The writing should be on the wall for this one, particularly since the Democrats have essentially lost coal country entirely, as Ed pointed out this weekend. Energy and the millions of jobs associated with it was featured on the campaign trail and proved a winning issue for Republicans. And now, as reported by The Hill, the new GOP majority in the Senate is gearing up to finally do more than just talk about it.

The GOP sees the midterm elections as a mandate to roll back rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, with Republicans citing regulatory costs they say cripple the economy and skepticism about the cause of climate change.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) identified his top priority come January as “to try to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in.”

McConnell made his defense of coal a major piece of Kentucky’s economy, a highlight of his reelection bid, which he won easily over Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes.

He said he feels a “deep responsibility” to stop the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, as it proposed to do in January for newly built generators and in June for existing ones.

There are plenty of tempting targets. Cross state emissions rules, rapid changes in mercury restrictions for coal fired plants which will be replaced in the next decade anyway, ground level ozone rules and clean water attacks on hydraulic fracturing (which doesn’t get into the ground water anyway) are just a few. The question is, how does the legislative branch fight against rules which are established pretty much exclusively by the executive branch?

There are actually a couple of options. The most direct route would be through appropriations, essentially stating that the President’s EPA can put the rules in place but that Congress will not authorize any money to enforce them. If that fails, a more complicated path would be to attempt to pass legislation which essentially bans or overrides implementation. (That would be a fun one to see settled in the courts.)

Of course, any of these measures would have to get past the President’s veto pen, but if the White House takes too strong of a stand on that they could be springing a terrible trap for Democrats. With both houses of Congress unified, the President would be essentially standing alone as the person blocking a path to cutting costs for consumers and the creation of more jobs. This sets up the GOP for 2016 with a new and potentially more salable message. Traditionally we’ve seen political combatants arguing that “the next president” will be the person selecting Supreme Court justices. It’s an important debate to be sure, but a more direct line to the voters will be to clearly explain that “the next president” will be staffing up the EPA and other regulatory agencies, and do you really want four more years of these policies? Voters also need to be reminded that these changes are largely cosmetic, feel good measures which are not only hugely expensive, but have no effect on the far dirtier energy policies of countries with vastly larger populations who will continue to do what they’ve always done.

That may turn out to be a key piece of the puzzle in determining how to combat a liberal Democrat nominee in 2016.

Despite millions spent to make climate change a wedge issue during the midterms, environmentally friendly candidates didn’t fare well on Election Day. Green groups funneled an unprecedented amount of money into top Senate races that determined control of the upper chamber but fell short.

The nation’s top environmental groups including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate spent at least $85 million on six Senate races.

Out of those six races, only two candidates willing to take action on climate change won their races. In Michigan, Rep. Gary Peters (D) won, and in New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) held on to her seat. But Republicans picked up crucial Senate seats in Colorado, Iowa and North Carolina. The results are still out for the final Senate race greens collectively spent on, Sen. Mark Begich’s (D) reelection bid in Alaska.

“Despite the climate movement’s significant investments and an unprecedented get-out-the-vote program, strong voices for climate action were defeated, and candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said on Wednesday.

But Brune said that the climate fight isn’t over. “This election marked a pivotal change in how candidates confront the climate crisis,” he said. “We’re not backing down. “Public support is solidly behind action to tackle the climate crisis. While we have lost friends in Congress, we are gaining them in the streets, as our movement grows stronger and broader,” Brune added.

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said greens will continue to back leaders on climate on both sides. “Whatever may have driven individual races, the American people want action on climate change,” Beinecke said.

“They didn’t vote to roll back foundational environmental safeguards for the sake of polluter profits. We will empower the voice of the people,” she said.

Greens will have to gear up to help the administration defend the president’s signature carbon pollution rules for existing power plants, which are high on Republican’s hit list. “Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and in state capitols across America, are prepared to take on the administration’s misguided, overreaching regulatory climate crusade,” Mike Duncan, CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said in a statement Wednesday.

With the new GOP majority, President Obama’s agenda will be under fire. While Republicans might be able to push through votes blocking the administration’s climate regulations, they are sure to be vetoed by the president.
The White House said on Tuesday that Obama would continue to take executive action on climate change and will not look to Congress for approval.

-----------

UN report another pack of lies designed to achieve dangerous political agenda

Bill Bigelow

My hands are trembling so much that I hope I can finish this e-mail. My terror originates from the USA Today article that I am posting below with my several comments embedded. Scientists have just come out with what they say is the most comprehensive study of Climate Change ever done.  They blame what assuredly will be the end of the world on us--- unless we allow the elite groups to do what they want with our economies and life styles to save us all from certain annihilation.

What these scientists want to do is eliminate fossil fuels, which they say pollute the atmosphere with greenhouse gases such as CO2, the element every living thing/being on the globe needs to exist. The methods they want to use over the next 75 years would In Their Opinion reduce the global temperature by significantly less that 1 degree and that will save us. What they and Obama want to do is to destroy capitalism, which the elites believe is the economic theory that is responsible for destruction of our planet.

This is very interesting reading and such knowledge is important for intelligent, well educated and knowledgeable people must counteract the elites implementation of Agenda 21 in our county, the state of Florida (and all over the U.S.) were it is growing and is alive and well thanks to our politicians. Our families’ lifestyles are at risk if these small number of elites win the battle over Global Warming/Climate Change.

I am attaching a scientific analysis by several scientists whose findings refute everything the elites, EPA and Obama are saying about the death of the planet via excessive greenhouse gas emissions. This study (starts on page 11 of the attachment) was conducted by several highly recognized scientists well versed in climatology and all performed the effort on a pro bono basis, not funded by governments with political agendas as the scientists affiliated with the UN are.

Here is the article:

Top scientists blame humans for climate change
Doyle Rice, USA TODAY 7:29 a.m. EST November 2, 2014

Again and again, the greenies use pictures of steam condensing from water vapor going up a stack.  Even a natural-gas burning plant that emits only H2O and CO2 will have a cloud like that atop its stack.  The public is terribly gullible, and just assumes it must be the kind of “smoke” that burns your eyes and clogs your lungs. In my mind, the credibility of USAToday writer Doyle Rice dropped to zero the moment he used such a picture. The guy is either incompetent or deliberately spreading greenie propaganda. I think our side ought to put some effort into bashing the greenies every time they do something phony like that.  Tom Sheahen

--------

Warning of “irreversible and dangerous impacts,” some of the world’s top scientists Sunday released the most comprehensive assessment of climate change ever done.

Newest in the report is the level of certainty—95% (WGB Comment- Certainty of 95% B.S.)-- that humans and greenhouse gas emissions are largely to blame for the change.

:The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen,” the report states. (WGB Comment: Wow! All humans on the earth are now on a suicide alert.)

Hundreds of scientists from 80 countries gathered in Copenhagen to take part in the assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (WGB Comment a UN organization, which prognostications are never ever near coming close to empirical data evidence), a United Nations group.

The assessment comes as the Earth is headed toward its hottest year ever recorded, (WGB Comment- This highly suspect assertion by the writer demands evidence, which is not forthcoming at all) along with its highest level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in at least 800,000 years.

“The IPCC’s new Synthesis Report is yet another wake-up call to the global community that we must act together swiftly and aggressively in order to stem climate change and avoid its worst impacts,” (WGB Comment - In other words, we must now finalize Agenda 21 - akin to the Final Solution - - -and form the one world government, which will reduce the number of people living on the earth to save the planet and force the remaining people left to accept substantially lesseer standards of living so a few elitists can in their own mind save the world and eliminate all wars) said John P. Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (WGB Comment-another member of the very long list of Obama incompetents).

“Those who choose to ignore or dispute the science so clearly laid out in this report do so at great risk for all of us and for our kids and grand kids,” said Secretary of State John Kerry. (WGB Comment - you know smoke is being blown up our collective asses when kids, and especially grand kids, are cited as the justification for the comments of our joke of a Secretary of State)

“The scientists have done their job and then some,” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists. (WGB Comment - Anyone want to guess how many of these Concerned scientists live off of massive government largess/grants?) “The risks are clear. Politicians can either dramatically reduce emissions or they can spend the rest of their careers running from climate disaster to climate disaster.” (WGB Commen -The Final Solution requires the implementation of dire Fear Tactics to herd the people into the one world government gas chambers)

Five years ago, global leaders set a goal of keeping the temperature rise below 3.6 degrees F, (WGB Comment- look at the massive unattended problems now occurring on this globe and ask yourself whether such global leaders are qualified to set limits on climate conditions, which are totally out of their control. The chutzpah shown in this article is totally outrageous.) as compared to before the Industrial Revolution. Since the 1800s, the planet’s temperatures have risen about 1.4 degrees F.

The report is a key document that will be used at the Paris climate summit next year, where world leaders will try to broker the first major deal on emissions seen in decades. (WGB Comment- Kyoto totally failed and based on the many failed attempts to broker new deals those efforts will also fail. Obama desperately needs such an agreement to reach his goal of driving electrical bills to make Alternative energy prices competitive. Obama’s Final Solution will increase your electrical bills 40%+)

It “will provide the road map by which policymakers will hopefully find their way to a global agreement to finally reverse course on climate change,” Rajendra Pachauri, the panel’s chief, explained this week. (WGB- This man has been caught numerous times lying about Climate Change/Global Warming. This comment is even more reason why the Republicans must win the Senate for Obama will be the first executor of any new Climate Change document, if it transpires. You won’t see the biggest emitter of those very deadly greenhouse gases, most of which humans need to live on the earth, China, being a signer.)

The Copenhagen report sums up the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment, a huge analysis of 30,000 studies related to global warming. (WGB Comment - All of which have been refuted by scientific studies conducted by many scientists who refute these big government dependent scientists). See this PDF.

Climate experts Tom Harris and Bob Carter have written another fine essay - this one examining the battle between two Democratic Senators. Sheldon Whitehouse of seaside Rhode Island is blaming Joe Manchin’s coal producing and using state of West Virginia for causing “dangerous manmade global warming” that Mr. Whitehouse says will cause widespread flooding and destruction in coastal communities.

As Harris and Carter make clear, global warming ended 18 years ago, the alleged connection between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change has been wildly exaggerated, ice packs are not melting, and humans have no control over the natural forces that actually do control sea levels. Senator Manchin, they suggest, should resist Senator Whitehouse’s nonsensical demand that West Virginians sacrifice their livelihoods and living standards in a vain and King Canute-like attempt to stop the seas from rising.

Thank you for posting their informative article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,

Paul Driessen

---------

Whitehouse is misguided on sea level rise: seacoasts won’t be flooded due to coal burning

Tom Harris & Bob Carter

It must have taken the patience of Job for West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin to participate in Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s climate change tour of the Ocean State on October 10. Whitehouse promised Manchin that he would go to West Virginia to learn about the coal industry if Manchin would come to Rhode Island to view the supposed effects of global warming on sea-level.

It is important to put the concerns of the two senators in perspective.

On the one hand, Manchin is fighting for the survival of West Virginia’s coal sector, his state’s most important industry, the source of 95% of its electricity, and the foundation for thousands of jobs in dozens of communities. The state’s use of abundant, domestically mined coal gives West Virginia the 7th lowest electricity costs in America - at about one-half the price in California, New York, Rhode Island and several other states.

But West Virginia’s coal sector is under siege from increasingly damaging Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules. Those rules have meant total coal production in West Virginia declined 9% between 2012 and 2013, a period during which 17% of the Mountain State’s coal mines closed, and coal employment decreased 6.4% for a loss of 3,457 jobs already. Even before the EPA’s new Clean Power Plan regulations, which Whitehouse promotes, come into force, the EPA and Obama Administration’s “war on coal” has already cost West Virginia billions of dollars.

Senator Manchin, in other words, is concerned about the immediate, real-world impacts of climate change regulations on real people, families and businesses in his state.

Senator Whitehouse has a different perspective and is apparently not concerned about the cost of EPA emission regulations. Rhode Island gets none of its electricity from coal, having chosen less-carbon-intensive natural gas as its preferred source of power.

As a result, the state has the 7th highest electricity prices in the continental United States. The impact of these high prices on hospitals, schools, churches, businesses and families is significant.

The White House, of course, shares Senator Whitehouse’s perspective. Neither seems worried that, under the EPA rules, electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket,” as Obama put it when describing his energy plans as Democratic candidate for president in 2008.

Mr. Whitehouse is, however, worried about the hypothetical future impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal-fired power stations on “global temperatures.” He believes this will cause “dangerous” sea-level rise along Rhode Island’s coast. Mr. Whitehouse does not hide the fact that, because of these beliefs, he sees his mission as “more or less” to put the coal industry out of business.

If it were known with a high degree of probability that dangerous human-caused sea-level rise was right around the corner, then Mr. Manchin might have reason to sacrifice his constituents’ livelihoods to help save Rhode Islanders from being submerged. But this is not the case.

The September 2013 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change states: “Sea-level rise is not accelerating. The global average sea-level continues to increase at its long-term rate of 1 to 2 mm/year [0.04-0.08 inches/year] globally” or four to eight inches over the next century.

As it happens, sea-level rise on the coast of Rhode Island is slightly faster than the global rate about a tenth of an inch per year in Newport, for example or ten inches over the next 100 years. Nonetheless, such a slow rate of rise is relatively easy to adapt to, and certainly not worth ruining West Virginia’s economy on the off-chance that it would make any difference to coastal conditions in Rhode Island.

Bear in mind that sea levels have already risen nearly 400 feet since the end of the last Pleistocene Era ice age some 12,000 years ago.

The conflict between the two senators arises because of Mr. Whitehouse’s outmoded belief that rapid CO2-driven global warming is occurring. This, he believes, will cause accelerated glacial melting, the ocean volume to expand, and global sea-level to rise quickly. That in turn would subject low-lying coastal areas of Rhode Island to increasingly intense peak-tide or storm-surge flooding.

Drastically reducing our CO2 emissions is necessary to avoid this looming crisis, he asserts.

However, every step in Whitehouse’s chain of reasoning is either wrong or misleading and based on computer models that falsely assume rising atmospheric CO2 levels will cause rapid global warming. In reality, no global (atmospheric) warming has occurred for the last 18 years, even though CO2 levels have risen 9% during this time.

Neither has there been significant ocean warming since at least 2003. As a consequence, the ocean is not expanding and cannot be causing extra sea-level rise. In fact, the global rate of sea-level rise has actually decreased over the last decade.

The only way the sort of sea-level rise feared by Mr. Whitehouse is possible is if massive quantities of the Antarctic and Greenland ice-caps melted. Not only did that not happen even during the two-degree warmer Holocene Optimum, five to nine thousands years ago, but both the Greenland and Antarctic ice fields have been expanding in recent years.

Moreover, rates of modern sea-level change are controlled by the volume of water in the ocean (which is dependant on worldwide volumes of land ice at any given time), by dynamic oceanographic features such as movements in major ocean currents, and by the uplift or subsidence of the solid earth beneath any measuring station. Humans control none of these factors.

Senator Whitehouse should recognize that Rhode Island’s coastal management problems are his own state’s responsibility, not those of West Virginians.  As sea-level continues its natural slow rise along Rhode Island’s coast, flooding due to peak tides and storm surges will continue much as it has for the past century. The way to cope with any small increase in the magnitude of these events is to apply and strengthen current strategies that increase coastal resilience.

In his June 4, 2008 speech on winning the Democratic primaries, President Obama said, “If we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment...when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

Senator Whitehouse may still believe this pious dream. However, Senator Manchin must resist the nonsensical demand that West Virginians sacrifice their livelihoods and living standards in a vain and King Canute-like attempt to stop the seas from rising.

_____________

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (www.ClimateScienceInternational.org). Bob Carter is former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia.

Antarctica_NASA Photo

The Austrian online Kronen Zeitung here has an article about something most German-language media outlets have been too red-faced to report on: The sudden growth in polar sea ice.

The Kronen Zeitung opens with:

A huge growth in ice at the poles has surprised scientists and is casting questions. Is global warming taking a break? [...] For the prophets of climate change the new figures pose questions: “At the poles of Mother Earth, in complete contradiction to prognoses of a complete polar melt, there is an ice growth like one not seen in decades.”

Almost the entire mainstream media has been quiet about this development. So it is refreshing to see that some media are reporting the “good” news that the planet is not warming alarmingly.

Antarctic ice growth “problem for penguins”

The Kronen Zeitung reports that Antarctic sea ice is growing at an average annual rate of 16,500 square kilometers since 2007. The case is pretty much the same for Arctic sea ice, the online Austrian daily reports.

The Kronen Zeitung also writes that the rapidly growing sea ice surrounding Antarctica is a “huge problem” for penguins, who need open water.

“Climate science turned on its head”

Moreover, the Kronen Zeitung mentions the surprise of the National Snow and Ice data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado concerning the growth in the Arctic:

Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder (Colorado) in any case have to admit that instead of a global warming, a global cooling is taking place. [...]

At the moment this development appears to have turned climate science on its head globally.”

The Kronen Zeitung then explains how the climate models have failed in that they predicted the very opposite to happen and that some scientists even desperately claimed that the measurements were wrong.

Max Planck scientists: “colder winters and cooler summers”

To explain what is happening, Kronen Zeitung turned to Professor Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin. Tsonis says there are many factors at play. “Currents, winds, precipitation and foremost the upper and lower water layers.”

At the end of its article, Kronen Zeitung explains how the recent slowdown in overall solar activity may be playing a major role on the climate.

For years few sunspots could be observed. Colder winters and cooler summers could once again be the consequences, Max-Planck scientists say.”

Reported or not, the polar sea ice is there, and it cannot be ignored.

Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/10/15/austrian-daily-reports-huge-ice-growth-surprises-climate-scientists-like-one-not-seen-in-decades/#sthash.bVU563Yc.dpuf

Gordon,

Well done by all three of you and greatly appreciated the efforts all three of you went to shedding some light of fact on a fictional landscape. I was delighted (and a bit shocked) you were able to negotiate the alarmists going first in the presentations. That is usually an iron-clad rule the politically virulent rarely yield. It must have been traumatic for them to have to sit and listen to reality without being able to pull out the usual inventory mantras of sophistic non-sense to obscure facts. The presentations by Dr. Easterbrook, Dr. Morner and you, if compared to the recent travesty of clown science at the Hammer Museum, hopefully clarifies and separates the critical issues to a few more folks. Wonderful!
DMM

Here is the link to the video of this event.

Gordon Fulks wrote:

Dear All,

The debate went very well, because we had real scientists on our side and the best the other side could muster were two professional propagandists and one weak correspondence-school meteorologist.  Since our opponents were heavily into the 97% nonsense, I asked where were their 97 PhD scientists to counter the three of us?  The audience easily saw through the attempts of the other side to exaggerate their own credentials and support. 

I made sure that those supporting Global Warming went first, because they were the proponents, and we were the opponents.  That gave us a clear target, not the nebulous nonsense we usually face.  And it was not difficult to anticipate what they would say, because none of our opponents were the least bit sophisticated.  The first alarmist to speak was Kyle Dittmer, a hydrologist pretending to be a meteorologist.  He sounded like the inept scientist he is, never doing more than vaguely addressing the supposed link between man’s CO2 releases and ‘climate change.’ I’m sure that the audience recognized Dittmer’s weakness.

The succeeding presentations from the other alarmists got worse not better.  Their former Greenpeace organizer, Ryan Rittenhouse, lectured the audience about “confirmation bias,” suggesting that it was something we were guilty of and he was not.  That was ludicrous on the face of it because of his total lack of any scientific credentials.  But he was completely convinced of his righteousness because 97% of scientists and peer-reviewed papers agreed with him!  Furthermore, Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ had to be correct, because the UN IPCC keeps using it!

Then came the witch Daphne Wysham.  Her very first words were a personal attack on Professor Morner that she must have retrieved off the Internet.  Then she continued with attacks on Fred Singer, Joe Bast, and the Heartland Institute over Naomi Oreskes’ tobacco allegations and Koch brothers financing.  Her only discussion of the actual topic were references to an “unequivocal consensus,” quotes from Skeptical Science, and a harangue about coal-fired power plant ‘carbon pollution’!

Our presentations were far different, because they were filled with the logic and evidence of science.  Don Easterbrook spoke first for us and second overall.  His very effective technique is to present a great deal of the data that show what is really going on.  People instantly realize that they are listening to a professor who surely knows his field very well.  Morner sounded a little more eccentric, with his Swedish accent, sense of humor, and concentration on a single topic: seal level.  But he was hugely credible too.  I batted cleanup and was ready for the sort of nonsense and hatred that Wysham spewed.  In fact, all I had to do was to take apart some of her specifics in the three minute rebuttal at the beginning of my remarks and then launch into my prepared text.  I went back to prepared remarks to make sure that I did not forget something important in the fifteen minutes we were allotted.

Were we successful?  I think that we were very successful.  One of the best indications was a compliment from the head librarian who thought that we had been very “educational.” Since that is my entire strategy, it must have worked.  But let me be sure to give credit where due.  Our opponents were so bad as to help us enormously.

Although we did not have time for questions during the program, I stayed until we had to vacate the room to answer the many good questions that people had.  They wanted to discuss the science.  The other side slunk away, except for Rittenhouse who was so annoyed that he is still throwing insults our way days later.

Many thanks to Professors Don Easterbrook and Nils Axel Morner for their participation.  They both did a great job that made all the difference.

-----------

Global Placebo Effect: Windmills, taxes, solar panels - slowed global warming before they were built.

New Global Placebo Effect (GPE) announced by Baroness Verma in the UK.

It’s a scientific breakthrough. Global warming may be stopped by the mere thought of trying to reduce CO2, even if that thought fails to bring down actual CO2 levels.

The central dilemma: CO2 levels have been rising “faster than expected” for the last twenty years, yet global warming has been rising “slower than expected” for almost as long.

Matt Ridley was questioning Baroness Sandip Verma at the House of Lords this week. He pointed out to the peers that even the IPCC admits there is “hiatus” that modelers can’t explain. Verma responded: “It [global warming] may have slowed down, but that is a good thing. It could well be that some of the measures we are taking today is helping that to occur.” [Source: Dailymail]

Verma raises the intriguing possibility that windmills and solar panels that were built after 2005 have managed to keep global temperatures constant starting from ten years before they were constructed.

What’s even more remarkable is that none of these projects or activities have reduced global CO2 levels. It follows then, that the mere thought of building windmills is enough to change the weather.

Furthermore, it’s well known that more expensive placebo’s are more effective. Hence the final-final copy of the latest IPCC report—issued on Friday after the leak, the draft, and the redraft—will explain that they are 95% certain that if we spend $2 billion dollars a day on renewable energy (instead of just $1 billion) there will be no more category five storms, seas will stop rising, and goats will stop shrinking.

This morning, the UK Prime Minister David Cameron offered to give The Royal Society 350 billion pounds to research the new GPE. Sir Paul Nurse promised to start experiments straight away—beginning by asking seven million British school students to do a coloring in competition on emissions reduction every Monday in 2015 to see how much global temperatures can be reduced compared to other days of the week.

The University of East Anglia announced they will simultaneously set up a new division to monitor Mondays on HadCRUT and also on their Global Climate Models. We don’t know whether models are subject to the placebo effect, but we suspect they might be said a spokesman.  The project is due to start in January. Nature has already accepted their paper.

But Dr Roy Spencer was skeptical, and suggested that the correlation may work the other way in models.  “The more money we spend on models that predict warming, the less warming we seem to get” said Spencer.

Filed under: satirical press.