I thought the death of global warming would come from a dying scientist who no longer had anything to lose and could contain their conscience no more. But while doing my normal searching around for data I found two quotes, one in 2007 from one of the heads of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University who supplies most data for the IPCC, and the other from the IPCC report iteslf.

Oddly enough besides a single report by Melanie Phillips of the first I came across no more mention of it before or since despite it confirming every suspicion I had myself that it's simply impossible to both pin down a single event on man made climate change, and further to pin down climate change on man at all. That is no longer David Satguru's opinion, but direct from the CRU. They have told us and we have not heard or listened. Then the IPCC report itself, solely reported in Nigel Lawson's book and almost impossible to locate elsewhere, had one massive revelation, again confirming my own suspicions, followed by a list of likely benefits from man made climate change. Now unlike the main statement the second is all over the net and on the front page of the report. I've never read anyone besides a few independent scientists mention this before as their own opinion, but never seen one report quoting it is official and straight from the IPCC.
The bottom line is that although the future temperature rise in the next 100 years us within a 1 (ie as before) to 6 degree rise, their own estimation of the impact of the worst possible result is instead of the world's standard of living rising about 9 times better than present it will only rise about 8 times higher. And that's the worst! It then went on to confirm my next theory, that all that will happen is existing problems- floods, droughts and storms would just move around to other places and possibly intensify, although would be compensated by opening up many new areas as habitable.

This means basically that if we do nothing then things will carry on as before as changes will be to a level impossible to notice, while all actions to try and prevent said result guarantee a lower standard of living as costs soar and freedoms decrease (they are just discussing power rationing in the UK and can be sure if one country does most will follow).

I will now return to Mike Hulme who I will quote directly about the actual known impact of man on the climate: He calls it 'Post-normal science', apparently required to deal with such an issue.

"Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken. It has been labelled ‘post-normal’ science…The danger of a ‘normal’ reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."

This has indeed said that truth and science come second to policy and influence, and confirms it is impossible to pin down any climate effects on human influence. To think I've been trying to prove this for ten years and he's already told us in 2007. It's a pity our governments missed it as well as they continue their scare stories and taxes unabated. Maybe someone in the media needs to let the people know this and then maybe the governments will have to acknowledge it as well.

IPCC video clip
Post-normal science

edited to add links

I have just been forwarded this link which demonstrates Lake Michigan's score for July was 14.5' higher than it actually was, raising US average temperatures by the equivalent amount officially. Now they've found the glitch it won't happen again but it could have been cropping up for months without question. It has been concluded that this would have either been the worst level of incompetence by University of Michigan or worse still a deliberate arrangement with the NOAA who compile the national figures to make sure they still increased. It also demonstrates (ie yet again) how incredibly easy it is to get nonsense figures used in the official data and unless discovered later on will remain as part of it. Frightening our whole government policies are based on such an attitude.

Lake Michigan figures

If some sharp reader hadn't captured this image we couldn't have seen it, as it was removed from their own website soon after the discovery.

I will add this to the fact the NOAA admitted in two parts that over 90% of US land weather stations produce inadequate figures mainly due to being in urban heat islands, yet continue to use them all for their figures. Part two was their justification for it (this is straight from an interview), "The details don't matter, only the general trend".
OK, well I won't worry about that then. How about my tax bills then?

It didn't take long for more, the same NOAA who publish the most official set of climate figures for the world have been caught yet again. Last week it was discovered one of their satellites in use since 2000 had been reading 10-15 degrees high, and they kept using it for an unknown period and added them to the total, yet again making figures look higher than reality.

Satellite article

The fault was only discovered by chance and while the NOAA admit it was a genuine fault they refused to admit how long data had been used from it. Why would they want to hide such details if just an innocent mistake I wonder?

Hi satguru and everyone. Nigeria will be launching an earth-observation satellite to participate in the observance of climate change. Here is the link

http://www.sst-us.com/media-gallery/imag...on-NigeriaSat-X

Thanks Onimisi, good to see you back!

Like buses, you wait for ages then two come together. The CRU have been shown to create their own graphs showing a slope up from 1980 while two for the same place and period by others do not. CRU were actually picked up on the N Europe one by a Scandinavian climatologist who questioned why it varied from the ones they used, and the answer was less than comprehensible.

But if it's been shown CRU have created two similar graphs that deviate from others then a pattern may well exist beyond.

N Europe graphs

Official UK data

Hadley Centre version

I have been told by a scientist these two show the same thing in different ways, but as he is a hardline believer it may be trying to throw us off the scent- he says it's possible to present two graphs of the same data for the same period quite genuinely, but then again how are normal people likely to follow that when they see it, assuming it is even correct? If we have anyone here who can sort this pair out I'd like to know.

US adjusted temperatures

I have been working away in the background, and this example is typical of at least four similar charts I've dug up since my last visit. Because most people don't know the graphs and charts have been adjusted they assume (as they ought to) they are genuine. Far from it in fact. One country is being taken to court next month over a similarly altered temperature graph which tilted by about 45' after that had had the treatment. In fact the CRU who were caught mentioning tricks in their own charts haven't even released (or been made to release) their raw data. In fact if four where the raw data has been found in other ways have been shown to have adjustment, smoothing, rebasing and estimates added (these are said 'tricks') if the ones used by the IPCC to make world policy on are created in the same way and this was discovered then what platform would they then use to justify their claims used to make new laws worldwide? I believe this is the key to the warming reports more or less completely but surely when they adjust data they must realise someone will get it sooner or later yet they carry on as if they're somehow protected from any genuine investigation and sanctions.

Today was a record high in LA and record highs in America were recorded over the summer. FOX News showed all of the snow last winter and sneered that global warming was a joke. With all the record heatwaves not a peep. The scientists and global bodies and governments accepting human caused global warming is overwhelming. If you are not going to accept this then you can rubbish gravity and evolution til the cows come home.

There are two totally different issues here, three if you mistrust the figures. One is whether the warming phase is natural since the last ice age or man made, and the third is once you find a series of conflicting graphs whether it is indeed warming at all.

On top of that you then have to ask whether the warming itself is a bad thing- history tells us we've been plenty warmer than this in the past and there was simply no disaster. That's pretty good evidence to me, far more reliable than computer guesses. And remember the temperature has risen 0.7'C in 150 years. The rest is pure conjecture, and individual local figures have to be added to the world picture before they gain any significance.

The record breaking Los Angeles heatwave has made little impact in world news. Perhaps we're all becoming bored with reports of record breaking weather conditions throughout the world

When considering any scientific matter one has to ask how the data was acquired. Anthony Watts and volunteers have been working on the Surface Stations project in the USA. The vast majority of weather stations which give the world temperatures are badly sited and give false high readings. Temperatures recorded in rural areas not affected by the urban heat island effect have shown virtually no rise in temperature in the last 100+ years. The number of weather stations that are used for data have been decreased over the years and a far larger proportion of stations situated towards the equator. This means the average temperature will be higher. One must always consider the source and analyse the data. When the most highly respected statisticians analysed the "hockey Stick" data they found it to be completely inaccurate. This is the "Hockey Stick" graph alarmists delight in citing. It's been disproven by more than one person in independent analyses. The whole premise of the "Hockey Stick" graph is a LIE. It's not a mistake, it's been fudged. One of the prominent dendrochronologists involved in climate data admitted in an email revealed by the Climategate scandal that temperatures now were matched by, if not lower than, temperatures 1,000 years ago. Temperatures these days are not new to the Earth. We survived before as did the polar bears. We will survive again

The Royal Society in the UK has announced this week they are reviewing their previously staunchly alarmist view of AGW in light of the Climategate scandal and a number of prominent members calling for the review. Scientific societies in the USA are having members protest or resign because of the societies' refusal to look at the science properly and their political rather than scientific approach.

Prof. James Lovelock is the man who came up with the concept of "Gaia". He's a scientist of the old school. Science is a vocation and falsifying data was close to a mortal sin in his book. Science was a pure aim, a search for the truth. Now he's saddened by "scientists" who use science for their own purposes be they fame, money or any other cause such as a political agenda. Here's a link to the BBC page with his interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

"Scientists, he says, have moved from investigating nature as a vocation, to being caught in a career path where it makes sense to "fudge the data"."

My question is "Why do alarmists when presented with information that AGW is NOT real, not sing for joy in the streets because the world is not ending?" Alarmists, please look at the new information and be happy that the world is not ending! Then be angry that you've been lied to.

The problem with reporting isolated incidents is it isn't showing the big picture- just like when we had the freezing winter last year and were told only the overall picture mattered. Maybe the media have finally picked this up and realised this.

I still feel that the evidence is overwhelming and because a few problems have been identified it does not nullify it. I realise one off events are not relevant, I was making the point that the opponents of Global Warming at FOX jumped up and down over one off events and no-one called them on it. If it is real and we don't act, who will be jumping up and down for joy then. The world is at peak oil anyway and will have to find other sustainable energy resources in the future. Why not bring it forward and at the same time bring a possible disaster under control. The risk of doing nothing is too great.

I agree that one off events aren't relevant. Perhaps Fox was trying to redress the alarmist stance of the mainstream media who call for action with every hot event but ignore every cold event. For instance, a radio journo in Sydney said in about May that April had record breaking heat. Agreed, April in Sydney was warm but not record breaking. It was the hottest for 27 years. Now if Bradman scored 845 runs 80 years ago and Punter scores 844 this year he's the top scorer since Bradman but he hasn't broken a record. The mainstream media seem to delight in slightly fudging things so they can claim it's a record heatwave or dry spell in order to grab attention. Now the heatwave in Northern Europe was hot and Finland did break temperature records with a 37C day (I think in July) but that was the fault of a high pressure system being stuck over parts of Russia and Finland. The same thing happens here and everywhere else. I can remember a two week heat wave in Sydney that wouldn't move and also two or maybe three 2 week spells of rain when it didn't stop raining for a minute because nothing moved the pressure system on. Shortly after the record heat in Finland and Moscow it snowed in Lappland and northen Russia. In July.

Please don't get me wrong about my stance on this. I do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. I read a lot about it and I remain skeptical i.e. if there is convincing, well reseached and proven evidence then I will change my mind. I do believe we should limit pollution and when I build my new house next year I'll have solar panels for energy generation and do all the right things as far as water conservation, insulation etc goes as I don't like pollution. I bring rubbish home from work to recycle it! I think companies that pollute in rivers etc should be heavily fined. I try not to buy imported foods for more than one reason (though I make an exception for Swiss chocolate and certain spirits but let's not go there..). I limit packaging as much as possible. I'm on the side of the angels when it comes to cleaning up the Earth. I don't believe we should sacrifice our lifestyle more than necessary in order to please a noble but mistaken ideal that the Earth is warming up or cooling down and it's our fault.

Tizzabelle, that's the point exactly. Look after the environment for its own sake and treat the climate separately if and when we know more. In fact there has been no actual reduction in the CO2 rise whatever measures have been taken so far, which is obvious to anyone who has studied basic economics, as if you charge more for essentials people will simply pay more and spend less on luxuries, that is until they become so expensive no one but the very rich can afford them, and that is definitely the direction with the price rises although so far they haven't made a dent in the CO2 increase. But temperatures have not followed the line as there are so many other well known and less well known effects such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Nino, La Nina, and least understood the effects of solar changes such as sunspots and mass ejections etc.

The 'few problems' which have been identified are a little more than that though. The CRU for example, the climategate central hub, produce much of the data used by the IPCC which in turn sets world policies. Despite being shown to have changed various figures to fit certain models, they still refuse, saying they are not legally obliged to do so, to reveal their raw climate data. Now if I've found four varying graphs where raw data has been shown to vary from the finished product then I really do wonder what will be found if the CRU data comes out and is compared with their own public version?

Today this 45 minute film popped up which I've just finished watching before I saw these two replies. Rather than listen to me pass on other people's work anyone with a quiet 45 minutes to spare should see what they say directly. Calling what I've been digging up 'A few problems' is like calling Bernie Madoff a 'naughty boy' or Kim Il Jong 'A bit bossy'. These are mainly because the media, especially the TV rarely report anything besides the official line, meaning the independent scientists like the ones in the film are shunted onto the internet where there is little censorship. If you can especially watch it mountaingoat and then see if my caveats at trusting small inconsistencies mean a little more than before I'd be very interested.

Climate film

Now it's called 'Video of the day' which worries me a little it won't be there tomorrow, but fingers crossed. I'd save it myself but still wouldn't be able to show it online as too long for Youtube.

The event skeptics have been hoping for for years has been a mainstream scientist affirming our suspicions. Even though climategate gave many examples of what is done (originally) behind the scenes to reach certain conclusions, it was never possible to pin anyone down in an investigation to call it cheating.
Last week however someone finally jumped ship. Professor Hal Lewis, of Santa Barbara, has just resigned from The American Physical Society, saying basically they had given science a bad name by supporting the idea man creates global warming, and called the whole thing a money making scam. I for one no longer have to be seen as a lay jury member unqualified to comment on such matters, and from now on can quote him as a source I just happen to agree with. Also, I can't think of a single reason he should be making it up, he's got as much to lose on his reputation alone as any other scientist. I just wish the Telegraph knew how to spell emeritus as the typo has spread across the internet in sharing the link.

Full resignation letter

I am doing a little dance over this one, a special adviser to the IPCC has just jumped ship (the first to follow Dr Lewis, but from the equivalent of the King's Counsel), and provided this classic quote:

"There are no representative measurements of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide over any land surface, where “greenhouse warming” is supposed to happen. After twenty years of study, and as expert reviewer to the IPCC from the very beginning, I can only conclude that the whole affair is a gigantic fraud”

The whole quote is here. Whole story

Are we finally now seeing the beginning of the end?

Ha-Ha!
I just hope this is the tipping point i mentioned earlier.
Truth will out!

Imagine a hoaxer decided to create a webpage appearing to say the exact opposite of what the news were saying, like false bank sites luring the susceptible into entering their PIN numbers, passwords and safe combinations. What if a wiseguy created graphs showing temperatures and sea levels were stable and then pasting it onto a copy of the NOAA website and using their URL to link to it, which after all is done in various forms every day.

So imagine receiving a link to a copy of the NOAA page for California, currently engaged in implementing carbon trading, and seeing their own temperature hadn't risen on average in 110 years and the sea level was falling.

No, it is not a hoax, it's true!

Satguru, I've finally got around to watching the video you recommended and it's good. It covers several aspects of the AGW debate that are rarely discussed in the media except in an hysterical or biased way and without referral to any detractors of that aspect. It's a shame that these scientists aren't in the media as much as the more alarmist viewpoints. It's a shame that the media in general has jumped on the bandwagon without doing their research properly too.

There is an excellent book called "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon. He's a Canadian journalist and he's a devout "greenie". He's also high up in the management (if not the head honcho) of an environmental organisation. He interviewed the leading scientists in every facet of the AGW debate for their views. The odd scientist did still believe in AGW but not in their relevant field in which they were a leading expert. What he learnt surpised him.. the malfeasance in the some parts of the scientific community and in the IPCC itself was startling. He no longer believes in AGW (as far as I know) while remaining a committed environmentalist. There was one chapter which I gather has lost its credence with new data being available but on the whole it's an excellent and easy to read book for anyone with a basic knowledge of science. Congrats to Lawrence Solomon for doing what journalists should do.. investigate without bias!

Wow, these sacred cows seem to be falling at a record rate now. The latest scare story was CO2 was being absorbed by the ocean making it acid and killing sealife. Two problems, one the ocean is alkaline and will remain so at all projected CO2 rates regardless, and two is the hundreds of surveys of ocean life since have found CO2 turns to bicarbonate in the sea which allows it to thrive. Oops!

Full story

So while the US begin their climate investigations, the UN announce a plan to 'tackle climate change' by raising $100 billion a year from a world energy tax.
here it is

This alone should wake up a few (billion) people, but the additional issue is this requires a new law, as it is currently not possible to institute without another tier of government, ie at a world international level. While many people believe larger scale government isn't a bad thing in itself and not a problem, you must remember the UN are not elected so would be handing over national law to an unelected body. Secondly it's not possible to just make the law to apply to one single issue. Once this is in place the UN will gain the status of a world government, unelected and able to legislate on all areas. Something to think about.

A short wander round the world of philosophy to preface this link. In Star Trek each group of crew works independently to solve their predicament, as if no other was there to help, and in the end with one succeeding first it became clear if they'd done nothing they would still have been saved, but as none knew which group would succeed, or even the existence of other groups, the rule is to act as if working alone until otherwise indicated.

This is relevant as having just summarised what became seven separate sets of flat data made into hockey sticks, two being made by the same scientist. Of course one has to ask 'if the data is clear then why would anyone need to adjust it?'- all you need (I did a little statistics at school and college) is the figures, the averages and the deviation, ie variation from the norm. Those three, which all show as well, tell you the raw data, how it changes over time and how it compares to earlier measurments. Changing the average to one end or another is not standard procedure but has become so in the hockey sticks, as that is how they are made. Any random data, as demonstrated by Steven McIntyre and others since, will rise at one end if run through the equation to make it do so, it is impossible to create anything else.

Until today only a few internet bloggers including myself were concerned by this, but the Science and Public Policy Institute have just collated much of the same graphs and many more and come to a similar conclusion. They are simply making it up as it goes along. I am well aware how many managed to avoid peer review- it's summarised on many climategate sites and much was simply reviewed by their own team, in some cases by the writers themselves! I would be very interested to know how these claims can be denied as you simply can't present data which doesn't add up. I doubt the media will touch this for the usual reasons, but that's what the internet's for.

Report summary

Now when you've spent years finding similar data, and been blanked by literally every person you've presented it to who hadn't already worked it out you begin to wonder if there is no mouthpiece available to share this material. I decided to collate my own and see who was prepared to pass it on, and in best Star Trek fashion Worf and Data have just provided the work for me. Spock out.

Wow, this is a big one! If anyone has an idea how falling temperatures can be made to rise ten times faster than the world average I'd like to know. I'd say with so many of these a pattern has now definitely emerged, and the big question is why isn't anyone investigating it? I found them without any trouble, surely once this has been seen to happen worldwide it has to be checked?

Australian graph

Edited to add-

Wow, two in one day- this here is evidence wise the best yet as the GISS (US government agency) took an old graph (in black) showing established US temperatures till 1970 and accepted as such, and wrote a new version (in red). This goes a level above all previous graphs as they didn't just alter raw data, they completely twisted an official one as if no one would ever find it and see the difference. Now we have found it unless someone in an official status looks at it we are no further along the road to stopping more and more.

Naughty naughty!

One less responsibility has passed from my hands, as if anyone was unable to accept governments worldwide would set up anything which was not entirely what it claimed to be about then it's now official:

"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

This was not from a commentator or blogger as you'd have thought, it was from an IPCC official. They made the rules, they apply the rules and now we finally are certain about the rules.

As I'm sure the world's media will be entirely uninterested in reporting anything as boring as one of the most important admissions made possibly in my lifetime so I doubt anyone will find this out elsewhere but at least you now know. It's about the money. And you know what, those who currently didn't believe it will still say there's nothing wrong with that and it's fine. He wouldn't have dared to say it otherwise.

Report here

I think this year is the beginning of the true data coming out, less than a week later an obscure Slovenian study for the IPCC confirms the majority of CO2 comes from warming oceans releasing it over a 700 year cycle as confirmed directly by ice cores. I can't see how with so many foundations being removed this concept can last a lot longer.

Lucka Kajfez-Bogotaj article

Absolute classic, four different 2010 graphs, as if measured in different years or even different planets. Which is right? The media have chosen the rising one as it suits the IPCC, but sadly it was possible to see how it was created, and unfortunately the hot bits were added later. Oops...

What on earth is this?

Considering Cancun is planning rationing based on the odd graph of the four despite clearly being a figment of imagination, it makes me very worried few people challenge this sort of information despite being freely available online if nowhere else.

Tizzabelle, the graft involved is so far and wide such reports will stay out of the public field indefinitely so only by people like us finding them and spreading them wherever we can the chances of someone important taking them and running with them grow. We have a journalist on one of my Facebook pages who does this and although I don't think he's ever taken up any of my suggestions at least he's available in case. Christopher Booker however is the only journalist I know anywhere who dared to publish James Hansen's 'unusual' temperature figures for 2010. In fact the freezing December made certain 2010 wasn't the hottest year ever (in fact this means since 1979 which is when current satellite records began). He somehow remains a free man though, and in his job, which considering how any other director of a company is judged would have put him on the street at least anywhere else.

For today's presentation, it's interesting how much animals are involved in cliches. If it looks like a duck etc., and the elephant in the room. Well this is both a duck and the size of both an elephant and what it produces. Carbon trading sounded so much like Enron to me that I told everyone that our world governments are behaving like convicted criminals (that's just one example of many, protection rackets and spraying noxious substances in the air are illegal as well but that's straying off the point). So it came as no surprise when I discovered this was indeed a duck and not a cat or monkey in a duck mask. Enron did indeed help Al Gore create carbon trading, and as such means he has created his plan taken up by most of the world as part of a criminal conspiracy. Add to that his own company which he pays his own credits to, which is both insider trading and market manipulation, makes you wonder how and why this is part of government policies now or in the future without any significant opposition. I'm all for giving to charity but not to people with more money than me, and choose to pay it when I can afford it rather than be taken at source.

Here it is

Hi satguru, I can't say I'm surprised by that info tho I'd not seen it before. Some of our largest mineral companies here in Oz who were frantically lobbying to NOT have a carbon tax are now in favour of it. Something dodgy happening there.. follow the money as they say in the classics. The truly galling thing is that it is the average person who will pay for it in increased energy prices, food prices (it has to be transported somehow), increased prices for everything really. The mineral and energy companies won't end up paying a cent in extra tax as they will forward on the price hike to the consumer. *sigh*

The carbon tax, like all, simply redistributes wealth. Guess who gets them now, yep, energy companies. They have been given credits here free, and sold the unused ones after a year for millions. If that is how they are run I presume the same applies elsewhere. Carbon offsets are unregulated so currently it's legal for the companies to pocket the lot, if they chose to, also not to keep records of how they are used. Not very environmentally friendly once you find that out somehow. And yes, of course the companies make sure all added tax is simply absorbed by the consumer. Here the UK is leading as all energy companies pass theirs on annually and we have the highest fuel and energy prices ever. Meanwhile the wind farms which just opened did about 4-8% of their usual 25% or so capacity during last month's ice, which I fully expected and is pretty well guaranteed as when the cold front comes the wind drops to leave it in place for a week or two. That's how it always worked and when we need it the most.

So far I've been posting errors in the official data which have been discovered at a later date. Although not claiming to understand more than the tip of this iceberg, here is what appears to be a comprehensive (only 5 pages including large diagrams) explanation of how CO2 works in the atmosphere. Whichever way you look at the figures, doubling, tripling or even more does not appear to contribute to anything besides slightly changing the makeup of the atmosphere. I'd be interested if anyone can disagree with this rather than confirm it as if correct means we have all been had.

CO2 heat absorption spectrum