The Great Global Cooling/Warming Thread

[WoodDragon]

Further to hutch's snark about Menne et al 2010.

That wasn't mine it was from your link.......

The point I'm making, duffus, is that the basis for Codling's/Watt's/Lewis' arguments about the fraud/incompetence in US surface station records - arguments that you are attempting to promote - is spurious. You quote Kforestcat, who derides Menne et al without basis, so therefore you are aligning yourself with his comments. I am simply pointing out that there is no defence of Codling/Watt/Lewis/Kforestcat... or hutch.

Sheather:

Oh, and it's quite possible to

2) download without saving

.

No.

Erm, yes.

I get from my ISP x-gigabytes of download a month - what does that mean? That I save x-gigbytes to my hard-drive every month? I think not.

Further, when I open a pdf in Firefox, it is saved to RAM, and not to one of my document folders on my external hard drive.

Sorry mate, but you're wrong. Twice.

Bacon.

I've never suggested that we surrender all of our freedoms. I'm a big libertarian myself, and I hate bureaucracy and big government. I especially hate Big Brother style government, and corporate snooping of average citizens' habits.

However, I want my grand-kids and my great-grand-kids to have the same freedoms that I enjoy now, and I want them to have the same quality of life, and I want them to have the same opportunity to grow the species of pants that we do, and to see the same species of animals that we do, and to do so with no more worry of the world going belly-up than my grandparents had. If we don't clean up our acts today, though, they won't be the chance to enjoy these freedoms and privileges.

How we do this needs to be discussed by everyone, and that obviously ain't gonna happen when there are so many people who won't even acknowledge that there's a problem. It's like trying to tell a little kid why broccoli is good for them...

Edited January 11, 2011 by WoodDragon

[bℓσωηG]

so carbon tax is going to help the environment?

[WoodDragon]

But WHY did they put them there Einstein? Why have to make all those re-calibrations in the first place?

WHY THE FUCK DID THEY PUT THEM THERE?

Answer the question know-all!!!! Why place them near objects that were bound to create fake warming?

Most of the surface stations are decades old, and were nowhere near built-up areas when they were first sited.

See, there's this thing called urban sprawl, which arises from development, and these things have encroached on a subgroup of the stations. Over time some stations were simply closed, others were relocated, others were given (or retained) a lower classification and not used for certain calculations, others were recalibrated using ongoing corroboration techniques, and so on. And many remained as first class stations.

See, there's no great conspiracy to hide the reason for "poor" siting. In most cases it's simply a result of the expansion of cities, and where it's not the stations were almost always recognised as being second rate.

There was never any intention to "create fake warming", and as I have been repeatedly asking you now, how do you explain the fact that US surface station warming is independently confirmed by "ocean temperatures, by temperatures in scores of other countries around the planet, by the melting of glaciers, by the phenological changes in a huge array of plant and animal species, by other biological and ecological alterations around the planet, by corrected satellite measurements, and, as I said before, by the stations in the US itself that are not anywhere near a city"?

[WoodDragon]

so carbon tax is going to help the environment?

Only if it actually changes human behaviour, and how we get and use our energy.

Otherwise it'll be useless.

[WoodDragon]

Analyse this:

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

[Edit:

"General public" - self explanatory

"Non-publishers/Non-climatologists" = active "Earth scientists"* who are not climatologists

"Climatologists" = All climatologists, whether publishing research or not

"Active Publishers - All topics" = climatologists publishing research in any climatological area

"Active Publishers - Climate change" = climatologists with <50% of their research published specifically on climate change

"Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" - climatologists with >50% of their research published specifically on climate change

* Includes 103 "economic geologists" (coal, oil, and mineral extraction), of which only 47% (48 of 103) answered 'yes'.

Sample size for categories other than "General public" = 3146 (95% confidence interval of +/- <2%).

Sample size for category "General public" not specified, but Gallup polls are based on a minimum of 1000, which gives a 95% confidence interval of +/- 3%.]

Edited January 11, 2011 by WoodDragon

[hutch]

Most of the surface stations are decades old, and were nowhere near built-up areas when they were first sited.

See, there's this thing called urban sprawl, which arises from development, and these things have encroached on a subgroup of the stations. Over time some stations were simply closed, others were relocated, others were given (or retained) a lower classification and not used for certain calculations, others were recalibrated using ongoing corroboration techniques, and so on. And many remained as first class stations.

See, there's no great conspiracy to hide the reason for "poor" siting. In most cases it's simply a result of the expansion of cities, and where it's not the stations were almost always recognised as being second rate.

There was never any intention to "create fake warming", and as I have been repeatedly asking you now, how do you explain the fact that US surface station warming is independently confirmed by "ocean temperatures, by temperatures in scores of other countries around the planet, by the melting of glaciers, by the phenological changes in a huge array of plant and animal species, by other biological and ecological alterations around the planet, by corrected satellite measurements, and, as I said before, by the stations in the US itself that are not anywhere near a city"?

 

Bull shit...all to easy to spruke their shit...I have no faith in anything you have to contribute..you are as much a fraud as the science...

Edited January 11, 2011 by hutch

[tripsis]

You'll never believe anything "the science" has to teach you hutch, as you don't want to believe it. Your mind is as closed as a locked door with the key thrown out.

[WoodDragon]

Tripsis has already made the point in this regard, but anyway...

Bull shit...all to easy to spruke their shit...I have no faith in anything you have to contribute..you are as much a fraud as the science...

Fine. Then why can't you answer the question at the end of my explanation, which was:

There was never any intention to "create fake warming", and as I have been repeatedly asking you now, how do you explain the fact that US surface station warming is independently confirmed by "ocean temperatures, by temperatures in scores of other countries around the planet, by the melting of glaciers, by the phenological changes in a huge array of plant and animal species, by other biological and ecological alterations around the planet, by corrected satellite measurements, and, as I said before, by the stations in the US itself that are not anywhere near a city"?

Come on smarty pants, how do the rural and remote surface stations in the US, and in every other recording country in the world, and all of the plants and animals and the glaciers around the planet, and the satellites in space, and the very oceans themselves, all manage to join in the fraud?

Boy, that's one HUGE mother of a conspiracy theory that you're nursing there dude...

Edited January 11, 2011 by WoodDragon

[WoodDragon]

Bull shit...all to easy to spruke their shit...I have no faith in anything you have to contribute..you are as much a fraud as the science...

The fact is, hutch, that you don't want to believe the science, so you won't believe it. That's not scepticism, it's ideology.

Just like some folk don't want to believe that the Earth wasn't created in 6 days, just over 6 thousand years ago, even with the huge array of scientific evidence that proves otherwise.

And you think that scientists are "religious"...

Edited January 11, 2011 by WoodDragon

[synchromesh]

The fact is, hutch, that you don't want to believe the science, so you won't believe it. That's not scepticism, it's ideology.

Isn't that just what science is though... an ideology?

[WoodDragon]

Isn't that just what science is though... an ideology?

No, actually.

Hypotheses, ideas, and even accepted theories are continually scrutinised and retested. It's a part of what scientists do. Many scientists have their hobby-horses, sure, but if they can actually turn an idea over, even a favoured one, well, that's fodder for an extension of knowledge, which is what science is all about.

There are always going to be some recalcitrants of course, and a classic example of this is some of the scientific climate change denialists who don't know when to let go, even after their ideas have been well and truly roasted. Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Lindzen, Plimer, and others spring to mind...

I personally have had experimental results that have blown previously-held ideas (both mine and others) out of the water. It's surprising, and one always goes back and double-checks everything and then triple-checks it, to make sure, but it's also a real intellectual buzz to find such a challenge to old ideas.

I think the meme that scientists are all ideologues comes in part from the dismissal of scientists of pseudoscientific nonsense such as over-unity engines and antigravity machines. This gets up the goat of the nutters who push this stuff, but they seem constitutionally incapable of understanding why it is that the professional scientific world does discount such notions. They scream "Galileo!" and make a lot of noise about how their genius is not recognised, without actually understanding why they're dismissed.

Such dismissal might look to be ideological snobbery from the outside, but in the end there's no point in being so open-minded that your brain falls out.

[Edit:

Please take the time to follow the Galileo link. The quotes at the end are priceless.]

Edited January 11, 2011 by WoodDragon

[FancyPants]

Thank you, WoodDragon for going to the time and effort on educating the rest of us who clearly don't know anywhere near as much on this subject as you do

Hutch, why are you so threatened by the possibility of your being wrong about this subject? It doesn't appear that you're wanting to know the facts; rather you're just trying to save face and refuse to admit being mislead by - apparently severely - discredited professionals.

And whoever it was who mentioned WD's dad in an insult... way to go, what a fantastically mature way to put forward your personal beliefs on climate change.

***********

DEGENERATED THREAD.........

Be careful how rigidly you use science to construct your reality...... You never know what you may manifest for your self, fear can be incredibly damaging to your health ;)

To sum up my feelings on this thread....

Even if we took all current measures to be "green" would it be worth the freedoms we sacrifice....... After all, what makes us human?

 

The planet will survive without humans. Humans will NOT survive without the planet. Priorities should be adjusted accordingly.

***********

Why does anyone who opposes WoodDragon get -1? Because they're voicing an opinion that you don't agree with? Don't be so childish guys. If anyone deserves -1s it is WoodDragon for being condescending and obnoxious.

 

The following posts are NOT childish, condescending, and obnoxious?!?

Edit: Also I negatised a few of the more particularly childish comments and positised WD's more detailed and knowledgable posts.

IDIOT...It's warming dude get used to it......... you must love me

little old me getting this big scientist man so hot under the collar because I won't succumb to his fraud and bow down to his overly educated feet...mate you are loosing it....

Answer the question! Why did they place them there in the first place?....come on....you know it all remember......

 

I'm a little tea pot...short and stout

 

I know your there

 

Edited January 11, 2011 by FancyPants

[hutch]

Thank you, WoodDragon for going to the time and effort on educating the rest of us who clearly don't know anywhere near as much on this subject as you do

Hutch, why are you so threatened by the possibility of your being wrong about this subject? It doesn't appear that you're wanting to know the facts; rather you're just trying to save face and refuse to admit being mislead by - apparently severely - discredited professionals.

And whoever it was who mentioned WD's dad in an insult... way to go, what a fantastically mature way to put forward your personal beliefs on climate change.

***********

The planet will survive without humans. Humans will NOT survive without the planet. Priorities should be adjusted accordingly.

***********

The following posts are NOT childish, condescending, and obnoxious?!?

Edit: Also I negatised a few of the more particularly childish comments and positised WD's more detailed and knowledgable posts.

 

And your point exactly? I love how you managed to highlight my childish outburst's but love everything that came out of the mouth of this obnoxious wanker...my opinion of you just plummeted a few negative points as well sweet heart.

What you are saying is please don't join my argument if you have a different opinion.

Edited January 11, 2011 by hutch

[hutch]

You'll never believe anything "the science" has to teach you hutch, as you don't want to believe it. Your mind is as closed as a locked door with the key thrown out.

 

Not quit right there tripsis.....

I am just not gullible enough to believe everything that comes out of WoodDragons mouth.....

I admit I got a bit hostile but I guess that had something to do with the fact the I was labeled an idiot and brushed aside like I was a piece of shit...

I seriously believe there is a fraud being done in the name of science. That is why I wanted WoodDragon to have a look at that document...I didn't expect that I would be ridiculed for raising the point but apparently WoodDragon is so superior to anyone here and if you call yourself a scientist it is ok to call everyone else an idiot...

just don't argue with him or you get negative hits everywhere.....

[hutch]

Thank you, WoodDragon for going to the time and effort on educating the rest of us who clearly don't know anywhere near as much on this subject as you do

Hutch, why are you so threatened by the possibility of your being wrong about this subject? It doesn't appear that you're wanting to know the facts; rather you're just trying to save face and refuse to admit being mislead by - apparently severely - discredited professionals.

And whoever it was who mentioned WD's dad in an insult... way to go, what a fantastically mature way to put forward your personal beliefs on climate change.

***********

The planet will survive without humans. Humans will NOT survive without the planet. Priorities should be adjusted accordingly.

***********

The following posts are NOT childish, condescending, and obnoxious?!?

Edit: Also I negatised a few of the more particularly childish comments and positised WD's more detailed and knowledgable posts.

 

I have had a bit of a re think about all the negatives you gave me and I do believe you have been a little unfair, please let me explain.

You neg me for IDIOT...It's warming dude get used to it.... It was a direct reply to him saying It's warming dude get over it...now if you think the word IDIOT offensive then maybe you should look at whom first used it and how often they did.

Then you neg me for "I'm a little tea pot...short and stout" Well I am ever so sorry...I just didn't know that was an insult...please forgive me I was just meaning to say I'm still here.

And then you neg me for ..I know your there. And I was right...he was there.... could be insulting I suppose but no more so than anything he said to me...you really didn't read the whole thing did you fancypants? You just jumped in to defend the person that believes the same thing as you. As for insulting his father...WTF...All I said was did your dad call you Idiot? Hardly an insult to his father and maybe just a little precious on your part don't you think?

I could be childish and hunt out all your post's and put a neg to them but I understand that a persons rep is important to them so I won't do that but I am pretty pissed off that you have no such issue with trashing me.

And still the question goes unanswered....Why did they put them in locations in the first place that went against their own guiedlines and don't give me the "urban sprall" crap cause that won't wash. You maybe happy to let that question go unanswered but not me.

Sorry I so offended you.

Hutch

[WoodDragon]

I seriously believe there is a fraud being done in the name of science. That is why I wanted WoodDragon to have a look at that document...

Hutch, for the umpteenth time I've seen the document before, I've seen the fraud argument before, and it's complete crap. That you refuse to understand why, that you refuse to actually spend the few hours only that it would take to confirm it for yourself (I keep telling you not to just take my word for it!), is why I categorise you as an idiot.

I have actually commented to several people off-thread that I am chagrined that I've been provoked to using insults. But seriously mate, I can only explain things to a point before I get fed up with obstinate and willful ignorance.

Once more, though, for the hard of learning...

Science is a dynamic field of endeavour. Science is about real scepticism, and about testing, and about replication, and about extending the work of others. At each of these points old ideas are compared to new results, and are perpetually interpreted and re-interpreted.

If there was a conspiracy of fraud in climatology to fabricate warming in the US temperature record, then as soon as an independent group or two discovered it they would be tripping over themselves to publish the results, because they would gain huge recognition for doing so. Seriously, what you are suggesting is that every scientist in the world except one or two retired cranks are all in on the conspiracy, that they are somehow coordinating it so that the conduct of the conspiracy as remained invisible to the world, and that:

ocean temperatures, temperatures in scores of other countries around the planet, the melting of glaciers, the phenological changes in a huge array of plant and animal species, other biological and ecological alterations around the planet, corrected satellite measurements, and stations in the US itself that are not anywhere near a city

are a part of the conspiracy. Do you seriously believe this?!

Grow a brain. Scientists are are notoriously intellectually competitive bunch (some people say "arrogant"...) and trying to get independent groups to work together is like trying to herd cats. See, there's not a lot of money in science (almost no-one does it to get rich, or even well-off), so there's a lot of scambling for the small amount of change in the pot. If someone is misbehaving in the practise of their work (and it happens, because even in science there are bad apples), they are mercilessly exposed. I know, because I've exposed data-fabrication myself.

And if scientists aren't inclined to expose their own misbehaving colleagues (an impossible proposition), then there are always journalists looking for the Next Big Story. But there's never been a Pulitzer for the Great US Temperature Record Fraud, because the bloody thing doesn't exist.

There are always errors in huge datasets, and NOAA and other bodies are continually correcting them as they are found, but in such large datasets residual errors have no significant impack on results. (An understanding of statistics would inform you why...) The temperature record was cleaned to reliability many decades ago, and although it's continually updated to reflect the best understanding, it's not fraudulent, and it indicates warming.

Interestingly, when temperature collating agencies do correct their data, they are accused of fraud! Watts and his followers are great ones for doing this, and this is in large part where the claimsoriginate. So scientists are damned either way - leave the data uncorrected and be accused of fraud, or correct it and be accused of fraud.

It would take me a book's worth of documentation to actually detail the history and the examples of the claims of fraud in the US temperature record, and in other aspects of global warming climatology. But I'm an ecologist, not a science historian, and frankly I doubt that I could sell such a book - those who understand the truth don't need to read it, and people like you wouldn't even countenance the thought of opening its pages. If you really want to know the truth though, a few hours of careful searching through scientific blogs and through the webpages of scientific institutes and journals would provide you with the information you would need.

And once more, just for the fun of it, how do

ocean temperatures, temperatures in scores of other countries around the planet, the melting of glaciers, the phenological changes in a huge array of plant and animal species, other biological and ecological alterations around the planet, corrected satellite measurements, and stations in the US itself that are not anywhere near a city

all show warming in the temperature record, if the US surface stations record is fraudulent?

[WoodDragon]

And still the question goes unanswered....Why did they put them in locations in the first place that went against their own guiedlines and don't give me the "urban sprall" crap cause that won't wash. You maybe happy to let that question go unanswered but not me.

I did not let the question"go unanswered". I explained the various conditions that apply to poor siting of surface temperature station, and that second rate stations are recognised and accounted for. I explained to you that by Watts' own criteria for surface stations the US record actually underestimates the US temeprature record.

If you cannot accept answers that are put to yuo, and if you cannot explain how you do not recognise the enormous inconsistencies in your own view of the matter, then there is nothing more that can be done for you.

[Slybacon]

WD - Do you think evidence exists for any weather modification experiments? The science behind HAARP technology suggests that you could modify area of the ionosphere to achieve all sorts of results outside of long range communication. I have posted the original plan for HAARP in another thread that I will find when I get home from work. In this "executive Summary" all possible uses Military, Public and GOVT are disclosed and some of them are quite frankly alarming.

Have you looked much into the science behind ELF propagation and Ionosphere modification? Could that have an impact on global warming and cooling in your opinion?

[synchromesh]

No, actually.

Hypotheses, ideas, and even accepted theories are continually scrutinised and retested. It's a part of what scientists do. Many scientists have their hobby-horses, sure, but if they can actually turn an idea over, even a favoured one, well, that's fodder for an extension of knowledge, which is what science is all about.

 

One would have thought that it's all that scientists do? Or do you agree that most scientists refuse to challenge the status quo, in fear of losing their jobs and/or being ridiculed?

just don't argue with him or you get negative hits everywhere.....

 

Well, you haven't got any from me man. I'm actually really glad that you're here. Because after all, what's so scientific about only paying attention to one viewpoint?

[hutch]

Its time to put the Global Warming Moonbats on a suicide watch. The elaborate hoax they are perpetuating on the world for the express purpose of worldwide redistribution crumbles just a little more every day. The latest news comes from the National Snow and Ice Center (appropriately located in Colorado). It seems that the ice in Antarctica cannot read, because it is not melting the way it is supposed to. Worse yet, this year it reached its second highest level ever since satellite measurement began over 30 years ago.

On average, the Antarctic sea ice peaks at about 18.3 million sq km around September 20, but this year it achieved that level five weeks early, around August 9th. Even more tragic for the Al Gore globalists is the fact that the damned ice is acting like political commercials the week before an election, it just won't go away. This years Antarctic sea ice stayed at or above that 18.3 million sq km until late October a month later than the usual decline.

From here....

http://yidwithlid.bl...on-suicide.html

Edited January 12, 2011 by hutch

[hutch]

From here

http://climaterealis...true&position=4

People who totally accepted the corrupted, limited and narrowly focused science of the IPCC have taught climate science for the last 30 years.

It's frightening how little climate science is known by both sides of the debate on human causation of global warming. I wrote this sentence before I saw a paper from Michigan State University that found, "Most college students in the United States do not grasp the scientific basis of the carbon cycle - an essential skill in understanding the causes and consequences of climate change."

The professor says students need to know because they must deal with the buildup of CO2 causing climate change. This discloses his ignorance about the science of the carbon cycle and the role of CO2 in climate. It's not surprising and caused by three major factors:

(1) A function of the emotional, irrational, religious approach to environmentalism.

(2) The political takeover of climate science

(3) Funding directed to prove the political rather than the scientific agenda.

(4) The dogmatism of politics and religion combined to suppress openness of ideas and the advance of knowledge critical to science.

We now have a generation (30 years) of people teaching, researching, or running government that has little knowledge because of lack of fundamental education. Because of them, the public is ill informed, don't understand the problem, and don�t know the questions to ask. Correcting the education process will take time because there are insufficient people with the knowledge or expertise. Correcting and widening the research functions will take longer because of removing or re-educating current personnel and a lack of qualified replacements. Even if achieved, success is unlikely. There is the massive problem of inadequate data.

Reduction in the number of weather stations, elimination of raw data by national governments, unexplained manipulations of existing data, lost data by people like Phil Jones, were all done to falsify the results and prevent scrutiny of their work. This couples with failure to fund research to recover and reconstruct historical data. In his autobiography Hubert Lamb said he founded the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) because "it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important." The situation is worse now, sadly due to people at the CRU and government weather agencies.

The blame begins with the political manipulations of Maurice Strong, but he only succeeded because of the so-called climate scientists. Among them, computer modelers caused the biggest problem. They needed to know the most, but knew the least. If they knew anything they would know there is inadequate data and understanding of the major components and mechanisms on which to build the models.

I responded to a newspaper article with a letter pointing out many errors. It elicited an invite from Andrew Weaver IPCC computer modeler. I entered his office with my backpack and he said, "I hope you don't have a microphone in that thing do you?" I remarked, "Someone's paranoia is showing." In the next twenty minutes I realized, because of 25 years of teaching, researching and publishing, he knew very little about climate. He received a phone call and I left his office. A student working outside said he heard my comments about the severe limitations of the computer models and and said he agreed. He simply wanted to get his degree and research money was available. Weaver claimed to be a climatologist, but removed that from his web page when it was pointed out he was a computer modeler.

Over the years Weaver consistently refused a debate. When a students group arranged one at the University of Victoria he refused to participate with his standard line about only dealing with "working" climatologists. His students showed up at my presentation and were talking to students outside the door, apparently attempting to deter them from entering. When they all finally came in they tried to interrupt the proceedings by constantly asking questions. They even had laptops and challenged with Internet sites supposedly contradicting what I said. It was shameless and not surprisingly their interpretation of events appeared on a smear blog site. For example, I showed the Milankovitch Effect and said it was not in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer models. One student said he worked with the models and it is included. There's no doubt it is in some climate models, but not those of the IPCC.

Weaver has announced he will not participate in the next IPCC. He, like so many who got on the bandwagon of politics and funding, is abandoning the sinking ship. Most of his early funding was from Environment Canada until alternate arrangements were made. He began withdrawal in January 2010, "Senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations' panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled."

He also said, "the leadership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has allowed it to advocate for action on global warming, rather than serve simply as a neutral science advisory body." He knew this all along, partly because I told him. The question is what has he taught his students in the meantime? Judging by his responses to my questions and those asked by his students at my presentation, not much and very biased.

A former editor of an enlightened environmental journal said we need a committee of scientists from the many disciplines involved in climate science. Such a committee existed 25 years ago, and produced groundbreaking work. It was a joint project funded by The National Museum of Canada and Environment Canada under the title "Climatic Change in Canada During the Past 20,000 years." Each year a specific topic was considered and scientists presented material that was published in Syllogeus. For example, Syllogeus 5 examined Critical Periods in the Quaternary of Climatic History of Northern North America. All the problems that plague climate science such as tree rings, ice cores, circulation patterns and proxy data, among many others, were identified and researched. In the last meeting, I was elected Chair, and in my acceptance speech said, we need to consider carefully and scientifically the claims of global warming. Environment Canada cut the funding because it challenged the political position that agency had already taken; the project died. Canada should reconstitute it because it was producing useful and non-political science - supposedly Weaver would now approve, but I don't think he's qualified to participate.

People who totally accepted the corrupted, limited and narrowly focused science of the IPCC have taught climate science for the last 30 years. They should all read Lamb's monumental two-volume set;

Lamb, H.H., 1972,"Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 1: Fundamentals and Climate Now." Methuen, London and 1977, "Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 2: Climatic History and the Future".

They'd learn that all issues now put forward as 'new' are not new at all. They only appear new because of the black hole that politicians, aided by a few climatically uneducated political scientists, have dragged climate science into over the last 30 years.

[hutch]

This could get really interesting.....

The BBC serves Freedom of Information request (FOIA) on UK Government over weather forecast failures secrecy in worst winter for 100 years.

In an almighty battle to salvage credibility three British government institutions are embroiled in a new global warming scandal with the BBC mounting a legal challenge to force ministers to admit the truth. Sceptics ask: Is the UK government’s climate propaganda machine finally falling apart?

Last week the weather service caused a sensation by making the startling claim that it was gagged by government ministers from issuing a cold winter forecast. Instead, a milder than average prediction was made that has been resoundingly ridiculed in one of the worst winters in a century.

With the BBC appearing to take the side of the Met Office by seeking to force the government to give honest answers, untold harm will likely befall Prime Minister Cameron’s global warming policies on energy, taxation and the environment.

Rift between BBC, Met Office and UK Government Grows

Speculation in newspapers and the blogosphere has festered for the past week as Chris Huhne, minister in charge of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) stubbornly remain silent. I contacted the BBC’s Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin, one of the world’s senior journalists on such matters to ascertain if the Beeb had a better handle on the story.

Continues here http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7006

[hutch]

Very good article here on the potential link with solar activity...

A highlight for me:

"My own view is that there is plenty of evidence currently available that should demonstrate from an objective viewpoint that the theory of AGW is already dead, namely:

1) Real world temperature observations which are diverging from model expectations more and more as time passes

2) The clear recent decline in solar activity

3) The return to a negative (cooling) Pacific Decadal Oscillation) which may last 30 years on past performances

4) A change in global weather patterns which I noticed as long ago as 2000 whereby the jet streams moved back towards the equator from the positions they adopted during the warming spell. The observation that a global warming or cooling trend can be discerned from seasonal weather patterns seems to be unique to me and will be dealt with in more detail in my next article".

Those who still believe in AGW have to be able to show that any CO2 driver is powerful enough to seriously disrupt the solar driver. If all that the CO2 does is to marginally raise global temperature over the period of a natural solar driven warming and cooling cycle then there is nothing to fear because the mitigating effect in cool periods will outweigh any discomfort from the aggravating effect at and around the peak of the warm periods.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396

[hutch]

Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics

http://www.suite101.com/content/greenhouse-gas-hypothesis-violates-fundamentals-of-physics-a240478

[hutch]

"NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?

As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:

"During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick....in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation..."

From here http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5783&linkbox=true&position=9