#climategate

NYT – try doing some research for a change?

8CBEB2D5-AC7B-4995-BF98-D10C6EF75249.jpeg

It is true that many airports are built near sea level. In fact many airports are built around swamps/marshland (less suitable for residential areas) which actually makes aircraft more susceptible to avian events (bird strike) than crashing sea waves. So how convenient it must have been to The NY Times to blame the recent terrible typhoon in Japan on climate change when in reality Kansai International Airport’s well known drainage inadequacies were exposed. The airport opened in 1994 and engineers quickly realized it was sinking through poor design. It needs to pump water out constantly to prevent it from drowning. It has zero to do with rising sea levels but the softer base beneath the waves. Yet The NY Times wrote about the plight of stranded passengers and how it portended their imminent peril. Puhlease.

So why didn’t NY Times journalist Hiroko Tabuchi write about the UN IPCC’s own climbdowns from their alarmism in recent years? Note climate skeptics did not write these claims. No, it was easier just to join two dots together without facts.

The IPCC wrote with respect to heavy rains:

“there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale“

With respect to storms and cyclones:

confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world…Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered. Little evidence exists of any longer-term trend in other ocean basins…”

As for rising sea levels impacting Pacific Islands.

Professor Paul Kench of the University of Auckland and Australian scientists have shown in a study of 600 coral reef islands in the Pacific, 40% are growing in size, 40% are stable and 20% shrinking…

Yet The NY Times went further. Who knew Roger Federer was also a victim of climate change?

US Open performances. 

Well the brilliant minds of The NY Times suggested Federer’s loss was caused by global warming even though it was 0.19 degrees above average. Maybe that is why Serena got hot under the collar? Or was it because 20yo Naomi Osaka’s youth allowed her to weather the heat more effectively?

Air Travel

Yet the true litmus test of humankind’s blind panic is best described by the IATA’s air traffic forecasts which point to a doubling of air traffic by 2030. It is only fair that the general population follow in the footsteps of the 50,000 climate disciples that fly half way around the world every year to COP summits to kneel at the altar of the IPCC to warn us of being destroyed by our recklessness.

Once again, ridiculously researched junk journalism is put forward by a paper that assures us “All the news fit to print.” Joke.

Never let the facts get in the way of a story

82B78F90-ECE3-4DD3-95FE-38CCE2A0261A.jpeg

This story was run yesterday by two US news outlets, NY Times and CNN, based on a study from James Cook University (JCU) which actively sought to muzzle and fire a fellow professor, Peter Ridd, who criticized their poor standards of peer review.  While JCU was adamant in the quality of its study that  Great Barrier Reef (GBR) coral had fallen 15% due to “global warming, Ridd said the data showed 10% growth.

Ridd was summarily threatened by his colleagues who trawled his emails looking for dirt. Instead of being proud of the level of research that would simply prove the study of bleaching coral with data driven fact and rigour, silencing dissenters was simpler. Surely scientists would be proud to rest on the laurels of integrity and quality of analysis. One can only surmise that when agendas are at stake, facts should never get in the way of a good story.

Ridd’s blog notes,

In mid 2017, Ridd contributed a chapter in the book “Climate Change: The facts 2017” where he argued that thermal bleaching from climate change was a very unlikely threat to the GBR. He also made the point that much of the science that claims damage to the reef has been insufficiently checked, tested or replicated. He pointed out that there is a widely acknowledged “Replication Crisis” in science in general where replication tests are finding around half of the recent important scientific literature has serious flaws.”

In the day and age of Google, surely CNN and NY Times might have used their own journalistic integrity to fact check what they publish. Then again they’re climate alarmists too so best just publish anything that fits a narrative than report the truth,

Two of the worst possible combinations one can think of

3A80FECC-0F22-4FA1-836C-CA0C53815392.jpeg

From LivingOffset – “Global concern about climate change is growing rapidly. Five out of every 10 people now consider climate change to be a serious problem. In Chile and Peru the number is over 75%. Interestingly, 69% of Americans are concerned about global warming [if you believe HuffPost], despite their government’s position. There is no doubt demand for our offering is there, and like Airbnb, we can provide the means and the mechanism for easy participation. In just a few minutes ordinary people can start to make a real and meaningful difference.

In January 2017, IPSOS held a global poll asking what each country’s major problem was and climate change didn’t feature a mention.

As Europe and the US brave record snowfalls one couldn’t think of two more terrible combinations – a crypto-currency and a climate abatement cause. Apart from the fact that the prospectus cites Wikipedia to support its stats, it ignores the growing number of scientists admitting that climate change is little more than a multi trillion dollar rent seeking industry. As we’ve seen in recent years, many scientists and government bodies have been caught red handed with their hand in the till. Data has been manipulated to get a result. NOAA was subpoenaed by US Congress for fiddling the data ahead of the Paris Climate Accord. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has also been caught misrepresenting temperature records. The IPCC has made more climb downs from unchecked positions than one can count. It is the epitome of double standards given 50,000 pilgrims fly half way around the world to kneel at the altar of the COP climate change summits, belching so much of that dangerous CO2 we are warned about.

Even the language has changed – from global warming to climate change to climate disruption. All bases covered.

The one question that the alarmists can never answer – if the science is so settled, why do scientists feel so compelled to lie and corrupt data? Surely the data speaks for itself because it is so compelling on a stand alone basis. No need to brazenly commit data fraud. While many alarmists are happy to see evil banksters get hauled off to jail, have we seen any scientists face prison time for misleading the allocation of billions in taxpayer funds? Imagine if that was introduced? How quickly climate disruption would go away.

Apart from the completely bogus stats on ‘69% of Americans being concerned by global warming, SUV sales remain a solid staple in the US. In fact the most popular car in America is the Ford F-150 pick-up truck where customers rank ‘fuel economy’ #28 in terms of reasons they buy it. When Trump quit the Paris Accord, Rasmussen showed that most polled were for his move because sticking to teh deal just increased their cost burden. Wallets matter more than virtue signalling.

Let’s check reality of the climate game. 75% of the evil gas that helps plants grow are caused by 4 countries – America, China, India and Russia. Let’s tackle them one by one.

America. Well the commitment to the Accord was so flimsy to begin with, It was laced with out clauses such as being exempt from being sued for any environmental damage caused in the past or future. Obama decided to tick the box himself after lawyers breathed on the fine print – remember the US was the last to commit.

China. China, China, China. The commitment is so robust they don’t have any intention to get serious until 2030 (likely peak emissions). China has explicitly said it will raise the coal share of power to 15% by 2020 from 12% and this will keep climbing. China’s pollution problems have stuff all to do with global warming but public health however it can virtue signal under the banner of climate change mitigation and win brownie points.

India. The construction of 65 gigawatts worth of coal-burning generation is under way with an additional 178 gigawatts in the planning stages in India will mean they’ll not achieve Paris targets.

Russia’s commitment at Paris would have been more serious if drafted on a hotel napkin such was its lack of substance. 4 pages of nothing.

LivingOffset makes some grandiose claims of 128% returns by 2022 but put in its disclaimer,

There can be no assurance that LivingOffset’s investment objective will be achieved and investment results may vary substantially over time. Investment in LivingOffset is not intended to be a complete investment program for any investor. Prospective participants should carefully consider whether an investment is suitable for them in light of their circumstances and nancial resources.

Carbon offsets are a joke. In Australia, people can elect to have their electricity sourced from renewables only (by paying a premium) yet less than 3% choose to do so. Qantas offered carbon offsets when flying but the take up has been insignificant. Carbon offset calculators are so woefully inaccurate that the price paid to virtue signal can be drastically affected by load factors, aircraft type, head/tailwinds and delays to land.

In any event there are 190 odd currencies in the world and over 1,000 crypto currencies. Apart from the unregulated nature of these electronic coins, we’ve already seen how vulnerable ‘blockchain technology’ is and how easy it is to be hacked. Crypto is backed by greed. Recently a person was emptied of all their crypto at phone point. Once the transaction has been completed the ‘money’ is gone. So no need to break into a bank. Just rob you from your smartphone.

While the crypto currency trend continues, await harder nosed regulations, taxation and  restrictions that take the lustre off these coins. LivingOffset looks a very risky investment.  To some up LivingOffset – it is like asking someone else to quit smoking on your behalf. How do you benefit health wise?

Then again actions always speak louder than words. Aircraft travel is set double by 2035 according to IATA. Last time I looked, aircraft run on fossil fuels. Once again, peoples’s consumption habits are the best indicator of commitment to climate abatement.

Hottest 5-yr period on record according to NOAA (which was busted for data manipulation)

75AECC61-489E-4849-9CC4-9B53470426AA.jpeg

IT’S official. The world has just experienced its hottest five-year period in history — and there are no signs of things cooling off.” No signs of cooling off? Even though 2018 has kicked off with huge freezes across Japan, Canada, NY, Florida and parts of Europe. The article went on,

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released climate data that confirmed global average temperatures between 2013 and 2017 made up the hottest five-year period since monitoring began more than 100 years ago…Agencies were split on whether 2017 was the second or third hottest year. NOAA and the Japanese Meterological Agency rated it the third hottest, while NASA, researchers from a nonprofit in Berkeley, California and European forecasters said it was the second hottest.”

It makes for sensational reading but had the authors preaching the global warming faith dug a little deeper they’d discover that NOAA was subpoenaed before Congress after a whistleblower showed that data was being fabricated ahead of the Paris Climate Summit to fit an agenda. According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.

Chairman of the Commitee on Science, Space & Technology, Lamar Smith said in Feb 2017,

I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?

Indeed. What is there to hide? Surely the global warming data should speak for itself. Anything that requires manipulation to make a point can hardly be “settled” science. Fraud is fraud and it is a shame that climate scientists busted for manipulation are not  jailed. While evil banksters were charged for the devil’s work after GFC why should climate scientists escape the misappropriation of billions in taxpayer dollars based on lies. NOAA refused to hand over emails related to the Karl Study despite being politely asked at first by its boss (i.e. Congress) which was eventually required to subpoena the science body.

Even if you believe in global warming can you honestly look at the fraud taking place with these so called trusted government bodies and take their word for granted despite such lapses in ethics?

Why haven’t climate scientists been jailed for fraud?

IMG_0637.JPG

Evil banksters have been burnt at the stake over the last 30 years. Some would argue that not enough of these swindlers saw the inside of a jail cell. Maybe. Still many have faced multi million dollar fines, two decade prison terms and barred from ever operating again in the financial industry. Yet time and again climate scientists who receive millions in funding to scare us with fraudulent reports never face any repercussions. In fact many end up suing for libel believing their reputations have been tarnished by exposutenof the truth.

In a sense the taxpayer money used to bailout the financial system is not much different from the billions being plowed recklessly into energy policy based on wonky research. Even government sponsored climate organizations (NOAA, NASA, BoM, UNIPCC) have fallen for the sins of huge grants and recycling updated bogus studies by fiddling previous data to keep their Ponzi scheme going. Junket travel has been a big feature in the recent exposures of NASA and BOM. Can’t be seen missing the conference in the Maldives!

So again, why haven’t any scientists “busted” for manipulating data been charged for fraud? If it is ok to send bankers to jail for white collar crimes, why not scientists? Because they can wrap their malfeasance inside models that are sold as well intentioned studies to saving the planet! Who can prove their did predictions might not come to pass?

WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years based on nine counts of conspiracy, securities fraud and false regulatory filings to the tune of $11bn. Enron’s former CEO Jeffrey Skilling was convicted on 35 counts of fraud, insider trading and other crimes related to Enron and sentenced to 24 years prison and fined $45 million. Madoff got 150 years, Stanford got 110 years jail time.

Will whistleblower scalps found guilty of fraud be charged, fined and jailed? It is highly unlikely. They’ll claim anomalies in data and forecasting is indeed difficult.

In any event if there was a Climate Science watchdog that monitored fraud (not to mention massive conflicts of interest which are mentioned in previous pieces) like the SEC how much fraud would scientists try to get away with? Why not have a body which mandates funding sources to check for potential conflicts of interest? That way dishonest scientists would be restricted in their movements and those with legitimate findings wouldn’t see their work drowned out by the rogue elements,

Interestingly most of the court related activities in the scientific fields have been exposed scientists looking to sue for libel after emails proving the fraud were leaked.

Yet scientists don’t have to worry. The media has little interest in chasing something that might ruin their narrative. Even worse they’ll cite scientists (Australia’s former climate commissioner Tim Flannery comes to mind) who have made countless dud predictions (in many cases the complete opposite has occurred ) and act as though it’s gospel.

Once again climate science is a religion. No wonder it’s got so much protection. Hence the vows of silence in the halls of the scientific church. They’re untouchable. However that by deduction makes me a heretic.

Blowing the whistle on NASA over climate data

IMG_0884

Jo Nova has an excellent piece exposing the scams inside NASA with regards to their climate models and allegations of misappropriated taxpayer funds. She notes whistleblower Dr Duane Thresher who worked seven years at NASA GISS “describes a culture of self serving rent-seekers, mismanagement and incompetence. These are the top experts in the climate science field that we are supposed to accept without questioning. Those who say they are working to “save the planet” care more about their junckets than they do about the data or their “best” model…NASA GISS’s most advanced climate model is run from the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Thresher recounts a story from someone on the inside:“NASA GISS’s climate model — named Model E, an intentional play on the word “muddle” — is called the “jungle” because it is so badly coded.” I know this to be true from my own extensive experience programming it (I tried to fix as much as I could…)…”

Of course I can hear the alarmists cry  that Thresher is a ‘discredited’ scientist as they do for anyone who disagrees,. Much in the spirit of the Harvard piece I put out last week, venerable organizations like NASA (which has put humans into space) carry almost untouchable status. This is the problem. Do we just suck up aything we are told by these organizations or do we need to add an extra layer of skepticism because of the ‘reputation’?

It is truly hard to imagine that the brain’s trust that makes up an organization that can launch rockets and space shuttles can be guilty of such sloppiness. Such whistleblowing will  lead to a congressional testimony which will bring many things to light. It wasn’t long ago that NOAA was subpoenaed after a whistleblower said the group had rushed a report ahead of the Paris climate summit with obviously fiddled data that fit a narrative. NOAA refused to hand over the emails for months on the grounds of privacy  when the head of House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith explained the reality that they worked for the government and had no choice.

Smith noted, “According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy…I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

Once again whenever people try to use the ‘credibility’ argument to sway debate, there is a treasure trove of evidence to show in this case that it is politics not science. With billions if not trillions at stake, such fraud has not resulted in any of these climate scientists being fined, deregistered or jailed for the very things that have happened to people in the financial sector. What is the difference I wonder? Maybe because the government has been in on the act…

Even Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has been recently exposed for divisive behaviour in temperature measurement. Putting hard floors on cold temperatures with no such restrictions on warm weather. We’re supposed to trust these bodies? More on that tomorrow.

Well as the old adage goes, “there are lies, more lies and then there are statistics”

China data leaves warmists in the cold

IMG_0747.PNG

As far as curioisity on any subject goes if 19 out of 20 agreed and one dissented wouldn’t you wish to work out why the lone body thought that way? Is he or she mad? On what grounds? Do we simply suck up the consensus and accept it? That’s worked well over time. Well the Chinese Meteorogical Administration has dropped a bombshell on the warmists confirming there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998. The CMA put forward the following analysis,

“In preparing the new database…the CMA say they addressed a number of problems with other surface temperature databases, in particular the relatively poor coverage of stations across Antarctica, Africa, South America, and Asia. They note that the IPCC AR5 report concluded that the warming trends in these regions are associated with a lower confidence level. They also improved the absence of early period stations, especially before 1940….The researchers find very clear evidence for the recent warming hiatus. Their results show linear trends of 0.104 °C per decade, 0.247 °C per decade and 0.098 °C per decade for the three periods, respectively. The trends were statistically significant except for the period 1998–2014, the period that is also known as the ‘‘warming hiatus”.

I would imagine Premier Xi will listen to his internal CMA over others when setting climate abatement policy. Maybe 2030 becomes 2040 or later…so why are so many governments engaged in group think where they clearly fail to heed reality? Perhaps they are so knee deep in their own poor policy decision making that they don’t want to admit they’ve acted in haste. South Australia and Tesla anyone?