11 Comments

I blame George Bush and global warming.

They had a record cold winter in South America a few months back. They had snow in Baghdad a couple of weeks ago for the first time in living memory. Sunspot activity (which correlates to solar heat output) has been virtually absent in recent months. And we’ve seen a lot of severe weather in many parts of the U.S. this winter, too. It’s all anecdotal evidence, of course, but not the sort you’d expect to see in a world affected by AGW. There are reasons that many of us remain skeptical of the received wisdom from the climate change theory-mongers.

If there is an area that should be warmer, were the Gore AGW predictions spot on, is China.

The best Gore could argue to try and explain away the contradictory evidence is that perhaps we do not yet posses the capabilities to grasp in detail a complex, non linear system such as weather let alone climate.

But that would be close to a scientific explanation… heresy, in other words.

After some 20,000 samples you would think one could with high confidence make certain predictions and yet. http://tinyurl.com/2ucr75

“Her blood type has changed from O negative to O positive as a result of her body performing its own bone marrow transplant.”

This one case may not negate what has happened before but it will lead to a not so minor revision of the relevant literature and further study… maybe?

The latest solar cycle (#24) started on Jan 4th, 2008. Around nine months late. And the sun has been very quite (no sunspots at all) for the last 20 days. Cycle 24 has been predicted to be a big one, and Cycle 25 to be small. We’ll see.

One reason I’m skeptical of AGW is that the current CO2 levels that they’re all upset about is 380 parts per million, which is 0.038 of one percent. It’s a trace gas. Water vapor is considered to be about 4%, and we can see that it has climatic effects. And the climate models handle it as a parameter, not as part of the dynamics.

this has not occurred in many years, if I remember correctly (ie, this is anecdotal): but, it is minus 40 this am up here just north of the 60th parallel; and I hear, downtown Whitehorse had a minus 48 yesterday.

Now, in the 1970s, it was not uncommon for the temperature to drop down to minus50 and even minus60 (if you need your car, you NEVER turn it off, then)… but in recent years, it has warmed up so that minus 40 is rare, and cold times are minus 30… (at these temperatures, Celsius is the same as Fahrenheit)

It is not very bright to base your new religion on ‘global warming’, as if Gore and his buddies could control the world’s climate with treaties, etc. But then, Gore is not terribly bright.(I still remember the story about when he went on a tour of Monticello, and asked who that carving portrayed: it was WASHINGTON. I am a Canadian, and I would recognise a carving of George Washington.)

But Gore is stupid. Really stupid. And rich. And a huckster getting richer, unlike moi, who is paying ever higher fuel bills and getting poorer. Whine.

Idiot.

Severe climate swings are a function of global warming.

So if it gets hot, blame global warming. If it gets cold, blame global warming. How … convenient. Nothing that happens can refute global warming. That’s not science, that’s religious dogma. GW is a scam.

I have been an “Expert Reviewer” for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.

I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.

Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be its abolition.

I wonder whether I could summarize briefly some of the reasons why the scientific procedures followed by the IPCC are fundamentally unsound. Some of you may have received more detail if you received my recent NZClimate Truth Newsletters.

The two main “scientific” claims of the IPCC are the claim that “the globe is warming” and “Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible”. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

To start with the “global warming” claim. It is based on a graph showing that “mean annual global temperature” has been increasing.

This claim fails from two fundamental facts

1. No average temperature of any part of the earth’s surface, over any period, has ever been made.

How can you derive a “global average” when you do not even have a single “local” average?

What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is more than the claimed “global warming.

2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth’s surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an “average” based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be “corrected”

It is of interest that frantic efforts to “correct” for these uncorrectable errors have produced mean temperature records for the USA and China which show no overall “warming” at all. If they were able to “correct” the rest, the same result is likely

And, then after all, there has been no “global warming”, however measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be cooling. As a result it is now politically incorrect to speak of “global warming”. The buzzword is “Climate Change” which is still blamed on the non-existent “warming”

The other flagship set of data promoted by the IPCC are the figures showing the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. They have manipulated the data in such a way to persuade us (including most scientists) that this concentration is constant throughout the atmosphere. In order to do this, they refrain from publishing any results which they do not like, and they have suppressed no less than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide made in the last 150 years. Some of these were made by Nobel Prizewinners and all were published in the best scientific journals. Ernst Beck has published on the net all the actual papers.

Why did they do it? It is very subtle. Brush up your maths. In order to calculate the radiative effects of carbon dioxide you have to use a formula involving a logarithm. When such a formula is applied to a set of figures, the low figures have a greater weight in the final average radiation. The figure obtained from the so-called “background figure” is therefore biased in an upwards direction.

My main complaint with the IPCC is in the methods used to “evaluate” computer models. Proper “validation” of models should involve proved evidence that they are capable of future prediction within the range required, and to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Without this procedure, no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for prediction.

No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used for prediction. They sort of accept this by never permitting the use of the term “prediction”, only “projection”. But they then go ahead predicting anyway.

There is a basic logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, is not proof of causation. Most scientists pay at least lip service to this principle, but its widespread lack of acceptance by the general public have led to IPCC to explore it as one of their methods of “evaluating” models.

The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to “fudge” an approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures.

The most elaborate of all their “evaluation” techniques is far more dubious. Since they have failed to show that any models are actually capable of prediction, they have decided to “evaluate” them by asking the opinions of those who originate them, people with a financial interest in their success. This has become so complex that many have failed to notice that it has no scientific basis, but is just an assembly of the “gut feelings” of self-styled “experts”. It has been developed to a complex web of “likelihoods”, all of which are assigned fake “probability” levels.

By drawing attention to these obvious facts I have now found myself persona non grata with most of my local professional associations, Surely, I am questioning the integrity of these award-winning scientific leaders of the local science establishment. When you get down to it, that is what is involved.

I somehow understood that the threshold had been passed when I viewed “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide “evidence” that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples’ opinions instead of science to “prove” their case.

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the “predictions” emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any “global warming” for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.

All weather extremes are taken as evidence of AGW. If there aren’t any extremes, the models don’t predict that, so it would be unexpected, and therefore, that would be evidence for AGW too since it would be an unusual weather event according to the new definition of unusual weather event. You see, it’s very simple.

It’s going to be hard for the AGW advocates to explain this as a result of human activity.

The Canadian Space Agency’s radio telescope has been reporting Flux Density Values so low they will mean a mini ice age if they continue.

Like the number of sunspots, the Flux Density Values reflect the SunÔøΩs magnetic activity, which affects the rate at which the Sun radiates energy and warmth. CSA project director Ken Tapping calls the radio telescope that supplies NASA and the rest of the world with daily values of the Sun’s magnetic activity a “stethoscope on the Sun”. In this case, however, it is the “doctor” whose health is directly affected by the readings.

This is because when the magnetic activity is low, the Sun is dimmer, and puts out less radiant warmth. If the Sun goes into dim mode, as it has in the past, the Earth gets much colder.

Tapping, who was originally from Kent, says that “Typically as you go through the ten or eleven year solar activity cycle you see the numbers go up or down. The lowest number is 64 or 68. The numbers 71 or 72 are very low, but they usually start to go up. We are at the end of a cycle, but the numbers still havenÔøΩt gone up. We have been joking around coffee that we may be seeing the Sun about to shut down.” (To date Tapping has been far more concerned about global warming.)

Some theorists are expecting the new solar cycle (24) to be strong, and the following one (25) to be weak. Others expect this one to be weak. No one knows for sure, but so far it looks more like a weak cycle than a strong one. If so, we’ll get a chance to analyze the effects of a period of lower solar activity with the full array of modern instruments.

If the Sun goes into dim mode, as it has in the past, the Earth gets much colder.

I blame Bush.