I nearly fell off my seat.

I read saw an article in the Daily Mail

Obama mocks GOP global warming skeptics and says they ‘pretend’ they ‘can’t read’ – but ignores new claims that the US has been COOLING since the 1930s

It sounded suitably boring – I forgot to mention amongst the last bunkers of the catastrophists was Obama – but as his climate ravings aren’t even supported by his own officials. (100 percent consensus finally achieved on climate) and he’s now a dead duck president …

However, it was not immediately clear whether it was pro anti or even “considered” The bullet points suggested pro, until the last:

  • The president spoke to a partisan audience of environmental activists on Wednesday night in Washington
  • He claimed GOP lawmakers believe global warming is real but won’t admit it because they’re afraid of ‘a bunch fringe elements’ in their own party ‘They ducked the question and said “Hey, I’m not a scientist”,’ Obama joked
  • Obama ignored new evidence that American scientists have been altering climate data for years
  • The US Historical Climatology Network has been adjusting its records by replacing temperatures with data fabricated by computer models

And then I saw the picture from steven goddard’s blog. The typical “not exactly profeesional” cobbled together picture of a blogger staring out at me from the Daily Mail.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2671146/Obama-mocks-GOP-global-warming-skeptics-says-pretend-read.html#ixzz36xS7M7xk

Posted in climate | Leave a comment

How much would the BBC get on the open market?

If the British government just put the BBC up for sale lock stock and barrel, how much would we get for it?

Posted in climate | 2 Comments

BBC: Is this the dead cat bounding?

Keeping up to date on climate stories in the news and blogs, it is just a fact that the world has turned skeptical. A few years ago, people were literally afraid to own up to being a skeptic. Today, it would seem as daft as not owning up to liking ABBA.

Likewise, the few catastrophist news articles that now appear amongst the mass of climate tittle tattle of which most a skeptical in some way or other just don’t seem important. They are either reruns of stories which might have been scary the first time, they might have been worth reading when the first lesser spotted goat toad was nearing extinction – but now when the same less spotted goad toad is still nearing extinction a decade later, people are just growing bored of them.

There are now very few places in public life where the climate zealots still have total control. The BBC is a notable example, Wikipedia is another and presumably the Australian ABC. Notice, I’ve not said the Guardian. Even at the Guardian I’ve noticed a skeptical edge to their reporting. So, I’m not sure if the zealots haven’t had their feathers trimmed there recently.

So, in the present majority skeptic news coverage, the BBC’s return to pure climate zealotry and the denial of impartiality is all the more remarkable.

However, the importance is not that the BBC will change any minds, but that it shows the growing irrelevance of the BBC. It is a simple fact, the BBC lost their credibility on climate reporting long ago. No one now pays any attention to the BBC on climate (nor much else if my children are typical), and the only reason most skeptics are annoyed is because they are wasting our money on their obsession.

But in a sense, the very fact the BBC now feel that they can return to zealotry is an admission by the BBC that it doesn’t have any credibility left to lose on climate. Continue reading

Posted in climate | 2 Comments

Another academic shows they are clueless on climate.

Over at “The End of Physics” we find a gem of a piece from this academic who says:

This one is particularly irritating because it’s essentially a silly circular argument. “Yes, we’ve warmed. However, we can’t tell, using a statistical model, if that warming was natural or not. Also, the only way we can tell if it is statistically significant is using a statistical model. Therefore we don’t know if it is natural or not.”

You’d like to think that people might eventually be embarrassed to have made such an argument.

On the positive side, he seems to have grasped the basic theory that one requires a model of “what is normal” in order to tell what is “abnormal”, but on the negative side, instead of admitting this means we do not have any certainty of human causation, he instead cannot bring himself to accept this, so turns the argument on its head to claim: “because we must be able to know it’s caused by mankind … it’s silly for skeptics to demand that we know what is normal …” before he jumps in like the big twit he is to say “of course global temperature is abnormal … I know because I’m a omnipotent academic and therefore the basic laws of physics and statistics must be wrong.

It’s a basic requirement that in order to know what is abnormal, we must first know what is normal.

Continue reading

Posted in climate | 9 Comments

It is morally wrong to pay the BBC TV charge

The BBC have been given ample chance to obey the legal requirements of its own charter. It has failed to do so.

There is no ambiguity in this.

If your views are scientifically skeptic, whether someone like Bob Carter, who is fully qualified to speak on the science, someone like Lord Lawson who more than qualified to speak on the policy implications or someone like me who is qualified to speak on almost any area, we are all being banned in favour of a narrow minded view from a narrow group of climate catastrophists who represent no science, no evidence, nothing but their own narrow minded bigotry: a hatred for all the advances we gave the world through our  industrial society.

As such, the BBC is now an illegal organisation and paying the TV charge would be funding an illegal organisation.

It is morally & legally wrong to pay the BBC TV charge.

BBC has lost its balance over climate change Continue reading

Posted in climate | 5 Comments

“Green” Energy Suspected of killing Red Kites to Clear for Windparks

Red Kite (from Wikipedia)

Red Kite
(from Wikipedia)

By P Gosselin on 7. Juli 2014

The dispute over windpark development on some of Germany’s most idyllic landscapes is heating up rapidly and massively. And should the dispute continue on its current trajectory, it won’t be long before the ugly contraptions get stopped for good.

The dispute reached a boiling point recently with windpark opponents suspecting green energy activists of poisoning birdlife in order clear the way for an unobstructed windpark permitting.

According to south Germany’s online Stuttgarter Nachrichten, a number protected red kites have been found poisoned by the E 605 herbicide – in rural areas that just happen to be sited for the installation of large-scale industrial windparks.

See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/07/green-industry-suspected-of-red-kite-cleansing-to-clear-the-way-for-windpark-permitting/#sthash.SaPNoCQw.dpuf


Posted in climate | 2 Comments

The Skeptic demands: temperature data (draft)

Judith Curry: trying your best is not the same as delivering something fit for purpose

Judith Curry: trying your best is not the same as delivering something fit for purpose

Judith Curry had a post today which just made my blood boil when she tried to excuse the appalling culture within those groups producing a “global temperature figure” by saying “They are doing their best”. In my experience, that comment is usually only said when someone has done an appalling bad job – with poor quality materials, methods and training. So I posted a quick list of what I thought was needed:

1. Fully audited methodology and systems
2. Quality assurance to ISO9000
3. Some come back WHEN we find out they weren’t doing the job to the standard required that doesn’t involve putting them in jail.
4. Accountability to the public – that is to say – they stop saying “we are doing our best” and start saying “what is it you need us to do”.

Before I go much further I would be interested in some feedback. At the heart of my proposal is the need to remove the compilation of a “global temperature” figure from the current academics who just don’t seem to be up to the job. So what would we have instead? Continue reading

Posted in climate | 17 Comments

Time to Deny the Establishment Broadcasting Company its funding

In my last post I said the BBC are really just “The Establishment Broadcasting Company” – the broadcaster of and for the establishment. Their view was outdated in the era of empire radio in the 1920s when they were founded, but today it is totally at odds with modern society and our internet peer-to-peer communication which has more or less broken down the presumed barriers and authority of the “establishment”. But,

the EBC just cannot get it.

Jimmy Saville Paedophile and protected by the establishment at the EBC

Jimmy Saville Paedophile and protected by the establishment at the EBC

It just get worse and worse see this on Bishop Hill: New BBC policy: right is wrong, wrong is right.

For example they will allow all the following to speak on climate:

  1. Nurse – a geneticist
  2. Walport – medical science
  3. Jones (of the notorious Jones report into BBC impartiality) research into medical areas.
  4. Lord Lawson – not a scientist – just a member of the establishment

In contrast, someone like me, when chairman of the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum (the only group representing skeptics) who (like Andrew or many other skeptics) had a climate relevant degree (physics), who  has worked in renewables and studied climate for years…

was totally ignored despite the BBC knowing full well who I am and my qualifications.

This proves the EBC take only one thing into account:

“are you part of the establishment”? Continue reading

Posted in climate | 5 Comments

Time to reform the Biased Broadcasting Company

The BBC, a dinosaur organisation created in the era of empire radio, still sees its mission as being the mouth piece of the establishment. As such it epitomises the patronising establishment preaching to the uncouth, uneducated, non-establishment plebs.

That view was outdated even in 1927 when it started preaching. Today, when 50% get a university education and the public no longer have to take our information from the likes of the BBC, their “we only broadcast establishment views and not the hoy paloi” view makes them unfit as a PUBLIC service broadcaster.

In particular, the way they constantly refuse to publish any views or interview anyone with climate-relavent qualification who is not part of the establishment is a crime. (Their charter is legally biding)

The BBC is not the EBC – the Establishment Broadcasting Company

So this news via the GWPF is great news:

More than half the public think the television licence fee should be scrapped and the BBC forced to find new ways to fund itself, according to a poll published today.

Sajid Javid

Sajid Javid, the Culture Secretary, says he is prepared to be radical in reconsidering BBC funding Photo: Bethany Clarke

The broadcaster should generate income from advertising rather than relying on taxes or higher licence fee funds, the findings suggest.

There is also substantial support for replacing the licence fee with a subscription charge which is paid only by those wanting to view BBC programmes.

The results, from a survey of more than 2,000 people by ComRes, come as ministers and BBC executives prepare for the government’s review of the broadcaster’s charter in 2016.

Read More at GWPF

Posted in climate | Leave a comment

Mathematical requirement for fractals? Implications for 1/f noise and climate.

Fractal systems all have feedbacks. They all have infinite self-similar states at different scale. As such it seems the fractal nature is caused by the feedback. Therefore I suggest that if P is the probability function of a system describing all these self-similarities. For a fractal system, the feedback must be such that the in general the probability function itself is in some sense fractal with the result that the feedback causes the number of self-similar states to increase whilst the probability of each self-similarity state. The result is that the feedback, tends to increase the information content (proportional to -ln(p)) so that it tends to infinity.

Applying this to 1/f type noise as is often seen in the climate ( see Global Warming disproved: Bad posts, CET, Antarctic Ice and Fractal Noise), As 1/f noise appears in general to be fractal, then it appears only necessary to show that the complexity of the system and self-similarity increases due to feedbacks to show that they are fractal noise.

Or conversely, it may be that 1/f type noise (which no one seems to know how it originates) is a system where the feedback increases the number of self-similar states or put another way, each feedback increases the complexity and information of the system.

This is in contrast to white noise which is seen to be due to physical processes such as the discrete nature of electrons or nuclear decay. So 1/f type noise, may not be the result of physical properties as such, but the result of certain types of feedback mechanisms which create chaos of this form.

Posted in climate | 2 Comments

Advanced Green House Theory

I want to explore how the adiabatic cooling as we move up the atmosphere works with radiant cooling. I hope this post will clarify the concept. However first, the other relevant discussions:

In this first post The CO2 Green-house effect is real (sometimes), I introduced the Advanced Green-House Gas Theory in its simplest form which is a semi-transparent layer in an otherwise transparent atmosphere.

In the second post Reconciling skydragons and mainstream skeptics? , I clarified some points and showed how the Advanced Green-House Theory is compatible with both the Basic Green-House Theory (which is very problematic) and the Skydragon ideas of adiabatic cooling.

Finally there is an excellent discussion at Tallbloke

Definition: Green-House Warming

Before I start, I want to stop arguments of the form “greenhouse warming doesn’t exist because its not what we mean by it”. So instead of the wooly conceptual definition which no one really seems to know what it means, I want to define “green-house warming” in a way that isn’t linked to a particular theory but is a general concept. So, I am defining the Green-House Effect in this quantifiable form:

“The amount the real world is warmer than a theoretical world with no atmosphere.

Continue reading

Posted in climate | 11 Comments

Salmond pins hopes on Muckle as EU court scotches plans to grab sassenach subsidy

I was going to write on this but Tallbloke has already done a great job.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Oh noes! H/T to Oldbrew for spotting this GWPF story culled from the Times:

josh-hammer-of-the-scots Don’t forget to visit cartoonsbyjosh.com and buy something

Date: 04/07/14 Peter Jones, The Times

Alex Salmond’s hopes that the economy of an independent Scotland could rely on expanding renewable energy generation have been crippled by a European Court of Justice ruling.

The court has said that no government must pay subsidies to renewable generators in another country. The ruling removes any legal foundation for the first minister’s claim that the rest of Britain would continue to pay a subsidy — more than £500 million a year — to Scottish renewable generators for their green energy.

Pro-Union sources said that the ruling could mean higher energy bills after a “yes” vote. It also leaves the future of the industry, if there is a “yes” vote, resting on the…

View original post 165 more words

Posted in climate | 2 Comments

Skydragons: good physics – appalling PR.

Skydragons were right on the physics, but appallingly wrong on the PR. What they are describing is the greenhouse effect by another name. But by denying the (Noddy) “greenhouse effect”, on climate alarmist sites,  they have done untold damage to themselves and caused all skeptics to be labelled as “deniers”.

For details of “Advanced Greenhouse Theory” see: Reconciling skydragons and mainstream skeptics?

Note: I suspect “skydragon” may be derogatory. Unfortunately, I don’t know another term and I need to refer to this group by some name so apologies to all “skydragons”.

I first encountered a skydragon, when doing the “sceptic view“. Their view was a big headache for me when trying to pull together a “consensus” view, because it was only one or two people within the group nebulously called “skeptics” that were presenting what appeared to be a very different view rejecting “greenhouse warming”.

I had to find out why they were presenting this view and whether there was any validity in what they were saying. I read what I could find and eventually came to a very good paper by an East European who seemed to have a good argument showing that all the supposed “greenhouse warming” could be explained by adiabatic (and similar) cooling through the atmosphere.

This was a paradox. I could not fault the physics, nor was the basic idea of greenhouse warming wrong (even if I felt there were problems). Eventually all I could do was to say “and there is also a group of skeptics who have other views on greenhouse warming”. Continue reading

Posted in climate | 20 Comments

Reconciling skydragons and mainstream skeptics?

Greenhouse gases, are not so much “trapping” heat, as acting by “tapping” heat. They are acting as a vector (tap) enabling the flow of energy between the adiabatic controlled atmosphere and the IR radiation that eventually leaves the atmosphere. And it is because the adiabatic cooling reduces the temperature, that the apparent temperature of earth from space is cooled. This may reconcile the “Dragon slayers” with mainstream skeptic views.

Introduction: why colder means warmer

The warmer windows are warmer because to lose more heat.

The warmer windows are warmer because to lose more heat.

Talking through my post yesterday with a physicist (The CO2 Greenhouse effect is real (sometimes), it was clear I needed to spend a bit more time explaining what may appear counter intuitive. That is why when the apparent temperature of the earth from space decreases, that this must mean the planet is warmer.

This is easiest to explain using the analogy of a house. To the right is a thermal image of a house, clearly showing the windows and doors are much warmer than the better insulated walls and roof. Why are they warmer? Because the internal heat can more easily penetrate the thin insulation of windows and doors. So, for a constant level of heating (at night**), if all the house were covered in the glass windows with the red (hot) appearance, then more heat would be lost from inside. Conversely, if there were no windows or doors all the outside would be the cold blue and less heat would be lost. Continue reading

Posted in climate | Tagged , , | 44 Comments

The CO2 Greenhouse effect is real (sometimes)

Note: I’m not going to say anything more than this obviously does not refer to a real glass greenhouse and how it works.

I’ve a couple of times heard statements to the effect that the greenhouse effect is not scientific or even that there is no greenhouse effect.

Whilst the CO2 effect is “proven science” in a general sense that rising CO2 should increase global temperature, I have to sympathise with the view that it’s not science as the greenhouse effect is not a universal “law” but instead the way a real atmosphere tends to work in practice. So, I will try to explain how I understand it.

The Blanket Analogy: a Wet Blanket

To those think CO2 warming is “obvious”. You clearly don’t understand it. The atmosphere is far more complex than the simple idea of a “blanket”. And to those who think in simple terms such as “blanket = warming” because when a blanket is put around a hot person it warms them, answer me this:

If you put a blanket on an outdoor concrete surface will it get hotter or colder? Continue reading

Posted in climate | 20 Comments

Help needed! What’s difficult about fractal noise?

Lost and Confused SignpostI need help. I’ve many times tried to get a discussion going on 1/f noise so that I can understand how to put over this subject so that it is understandable.

And let me be blunt, if only I could get people to understand this, they would never again concern themselves with “manmade global warming”.

Yet, no one ever seems to comment.

I don’t get any idea where anyone is having problems. But again when I saw a chance to bring up this subject using the similarity of the Antarctic Ice and Central England Record, to show that they are both 1/f type noise, no one commented – I thought this time someone might get it and I would have some kind of response.

So, what’s wrong with this article:

Global Warming disproved: Bad posts, CET, Antarctic Ice and Fractal Noise

I mean it. Global Warming disproved. – at least “Global warming” in the sense used by the warmest as something “manmade” or a change that is recent. If only people could understand it and the implications, then it’s all over and we can all go home.

But never have I had anyone comment on what I’ve said.

And, it’s not like I didn’t put it prominently in my submission to parliament after Climategate:

I’ve no idea what it is that people are missing.

I can understand why the issue arises. I used to design very sensitive analogue circuits where this type of noise was very important. So I was dealing with these types of things all the time, and it just seems second nature to me. So what might be obvious to me might be intractable gobble-de-hook to someone else. And likely if I simplify it in the wrong way it just gets worse.

But unless I get some comments, I have no idea where I need to improve. What is wrong with the way I’m presenting this. I’m completely stumped and really do not know how to approach this subject so that people understand.

Posted in climate | 32 Comments

Herald: Scotland has modest shale gas and oil resources, survey suggests

This looks an important article for energy supplies in Scotland.

Monday 30 June 2014

Scotland has modest shale gas and oil resources, an assessment by the British Geological Survey suggests.

The estimates for the Midland Valley suggest shale gas resources of 80 trillion cubic feet – considerably lower than the 1,300 trillion cubic feet thought to be in the Bowland shale in northern England.

There is an estimated 6 billion barrels of shale oil in the area, which stretches across Scotland and includes Glasgow and Edinburgh, slightly more than the central estimate of 4.4 billion barrels in the Weald Basin in southern England.

But the amount of gas and oil that can be extracted from the shale is likely to be far lower than the total resource. In the US shale oil exploration has only been able to access up to 10% of the total oil. Continue reading

Posted in climate | 3 Comments

Global Warming disproved: Bad posts, CET, Antarctic Ice and Fractal Noise

I was caught out this morning seeing a graph of Antarctic Ice (unlabelled) which I took to be a plot of the Central England Temperature series.

The fact I was confused is proof that that global warming is non-science.

So, I will now explain how this kind of mistake arises.

In my case, I was misled because I wrongly took the Antarctic ice level graph to be that of Central England Temperature series.

So I though it would be worth comparing the two.

Antarctic Ice levels

Central England Temperature

And yes! as I had thought, the two look remarkably similar particualarly in the right hand side which I highlight (Antarctic Ice 2005-1014, CET 1920-2010). Note there is no way they can be related as not only are they different physical entities, but very different time periods.

Indeed, I can see now how similar they look.

Fractal Noise Continue reading

Posted in climate | 8 Comments

Climate Insanity: “Deniers should be executed?”

OK – I ADMIT IT – I’ve been caught out by a spoof post. Tom Moriarty is actually a skeptic.

========My Original Post (funny in retrospect!)========

I went to look at uClimate an I was unprepared for this filth:

Based on this data it is obvious that it is high time that the deniers are rounded up and punished (executed?) for their greed inspired destruction of the planet.

My immediate thought was that such statements are hate-speech and depending on what else is said could construe an incitement to violence. As such I would have to report the individual to the police (if UK based).

So I went to check what else was in the article it read:

The Climate deniers are taking it on the chin again today as another independent source confirms the climate hockey stick that was first revealed by Michael Mann.  It is getting harder and harder for those corporate sponsored capitalist luddites to hide the truth about runaway effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.

What could be clearer than the rapidly rising temperature seen in the blade of the hockey stick on the right side of the graph? Based on this data, it is high time that the deniers are rounded up and punished (executed?) for their greed inspired destruction of the planet. (link)

And what it is that is causing them to commit criminal acts of hatred?


Climate Insanity’s Hockey Stick

Mann's hockey stick

Mann’s hockey stick

And yes, they do look vaguely similar. And yes both are hockey sticls. However, there is small problem with this comparison. Mann’s is from 1000AD whilst Climate Insanity’s is from 1979. Mann’s reconstruction stops around 2000, Climate Insanity’s stops in 2014. So what happens when we compare the years that they have in common?

Mann's Hockey Stick from 1975-2000

Mann’s Hockey Stick from 1975-2000

Mann's hockey stick from 1975-2000

Mann’s hockey stick from 1975-2000

Climate Insanity’s hockey stick disappears, leaving a graph that if anything “disproves” Mann’s hockeystick**.

Indeed, all the “uptick” is post Climategate so clearly post Mann’s hockeystick.

This just shows the mindset, attitude and critical faculty we skeptics are up against.

  • Zealots who jump on any evidence which they imagine supports their case
  • Zealots who cannot understand something as simple as the need to compare data from the same period
  • Zealots who as soon as they imagine in their deluded minds that they have “proven” us wrong, call for us to be executed.

They need psychiatric help.


Checking the “about” section I find this statement (which hardly seems credible):

Tom Moriarty is a Senior Scientist at the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  He has extensive experience in testing photovoltaic devices of all varieties, from basic silicon to the highest efficiency multi-junction devices and newly emerging organic technologies.

He has a masters degree in Physics and previous experience in two other national laboratories, Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.  Additionally, he worked for several years in the Gates Rubber Company Advanced Materials Analysis Lab in Denver, Colorado.

**I’m not claiming this graph proves anything except that this zealot is a rather nasty person who is unable to understand even a very simple graph.

Posted in climate | 11 Comments

One More Time …..

Can someone please explain to me how this graph hasn’t caused those involved to be hauled up in court to explain themselves?


After looking back at Steven Goddards previous graphs I found this quote:

This is heinous enough, but I started thinking about it and realized that it doesn’t make any sense. We have seen hundreds of examples of them cooling the past, and their graph above doesn’t show that. So I calculated the actual adjustment by averaging all valid daily minimum and maximum temperatures at all USHCN stations (per year) and compared them to what they publish.

Unfortunately this is not comparing apples with apples. However nor am I convinced such a change can be just ignored. There is something seriously wrong if the dataset has been modified to the extent there is a ~1C change. Even if we assume good intention (and given the history of climatology that is not something I would readily believe), there is a serious risk of introducing errors if the dataset has had such a massive change over time.

The excuse that this is just the artifact of gridding is not enough. Gridding only adjusts to ensure compatible values within a geographic box. What it does not do, is compensate where all stations of a particular kind are removed. So, if there is a tendency to remove stations on the outskirts of cities (where we expert urban heating), no amount of gridding can compensate.

So for there to have been an underlying trend this large suggests that there has not been a randomised removal of stations. Stations favouring cooling have been disproportionately taken out.

Real Science

I have posted this graph dozens of times, and hopefully this time it will be clear to everyone. The graph shows the average final temperature for all USHCN stations minus the average raw temperature for all USHCN stations.  This is a very simple calculation which shows the average adjustment for all USHCN stations.

It shouldn’t be a surprise to NOAA or anybody else that an exponential increase in adjustments is occurring, as I have been showing the same graph (crying wolf) for many years.

ScreenHunter_687 Jun. 28 14.49

View original post

Posted in climate | Leave a comment