a lesson in reality. 

Oct 10, 2017
The 11-Year Major Hurricane Drought: Much More Unusual than Two Cat 4 Strikes

Dr. Roy Spencer

Weather.com published an article noting that the two Cat 4 hurricane strikes this year (Harvey and Irma) is a new record. Here’s a nice graphic they used showing both storms at landfall.

image
Left: Hurricane Harvey makes landfall near Rockport, Texas, on Aug. 25, 2017 | Right: Hurricane Irma makes its first landfall at Cudjoe Key, Florida, on Sept. 10, 2017 (graphic: Weather.com).

But the statistics of rare events (like hurricanes) are not very well behaved. Let’s look at this new record, and compared it to the 11+year period of no major hurricane strikes that ended when Harvey struck Texas.

The Probability of Two Cat 4 Strikes in One Year

By my count, we have had 24 Cat 4 or Cat 5 landfalls in the U.S. between 1851 and 2016. This gives a probability (prior to Harvey and Irma) of one Cat4+ strike every 7 years. It also leads to an average return period of two Cat4+ strikes of about 50 years (maybe one of you statisticians out there can correct me if I’m wrong).

So, since the average return period is once every 50 years, we were overdue for two Cat4+ strikes in the same year over the entire 166 period of record. (Again, for rare events, the statistics aren’t very well behaved.)

The Probability of the 11-Year “Drought” in Major Landfalling Hurricane

In 2015, a NASA study was published which calculated how unlikely the (then) 9-year stretch with no major hurricane landfalls was. They came up with a 177 year return period for such an event.

I used that statistic to estimate what eventually happened, which was 11 years with no major hurricane strikes.

I get a return period of 560 years!

Now, which seems more unusual and potentially due to climate change: something that should happen only once every 50 years, or every 560 years?

Maybe global warming causes fewer landfalling major hurricanes.

Aug 27, 2017
Spencer fact-checks Al Gore’s latest climate-disaster-porn movie An Inconvenient Sequel

By James Delingpole

Spoiler alert: Gore’s scaremongering ‘facts’ are all inconveniently untrue.

Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, begins his book An Inconvenient Deception kindly, by noting that he much prefers the new movie to its 2006 Oscar-winning prequel An Inconvenient Truth.

It was much less of a PowerPoint presentation and more of a human interest story. It follows Gore over the years as he tries to convince fellow politicians, foreign heads of state, and the public that the climate crisis is real. While some have considered Gore’s role in the movie to be too self-indulgent, I thought it showed some humanity in someone many people over the years have considered too “stiff”.

But there the praise ends. When Spencer saw the movie, he was one of only three viewers in a 750-seat theater - and one of these people walked out half way through. This local reaction is borne out by the movie’s dismal reception at the box office. No one is going to see Al Gore’s terrible new movie. And - scientifically speaking, at least - they’re really not missing much.

Here are some of Al Gore’s dubious claims rebutted.

Greenland Melting

Gore is shown visiting cryospheric expert Konrad Steffen. “Surface melting is shown with dramatic aerial video. Rivers of meltwater form and plunge down into huge holes in the ice sheet called “moulins"."

But: “What isn’t mentioned is that this happens every summer, naturally.”

In fact this is a good example of Gore’s favorite cheat: show dramatic footage of a natural event - eg ice melting rapidly - and then leave the viewer to infer that this is another disastrous and unprecedented consequence of man-made climate change. It spares him the risk of telling flat out lies which might get fact-checked later. The viewer’s imagination does all Gore’s dirty work…

Meanwhile, in the real world, remember, Greenland recently recorded its coldest temperature ever measured in July for the Northern Hemisphere.

Flooding in Miami

Gore wants you to believe that this is caused by climate change. After all, in his previous movie he predicted sea level rises of 20 feet.

Sadly in the real world sea level has continued to rise at the same rate as for the last 150 years - about an inch per decade (Icecap note: more like 4 inches/century if you use stations where the land is not rising or sinking). Miami has always been beset by tidal flooding - so called “king tides”. But the other big problem is that its land has been sinking at a rate of around an inch per decade (3mm a year). Neither this, nor the sea level rise, has anything to do with climate change.

Storm Damage

Gore claims storms are getting more powerful.

Not true:

Roger Pielke, Jr. has done a lot of research in this area. As population increases, there are simply more things to break when a storm comes through. There have been no observed long-term increases in storm intensity from a meteorological point of view over the period of interest, that is, since the Industrial Revolution began. And even if there was an increase, there would be no way to attribute those changes to human activities.

Flooding of the 9/11 Memorial from Hurricane Sandy

Gore claims he predicted this in An Inconvenient Truth. No he didn’t: He only mentioned general sea level rise from melting of the Greenland ice sheet, not large surges from exceptional storms like Sandy, which have always been a risk for coastal residents. This is a clear case where Gore is deceiving you.

In fact the rate of sea level rise has not increased in New York: Sea level at Battery Park at the southern tip of Manhattan has been monitored since the 1850s, and has been rising naturally since that time at an average rate of 1.1 inch per decade, with no sign of acceleration.

Earthrise: The Big Blue Marble

Gore repeatedly invokes this famous image of the earth from space - one of the most viewed photos in the world - taken by Apollo astronaut and geologist Harrison (Jack) Schmitt on the Apollo 17 mission to the moon on December 7, 1972.

Here’s the irony:

Jack Schmitt, who I know and have worked with, is (like me) a skeptic of the supposed dangers of CO2 emissions and of the claim that climate change is entirely human-caused. He has been active in the fight to correct the record on climate change and the supposed dangers of carbon dioxide.

Solar Power, Solar City, and Elon Musk

Renewables salesman Gore is big on the idea that solar will save the world from fossil-fuel-induced warming. But there’s a fundamental problem with solar (and wind): It takes huge fields of solar collectors to collect much electricity from sunlight, clouds greatly reduce it, and 365 days a year it goes away at night. Fossil fuels are highly concentrated forms of energy, while solar and wind are relatively weak and diffuse. They are also expensive and only appear competitive if you ignore the vast taxpayer subsidies propping them up.

So, the claim that solar is in any way cheaper than fossil fuels is simply not true. Maybe someday it will be, but not any time soon. Without the government forcing citizens to pay more for solar through subsidies, the solar industry would have very little to sell other than for remote specialty applications where electricity is needed and there are no power lines to provide it.

The current success of Elon Musk, Tesla, Solar City, and solar energy installations in general is due to government subsidies. These are your tax dollars that the solar industry has convinced government to give to the solar energy effort. Investors, in turn, also cash in on the subsidies - while they last. The claim by Gore and others that the solar industry is employing vast numbers of people is not what you want if the product they provide is too expensive, or not in demand. As an extreme example of why the number of workers isn’t a good measure of economic value, we could put 100% of our labor force to work digging holes in the ground and filling them up again, but what would that do for our prosperity?

Verdict: Al Gore’s movie is an epic fail.

But we could kind of have predicted that, couldn’t we?

Apr 06, 2016
“…climate change is UN hoax to create new world order”

Trump gives hope to derailment of the establishment’s plans (both parties) for a New World Order - which would cede our rights and control over our lives including a redistribution of any wealth to the UN.

Update: see the whole story behind the story in their own words in Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters by C3 Headlines.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” And, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

We start with Mencken’s quotes because they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religious; the studious; the famous; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping “the populace alarmed” to further their own personal, selfish goals.

The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previous paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose an ‘Agenda’ based on their elite values and self-importance. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

See the quotes here.

---------

Australia PM’s adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order

Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, says UN is using debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule.

The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order - provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.

Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Australia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production.

Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Australia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders’ summit in Brisbane last year.

Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.

“The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN....

“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

Figueres used an address in Melbourne to urge Australia to move away from coal, the country’s second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming.

“Economic diversification will be a challenge that Australia faces,” she said.

Abbott has described coal as “good for humanity” and the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future.

Figueres also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott’s track record.

At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth.

At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was “crap”, repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.

Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: “No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables.”

Abbott’s office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Sep 23, 2015
In regards to the false 97% “consensus”

Derek Alker

Updated: Public and many to most real scientists are unconvinced.

From: Malcolm Roberts [mailto:malcolmr@conscious.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 12:07 PM
To: UQ VC OFFICE
Cc: John Cook; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; FORBES VIV; Carter Bob; Plimer Ian; Jennifer Marohasy
Subject: D15/7927: Complaint of serious corruption of science by UQ’s John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

Dear Professor Hoj:

As an honours engineering graduate from the University of Queensland I am inquiring of you as to the reasons our university supports the work of John Cook who serially misrepresents climate and science? Specifically, why is our university wasting valuable funds to mislead the public through a free course and by producing associated international video material?  Course

Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here.

It details John Cook’s fabrication of an unscientific ‘consensus’. Science is not decided by claims of consensus. Resorting to claims of consensus is unscientific and contradicts the scientific process.

Fabricating false claims of scientific consensus is not honest.

Science is decided by empirical scientific evidence. John Cook has repeatedly failed to provide any such evidence that use of hydrocarbon fuels is causing the entirely natural climate variability we experience.

A succinct summary of John Cook’s fabrication of a consensus, and of the corruption of science upon which his claims rely and that is furthered by his claims, and of the empirical scientific evidence he blatantly contradicts, are discussed in pages 6-18 of my report to federal MPs Senator Simon Birmingham and Bob Baldwin. It is available at this link

My seven years of independent investigation have proven that there is no such empirical scientific evidence anywhere in the world. Climate alarm is unfounded and is a purely political construct pushing a political agenda. Please refer to Appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7 and 8 at this link.

John Cook’s core public climate claims are false and blatantly contradict empirical scientific evidence. Please refer to appendix 4 at the same link.

image

Further, John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists and I’m wondering if that would make his work a serious offense.

As you likely know, John Cook works closely with the university’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who reportedly has many serious conflicts of financial interest surrounding his false climate claims. These are discussed on pages 54-59 of Appendix 9 at this link and briefly on pages 16 and 17 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin MP.

I draw your attention to my formal complain dated Wednesday 10 November 2010 to the university senate about the work of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg misrepresenting climate and science. That was not independently investigated by then Vice Chancellor Paul Greenberg who was subsequently dismissed over another event, reportedly for a breach of ethics. My formal complaint is discussed on pages 57 and 58 of Appendix 9 at this link.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s responses to my request for empirical scientific evidence of human causation of climate variability have repeatedly and always failed to provide such evidence.

This email is openly copied to both Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook and to reputable Australian scientists and academics expert on climate and to Viv Forbes an honours graduate in geology from our university. Viv Forbes understands the key facts on climate and on the corruption of climate science by beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm perpetrated falsely by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook.

Please stop John Cook’s misrepresentations and restore scientific integrity to our university. I please request a meeting with you to discuss our university’s role in deceiving the public and to discuss restoring scientific integrity. I would be pleased for that meeting to be in the company of John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if that suits you.

Pages 19-26 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin discuss the serious damage to our nation and to humanity and our natural environment worldwide as a result of unfounded climate alarm spread by our university’s staff. I hope that you will fulfill your responsibility for investigating and ending such corruption. To neglect to do so will mean that you condone such damage and dishonesty. I seek confidence that you will restore the university’s scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

------------

The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

image

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science

In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2.

See faulty methodology of Cook study.

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science. See the list here.

----------------------

See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”

----------

See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.

-----------

From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge

--------

Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.

NOTE:

See all the talks at the latest ICCC9 Conference in Las Vegas in 2014 here.

Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV.  If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.

----------------------

See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.

-----------------------

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.

The left loves to reference desmogblog.com when any skeptic produce an analysis or paper challenging CAGW - see the real story about this looney left green PR firm here.

---------------

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.

“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”

The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.

See still more annotated here.

--------------

Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.

The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.

---------------

See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.

Go to and become a member of WeatherBell Analytics here.

Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here. It’s latest report (2013) details information from almost 4,000 papers.

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)