« August 2013 | Main | October 2013 »
Obviously, per this article, Monash University condones the silencing of scientific debate and comforts those that proselytize the green religion fanaticism.
This article makes abundantly clear that Michael Brown, a "scientist", really isn't a scientist.
Scientists don't ignore and reject the actual empirical evidence that challenges the consensus or orthodoxy. Only fanatics do that, which his blind faith in the IPCC scripture confirms.
The tech giant that spouts the 'Do No Evil' tag line often acts contrary to that principle.
Watch here and see if that's the case.
Let's summarize.
Google not only wants to completely infiltrate your privacy via their multiple software apps, they then boldly share it with Obama's NSA agency.
Then Google adds a huge dose of hypocrisy (and evil, some would say) by spewing ginormous amounts of CO2 emissions for personal pleasure on their fleet of huge private jets.
And by taking advantage of an extremely close arrangement with the Feds, Google avoids paying local taxes on its aviation fleet, unlike other corporations.
To top off their unrepentant, "elite" behavior, the billionaires who own and run Google for some reason need to have average U.S. taxpayers fund their obscene luxury with gigantic subsidies for aviation fuel.
Hmmm....time to break up Google and sever its cozy U.S. government arrangements?
One of the world's "elite" and celebrity scientists, and a major force in global warming alarmism, provided a Twilight Zone interview (details here and here) in Australia.
That interview confirms the worst about most scientists who support the "consensus" science hyping catastrophic global warming/climate change alarmism.
David Suzuki's comments epitomize the vast majority of today's "consensus" scientists in several ways.
First, the ignorance of the actual global warming and climate change science is legendary regarding the "consensus" community, which Suzuki proved in spades. These alarmist scientists eagerly accept future climate simulations as empirical evidence, bizarrely not realizing the model output is 'simulated', not even possibly qualifying to be considered empirical evidence.
Second, Suzuki's reliance on what the "climatologists to tell us" and "wait for the IPCC report" smacks of the fanatical faith in a religion, accepting the priestly proclamations when properly delivered, instead of acting like an actual scientist who thinks about, questions and challenges the orthodox science. One immediately knows that they are listening to a fanatic when these or similar utterances are heard, and unfortunately, the majority of "consensus" scientists say the same.
Third, the fact that Suzuki does not have even possess a sliver of actual, real world climate science reveals a complete utter contempt for the public and taxpayers. It is they who will have to shoulder a multi-trillion dollar burden of changing from a fossil-fueled civilization that Suzuki and his like-minded alarmist-scientist flock proposes and demands.
As with the previous 'Today's Climate Denier-Liar-BSer' personalities, David Suzuki should not be believed or trusted regarding any statement on global warming and climate change. Objectively, anything he says is highly likely to be false. End of story.
Climate Audit provides a clear summation of the significant issue of a global warming hiatus ('pause') since 1998, which the IPCC has failed to address, and will likely continue to evade and deny.
Plus, the article then delivers a devastating critique/audit of the climate models' inability to replicate the actual temperature trend since 1979.
The analysis by Climate Audit is both brutal and forthright, clearly articulating 'those stubborn facts' of real world climate science: summary - computer climate models can't predict squat.
Just what this world needs, more liberal Democrats spewing unchecked hate, likely inciting future violence against those failing to bow to their totalitarian green-dreams.
Democrat bigwigs Al Gore and Tim Wirth have failed miserably at convincing the public that "global warming" catastrophies are to be taken seriously.
Thus, similar to the Imams favored by Islamist jihadists, Gore and Wirth preach hostility and malevolence towards their critics.
At the "Social Good Summit" no less. The obligatory liberal double-standards in full color.
It would appear they hope to again unleash the incredible virulence of the AGW/green true believers. At a minimum, a desire to impose blatant censorship by intolerance - figuratively, the Democrats' version of a public beheading.
Aren't liberals/leftists just so grand, without evil malice, no?
As the actual climate truths and realities are finally being reported by the world's press (Der Spiegel, The Financial Times, etc.), the UN's global warming chief alarmist continues with delusional denial.
Since the UN's IPCC is a political bureaucracy, the political agenda takes precedence over empirical evidence and science objectivity.
·"The IPCC is, first and foremost, a UN bureaucracy. Since it is the nature of bureaucracies to pursue their own agendas, science has never been the driving force at the IPCC."
Pachauri's IPCC has literally become the anti-science, denial machine.....providing more proof to a new generation that the United Nations is not to be trusted, ever.
Simply put, the UN has always been about politics and bureaucracy, 24/7, not objective, empirical science.
Those stubborn, ugly facts of modern climate science, documented.
Government climate research agencies, such as NOAA/NCDC and NASA/GISS, do not publicize the fact that they adjust historical temperatures on an almost monthly basis.
They claim that their tampering with the actual historical evidence is "quality control". That's a blatant misdirection, as it is well understood by the people familiar with the situation that there is extreme pressure to report scary "global warming", so as to conform to the political agenda on climate change.
Since May 2008, the web site www.climate4you.com has been tracking the NOAA "adjustments", using two specific months as an example (see accompanying chart).
If there is zero to little global warming, then it is up to the bureaucrats to make it happen.
The most brute force way to fabricate global warming is to adjust those monthly temperatures prior to 1950 downward; then adjust the post-1950 temperatures higher. Wonder of wonders, as the chart reveals, that's exactly what the bureaucrat-scientists did - to the tune of a whopping +2.2°C per century trend rate, in this specific case, since May 2008.
Not so shabby, especially if they can keep that level of science hoaxdom up across all historical months going into the future.
And America's worthless mainstream press goes right along with this fakery, with the sole goal of keeping the U.S. taxpayer in the dark to the benefit of politicians, their favorite greeny-crony capitalists and the 'at-the-public-trough' climate agencies.
Additional fabrication-temperature charts.
Recent elections in Australia and Germany have clearly indicated that the public no longer believes the falsehoods pushed by the green-environmental-global warming alarmist community.
Despite the evidence of the public's growing dismissal of alarmism, and the indisputable empirical evidence that the IPCC "climate experts" and their models have been abysmally wrong for a very long time, along comes a "scientist" like Myles Allen, confirming for all that scientific honesty is now at a low point convincingly within the Twilight Zone.
Additional failed-predictions of interest.
As these graphs reveal, the latest NOAA temperature dataset, through August 31, 2013, confirms that the U.S. and its major crop regions are experiencing a cooling trend. (click on graphs to enlarge)
Note, this has taken place despite the largest 15-year production of human CO2 emissions, ever. Contrary to every single IPCC and U.S. climate model.
Update clarification: The above plots from the NOAA web site are based on moving 12-month periods ending in August (each 12-month period starts with a year's September temperature and ends with the following year's August temperature).
Additional modern, regional and historical temperature charts.
So...what is the cost of reducing global temperatures by a measly one-fourth of one degree?
Well, as can be seen in the adjacent image, it's a ludicrously gargantuan cost for maybe, a tiny, and barely measurable global temperature benefit.
What's the cost of reducing global temperatures to their 1850 level? Go to this simple estimator and enter '0.85' in the second third (from top) yellow box (cell). That will produce a rough estimate of how much it would cost in today's dollars using available technology means.
This simple cost estimator is based on the actual HadCRUT4 annual global temperatures and estimates of historical CO2 emission tons. By knowing this basic information, it is possible to calculate (using plain arithmetic) an approximate value for an increase in temperature caused by a single tonne of CO2.
Indeed, nothing fancy. But it does the job well enough to allow further estimations as to how many CO2 tonnes it takes to change global temperature a specific amount. Then it's just a matter of multiplying all those tonnes (billions to trillions) by a dollar cost/tonne.
With that explained, this estimator allows for two different cost scenarios associated with different approaches to future CO2 reduction.
One method of reduction requires the actual removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, which still appears to be far from viable, either economically and technically - read more here. The cost of this approach is not really known, thus 'C3' used a figure of $500/CO2 tonne, which can easily be changed in the estimator tool.
The other method of reduction is future CO2 emission avoidance. This method is typified by making buildings and vehicles more energy efficient; using renewable energy sources; and/or using natural gas and nuclear instead of coal. We used a figure of $75/tonne that is likely too low, but it also can easily be changed when using the estimator.
By playing with this estimation tool, it quickly makes one aware of those truly stubborn climate facts: regardless of the politics of global warming, the economic and technical costs of lowering future global temperatures are astronomical for producing such a measly impact - ie, benefit.
The newest IPCC climate change report is soon to be published and it is sure to include, again, grossly wrong climate model predictions of global temperature change, along with misleading cost impacts concerning any CO2 mitigation schemes.
These forthcoming IPCC misrepresentations can be compared to what is likely to happen, given the ample historical evidence at hand. For example:
But that's just an image. You can do better.
Use this calculator to accomplish a 'quick & dirty' estimate of impacts from hypothetical CO2 reduction schemes. The calculator will allow you to change the essential parameters (those in the yellow boxes), thus providing insight to how little we can really impact temperature change and the ludicrously high cost of attempting to do so.
This simple calculator is based on the known information about global CO2 emissions and HadCRUT4 annual (calendar year-end) global temperatures. Since the source of the global CO2 emissions only starts with 1965, that is the base year for all the simple calculator's math.
As a result, with 48 years (1965 through 2012) of data we know the following:
1. How much the global temperature (HadCRUT4) changed over 48 years.
2. The amount of CO2 emission tons that were produced over 48 years.
3. Then taking this information and using fundamental arithmetic, one can thus calculate the very small fraction of temperature change that is caused by a single ton of CO2, over the last 48 years.
That's what the calculator does.
Have at it. Decent ballpark estimates are achievable with this simple calculator and it didn't cost the taxpayers a single penny.
In fact, using the most basic math that the calculator employs, it produces better estimates of temperature change than the multi-billion dollar super computer climate models (more on that in a later post).
Update: Instead of using a global per cent CO2 emission reduction in the bottom calculator, a country per cent cut (or even a U.S. state per cent cut) can be used instead. Go here to determine country/state per cents.
Increasing levels of CO2 benefit the world's entire biosphere.
The scientific research confirming that is extensive.
More specifically, the very endangered giant pandas are at risk because of dwindling food supplies and wild habitat loss.
Higher levels of CO2 enhance their food supply, thus improving their survivability.
Hmmm....it's the battle of CO2 bears: alarmists have the terrifying man-eating polar bears and skeptics have the cute and cuddly pandas.
Mainstream journalism continues in its death spiral as it loses public appeal, primarily due to biased "reporting" and outright misrepresentation about important policy debates.
When the historians decades from now do an objective analysis of how American mainstream journalism self-destructed, classic examples to be studied will be the activist/advocacy science journalists who willfully ignore empirical evidence in order to push their preferred political agenda.
The good news? The average American now pretty much ignores these bullsheeeeters.
WooHoo!
As well documented across the entire web, the IPCC climate models have at least a '97%' success at complete prediction failure.
A new study adds to the IPCC "expert" misery by determining that the models are not very good at simulating the real-world carbon cycle.
Just to be clear, an accurate modeling of the carbon cycle is fundamental - if that can't be accomplished then the billion dollar climate models are worthless as prediction tools for climate change.
It's a dirty little climate science secret.
The IPCC, NOAA, NASA, the EPA and other agencies promoting catastrophic global warming hope politicians and the public don't realize the significance of the fundamental physics.
Simply stated, the more CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the less influence CO2 has on global temperatures - it's a logarithmic thing.
All climate scientists know this. It's the actual hard physics. (Btw, that "positive" feedback thingy about CO2's "tipping point" impact? That's actually soft science - quasi-speculative, not hard physics.)
The adjacent chart though depicts the factual reality about the ever smaller impact of growing levels of CO2.
The reddish columns represent a plot of global temperature sensitivity to CO2. Specifically, they represent 60-year changes in global temperature divided by the corresponding 60-year change in atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) - a ratio.
The bright red curve is a simple 20-period average of that ratio, which has been declining since the 1950's. Recall that it is the IPCC that states categorically that modern "dangerous" warming started in the 1950s with the growth of industrial/consumer CO2 emissions.
Finally, the rapid growth of total atmospheric CO2 levels is shown by the black dots.
When it's all put together, per the IPCC, the red columns should be gaining in height as the years pass due to the accumulation of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere grows. Taller columns means that the ever increasing amounts of emissions are causing an even greater temperature change.
Clearly, the empirical evidence reveals that as atmospheric CO2 levels have grown, the impact on 60-year temperature changes has shrunk. From a high in the 1950s, to a very low impact as of 2012 (see blue column).
In summary, it's these stubborn climate facts that expose the invalidity/weakness of the AGW alarmist hypothesis. Sure, CO2 has an impact on temperatures but its maximum impact was decades ago and it is shrinking.
As human CO2 emissions continue to increase in the future, the resultant global warming will be smaller and smaller, and will continue to be overwhelmed by natural climate variation.
Note: Excel used to plot datasets. Ratio is simply the 60-year change in annual HadCRUT4 temperatures divided by the 60-year change in annual atomspheric CO2 levels. Dataset sources.
A double-idiocy that contiues to this day.
In a nutshell, the UN's IPCC's obsession and idiocy about non-existent catastrophic global warming begets the biofuel/ethanol idiocy.
"Getting rid of biofuel programs would cut Europe’s food costs in half by 2020, and lower global food prices by 15 percent. That’s according to a new report, commissioned by the EU’s own Joint Research Center (JRC), released ahead of a critical European Parliament..."
Grain for cars raises world food prices for the impoverished by 15% - that's a humanitarian crime that only wealthy elites can envision and be excited about.
Politicians' fixation with the non-existent "dangerous" global warming knows no bounds.
Australia has been cursed with a string of very stupid politicos who eagerly embraced the AGW hysteria-farce.
And as Obama has proven, he's as stupid as any pasty white hack politician.
An Obama carbon tax will destroy jobs, businesses and industries, all because of a crazed anti-CO2 religion.
This economic outcome is a no-brainer, as Australia and other countries have already experienced.
Per the list on the left, cinnamon appears to be nature's wonder drug food.
And it does Alzheimers too!
Watch this short video to get the detail about latest research.
More news today about NSA and the tech companies spying on us.
Google has proven it is not to be trusted - just another big evil company screwing its customers to curry government favors.
Long ago 'C3' switched its primary search engine to DuckDuckGo because Google chose to support Al Gore's gobsmacking idiocy on the catastrophic global warming hysteria.
DuckDuck is a good alternative, without nuisance advertising and it shows hundreds of results on a single page - not just 10 like Google.
Do we still use Google search?
Yep, for particular situations but DuckDuck is our daily workhorse.
Here's a what if.....
What if a revolution by the plebes were to occur.
Should "power" couple hypocrites like this be shot summarily?
Or, should there be 'hypocrisy' trials, prior to seizing all their property and wealth to help payoff Obama's gigantic debt?
Hmmm....tough choice.
Seriously, if they feel this guilty about their wealth then they should give it away and quit projecting their guilt on the rest of us.
Better yet, how about they smarten up and just stop preaching what they obviously don't practice. Hey, everyone is happy then and no need for a showcase trial, eh?
The empirical evidence is irrefutable, no longer debatable.
These 20 studies confirm that the known Northern Hemisphere natural climate change periods, referred to as the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, the Dark Ages and the Roman Period, also had significant impacts on the Southern Hemisphere.
In all cases, across both hemispheres, the large, natural climate changes took place without any human CO2 influence.
This means that natural climate change is caused by other factors that are of either earthly or (and) cosmic/solar origins.
Embracing the hated natural climate change reality.
The UK Met Office's mission over the last decade has been primarily to push their beloved IPCC's global warming agenda, besides producing dawg-awful weather forecasting for the Brits.
As stalwart jihadists of the anti-CO2 religion, it must be particularly galling that they have to admit that any extreme/severe weather events are the result of natural variation, not CO2.
Note: Image source
The global warming alarmist community has had to embarrassingly resort to the lamest of all fear-mongering refrains: "It's the warmest _________" (fill in the blank with decade, year, month, week, day, hour or whatever).
See this lame refrain in action, here and here.
Why lame? Simple.
#1. There's been a 'rebound' warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Per history, this current, natural warming rebound has been unexceptional and could actually last another 100 years - it's happened before, go figure.
#2. As the adjacent chart reveals, the 60 years prior to 1950 had a sturdy per century warming trend of +0.79 degrees, which reflects that natural rebound since the LIA.
#3. As the chart also shows, the modern warming 60-year trend, from the start of the 1950's, was enhanced to a +1.06 degree per century trend - specifically, a +0.27°C added to the already existing rebound warming trend of +0.79°.
#4. Using a 6th order polynomial fitted trend, it's clear that a recovery warming trend started in the mid-to-late 1890s, after some prior sporadic sputtering. And it has not stopped since. Along the way the trend has been enhanced by human forces: CO2 emissions, black carbon soot, urban heat island effects and climate altering land-use impacts.
So, in essence, since 1890 we had 60 years of warming then followed by another 60 years of "modern" warming from 1950 on.
Time to put this together......really, this is not difficult to conceptualize - we've had at least 120 years of warming, with some sporadic ups/downs along the way.
We are not talking brain surgery here.
That being the case, it is obvious, with a very high likelihood, that future time periods will also be "warmer" or the "warmest" - a simple repeat from the known trend over the past 120 years.
Let's summarize: Next month, or next year or the next decade is likely to be warmer due to the natural warming rebound since the LIA. Duh.
To reiterate, this natural, built-in, dominating LIA-rebound warming trend will continue regardless of the added impacts of greenhouse gases and etc.
Thus, it is extremely lame for alarmists to fear-monger about "warmest" since it happens naturally; it is also lame to imply that CO2 is responsible for the "warmest" anything, since natural climate change basically dictates it; and, it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the modern +1.06°C trend (only a 0.92° increase by 2100AD) at the end of 2012 is "dangerous" or an indicator of an imminent crisis.
Note: Annual HadCRUT4 data used in above Excel chart here. Trends are not predictions nor forecasts.
The Guardian has literally been at the forefront of pushing the unsubstantiated, fear-mongering meme that the current CO2 "caused" global warming was rapidly accelerating and dangerous to civilization's survival.
As the adjacent suggests, The Guardian is finally coming clean with its readers and admitting that global warming is not really happening and a serious debate is presently taking place as to why. Good.
The Guardian joins an ever growing list of mainstream press outlets and pro-alarmist warming web sites making the same forced admission - essentially, that global warming went AWOL.....ergo, it's not dangerous.
A partial list includes:
The New York Times, the BBC, NPR, The Economist, ClimateCentral and plus....
"We agree with Mr. Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century." - UK MetOffice
NASA Global Temperature Update, January 2013
"The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing." - NASA Scientist, James Hansen
"The UN's [IPCC] climate change chief has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office..." - IPCC Head, Rajendra Pachauri
"Global warming forecasts have the difficulty that one can’t find much actual global warming in present day weather observations." - Stanford University Physicist, Robert Laughlin
"In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem..." - Scientist/Meteorologist Hans von Storch
The
Independent , July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a
pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially
over the last 10 to 15 years,” - Reading University, Scientist Rowan Sutton
This 'epic fail' is especially embarrassing since it is entirely due to the mainstream journalists doing nothing more than 'press release' science. Instead, if they analyzed the empirical evidence the way skeptical bloggers do, then the embarrassment would likely be less acute, or not even exist.
Note: Image source
Obama's purposeful targeting of an industry's employees and customers is a very dangerous precedent.
Besides crushing an industry, the unemployed from the coal sector has added to the unprecedented level of long-term unemployed - this from a liberal think-tank.
Way to go, Obamaie!
In their habitat, they are at the top of the food chain and they're prospering.
That's a good sign that their environment is promoting sustainability.
It also indicates that fears of species extinction from climate change/global warming is no more than exaggeration, as is the case found in the world's other polar region.