By Hans Schreuder, 4 October 2010
There is an ongoing and concerted effort [1] by a well-funded group of eco-warrior style partners [2] to reduce the emissions of so-called “greenhouse gases” for the sole purpose of reducing the impact of human developments on the “disruption of our climate”.
As a scientist with no faculty to support nor a desk to defend, I am free from the shackles of academia that prevent the truth from surfacing. [3]
So instead of aiming for a 10% reduction of “greenhouse gas emissions” some time before the end of this year, 2010, I propose to do the exact opposite and I’ll explain why in a moment.
First and foremost, there is not one single shred of evidence that so-called “greenhouse gases” do what they are alleged to do: warm the earth by either trapping or re-radiating some energy back to earth. [4]
Secondly, there is not one single shred of evidence that the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are caused exclusively by the emissions from human developments and in fact, the only evidence that does exist quantifies the human emissions as being no more than about 5% of all the atmospheric carbon dioxide. [5]
Thirdly, it is impossible for any gas to trap heat in our open-to-the vacuum-of space atmosphere, by definition any gas that is ever so slightly warmer than its neighbouring molecule will rise and in so doing lose its heat in the three ways that heat passed from one molecule to the next: conduction, convention and radiation. [6]
Fourthly and lastly any heat that is re-radiated back to earth can not make the earth any warmer than it had become from solar radiation that made it warm in the first place, again by definition, lest we could produce extra energy from chambers filled with carbon dioxide; if only that were true all our energy problems would be solved overnight. [7]
So than, instead of reducing our emissions and thus reducing our industrial output and thus reducing the wealth of all citizens dependent upon those emissions, we should rather work to increase our emissions in order to spread wealth where there is now poverty, clean drinking water where now there is none, sanitation where now there is none and a life with basic education where now there is none. [8] [9] [10]
So-called “green energy” or the even worse-named “renewable energy” sources are not the answer as none of these energy sources are either green, renewable or even reliable. [11] [12] [13]
Let us instead aim for an atmospheric carbon dioxide content of 1010 parts per million, as that would greatly enhance the growing potential of all our crops and also help trees to grow big and strong [14] [15].
See the UN plot of yields as CO2 has increased.
1010ppm - let’s go for it! PDF
By Marlo Lewis
Cap-and-trade is dead because the public finally caught on that it is a stealth energy tax, a big reason being that it makes coal - the most economic electricity fuel in many markets - uncompetitive.
That’s exactly what a Clean Energy Standard (CES) would do. “Clean” essentially means “anything but coal.” Instead of pricing the carbon emissions from coal, as a cap-and-trade program does, a CES simply prohibits coal from competing with other energy sources for a specified portion of the nation’s electricity market.
Yes, I know, coal with carbon capture and storage qualifies as “clean,” but carbon capture is unlikely to be commercially viable any time soon. Thus, a CES would effectively ban some - perhaps most - investment in new coal capacity. Just like cap-and-tax, a CES would demoralize the coal industry and scare off potential investors.
I haven’t seen Sen. Graham’s specific proposal. From the descriptions, however, a CES is very much like the Renewable Fuel Standard (ethanol mandate) and the Bingaman-Brownback Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). In each case, politicians tell industry what to produce and how much. All such schemes bear an eerie resemblance to the production quota featured in Soviet five-year plans.
Sen. Graham is correct about one thing - a CES is more internally consistent than an RES. If your goal is to build a low- or zero-carbon energy system, then it makes no sense to leave nuclear energy out of the quota. Indeed, nuclear power probably has a lower carbon footprint than wind and solar have, because nuclear does not need to be backed up by coal- or gas-fired generation when the wind doesn’t blow and the Sun doesn’t shine.
Although Graham’s proposal would do much mischief if enacted, I am happy to see it drain political support from its more prominent cousin, the Bingaman-Brownback RES. My advice to both sides is, “Let’s you and him fight!”
See post here.
---------
Mandates are costly
By David Kreutzer, Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change, Heritage Foundation
A renewable energy standard (RES) is an expensive energy standard. Renewable sources that are economically viable would not need mandates to force consumers to buy them.
The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis adjusted the Energy Information Administration’s projected energy costs for various sources in 2016 to account for the variability and remoteness of the major renewable energy sources - wind and solar. With these adjustments, swapping one megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity from coal or natural gas combined-cycle generation to onshore wind drives the cost up from about $79 to $177. Offshore wind is worse at $218 per MWh. Worse again are solar thermal at $284 and solar photovoltaic at $423 per MWh.
Heritage analyzed a generic RES that starts at 3 percent of total power generation in 2012 and rises by 1.5 percent per year. Such an RES would destroy 1 million jobs by 2020, when the standard reaches 15 percent....
A renewable energy standard (RES) is an expensive energy standard. Renewable sources that are economically viable would not need mandates to force consumers to buy them.
The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis adjusted the Energy Information Administration’s projected energy costs for various sources in 2016 to account for the variability and remoteness of the major renewable energy sources - wind and solar. With these adjustments, swapping one megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity from coal or natural gas combined-cycle generation to onshore wind drives the cost up from about $79 to $177. Offshore wind is worse at $218 per MWh. Worse again are solar thermal at $284 and solar photovoltaic at $423 per MWh.
Heritage analyzed a generic RES that starts at 3 percent of total power generation in 2012 and rises by 1.5 percent per year. Such an RES would destroy 1 million jobs by 2020, when the standard reaches 15 percent. Average family income drops by $2,400 per year, and by 2035 these families’ share of national debt would grow by an additional $10,000.
Adding nuclear power to the options for renewables could moderate these impacts, but the mandates still aren’t good for the economy. Banging your head three times with a hammer is better than banging it four times, but it would be best to quit hitting yourself altogether.
Read post here.
U.S. Senate EPW Minority Report
Washington, DC-Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, released today a new EPW Minority staff report titled, “EPA’s Anti-Industrial Policy: Threatening Jobs and America’s Manufacturing Base,” which chronicles a series of EPA proposals that could destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, many in the industrial heartland, raise energy prices for consumers, and undermine the global competitiveness of America’s manufacturers.
The report reviewed the following proposals:
- New standards for commercial and industrial boilers: up to 798,250 jobs at risk;
- New standards for Portland Cement plants: up to 18 cement plants at risk of shutting down, threatening nearly 1,800 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs;
- The Endangerment Finding/Tailoring Rules for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: higher energy costs; jobs moving overseas; severe economic impacts on the poor, the elderly, minorities, and those on fixed incomes; 6.1 million sources subject to EPA control and regulation; and
- The revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone: severe restrictions on job creation and business expansion in hundreds of counties nationwide.
Sen. Inhofe:
“I have great personal respect for EPA Administrator Jackson, but we disagree fundamentally on EPA’s policies and the economic and financial harm they pose for consumers, workers, and small businesses. The record as outlined in this Minority report, which includes EPA’s own analysis, is very clear: EPA will make consumers pay more for electricity, shut down the local factory, and give Chinese firms a decisive advantage over America’s manufacturers, which are struggling to meet the agency’s bureaucratic mandates.
“The irony of EPA’s agenda is that, along with higher costs, it will fail to provide the American people with meaningful environmental benefits. In some cases, it will actually impose environmental harm, as EPA’s ever-increasing mandates shift production to China, where technology and standards don’t measure up to our own.
“Our task ahead is to bring balance back to federal clean air policy, so that economic growth, job creation, and environmental progress can coexist, rather than be in conflict with each other.”
U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.): “The regulatory obligations under the Obama administration’s EPA are set to kick the legs out from an already limping economy. It will be almost impossible for Congress to compensate for the jobs that will be lost under the regulatory burden of an ambitious and ever-growing EPA bureaucratic scheme that is crushing every sector of American business.”
U.S. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo): “When we ask ‘Where are the jobs?’ this report answers that by showing how the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is killing American jobs and sending them overseas.”
U.S. Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio): “During my tenure on the Senate EPW Committee, I have worked hard to enact common sense environment and energy policies that protect our environment while enhancing our economic competitiveness. Time after time, these efforts have been met by firm resistance from environmental zealots and an out-of-touch federal bureaucracy.
“Now, when America families are struggling under the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, EPA has launched an aggressive campaign of regulations, red tape and backdoor energy taxes that will undercut our efforts to create jobs and further erode America’s global competitiveness. We should be doing everything we can to create jobs and grow our economy - that includes stopping unelected bureaucrats from raising energy costs and using regulatory red tape to stifle our economy. We must put our nation’s environment and energy policy back into Congress’ hands.”
Global Freeze
PlanetSKI, 27 September 2010
New Zealand, Canada and The Alps have seen some decent snowfalls this week. It has been a pretty amazing time for some resorts around the world. See the latest conditions in the PlanetSKI weekly overview.
New Zealand has been hit by extreme weather and though it has led to big problems for many people the ski resorts have had more snow. bHowever many have had to remain closed due to high winds. One of our readers/reporters in New Zealand, Amanda Pirie, sent us this short message which sort of sums it up; “It is extreme weather here, no photos to send because it is all just fog!”
The weather has badly affected farmers and tens of thousands of people have been without electricity as power lines have been brought down. “The spring storm of 2010 is frankly the worst in a generation. The last big dump of snow we had was 14 years ago in the winter of 1996, while the last time we had anything this severe was 38 years ago,” said one farmer in New Zealand. Animals have died, the transport system has been hit and many people are suffering.
Source
Big September Snowfalls in Canada
Skiinfo, September 23, 2010
At 1,700 metres, Marmot boasts the highest base elevation of all Canadian ski resorts meaning it often gets large amounts of snow when it is raining lower down in the Athabasca Valley and the town of Jasper. That was exactly the case today when a mix of rain and snow fell on the valley floor while heaps of wet, white snow fell on the mountain slopes.
Last winter Marmot opened on November 11, its earliest opening date ever, with ideal snow conditions. So far this fall is shaping up to deliver a repeat performance of last year’s early season snowfalls which helped contribute to Marmot’s record setting year for attendance. “I think this snow is here to stay” predicted an optimistic Brian Rode, Marmot’s VP of Marketing and Sales. “We may still get some warm weather, but given that it’s nearing the end of September, I am quite sure this is the beginning of a very good base layer”, added Rode.
Source
Huge Snowfalls in New Zealand
Skiinfo, September 23, 2010
“We have received heavy snow mainly from the west and north west since late last week. Whakapapa has gone from 130cm’s a week ago to over two metres. Turoa has received just as much snow but it has come with higher winds meaning the snow stake measurement hasn’t changed as much. Don’t be fooled though, conditions will be way better when the storm passes.” Said a statement from Mt Ruapehu.
It’s a similar story at other areas, most reporting up to 60cm (two feet) of new snow over recent days but with strong winds and other extreme weather problems meaning most have had to close their slopes until the storm, which began at the weekend, passes over, predicted for the next 24-248 hours, leaving a spectacular weekend on the snow in prospect.
It’s not all good news though, the heavy snow led to a collapse of a sports hall and on Ruapehu Tower 8 of the High Noon Express has been damaged in the storm.
See post here.
Will the hemisphere see another top ten snow season?
Enlarged here.
Will we start the new decade with a bang. The 2000s was the snowiest ever since tracking began.
Enlarged here.
By Robert Bryce, Washington Post
Americans are being inundated with claims about renewable and alternative energy. Advocates for these technologies say that if we jettison fossil fuels, we’ll breathe easier, stop global warming and revolutionize our economy. Yes, “green” energy has great emotional and political appeal. But before we wrap all our hopes - and subsidies - in it, let’s take a hard look at some common misconceptions about what “green"means.
1. Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.
Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of “energy sprawl,” including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.
Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn’t always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind’s unreliability. The result is minimal - or no - carbon dioxide reduction.
Denmark, the poster child for wind energy boosters, more than doubled its production of wind energy between 1999 and 2007. Yet data from Energinet.dk, the operator of Denmark’s natural gas and electricity grids, show that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2007 were at about the same level as they were back in 1990, before the country began its frenzied construction of turbines. Denmark has done a good job of keeping its overall carbon dioxide emissions flat, but that is in large part because of near-zero population growth and exorbitant energy taxes, not wind energy. And through 2017, the Danes foresee no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation.
2. Going green will reduce our dependence on imports from unsavory regimes.
In the new green economy, batteries are not included. Neither are many of the “rare earth” elements that are essential ingredients in most alternative energy technologies. Instead of relying on the diversity of the global oil market - about 20 countries each produce at least 1 million barrels of crude per day - the United States will be increasingly reliant on just one supplier, China, for elements known as lanthanides. Lanthanum, neodymium, dysprosium and other rare earth elements are used in products from high-capacity batteries and hybrid-electric vehicles to wind turbines and oil refinery catalysts.
China controls between 95 and 100 percent of the global market in these elements. And the Chinese government is reducing its exports of lanthanides to ensure an adequate supply for its domestic manufacturers. Politicians love to demonize oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, but adopting the technologies needed to drastically cut U.S. oil consumption will dramatically increase America’s dependence on China.
3. A green American economy will create green American jobs.
In a global market, American wind turbine manufacturers face the same problem as American shoe manufacturers: high domestic labor costs. If U.S. companies want to make turbines, they will have to compete with China, which not only controls the market for neodymium, a critical ingredient in turbine magnets, but has access to very cheap employees.
The Chinese have also signaled their willingness to lose money on solar panels in order to gain market share. China’s share of the world’s solar module business has grown from about 7 percent in 2005 to about 25 percent in 2009.
Meanwhile, the very concept of a green job is not well defined. Is a job still green if it’s created not by the market, but by subsidy or mandate? Consider the claims being made by the subsidy-dependent corn ethanol industry. Growth Energy, an industry lobby group, says increasing the percentage of ethanol blended into the U.S. gasoline supply would create 136,000 jobs. But an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that no more than 27,000 jobs would be created, and each one could cost taxpayers as much as $446,000 per year. Sure, the government can create more green jobs. But at what cost?
4. Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.
Nissan and Tesla are just two of the manufacturers that are increasing production of all-electric cars. But in the electric car’s century-long history, failure tailgates failure. In 1911, the New York Times declared that the electric car “has long been recognized as the ideal” because it “is cleaner and quieter” and “much more economical” than its gasoline-fueled cousins. But the same unreliability of electric car batteries that flummoxed Thomas Edison persists today.
Those who believe that Detroit unplugged the electric car are mistaken. Electric cars haven’t been sidelined by a cabal to sell internal combustion engines or a lack of political will, but by physics and math. Gasoline contains about 80 times as much energy, by weight, as the best lithium-ion battery. Sure, the electric motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, but can we depend on batteries that are notoriously finicky, short-lived and take hours to recharge? Speaking of recharging, last June, the Government Accountability Office reported that about 40 percent of consumers do not have access to an outlet near their vehicle at home. The electric car is the next big thing - and it always will be.
5. The United States lags behind other rich countries in going green.
Over the past three decades, the United States has improved its energy efficiency as much as or more than other developed countries. According to data from the Energy Information Administration, average per capita energy consumption in the United States fell by 2.5 percent from 1980 through 2006. That reduction was greater than in any other developed country except Switzerland and Denmark, and the United States achieved it without participating in the Kyoto Protocol or creating an emissions trading system like the one employed in Europe. EIA data also show that the United States has been among the best at reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per $1 of GDP and the amount of energy consumed per $1 of GDP.
America’s move toward a more service-based economy that is less dependent on heavy industry and manufacturing is driving this improvement. In addition, the proliferation of computer chips in everything from automobiles to programmable thermostats is wringing more useful work out of each unit of energy consumed. The United States will continue going green by simply allowing engineers and entrepreneurs to do what they do best: make products that are faster, cheaper and more efficient than the ones they made the year before.
Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His fourth book, “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future,” will be out Tuesday, April 27.
NIPCC Report website
Reference:
Ladd, M.J. and Gajewski, K. 2010. The North American summer Arctic front during 1948-2007. International Journal of Climatology 30: 874-883.
Boundaries between air masses or frontal zones (fronts) typically delineate boundaries between different types of vegetation, as demonstrated in the classic studies of Borchert (1950) and Bryson (1966), who, in the words of authors Ladd and Gajewski (2010), “illustrated a close concurrence between the major air masses and the biomes of eastern North America, and the correlation of frontal zones with biome transitions (ecotones),” as also described by Hare and Ritchie (1972). And “because air mass classification systems are based on many variables,” they note that, typically, “small changes through time can be identified more easily than by examining, for example, only temperature (Kalkstein et al., 1998).”
In this intriguing study, Ladd and Gajewski evaluate the position of the Arctic front—defined as “the semi-permanent, discontinuous front between the cold Arctic air mass and the intermediate Polar air mass, bounded in the south by the Polar Front (Oliver and Fairbridge, 1987)”—based on gridded data obtained from the National Center for Environmental Prediction/National Center for Atmospheric Research reanalysis (NNR) for each July between 1948 and 2007, and from 1958 to 2002 using data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts ERA-40, as well as the period 1948-1957 “for comparison with the results of Bryson (1966).”
Based on their analysis, the two researchers report that “the position of the July Arctic front varies significantly through the period 1948-2007,” but they find that it does so “with a mean position similar to that found by Bryson (1966),” which “close similarity,” as they describe it, “is striking, given that the Bryson study was completed over 40 years ago.”
Well if the Arctic front’s mean stationarity over more than four decades is “striking”, its nearly unchanged position is even more striking in light of the fact that it has moved so little over the period of time that the world’s climate alarmists claim the earth warmed at a rate and to a level that was unprecedented over the past two millennia; and it is even more striking still that it has stagnated in a part of the world that is claimed by them to be warming faster than nearly all other parts of the globe. And it is even more striking still in the extreme (sorry to be running out of appropriate adjectives) for a parameter—the location of a frontal zone—that is supposed to be able to detect small climatic changes better than temperature itself. To borrow a musical musing from the Beatles, Very strange!
See post here.
NIPCC Report website
Reference:
Bouwer, L.M. 2010. Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society doi: 10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1.
One of the central claims of global warming alarmism is that climate change will produce more frequent and more extreme bad weather and that this will cause loss of life, much hardship, and disruption of normal and necessary activities. Superficial analyses of storm damage costs would seem to support this claim, because losses due to hurricanes, floods, landslides, etc. have been trending upwards over the past several decades. However, a number of factors make these trends misleading. As the population and the economy grow, for example, loss of life and property will increase even if storms remain the same. It has also been shown that increased wealth in a country like the United States has led to disproportionately increased development in exactly the places most likely to be hit by tropical storms: the US Southeast coastal zone. And, last of all, inflation must be taken into account. The standard approach for dealing with these factors is to normalize to correct for them by adjusting to a zero inflation rate and by accounting for increases in population and wealth.
In the present study, a meta-analysis was conducted, where twenty-two studies from around the world—which had previously analyzed losses due to storms, tornados, floods, landslides, and general weather—were evaluated. In all cases, Bouwer sought to determine if (1) proper normalization had been done, (2) how much of the effect was removed by normalization, and (3) whether other extraneous factors (e.g., deforestation causing increased flood risk) could explain any remnant trends.
The paper concludes: All twenty-two studies show that increases in exposure and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses. Most studies show that disaster losses have remained constant after normalization, including losses from earthquakes. Studies that did find increases after normalization did not fully correct for wealth or population increases, or identified other sources of exposure increases or vulnerability changes, or changing environmental conditions. No study identified changes in extreme weather due to anthropogenic climate change as the main driver for any remaining trend.
It would thus appear that elevated risks due to climate change are not already visible, as is often claimed in the media.
See this here.
------------
Floods of the Eastern United States
By NIPCC Report
Reference
Villarini, G. and Smith, J.A. 2010. Flood peak distributions for the eastern United States. Water Resources Research 46: 10.1029/2009WR008395. Villarini and Smith (2010) “examined the distribution of flood peaks for the eastern United States using annual maximum flood peak records from 572 U.S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations with at least 75 years of observations.”
Results indicated that, “in general, the largest flood magnitudes are concentrated in the mountainous central Appalachians and the smallest flood peaks are concentrated along the low-gradient Coastal Plain and in the northeastern United States.” They also found that “landfalling tropical cyclones play an important role in the mixture of flood generating mechanisms, with the frequency of tropical cyclone floods exhibiting large spatial heterogeneity over the region.” And they additionally write that “warm season thunderstorm systems during the peak of the warm season and winter-spring extratropical systems contribute in complex fashion to the spatial mixture of flood frequency over the eastern United States.”
Of even greater interest to the climate change debate, however, were their more basic findings that (1) “only a small fraction of stations exhibited significant linear trends,” that (2) “for those stations with trends, there was a split between increasing and decreasing trends,” and that (3) “no spatial structure was found for stations exhibiting trends.” Thus, they were literally forced to conclude, most importantly of all, that (4) “there is little indication that human-induced climate change has resulted in increasing flood magnitudes for the eastern United States.”
Contrary to the claim of most climate alarmists that global warming will lead to more frequent, more widespread and more serious floods, the eastern United States provides no evidence for this contention. Even in the face of a warming of the globe that many claim to have been unprecedented over the past one to two millennia, there is simply no evidence to support this untenable tenet of the IPCC’s gospel of fear.
See this report here.
By Dr. Vincent Gray
This issue I will answer an Email from Barry for a comment on a paper by Peterson on the First Difference Method.
I would like to put this in the perspective of my 20 years of intensive study.
It all began when many people became convinced that the “planet” was being “destroyed” by human greenhouse gas emissions and the every measure must be used to “save” the “planet” from this impending disaster.
It was evident from the beginning that the regular scientific techniques could not be used. The quality of the data and the extent of our knowledge of the climate were inadequate. Many honest scientists (for example W G Hessell) and even prominent warmists in their lucid moments (for example Jim Hansen) admitted that this was so. I have summarized this impossibility in a recent paper (here). This paper has been rejected by “Energy and Environment” It seems that even they dare not be publicly associated with what everyone knows is true.
Since the end (saving the planet) justifies any means, they had no alternative but fraud.
It consists of a large number of fraudulent devices.
*Doublespeak and Spin.
This is the use of ambiguous and emotive language to conceal the absence of content. See my recent update of “Doublespeak” here.
* Deliberately fraudulent scientific papers
I have listed some of these in my “Global Scam” paper here.
The “hockey stick”, the downplaying of solar and ocean events, Himalayan glaciers, Hide the Decline, are others.
*Suppression of evidence
Original temperature observations are suppressed or lost, Undesired gas concentration measurements are suppressed as “noise” (i.e. unwelcome data") All evidence of variability has to be eliminated.
*Organized Guesswork
The apparent recommendations of the IPCC are the “Carefully considered opinions” of “Experts”. all of them being indoctrinated supporters, programmed to provide the guesses required for the demands of the warmers. The procedure is described by the IPCC (see my “Spin” paper here).
*Abandonment of fundamental statistical principles
All the opinions of the “experts “ have no statistical significance according to basic requirements of mathematical statistics. Samples are never representative. Averages are never validly derived. Uncertainties are usually absent or are themselves “expert” guesses. Temperature “anomalies” are treated as if they were constants and subjected to “homogenization’ and various pseudo statistical treatments like the ‘First Difference Method” and “Bayesian statistics” with the sole object of enhancing any “trend”. Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have documented a whole army of similar fraudulent “correction”: techniques, all designed to correct upwards here.
*Distortion of climate news events
All climate events are distorted to fit a “climate change” model through control of all news media. In some ways this is their most effective technique as most of us have been so overwhelmed with this constant and unrelenting propaganda that we end up beginning to think that maybe there might be something in it after all; and perhaps a little bit of the “precautionary principle” might be acceptable.
*Attacks on Opponents
“Deniers” are prevented from publication in learned Journals controlled by the warmists with control of the peer review process. We are lackeys of Big Oil, without a career, only retired people can survive
*All honourable men (and a few women)
How could so many respectable prestigious and decorated people be parties to such a comprehensive deception. We know so many of them. They are Nobel prizewinners, Australians and Wellingtonians of the year, we cannot insult them with such a thing as truth, can we?
“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact” Charles Darwin