Global Warming

Climate Clowns claim war in Syria caused by Climate Change

There is an ever growing list of claims of the things caused by climate change. 

Not a single one of them has proved true and many are simply crazy claims.

Now there is another claim, that the war in Syria and Iraq was caused by climate change.

Drawing one of the strongest links yet between global warming and human conflict, researchers said Monday that an extreme drought in Syriabetween 2006 and 2009 was most likely due to climate change, and that the drought was a factor in the violent uprising that began there in 2011.

The drought was the worst in the country in modern times, and in a studypublished Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists laid the blame for it on a century-long trend toward warmer and drier conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean, rather than on natural climate variability.

The researchers said this trend matched computer simulations of how the region responds to increases in greenhouse-gas emissions, and appeared to be due to two factors: a weakening of winds that bring moisture-laden air from the Mediterranean and hotter temperatures that cause more evaporation.  Read more »

IPCC goes into meltdown after Pauchari resigns amid sexual harassment allegations

_81205508_81205507

The warmists are in panic mode as their leader appears to be in serious trouble.

The head of the UN climate change panel (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, has resigned amid sexual harassment allegations.

In a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Mr Pachauri said he was unable to provide strong leadership.     Read more »

Is Labour changing its policy on Climate Change now?

Labour has said that climate change is one of the biggest issues facing New Zealand.

They also say repeatedly that the government’s solution or policies on climate change aren’t bold enough and that New Zealand must do more and that National is sitting on its hands while the world burns.

New Zealand’s carbon emissions are about 0.15% of the world’s emissions yet Labour says we must do more, set an example for the rest of the world and if we do that then other countries will lift their game

It appears though that their policy on climate is dead in the water.

Why?

Well because it fails their own logic argument.  Read more »

The real reason behind the UN’s continued scare campaign over global warming

Here is a clue for you…the UN isn’t interested in saving the planet from a non-existent threat, it is actually interested in controlling the planet, and one of their top officials has proved it.

The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

Read more »

Quote for the Day

James Delingpole on the blatant manipulation of the temperature records:

If the temperature records on which the entire edifice of the international global warming industry is based are a busted flush then we have all been victims of a scam so vast and all-encompassing it makes Enron look like a model of modesty and integrity. It also raises the question – and I speak here, of course, metaphorically rather than literally: when are heads going to roll?

When indeed?

Delingpole’s entire article outlines the extent of the data fraud that is going on inside the global warming industry.

“Fiddling temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever,” says Christopher Booker, not pulling his punches. And I think he’s right not to do so. If – as Booker, myself, and few others suspect – the guardians of the world’s land-based temperature records have been adjusting the raw data in order to exaggerate “global warming” then this is indeed a crime against the scientific method unparalleled in history.

Sure you could make a case that Lysenkoism or  Hitler’s war to discredit “Jewish science” were more evil but these were confined to discrete geographical regions under specific totalitarian regimes. What’s so extraordinary about the manipulations to the global land-based temperature sets is that they affect every one of us, wherever we live.   Read more »

Are there any climate records we can believe anymore?

James Delingpole discusses the latest climate fraud, the ongoing alteration of the climate record of NOAA and NASA, sometime by up to 35%.

He believes the records are now so hopelessly tampered with that they can no longer be relied upon and are in fact a massive fraud.

When you Google “Dr Kevin Cowtan” he appears reassuringly neutral in this affair. He works in the Department of Chemistry at the University of York, his current speciality being X-ray crystallography. A proper scientist, then, with no dog in this fight. Or so it looks until you scroll down a bit and see that his other area of research is “climate science.”

My climate science research focuses primarily on problems which are relevant to the public understanding of climate science. With my colleague Robert Way I have been investigating biases in historical temperature record from weather stations. Our primary work concerns temperature change over the past two decades. The main temperature record providers show a slowdown in the rate of warming over this period, however when biases in the temperature record are taken into account, we find that part of the slowdown disappears.

I am also involved in climate science communication, and am contributing to a massive online course run by the University of Queensland. I can offer undergraduate projects in this area for students who are interested to develop science communication skills.

So, not a neutral party after all then, but someone who depends for part of his livelihood on the lavish funding available in academe for those who promote the climate “consensus.” Perhaps, in the interests of full disclosure, he might have mentioned this detail on his YouTube biography. But I mean that only as a very mild and largely inconsequential criticism. What matters is not what Cowtan does for a living (“the motive fallacy”) but whether or not he has got his facts right.

And according to this counterblast from Dave Burton – a US computer programmer, sea level specialist and IPCC expert reviewer on AR5 –  he hasn’t.

Burton’s key point is this: where Cowtan claims that all NOAA’s adjustments have done is increased warming by a modest 3 per cent, in actuality they have increased it by 35 per cent. So, far from Cowtan’s assessment that these adjustments are “inconsequentially tiny”, they are in fact quite massively distorting.

Might it be that they reached such wildly different conclusions by using different data? Er, no. Burton reached his conclusions by creating a spreadsheet with decadal data digitized from the exact graph used in Cowtan’s video.

Read more »

That global warming is going well

snow-twitter-queenstown-bronwyn-barry-1200

Snow fell on the mountains around Canterbury and Otago … as temperatures plummeted to as low as 1degC in the lower South Island.

MetService meteorologist Peter Little says it could be the coldest day of the summer for many. Read more »

The dishonesty of our manipulated temperature records

James Delingpole explains the inherent dishonesty of climate change proponents and their manipulated temperature records.

How can we believe in ‘global warming’ when the temperature records providing the ‘evidence’ for that warming cannot be trusted?

It’s a big question – and one which many people, even on the sceptical side of the argument, are reluctant to ask.

[…]

[B]efore I go into technical detail about why the temperature records are suspect, let me provide an analogy which ought to make it perfectly clear to any neutral parties reading this why the problem I’m about to describe ought not to be consigned to the realms of crackpottery.

Suppose say, that for the last 100 years my family have been maintaining a weather station at the bottom of our garden, diligently recording the temperatures day by day, and that what these records show is this: that in the 1930s it was jolly hot – even hotter than in the 1980s; that since the 1940s it has been cooling.

What conclusions would you draw from this hard evidence?

Well the obvious one, I imagine, is that the dramatic Twentieth Century warming that people like Al Gore have been banging on about is a crock. At least according to this particular weather station it is.

Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world’s leading global warming experts – say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State – and they studied your records for a moment and said: “This isn’t right.” What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.

You’d be gobsmacked, would you not?

Read more »

MIT scientist compares ‘climate alarmists’ to religious fanatics

Climate alarmists and greens in particular have all the hall marks of being adherents of a cult.

Dr Richard Lindzen certainly thinks so and is saying so rather loudly.

Climate change alarmists have been likened to a fanatical ‘cult’ by an MIT professor of meteorology.

Dr Richard Lindzen told a Massachusetts-based radio station that people who believe in global warming are becoming more hysterical in their arguments.

‘As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical,’ he said.

‘You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation.’

According to Howie Carr at Breitbart, the 74-year-old highlighted reports by Nasa that 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history.

He points out that the Nasa climate scientists who made the claim was only 38 per cent sure this was true.

‘Seventy per cent of the Earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well,’ he said. ‘They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree.     Read more »

Warmest year on record? NASA admits they are only 38% certain of their claim

The left-wing have been clamouring that 2014 was the warmest year on record.

Never mind about the record sea ice in the warmest yeardodgy numbers and inane tweets from scientists that have no basis in fact and are actually just more spin.

Now it appears that the media who all clamoured that last year was the warmest on record and the useful idiots on the left who have hyped the NASA report haven’t actually read the report…which says that they are only 38 per cent sure this was true.

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

Read more »