#climatehoax

Climate DataGate – Audit reveals the shoddy data we allocate billions off

06503F53-DA2A-4426-8ECD-7F7794A84E6B

What a joke. Jo Nova unpacks the first proper audit of the dataset our governments put faith in to fork out billions into mad green schemes. She writes,

There are cases of tropical islands recording a monthly average of zero degrees — this is the mean of the daily highs and lows for the month. A spot in Romania spent one whole month averaging minus 45 degrees. One site in Colombia recorded three months of over 80 degrees C. That is so incredibly hot that even the minimums there were probably hotter than the hottest day on Earth. In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean temperatures from as far as 100km inland The only explanation that could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.”

 

The scariest part of the IPCC’s 2030 forecast isn’t actually the science

06503F53-DA2A-4426-8ECD-7F7794A84E6B.jpeg

Before we read into the validity about how we’re doomed before 2030 if we do not strictly adhere to the preachings of the UNIPCC’s latest gloomy climate bible, this is far more compelling

The Delinquent Teenager, written by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise chronicles how the IPCC participants are picked by governments, not for their scientific knowledge and expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.”

Other issues she uncovers go as far as to say that approximately 1/3rd of the sources for the IPCC come from magazines, press releases and unpublished scientific papers. It also tables corruption, scandals, and conflicts of interest. The Summary for Policy Makers (i.e. our leaders) is compiled by bureaucrats not scientists and often completed before the articles they actually summarise are made available.

She writes:

Richard Klein, now a Dutch geography professor, is a classic example. In 1992 Klein turned 23, completed a Masters degree, and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, at the tender age of 25, he found himself serving as an IPCC lead author. Klein’s online biography tells us that, since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports. On three of those occasions, beginning in 1997, he served as a coordinating lead author. This means that Klein was promoted to the IPCC’s most senior author role at age 28 – six years prior to the 2003 completion of his PhD. Neither his youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts…

Or

Nor is he an isolated case. Laurens Bouwer is currently employed by an environmental studies institute at the VU University Amsterdam. In 1999-2000, he served as an IPCC lead author before earning his Masters in 2001. How can a young man without even a Masters degree become an IPCC lead author? Good question. Nor is it the only one. Bouwer’s expertise is in climate change and water resources. Yet the chapter for which he first served as a lead author was titled Insurance and Other Financial Services. It turns out that, during part of 2000, Bouwer was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance Company. This means the IPCC chose as a lead author someone who a) was a trainee, b) lacked a Masters degree, and c) was still a full decade away from receiving his 2010 PhD.

Or this

Sari Kovats, currently a lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is an even more egregious example. She didn’t earn her PhD until 2010. Yet back in 1994 – 16 years prior to that event and three years before her first academic paper was published – Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. In total, Kovats has been an IPCC lead author twice and a contributing author once – all long before she’d completed her PhD.

One of CM’s favourite passages though is when one of the expert reviewers noticed “in a particular section of the report, the IPCC was basing its arguments on two research papers that hadn’t yet been published. In itself, this should ring alarm bells. Since the wider scientific community had been given no opportunity to scrutinize them, it was surely premature to consider.”

So we are expected to fork over billions of dollars to defend this junk science?The biggest battle the scientific community faces is the damage done by the fraudulent data manipulation. The scandals are too numerous to mention. If a fInancial industry pundit missed 98% of the time they’d be fired.

Maybe the trick is to make regulations that will lead to fines, jail sentences and stripping of credentials (such as the finance industry) should scientists be caught fiddling the books. Afterall isn’t inappropriately wasting taxpayers money through junk research just as bad as  torching investors’ hard earned cash via insider trading?

Were such laws passed we would soon see alarmism paint a far less hysterical position.  As it stands the UN shows once again why it needs defunding. Afterall they thought Robert Mugabe would make a good ambassador for WHO. With judgement like that who’d doubt their credibility?

Saving the planet one flight at a time. 2% of passengers offset carbon emissions meaning 98% don’t care

D84EE645-B3D1-4B2C-8F1D-8C507ECA5450.jpeg

Apart from the 100% certainty of me being screened for explosives at Sydney Airport (yet again today), the  one other certainty of life is that the growth in air travel suggests that more and more people are happy to save the planet, provided that someone else offsets on their behalf. CM has long argued this position. Our consumption patterns dictate the “true” state of care of the environment. It hasn’t stopped SUV sales dead in their tracks and last year the IATA forecast that the number of airline passengers is set to DOUBLE by 2030.  Could it be that taking a holiday outweighs saving Johnny Polarbear (whose numbers are growing by the way)? Is it conceivable that many of those that are climate alarmists don’t practice what they preach? Well if the UNIPCC COP summits are anything to go by, 50,000 of these pilgrims fly half way around the world every year to kneel at the altar of the climate alarmists pagans.

Virtue signaling airline Qantas has had a long history of emissions offset programs. Now you can choose how to waste your money.

ABD69469-A9BB-43F3-AF97-1AE3E4C07D34.jpeg

So to offset my flight to Haneda, CM is calculated to pay $11.21 AUD. I can put it to ‘local action’ (fund activism?), ‘developing communities’ or ‘global renewables’. In its 2017 Annual Report, Qantas boasts,

We have the world’s largest airline offset program and have now been carbon offsetting for over 10 years. In 2016/17, we reached three million tonnes offset.”

Carbon calculators tend to work on the assumption of 0.158kg CO2/passenger kilometre.

In the last 10 years Qantas has flown around 1 trillion revenue passenger kilometres. While the literature in the annual report denotes one passenger offsets every 53 seconds, the mathematical reality is simple – 2% of miles are carbon offset. So that means that 98% of people couldn’t care less.

Perhaps more embarrassing is that The Guardian noted in Jan 2018 that,

Qantas [was the] worst airline operating across Pacific for CO2 emissions

Kind of a massive load of hot air when you do the maths!

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,

Hot Air

Canadian Conservative politician, Robert Sopuck, tried to get the Minister for Environment, Catherine McKenna, to answer a simple question on how much the $50/ton carbon tax would lower CO2 emissions by. In true leftist ideological fashion, she rattled on about the pressing need to save the planet. He asked again – just wanting a number – which again fell on deaf ears. Surely had Trudeau’s cabinet properly assessed the financial and social impact it’d gladly be able to champion the ‘impact’ it was making on saving us. That ‘number’ would at least sound more convincing that there was method to the madness, rather than empty taxation with no benefit on limiting global warming. Talk about hot air.

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.