Tuesday 31 December 2019


Some people think that we are living in the hottest  period in the last 100,000 years. This is simply not the case and the evidence comes from research by a very distinguished Swiss scientist, Dr. Christian Schlüchter, who discovered 4,000-year-old tree stumps lying underneath a retreating Swiss glacier.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today.

Dr. Schlüchter has a distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology and has authored/co-authored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.  However following the ancient forest discovery some scientists tried to undermine its significance. As he observes in a recent interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers.  My findings thus caught many experts off guard."

Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free in 5,800 of the last 10,000 years."

Such changes can occur very rapidly. His research team was stunned to find trunks of huge trees near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier which had all died in just a single year. They determined that time to be 8,200 years ago based upon oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice which indicated marked cooling.

Clearly these discoveries leave some interesting questions about what caused the glaciers to grow and then retreat over the past 10,000 years. There must be important mechanisms at work that we are at present unable to understand.

UPDATE - link replaced as it did not work. here it is.

Monday 30 December 2019


This article explains what is being planned. Clearly freedom is under attack by these people who think they can do as they like because they have been treated so leniently by the law in previous demonstrations. Unless the authorities show they can stand up to them we are in for some serious disruption.

Sunday 29 December 2019


Yesterday morning the BBC's flagship current affairs radio programme was edited by a guest, Charles Moore, who holds strong views on a number of issues including climate change. He succeeded in getting two interviews with members of the Global Warming Policy Foundation on the programme. You can listen to the whole two hour programme here. Some of the key points are highlighted on Paul Homewood's excellent blog here.

Paul has published an excellent piece on BBC bias here.

Saturday 28 December 2019


This article gives the details. After years of supersonic growth — wind and solar accounted for more than 60 percent of new generation on the U.S. power grid this year — the end of the tax credits could well mark the beginning of a sobering period for wind and solar developers. Of the approximately $18 billion the federal government spends on energy subsidies each year, more than 60 percent goes to renewable energy.

Friday 27 December 2019

Thursday 26 December 2019


Here is the article. In a linked article other researchers document 8-16°C climate warmings in Greenland that extended to both hemispheres between about 80 and 15 thousand years ago. (Though global in scope, temperature changes were less pronounced outside Greenland.)

These abrupt warmings occurred within decades (or less), and they occurred without any CO2 fluctuation before or after the change. CO2 hovered around 190 ppm to 200 ppm throughout each warming and cooling event.

Wednesday 25 December 2019


There has been a lot of coverage of the current heatwave in Australia. Here is a good article to put it into context. It shows that the current heatwave is not unprecedented and relates it to some extreme weather in 1896 which the authorities seem reluctant to admit was real.  A story which sounds familiar. 

More here.

Tuesday 24 December 2019


Here is a short video which debunks the fear-mongering of climate alarmists, such as Greta Thunberg. It is time for more of this to counter the daily alarmism which is pumped out by our main media.

Monday 23 December 2019


This short video by Tony Heller explains why claims of the "hottest day in Australia's history" are clearly exaggerations, or lies. There seems to be concerted effort on the part of the media to publicise any claims of heat records or wild fires to fix the idea in people's minds that something very scary is happening, when in fact these are simply extreme weather events which have happened in the past and are part of the kind of weather that we have to cope with.

Sunday 22 December 2019


This quiz will remind you of all the predictions of doom that alarmists have made over the years and more importantly that none of them came true. We need to remind ourselves of this every time the media tell us of yet another one. 

Saturday 21 December 2019


India’s Fossil-Fuel-First Policy Unyielding To Paris Climate Deal Pressure
Vijay Raj Jayaraj, Global Warming Policy Forum, 12 December 2019

The Indian government has adopted a fossil-fuel-first attitude and has made clear it will not compromise on India’s developmental goals.

Source: The Economic Times of India
The Paris Agreement is the United Nation’s flagship climate treaty aimed at reducing global CO2 emissions.
India’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), the country’s official commitment to Paris agreement, states that the total preliminary estimated cost for India’s climate change actions (between 2016 and 2030) are $2.5 trillion (at 2014-15 prices).
However, the proposed actions include no significant measures to curb India’s fossil fuel use or production. Moreover, the NDC states that the country reserves the right to overturn its commitments if the proposed climate mitigatory actions causes any impedance to the growth of individual economic sectors.
Earlier this year, the country’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, responding to Michael R. Bloomberg’s question on reducing coal, remarked,
This is right that the world’s third largest coal reserves is in India. In a poor country like India, we cannot ignore it but there is a solution to it…. We cannot deny the resources and assets that India has but we want to see how can we make use of these assets in an environment-friendly way. That is what we are focusing on.”
He reiterated on India’s renewable energy installations and said India is on track to achieve its 175 gigawatts capacity target from solar, wind and biomass (by 2022) and that he hopes India will increase the renewable target to 450 gigawatts in the near future.
India is also the key member of the International Solar Alliance (ISA) which aims to reduce the cost of solar power installations across the globe. ISA has pledged a trillion US dollars towards the cause.
In August, during his speech at UNESCO headquarters in Paris, PM Modi mentioned that India is looking forward to “create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, through additional forest and tree cover by 2030.”
Though India has increasing its renewable installations and desires to create carbon sinks, its dependency on fossil fuels remains unaffected and unaltered. The scope for any reduction in fossil fuel consumption is slim to none, as India has excluded the fossil fuel sector from its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) submitted to the Consortium of Parties (COP) of the Paris agreement. 
Currently, coal contributes about 72% of the total electricity generated in the country. India’s coal reserves are the third largest in the world. According to country’s long-term energy plan, coal is expected to contribute around 50% of total electricity demand in 2047, as renewables are expected to increase in India’s energy mix.
It is to be noted that the Indian government is also investing heavily in domestic coal infrastructure. Most of the current coal mining and handling systems at the state-run Coal India limited (CIL) are non-mechanized and the government is injecting 2.1 billion GBP to mechanize 35 projects.
Coal mining target is set at around 880 million tonnes for 2024. But the government is pushing to achieve 1 billion tonnes as soon as possible. News reports indicate that the government is set to announce key measures, including a relaxation of norms and issuance of global tenders, to attract large international miners to operate in the country.
Both the coal secretary and the coal minister have stressed the need to “urgently expand coal production” and “achieve the 1 billion tonnes target at the earliest”. In order to boost the domestic production, the Modi government is keen on liberalizing the coal sector and pushing for the maximum possible foreign direct investment. Under PM Modi’s rule, the country has added around 82 Gigawatts of coal power plants.
India’s thermal coal import grew by 19 percent in 2018, the highest ever, amounting to an total import of 172 million tonnes. In November 2019, Indian energy executives met Russian counterparts and the Russian ambassador to India in order to expediate the coal import from Russia.
The Union Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas Dharmendra Pradhan, said “Long-term cooperation with Russian Far East in the coal sector will help India bridge the demand gap of coking coal in the country”. He also mentioned that the country is looking to “secure more coking coal for the domestic steel industry.”
Coal is just one aspect of India’s fossil aspirations. Oil import is also on a constant increase. The import from U.S. especially is at an all-time high and has skyrocketed in recent years owing to geopolitical tensions in the middle east. Energy trade was an important agenda of PM Modi’s visit to the U.S. in 2019 and the India’s trade with them is likely to increase by 40 percent in 2019-20, amounting to USD 10 billion.
Just days before the New York climate summit this year, Modi’s government released an update to their climate and finance policy in a document titled “Climate Summit for Enhanced Action: A Financial Perspective from India”. It outlaid India’s course of climate action and its reservations about the lack of climate funding from the developed nations (around 40 percent short of the USD 100 billion).
The report explicitly states “Despite the various climate finance decisions, there are attempts by some developed country Parties to shrug off even their modest past responsibilities.” While the document reiterates the country’s commitment to climate action (including mitigate climate change and promoting renewable energy), it clearly communicates that its efforts are on “best effort” basis.
Full post

Friday 20 December 2019


This article explains that there has been very little progress. In fact things are much worse if you believe that CO2 emissions should be falling. Most countries actually don't believe that at all. As for giving money to poorer countries, that has hardly materialised at all, apart from the UK, who seem to be the prize mugs in dishing out overseas aid like a drunk spending his inheritance.

Thursday 19 December 2019


This report gives the details. Lucky taxpayers of Oxford! I am sure they are delighted to hear this news, knowing that as world wide emissions go on rising they can feel smug in the knowledge that their council is making a futile gesture principled stand to show the world how much they care, even though it will not make the slightest difference to the weather or climate.

Wednesday 18 December 2019


This post has had to be deleted as it caused big problems by forming a page that completely covered the front of the blog. It linked to an article on Cfact

Tuesday 17 December 2019


This article explains how a New York Supreme Court judge has rejected the state of New York’s claim that Exxon Mobil misled investors in accounting for the financial risks of global warming 
New York Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan Zweig announced during his closing statement that the state would no longer be claiming that Exxon knowingly and wilfully misled investors on how it accounts for the financial risks of climate change.

Serves the numbsbulls running New York State right for wasting the court's time and the people's money in bringing such a ridiculous claim to court in the first place. 

Monday 16 December 2019


This article looks at this survey. The thing about surveys is that they record the answer to a hypothetical question. People often claim they would do something, but that does not actually mean they would do it. It would be extraordinary if any government proposed to ban Christmas lights.

Sunday 15 December 2019


Despite all the prominence given in the news to climate alarm the UK General Election showed no enthusiasm towards parties like the Greens or the Lib Dems or Labour who had featured key policies to spend large amounts of money on it. In fact the result showed the public were far more concerned with deivering Brexit. 

The climate sceptic candidate I mentioned unfortunately did not get elected, but I don't think his scepticism was a factor  - it was most likely because he stood in a seat where the voters were for remaining in the EU and he was for Brexit.

However this MP got re-elected again despite making clear his sceptic views on the climate change issue.

I really hope that more MPs will feel able to speak up against the cult of climate hysteria. They will be doing a real service to their constituents.

Saturday 14 December 2019


Prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called “consensus” on “global warming.” 

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: "I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side." Dyson: “The effects of CO2 on climate are really very poorly understood …  The experts all seem to think they understand it, I don’t think they do.  … Climate is a very complicated story. And we may or may not understand it better (in the future). The main thing that is lacking at the moment is humility. The climate experts have set themselves up as being the guardians of the truth and they think they have the truth and that is a dangerous situation.”

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is "Ridiculous" & "Dead Wrong" on "Global Warming." Dr. Ivar Giaever: “Global warming is a nonproblem” – “'I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong. Dead wrong.” “Global warming really has become a new religion.” 10

Climate scientist Dr. Anastasios Tsonis retires, then declares “I am a skeptic” in 2019 – Offers to debate – Rejects ‘denier’ label: ‘We don’t live in medieval times.” Tsonis, an emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, authored more than 130 peer-reviewed papers and nine books. “I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science.  … Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change.” “If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home,” he added. “The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in medieval times,” he added. 

Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in "global warming": Now says "I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy." Condemns Green movement: “It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific.” 11

UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist: Global warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” 12

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol ripped the  warmist narrative: Tol called  Gore’s claims “complete madness.” “It disturbs me hearing people like Al Gore say that he is worried about the future of his grandchildren. Complete madness.” 13

10 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany - July 1,, 2015
11 UK Guardian - Sept. 30, 2016
12 Climate Depot Special Report - August 21, 2013
13 Climate Depot Special Report - January 7, 2016

Friday 13 December 2019


Global temperatures have been holding nearly steady for almost two decades according to satellites from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).6 You will never see that in the mass media.

2018 is the 3rd year in a row of cooling global temperatures – So far 2018 was the third year in a row that the globe has cooled off from its El Nino peak set in 2015.

Norwegian Professor Ole Humlum explained in his 2018 “State of the Climate Report”: “After the warm year of 2016, temperatures last year (in 2018) continued to fall back to levels of the so-called warming ‘pause’ of 2000-2015. There is no sign of any acceleration in global temperature, hurricanes or sea-level rise. These empirical observations show no sign of acceleration whatsoever.”

While 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2016 were declared the “hottest years” or “near -hottest,”  based on heavily altered surface data by global warming proponents, a closer examination revealed the claims were “based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that were within the margin of error in the data.” 7

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen ridiculed “hottest year” claims. “The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree. It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said. “If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree.”

In 2015, the Associated Press was forced to issue a “clarification” on “hottest year” claims, stating in part: “The story also reported that 2014 was the hottest year on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, but did not include the caveat that other recent years had average temperatures that were almost as high  – and they all fall within a margin of error that lessens the certainty that any one of the years was the hottest.”

Climatologist Pat Michaels explained that, in any case, the world’s temperature “should be near the top of the record given the record only begins in the late 19th century when the surface temperature was still reverberating from the Little Ice Age.”

“Hottest year” claims are purely political statements designed to persuade the public that the government needs to take action on man-made climate change. In addition, the claims of “hottest year” are based on surface data only dating back to the late 19th century, and also ignore the temperature revisions made by NASA and NOAA that have enhanced the warming trend by retroactively cooling the past. 8

 6 The Pause Lives on: Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998 – Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer - January 4, 2017
7 Dr. David Whitehouse noted the 'temperature pause never went away' - January 19, 2017
8 Climate analyst Tony Heller - Real Climate Science - February 14, 2017

Thursday 12 December 2019


Next time someone talks about wind energy as a means to save the planet tell them about the following: 

Time Magazine’s ‘Hero of the Environment’ Michael Shellenberger exposed wind/solar power claims in 2019, explaining that “renewables can’t save the planet.”  "I came to understand the environmental implications of the physics of energy. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows, you just have to spread them over enormous areas. In other words, the trouble with renewables isn’t fundamentally technical—it’s natural. Dealing with energy sources that are inherently unreliable, and require large amounts of land, comes at a high economic cost,” Shellenberger wrote. 

Shellenberger continued: "As for house cats, they don’t kill big, rare, threatened birds. What house cats kill are small, common birds, like sparrows, robins and jays. What kills big, threatened, and endangered birds—birds that could go extinct—like hawks, eagles, owls, and condors, are wind turbines. In fact, wind turbines are the most serious new threat to important bird species to emerge in decades. The rapidly spinning turbines act like an apex predator which big birds never evolved to deal with."

He added: "In order to build one of the biggest solar farms in California the developers hired biologists to pull threatened desert tortoises from their burrows, put them on the back of pickup trucks, transport them, and cage them in pens where many ended up dying."

Wednesday 11 December 2019


Two new short videos from Tony Heller can be viewed here and here from the master of communication on climate. Simplicity, clarity and brevity makes for a powerful message. Tony should get an award for his contribution which deserves a much wider audience.

Tuesday 10 December 2019


Here's a great new brief video from Tony Heller showing how the climate alarmists are having great difficulty in deciding what the climate of the UK is going to be like. His gentle humour combined with actual press cuttings make his point in a very effective way. Humour is a great weapon if used effectively as Tony does. 

Monday 9 December 2019


Here is the article containing some excellent probing questions leading to some revealing answers. If only all journalists would do the key work of interrogating the wild claims of these activists we might get a more sensible debate instead of one-sided propaganda forced on us day after day with ever more ludicrous claims which, when they don't materialise, will only increase doubts over the whole hypothesis.

Sunday 8 December 2019


This article highlights the growing gulf between what the governments of the world are prepared to do and what the hysterical climate zealots, such as teenager Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion want. 

Here is a short extract: "COP 25 is real negotiations, by real countries, over real issues. The issues are stupid, but still real, because they can lead to really stupid national actions. This I call the moderate camp of alarmists. The hysterics want impossible actions, stuff that cannot happen, which sets them against the moderates."

Saturday 7 December 2019


This piece attempts to give an answer. The figure they give is 0.158 +/_ 0.096 which equates to between 0.062 and 0.254 degrees C. I admit I am not an expert in statistics but for such a small number the range seems huge with the second figure being over four times the first. I wonder if it is even possible to measure such a small amount with any certainty. It could not be noticed by humans using their senses. 

Friday 6 December 2019


Here is the proof.  Fake surveys keep telling us how much the public want action on climate change. Part of the aim is to scare politicians and trick them into thinking that voters won’t vote for sceptics and will be happy to pay more for electricity, food, cars, and everything. But the awful truth is that the voters “vote” with their own wallets every time they fly, and 98% of them don’t care enough to spend a single dollar. That’s even when the airlines do all the work and just ask their customers to “tick a box”.

That tells us exactly how much the punters are panicking about climate change, and suggests that most western democracies are absolutely ripe-for-the-picking for any politician with the balls to make the case that trying (and failing) to change the global weather will cost a fortune, and the costs will all go back to voters, and it’s an insane waste of money.
The only reason voters ever tick the “we should do more” box is when they think “the government”, i.e. someone else, will have to pay for it.

Thursday 5 December 2019


This article confirms that the current Bank of England governor, Mark Carney,has been appointed UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance. It is amazing how many well-educated people have become completely convinced that fighting climate change is so vitally important. My first thought was that this was a well-paid job, but no it is an unpaid position. I'm sure Mark Carney is not in need of a paid job, but it seems that he must actually believe in what he is doing.

Wednesday 4 December 2019


This article reveals that Danish schoolgirl, Greta Thunberg, is not just a climate change activist, but in fact a communist who, like Extinction Rebellion wants to redistribute the world's wealth. Like every communist before her she believes she can create a more equal world, but as she will learn as she gets older,  not only does every communist have a different idea about how this should be done, but also she will discover that the leaders will always corrupt the system to suit themselves.

Tuesday 3 December 2019


See here for details. While they were still defeated it is remarkable that so many voted against, as the EU has been so vocal in demanding action on climate change. It marks a departure from the consensus that has been in place for so long. Could it be that some politicians are beginning to realise the dark tunnel that they are about to enter if they pursue the present course.

Monday 2 December 2019


Here is some news from earlier in the year that somehow escaped me at the time. It concerns elections held in the Netherlands in which a political party campaigned specifically against the policies being put forward by the governing party and other opposition parties to deal with climate change. The result was that they actually became the largest party. This shows that despite the non-stop one-sided propaganda being put out by the media, when given an alternative to the costly climate policies, a substantial number of voters are ready to vote for them.

Sunday 1 December 2019


Here is a good piece which shows the crazy way the IPCC reaches decisions on the final text of climate change reports. What it shows is that these so-called Summaries for Policymakers are nothing more than the result of political bargaining and do not actually represent what scientists think at all. More on this Here.

Saturday 30 November 2019


For fifty years the EU parliament has made monthly trips from Brussels to Strasburg for political reasons at a huge cost both in terms of money and fuel. Now the EU parliament is to consider (and more or less certainly will) call a "climate emergency. How hypocritical would they be, if they did this without ending this wasteful farce. This article explains the details. 

Friday 29 November 2019


This article explains why. If anyone still believes that the UN IPCC is a purely scientific body then this quote from its 2018 report should convince you otherwise: “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment. With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said on Monday.” 

Thursday 28 November 2019


Here's a good article that bemoans the lack of choice for voters at this UK election who are sceptical about the so-called climate emergency. I agree with this premise, but I do understand why the Conservatives decided to go along with the climate alarm stuff - simply because they believe that many have been brain-washed by the constant outpourings of the TV companies, including Saint David Attenborough.

Political parties are ruthless organisations that will quite readily distort the truth to get votes by making promises that are never quite what they seem. Upsetting any section of voters is unwise as Mrs May discovered back in 2017. I am prepared to give Boris the benefit of the doubt and hope that post election he starts back-pedalling on this climate stuff.  

Wednesday 27 November 2019


Many people completely trust the United Nations, but when you read this article you may well change your mind. The article refers to a scientific report into the alleged chemical attack by Assad's forces during the Syrian conflict. The report led to reprisals by the USA, France and the UK. This could have led to a massive escalation of the conflict.

The point here is that if the UN is capable of using scientific reports here in this way how can we trust other scientific reports from them, such as those on global warming?

Tuesday 26 November 2019


This article explains the details. The main news reports on TV and in the press have not reported this and we can only surmise that the reason is that it underlines the fact that the UK is not part of some big alliance of nations that is aiming for net zero emissions. On the contrary the UK is going alone in forcing its people to become poorer and to undergo the hardship which will inevitably follow from giving up almost all fossil fuel use, despite the fact that, alone, we will have no measurable effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, hence no effect on the climate. 

Monday 25 November 2019


This piece contains a short video clip of the reaction of an MEP to being presented with a case that there is no climate emergency. It is, in my experience,  a typical response that makes no attempt to refute the facts, but simply denies the points that don't fit the narrative that they have accepted unquestioningly to be true. There is no debate but simply a lofty denial based on some higher irrefutable authority. Most politicians have little knowledge of science themselves and so rely completely on these higher authorities such as the IPCC and even then they are unaware of what the IPCC has actually said as opposed to what Extinction Rebellion or some other activist group has said.

Sunday 24 November 2019


It's all very well for councils to pass motions declaring a climate emergency but when it comes to making decisions to spend large sums of taxpayers' money they suddenly find it is not nearly so easy. This article is a good example from Brighton Council, which has one of the highest numbers of Green Party members in the country.

Meanwhile at the other end of the country in Cumbria we find the same thing. Despite both councils declaring climate emergencies. 

As a councillor myself I am delighted to say that my own council has rejected the proposal to declare a climate emergency. The councillor who proposed that motion found himself in a dilemma when he, quite rightly, voted in favour of a new plant at the local Fawley Refinery, despite the fact that it implied that fossil fuels would continue for many years to come.

Saturday 23 November 2019


This article looks at the case. Mann has recently lost another case against Tim Ball. This latest case was for defamation against the National Review which published an article by Mark Steyn in which he did not pull his punches. Just where is the balance between freedom of speech and defaming someone?

Friday 22 November 2019


More temperature date fiddling is reported going on in Australia. It is so blatant and yet there is no mention of it in the news media. It seems that the public are being kept in the dark about this, but why you ask. It can only be because they fear some sort of retribution if they do report it.

Thursday 21 November 2019


This article is quite lengthy, but it gives a lot of evidence to back up the title of this post. Here is a short precis without all the evidence to give a flavour of the article:

There is no climate crisis. There is no ocean acidification crisis. There is no extinction crisis.
The greatest expansion of life on Earth occurred 540 million years ago, when CO2 was at its peak. Atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 15 times higher than they are now. Corals and shellfish evolved during that time.  If ocean acidification was a real problem, there would have been no sea life, rather than a massive expansion of life in the oceans..
Earth is getting greener as CO2 increases.  The reason we have coal beds, is because there used to be a lot more atmospheric CO2, which made earth very green.  This greenery turned into thick peat beds, which turned into coal.

CO2 makes plants grow faster and makes them use less water. It does not make them go extinct. As CO2 emissions have increased, crop yields have increased with them. As CO2 has risen, agricultural productivity has increased with it.  Hunger has declined sharply.  Poverty has declined sharply.  Life expectancy has increased sharply.  And as CO2 has risen, deaths from natural disasters have plummeted. 

“Scientists say” that sea level is rising faster than at any time in the last 2,800 years.  
This is in direct contradiction to the 1990 IPCC report, which said there was no convincing evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise during the 20th century.
If sea level rise rates were accelerating, tide gauge graphs around the world would be non-linear with an upwards curvature.  Water seeks a level surface, so any nonlinear “response” would be seen globally.  There is no evidence of an upwards curvature in any long-term tide gauge.

The lack of acceleration in sea level rise also tells us that Arctic melt is not accelerating. The only thing which has changed is the data, which has been massively tampered with by government agencies.

Wednesday 20 November 2019


Here is an interesting look at the way belief in global warming alarm is dividing people. There are some good points made. In addition I would add that there are a large number of people who publicly claim to believe, but privately do not. This is particularly important in those who are opinion-formers, such as politicians. They don't speak out as they fear that this would lead to them being marginalised, or even be voted out. Interestingly that does not seem to have happened to the odd few who have had the courage to do so, such as David Davies who had an increased majority despite expressing clear sceptic views on climate change. If only more were prepared to do so we might have a real debate on the evidence instead of a phoney silence from our MPs.

Tuesday 19 November 2019


Climate Science Proves Scams Don’t Die of Exposure
Tony Thomas, Quadrant, 14 November 2019

It’s the tenth anniversary next week of the 2009 Climategate email dump that exposed top climate scientists’ chicanery and subversion of science – and did so in their own words and out of their own mouths, or keyboards.

I’ll list a few emails-of-infamy shortly, but first some background.
For the three years before Climategate, the climate crowd was ascendant with its pseudo-narrative of “settled science”. Al Gore’s error-riddled propaganda movie Inconvenient Truth of 2006 had swept the Western world and its readily-traduced schoolkids. In 2007 Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shared the Nobel Peace Prize. In late 2008 Barack Obama won the White House, proclaiming in his modest way, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
The Climategate emails hit the blogosphere just a month before the Copenhagen summit was scheduled to lock Western countries into Kyoto Mark 2, a legally-binding commitment to renewables from 2012.
Climategate destroyed warmists’ moral high ground and reinforced the natural reluctance of most governments to up-end their economies with emission controls. The  Copenhagen circus fell apart, resolving merely to “take note” of the exhortations to action by Obama and like-minded leaders.
The mainstream media strove to ignore and bury the Climategate  revelations. The climate establishment ran half a dozen inquiries with limited briefs and ludicrous lack of rigour, all of which purported to clear the climate scientists of wrong-doing.[1] 
But even today, ten years after, scientists faithful to their calling and disciplines can only shudder at what Climategate revealed. Those who subverted the scientific method were not fringe players but at the pinnacle. They were doing the archetypal studies “proving” catastrophic human-caused catastrophic warming (CAGW) and shaping the content and messaging in the six-yearly reports of the IPCC.
The hacked (or otherwise revealed) email archive spanning the prior decade was stored by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit[2]. The CRU co-compiled the HadCRUT global temperature series, along with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre. This data set charting alleged global warming in fractions of a degree was a key input to the climate computer models forecasting doomladen heat for this century. (The model forecasts continue to exceed actual measured warming). Based on these dud modelled forecasts, the West is now spending $US1.5 trillion a year in quest of zero CO2 emissions.
Today, anyone questioning this colossal enterprise is told to “respect the science”. Based on the Climategate emails released in 2009, 2013 and 2015, I’d rather respect the Mafia, who at least don’t claim to be saving the planet. For example, today we’re told that warming of 2 deg C above pre-industrial level is some sort of a tipping point of doom. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, emailed on September 6, 2007, that the supposed 2-degree limit was “plucked out of thin air”, a throwaway line in an early 1990s paper from the catastrophists at the Potsdam Climate Impacts Institute.
Now for the emails. We journos love a local angle, and here’s one – the CRU’s Ian “Harry” Harris worked for four years to de-bug and properly document a CRU data base “TS 2.1” of global stations recording monthly temperatures.
One input  was from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, with its frequent adjustments that result in a greater warming trend (think Rutherglen and Darwin). Harry’s comments in a 200-page logging of notes:
What a bloody mess. Now looking at the dates… something bad has happened, hasn’t it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS [data from an Australian weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993! … getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. So many new stations have been introduced, so many false references … so many changes that aren’t documented … I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was…Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight…! […]
Subverting peer review
Climategate showed how warmist scientists gamed the peer review process to ensure a monopoly for their views. When two papers contrary to their ‘consensus’ were published, CRU director Phil Jones and his circle pulled out all stops to get the editor sacked and prevent such papers being considered by the IPCC.
Jones, 8 July 2004:

…I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, leading climate scientist] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
US colleague Dr Michael Mann (author of the influential-but-wrong Hockey Stick graph of the past 1000 years’ temperature), July 3, 2003:
It seems clear we have to go above [the sceptic author Chris de Freitas] … I think that the community should, as Mike H [warmist scientist] has previously suggested in this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels –reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute. […]
The IPCC exposed
UK Met Bureau’s Peter Thorne, concerning work on the IPCC’s 2007 fourth report:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
Jones admits the political bias in the IPCC’s all-important Summary for Policy Makers (SPM):
He says he’ll read the IPCC Chapters! He hadn’t as he said he thought they were politically biased. I assured him they were not. The SPM [Summary for Policy Makers] may be, but not the chapters.
IPCC coordinating lead author Jonathan Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out [of IPCC reports].
Need it be said that leaving out inconvenient stuff is anathema to real, genuine, principled science?
Warmist Mike Hulme agrees that
the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment … There are not that many ‘facts’ about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal
From climate scientist Giorgi Filippo, who contributed to all five IPCC Assessment Reports:
I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also un- reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions)…I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes
Email 5286 from scientist Hans von Storch:
We should explain why we don’t think the information robust yet. Climate research has become a postnormal science, with the intrusion of political demands and significant influence by activists driven by ideological (well meant) concerns.”
Also from von Storch:
The concealment of dissent and uncertainty in favor of a politically good cause takes its toll on credibility, for the public is more intelligent than is usually assumed
Scientist Richard Somerville, 2004:
We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.
Warmist Kevin Trenberth:
We are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter
Michael Mann, 2006:
We certainly don’t know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well, and nobody has ever claimed we do.
Full post