Monday 30 September 2013

New IPCC Report Is Bull!

New IPCC Report Is Bull!

They call us skeptics, they even call us climate murderers claiming we are responsible for the death of thousands, yet we have our evidence to support global cooling theory.... where's your global warming evidence??? We are not skeptics we are real scientists with real data. People can tell when their being fed bullsh*t. But guys, I fear we are just banging our heads against a brick wall! The fact of the matter is, there are more politicians than us scientists.  

The IPCC report has been a long time coming. But then the fifth assessment of the state of the global climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body, was a behemoth of an undertaking. It runs to thousands of pages, involved hundreds of scientists and was exhaustively checked and triple-checked by hundredds of other boffins and government officials to whom they report— and whose policies are often based on what they read. So, all the real science by this point is now deleted!  The first tranche of the multi-volume report—an executive summary of the physical science—was released in Stockholm on September 27th. And it is categorical in its conclusion: climate change has not stopped and man is the main cause even though the latest real developments tell us there has been no warming in 16 years. 

It may be the last report of its kind: a growing chorus of "experts".......who? thinks a more frequent, less bally-hooed and more up-to-date assessments would be more useful. It is certainly the first since negotiations for a global treaty reining in carbon emissions collapsed in Copenhagen in 2009; the first since questions were raised about the integrity of the IPCC itself following mistaken claims about the speed of glacier melt in the Himalayas and, most important, the first since evidence became incontrovertible that global surface air temperatures have risen much less quickly in the past 15 years than the IPCC had expected. A lot is riding on its findings, from the public credibility of climate science to the chances of a new global treaty.

Facts that destroy Global Warming theory and things you have forgotten! 

• C02 is a green gas, vegetation inhales C02 and releases oxygen (the great balance of life.)

• August 2013 see a 60% increase in arctic sea ice.

• 0.3 of the atmosphere is C02 (a trace gas) that's right all this global warming stuff is based on a trace gas. Of this 0.3 only 0.2 is put there by mankind. 

• C02 in the atmosphere acts more like a mirror than a duvet reflecting extra radiation back out into space, cooling the world.

• There are more politicians involved with global warming than scientists.

• All this non-sense was started by Al Gore for money.

• Remember when this lie first showed it's ugly head we was led to believe that shutting our house lights off will slow global warming............how? based on what science exactly? 

• Al Gore said that 2013 will see the end to snow forever.

• No matter what happens our governments will blame us and increase taxes.

• This lie will kill millions.

More follows.....


Top MIT scientist rips UN IPCC report


“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot.

Lindzen, a top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report from the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blames mankind as the main cause of global warming while whitewashing the fact that there has been no warming for the last 15 years.

“They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase,” said Lindzen.

The IPCC claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by humans. It also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years.

“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.”

“They now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”

Governments have been urging scientists to cover up the fact that temperatures have not been rising. Germany, Belgium, Hungary, even the United States, have pressured UN climate scientists to downplay or even omit data that shows the world hasn’t warmed in over a decade

“It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going,” says Lindzen.

Hooray for Dr Lindzen for standing up against the machine.

However, I do not find this hilarious at all. To quote astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, “If followed, (the IPCC report) will lead to malnutrition, starvation and impoverishment of millions as world agriculture and economies are hit by the developing Mini-Ice-Age.

No hilarity there.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/

POLAR BEARS DEFY EXTINCTION



POLAR BEARS DEFY EXTINCTION: The poster boys of climate change thrive in the icy Arctic
6 hrs ago from Clash Daily

A bitter wind blows off the Arctic Ocean but the mother polar bear and her two cubs standing just 50ft in front of me are in their element.

For more than an hour I watch from a boat just offshore, transfixed and oblivious to the below-freezing temperatures, as the four-month-old twins gambol across the snow.

For years polar bears have been the poster boys of global warming - routinely reported to be threatened with extinction due to melting ice-packs and rising sea temperatures.

Indeed, when they were put on the USEndangered Species list in 2008, they were the first to be registered solely because of the perceived threat of global warming.

One prominent scientist said their numbers would be reduced by 70 per cent by 2050 while global warming proponents - including Al Gore and Sir David Attenborough - used emotive imagery to highlight their "demise".

Yet there is one small problem: many polar bear populations worldwide are now stable, if not increasing.

According to a report compiled this year on Canadian polar bear populations by academics at Lakehead University,Ontario, only one out of 13 areas showed declining numbers. In fact, in some areas numbers have steadily increased.

In the Foxe Basin area in the Arctic Circle, aerial surveys show polar bear numbers have risen from 2,200 in 1994 to 2,580 in 2010, while the population in West Hudson Bay has increased from 935 in 2004 to 1,013 in 2011.

Saturday 28 September 2013

F*ck Off Al Gore! Pay taxes based on what science and data? You already owe us billions!!

F*ck Off Al Gore! Pay taxes based on what science and data? You already owe us billions!!



Al Gore: "There needs to be a political price" for climate "denial"
Gore last week cheered the Environmental Protection Agency's draft rule to set emissions limits for future power plants, calling it an "important step forward." 

But the former vice president has called for a more sweeping policy to impose a cost on carbon emissions; Gore has called for a "revenue neutral" carbon tax.

He urged attendees to challenge denial of climate change in conversations in families and communities and elsewhere. "We can win this conversation and winning a conversation can make all the difference," Gore said. "Don't let denial go unchallenged."
Yes we shall challenge it Gore, because there is no science supporting your wild claims. (Editor) YOUR NOT A SCIENTIST! One question, where's the science? Real science that is!!

Gore noted how racism and later homophobia have become increasingly unacceptable.

He pointed to news accounts of an instance in which two gay men were subjected to anti-gay insults by another customer in line at an Ohio pizza spot. 

The other people in line and the employees uniformly condemned the insult, according to reports. A JanuaryNew York Daily News account is here.

Gore reiterated his view that "we are at a political tipping point" on climate, citing high-profile extreme weather events in recent years such as Hurricane Sandy.

"I think we are right at a political tipping point, because people are hearing from their parents and grandparents and elders that it has never been like this before. These are new weather and climate conditions," Gore said at the event.

Thursday 26 September 2013

No One Is Denying Climatic Change. The warmist is chopping and changing there phases from Global Warming to Climate Change!



No One Is Denying Climatic Change. The warmist is chopping and changing there phases from Global Warming to Climate Change. WE KNOW THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING, WE ALSO KNOW IT IS NOT MAN MADE - GIVE IT UP! THERE IS NO DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS......none at all!


The climate will change if we live here or not. Earth doesn't care. Earth has been changing it's climate for billion's of years and the Northern hemisphere was even warmer in the 1930's than today. Message to the warmist (don't be so simple minded.) Ice Age Earth. 


THE NEW BULLSH*T ARTICLE FROM THE HUFFINGTON POST READS:


Denying Climate Change Is Worse Than Spreading the Usual Kind of Conspiracy Theory - It Costs Lives

Conspiracy theorists are often the subject of scorn or mockery; rejected and ridiculed by the rest of us, they hide away on internet chat forums where they blather on about the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, the rise of the Illuminati or the omnipresence of Mossad. Not the climate-change deniers. Unlike Israel's intelligence agency, they really do seem to be omnipresent these days. Indeed, unlike the Illuminati, they even control national governments.

For instance, Australia's new prime minister, Tony Abbott, has called the science on climate change "absolute crap" and already abolished the country's Climate Commission. In 2012, Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for the most important job in the world, was of the view that "we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet". Here in the UK, the Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, a Conservative, is, in the words of theFinancial Times, a "known climate change sceptic". So, too, is a Conservative member of the Commons energy and climate change committee, Peter Lilley.

Denialism abounds. In March, a YouGovpoll found that only 39% of the British public believed human activity was making the world warmer, down from 55% in 2008, while the proportion of Brits who believed that the world wasn't getting warmer had quadrupled - up from 7% in 2008 to 28%.

Depressingly, you can draw no other conclusion from these facts than that the conspiracy theorists are winning. The deniers of global warming have come in from the cold. The "merchants of doubt", to borrow a phrase from the science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, seem to have perfected the dark art of "keeping the controversy alive", sowing seeds of doubt and confusion in the minds of politicians, journalists and voters, in spite of the scientific consensus.

Thus, I use both the terms "denier" (rather than "sceptic") and "conspiracy theorist" advisedly. After all, they either deny that the world is warming or deny that mankind is responsible for this warming. Remember: 97% of climate scientists agree the world is warming and that mankind is responsible. Consider also: a survey by Oreskes of every peer-reviewed abstract on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and2003 - 928 in total - couldn't find a single paper that rejected the consensus position on human-induced climate change.

The real sceptics are the cautious scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who, year after year, assess and reassess the new data and go through thousands of peer-reviewed studies, forming groups and committees to check and doublecheck the results.

As for the "conspiracy theorist" tag, let me be blunt: climate-change deniers are the biggest conspiracy theorists of all. In order to embrace the delusions of the deniers, you have to adopt the belief that tens of thousands of researchers, some of them awardwinning scientists, from across the world (not to mention the political spectrum) have conducted behind the scenes, undetected by the media, a campaign of peer-reviewed deceit in defiance of empirical data. How else to explain what the US Republican senator James Inhofe, a darling of the deniers, calls "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people"?

Yet it isn't just barmy GOP politicians. Or the gaffe-prone prime minister of Australia. Take Richard Lindzen, the doyen of the selfstyled "climate sceptics" and a tenured professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Earlier this year, I interviewed him for my al-Jazeera TV series Head to Head; unlike the vast majority of his fellow deniers, Lindzen has the advantage of being a trained scientist who has bothered to study our planet's climate.

Why, I asked the softly-spoken professor, did he think national academies of science from 34 different countries - including the United States, the United Kingdom, ChinaIndiaRussia,FranceGermanyJapanMexico,CanadaBrazil and South Africa - had all signed up to the IPCC consensus position on man-made climate change?

Richard Lindzen: "They've been told: "Issue a statement on this.""

Me: "Told by who?"

RL: "Well, I'd rather not say, to be honest."

Me: "Why not?"

RL: "Because in each case, it would be in some ways embarrassing - I mean, each of them are dependent [sic] on the goodwill of the government. And if they're told "sign on", they'll sign on."

Huh? Are we expected to believe that 34 different national academies of science are all working hand in glove with their country governments to exaggerate the impact of carbon-dioxide emissions on the climate and cover up the supposed evidence of global cooling? To what end - and on whose orders? GreenpeaceAl Gore?

To be honest, I don't have a problem with most conspiracy theorists. If they want to believe that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" or that the Nasa moon landings were "faked", so be it. Each to his own. In any case, most of these cranks and clowns do no harm to anything, other than their own reputation (or non-reputation).

But the climate-change deniers of today, with their astonishing combination of manufactured doubt, faux outrage, mass paranoia and evidence-free pseudoscience, are endangering our planet. According to the World Health Organisation, "climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually". The poorest countries, incidentally, bear the brunt of these preventable fatalities.

It's no laughing matter. This particular conspiracy theory costs lives.


Wednesday 25 September 2013

This makes me very angry! the warmist AGAIN attempting to shame REAL scientist's. Piers Corbyn merely presents scientific data as its discovered and therefore un-fiddled. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING...... AT ALL. Lets see the science! Also, we could sit here and compare stat's between Piers and the met office. Boris Johnson like's Piers Corbyn because he is a HONEST man! When Piers is wrong he actually admits it and explain's why, the met office however rush to correct their predictions and lie to the general public. THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN C02 INCREASES AND HUMAN ACTIVITY! C02 increasing is the result of what's going on, not the other way around. In other words, the Earth warms then C02 increase's. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot and non-scientist, purely because there is no REAL data to support their wild claims. On a final note, just remember that Piers Corbyn is a REAL scientist with a REAL education, idiot's like Al Gore (who started this global warming cr*p) IS NOT, he is a politician...... who would you trust? Al Gore see a window to make a couple of bob $$$ when he failed to become President and now we have to mop up his science fraud dribble! visit www.iceageearth.com for real climate change news. By climate change we mean real climate change.

New Maunder Minimum On The Way

Solar activity drops to 100-year low, puzzling scientists
Between July 2008 and August 2009, an average of less than 1 sunspot was observed in eight out of 13 months.
LONDON: Predictions that 2013 would see an upsurge in solar activity and geomagnetic storms disrupting power grids and communications systems have proved to be a false alarm. Instead, the current peak in the solar cycle is the weakest for a century.

Subdued solar activity has prompted controversial comparisons with the Maunder Minimum, which occurred between 1645 and 1715, when a prolonged absence of sunspots and other indicators of solar activity coincided with the coldest period in the last millennium.

The comparisons have sparked a furious exchange of views between observers who believe the planet could be on the brink of another period of cooling, and scientists who insist there is no evidence that temperatures are about to fall.

New Scientist magazine blasted those who predicted a mini ice age, opening a recent article on the surprising lack of sunspots this year with the bold declaration: "Those hoping that the sun could save us from climate change look set for disappointment".

"The recent lapse in solar activity is not the beginning of a decades-long absence of sunspots, a dip that might have cooled the climate. Instead it represents a shorter, less pronounced downturn that happens every century or so," ("Sun's quiet spell not the start of a mini ice age" July 12).

The unusually low number of sunspots in recent years "is not an indication that we are going into a Maunder Minimum" according to Giuliana DeToma, a solar scientist at the High Altitude Observatory in Colorado.

But DeToma admitted "we will do not know how or why the Maunder Minimum started, so we cannot predict the next one."

Many solar experts think the downturn is linked a different phenomenon, the Gleissberg cycle, which predicts a period of weaker solar activity every century or so. If that turns out to be true, the sun could remain unusually quiet through the middle of the 2020s.

But since the scientists still do not understand why the Gleissberg cycle takes place, the evidence is inconclusive. The bottom line is that the sun has gone unusually quiet and no one really knows why or how it will last.

Counting sunspots

Solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs), when billions of tonnes of solar plasma erupt from the surface of the sun and are flung out into space at speeds up to 3,000 kilometres per second, pose the biggest risk to power grids and communications systems.

Sunspots are less dramatic, but because they are easy to count and closely correlated with flares, mass ejections and other indications of solar activity, astronomers and scientists have used them for centuries to monitor variations in the sun's activity.

Careful observation has revealed the number of sunspots rises and falls in a regular cycle that repeats every 11 years.

Variations in the amount of heat and light reaching the planet's surface as a result of the cycle are tiny. Total solar output reaching the surface varies by just 1.3 Watts per square metre (0.1 percent) between the maximum and minimum phases of the cycle.

Even this variation has profound impacts on climate and weather. Rainfall, cloud formation and river run-off are all strongly correlated with the sun's 11-year cycle.

The impact is far smaller than the warming associated with man-made climate change. Solar activity cannot explain long-term trends in global temperatures such as those associated with global warming. But it may have a noticeable impact over shorter timescales.

Maunder Minimum

Not all solar cycles are the same. Cycles in the 1940s and 1950s were especially strong. Those at the end or the 19th century and the start of the 20th were much weaker.

More profoundly, in the 1890s, Walter Maunder of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, identified a "prolonged sunspot minimum" between 1645 and 1715 in which hardly any sunspots were observed by contemporaries.

At times, whole years passed without any sunspots being recorded. Sunspots became so rare that in 1684 Britain's Astronomer Royal John Flamsteed was moved to write: "these appearances, however frequent in the days of ... Galileo have been so rare of late that this is the only one I have seen ... since December 1676".

John Eddy of the High Altitude Observatory confirmed Maunder's findings in an article published in the peer-reviewed journal Science in 1976 ("The Maunder Minimum: The reign of Louis XIV appears to have been a time of real anomaly in the behaviour of the sun").

Eddy found convincing evidence for an actual absence of sunspots, not just an absence of observations. Maunder's prolonged sunspot minimum correlates well with other evidence of unusually low solar activity at the time, including few sightings of the Northern Lights, no mention of the sun's normally spectacular corona during eclipses, and the carbon-14 record in tree rings.

The Maunder Minimum coincided with one of the coldest parts of the Little Ice Age, which spanned roughly the 15th to 19th centuries. Some observers have linked the lack of solar activity to the cooling of the climate, though the explanation remains controversial.

It is this interaction between sunspots, climate and global warming that makes analysis of the solar cycle so controversial. It is hard to write about sunspots without stirring furious reactions, which explains why New Scientist took a strong line on the issue.

Running late and low

Cycles are conventionally numbered from the time that the first comprehensive records were kept around 1755. Before this, sunspot counts have to be estimated based on incomplete data. The current cycle, Solar Cycle 24, dates from around December 2008/January 2009.

But Solar Cycle 24 is running late, and activity has been unusually weak throughout, taking solar scientists by surprise.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) convenes a panel to assess when peaks and troughs in the cycle have occurred and forecast when the next peak or trough will occur.

In March 2007 and again in June 2008, the panel forecast Solar Cycle 24 would peak between October 2011 and August 2012, with a monthly average of 90-140 sunspots.

But as the sun's activity fell below the prediction, the forecast peak was pushed back to May 2013. Now some scientists believe it is only the first part of a double peak, with a second peak scheduled for 2014 or even 2015.

During the minimum part of the cycle, "there are stretches of days and weeks when no sunspots can be seen, but a monthly mean of zero is uncommon," Eddy wrote in 1976. "In contrast, in the years around a sunspot maximum there is a seldom a day when a number of spots cannot be seen, and often hundreds are present."

Not this time. Between July 2008 and August 2009, an average of less than 1 sunspot was observed in eight out of 13 months.

Solar activity has since increased, but the cycle appeared to peak in May 2013, with only an average of only 77 sunspots visible, down sharply from previous peaks of 175 sunspots in July 2000 and 217 in June 1989.

It is far below the level the panel predicted. "Not only is this the smallest cycle we've seen in the space age, it's the smallest cycle in 100 years," according to a NASA research scientist cited in the popular blog Universe Today("Solar Cycle 24: On track to be the weakest in 100 years).

Even fewer sunspots

Solar activity has terrifying potential to paralyse modern electricity and communications systems.

Lower solar activity might also be one factor explaining some of the recent slowdown in global warming.

"The longevity of the recent protracted solar minimum, at least two years longer than the prior minima of the satellite era makes that solar minimum a potentially potent force for cooling," according to one group of climate scientists ("Earth's energy imbalance and implications" Dec 2011).

Even with the downturn in solar activity, the planet continued to absorb more energy than it radiated out into space.

Yet as the frequent revisions to the panel's forecasts demonstrate, scientists have little ability to predict solar activity accurately, even over short timescales.

The 11-year sunspot cycle, named after the amateur astronomer who discovered it in 1843, Heinrich Schwabe, is not the only cycle scientists have observed in the sun's behaviour.

In 1933, Wolfgang Gleissberg identified a super-cycle occurring every 87 years. Others have claimed to find even longer cycles. Some scientists believe the Gleissberg cycle accounts for the succession of three very weak 11-year cycles between the 1880s and the 1910s.

If that's true, and the Gleissberg cycle is being repeated, then the next solar cycle, Cycle 25, which will last into the 2020s, could see an even smaller number of sunspots and an even lower level of solar activity.

The problem is that no one knows what causes the Gleissberg cycle (and being much less frequent the evidence for it in the time series is much less than for the Schwabe cycle). Nor do they know how to distinguish between a normal Gleissberg cycle and the onset of a new Maunder Minimum.

So if a new Maunder Minimum is on the way, which the forecasters insist it is not, it is likely to catch us by surprise.

Warmists have been fiddling data for years, says astrophysicist

“Without data fraud the World is COOLING NOT WARMING.”


“The UN-IPCC “admission” of LESS warming is itself a LIE,” tweets London-based astrophysicist Piers Corbyn. “Without data fraud the World is COOLING NOT WARMING.”


Piers Tweet


Thanks to Piers Corbyn for this graph.

See Piers’ website at weatheraction.com

“Blaming the climate or even the weather on humans is insane,” says Alan Caruba. “Seventeen years of continuous cooling has put a Big Chill on this Big Lie.”

I will never understand the kind of thinking behind a lie so big that it became an international fraud and swindle. I cannot understand why an international organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) operating under the umbrella of the United Nations, was permitted to issue reports of an imminent threat to the Earth, to mankind, that a freshman student of meteorology would know were false.

At long last the Big Lie of Global Warming has been totally exposed and we can thank The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank that has organized and hosted eight international Conferences on Climate Change since 2008 to expose the lies behind global warming—now called “climate change”—as it became clear that seventeen years of continuous cooling has put a Big Chill on this Big Lie.

Idiots_Guide_To_AGWI suspect that the Heartland team, led by Joe Bast and including some remarkable, dedicated people, will only get a line or two in some future historian’s account of the deception that began in 1988 before a congressional committee. Thereafter the global warming hoax was given momentum by former Vice President Al Gore who, along with the IPCC, would receive a Nobel Peace Prize!

It helps to have a sense of humor when you are doing battle with hucksters who have the entire world’s media to defend them. The climate “skeptics”—some of the world’s most renowned meteorologists—dubbed their effort the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and, working with the Heartland Institute, have just released a new edition of “Climate Change Reconsidered II.”

It arrives just as the IPCC will release its 5thAssessment Report. The IPCC’s lies will get lots of news coverage. Heartland’s NIPCC report was fortunate to have notice taken by Fox News, but beyond that most of the intransigent U.S. news media ignored it.

Scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong

As often as not one has to look to foreign newspapers to get the truth. In Great Britain’sThe Mail, the headline on September 14 was “Global warming just HALF what we said: World’s top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong.” A leaked copy of the IPCC report revealed “scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.”

Well, of course, they were wrong. The so-called “science” on which they were based was idiotic. It focused primarily on carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called “greenhouse gases”, claiming they were trapping heat while being produced by all manner of human activity related to generating energy with coal, oil, and natural gas.

Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Ph,D, co-author of “Slaying the Sky Dragon—Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”, summed it up neatly, pointing out that water vapor in the Earth’s atmosphere is a primary factor affecting climate long term and weather short term.

“The determinant of weather is mainly water in all its forms,” said Dr. Herzberg, “as vapor in the atmosphere, in its heat transport by evaporation and condensation, as the enormous circulating mass of liquid ocean whose heat capacity and mass/energy transport dominate the motions of our atmosphere and the precipitation from it, and finally as cloud, snow, and ice cover which influence the radiative balance between the Sun, the Earth, and free Space.”

As you try to wrap your mind around that explanation, just think about the way the Earth goes through regular seasons as well as predictable cycles of warming and cooling. It has done this now for some 4.5 billion years.

Blaming the climate or even the weather on humans is insane.

To read “Climate Change Reconsidered II”, visit its website. Among its findings, the report notes that “no close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human related CO2 emissions.” Blaming the climate or even the weather on humans is insane. You might as well blame the floods in Colorado on humans instead of the downpours of rain, comparable to 1894 and 1969.

Indeed, the U.S. gives ample evidence of greatly reduced events associated with the weather. There have been fewer tornadoes over recent decades.  It’s been eight years since a Category 3 hurricane hit the U.S. Droughts have been shorter and less extreme than the 1930s and 1950s. And sea levels are predicted to increase barely four to eight inches per century and that may be on the high side. There will be dramatic weather events, but there have always been dramatic weather events!

The same deceitful charlatans are still at work

The Heartland’s new report is welcome, but both they and I know that the same deceitful charlatans are still at work in the United Nations, in the United States, and around the world to keep this greatest of hoaxes alive.

EPA LogoThe harm the global warming hoax has done and continues to do is best seen in the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency to wipe out the coal industry based entirely on the lie that CO2 is a “pollutant.” When the House Energy & Commerce Committee held a hearing on the Obama administration’s climate policies thirteen agencies were invited to testify, but the administration provided only EPA administrator Gina McCarty and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. The latter read a prepared statement that was one long lie about global warming. Presumably he was under oath!

Australians threw out the politicians who imposed a “carbon” tax on them.

Ms. McCarty, the latest in a long line of environmental fanatics to run the agency, was forced under questioning to admit that current and proposed greenhouse gas regulations arenot there to protect the public but to influence “the international community” to reduce their CO2 and other alleged emissions. Not only do the regulations have no basis in science, but they exist to keep the environmental war on energy use going and to pressure developing nations such as China and India. Within the past month, the citizens of Australia rose up and threw out the politicians who imposed a “carbon” tax on them. The new prime minister has shut down the “climate ministry” that existed to enforce it.

And while most of the world wasn’t watching, the United Nations was seeking to impose, once again, an international agreement similar to the failed and defunct Kyoto Protocol to limit CO2 and other greenhouse emissions, based on the BIG LIE! The 44th Pacific Islands Forum, held in the Marshall Islands, was intent on “an ambitious future climate regime to be finalized in 2015.”

They will continue to exploit the ignorance of people

That is what must be understood. These people will not give up until they have no other option. They will continue to exploit the ignorance of people regarding the actual science, penalizing them by driving up the cost of energy use, by closing down energy industries, prospective projects, and the jobs they provide,

They sustain the malignant ethanol scam that is ruining engines as this is being written. They are behind the useless solar panel and wind turbine industries that produce so little actual electricity they are a negative drag on the national grid. You, however, are picking up the tab for their mandated use. They practice a form of child abuse to tell children the Earth is doomed if their mother uses a plastic bag to bring groceries home from the supermarket.

The world’s BIGGEST LIE has been exposed and it will have to be exposed again and again until a stake is driven into the evil heart of the “global warming” hoax.


Al Gore compares global warming skeptics to racists, homophobes & raging alcoholics! From Robert Felix

“Speak up!” says Gore. “Don’t let denial go unchallenged!”



I wonder if Mr Gore ever takes an honest look in the mirror.

This man is former Vice President of the United States. Can he explain to us where his millions of dollars of income came from since leaving office?

Does he feel comfortable stifling free scientific inquiry?

When an unethical scientist applies for a government grant to study “climate change,” do you think Gore’s word might tempt him to shade his findings toward global warming?

When an unethical university professor applies for a government grant to study “climate change,” do you think Gore’s word might tempt her to fudge the numbers a tad, and tilt her findings toward global warming?

For that matter, how fearful must the completely ethical college researcher feel when he thinks about supporting his wife and family; when he thinks about that car payment that’s due; or that mortgage payment coming up; or his kids college tuition,  and he understands that one of Al Gore’s brainwashed toadys is controlling the purse strings?

What about the high school teacher who would like to excite her students by getting them into a debate about global warming, who suddenly remembers that she is a government employee and that she had better toe the line? How fearful do you suppose she is?

Think about it. Does any honest scientist want to be tarred with the allegation that he or she is racist? Is homophobic? Is a raging alcoholic?

As far as I’m concerned, this man is a disgrace to our nation … and very dangerous.

(IBD) Arctic Ocean Predicted To Be Ice Free By 2013 - Oops! Al Gore, Call your office


(IBD) Arctic Ocean Predicted To Be Ice Free By 2013 - Oops! Al Gore, Call your office.

Junk Science: Earth has gained 19,000Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record. There is more sea ice now than there was in mid-September 1990. Al Gore, call your office.

A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be "ice-free by 2013" that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off . .. by 920,000 square miles. But then Democrats have never been good at math - or climate science.

In his Dec. 10, 2007, "Earth has a fever" speech, Gore referred to a prediction byU.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic's summer ice could "completely disappear" by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions as the seas rose to swallow up places like the island of Manhattan.

The inconvenient truth is that planet Earth now has the equivalent of 330,000 Manhattans of Arctic ice, Steve Goddard notes in the blog Real Science. Even before the annual autumn re-freeze was scheduled to begin, he says, NASAsatellite images showed an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europealready stretched from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores. No polar bears were seen drowning.

As the Daily Mail reports, "A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year - an increase of 60%." The much-touted Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific froze up and has remained blocked by pack ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

On Friday, the United Nations'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Rarely does a gathering of scientists pouring over thousands of pages of complex data generate so much buzz.

But when the science in question concerns global warming, and those pages will form the world's most important report on climate change in years, the hype becomes more understandable.

On Friday, the United Nations'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will hand down its fifth major assessment on climate science in Stockholm.

The report, six years in the making, brings together the latest findings from thousands of experts worldwide to form the scientific basis of climate change, and its impacts and future risks.

The vast 2000-page trove is condensed into a slim 20-page summary digestible for policymakers, which is then scrutinised line by line by hundreds of scientists until they all agree both documents can be published.

The level of rigour involved in the IPCC process is famously slow and painful, but proponents insist it's necessary given the influence the final report has on policy decisions.

The findings of past IPCC reports steered action on ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, and pushed global leaders into agreeing that avoiding a two-degree temperature rise was in the world's best interests.

"It is the benchmark used by all the world's governments in deciding on the level of action that collectively we should all be taking," the Climate Institute's Erwin Jackson told AAP.


No no no, as Earth cool's you mean. There has been no warming in 20 years, therefore, no warming to come!

As the Earth warms in the coming decades, explosive thunderstorm ingredients will gel more routinely, finds a new Stanford University-led study.

In other words, the risk of severe thunderstorms producing damaging winds, large hail and tornadoes is set to increase markedly if the study is correct.

The study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, focuses on an area from the Rockies to the East Coast. It projects a 40 percent increase in severe weather environments in the spring and 25-30 percent increase annually by the end of the century.

Using a large number of global climate model simulations, the study says the uptick in severe weather environments is “robust” and seen in most places in most seasons.

The most pronounced increases are projected for the central U.S. during spring but large increases also extend into the Northeast and back into the Plains. The lone decrease in severe thunderstorm environments is found in the central Plains during the summer.

The study finds the two critical ingredients necessary for severe thunderstorms will team up more frequently. The first ingredient is known as CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which is simply a measure of heat energy, or the fuel available to storms. The second is wind shear or the turning of the wind with altitude, which helps storm spin and stay alive.

“[We] find that days with high convective available potential energy (CAPE) and strong low-level wind shear increase in occurrence, suggesting an increasing likelihood of atmospheric conditions that contribute to the most severe events, including tornadoes,” the study says.


Tuesday 24 September 2013

The Man Who Gets His Science From Disney Land! Al Gore

When former vice president and climate change crusader Al Gore took the stage at the Social Good Summit Monday, he had some powerful numbers to share with the audience: the 12 hottest years ever recorded have occurred in the last 15 years. August was the 342nd month in a row in which temperatures exceeded the 20th century average. And air pollution traps as much heat in the atmosphere as would be given off by 400,000 atomic bombs going off everyday. The picture Gore painted was, no doubt, a grim one, but he also told the room full of philanthropists and business leaders gathered at New York City's 92nd St. Y why he believes climate change is a massive opportunity for innovators around the world. "When I was 13, I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy when he announced the mission to send someone to the moon and bring him back safely. I remember older people saying it's probably impossible," he says, "Eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. The average age of the NASA systems engineers that day was 26 years old, which means they were 18 when that promise was made. Today's 18 year olds are waiting for this generation with its hands on the controls in this world to take action. Let's." Gore also used the opportunity to plug two new initiatives launched by The Climate Reality Project, the non-profit he founded. One, called WhatILove.org, is a site that lets people search cities, goods, and resources they love to see how they're being impacted by climate change. The other, 24 Hours of Reality: The Cost of Carbon, is an event taking place in Los Angeles this October that will urge people to rally around carbon pricing. "We have to put a price on carbon," Gore said on stage. "It's simply not acceptable for major companies to mimic the unethical strategy of the tobacco companies in presenting blatantly false information in order to protect a business model... Dirty energy causes dirty weather. We've got to put a price on the dirty energy that causes the dirty weather." After a series of panels on climate change, Gore returned the stage with a challenge for the innovators seated before him: "Years from now, if all these horrible consequences have unfolded and people feel despair, they'll ask us, "What were you thinking?"" he said. "I want them to look back and say, "How did you find the moral courage to face the crisis that people said was impossible to solve?"" Following Gore's talk, I sat down with his colleague Maggie L. Fox, CEO of The Climate Reality Project, to discuss why she believes climate change issues are so critical to entrepreneurs. Why should Inc. readers, who are mostly business owners, care about climate change? If you just look at weather, not sea level rise or health, if you just look at weather, what we're looking at is a dramatic shift in weather that will continue to wipe businesses out. Look at what just happened in my hometown of Boulder. The flooding we just had was in no way predicted. Businesses around there didn't have flood insurance. They didn't think they needed it. An event like that can take you from being in a good place to totally wiped out. Devastated. They have no idea when they're going to reopen, if ever. Business owners need to realize that the effects of climate change aren't coming tomorrow. They're already here. Any business in any part of the world needs to say, "I don't want to live in a world where the natural order is so uncertain that I don't have a shot if I'm exposed to one of these events. I could lose my footing completely." Small businesses, even more than large corporations who set buying power, need to be the first voices speaking up about this because of their individual vulnerability. They're just not backed up. You and former Vice President Gore have spoken a lot about putting a price on carbon. Why is that important to entrepreneurs? One of the reasons we're talking about a price on carbon is because that drives innovation. All those ideas, those techonologies, there would be a funding source for them. Now, that money is just going into the pockets of the fossil fuel companies that are currently dumping 90 million tons of carbon pollution into the atmosphere everyday without paying. I'm paying, you're paying. They're not. We have to change this. Then there'd be a funding source for these entrepreneurial ideas. There's an extraordinary number of people out there working on new ideas, but there's no funding for them. We need a funding source. Small businesses, in particular, should be jamming for that. Are there any specific new technologies that excite you guys right now? The innovation taking place in the clean energy space is phenomenal. There's a narrative out there that renewables are dead, but solar cell prices have dropped to a point where it's cheaper than coal-fired power plants. There are technological advantages in every single sector, but what's important is the price is falling, and now we can do it at scale. For entrepreneurs, climate change is the biggest threat and opportunity that has ever been, in co-equal measure. Consider that the first computer was the size of a warehouse, and now we have mini iPads. This technology wasn't available a very short time ago. The same thing is going to happen in clean energy. The entrepreneurial possibiliies are endless. The threat is significant, but the opportunity is greater than the threat - if we seize it, rather than ignore it.

Monday 23 September 2013

Global warming 'hiatus' puts climate change scientists on the spot.

Theories as to why Earth's average surface temperature hasn't risen in recent years include an idea that the Pacific Ocean goes through decades-long cycles of absorbing heat!

The panel, a United Nations creation that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore (idiot,) hopes to brief world leaders on the current state of climate science in a clear, unified voice. However, experts inside and outside the process say members probably will engage in heated debate over the causes and significance of the so-called global warming hiatus.

"It's contentious," said IPCC panelist Shang-Ping Xie, a professor of climate science at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego. "The stakes have been raised by various people, especially the skeptics."

Though scientists don't have any firm answers, they do have multiple theories. Xie has argued that the hiatus is the result of heat absorption by the Pacific Ocean — a little-understood, naturally occurring process that repeats itself every few decades. Xie and his colleagues presented the idea in a study published last month in the prestigious journal Nature.

The theory, which is gaining adherents, remains unproved by actual observation. Surface temperature records date to the late 1800s, but measurements of deep water temperature began only in the 1960s, so there just isn't enough data to chart the long-term patterns, Xie said.

Scientists have also offered other explanations for the hiatus: lack of sunspot activity, low concentrations of atmospheric water vapor and other marine-related effects. These too remain theories.

For the general public, the existence of the hiatus has been difficult to reconcile with reports of record-breaking summer heat and precedent-setting Arctic ice melts.

At the same time, those who deny the tenets of climate change science — that the burning of fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and warms it — have seized on the hiatus, calling it proof that global warming isn't real.

Climate scientists, meanwhile, have had a different response. Although most view the pause as a temporary interruption in a long-term warming trend, some disagree and say it has revealed serious flaws in the deliberative processes of the IPCC.

One of the most prominent of these critics is Judith Curry, a climatologist who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She was involved in the third IPCC assessment, which was published in 2001. But now she accuses the organization of intellectual arrogance and bias.

"All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet," Curry said. "However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact."

Curry isn't the only one to suggest flaws in established climate models. IPCC vice chair Francis Zwiers, director of the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium at the University of Victoria in Canada, co-wrote a paper published in this month's Nature Climate Change that said climate models had "significantly" overestimated global warming over the last 20 years — and especially for the last 15 years, which coincides with the onset of the hiatus.

The models had predicted that the average global surface temperature would increase by 0.21 of a degree Celsius over this period, but they turned out to be off by a factor of four, Zwiers and his colleagues wrote. In reality, the average temperature has edged up only 0.05 of a degree Celsius over that time — which in a statistical sense is not significantly different from zero.

Of course, people don't actually spend their entire lives subjected to the global average temperature, which is currently about 15 degrees Celsius, or 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Those who fixate on that single measurement lose sight of significant regional trends, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, climate scientists say.

Xie and Yu Kosaka, an assistant project scientist at Scripps, used computer models to simulate the Pacific decadal oscillation, a phenomenon related to the El Niño and La Niña ocean temperature cycles that lasts for 20 to 30 years. The model suggested that the northern mid-latitudes — an area that includes the United States and most of Europe and China — were "insulated" from the oscillation's cooling effect during the summer months, as was the Arctic region.

"In the summer you've basically removed the Pacific cooling, so we're still baked by greenhouse gases," Xie said.

As a consequence, 2012 marked two climate milestones, he said. The U.S. experienced its hottest year on record, while ice cover in the North Pole shrank to the lowest level ever observed by satellite.

Other climatologists, such as Bill Patzert of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, say sea level rise is "unequivocal proof" that greenhouse gases are continuing to heat the planet, and that much of this added heat is being absorbed by the oceans.

As ocean water warms, it expands and drives sea levels higher, Patzert said. Currently, oceans are rising at an average of more than 3 millimeters, or 0.12 of an inch, per year. This pace is significantly faster than the average rate over the last several thousand years, scientists say.

"There's no doubt that in terms of global temperatures we've hit a little flat spot in the road here," Patzert said. "But there's been no slowdown whatsoever in sea level rise, so global warming is alive and well."

Whether that message is communicated successfully by the IPCC this week remains to be seen. In the days leading up to the meeting, the organization has found itself on the defensive.

A draft summary that was leaked to the media reported that scientists were "95% confident" that human activity was responsible for more than half of the increase in average global surface temperature between 1951 and 2010. But critics openly scoff, considering the IPCC's poor record for predicting short-term temperature increases.

"This unpredicted hiatus just reflects the fact that we don't understand things as well as we thought," said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado in Boulder and vocal critic of the climate change establishment. "Now the IPCC finds itself in a position that a science group never wants to be in. It's in spin management mode."