#climatelies

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.”

 

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.

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?

It only takes one to prove me wrong

IMG_0261.JPG

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Einstein

Einstein meant that all the consensus in the world won’t mean he’s correct. It only takes one person to prove him wrong. It wasn’t surprising to see social media share Stephen Hawking’s prognosis on Trump leaving the Paris Climate Accord. More tellingly most overlooked the zany assumptions made in Hawking’s comments (250 degrees C temps and climate like Venus) and focused on who he was attacking. Seriously do you honestly believe that the earth’s temperatures will reach that if you relied on your own logic on this planet?As the coldest temperature in 110 years was recorded in rural NSW Australia overnight no one said boo. Had it been the hottest temperature in 110 years the media would be spewing global warming stories all week.

Last week we had former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres warn that the next three years will be crucial to stopping the worst effects of global warming. Let’s not forget that climate change is so critical to Figueres that she thinks gender inequality should be tackled at the same time and she openly discussed discrimination against males when it came to hiring in her department. Still talking of the climate alarmist letter she co-signed warning of catastrophe why don’t they analyze the “ground breaking” Paris Climate Accord they all laud when those responsible for 75% of the world’s CO2 emissions aren’t taking urgent action? China won’t peak out on CO2 until 2030, India has dozens of coal fired power on the drawing board over coming decades and Russia’s 4-page commitment is worthless. “Ah yes but they are signatories!” I heard many chant in response to the Paris Climate Accord. They might as well have signed a whiteboard in a non marking pen for what it is truly worth.

The Paris Climate Accord is essentially a system which makes as much sense as you quitting smoking on my behalf. How do I benefit exactly? Paying for air I can’t breathe. The Paris Climate Accord is nothing but a mechanism for wealth distribution controlled by a bloated UN which wishes to add more to its ridiculous budget and offices despite claims it is slimming down!

“The latest U.N. regular budget, while superficially smaller than the previous budget, made no fundamental programmatic or structural adjustments—e.g., reducing permanent staff, freezing or reducing salaries and other benefits, and permanently eliminating a significant number of mandates, programs, or other activities—that would lower the baseline for future U.N. budget negotiations.[10] Despite the Secretary-General’s proposal to eliminate 44 permanent posts, the 2012–2013 budget actually increased the number of permanent posts by more than a score compared with the previous budget. The failure to arrest growth in U.N. employment, salaries, and benefits is especially problematic because personnel costs account for 74 percent of U.N. spending according to the U.N.’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).[11] Without a significant reduction in the number of permanent U.N. posts or a significant reduction in staff compensation and related costs, real and lasting reductions in the U.N. regular budget will remain out of reach.”

However what did Hawking say that makes his words credible? That is like saying Fed Chair Janet Yellen should be believed for saying we won’t see another financial crisis in our lifetimes. Let’s just accept it because many don’t know better. I haven’t seen the most rabid climate alarmists make a 250 degree claim. 98% of climate models to date have drastically over-predicted the extent of warming. The UNIPCC has been embroiled in so many scandals, climb downs and corrections that it can’t be relied on as a credible body. Many of the lead authors in the UN Climate bible have little experience in their fields and an investigation showed that  gender and minority status were given priority over ability in the investigative teams on each chapter. This is openly admitted by the UNIPCC as Donna La Framboise’s Delinquent Teenager’ highlighted,

IMG_0262.PNG

So if an internal survey that has been written up by the IPCC itself criticizing the process how can anyone put any validity in the argument?

Ahh but NOAA has told us that warming is getting worse. How could NASA lie? Oh the same NOAA that was subpoenaed after refusing to turn over emails related to an internal whistleblower who claimed the data had been homogenized (aka manipulated).

As argued many times before, human consumption patterns do not reflect the fear. SUV sales continue to grow as a % of sales, air travel is predicted to double by 2030 and sales of Tesla’s in HK or Norway fall off a cliff if generous tax incentives aren’t given to the wealthy to subsidize their virtue signaling.  This isn’t to doubt Hawking’s intelligence but Yellen, Greenspan, Bernanke, Kuroda and Draghi aren’t dummies either but it doesn’t preclude them from making mistakes and being wrong.

Oh, and for those that believe Hawking’s claims of rising sea levels the price of beachfront properties in a Sydney is preposterously high and even in Mauritius homes prices are still buoyant. Actions not words. Then we can always believe the immortal words of Australia’s former Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery who warned us that the waves would lap the 8th story of apartment blocks on the coast. He lives in a waterfront property himself. Actions not words.

IMG_0263.JPG