Remembering PRESTAGS

Might this be the ultimate FMWmobile?

Why have a house and have to drive to New Zealand's volcanic beaches to warm our aged bones? Let's live on the volcanic beaches!

This baby has a dining room, lounge room, kitchen, toilet and shower!

At night it converts to two double and two single beds. It has two 12V batteries and 240 V power supply so should run two CPAC machines overnight.

The dining table seats four in case we meet any aliens on the road

The lounge rooms suits a glass of wine with long discussions on theology, morality, the decline of Christian Culture, the inability of Americans to fix gun deaths, and the need for greater action on Mask Mandates!

All Python needs is two mates to join him. Preferably those two mates are talking to each other.

Orroral Valley fire

saw plume while driving. went back to take some photos.

wish that ice age would hurry up and arrive ....

Super fast delivery of GAS (little tripod - wall macro tool)

I ordered a little tiny tripod over the weekend and amazingly it arrived today.

The idea is to have something I can brace against the wall for shooting jumping spiders. Thought about a gorillapod but heard they are prone to squish down under weight/pressure, and, perhaps more importantly, if they get left in a hot car the joints are cactus.

So this little guy arrived:

It has two leg settings. The yellow I added for testing against the brick wall to avoid scratching it in the first 5 mins.

The macro set up. The ball head is from a monopod I had already. The rig can screw directly into the camera but then there is no movement possible.

and the results. providentially I spied a jumping spider when I was doing soccer practice with Carl (I expected them all to be gone but it hasn't really got cold yet).

These are straight out of camera jpegs, cropped (a fair bit) and downsized for the web - no post processing. The tripod works well I think, and I was impressed with the results - I think it gave the bracing / stability I was hoping for.

note the spinerets - they don't weave webs but play out a safety line behind them. He/she is sitting in the groove of mortar between two bricks which give an indication of scale.

Taking a photo of the Trojan

Python is not a skilled photographer, so rarely has the best photo of a boys weekend. However, he is never one to shirk when a challenge is set: photo of a car. The difficulty with this is that everyone takes photos of cars and there an more schools of thought on correct exposure, focal length and composition of the subject as their are pretensions in the Vatican!

I am however a quick understudy so have tried to model the skill an talent of my friends, Shirl and and Butch, and take a photo as they would:

Here is how I think Butch you photograph my car:

Shirl on the other hand puts a big emphasis on the positioning of his lens. Here is how he would take the photo:

Finally, I had to have a go using my own approach. In full awareness of my nickname, I present the following:

Camera adventures in the bush capital

Paul and Peter went out in the somewhat cooler and very windy mid morning to try their hand at photography ...

Botanic Gardens

in the rainforest gully

my best wren shot, not cropped.

cropped a bit. but the bird was just too far away :-(

white bark amongst the green

 

Arboretum, Dairy Farmers Hill - very windy

Mt Stromlo - also very windy

 

 

Real Fake News: Climate Change

Python's post about polar bear numbers is good obfuscation but it can't hide the fact that the 'climate change' advocates (the current iteration of 'global warming' advocates) have simply failed to get their facts right, and because this is documented their failure is there for the whole world to see.

It might be difficult to determine polar bear numbers now and in the past but so what. The real issue is that the alarmists said polar bear numbers would decline to the point of extinction because the arctic ice cap would rapidly decline and may even be gone by summer 2014. So said Al Gore in his UN speech in 2009.

Gore was wrong. But the climate zealots never admit this and try and hide the error with silly articles about how difficult it is to count polar bears.

There were even more extreme statements made by the climate zealots. My favourite is that snowflakes would disappear (in 2000). A total fail and self-evident bullshit to anyone with half a brain. We have had two decades of climate nonsense now and you rarely hear about all the statements that have been proven to be false. You just get new false statements about the future.

Gore was the same charlatan who got the Nobel peace prize two years earlier (2007) and we know what a politicised joke that award is. Even Obama (another climate zealot and professional pathological liar) got a Nobel peace prize to celebrate all the wars and terrorist supporting he was about to embark upon. Gore is to science what Obama is to peace.

I am still waiting for the deluded but well intentioned climate change worriers to explain why the high tax - population control - poverty inducing - destruction of liberty policies that politicians like Obama and Gore present as solutions to the alleged climate change problem are (1) necessary and that no other more people friendly policies are available and (2) will work anyway.

Have you noticed that the solution to big alleged problems (think terrorism and think black market economics) is always the same: more government regulation, more taxes, more sacrifices by ordinary people (but not the elite like Gore), more control, more silencing of dissent etc.

If climate change was a genuine scientific problem, there would be an encouragement of dissent and debate and new ideas and testing of theories (ie did the polar ice cap disappear in 2014) and not censorship and attacks on alternative theories from other scientists. Truth defends itself in a democracy. As soon as governments attack scientific dissent one needs to be extremely sceptical of the prevailing orthodoxy and it disappoints me that well intentioned climate change advocates are not as appalled by the government censorship as the 'deniers' (a government propaganda term if there was ever one) are.

The good news is people aren't as stupid as governments would like and more and more people are waking up. President Trump might event take an axe to a lot of the phoney science.

We are entering a period in the solar cycle where solar activity is decreased. It will actually get colder, but let's hope we are not taxed and regulated into servitude by the climate fascists first.

Anyone who claims to know the number of polar bears in the past or present is a liar!

Some light reading for those convalescing!

One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.*

One Russian extrapolation presented in 1956 suggested a number of 5,000 to 8,000, but that figure was never accepted by scientists. The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. Even now, about half of our population estimates are only educated guesses. Back then, the best we had over most of the polar bear's range were uneducated guesses. Polar bear science has come a long way since then.

We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. Some populations were not being hunted back then (or were hunted very little) and those were probably unaffected by these three actions.

Back then, the sea ice was solid and not noticeably in retreat. With stable habitat, polar bears were a renewable resource that could be harvested on a sustainable basis.

But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. Polar bear habitat is disappearing due to global warming. Even the most careful on-the-ground management doesn't matter if polar bears don't have the required habitat.

Polar bears depend on the sea ice surface to efficiently catch their seal prey. A shorter duration of ice cover over their productive hunting areas means less opportunity to hunt. A reduction in sea ice has been statistically linked to reduced stature and weight in polar bears and to lower survival rates of cubs. So, it doesn't really matter that hunting is now largely under control or that we know a lot about other impacts people might have on bears. Without habitat, polar bears will disappear no matter what else we do. If a farmer has 100 cows out in a pasture, and every year he goes out and paves over some of his pasture, pretty soon he won't have enough habitat to support 100 cows. And, each time he paves over a little more land, his remaining land will hold fewer cattle. There may be some short-term enhancements of the remaining habitat that will forestall the inevitable. But, when his whole pasture is paved there will be no cows! Declining habitat now and the assurance it will decline in the future is why polar bears were listed as a threatened species. Discussions about how many bears may have lived in the past before and after hunting quotas have no bearing on this new situation.

Planetary physics require the world to warm as greenhouse gas concentrations rise, so without greenhouse gas mitigation, the ice will continue to melt. For an animal dependent on sea ice to survive, the prospects are not good. As the ice decline continues, the plight of the polar bear only can worsen.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming

 

Idling Away A Sunday Afternoon

Strange Carrots

The carrots recently have not been quite as they should.

I don't know whether to blame Python or Thygocanberra.

It might be Python's fault, for all his focus on the non-existent man made global warming rather than the existent man made Fukushima.

Then again, it might be Thygocanberra's fault for playing around with [can't mention the two evil letters] in the food chain.

Spring has sprung

The aroma of the wattle was overpowering this morning. It seems early, but no doubt the IPCC cabal have altered the world's atomic clocks to slow down so that it appears that spring is coming earlier every year.

Are We Heading For Another Galileo Moment?

On June 16 the Holy Father is going to release an encyclical titled Laudato Sii (Praised Be), which title is the introductory phrase to eight verses of St Francis of Assisi's famous prayer thanking God for the gifts of creation: "Praised be you, my Lord, with all your creatures, especially Sir Brother Sun, who is the day, and through whom you give us light".

As always happens before an encyclical, the guessing game is on as to what it will contain. There are currently three theories: (1) the document will exhort mankind not to destroy and abuse creation (I am fine with this), (2) the document will condemn the unjust economic structures of the modern world which distribute wealth to a few at the top and which lay waste to the vast majority of the world's population and to the environment (I am fine with this, and I think it is overdue for the Church to condemn the world's current economic structures) and (3) the document will promote the climate change agenda (I am definitely not fine with this).

I suspect the document will actually include all three of the above. And if the document reads the way Pope Francis talks, it will be all mixed up with internal contradictions and ambiguities.

Speaking of Sir Brother Sun, the Church has form when it comes to the sun and science, and of getting it wrong. On 5 March 1616 Galileo was condemned by the Congregation of the Index and was prohibited from publishing works which supported the Copernican or heliocentric system. Undeterred, and ultimately subject to house arrest (a fairly mild punishment) Galileo still published Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems (1632) and The Discourse on the Two New Sciences (1638). Galileo has long since been proven correct about our heliocentric solar system, although he was not officially cleared until John Paul II's official apology in 1992.

If Francis I, who is not even a shadow of John Paul II, supports the anti-theory of antropocentric global warming it will be a step backwards 400 years to a geocentric view of the universe. Francis I, who has form with the 'ways of the world' rather than 'converting the world' (just look at what he is encouraging in relation to family and sexual moral matters) would be abandoning the sun's critical role in global temperature cycles and following the latest man made anti-science agenda with loads of un-Christian political baggage attached. It will be a dark day for the Church, in a pontificate that is not shining much light on the world at all.

The reason I am so worried is because the Vatican already hosted a convention on 28 April on climate change which featured some of the world’s leading climate "scientists" and included an opening address by the distinctly non Christian U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The conference was titled Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity: The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development and so assumed an untruth.

While I must presume Pope Francis’s heart is in the right place, he will do his flock and the world a monumental disservice by putting his moral authority behind the United Nations’ unscientific agenda on the climate, being the same United Nations that has a virulent anti-Christian agenda on so many other important issues. This is the same organization that facilitates industrial scale mass murder of unborn children, promotes sterilisation and eugenics, and whose idea of "peace" is to approve the carpet bombing of nations. It is incredible to think that any Pope would go and play with this bunch and their latest agendas for the world.

Even former global warming proponents, the real scientists amongst them at any rate, have woken up that the climate models and predictions of doom were wrong, and  there has been no global warming for almost 20 years and no global warming at all of statistical significance over a time frame of centuries and millennia.

Even Patrick Michaels (past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society, research professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia for 30 years, and a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has now stated in relation to the divergence between climate alarmist predictions and reality:

"It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked by the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps the three most important words in life: we were wrong."

It is an attribute of religious fanatics that they ignore data, even when it stares them in the face, and they never admit they are wrong. It is this fanatical aspect of the climate alarmists that is most troubling. If the Pope lends his blessing to this fanaticism he will ultimately reap the negative consequences of this new climate religion that is certainly not the Christian religion. It is just another dangerous false religion.

So I wait without any happy anticipation for Laudato Sii. Encyclicals are not infallible documents although on occasion they can include a doctrine that has been proclaimed infallibly. Encyclicals are expressions of the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, with a range of weight. Sometimes these are of a low grade, and temporary. It looks like like this encyclical will be one of them. Hopefully it won't take 400 years to correct any errors it may contain, and the Church can focus on preaching the gospel and saving souls.

IPCC 2015 Report

Climate Change Update

Refugee Crisis to Worsen with Climate Change

A historic 52 million people are fleeing conflict worldwide, a trend that will intensify over the next two decades because of climate change, International Rescue Committee chief David Miliband said on Friday.

"One of the drivers of displacement and potential conflict over the next 10 to 20 years will be climate (change) - resource scarcity," said Miliband, a former United Kingdom foreign minister. "Climate change is going to compound the cocktail that's driving war and displacement."

Miliband said there were 16 million refugees and 36 million people displaced in their own countries, typically by civil war. That is the largest number of people fleeing persecution since World War Two, he said during a Reuters Newsmaker event in New York.

"Do I think the current level is a blip or a trend?" Miliband said. "I would say it's a trend."

The end of the world as they know it

Super Typhoons Projected to Increase in Strength

A study from the University of California, San Diego has found that the strength of super typhoons has increased as a result of Climate Change and will continue to increase. The world was shocked by the strength of Typhoon Hainan that struck the Philippines in 2013. This study found that these typhoons are 10% more intense than in 1970. Such storms will be 14 per cent stronger by 2100, equivalent to adding another category to the current top severity rating of 5, the study found.

Research on tropical cyclones – known as hurricanes in the Atlantic basin – has sought to identify whether factors contributing to more powerful events such as warmer sea surface temperatures might be countered by changes to ocean or atmospheric circulation that may hinder the storms' genesis or force. Warming in the top 75 metres of the oceans will dominate other influences, the researchers found.

"This projected increase in typhoon intensity is largely due to [sea surface temperatures] warming," the study found, adding that the findings are "at the high end" of previous projections.

Of course the Third Viscount of Brenchley will seize on this chart to show that on the basis of the data from 1955 to 1970, there will be no typhoons or hurricanes by 2100.

Nearly 100 Australian Species are Threatened by Climate Change

Climate change is one of the major contributors to global biodiversity loss, and plant and animal species can be affected by climate change in different ways. Some may be directly affected by sea level rise or snow melt, whereas some may lose a pollinator or prey species that they rely on.

Species that cannot move to more suitable habitats, or who have no suitable habitat left, risk becoming extinct. Understanding how each of our species is affected by climate change means we can help them survive it.

Overall, and perhaps not surprisingly, amphibians are most highly vulnerable to climate change. They have small and fragmented distributions, and rely heavily on particular moisture regimes and aquatic habitats.

The species most vulnerable to climate change was the Mountain Pygmy Possum, threatened by increased snow melt, and further habitat loss through development of ski resorts.

Once the drivers of climate change vulnerability are understood for different species, groups of species and regions, we can start to take action. Actions that are targeted to help species adapt to the changing climate and give them the best chance of surviving into the future.

Unfortunately, the US republican party are pushing to have an research on climate change defunded.

Vomiting Delusional Drivel Over Their Pretty Uniforms

Donna Wasson from News with Views has written an excellent article about President Obama's recent speech about "climate change". Here it is:

Captain Tee-Time, the usurping Occupant of the Oval Office has finally lost all touch with reality, and officially checked into la-la land. On Wednesday, May 20th, he appeared before the graduating class at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and proceeded to vomit the most delusional, psychotic drivel all over their pretty uniforms. He actually told them, with a straight face, that climate change is one of the most serious threats to America's national security.

Yes, you read that correctly. The former horror of an encroaching ice-age morphed into global warming which switched dresses and became 'Climate Change.' This is because the propagandists can't figure out if the planet is getting hotter or colder but, DANG IT, the temperature is changing, therefore we need to institute wealth re-distribution from rich nations to poor nations so we can all live in a communist utopia, and sing Kum-Ba-Yah forever and ever. Praise lucifer. Yeah, that's the ticket!

I'll admit that even the most conservative members of this country have to concede there IS such a thing as climate change. It's called the seasons: winter, spring, summer and fall. Other than that, the planet is getting along just fine, thank you very much. Aside from our inability to keep from dumping oil into the ocean, and that whole Fukushima episode poisoning the Pacific, the global temperature fluctuates the way God designed it to thousands of years ago, and driving an SUV isn't going to change that.

Here is his quote. Try to contain your hysterical laughter until you've read it in its entirety.

"Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. Make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. So we need to act, and we need to act now. Denying it or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces."

He also stated that avoiding the issue is a "dereliction of duty." And if anyone knows what a dereliction of duty is, it's Barack Obama.

The graduates need to get this straight: our national borders, which are wide open to every ISIS terrorist and Mexican drug cartel member on the planet, isn't the most pressing national security issue. The fact that we don't revoke the passports of people who've traveled to war-torn Middle Eastern countries to train in terror camps, isn't much of a concern either. Heck, we welcome them back with open arms!

The fact that the Occupant's administration is bursting with members of the Muslim Brotherhood isn't an issue. The deliberate purging of the most elite, most experienced, most highly decorated officers in every branch of our military isn't a national security issue because the "Commander-in-Chief" filled those positions with transsexuals, flaming sodomites and lesbians, so we're good to go there.

The fact that mentally unbalanced little troll in North Korea, Kim Jong-Nutjob, is boasting they have a miniaturized nuclear weapon that may be able to ride an intercontinental-ballistic missile to the shores of America, is no cause for sleepless nights either. No, the most serious national security issue facing the United States today is…'Climate Change.' Somebody cue 'Hail to the Chief.' Thank heavens the Occupant has America's best interest at heart. What an embarrassing putz he is!

How the entire class kept from cracking up at the Monty Python level absurdity of his speech is beyond me! It speaks well of their discipline and decorum. WHAT, pray tell, does he expect the military to do about climate change anyway?! Shoot it? Lob a missile at it? Drive electric tanks? 

 

Good on Donna. The only way to treat this rubbish is as comedy, because there is no scientific basis for it. To put the climate data at its ABSOLUTE HIGHEST, there is only a case to investigate something, there is certainly no case to radically change the entire global world economy and social structures.

Remember:

1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: This year, in 2015, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during over 18 years. As I have posted previously, this isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 23 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

3) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

There's an old saying in programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable -- and they're not -- then the long term projections they make are meaningless.

4) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong: The debate over global warming has been going on long enough that we've had time to see whether some of the predictions people made about it have panned out in the real world. For example, Al Gore predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. This has not happened at all. James Hansen of NASA fame predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now because of global warming. It isn't.

If the climate models and the predictions about global warming aren't even close to being correct, wouldn't it be more scientific to reject hasty action based on faulty data so that we can further study the issue and find out what's really going on?

In Their Own Words

Once upon a time the climate change debate involved an assessment of the research and opinions of one set of scientists who believed that the planet was warming at an alarming rate, and another set of scientists who believed that there was no significant global warming.

The first set of scientists were very confident. They put their reputations on the line and came up with all manner of models which predicted catastrophic warming from about 1998.

The first set of scientists also had a massive advantage over the second set of scientists. The political powers that be decided the claim the planet was warming would be a fantastic excuse for economic policies to achieve a massive wealth redistribution away from ordinary people, and a wonderful excuse for more and more intervention into everyone's lives. Climate alarmism was also a great distraction form other planet wide issues that the political powers did not want ordinary people to focus on. Things like the destruction of civil liberties in an alleged war on terrorism, multiple wars and invasions (where the planet loving ruling classes use depleted uranium ammunition), and the uncontrolled environmental mega-disaster at Fukushima etc.

Indeed, the first set of scientists received massive public funding, unrestricted exposure in scientific journals, and the support of the entire mass media.

And then something happened.

There has been no global warming for 18 years, man made or otherwise.

The absence of global warming for 18 years is now so obvious and so well recorded in so many ways that even the first set of scientists are forced to admit it. And this reveals that all of their models were just science fiction.

Now in looking at alleged global warming one need only look at the first group of scientists and their own words to debunk the nonsense they have been propagating over the last two decades. It is not even necessary to defer to the second set of scientists.

Here are four of my very favourite quotes:

First, from Dr Phil Jones, the Director of the Climate Research Institute and Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (when he is not shredding unhelpful emails) and the Global High Priest of climate change.

Oops, it has been more than 15 years now. At least he admitted it which must have been excruciating for him.

Second, Dr Hans von Storch, climate supremo from the University of Hamburg and editor of the Journal of Climate, leading propaganda vehicle for the new climate change religion.

Still a true believer, he wants to wait another 5 years. What a fanatic. Only three more years to go however.

Third, Dr Kevin Trenberth, part of the Climate Analysis Section at the USA National Centre for Atmospheric Research, one of the infamous IPCC lead authors in 1995, 2001 and 2007 and an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand. This 'famous' Kiwi is best known as a one of the leaders behind the notoriously inaccurate and now debunked IPCC climate models and the inventor of the "Ocean Ate My Global Warming" theory.

It's not just a travesty, it is hilarious. I have some advice for Dr Trenberth: if you can't explain the pause you can't explain the cause. Oh, and its several years later and the ocean has still not given back its lunch.

Fourth, Professor Rowan Sutton, the Director of Climate Research at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. Prof. Sutton was jealous of Dr Trenberth for inventing the "Ocean Ate My Global Warming" theory so he came up with the theory that the cooler weather in the UK was caused by warmer oceans, otherwise known as the "Global Warming Causes Global Cooling" theory.

Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some call it a pause ... come on, call it what it is. NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR 18 YEARS!

As we celebrate Easter 2015 the tragedy of the global warming fiction is that the political classes are pushing the alarmist agenda more than ever. It does not matter that the UN models have been totally discredited, and that so called climate scientists are admitting that the models were wrong, and even that so called climate scientists are admitting that the planet has not warmed, it is full steam ahead for the wealth redistribution and distraction agenda. This is the fruit of an unholy marriage between science and politics, where science (supposed to be about truth) goes to bed with politics (a bastion of lies, self interest and megalomania) and produces this bastard child.

  

This will be the end of the world as we know it

Happy Easter everyone!

Paul asked me a month ago whether Global Warming was still happening and if it was still a threat (or something similar - I was drinking his scotch neat at the time). Being a true friend, I promised him an updated analysis for this very blog on Easter Day. There is no better way to celebrate new life than to vow to protect it and the environment on which it depends.

Lowest Extent of Arctic Ice in Satellite Records

The National Snow and Ice Data Centre reported on 19 march 2015 that the winter of 2015 had the lowest ice extent since satellite records began.

The maximum extent is 1.10 million square kilometers (425,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average of 15.64 million square kilometers (6.04 million square miles) and 130,000 square kilometers (50,200 square miles) below the previous lowest maximum that occurred in 2011. This year’s maximum occurred 15 days earlier than the 1981 to 2010 average date of March 12.

Arctic Sea News

They will shortly release their analysis of the ice extents for 2015, but it is not expected to be a harbinger of an ice free Arctic in a few years. There is a lot of variability in ice extent in the Arctic. To get a better feel for the trend, the chart below shows the 2015 extent relative to other years and the median over the winter months. You can see clear fluctuation in levels, but overall a clear trend towards less ice. The climate is warming.

Antarctic Ice is getting Thinner

Scientists have been reporting that Antarctic ice sheets have grown in the last three years, and sceptics have seized on this to prove that the climate is not warming. However, what this does represent is a call to arms for scientists to understand what is actually happening. British scientists reported in February that the continent's biggest glacier has thinned by 10 metres and shrunk 5 km inland

Researchers from University College, London and the British Antarctic Survey report in Science magazine today that the Pine Island glacier, the largest in the west Antarctic, has lost 32 cubic kilometres of ice over a 5,000 sq km area since 1992. The glacier is one of the fastest in the world, flowing at 8 metres a day.

Antarctic ice cap is getting thinner

Perhaps the Arctic ice is thickening then? Not so.

The climate is warming!

Polar Jet Stream Slowing Down

Both poles have a jet stream - a high altitude wind circling the poles. Of late scientists have learned how this affects weather by moving weather systems around the globe. What does seem to be happening is that is is slowing down, and this is keeping weather systems stationary or slowed.

There is strong agreement in the scientific community that the most immediate cause of the drought in California—and western heat more broadly—is the "Ridiculously Resilient Ridge.” The RRR, as it’s called for short, is a product of unusual jetstream behavior that scientists are linking to many complex factors including Arctic warming and warmer atmospheric conditions over the northeast Pacific.

The Warm West, Cool East US Temperature Divide

As they slow, the streams meander further from the poles than before, sucking Arctic air south in some places and holding weather patterns still in others; changing climate. There are some theories to suggest this slowing is caused by the warming Arctic. More study is need to know if this is the case and what it means long term.

The Ocean is Warming

The mean air temperature has been increasing all of last century, but slowed down noticeably towards the end of the century. Where had the heat been going?

Faced with a challenge, the scientists have had to adjust their theories, and early in the new century, the theory emerged that the additional heat was going into the ocean. Theories are not enough in true scientific enquiry, so research grants were obtained to measure the ocean surface temperature. The theories were right - a tipping point in atmosphere heat had been hit and the excess was transferred down to the oceans.

What is the implication of this? That is still being determined, but one this is for certain - it will not be good. 3.5 billion people receive their primary food source from the sea. Fish are sensitive to heat, and will migrate to stay in their comfort zone. Those that can't (e.g. at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef) will perish, or be overwhelmed by invading species.

 

USA Republicans Deal With Climate Science

The US Republicans are well aware of the level of scientific inquiry that climate change has brought about, and they do no like it. However, they are nothing if not resourceful.

They are about to bring the "Secret Science" act to the house. This act will require government agencies to ignore all science that is not "verified repeatable testable science". At first, this looks like a good idea. After all the point of science is that theories are testable and only accepted as long as no tests fail. However, the subtext is that climate change science is about what will happen, and it will only be repeatable if we actually heat the planet, and not once but many times. Wildlife must actually go extinct, and not once, but many times. Billions of people must actually be dislocated, not once by many times. Only then, will the GOP accept that climate change is real and a threat. But then, they will refuse to take action on it until repeatable science shows that doing something is better than doing nothing.

Of course, they will not apply the same criteria to their defence budget. In the case that the billions of dislocated people refused to die quietly on a different continent, the GOP will maintain a large defence force to deal with the unrest caused. That science is untested, but it would be crazy not to tote guns this such an apocalyptic future!

The Verdict

So, will this be the end of the world? Not at all; the world has been a lot warmer than this in the past. Perhaps the end of human civilization? Again unlikely; not all arable land will be rendered uninhabitable. Perhaps the end of the current world order? Very likely - the world order has changed dramatically every 50 years for the last few centuries? There is no reason to think that it won't do so twice more before the full impact of global warming is felt, but that would happen without global warming too. Global warming will have a devastating impact on the remaining wildlife on this planet - they have no where to go as their habitat changes. It will change our farming and fishing practices as we have to rearrange them to suit the new climate. It will result in civil unrest and war as people living in areas that get too much or too little water have to move. This could look like an apocalypse.

Unless...

This Will Be The Year

That it all collapses.

Little printed pieces of paper with dead people on them are not wealth.

The derivatives market the world over is larger than the world’s economy many times over.

Plunge protection teams = rigged markets with a thumb constantly on the scale, able to go up endlessly, but never allowed to go back down, ever.

The markets all consist of computers trading amongst one another, high frequency trading is all that makes up the market, and if they slow down it collapses.

The Federal Reserve is buying the vast majority of all treasuries. Somewhere north of 70% of all treasuries are being purchased by the Fed.

The Federal reserve is a group of privately owned banks, with no reserves, and is not federal.

There isn’t a company on the stock exchange that has a share price reflective of its assets.

Governments around the world have only kept the illusion going though endless money printing, endless quantitative easing, endless operation twist, endless buying of mortgage backed securities. Printing money. Every single time in history that this has been tried has ended in grief.

The flow of billions and billions of money printing props up the banks and US stocks, it does not build infrastructure or stimulate small businesses or assist the needy. It does not even assist anyone other than the top 1%. That is the 1% that owns 50% of the entire wealth of the planet.

Theft and corruption are now legal. There is no legal system left when it comes to HSBC laundering their money through the drug cartels, or MF global and the evaporation of 1.5 billion dollars in segregated client funds, and the list of illegalities by JP Morgan and others reads like a rap sheet. Not a single person from Wall Street as gone to jail since the 2008 financial crisis. Steal $100 and you go to jail for 10 years. Steal $1 billion and you get a bonus and you are "too important to fail".

Theft of assets and gold of foreign nations is now the order of the day, from Libya to Cyprus, to the Ukranian gold, to financial warfare and killing anyone who threatens to leave the system or opt out.

Libor rigging, was just one more example of rigged interest rates world wide in order to keep the financial system propped up a little longer and the illusion going. There is no law in this financial system.

Finally the transfer of all banker debt, all corporate debts world wide onto the backs of nation states. This has turned our once elected governments into nothing more than an extension of corporations, and has made private debt, all of it, public debt, and national debt. This is theft and corruption at it’s highest.

Theft has many new words. "Bail in" means your bank deposits will be stolen. "Necessary inflation" means your cash will be stolen, bit by bit. "Climate levy" means your assets will be taxed in new ways. "Too big to fail" means your taxes will pay for large corporation mistakes, but not for small businesses. "International treaty obligations" means the top 1% use tax havens and trusts and pay no tax. "Austerity" means you and your children pay for government and large corporation debts.

Now once the entire system collapses, it won’t just be banks going under, it won’t just be companies failing, it will be nation states collapsing.

That is why they need hollow point bullets, NSA spying, drones, coffins, guard towers, continuity of government plans, militarized police, and terrorists to give the excuses needed to create it all, catalog it all, and spy on everyone. The state does not fear terrorists. The state fears its own citizens when the house of cards comes down.

The end is near. It has reached a climax. We are now in global financial warfare, which may very well go hot, and has done so in many places and regions. The brick wall so to speak has been reached in Russia which hasn’t allowed a color revolution, and refuses to play if you believe it.

The EU is now printing money. The Swiss just made the decision to exit the game early, and now you will see the rush for the exits as to not be the last one standing at a dead man’s party.

Question is, will people beg for an Icelandic solution, the arrest of those financially responsible, a refusal to pay the debt of failed corporations.

Or will they beg for a Greek solution, the candy and handouts to continue, some government jobs and pensions to be protected, and the auctioning of all monuments, national treasures and assets to be handed over to the banks, and those responsible for the destruction of free people to be rewarded with more wealth.

Every nation is in debt, every state is in debt, every city is in debt, and every person is in debt. It has become a planet of world wide debt.

Those who are going to come in and pretend to save you, do not have the money to do it with, and if you are foolish enough to pretend that they do, then you deserve the slavery you will get.

As I write the 1% fly into Davos in their lear jets to pontificate to the rest of the world. Just watch, everything will be about the average person making sacrifices or changing their expectations or being taxed in new ways. All for the good of the planet 1% of course. No matter what they say the tax havens will stay. The mega corporations will still be above international law.

But even the super rich cannot hold the house of cards together for much longer. Unrestrained greed is about to have global consequences.

Find a cave and lock the door.

Waiting for a turn of EDEE

Oh dear, another epic fail.

The alarmists have been none too pleased that Al Gore made a complete arse of himself with the failure of his apocalyptic predictions concerning Arctic ice. Scrambling to explain away the survival of the previously doomed polar bear, all manner of weird explanations have come forth (my favourite is that the oceans stole the global warming), in fact everything except the obvious: there is no global warming, or even, the global warming is less than predicted. Now over 100 failed climate models and the alarmists won't budge, not even an inch (or should I say, a degree) which is funny because this intransigence is the definition of a fanatic and not a scientist.

Every alarmist likes publicity, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) decided to use 2007 to predict the melting of antarctic ice by global warming along with the demise of - you guessed it - the penguin. In December 2007 the WWF predicted: "Global warming is threatening one of the most endearing symbols of Antarctica - the penguin. Four species of penguin are facing a dual threat from loss of nesting sites and a shortage of food. The environmental conservation group WWF is warning that rising temperatures and the resulting loss of sea ice is robbing the emblematic birds of the nesting grounds they need to breed successfully".

And it was not just the WWF. I found this August 2007 headline from National Wildlife - "The Shrinking World of Penguins". Note the prediction - the antarctic ice would melt beneath the penguins' feet.

And what happened?

There I am over the weekend waiting for a turn of EDEE from my slow comrades (Python is slow because he is losing, Thygs is slow ... well he is just slow) and the 2014 headline comes in: "Extent of Antarctic sea ice reaches record levels, scientists say".

Even the pro climate alarmist ABC had reported:

"Antarctic scientists have declared a new record has been set for the extent of Antarctic sea ice since records began. Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometres covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent. Jan Lieser from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) said the discovery was made two days ago. This is an area covered by sea ice which we've never seen from space before, he said.

"Thirty-five years ago the first satellites went up which were reliably telling us what area, two dimensional area, of sea ice was covered and we've never seen that before, that much area. That is roughly double the size of the Antarctic continent and about three times the size of Australia".

Before Python races to the Lord Monckton card and makes an accusation of selective data, the antarctic ice has been measured over the last 35 years, basically since the beginning of satellite data. ‘NASA’s satellites have now been measuring global temperatures for a full 35 years (420 months through November 2013), including the Antarctic. The above chart documents the measured southern polar region temperatures. As can be seen, there has been a cooling trend – granted, a very tiny -0.04°C/century, but it remains far removed from the IPCC’s unicorn science of “amplified” and dangerous polar warming. And not only has it not warmed, the Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record amount.’

No doubt the fanatics will start rolling the 'warming dice' and we will get 50 different theories as to why there is still global warming even though the Antarctic ice has not melted. I predict that there will be a theory that global warming has actually caused the Antarctic ice to grow. Of course none of these new 'theories' will explain the C02 relationship in the above diagram. Even if there is climate change, it aint caused by man and his evil Co2.

Another failure for the alarmists and yet more exposure of the greatest fraud of this century.

[Please note that no nazis were used in the making of this post].

Lord Monckton: Deceiver of the Century

Who is this gorgeous man?

It is of course inappropriate to pick on someone for his looks, despite how often he attacks others for their views. Lord Monckton is the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, and former adviser to Margaret Thatcher and an ultra conservative. He is famous for his outspoken views, like all people with AIDS should be put on a island so that no one else can get infected (probably only Australia is big enough), that Hitler youth where communists who supported environmentalism and had a green agenda, and how the IPCC is a cover for an attempt to create a world government.

How does he Deceive?

His deceptions are surprisingly effective, although the techniques are childish. First, he makes the claim, then he calls anyone who disputes the claim a Nazi, then he threatens the sue questioners in court, and if cornered, he claims it was all a joke. Examples:

1. He claimed he worked as an advisor to the IPCC. He did not
2. He claimed he had received a nobel prize. He did not.
3. He claimed he was a non sitting member of the House of Lords. He was not.
4. He claimed the world had not warmed since 1997. It has.
5. He claims to have had an article published in American Physical Society's newsletter. He has not.
6. He is listed as a scientist in Senator Inhofe's report claiming more than 1,000 scientists disputed there's a scientific consensus on climate change. He is not a scientist.
7. He claimed President Obama was born in Kenya. He was not.
8. He claimed he had to sell the family home to pay prize money to grow his puzzle selling business. He did not.
9. He claims that a ban on DDT is the reason there is still malaria in Africa. DDT was not banned. Spraying stopped after six months when a strain of mosquitos that were immune to DDT filled the niche.
10. He claims to have discovered a drug that cures HIV. Well this claim is not disproven yet, but I am confident it belongs on this list.

To start an effective, deceiptful claim, you need to find some real data and then twist it. Consider the chart below showing the extent of ice in the Arttic since 1979. Lord Monckton notices that the last point is greater than the previous 4, so crops the chart as shown:

 Now he can make as claim that ice loss has reversed. Easy as!

How does he maintain the deception?

Lord Monckton loves to go to court.

He also has powerful, rich friends, such as the Heartland Institute,  who whisk him around the world to obfuscate at conferences on climate change.   He has convinced scientists to debate him and journalists to publish him as a legitimate voice of climate scepticism. And yet, all he can produce are lies and cherry picked data.

What's with all the Nazi Pictures?

He also loves to call anyone who doubts his views a Nazi. Here is a slide from his June 2011 presentation to the American Freedom Alliance

Can anyone else spot the similarity?

Is he really a comedian?

 Hard hitting comedians comment on his brilliance:

Can't get enough Monckton?

There is so much more:

• http://thejackalman.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/mad-monkton.html
• http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/thatcher-monckton-and-pinochet/
• http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton
• http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton-lies-damn-lies-or-staggering-incompetence
• http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-moncktons-lies-exposed-again-guardian
• http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5338
• http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/christopher-monckton-lesser-known-lies.html
• http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/monckton-will-lie-about-anything/

2007 + 7 = Epic Fail

In 2007 Al Gore gave his famous (infamous?) speech about global warming, and the imminent threat to civilisation. He gave this speach as he received the Nobel Peace Prize (can you believe it, the Peace Prize?) for his work on "global warming".

Gore set his own verification method - arctic ice - which he said would melt within 7 years. Yep, the polar bears were doomed, and would be the first to go as the world ended.

The melting of the Arctic has been a key theme, repeated  numerous times by Gore – notably in a speech to world leaders at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, in an effort to persuade them to agree a new emissions treaty. What was alleged to be happening was an ‘irrevocable death spiral’, where imminent ice-free summers would trigger further disasters,  including gigantic releases of methane into the atmosphere from frozen Arctic deposits, and accelerated global warming caused by the fact that heat from the sun will no longer be reflected back by the ice into space. Wow.

This threat to humanity was endlessly propagated by the media. The BBC went a year earlier than Gore and predicted ice-free Arctic summers by 2013. The cover of Time magazine had already predicted the demise of the polar bears.

And, of course, this "global warming" was our fault and caused by man. And because it was our fault we all had to be punished. Well, most of us, but not multi-millionaires like Al Gore. Billions of dollars have now been spent on "global warming" and not spent on other things, because nothing can compete with the end of the world. Forget that insignificant global nuclear tragedy called Fukushima which continues its devastation of the Pacific 24/7, forget health expenditure because we know ebola only infects black people,  forget depleted uranium ammunition in war zones of which wars we can't get enough etc. Hundreds of millions of people have now been taxed in various forms, millions of businesses have been ruined, hundreds of areas of science and technology have not been funded, individual liberties have been eroded, and the arctic ice ...

...has not melted.

2007 + 7 = 2014. Gore gave the test, and now the results are in. Wrong. Fail. Epic Fail. Lie.

The arctic ice has been up and down a bit (this is what cyclical weather patterns do with ice) and after a slight dip the arctic ice has has not only failed to disappear, it has actually increased since 2007. Scientists report that polar bears are in robust health and breeding successfully.

Time for Gore to give back the Peace Prize, and go and get a real job.

Understand faulty thinking to tackle climate change

Apologies to my dear friend, but I do not have time this month to blog on the recent findings of climate scientists. I read the following article this morning in New Scientist and thought it added some intelligence and perspective to the difficulties of explaining the dangers of climate change. I republish (without permission) (from the New Scientist web site) and hope my dear friend will take the opportunity to read it nonetheless.

DANIEL KAHNEMAN is not hopeful. "I am very sorry," he told me, "but I am deeply pessimistic. I really see no path to success on climate change."

Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel prize in economics for his research on the psychological biases that distort rational decision- making. One of these is "loss aversion", which means that people are far more sensitive to losses than gains. He regards climate change as a perfect trigger: a distant problem that requires sacrifices now to avoid uncertain losses far in the future. This combination is exceptionally hard for us to accept, he told me.

Kahneman's views are widely shared by cognitive psychologists. As Daniel Gilbert of Harvard University says: "A psychologist could barely dream up a better scenario for paralysis."

People from other disciplines also seem to view climate change as a "perfect" problem. Nicholas Stern, author of the influential Stern Review on the economics of climate change, describes it as the "perfect market failure". Philosopher Stephen Gardiner of the University of Washington in Seattle says it is a "perfect moral storm". Everyone, it seems, shapes climate change in their own image.

Which points to the real problem: climate change is exceptionally amorphous. It provides us with no defining qualities that would give it a clear identity: no deadlines, no geographic location, no single cause or solution and, critically, no obvious enemy. Our brains scan it for the usual cues that we use to process and evaluate information about the world, but find none. And so we impose our own. This is a perilous situation, leaving climate change wide open to another of Kahneman's biases – an "assimilation bias" that bends information to fit people's existing values and prejudices.

So is climate change really innately challenging, or does it just seem so because of the stories we have shaped around it? For example, the overwhelming and possibly hopeless struggle portrayed by the media and many campaigners provokes feelings of powerlessness. Scientists reinforce distance with computer predictions set two generations in the future and endless talk of uncertainty. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses the word "uncertain" more than once per page.

Discussions about economics, meanwhile, invariably turn into self defeating cost-benefit analyses. Stern offers a choice between spending 1 per cent of annual income now, or risking losing 20 per cent of it in 50 years' time. This language is almost identical to that Kahneman used two decades earlier in his experiments on loss aversion. Is it surprising that when a choice is framed like this, policy-makers are intuitively drawn towards postponing action and taking a gamble on the future?

If cost and uncertainty really are universal psychological barriers, it is hard to explain why 15 per cent of people fully accept the threat and are willing to make personal sacrifices to avert it. Most of the people in this group are left wing or environmentalists and have managed to turn climate change into a narrative that fits with their existing criticisms of industry and growth.

Conservatives may justify climate inaction on the grounds of cost and uncertainty but they, too, are able to accept both as long as they speak to their core values. As former US vice-president and climate sceptic Dick Cheney said: "If there is only a 1 per cent chance of terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction, we must act as if it is a certainty."

Strongly held values can explain the convictions of those at the ends of the political spectrum, but they do not adequately explain the apparent indifference of the large majority in between. If asked, most agree that climate change is a serious threat, but without prompting they do not volunteer it.

This silence is similar to that found around human rights abuses, argued the late Stanley Cohen, a sociologist at the London School of Economics. He suggested that we know very well what is happening but "enter into unwritten agreements about what can be publicly remembered and acknowledged".

Our response to climate change is uncannily similar to an even more universal disavowal: unwillingness to face our own mortality, says neuroscientist Janis Dickinson of Cornell University in New York. She argues that overt images of death and decay along with the deeper implications of societal decline and collapse are powerful triggers for denial of mortality.

There is a great deal of research showing that people respond to reminders of death with aggressive assertion of their own group identity. Dickinson argues that political polarisation and angry denial found around climate change is consistent with this "terror management theory". Again, there is a complex relationship between our psychology and the narratives that we construct to make sense of climate change.

For all of these reasons, it is a mistake to assume that the scientific evidence of climate change will flow directly into action – or, conversely, that climate denial can be dismissed as mere misinformation. The systems that govern our attitudes are just as complex as those that govern energy and carbon, and just as subject to feedbacks that exaggerate small differences between people. The problem itself is far from perfect and the situation is not hopeless, but dealing with it will require a more sophisticated analysis of human cognition and the role of socially shared values in building conviction.

George Marshall

It Is Enough to Make Them Weep

As the 17th year without global warming has passed, it is enough to make the global warming alarmists roll up in a corner and weep. Let us summarise ten setbacks for global warming alarmism, and celebrate the slow awakening of the masses.

1) Studies show that the world was warmer than it is today during the Roman Empire and when the Vikings were plundering Europe and North America. In fact, even in the 19th Century, there were discussions surrounding the fact that the Vikings could settle the northernmost reaches of Greenland and North America because there was less ice coverage.

2) During the second week in December 2013 , the U.S. saw more than 2000 record low temperatures and record snowfalls, according to the National Weather Service and HamWeather records center. There were 606 record low temperatures, 1,234 low maximum temperatures and 285 record snowfalls across the country. In the meantime there were only 98 high temperature records and 141 high minimum temperature records.

Of course, it was slightly warmer in Sydney on two days so there just must be a global crisis.

3) Satellite data shows that the polar bears have at least one reason to be happy this year – Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent over last year’s record low coverage. Contrary to Al Gore’s prediction that there would be no polar ice cap by this year, sea ice coverage spanned nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic last year.

4) Global cooling is on the way, according to an increasing number of scientists. German scientists have predicted that based on declining sunspot activity and natural climate oscillation the world will cool over the next century. Temperatures will eventually drop to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.

There is a strong correlation between solar activity and earth global temperatures, and a clear mechanism as to how this works. This is the science that should be in the media, not the man made global warming alarmism. Climate change is controlled by clouds, and the amount of clouds is determined by the amount of cosmic rays, and cosmic rays are affected by solar winds, which are more potent with more solar activity which has been measured through the amount of sunspots.  Climate change, temporary global warming,  is cyclical and is really brought about by sun activity. It is not due to anthropogenic CO₂.

5) Other scientists have also been coming around to the global cooling side of things. The BBC reported that Professor Mike Lockwood of the Reading University predicts that at the current rate of decline in solar activity, another “Little Ice Age” could envelope Northern Europe.

6) The United Nations climate bureaucracy’s latest global warming report was called “hilarious” by a leading scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Richard Lindzen said the UN’s report “has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence” because they continue to proclaim with ever greater certainty that mankind is causing global warming, despite their models continually being wrong.

“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen said. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”

7) As the global warming 'consensus' has disintegrated, the alarmists have used censorship to suppress dissent. A content editor on Reddit’s science forum wrote Monday that the site has banned climate-change skeptics, and asks why more news outlets haven’t done the same. “About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers,” Reddit content editor Nathan Allen wrote in grist. However this has backfired, because censorship only highlights that science has been highjacked by non scientific agendas.

8) In addition, the climate alarmist agenda has not stopped at censorship, but has assumed a religious fanaticism that simply cannot accept any contrary opinion as being normal. The elites in Europe continue to move forward with an agenda to change how we all live, and in 2012 they concluded the Planet under Pressure conference in London with public aims of not only lowering the number of humans on the planet but restricting them to cities so they don't disrupt nature. This is nazism with a green uniform, and people are now seeing it as such.  And people are also waking up to the hypocricy of the elites who consume without restraint while preaching austerity for others.

At the same conference, an American college professor issued a paper that said skepticism of man-made climate change is a sickness like racism that should be treated. More nazism.

9) The fact that Arctic ice is growing may not be the good news that it seems to be. There are signs that the Earth is entering a very unpleasant cooling period. Sunspot activity remains very low.

"The sun has been very unusual for almost 15 years now," Jens Pedersen, senior scientist at the Denmark's Technical University, said. Pedersen said the sun recently reached solar maximum and that there should be a lot of sunspot activity, but there isn't.

"We have to go back 100 years to find a solar maximum that was as weak as the one we are in right now," he told CBN News. "And the recent solar minimum…one has to go back 200 years to find one that was as weak."

The last time the sun was this quiet, North America and Europe suffered through a weather event from the 1600s to the 1800s known as "Little Ice Age," when the Thames River in London regularly froze solid, and North America saw terrible winters. Crops failed and people starved.

10) More and more people are waking up because it is becoming increasingly obvious that climate change alarmism is about politics, not science.

Pedersen said climate scientists know the Earth stopped warming 15 years ago. But the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of which Pedersen is an expert reviewer, suppressed a recent report from its own scientists that the U.N.'s climate model has been proven wrong.

"In particular one of the issues has been why global warming has stopped during the last 15 years, and climate scientists were very frank that the climate models do not match the climate we observe," Pedersen said.

But politicians removed that embarrassing finding from the final draft.  It's as if the alleged danger from climate change can't be wrong because it is now too important.

It has become a political movement, a cash cow for climate scientists and environmental groups, and a way for world leaders to control economies and people. That is the bottom line: it is all about the control of economies and people.

 

EDEE in the Retirement Home

What will EDEE look like when we are in the retirement home?

According to Python it will look like this:

According to Paul it will look like this:

And, according to Thygo it will look like this:

 

Peace in our time!

Paul and I have agreed to the following:

1. Each will write no more than one climate change blog article per calendar month,
2. Each agrees to only make no more than one reference to climate change in our other blogs. These other articles will not include charts showing climate, temperatures, green house gas emissions or ice cores
3. Politicians remain fair game for any foolishish they choose to undertake/speak, but only one remark in our attack may reference climate change
4. Blogs to date are exempt except that they could towards the one blog for the month of July 2014
5. ThygoCanberra will unrelently attack whoever breaks this promise, and post more pictures of spiders, ducks and moons.

The Climate Debate is Over

I now have absolutely irrefutable evidence that my position in the climate change debate is correct. There is no man made global warming and the debate is over.

My proof is that the Australian Greens Party Senator Ms Sarah Hanson-Young, on the repeal of this nation's silly little carbon tax, tweeted that climate change sceptics were grubs.

Since Senator Hanson-Young is a complete idiot and wrong on all issues of public importance, her comment is firm evidence that the climate change sceptics are correct. No sane person would ever want Senator Hanson-Young to agree with them.

Rainfall decline in South West Australia attributed to climate change

Yet a another prestigous scientific body has joined the hate list for the sceptics. This time the US Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Body has found that simulations support the observed decline in the rainfall in Australia's south west. (Since when did the Americans have a mandate to study climate in Australia. Yes, they can tell Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop what to say to the Russians, but surely Tony had a mandate to refuse all foreign science in Australia!)

"A simulation," scream the sceptics! "We don't believe in your simulations, and the fact that we do not believe means that no-one else may. We will not believe in anthopogenic green house gases warming the planet and acidifying the oceans until we can see the ice free lands of Greenland an snorkel over New York city."

Fortunately, I will not be alive long enough to see the fruits of inaction, or in the case of Tony Abbott's government, the undoing of the action of others. The needs of our brothers and sisters on the planet cannot be allowed to be ignored until action is meaningless. Here is the prediction. Shall we ignore it until it comes true, so shall we find a way to cap our emissions?

Australia's biggest contribution to humour since Rolf Harris!

Tony Abbott made history last week by finally getting the numbers in the senate to be the first world leader to repeal a carbon cap and trade system. This is despite him paying lip service to the need to abate climate change and the recently released reports showing that the carbon tax was reducing Australian emissions. However it wasn't all clear sailing, and the one shining aspect of the debacle is that he has learned how to negotiate.

He started his career as prime minister by singing the mandate song to all who would listen.

I have a mandate to to have my own way,
    the rest of you must do what I say

Although the house of reps by an large sang a long, the senate did not find the song very funny. So, Tony found other ways to get what he wanted.

I have a mandate to slow down the web
    but my senate support is reaching low ebb
I'll set up a commission to study a while
    So the NBN can rot while I smile

Meanwhile, it appeared that his education minister had forgotten the words of the song and thought the Gonski reforms were to go ahead. He was quickly brought into line.

I have a mandate to say what they teach
    With less staff and less tech, I'll say no to each,
Gonski was a mandate too long before
    Despite pre election my support I did swore

Refugees was another area where support was tricky. However, in the absense of information, it is very hard to know if we are doing the right thing or behaving immorally.

I have a mandate to turn back the boats
    I'm sure that that line gave me the most votes
"Turn back the journalist" is part of the mandate
    To find out what's happening, you just have to wait.

When it came to the Carbon Tax, the senate refused to sing. Some wanted this and some wanted that. It is interesting to note that although he had a couple of double dissolution triggers, he never pulled them. Pundits suggest that had he done so, he would have lost the senate for good, with 12 PUP senators likely to get in. So, he found a way to negotiate the repeal through, and it seems he made private promises to the minor party. It clearly was no longer a popular measure, but since when has a mandate for self harm ever stopped Tony?

I have a mandate to act the fool,
    Science and facts have never been cool,
I said what I meant, and I don't want to bore,
    But the promises I skipped never were core!

 

How could anyone miss "Tie me Kangaroo Down" after hearing the "Mandate Song"?

Proud of My Country

Today I am proud of my country. This great nation has repealed the insane carbon tax, and this makes us one of the first nations to wind back legislation derived from the greenhouse effect global warming climate change climate disruption carbon pollution hoax.

Of course, even if there was man made global warming Australia's stupid little tax would make no difference. And even if there was man made global warming and Australia's stupid little tax would make a difference, there is no justice in taxing all the ordinary citizens while our trading partners don't have the tax and our own major Corporations pay very little tax by using tax havens and all sorts of other devices.

Unfortunately the alleged greenhouse effect global warming climate change climate disruption carbon pollution has become a religion, and the zealots and social engineers will keep going with more taxes and schemes, and their relentless war against humanity, especially ordinary folk.

Even well educated people are being deceived, and even (dare I say it) some wargamers who really should know better.

Meanwhile, over at NASA (the Pythons's favourite source for climate information): NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

I am not holding my breath. The purvayors of the greenhouse effect global warming climate change climate disruption carbon pollution alarmism have not shown the slightest signs of honesty to date.

Governor Rick Scott, will you listen to reason?

Dear  Governor  Scott:  

We  respectfully  request  the  opportunity  to  meet  with  you  to  discuss  the  current  and  future  impact  of  human-‐induced  global  warming  on  Florida.  As  scientists,  we  believe  such  information  is  vital  given  the  threat  posed  by  climate  change.  There  is  a  clear  need  to  develop  a  state  plan  to  both  mitigate  and  adapt  to  the  threats  to  Florida’s  communities,  businesses,  tourism  industry  and  protect  the  state’s  economic  well  being.    

We  note  you  have  been  asked  several  times  about  how,  as  Governor,  you  will  handle  the  issue  of  climate  change.  You  responded  that  you  were  “not  a  scientist”.  We  are  scientists  and  we  would  like  the  opportunity  to  explain  what  is  at  stake  for  our  state.  

 We  welcome  the  chance  to  present  you  with  the  latest  climate  science.  Our  hope  is  this  will  inform  you  as  you  consider  Florida’s  plan  for  meeting  the  recently  announced  carbon  pollution  standards  from  the  US  Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA).  Each  state  will  be  called  on  to  implement  reductions  with  Florida’s  carbon  intensity  rate  reduction  target  of  38  percent  by  2030,  from  2012  levels.    

We  will  also  respond  to  any  questions  you  might  have  regarding  the  recent  National  Climate  Assessment  (NCA)  and  any  adaptation  planning  decisions  you  may  be  considering.  That  report,  as  you  may  be  aware,  concluded  that  climate  change  "is  already  affecting  the  American  people  in  far-‐reaching  ways."  This  includes  more  frequent  and/or  intense  extreme  weather  events,  more  acidic  oceans,  and  rising  sea  levels.  The  report  further  found  "unambiguous"  evidence  that  human  activities  –  the  burning  of  fossil  fuels,  the  clearing  of  forests  –  are  the  cause.  The  NCA  also  found  we  are  "exceptionally  vulnerable  to  sea  level  rise,  extreme  heat  events,  and  decreased  water  availability"  caused  by  climate  change,  with  "residents  in  some  areas  such  as  Miami  Beach  [already]  experiencing  seawater  flooding  their  streets."  

In  short,  Florida  is  one  of  the  most  vulnerable  places  in  the  country  with  respect  to  climate  change,  with  southeastern  Florida  of  particular  concern.    

This  is  not  a  hypothetical.  Thousands  of  scientists  have  studied  the  issue  from  a  variety  of  angles  and  disciplines  over  many  decades.  Those  of  us  signing  this  letter  have  spent  hundreds  of  years  combined  studying  this  problem,  not  from  any  partisan  political  perspective,  but  as  scientists  -‐  seekers  of  evidence  and  explanations.  As  a  result,  we  feel  uniquely  qualified  to  assist  you  in  understanding  what's  already  happening  in  the  climate  system  so  you  may  make  the  most  effective  decisions  about  what  must  be  done  to  protect  the  state,  including  reducing  emissions  from  fossil  fuel  burning  power  plants.  It  is  crucial  for  policymakers,  such  as  yourself,  to  have  a  full  understanding  of  the  current  and  future  threats  to  Florida.  Most  importantly,  you  should  have  a  detailed  understanding  of  the  specific  climate  change  impacts  already  affecting  Florida  to  help  you  formulate  the  optimal  plans  for  mitigating  future  impacts,  while  simultaneously  preparing  Florida's  communities  and  businesses  for  the  changes  already  underway,  and  almost  certain  to  accelerate  in  coming  years.  

 

We  look  forward  to  meeting  with  you,  and  await  your  response.  

 

Sincerely,  

Andrew  Bakun,  

Professor  of  Marine  Ecosystems  and  Society  

Rosenstiel  School  of  Marine  and  Atmospheric  Science    

University  of  Miami  

 

Kenny  Broad,  

Professor  and  Chair  Department  of  Marine  Ecosystems  and  Society  

Rosenstiel  School  of  Marine  and  Atmospheric  Science    

University  of  Miami  

 

Jeff  Chanton,  Professor

 The  John  Widmer  Winchester  Professor  of  Oceanography  

Department  of  Earth,  Ocean  and  Atmospheric  Science  

Florida  State  University  

 

David  Hastings,  

Professor  of  Marine  Science  &  Chemistry  

Galbraith  Marine  Science  Laboratory  

Eckerd  College  

Carbon tax has reduced CO emissions by 11-17 tonnes over the last two years

The Australian National University now has to join the Climate Change sceptics hall of shame. In a report released today by the Centre for Climate Economics & Policy, Marianna O'Gorman and Frank Jotzo found that even using conservative measures, the carbon dioxide emissions from Australian coal fired power stations was noticeably reduced by the Carbon Tax. They further believe that savings would have been greater if there had been no uncertainty about the legislation. Read it and weep for the anti - science attitudes in Australian politicians.

Breaking News: Climate Change Sceptics Claim Climate Change is Real

Last week the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change was held in Las Vegas (currently suffering from 14 years of drought). Funded by the Heartland Institute, the mission of the conference is to protect against the dark forces of climate fanaticism.

My mate, Paul Reiter was there talking about dispersal of insects, the global used tyre business, jet set beach bums, the spread of dengue across the US in the last fifteen years (illustration), the economics of the slave trade, the colour of quarantine flags, Chikungunya, how bad the IPCC authors who write on his topics are and how climate change is not the driver for all the tropical disease epidemics that happen today, it is just those diseases rentering their old zone because of increased global travel and trade in used tyres. (I'm afraid I wasted 37 minutes of my life listening to it, but his rambling way of talking is not unpleasant.)

Many of the speakers agreed with the proposition that Climate Change was real., but variously (inconsistently?) concluded that:

1. The man made proportion was small
2. The costs of doing anything out-weighed the benefits. (A Tony Abbott fan!!!!)
3. A warmer climate will be much more pleasant

So will the debate in this blog now move into a review of the best way to put up with climate change?

Climate change is making the world more dangerous

Climate change sceptics will have to add the Guardian newspaper and the World Meteorological Organisation to its conspirators list. They have published a list of trends showing how the world is becoming more dangerous from climate change. 

 

Key: Dark blue = floods. Light blue = mass movement wet. Green = storms. Yellow = drought. Magenta = extreme temperature. Orange = Wildfires 

 

This chart shows that there is a death trend already visible in the data that indicates how climate change is impacting our lives.

More details on the increase of other hazards can be found here.

Surely we owe it to those who share the planet with us to act? 

No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)

This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months

What’s going on? “1998 was the warmest year in the last century,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time. So that’s the real anomaly — the fact that we had what was perhaps the biggest El Niño event on record.”

“That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers — they take the highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”

Here’s what the long-term warming trend looks like, according to both surface and ocean readings:

(Graphic: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

But the idea that the climate stopped warming at some point goes back even further. In the 1990s, two climatologists, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, published a series of papers hypothesizing that global warming had stopped. Spencer and Lindzen are among the few climate contrarians with real scientific credentials, and have been widely cited by climate skeptics; Spencer has testified at a number of Republican congressional hearings on climate science.

Spencer also dismisses the theory of evolution, and has written: “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

Of course, none of that matters if their science is sound. But according to John Abraham, a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, who has published over 130 papers in peer-reviewed journals, it isn’t. “It turns out that they made three serious errors in their data,” he explains. “It took years, and it took a lot of time from other scientists to find these errors in their calculations. In fact, they switched a positive sign for a negative sign in one of their equations.”

He adds that while warming has in fact slowed on the earth’s surface, “93 percent of the heat goes into the ocean, and the ocean continues to heat, so people are confusing temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere — the weather — with long-term climate change.”

This graphic shows the change in total heat content on the planet’s surface and in its oceans:

 Shamelessly copied from http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

Let us hear from some real scientists!

This graph shows the record of global average temperature anomalies compiled by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The “zero” on this graph corresponds to the mean temperature anomaly from 1961-1990, as directed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). - See more at: http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_teacherpage/#sthash.nGtil8wN.dpuf

Hang on, you say? This is evidence of a clear conspiracy as IPCC directed NASA to create this chart. How dare the IPCC ask one of the most prestigious science organisation in the world to collate date. After all, scientists who make a living out of providing interpretation of satellite data for farming, mining and weather prediction are clearly going to falsify their data to suit the request of a upstart organisation that has only been around for a decade?

Fine, let us look further?

Here is a chart from the National Climatic Data Centre, a US Government initiative to set up in response to Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001. This chart excites the sceptics beyond measure! It shows that temperatures on average have reduced by maybe a tenth of a degree in the last ten years. Awesome, say the sceptics: We just wait another 60 years of business as usual and not problem. Wrong! The chart just shows that we are in a "La Nina" period, when surface temperatures drop on average. During a La Nina, winds in the Pacific cause currents that cycle cold water from deep in the ocean up to the surface and cover the warmer weather. The heat from global warming is still in the planet. This chart is expected to shoot up again when the cycle reverses, and certainly future La Ninas will have less of an impact as the whole water column heats up.

So what about the ice cores you ask? The ice cores tell us a lot about the past periods of the planet. I found this article by the British Antarctic Survey most revealing.

Basically, you can get a direct read on atmospheric concentrations of Green House gases from the bubbles of air trapped in the ice. Because of this, climate sceptics do not deny that more carbon dioxide is in the air at present than any time in the recent past. Instead they focus on the different climates the world has experienced recently (geologically speaking - since Antarctica and Greenland last froze over).

What the paper from the British Antarctic Survey does is chart CO2 concentrations against water isotopes (which goes a proxy of average global temperatures). It shows a long, strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature: you don't seem to get one changing without the other.

Climate changes are a normal part of life on planet Earth. (I think we can all agree on that.) In the past, the world was a lot warmer and a lot cooler than it is now. (I think we can agree on that too.) The planet was covered with life throughout the cool and warm periods. (We can mostly agree on that too, although there is some archaeological evidence that warmer periods have less diversity of species and that deserts in the Jurassic period were much harsher and more sparsely populated by multicellular life (us and most of the biosphere we recognise). So where is the problem? Well, to start with, in the warmer periods, the oceans were 20 metres higher than they are now. Although that will not have much impact on Canberrans, it will but a dampener on the lives of our great grandchildren. Further, when the climate warms, rain patterns change. Most of our farming happens to be in the areas of most reliable rain fall. When the climate changes, these will need to move. We don't know where yet. Finally, when the climate changes quickly, civilisations fall. (This last point is controversial, I accept. However, there is evidence that climate change disrupted the Roman Empire and ended the Minoan and Mycenaean periods.

Now let us hear from a real expert: the Republican Senator Brandon Smith (state senator for Kentucky). As a part owner in a coal mine, he was asked about global warming. His response is in line with climate change sceptics only in so far as his ability to use the truth. Otherwise he went off on an astonishing tangent:

"I don't want to get into the debate about climate change. But I will just simply point out that I think that in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars, there's no factories on Mars that I'm aware of. So I think what we're looking at is something much greater than what we're going to do."

The temperature on Mars is about 20 Celsius on the equator at high noon, but is about -60 Celsius at night and further drops down to -153 Celsius at the poles. However, it demonstrates how a climate sceptic can find a small fact about a one hectare part of Mars and generalise a theory about the climate of a planet. Notice also the vague reference to scientific support. Beyond that, I don't see much further point discussing Mars, but I welcome that entering the debate.

The Evil Minoans

The Python has alleged a "warming trend" based on some selective data over the last 22 years. If there is global warming over the last 22 years, what is he comparing these 22 years with? Actually, he is comparing them with nothing, just the 22 year sample.

How can you get a planet wide apocalyptic trend from 22 years? You can't. Let us leave aside Python's selective data and love for erroneous computer models, and look at some real science.

There is a real science called paleoclimatology, where past temperatures and other climate information is determined from analysis of ice core samples. The benefit of this kind of analysis is that you can go back hundreds of thousands of years and study some real samples, not a pathetic 22 years. You can also look at human civilisation to test the 'man made' allegation.

As ice forms from the incremental buildup of annual layers of snow, lower layers are older than upper, and an ice core contains ice formed over a range of years. The properties of the ice and the  inclusions within the ice can then be used to reconstruct a climatic record over the age range of the core, normally through isotopic analysis. This enables the reconstruction of local temperature records and the history of atmospheric composition.

Inclusions in the snow of each year remain in the ice, such as wind-blown dust, ash, pollen, bubbles of atmospheric gas and radioactive substances. The variety of climatic proxies is greater than in any other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or sediment layers. These include (proxies for) temperature, ocean volume, precipitation, chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity, desert extent and forest fires.

An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research.

Ice cores from Greenland enable a sample going back 400,000 years. From this, a sub sample of 11,000 years can be used to track human civilisation. You know, those nasty humans that cause planet wide warming with all their evil factories and farting cattle. What does 11,000 years show?

What?! A Dark Ages Cooling, a Medieval Warming, a Minoan Warming, an Egyptian Cooling. Those evil minoans and their obsession with bulls. They must have created a civilisation of farting cows.

And those good old boys in the Dark Ages. We need to cure global warming by recreating a feudal economic system. Now I see why the global warming alarmists want new taxes for everyone except the rich and powerful. They can become the lords and the rest of us can be taxed back into serfs and peasants. But we will all be lovely and cool.

 

Still No Global Warming

And the "hockey stick" is definitely not shaped like a hockey stick.

ThygoCanberra has been particularly enjoying the global warming over the last two months. Perhaps now the true scientists will be permitted to publish, and to speak.

Digital Footprint - 2

I loved post by Paul the Anonymous. It got me thinking, where is Joe Hockey, our beloved treasurer, as it is currently his fault when noone makes a post for 24 hours. Well, the answer is that he has been cut - he is made redundant - he is unwanted buracratic fat. The images for a search of "prestags hockey" show everything but.

By the way, the full page of picture returned by Google pictures seem to suggest that neither is anthomorphic green house gas warming the planet, nor that the Disapora is the most effective Empire tactic, both of which are laughably false. It just goes to show that while a picture may paint a thousand words, only a foolish man would believe them all.

Meanwhile at the Lake George Wind Farm

So, no global warming for 17 years and 8 months ...

... meanwhile, at the Lake George wind farm:

The Bedwetters are Wrong and the Hockey Stick is Broken

It seems that every few days there is news of another scandal involving the fabrication of "evidence" in support of alleged man made global warming. Today I read about the Data Rigging Scandal in the US Temperature Records but this is only the latest in a long line of political interference with science.

I don't understand why people are shocked about this, especially with something that is patently dodgy like alleged man made global warming. Science, like any profession, is just as likely to be prone to human failings leading to corruption, misconduct and criminality as any other profession. And this is more so when there is an obvious global agenda propagated by a small number of wealthy interests that want to socially engineer (and tax the crap out of) the unfortunate majority of the world's population.  It is the same wealthy special interest groups and corrupt governments that are bankrolling most of science, and guess what: they only fund research that fits in with their own agenda. Try applying for a grant to study the effects of solar cycles on planetary temperature (as distinct from an anthropocentric research project) and see how far you get.

I am sick and tired of the bedwetters (to copy the phrase used by a well known politically incorrect climate change sceptic) carrying on about alleged man made global warming while more and more data comes in showing there is no global warming. And, because the bedwetters love computer models (as distinct from actual measuresements) enough time has now passed to test the stupid and ill-informed models propagated by elitists like Al Gore (I bet he and his 5 mansions and lear jet has a small carbon foot print).

 
All of Gore's fear mongering predictions have failed. The best was the 2007 prediction that the arctic summer would be ice free by 2013. Wrong. the latest satellite data show that Arctic ice cover has actually expanded 50 percent over 2012 levels. In fact, during October 2013, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979. And what about all the polar bears would die. No, the bears live and maybe they can move to Egypt where Cairo just had its first snowfall in 100 years.

The worst predictions have come from the United Nations, that organization that has never seen a third world family it did not want to sterilise. The UN claimed in its latest global-warming report to be 95 percent sure that human emissions of carbon dioxide were to blame for rising temperatures. Those claims, now deservedly widely laughed at around the world, were made despite the fact that every single one of its computer models has been entirely discredited by the lack of warming for the last 17 years. Many experts are now even predicting global cooling.

Yes, you heard correctly. Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies (average global temperature) as measured by Satellite (a measurement, not a model) show that there has been no global warming for the last 17 years.

There is no hockey stick. And what are the bedwetters doing now? They have stopped saying "global warming" and have started saying "climate change".

Hang on, is this science? When the evidence doesn’t support your conclusion you change the name of the phenomenon. Recently President Obama (I guess he needs a 'carbon' tax because he has bankrupted America) said the record cold in the United States was evidence of global warming. HANG ON, so if temperatures go up it is evidence of global warming and if temperatures go down it is evidence of global warming. Bullshit: they are making it up as they go along.

My favourite news item of January 2014 has been about the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskly stranded in ice in the Antarctica sea. What has not been so widely reported (typical of a media largely owned by the same elitists that promote the global warming myth) is that the ship was full of global warming sycophants led by Chris Turney, a professor of climate change (there really is such a thing: amazing what money can buy) at UNSW.

The  purpose of the expedition was to retrace the Mawson expedition of 1912 and take duplicate "readings" of that expedition in order to show how much global warming has effected Antarctica in the last century. However, they are comparing data from 100 years ago when there was no sea ice in the same location and they proved the opposite of what they wanted. Absolutely brilliant, you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried!

The next time people feel warm or  hot I suggest they walk outside and take a look at the sky. Yes, there is a bloody great bright hot thing up there. It is a star which we call the sun. It generates heat. Now compare atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature (no correlation) with  solar irradiance  and global temperature (a correlation). Not that hard: I suggest UNSW appoint a professor of solar irradiance.

It is high time we move on from the global warming fraud and focus on real problems. The nuclear tragedy at Fukushima, for example, is a genuine global problem that deserves attention and massive resources. The dumping of highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean at horrendous levels every single day now constitutes a potential trigger to a process of global radioactive contamination. This is the sort of thing that bedwetters need to worry about.

 

Paul Reiter - a dummy spit?

Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in the city of Paris. He is recognised as a specialist in the natural history, epidemiology and control of mosquito-borne diseases.

He contributed to the Working Group II of the IPCC that was looking at impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. He resigned from this working group when he found himself at "loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of [his] speciality". From that point on, he has poured vitriol on the entire organisation. A colossal dummy spit perhaps?

Let's put this in context. Thousands of specialists, mostly scientists, all contribute from their narrow field on the general impacts of Anthropogenic Global Warming. For example, someone finds that glaciers in the Alps will shrink reducing melt water in the Po River. Another finds an increase in winter temperatures in Northern Italy. At this point, it goes to the mosquito-borne disease boys to say whether malaria could take hold in southern Italy, which is where I expect Paul Reiter would contribute. Then his findings go elsewhere for others to comment on (health workers, etc). At then end, all this work gets collated and summarised. I expect every contributer would be somewhat disatisfied with the result. Can those who write the conclusions be experts in everything? Not possible - there is too much knowledge in the world to fit in one head. So a process of dialogue commences. Stormy? I expect so. You should hear the Dark Matter people go at the Modified Newtonian Dynamics. However, most of the contributors got through the process.

Let's try an analogy. Malcolm Frazer, former Australian PM, says the Liberal party has lost its soul and quits. Does that require Tony Abbott to ring up Quenton Bryce and say "Sorry, we can't do this. Someone thinks we have lost our soul." I don't think so. Tony thanks Malcom for his views, respectively disagrees and says this is Liberalism 2013.

So Paul (Reiter), thank you for your contribution. With respect, the IPCC report does represent the consensus views of contributors. Ladies and gentleman, Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and will cost us trillions of dollars if we ignore it. Please read this report and apply is recommendations to your respective government policies.