Greenpeace co-founder addresses International Conference on Climate Change.

Patrick Moore, previous President of Greenpeace, addresses the recent International

Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-(9) in Las Vegas.

Patrick is the author of Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist in which he wrote that, after the collapse of World Communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the environment movement was hi-jacked by the "political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anticapitalism and antiglobalization than with science or ecology."

During his address, Patrick tells how the early environmentalists aroused public awareness which led to the cessation of  US hydrogen bomb tests and then took on French atmospheric bomb testing in the Pacific. It took some years to drive these tests underground. He then moved from what he was against, to what he was in favour of. He currently is helping to promote genetically modified "Golden Rice" to help reduce world hunger.

http://youtu.be/NtcNjoDe5Pg

If Lewandowsky is a climate scientist then so am I.

Anthony Cox

Shag on Rock
Apologies to Josh

You can’t keep Lew down and he has just co-authored a paper proving the temperature is rising. Lew’s idea is that statements about the temperature pause, including by the IPCC, simply don’t take into account natural variation which in a cooling phase will suppress the AGW warming.

This idea has been around for yonks. 

Cohenite looked at the idea in 2008. Basically the technique is detrend for all natural factors by removing the estimate of their temperature effect and what is left should be the pure AGW signal.

Lots of people have done this; the original paper was Keenlyside et al in 2008. Easterling and Wehner in 2009 extended this concept to the usual grotesque AGW exaggeration. The previous Keenlyside et al effort predicted masking of underlying AGW due to SST driven natural variation. Unfortunately, when the ENSO is removed from temperature trends there is no post 2000 underlying AGW. Easterling and Wehner revisit this trainwreck of an idea to prove that future cooling will still have underlying AGW. Their null hypothesis [NH] really settles the matter. The NH is that there will be an “equal percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends” [p6]. This is high order virtual reality; the concept of the 100 year flood explains why. Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] climate phases have greater probability of floods during a negative phase during which time [about 30 years] there may be several 1 in 100 year floods. During the positive, El Nino dominated PDO phase there will most likely be no 1 in 100 year flood.

The same principle applies to temperature. Positive PDOs will have increasing temperature trends and vice-versa for negative PDOs. The paper doesn’t consider ENSO at all apart from an admission that it is not modelled well [p6]. Table 1 shows more positive temperature trends in the 20thC. This was due to positive PDO dominance not, as the paper claims, AGW.

The recent definitive paper on this idea by Foster and Rahmstrof in 2011 supposedly extracted a pure AGW signal after removing all natural factors. F and R are a lot of fun.They removed all the natural factors that may have contributed to temperature increase and were left with a range of 0.014 to 0.018 K yr⁻¹ as the pure AGW forcing. They calculated a rate which was constant from 1979. This should have set the alarm bells ringing for a start since CO2 was increasing exponentially during this period; if the dominant forcing factor was increasing the AGW temperature effect should also have been increasing. But it seems that their methodology was also flawed. By including a linear trend for warming in their analysis as an independent variable, Foster and Rahmstorf have demonstrated that global warming is well correlated with global warming. Furthermore Bob Tisdale shows Forster and Ramstorf were wrong to consider ENSO as an exogenous factor and to exclude it from their analysis.

Just when you think this nonsense is over along comes Lew. Lew says this:

Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

Credit where credit is due. This is smart. Lew doesn’t remove natural variation he selects models which have natural variation in phase with AGW. AGW is now proved because there is temperature increase when you factor in natural variation.

But seriously this is a dog’s breakfast. What is he saying; that AGW is only to be measured when there is natural warm phase such as in the +ve PDO:

That is AGW is only to be shown when the world is heating through a warm natural phase as shown in the red lines? Is this because natural variation in the cool phase eliminates any AGW signal as shown in the blue lines? And surely in the warm phases of natural variation wouldn’t the warming be especially high if AGW and natural variation are working together?

Desperation and absurdity is now the stock in trade of alarmists like Lewandowsky.

A real scientific paper about Ocean Heat Content [OHC] has just been published by leading oceanographic experts Wunsch and Heimbach. They show that the deep oceans are cooling and that, logically, heat in the ocean probably comes from the bottom of the ocean due to geothermal activity not from the surface down as AGW theory insists in the most ridiculous way [see here and here]. Figure 18 from Wunsch and Heimbach sums up the nonsense about OHC:

That’s it folks; AGW demolished and Lew left like a Shag on a rock.

How Wrong Can The Age be? The Age's Dementia.

The Age, a consistent pusher of the falsified Man Made Global Warming Hypothesis, has shown some lack of journalistic integrity in their recent editorial

Repeal of carbon tax shames our nation

Take their opening sentence:-

The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists concur: the emission of greenhouse gasses as a result of human activity is contributing to a rise in temperate and to the resulting climate change that poses nothing short of an existential threat.

Three thoughts out of three wrong. Have they forgotten Journalistic Integrity? Whatever happened to Sceptical Journalism?

NewsTrust is a guide to good journalism: 

They write that "the best way to learn news literacy is to think like a journalist." (link)

The four Ds of thinking like a journalist exemplify these qualities. They are: 

1. Doubt — a healthy skepticism that questions everything.
2. Detect — a “nose for news” and relentless pursuit of the truth.
3. Discern — a priority for fairness, balance and objectivity in reporting.
4. Demand — a focus on free access to information and freedom of speech.

Looking at the Age and their support for the global warming hoax, they have completely failed in every respect to think like good journalists.

Applying the four Ds to the above opening sentence.

"The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists"

The consensus notion has been pushed by three flawed yet peer-reviewed papers:

1. Oreskes: LINK
2. Doran and Zimmerman: LINK
3. Cook et al: LINK

A sceptical journalist can easily research the validity of these three "peer reviewed" papers. Taking the last first, google search result for "cook 97 consensus" leads with three rebuttals of the paper. Lord Monckton reviewed the paper and found  0.3% CONSENSUS, NOT 97.1%

Enough said.

Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” (link)

Naomi Oreskes wrote in her paper:

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong.

That's probably the most accurate part of her paper. The US Senate Environment Committee:

FACT: Oreskes’s study contained major flaws. Oreskes did not inform readers in today’s commentary that she admitted to making a search term error that excluded about 11,000 papers –more than 90% of the papers– dealing with climate change. Oreskes also failed to inform readers that, according to one critique of her study, less than 2% of the abstracts she analyzed endorsed what she terms the “consensus view” on human activity and climate change and that some of the studies actually doubted that human activity has caused warming in the last 50 years.

Two down and one to go:

Doran and Zimmerman:

A google search of "Doran and Zimmerman" finds the word "flawed" arising frequently. One such result is the paper by Murray Goot of Macquarie University as part of the Garnault Review. (link)

Criticism of the paper has focused on the second of the two findings, the claim that ‘97% of climate scientists’ agree that the planet is experiencing anthropogenic climate change; specifically, the criticisms have focused on the nature of the sample, the number of respondents in the sample regarded as most expert in 3 the area, and especially on the wording of the questions. The first of the two findings that showed 90% agreeing that ‘compared with pre-1800s levels’ the ‘mean global temperatures have generally risen’ rather than ‘fallen, or remained relatively constant’ is relatively
uncontroversial; protagonists on both sides of the debate on anthropogenic global warming can readily agree to that.

 Although response to the first question was 3,146, the second question received only 79 responses - 77 agreed to the question:

 According to one critic the question ‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’ is a question to which ‘most climate scientists’ would say yes ‘even if they aren't concerned about future climate change’. On this view, the question was deficient at every turn. 

 The Age editorial continues:

the emission of greenhouse gasses as a result of human activity is contributing to a rise in temperate (sic) and to the resulting climate change that poses nothing short of an existential threat.

Temperate is an adjective. So, does a rise in temperate mean "more temperate?" Or did they mean a "rise in temperature?" Let's assume the latter.

According to the Alarmists, the main greenhouse gas (GHG) is carbon dioxide which they falsely label carbon. (carbon dioxide is one carbon atom bonded to two oxygen atoms. If the call CO2 'carbon', why don't they call water (H2O) 'oxygen'?)

Scientists agree that rises in temperature precede rises in  the "green house gas" atmospheric CO2. (link) 

What is actually happening this century?

The main data sets that the "climate" scientists use all show no temperature (temperate?) rise this century whilst the rise in atmospheric CO2 continues.

Climate4You 

Has the Age invoked the 4Ds?

1. Doubt — a healthy skepticism that questions everything.
2. Detect — a “nose for news” and relentless pursuit of the truth.
3. Discern — a priority for fairness, balance and objectivity in reporting.
4. Demand — a focus on free access to information and freedom of speech.

I detect that they have not shown discernment, doubt their partiality and demandbetter journalism.

Green Grubs (Weekend Humour)

After the repeal of the despised tax on vital to life carbon dioxide, the tax that, according to IPCC Scientist Professor Roger Jones (link), would reduce, by 2100,  global temperature by four thousands of a degree, Sarah Hanson-Young(@SarahinSen8) tweeted: "climate sceptic grubs."

This got me thinking.......what colour are most grubs?

Now, I am probably wrong, but I get a strong image in my mind and that image is Green.

When I worked in the pottery industry, I worked with a marvellous industrial chemist who was great at creating and naming glazes;  Great Keppel Blue is one that comes to mind.

Perhaps, if Tom was still with us, he could create a new colour called Sarah Hansen's Grub Green.

He could also create some colours for some of SHY's fantasies, like Sea Patrol red (the colour her cheeks should have been) and economic immigrant blue for SHY's open border policy blue. 

And perhaps Earthling Brown after old Greens leader Bob. 

Perhaps Milne mauve?

And for Bill Shorten, with his pitch for (as Christopher Pyne said) a "rotten stinking carcass around his neck," could I suggest "Pitch Black?"

Remember the nematodes, SHY, they are attracted by the CO2 emissions of "green grubs" and kill them.

 It contains insect-pathogenic nematodes of the species Heterorhabditis bacteriophora that seek out actively for grubs in the soil. Attracted by CO2 emissions of the grubs they enter into their body, kill them and reproduce inside the cadaver. (link)

 

A small but significant battle win in the war against the AGW hoax.

Headlines from around the world are noting the Abbott Government's win in reversing the useless economy destroying carbon dioxide tax; some looking on with praise but more with disdain, eg

Today's reversal of our carbon laws represents a tragedy for our politics, a travesty for public policy and a train wreck for climate action. (link)

The simple facts are that

• there has been no global warming for 18 years; (link)
• the man-made global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been falsified. (link)

Even so, the Abbott Government still pays obeisance to the AGW hoax. There are true believers of AGW in Abbott's front bench, the Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt included.

Note that Mr Hunt doesn't correct ABC's Tony Jones who erroneously says carbon pollution when talking of carbon dioxide emissions

TONY JONES:Okay. Let's move on. With no carbon price in place from today and no Direct Action policy, is any company in Australia now free to put as much carbon pollution into the atmosphere as they wish, with no penalty or any way of stopping them? 

GREG HUNT:Well, of course, under Labor's carbon tax there was no constraint on individual companies. They could simply pay to pollute. And, of course, the biggest problem with the carbon tax was that meant that the power companies could simply put out as many emissions as they want and pass on the cost to consumers.

Mr Hunt has budgeted for $2.55 Billion  for an emissions reduction scheme. (link)

There are many more expenditure items in the 2014 budget including (See Portfolio Budget Statement)

Many say that PM Abbott does not believe in the hoax, but this week, after the carbon dioxide tax reversal he was quoted as saying: (link)

"So we are a conservationist government and we will do what we think is the sensible thing to try to bring emissions down."

As Viv Forbes wrote in the post Death by Delay: (link)

Unfortunately, the job is not nearly over. We still have the Green Energy subsidies and targets, far too many bureaucracies still white-anting away, too much being spent on climate-fests, global warming research, climate bureaucracies, Kyoto carbon credit forests and the silly “Direct Action” still breathes. Flannery and Gore will never give up, the Green/ALP coalition waits its chance, much of the media will maintain the rage . . . etc

So beware, all ye who celebrate the tax reversal win, it is but a small battle win in the war against the AGW hoax.

All Quiet except for hammering on the AGW coffin

spaceweather.com reports

THE "ALL QUIET EVENT": For the 4th day in a row, solar activity is extremely low. Compared to the beginning of July, when sunspots were abundant, the sun's global X-ray output has dropped by a factor of ten. Moreover, on July 17th the sunspot number fell all the way to zero. We call it "the All Quiet Event." As July 19th unfolds, the sun is no longer completely blank. Three small sunspots are emerging, circled in this image (above) from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory. A similar report from Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC), which is the solar physics research department of the Royal Observatory of Belgium. (link) INFO FROM SIDC - RWC BELGIUM 2014 Jul 18 12:47:42 No C-class flares in past 24 hours from the almost spotless solar disk. What does it mean?  Another nail in the AGW coffin.  As NASA's Dr. David Hathaway explains: (link) We are currently over five years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906. (my bold)

Death by Delay

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared by Viv Forbes 

and  The Carbon Sense Coalition.

Please pass on. We rely on our supporters to spread the word.
TO DOWNLOAD THIS NEWSLETTER WITH ALL FIGURES INTACT, CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/death-by-delay.pdfhttp://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/death-by-delay.pdf

www.carbon-sense.com

18 July 2014
Death by Delay - the New Green Weapon.

“The difference between taking a part of my life,and taking my whole life, is just a matter of degree.” Anon

Special thanks to Mr. Larry Pickering for permission to
reproduce this cartoon. If you like, you can follow him on facebook or
visit him at pickeringpost.com/ Copyright L Pickering 2014

There was a time, before the baby-boom generation took over, when we took pride in the achievements of our builders, producers and innovators. There was always great celebration when settler families got a phone, a tractor, a bitumen road or electric power. An oil strike or a gold discovery made headlines, and people welcomed new businesses, new railways and new inventions. Science and engineering were revered and the wealth delivered by these human achievements enabled the builders and their children to live more rewarding lives, with more leisure, more time for culture and crusades, and greater interest in taking more care of their environment.

Then a green snake entered the Garden of Eden.

Many of the genuine conservationists from the original environmental societies were replaced by political extremists who felt lost after the Comrade Societies collapsed and China joined the trading world.

These zealots were mainly interested in promoting environmental alarms in order to push a consistent agenda of world control of production, distribution and exchange – a new global utopia run by unelected all-knowing people just like them.

Michael Gorbachev is a prominent example. Consistent open and covert support came from Hollywood, government media organisations and the bureaucracy.

The old Reds became the new Greens.

The new Greens used every credible-sounding scare to recruit support – peak resources, acid rain, ozone holes, global cooling, species extinction, food security, Barrier Reef threats, global warming or extreme weather to justify global controls, no-go areas and international taxes to limit all human activities. Each cause spawned its dedicated bunch of activists.

However the public became disenchanted with their politics of denial, and their opposition to all human progress, so they have adopted a new tactic – death by delay.

“We are not opposed to all development, but we want to ensure all environmental concerns are fully investigated before new developments get approval.”

In fact, their goal is to kill projects with costly regulations, investigations and delay. Their technique is to grab control of bureaucratic bodies like the US EPA which, since 2009, has issued 2,827 new regulations totalling 24,915,000 words.

A current example of death by delay is the Keystone Oil pipeline proposal which would have taken crude oil from Alberta in Canada to refineries on the US Gulf Coast – far better than sending it by rail tankers.

It was first proposed in 2005, and immediately opposed by the anti-industry, anti-carbon zealots who control the EPA and other arms of the US federal government.

The proposal was studied to death by US officials and green busybodies for nine long years.

This week the Canadians lost patience and approved an alternative proposal to take a pipeline to the west coast of Canada, allowing more Albertan oil to be exported to Asia.

Jobs and resources that would have benefitted Americans will now go to Asia.

Naturally the Green delayers will also attempt to throttle this proposal.

Over in Europe, shale gas exploration is also being subject to death by delay. In Britain, the pioneering company, Caudrilla, has been waiting for seven long years for approvals to explore. In France, all such exploration is banned.

Greens also attempted to perpetually delay all development on aboriginal land in Cape York using a new weapon – “Wild Rivers Declarations”. These declarations were recently struck down by the Australian Federal Court. Warren Mundine, Executive Chairman of the Australian Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, was moved to say:

“It’s easy to oppose. It’s a lot harder to build something that delivers jobs, creates economic prosperity and gives remote communities a sustainable future.”

No wonder India recently accused Greenpeace and other delayers of being “a threat to national economic security”.
Viv Forbes,14/7/14
For those who wish to read more:
Founder leaves after Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left and "evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas":
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/confessions-of-a-greenpeace-droput-to-the-u-s-senate-on-climate-change/

Canada approves pipeline to the Pacific Coast:http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/18/canada-approves-northerngatewaypipeline.html
Obama continues his attack on US Energy:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/obama-continues-his-attack-on-us-energy.html
Britain wastes shale gas potential:
http://www.cityam.com/article/1398365112/how-britain-wasting-its-real-shale-gas-potential
Greenpeace is a threat to national economic security:http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/12/india-labels-greenpeace-a-threat-to-national-economic-security/
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/ib-report-to-pmo-greenpeace-is-a-threat-to-national-economic-security/

Green groups try to keep Aboriginal communities in poverty:http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/green_groups_keep_aboriginal_people_dyQc0k0oqQYyVwUpl7qhLM

The Green Agenda:http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html


The Sky Fell last month, but almost nobody noticed.
The sky fell on Hawaii last month, all because carbon dioxide levels peeped above the much-hyped 400 ppm hurdle. Chicken Littles all over the world squawked into their friendly media megaphones about numerous imminent global warming disasters. One warned: “the fate of the world hangs in the balance.” (Similar alarms were rung when the 350 ppm level was passed).

Thanks to “Minnesotans for Global Warming”
for this illustration:
http://m4gw.com/four-reasons-why-400-ppm-co2-is-not-a-problem/

But nobody else noticed anything scary.

Four pieces of well-established evidence say that 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not a concern.

Firstly, there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998 despite 16 years of rising carbon dioxide levels and heavy usage of carbon fuels. Clearly, CO₂is not the main driver of global temperatures.

Secondly, the ice core records show clearly, with no exceptions, that all recent ice ages have commenced when the atmosphere contained relatively high levels of carbon dioxide. The temperature fell first, and then carbon dioxide levels fell. This proves that high carbon dioxide levels do not guarantee a warm globe, but could suggest that they may be a harbinger of a coming ice age. Ice will cause far more damage to the biosphere than even the worst warming forecast.

Thirdly, current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are not extreme or unusual. Carbon dioxide reached 2,000 ppm in the luxuriant era of the dinosaurs, and ten times current levels (4,000 ppm) when the great Devonian coral reefs were flourishing. There is no tipping point into runaway global warming, or we would have tipped eons ago.

Finally, current carbon dioxide levels are just above starvation levels for plants. All vegetation would grow stronger, faster, and be more drought resistant and heat resistant if carbon dioxide levels trebled to 1,200 ppm. Such levels are no threat to humans – US submarines operate at up to 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days. Topping 400 ppm should be a cause for celebration – it shows that Earth is emerging from the cold hungry years of the ice ages.

Climate Cassandras have blown false trumpets once again.

Viv Forbes 9/7/2014
For those who wish to read more:
400 ppm is just a big yawn:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/

Past Climates and carbon dioxide levels:http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Nothing new about Climate Change:http://carbon-sense.com/2013/11/30/nothing-new-about-climate-change/

Current warming is just recovery from the Little Ice Age:http://vimeo.com/14366077

Carbon dioxide lags not leads global temperatures:http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php

Home truths about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/06/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases

Carbon Dioxide feeds the world:http://carbon-sense.com/2010/04/15/carbon-dioxide-time-lapse/


So Much for the Consensus – just 20% believe “the debate is over”.

The Rasmussen polls in US reveal that:

·         63% of US voters say the debate over global warming is NOT over.

·         60% of oppose any move by news organisations to ban sceptics.

·         48% think there is significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.

·         42% believe that the media exaggerates global warming alarm.

·         35% believe that scientists generally agree on the subject.

·         22% believe the media present an accurate picture.

·         20% believe the debate on global warming is over.

See the story on:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2014/only_20_think_debate_about_global_warming_is_over
And a discussion at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/rasmussen-poll-63-say-the-debate-about-global-warming-is-not-over-60-pan-bbcs-decision-to-exclude-skeptics/

The Big Lie:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it.

But the lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

Josef Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

Governments in Australia, UK and Germany in particular can no longer shield their people from the reality of soaring costs and unreliable performance caused by their lies promoting wind and solar for grid power and their hobbling of reliable electricity producers such as coal, gas and nuclear power.

Ian Plimer new Book Launch.
Professor Ian Plimer has written a new book “Not for Greens” which will be launched in Melbourne and Brisbane by IPA. For info see:
http://rsvp.ipa.org.au/?ee=1


Peer Review of Tim Flannery – “The Weather Makers Re-Examined”.
Dr Wes Allen has examined the book that gave Tim Flannery his Australian-of-the-Year crown and his well-paying job as Climate Commissioner. And Dr Allen has written a very readable and well documented book examining every chapter of it. He says:

 “From cover to cover, Tim Flannery’s message is that ‘we are now the weather makers’. Move over sun, moon, stars, planets, Earth’s mighty oceans, mountains and volcanoes – almighty man now rules the weather! In the context of known geological and cosmic climatic forces, such an anthropocentric focus is almost pre-Copernican.”

Dr Allen puts every chapter of Tim Flannery’s thesis on global warming alarmism under the spotlight of the most up-to-date scientific realism - in climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, the reliability of the temperature records, sea levels, glaciers, the true state of the Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland, the Great Barrier Reef, extreme weather events, acidification of the oceans, oscillating Atlantic and Pacific currents and much more.

The Weather Makers is shown to contain 23 misinterpretations, 28 contradictory statements, 31 untraceable or suspect sources, 45 failures to reflect uncertainty, 66 over-simplifications or factual errors, 78 exaggerations and over a hundred unsupported dogmatic statements, many of them quite outlandish.

I read this book from cover to cover and learnt a lot from it. I commend it. Get it here:
http://www.irenicpublications.com.au/html/excerptsWMR.html

The Carbon Tax is Gone

Who killed the carbon tax? It is said that victory has a thousand parents, but defeat is an orphan.

So there will be many claiming credit for abolishing the carbon tax. Tony Abbott deserves much credit, supported by people like Dennis Jensen, George Christensen, Barnaby Joyce, Ron Boswell, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Alan Moran and the bloggers. Providing scientific support, Australians like Ray Evans, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Jo Nova, David Evans, Bill Kininmonth, David Archibald and Cliff Ollier stand tall. (This list omits very many other deserving people who played their part, and are entitled to claim credit. Apologies to them in advance.)

Unfortunately, the job is not nearly over. We still have the Green Energy subsidies and targets, far too many bureaucracies still white-anting away, too much being spent on climate-fests, global warming research, climate bureaucracies, Kyoto carbon credit forests and the silly “Direct Action” still breathes. Flannery and Gore will never give up, the Green/ALP coalition waits its chance, much of the media will maintain the rage . . . etc
Prepared by Viv Forbes and Helpers from:
The Carbon Sense Coalition
Rosewood    Qld   Australia
forbes@carbon-sense.com

More Heat about Ocean Heat - another nail in the AGW coffin

Anthony Cox

I have previously written about the fact that the heat in the ocean isn’t there. A Facebook commentator produced some excellent graphs based on the ARGO data which showed NO heat accumulation at any level in the world’s oceans. This lack of warming contradicts completely  (Anthropogenic Global Warming) AGW theory as put forward by such AGW stalwarts as Trenberth and England. It also has Hansen scrambling for weird and whacky explanations.

So it is plain in the ARGO era that the oceans are not warming and this contradicts AGW.

In my articles I noted that NODC graphs were shown in joules which allowed a steeper slope compared to a temperature trend. Mischievously I suggested an ulterior motive for this. Alarmism.

Another blogger has taken me to task. Rob Ryan has defended the NODC graphs and pointed out that they do indeed have temperature graphs. Indeed they do:

Thanks Rob. By way of comparison here is the same graph in joules:

Well to me the trend slope in the joules graph looks steeper and more alarming than the temperature graph. But Rob doesn’t like OHC as a measure of the energy; it is poor terminology according to Rob. Hey Rob, don’t blame me, argue with NODC and indeed AGW in general; they’re the ones using and relying on it.

What really is poor is the notion that by any measure the oceans are heating. The estimable Bob Tisdale does a comparison of all OHC measures and produces this graph:

Plainly Hansen’s model on behalf of AGW is off with the pixies while the MET and the NODC show the opposite trend!

A couple of things about this. 

Firstly the ARGO data is adjusted before it is presented. Obviously NODC and the MET adjust it differently. In fact in another post Bob Tisdale examines the NODC adjustment procedure:

At the 700 meters range NODC have increased the trend by 19%. The NODC adjustments increase the trend at 2000 meters by 36%!

Secondly the ARGO data, even though it is the best we have ever had, is vastly insufficient. Willis Eschenbach notes:

• The sampling of the oceans is by no means as uniform as I had expected. Part of the ocean is under sampled, sometimes badly so, compared to other areas. Half of the global ocean has been sampled less than 20 times per 10,000 sq. km, and 14% has never been sampled by Argo floats at all.
• Even when we look at just the area from 60°N/S, half the ocean has been sampled less than 24 times per 10,000 sq. km, and 8% is unsampled.
•  The area of the El Nino phenomenon is a critical area for the regulation of planetary heat loss. Oceanic heat content in this area can change quite rapidly. However, parts of it are woefully undersampled.
• Finally, the older Argo floats sample either down to 1,000 metres, and intermittently go to 1,500 metres depth. The newer ones go down to 1800 metres. Which is quite deep, about a mile down. But the estimates of oceanic heat storage include the whole ocean. Figure 3 shows a pair of transects from Antarctica (on the left) to Hawaii, and then Hawaii to Alaska on the right, to give some sense of scale.

Figure 3 (Figure 10 from cited source.) North/South Pacific transect at 150°W.  ORIGINAL CAPTION: Vertical section of potential temperature (°C) along 150°W from data collected in 1991-1993 as part of the World Ocean Circulation Experiment. Data north of Hawaii were collected in 1984 (Talley et al., 1991). Potential temperature is the temperature a parcel of water would have if moved to the sea surface with no change in heat content, and is lower than measured temperature since temperature increases when water is compressed due to the high pressure in the ocean. Source and Image

The Argo floats operate mostly in the warmer area up top of Figure 3, above the lower thermocline (light blue). Average depth in this entire transect is much deeper than that, about 5,000 metres. So the Argo floats are measuring less than a quarter of the water in this part of the Pacific basin. Makes the whole question of oceanic heat content kinda iffy.

Kinda iffy is a vast understatement! The ARGO floats don’t even go to 2000 meters and yet we have temperature profiles at that depth.

The only reasonable conclusion is that based on the best data from ARGO the oceans are not warming, whether you are considering joules or temperature.

Thanks again Rob; by my reckoning that is another nail in the AGW coffin.