Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Racing Forum » Ken0069's Blog




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 417 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28  Next
Author Message
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Matt Ridley: Global Warming Versus Global Greening......SCEPTICS ARE WINNING THE CLIMATE ARGUMENT

Date: 18/10/16
2016 Annual GWPF Lecture

2016 ANNUAL GWPF LECTURE
The Royal Society, London
17 October 2016

Matt Ridley delivers the 2016 Annual GWPF Lecture at the Royal Society, London 17 October

Quote:
I have devoted most of my career to celebrating and chronicling scientific discovery. I think the scientific method is humankind’s greatest achievement, and that there is no higher calling.

So what I am about to say this evening about the state of climate science is not in any sense anti-science. It is anti the distortion and betrayal of science.

I am still in love with science as a philosophy; I greatly admire and like the vast majority of scientists I meet; but I am increasingly disaffected from science as an institution.

The way it handles climate change is a big part of the reason.

After covering global warming debates as a journalist on and off for almost 30 years, with initial credulity, then growing skepticism, I have come to the conclusion that the risk of dangerous global warming, now and in the future, has been greatly exaggerated while the policies enacted to mitigate the risk have done more harm than good, both economically and environmentally, and will continue to do so.

And I am treated as some kind of pariah for coming to this conclusion.

Why do I think the risk from global warming is being exaggerated? For four principal reasons.

1. All environmental predictions of doom always are;
2. the models have been consistently wrong for more than 30 years;
3. the best evidence indicates that climate sensitivity is relatively low;
4. the climate science establishment has a vested interest in alarm.

Global greening

I will come to those four points in a moment. But first I want to talk about global greening, the gradual, but large, increase in green vegetation on the planet.

Read the complete article HERE

Winning the argument

When Nigel Lawson set up GWPF in 2009, virtually everybody agreed that global warming was the greatest threat to humankind in the twenty-first century. Now almost nobody except those with a vested interest thinks that.

The proportion of Americans who are not worried at all about global warming has doubled since 1990. [Gallup poll, 1989-2015]

The presidential candidates are not talking about climate change because voters consider other issues more pressing. In one recent poll of Americans, just 3% said they think climate is the most important issue.

Most devastating of all, to those who have spent a fortune on propaganda, in a huge United Nations online poll of people all around the world, called My World, to which almost ten million people have now responded, action on climate change comes dead last, 16th, and by some margin – well behind the 15th priority, which is phone and internet access.

The sceptics, with their shoestring budgets, with zero public money, under constant assault, are winning the argument.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:25 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Here's a quote from Dr Roy Spencer, PHD on the state of "climate research" today!

Dr. Roy Spencer, PHD wrote:
Until climate science is funded independent of desired energy policy outcomes, we can continue to expect climate research results to be heavily biased in the direction of catastrophic outcomes.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 5:49 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Trump finds out about this one. All I can say on this one is Dr Schmitt better be finding himself a real job somewhere besides at NASA!!

Nasa scientist warns Donald Trump over interference
Thursday 17 November 2016

Senior NASA scientist suggests he could resign if Donald Trump tries to skew climate change research results

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 21416.html

Quote:
A senior Nasa scientist has told Donald Trump he is wrong if he thinks climate change is not happening and warned the President-elect that government scientists are “not going to stand” for any interference with their work. O:)

Mr Trump has described global warming as a “hoax” perpetrated by China, vowed to unratify the landmark Paris Agreement and appointed a renowned climate-change denier to a senior environmental position in his transition team.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:48 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Global Warming: Policy Hoax versus Dodgy Science
November 17th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Quote:
In the early 1990s I was visiting the White House Science Advisor, Sir Prof. Dr. Robert Watson, who was pontificating on how we had successfully regulated Freon to solve the ozone depletion problem, and now the next goal was to regulate carbon dioxide, which at that time was believed to be the sole cause of global warming.

I was a little amazed at this cart-before-the-horse approach. It really seemed to me that the policy goal was being set in stone, and now the newly-formed United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had the rather shady task of generating the science that would support the policy.

Now, 25 years later, public concern over global warming (aka climate change) remains at the bottom of the list of environmental concerns.

Why is that?

Maybe because people don’t see its effects in their daily lives.

1) By all objective measures, severe weather hasn’t gotten worse.

2) Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be.

3) CO2 is necessary for life on Earth. It has taken humanity 100 years of fossil fuel use to increase the atmospheric CO2 content from 3 parts to 4 parts per 10,000. (Please don’t compare our CO2 problem to Venus, which has 230,000 times as much CO2 as our atmosphere).

4) The extra CO2 is now being credited with causing global greening.

5) Despite handwringing over the agricultural impacts of climate change, current yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat are at record highs.

As an example of the disconnect between reality and the climate models which are being relied upon to guide energy policy, here are the yearly growing season average temperatures in the U.S 12-state corn belt (official NOAA data), compared to the average of the climate model projections used by the IPCC:
Image

Yes, there has been some recent warming. But so what? What is its cause? Is it unusual compared to previous centuries? Is it necessarily a bad thing?

And, most important from a policy perspective, What can we do about it anyway?

The Policy Hoax of Global Warming

Rush Limbaugh and I have had a good-natured mini-disagreement over his characterization of global warming as a “hoax”. President-elect Trump has also used the “hoax” term.

I would like to offer my perspective on the ways in which global warming is indeed a “hoax”, but also a legitimate subject of scientific study.

While it might sound cynical, global warming has been used politically in order for governments to gain control over the private sector. Bob Watson’s view was just one indication of this. As a former government employee, I can attest to the continuing angst civil servants have over remaining relevant to the taxpayers who pay their salaries, so there is a continuing desire to increase the role of government in our daily lives.

In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given a legitimate mandate to clean up our air and water. I remember the pollution crises we were experiencing in the 1960s. But as those problems were solved, the EPA found itself in the precarious position of possibly outliving its usefulness.

So, the EPA embarked on a mission of ever-increasing levels of regulation. Any manmade substance that had any evidence of being harmful in large concentrations was a target for regulation. I was at a Carolina Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA) meeting years ago where an EPA employee stated to the group that “we must never stop making the environment cleaner” (or something to that effect).

There were gasps from the audience.

You see, there is a legitimate role of the EPA to regulate clearly dangerous or harmful levels of manmade pollutants.

But it is not physically possible to make our environment 100% clean.

As we try to make the environment ever cleaner, the cost goes up dramatically. You can make your house 90% cleaner relatively easily, but making it 99% cleaner will take much more effort.

As any economist will tell you, money you spend on one thing is not available for other things, like health care. So, the risk of over-regulating pollution is that you end up killing more people than you save, because if there is one thing we know kills millions of people every year, it is poverty.

Global warming has become a reason for government to institute policies, whether they be a carbon tax or whatever, using a regulatory mechanism which the public would never agree to if they knew (1) how much it will cost them in reduced prosperity, and (2) how little effect it will have on the climate system.

So, the policy prescription does indeed become a hoax, because the public is being misled into believing that their actions are going to somehow make the climate “better”.

Even using the IPCC’s (and thus the EPA’s) numbers, there is nothing we can do energy policy-wise that will have any measurable effect on global temperatures.

In this regard, politicians using global warming as a policy tool to solve a perceived problem is indeed a hoax. The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources.

Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.

The Dodgy Science of Global Warming

The director of NASA/GISS, Gavin Schmidt, has just laid down the gauntlet with President-elect Trump to not mess with their global warming research.

Folks, it’s time to get out the popcorn.

Gavin is playing the same card that the former GISS director, James Hansen, played years ago when the Bush administration tried to “rein in” Hansen from talking unimpeded to the press and Congress.

At the time, I was the Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA/MSFC, and NASA had strict regulations regarding talking to the press and Congress. I abided by those regulations; Hansen did not. When I grew tired of them restricting my “freedoms” I exercised my freedom — to resign from NASA, and go to work at a university.

Hansen instead decided to play the ‘persecuted scientist’ card. After all, he (and his supporters in the environmental community) were out to Save The Earth ™ , and Gavin is now going down that path as well.

I can somewhat sympathize with Gavin that “climate change” is indeed a legitimate area of study. But he needs to realize that the EPA-like zeal that the funding agencies (NASA, NOAA, DOE, NSF) have used to characterize ALL climate change as human-caused AND as dangerous would eventually cause a backlash among those who pay the bills.

We The People aren’t that stupid.

So now climate research is finding itself at a crossroads. Scientists need to stop mischaracterizing global warming as settled science.

I like to say that global warming research isn’t rocket science — it is actually much more difficult. At best it is dodgy science, because there are so many uncertainties that you can get just about any answer you want out of climate models just by using those uncertianties as a tuning knob.

The only part that is relatively settled is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has probably contributed to recent warming. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is dangerous.

And it surely does not mean we can do anything about it… even if we wanted to.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:57 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Two posts up the page there's an article about Dr Gavin Schmidt making threats to Trump about the NASA Climate Science dept warning him that he (Schmidt) would quit if Trump messed with his dept. Message to Dr Schmidt....... FIND YOURSELF ANOTHER JOB/CAREER JACKASS BECAUSE YOU'RE DONE AT NASA!!

GOTTA LOVE IT!!


Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’

Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding as the president-elect seeks to shift focus away from home in favor of deep space exploration

Quote:
Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa as part of a crackdown on “politicized science”, his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said.

Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.
2016 locked into being hottest year on record, Nasa says
Read more

This would mean the elimination of Nasa’s world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. Nasa’s network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8bn in 2017.

Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.

“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.

“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”

Trump has previously said that climate change is a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese, although on Tuesday he said there is “some connectivity” between human actions and the climate. There is overwhelming and long-established evidence that burning fossil fuels and deforestation causes the release of heat-trapping gases, therefore causing the warming experienced in recent decades.

Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world. We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn’t interfere with it.”

It could put us back into the ‘dark ages’ ... Space research is a luxury, Earth observations are essential
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research

It’s understood that federal government scientists have been unnerved by Trump’s dismissal of climate science and are concerned that their work will be sidelined as part of a new pro-fossil fuels and deregulation agenda. Climate scientists at other organizations expressed dismay at the potential gutting of Earth-based research.

Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said as Nasa provides the scientific community with new instruments and techniques, the elimination of Earth sciences would be “a major setback if not devastating”.

“It could put us back into the ‘dark ages’ of almost the pre-satellite era,” he said. “It would be extremely short sighted.

“We live on planet Earth and there is much to discover, and it is essential to track and monitor many things from space. Information on planet Earth and its atmosphere and oceans is essential for our way of life. Space research is a luxury, Earth observations are essential.”
Paris climate deal: Trump says he now has an 'open mind' about accord
Read more

Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University, said Nasa has a “critical and unique role” in observing Earth and climate change.

“Without the support of Nasa, not only the US but the entire world would be taking a hard hit when it comes to understanding the behavior of our climate and the threats posed by human-caused climate change,” he said.

“It would be a blatantly political move, and would indicate the president-elect’s willingness to pander to the very same lobbyists and corporate interest groups he derided throughout the campaign.”

Nasa has appointed two officials, Tom Cremins and Jolene Meidinger, to lead the transition to the new Trump administration. However, the president-elect’s team has yet to formally review the space agency.

“The Nasa community is committed to doing whatever we can to assist in making the executive branch transition a smooth one,” a Nasa spokesman said. “The agency remains focused on the future, a future that will improve our understanding of our changing home planet from Nasa’s unique platforms in space.”

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Satellite Data Reinstates Global Temperature Pause

Date: 21/11/16
Dr David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor

Quote:
Satellite data indicates a large fall in the temperature of the lower Troposphere back to pre-El Nino levels. This decrease has reinstated the so-called “pause” in lower atmosphere temperature.

The decrease is seen in the land only data. Data from the sea shows a decline but not as much. This is expected given the ocean’s thermal lag. Data from the RSS group that provides satellite temperature services show that late-2016 temperatures have returned to the level it was at post-1998, Fig 1.

Image

This clearly shows the recent El Nino for what it is – a short term weather event. Now that it is over it can easily be seen that the lower Tropospheric temperature displays no long-tern trend between 1999 – 2016. The same is seen in the UAH analysis of the satellite data. Fig 2.

Image

Many have noticed that the strong El Nino of 1998 resulted in a “step-change” in lower atmospheric temperature. There is no reliable statistical evidence for an increase before it in the satellite data that was available in 1979. After 1998 the temperature did not return to its previous level but remained at a higher, stable level. It remains to be seen if the temperature will undergo another step-change. It’s very early days but on the sparse data available I think it seems unlikely.

From THIS link!

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Steepest drop in global temperature on record
Anthony Watts / 7 hours ago November 28, 2016

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sions.html

Quote:
Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures suggesting rise may not be down to man-made emissions

Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C
Comes amid mounting evidence run of record temperatures about to end
The fall, revealed by Nasa satellites, has been caused by the end of El Nino

Image

By David Rose

Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record. According to satellite data, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino.

The news comes amid mounting evidence that the recent run of world record high temperatures is about to end. The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, has been caused by the end of El Nino – the warming of surface waters in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America.

Some scientists, including Dr Gavin Schmidt, head of Nasa’s climate division, have claimed that the recent highs were mainly the result of long-term global warming.
Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans.

The new fall in temperatures suggests they were right.

Big El Ninos always have an immense impact on world weather, triggering higher than normal temperatures over huge swathes of the world. The 2015-16 El Nino was probably the strongest since accurate measurements began, with the water up to 3C warmer than usual.

It has now been replaced by a La Nina event – when the water in the same Pacific region turns colder than normal.

This also has worldwide impacts, driving temperatures down rather than up.
The satellite measurements over land respond quickly to El Nino and La Nina. Temperatures over the sea are also falling, but not as fast, because the sea retains heat for longer.

This means it is possible that by some yardsticks, 2016 will be declared as hot as 2015 or even slightly hotter – because El Nino did not vanish until the middle of the year.
But it is almost certain that next year, large falls will also be measured over the oceans, and by weather station thermometers on the surface of the planet – exactly as happened after the end of the last very strong El Nino in 1998. If so, some experts will be forced to eat their words.

Last year, Dr Schmidt said 2015 would have been a record hot year even without El Nino.
‘The reason why this is such a warm record year is because of the long-term underlying trend, the cumulative effect of the long-term warming trend of our Earth,’ he said. This was ‘mainly caused’ by the emission of greenhouse gases by humans.

Dr Schmidt also denied that there was any ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming between the 1998 and 2015 El Ninos.

But on its website home page yesterday, Nasa featured a new study which said there was a hiatus in global warming before the recent El Nino, and discussed why this was so. Last night Dr Schmidt had not returned a request for comment.

However, both his own position, and his Nasa division, may be in jeopardy. US President-elect Donald Trump is an avowed climate change sceptic, who once claimed it was a hoax invented by China.

Last week, Mr Trump’s science adviser Bob Walker said he was likely to axe Nasa’s $1.9 billion (about £1.4 billion) climate research budget.

Other experts have also disputed Dr Schmidt’s claims. Professor Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, and president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said yesterday: ‘I disagree with Gavin. The record warm years of 2015 and 2016 were primarily caused by the super El Nino.’

The slowdown in warming was, she added, real, and all the evidence suggested that since 1998, the rate of global warming has been much slower than predicted by computer models – about 1C per century.

David Whitehouse, a scientist who works with Lord Lawson’s sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the massive fall in temperatures following the end of El Nino meant the warming hiatus or slowdown may be coming back.

‘According to the satellites, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino.

The data clearly shows El Nino for what it was – a short-term weather event,’ he said.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 2:51 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Moscow – Coldest November in the 21st century
December 3, 2016

Quote:
And the wettest November in 39 years

1 Dec 2016 – The average temperature of the month was the lowest in 16 years. According VVC weather station it was -2.7, which is 1.5 degrees below normal. It is the coldest November since 1999.

Also, November was the wettest since 1977. During the month fell 92 mm, or 159% of the monthly norm. The biggest daily amount (25 mm) fell on November 11 in the form of freezing rain and sleet.

A rare case in history – the entire month saw lying snow. Typically, a steady snow cover is not formed until the end of November.

However in this case the greatest height was 15 cm on 7 November, with the average height during the month of 7 cm.

Climatic winter began in late October, whereas on it begins on 10 November.

https://www.gismeteo.ru/news/klimat/218 ... v-21-veke/

Also, “Bingo! -50ºC at one month before normal. In Siberian land (Verhojansk),” says Martin.
http://www.ogimet.com/cgi-bin/gsynext?l ... &Send=send

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 12:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
What is Next for Weather and Climate?
by Dr. Tim Ball
December 10, 2916

Quote:
The Trump administration is well aware of the political use and scientific abuse of climate for a political agenda. I learned how aware while attending the Heritage Foundation Climate Conference on Thursday December 8 in Washington D.C. The majority of the public sense there is something wrong as reflected in their lack of concern measured in all polls. They will be very angry when the extent of the deception is explained to them, as will happen as the new administration lays out the foundation for their policies. The question is what happens going forward. We know those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Similarly, you cannot prevent all misuses of any system and trying to do so only makes it inefficient and even unworkable. Science must be central to whatever direction taken.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cannot survive. It was designed to achieve a deceptive result by limiting the research to only human causes of climate change. They effectively made reform or change impossible because each set of Reports is cumulative. That is, each Report simply adds new information to a very limited number of variables. The reality is you can only determine the human impact by knowing and understanding all the variables and mechanisms of natural climate. Most of the public think the IPCC look at climate and climate change in total and IPCC participants and promoters did nothing to dissuade them of that error. This is part of the proof that IPCC creators had a singular political objective for which natural variability was a problem. Without the political objective there is no need for a government agency like the IPCC even to determine natural climate and climate change.

Maurice Strong set up the IPCC through the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This organization is comprised of weather bureaucrats from every UN member nation. They created, controlled, and promoted the IPCC agenda so that politicians had no choice, as Strong intended. This, and President Obama’s use of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are proof that bureaucracies must not have control going forward. Their role must be as passive collectors and disseminators of data. They should not be involved in research. This was a major part of the problem with the IPCC and weather office involvements. Scientific bureaucrats are automatically compromised by their career being subject to the whim and will of their political bosses. Skepticism, the very hallmark of science, is automatically stifled in such a hierarchical structure.

Global warming was chosen by those setting up the IPCC because they needed something they could claim was a global threat. It was a subset of Maurice Strong’s objective as Elaine Dewar determined after spending five days with him at the UN.

Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

Strong and his allies created a global threat that they then used to argue could only be resolved by a world government. That is not necessary as long as all the data is available to everyone so that any group can deal with local, regional, hemispheric or global weather and climate. Smaller groups offset the paradox of the ability for a few people to dominate with bigger groups. Smaller groups also accommodate the fact that different regions have markedly different geography and climate so the concerns and needs are different.

These differences were exploited by the IPCC. For example, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Report (ACIA) was prepared and controlled by a few people associated with Environment Canada (EC) who were able to present a very false picture. Despite this it became the definitive study for the entire section on Arctic climate in the IPCC Reports. People from other regions did not know about the errors or problems and so I was easily marginalized when I asked questions. The climate and problems of Australia are not the problems of Northern Canada. Indeed, they are not even the same for southern and northern Australia.

The WMO has a role to play and it was defined by Hubert Lamb as his reason for establishing the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

“…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 only role for WMO and all national weather offices is creation of a dense standardized grid of data collection stations including as many existing viable stations as possible. This should be integrated with the satellite data collection program. WMO will store the data and make it available at no charge to any person or group. This should include all proxy data, including everything from ice cores to tree rings to weather diaries. These agencies should only collect, store, and disseminate data. They should not do any research or forecasting. These are better left to the academic world or private enterprise as companies like Accuweather or individuals like Piers Corbyn demonstrate. It is hard to think of an area where successful results will more directly affect the viability of an enterprise than weather and climate forecasting. Indeed, a major part of the problem with government doing the job is it didn’t matter how often they were wrong there was no accountability or incentive to improve.

Besides taking the politics out of weather and climate science these changes will save money. The billions going to politically directed and useless climate change research will more than cover the data collection requirement.

It must begin with a campaign to offset the hysteria deliberately created by the founders and acolytes of the IPCC. This must be a joint campaign led by the US and any other like minded nation. At the Heritage Climate Conference one of the most effective speakers who understood the science and who confronted the challenge was Corbin Robinson Jr,, principal of Quintana Capital Group, from Texas. He said,

The coming climate science battle will also involve PowerPoints. Those who have doubts about whether humans are causing the planet to warm must develop bullet points of information easily digestible for public consumption to counteract the current climate science, the type that the average person can understand, …it was time for a broader outreach to counteract the notion that carbon dioxide from emissions was harming the planet. “I’m here with a call to action to you guys; it’s time to go on offense,” he said. “Develop a series of newspaper foldouts, develop a series of newspaper foldouts that explain CO2s, life on Earth and its beneficial effect on plant life. CO2 always was and always will be.”

This was the theme of my speech at the first Heartland Climate Conference in New York. It was also the major thrust of my involvement in establishing the Friends of Science in Calgary and the Galileo Movement in Australia. It is a challenge because the majority of the public, some 80 percent, are Arts students. I know what is needed after 25 years reaching a Science credit course for Arts students. I also know from giving hundreds of public lectures over 40 years, but especially from working with people in primary resource industries including forestry, fisheries and agriculture. The latter included writing a monthly column for Country Guide, the largest circulation Canadian farm magazine for 17 years and then an ongoing column for The Landowner since 2010. Hundreds of radio programs and most recently seven one hour Skype programs with Romanian TV. A producer contacted me after investigating the climate issue. He discovered that the Romanian people were only getting the IPCC view and he determined they should hear what they are not told.

I warned him that presenting this information was potentially dangerous. He said it was more important people know the all the science. My warning was because it is likely that my three lawsuits are related to my activities. Voltaire said

“It is dangerous to be right when people in authority are wrong.”

Many were unsure if the people in authority were finally right. Trump’s meetings with carbon footprint hypocrites Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, seemed to signal something different. All this was put to rest with the appointment of Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Conversations and information gleaned at the Heritage Climate Conference on Thursday assures me accurate climate science is in charge. The challenge is to deprogram the people, remove the exploitive agencies and rules they created, and set up a system that is as free of politics as possible.

As with all my articles, nothing is cast in stone. It is my summary of what has gone on and what I think is required going forward. It is written in the context of what is needed, namely open forums at which all ideas are given voice. From that collective wisdom we are most likely to get the best answers. It is in the spirit of the final stage of the American Revolution in which the people have access to information through the Internet. They can bypass the mainstream media, who have always acted as propagandists for the elites, to let the leaders know what they think.

From THIS article.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:01 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Met Office Data Confirms Record Drop Of Global Temperatures
Anthony Watts / 16 hours ago December 12, 2016
by David Rose

Quote:
New official data issued by the Met Office confirms that world average temperatures have plummeted since the middle of the year at a faster and steeper rate than at any time in the recent past.

Image

Cooling: New Met Office world data shows a big fall from heat spike caused by El Nino this year

The huge fall follows a report by this newspaper that temperatures had cooled after a record spike. Our story showed that these record high temperatures were triggered by naturally occurring but freak conditions caused by El Nino – and not, as had been previously suggested, by the cumulative effects of man-made global warming.

The Mail on Sunday’s report was picked up around the world and widely attacked by green propagandists as being ‘cherry-picked’ and based on ‘misinformation’. The report was, in fact, based on Nasa satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower atmosphere over land – which tend to show worldwide changes first, because the sea retains heat for longer.

It is true that the massive 2015-16 El Nino – probably the strongest ever seen – took place against a steady warming trend, most of which scientists believe has been caused by human CO2 emissions

However, now the drop in temperature is also showing up in the authoritative Met Office ‘Hadcrut4’ surface record, compiled from measurements from more than 3,000 weather stations located around the world on both sea and land.

To the end of October, the last month for which figures have been released, Hadcrut4 had fallen about 0.5C from its peak in the spring.
The reason is the end of El Nino. The natural phenomenon, which takes place every few years and has a huge impact on world weather, occurs when water in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America gets up to 3C hotter than usual.

It has now been replaced by a weak La Nina, when the water becomes colder than usual. This means temperatures may still have some way to fall.
El Nino is not caused by greenhouse gases and has nothing to do with climate change. It is true that the massive 2015-16 El Nino – probably the strongest ever seen – took place against a steady warming trend, most of which scientists believe has been caused by human emissions.

But when El Nino was triggering new records earlier this year, some downplayed its effects. For example, the Met Office said it contributed ‘only a few hundredths of a degree’ to the record heat. The size of the current fall suggests that this minimised its impact. When February produced a new hot record for that month, at the very peak of El Nino, newspapers in several countries claimed that this amounted to a ‘global climate emergency’, and showed the world was ‘hurtling’ towards the point when global warming would become truly dangerous. Now, apparently, the immediate threat has passed. It would be just as misleading to say lower temperatures caused by La Nina meant the world was into a new long-term cooling.

The Mail on Sunday’s report was picked up around the world and widely attacked by green propagandists as being ‘cherry-picked’ and based on ‘misinformation’
But the big question is: what will happen when both El Nino and La Nina are over and the Pacific water returns to its ‘neutral’, average state?
Professor Judith Curry, of Georgia Tech in Atlanta, who is president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said it would take years before it was clear whether the long-term warming trend was slowing down, staying the same or accelerating.

‘The bottom line is that we can’t read too much into the temperatures of a year or two,’ she said. ‘We will need the perspective of another five years to understand what is going on.’

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Trump Wants To Know How Much Taxpayer Money The State Department Gives Environmental Groups O:) =D>
Michael Bastasch

From THIS article!

Quote:
President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is asking the Department of State how much it gives to environmental groups for global warming programs.

“How much does the Department of State contribute annually to international environmental organizations in which the department participates?” reads one question on a list sent to the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, multiple sources told The Washington Post.

It’s not clear what groups Trump is looking at, but before the election, Trump said he’d “cancel billions of dollars in global warming payments to the United Nations” and reallocate that money to domestic environmental projects.

Trump’s team clarified he would “cancel all wasteful climate change spending,” including funding going to the U.N. Trump’s team claims cutting this spending could save $100 billion over eight years. Auditors estimated federal agencies spent $77 billion on climate programs from 2008 and 2013.

Trump could be referring to the Green Climate Fund, or possibly he’s referring to funding given to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

President Obama pledged $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), but has only sent $500 million. The letter has activists riled up.

Indeed, activists were already concerned by a letter sent by the transition team to the Department of Energy (DOE) asking for the names of employees who worked on climate programs and attended the U.N.’s summit.

That questionnaire sparked a conspiracy theory Trump would intimidate scientists and delete public climate data. These theories are completely unsupported by statements from Trump’s team.

Trump’s team disavowed the DOE questionnaire, but it’s already sparked cries from lawmakers to hold hearings on the matter. DOE refused to hand over any employee names to the transition team.

The State Department, on the other hand, said the transition team’s questions were “legitimate.”

“They are legitimately looking at the organization of things here at Foggy Bottom, and asking responsible questions about how the State Department is organized, how it’s resourced, how it’s managed, and trying to get a handle on the organization they will inherit in a few weeks,” an anonymous official told the Post. “It’s legitimate. It’s normal. It’s responsible. If they weren’t doing it, you’d be asking questions.”

“We are helping, providing information on request. If they ask, they get it. We want them to succeed. A big part of that is getting a firm grip on things,” said the source.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:51 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans
Investigation claims Obama admin retaliated against scientists, politicized DoE
BY: Adam Kredo
December 20, 2016 3:00 pm

http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress ... nge-plans/

Quote:
A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.

A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.

The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.

The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.

“Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,” Smith said in a statement. “In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line.”

“Moving forward, the department needs to overhaul its management practices to ensure that Congress is provided the information it requires to legislate and that federal employees and scientists who provide that information do so without fear of retribution,” Smith said.

The report goes into Congress’ efforts to regulate the Low Dose Radiation Research Program, or LDRRP, which sought to test the impact of radiation on human beings. The program, started in the 1990s, was meant to support research into waste cleanup and the impact of nuclear weapons.

In mid-2014, lawmakers introduced legislation, the Low Dose Radiation Act of 2014, to help regulate the program and minimize harmful side effects.

During an October 2014 briefing with senior DoE staff on the matter, lawmakers heard testimony from Dr. Noelle Metting, the radiation research program’s manager.

Less than a month later, lawmakers discovered that Obama administration officials had “removed Dr. Metting from federal service for allegedly providing too much information in response to questions posed by” Congress during the briefing, the report states.

Congressional investigators later determined that the administration’s “actions to remove Dr. Metting were, in part, retaliation against Dr. Metting because she refused to conform to the predetermined remarks and talking points designed by Management to undermine the advancement of” the 2014 radiation act.

Emails unearthed during the investigation “show a sequence of events leading to a premeditated scheme by senior DoE employees ‘to squash the prospects of Senate support'” for the radiation act, a move that lawmakers claim was meant to help advance President Obama’s own climate change goals.

“The committee has learned that one of DoE’s stated purposes for Dr. Metting’s removal from federal service was her failure to confine the discussion at the briefing to pre-approved talking points,” according to the report. “The committee has also established that DoE management … failed to exercise even a minimal standard of care to avoid chilling other agency scientists as a result of the retaliation against Dr. Metting for her refusal to censor information from Congress.”

The investigation concluded that “DoE placed its own priorities to further the president’s Climate Action Plan before its constitutional obligations to be candid with Congress,” the report states. “The DoE’s actions constitute a reckless and calculated attack on the legislative process itself, which undermines the power of Congress to legislate. The committee further concludes that DoE’s disregard for separation of powers is not limited to a small group of employees, but rather is an institutional problem that must be corrected by overhauling its management practices with respect to its relationship with the Congress.”

These moves by the administration were part of an effort to secure full funding for the president’s climate change agenda, the report claims.

“Instead of working to understand the value of the LDRRP for emergency situations, DoE Management engaged in a campaign to terminate research programs that could divert funds from the president’s Climate Action Plan,” the report states.

Congress is recommending a full overhaul of the DoE’s management structure in order to ensure this type of situation does not occur again.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2016 11:39 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering
Posted on December 28, 2016 by tonyheller

Quote:
Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.

Image
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-r ... 2016-21003

The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones.

Image

They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows.

Image
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-seri ... eyear=2000

The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century

Image

See this entire article complete with more graphs and links HERE!

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:21 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Strong December Cooling Leads to 2016 Being Statistically Indistinguishable from 1998
January 3rd, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

http://whttp://www.drroyspencer.com/201 ... than-1998/

Quote:
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December 2016 was +0.24 deg. C, down substantially from the November value of +0.45 deg. C

Image

The resulting 2016 annual average global temperature anomaly is +0.50 deg. C, which is (a statistically insignificant) 0.02 deg. C warmer than 1998 at +0.48 deg. C. We estimate that 2016 would have had to be 0.10 C warmer than 1998 to be significantly different at the 95% confidence level. Both 2016 and 1998 were strong El Nino years.

See the rest of the data on this HERE!

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:09 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Hey, I thought "climate change" was responsible for the drought in Mexiformia? If so, then why this happening given that 2016 TIED 1998 as the "warmest" year on record?? :-

Satellite Reveals End of “Unending” N. California Drought
January 14th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/sat ... a-drought/

Quote:
With more rain and snow on the way, the supposed “unending drought” that the New York Times reported on last year has, in a matter of weeks, ended — at least in Northern California.

Yesterday’s color satellite imagery from NASA shows the dramatic changes which have occurred since the same date three years ago:

– Widespread and deep snowpack
– Greening vegetation
– Rivers overflowing their banks
– Strong river discharge into the Pacific Ocean

Image
NASA Aqua MODIS color satellite imagery of N. California separated by exactly three years, showing
dramatic snowpack increase, vegetation greening, and river discharge into the Pacific Ocean.

Here’s a zoomed version of the NASA Terra MODIS image yesterday covering the San Francisco Bay area northeastward toward Sacramento:
Image

The latest GFS model forecast for the next 10 days predicts another 2 to 10 inches of rain, depending on location, with several more feet of snow at higher elevations.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 417 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28  Next

Board index » Racing Forum » Ken0069's Blog


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron