Satguru, This will get into a parallel topic but one which I think the original world was sensitive to which allowed GW scamming to take hold: The desire to control our weather!
I'm down here in Florida below that braid of murderous supercells which are keeping the Tornado Alley moniker alive. I had a bit to do with the radar they use to detect cylonic rotations within those supercells. We are fairly certain the rotations are caused by the warm air to the south colliding with the cold air from the north. Warm air rises. Tries to go over the cold and forces the cold downward impelling a spin to the atmosphere.
I propose we use those same radars turned to directional beams and to a higher (max) power setting and point them at the north (cold) side of the supercells. This should have the effect of warmong at some small amount of the cold air. That in turn would slow down the impelled twisting of the warmer air trying to get over it. We might not be able to kill a supercell but we might lower the speeds of the cyclone funnels which descend to Earth and cause the death and damage. Another point would be to not look at the supercells with radar from transmitters on the south side of the clouds (that could actually be exacerbating the situation). The model seems to work on my scratch sheet. I'll now turn that idea over to those weather scientists who were hoping to get ahead via the GW issue and are now out of a job. Become Radar Techs manning the multitude of transmitters we will need to deflate the supercell phenomenon.
Global Warming: Not! Weather Control: Yeah!

Thanks Ghosttowner, the funding is known enough for both sides to see one has tens of times more than the other. Also it's not a political issue, but as become one is now treated like it. The sea levels are now back to the 2005 level and would struggle to break the 20th century increase at current rates (8 inches, totally unremarkable). The Antarctic contains 90% of the world's ice (easier to measure and reflects temperature fairly faithfully) and has risen 1% a decade for some time much to the frustration of those who want to show it should be shrinking.

The data comes from a variety of sources, and are of different levels of reliability. I prefer coastguards followed by long-standing universities who have been sharing it for long before this became fashionable. I only remembered the other day that the IPCC altered one of their own documents from 1995 showing the medieval warm period after accepting the hockey stick diagram which had removed it. Now if you have an established historic record accepted throughout a profession since it was originally established, and a new graph has simply altered the slope to iron it out you can't use them both as one is clearly wrong.

But which one?

Mehaul, I'd say if radar would work at least it's harmless so go ahead. We already have a sky full of it with apparently no consequences, while metal sulphides and other strange chemicals at amounts possible to saturate the atmosphere would be akin to destroying it for generations ahead of us, and Bill Gates and Richard Branson are now paying for it. Have they forgotten their families will also be breathing this muck in, or are they planning to take Branson's rocket to another planet ready and waiting for them, as otherwise they will also need gasmasks for the rest of their lives just like their potential victims.

Genius is a rare and recognisable quality in the world, and Christopher Monckton is a clear example of it. I've had a little of the usual stick daring to question my betters, and was tempted to just copy the complete summary of the recent lecture here and be done with it, but would be taking advantage of the site and will just add the link.

The summary is that he has the figures at hand, probably all of them. He is prepared, and in true genius style understands how every part fits into and affects the whole. He addressed a room of science students and professors, and barely a one understood the material whatsoever. This should be a humbling experience for anyone honest enough to admit good people can sometimes be wrong.

Monckton lecture

I read this straight through,brlliant.
Shocked them silent.

Thanks George, Monckton has the time and resources to make this a full time job, and the brains to sweep his opponents away with no effort. None of his data is in question, the majority of data we use is from the IPCC itself or universities and coastguards. No one else is qualified to collect it and there's nothing the slightest bit odd on the data until someone comes along and alters it and puts it in their own reports. Normally this would be called false accounting and totally illegal, but when it comes to climate figures it seems anything goes.

Someone asked a few days ago for evidence James Hansen claimed temperatures would rise 5 degrees or so by this decade (he'd been doing it for 30 years, so demonstrated the typical thoroughness of such activists who simply listen to politicians and don't learn the data), and I can't remember which of the many blogs I read it on so can't go back now (he really didn't need me as it can be searched in minutes), but someone has gone to the trouble now to collate all Hansen's claims since 1986, and were it not for the fact he is being used by the world's government to make policies it would almost be amusing. The frightening thing is not being flooded (it's impossible, it would take many thousands of years at the current rates of change) but that the governments allow him to be quoted and then follow him to the letter. The IPCC do not approve of the claims in general as their guidelines do not encourage either certainty or claims outside their own parameters, yet all our governments (except the Czech Republic, possible Poland and now Canada) are acting on every one of them as if genuine.

As his first claim was 1986 and clearly nonsense, as have been all the others, then the fact he has been kept in office and treated like an emperor or even a demi-god says far more about the state of the world than the rantings of one extremist who ought to have been quietly retired once it was clear he had no grasp of reality.

Hansen's complete predictions

I've just compiled all the times reported here (and a few more) when scientists were caught getting it wrong. The worst to me being the glaciers as they had all claimed they were losing a very specific 50 billion tons of water a year, till actual measurements found they had lost none for a decade. A few raised eyebrows but no apologies.

Now to those who have accused me of being anti-science, I would first say it is because I support science entirely I see these massive errors as being anti-science, and my exposure of them does not make me an activist or troublemaker but a reporter. The media rarely report these, especially beyond the original one, so it means others like me have to and then take the pointless personal insults simply for showing up well qualified and informed professionals who ought to know better.

My question is, how many of these errors need to arise before even the most dedicated supporters of climate science realise this is not how science should be carried out, and had any other professional or more so business person done the same thing they would have lost their job, and possibly prosecuted as well? Think about it, if a doctor made similar errors people could die. That's not a joke.

Here's a recap.
------------------------------------

Known errors committed by climate scientists:

James Hansen predicted temperature and sea level rises of a few degrees and feet by 2020 at the latest in the 80s. In 2012 the temperature rose less than half a degree and the sea by a couple of inches. He continues to make similar predictions to this day although clearly nowhere close to reality from the beginning.
------------------------
After claiming (unanimously) the largest chain of glaciers on earth was melting at a very specific 50 billion tons of water a year, a study in 2012 actually measuring it directly found it had not changed at all in a decade. Some scientists expressed surprise but no apologies were forthcoming.
"The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."
-------------------------

Until 1995 the warmer than present medieval warm period was part of the official UN data, one day it vanished from their records, replaced with the hockey stick, which could not function with a higher period previously. It remains in all textbooks and studies from the period and earlier but no longer acknowledged by the converts to the hockey stick. But in order to accept the hockey stick it was necessary to rewrite the past.
-------------------------
In March 2012 a report came out predicting massive sea level rises as usual, but quoted the current sea levels as being “ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (CBS) — A new report shows sea levels are rapidly rising and the study predicts the Jersey Shore could be underwater in a matter of decades.”

Except the rapidly rising sea levels they quote have fallen in the last couple of years than they had risen in the previous three, bringing them back to 2005 levels. In fact the sea level has been rising at around 8 inches a century and currently could barely reach that at the current rate, and the stalled temperature and world ice levels all correspond with each other as stable within normal variations.
-------------------
The IPCC created a graph predicting temperatures under varying levels of CO2, and come 2012 the actual temperature was below that of the stable level with none added, despite the actual CO2 rising steadily for decades.

Most links are above and can provide for all others.

I went to the site Monckton recommended, and found just the opposite of what he said would be found.

The University of Illinois shows increasing global temperatures and CO2 levels.

The Crysphere Today shows huge polar ice loss since 1980.

Also here, Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4 degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas. . . Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased correspondingly over the past 50 years. . . The largest change has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%.

Of course Monckton didn't say we aren't losing arctic sea ice; he said there isn't a net polar loss combining arctic and antarctic ice, and he's technically correct on that for the present. However, West Antarctica is losing ice and is expected to lose more; it's just lagging behind arctic ice. That's according to New Scientist. See also Scientific American. (This is not the Daily Mail!)

Here's a panorama of the whole picture from NASA.

I know the figures on both sides. In law (and officially in science) guilt/a theory has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. All these variations, both in interpretation and the readings themselves if nothing else simply raise doubts. Time raises doubts, as new data keeps contradicting old guesses. Taking it back to global warming
(remember that, the cause of climate change?), going back to basics without the warming just why would anyone look for its results? The official rise is 0.8C, only half that from CO2. That doubling experiment is half run. Scientists do not know why the Antarctic (90% of all ice) is growing at 1% a decade, and fully admitted they can't predict when the CO2 spectrum will be saturated and no longer absorb any more heat. The current temperature changes would not have been noticed oustside the CO2 rise as we are always coming out of an ice age or going into one due to the precession of the orbit and variations in the sun's output. I found this week we've only had polar ice at all a third of the last 100 million years, it is not the norm and the earth survives either way quite happily. The Florida Keys are barely above sea level and all the jettys and shorelines have not changed in living memory.

All these studies break the first rule of science, never go from the particular to the general. And secondly when things change you must keep up with them. The IPCC have a list of caveats including 'It is not yet possible to assign any single event to man made warming'. The media, politicians and most of all scientists must follow these rules as they are currently acting as if driven by religious faith, and dismissing every single claim they may have got it wrong. I've checked their figures over and over again for years and they just don't add up. Worse still not one politician or professor has come out and said so while around the world millions of ordinary people can see it clearly. I'll repeat my rule again, scientists are qualified to originate the material, and if it's not totally obscure then everyone is qualified to judge it using only logic.

There's a part of the atmosphere's health that the scientists did get right. That was the Ozone hole being contributed to by Chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere, contributing, if not outright causing, the new or enlarged hole. Stopping the release of those chemicals into the mix was a good thing backed by scientific method. Perhaps other scientists tried to stretch the problem to other causes and the whole thing just snowballed when business saw the impact it could have with nations coming up with funding and made research a business unto itself (sorry about the run-on sentences but it is a runon topic).

Unfortunately a tree and fruit it bears is only as healthy as its roots. How many people genuinely have the ability to personally test these figures and theories and have to go on trust? That trust can easily be exploited (it is after all human nature, even if few succumb), bearing in mind before the internet it would have been nigh on impossible to check. But the figures and most studies are now freely published, and with the time and corresponding patience anyone can collect this data and draw their own conclusions. Scientific data must be open to public scrutiny, especially when solely used to create public policy. Many newly elected politicians enter with high ideals, and then told on day one by the whips if they remain independent they'll never advance beyond a back bencher. Many report following retirement this has caused a decline in nearly every one, and worse still as a result raises a major public suspicion in the rare politician like Ron Paul who clearly does not bow to party pressure as it is so unusual to break the common norms.

That applies to all specialized areas of knowledge, whether we like it or not.

I think given the time and facilities I'd say you could put them on a sliding scale to fairly easy to see to almost impossible. A typical example would be the related polar bear population. Although hard to count from inaccessibility, they have ways of extrapolating which can provide at least comparitive accuracy and a good estimate of the total. The more discrete or direct a figure is the easier it is for the general public to at least get clear indications and clues directly from.

Within climate we have the top level order, the visuals. All satellite views are online, so the comparitive polar regions show the ice changing over a chosen period and then can superimpose the two over each other to see the changes directly. So there are smaller elements we can all see, and when they say the Antarctic ice is growing we can test it directly and it is.

Temperature measurements are at the bottom end, as without your own satellite array you can't have a clue for anywhere outside your garden. But Nils-Axel Morner, an oceanographer, hires satellite time every week personally so he can keep his own records without a human filter being involved, outside his work duties. If a local group was interested they could band together and do the same given the available funds.

Medical claims are also directly testable. If you find in 2010 no one you know has ever had diphtheria you can fairly well assume it is not present in the UK and whatever the studies said you would have a benchmark albeit anecdotal. But measles is something we nearly all had in the 60s but with vaccination most parents now will report a far lower incidence with many children probably never having it. I can keep working through all the sciences in order to give examples at each end of the spectrum but sure everyone's got the gist now. World climate figures are actually so complex it's technically impossible to measure any for a whole year accurately, there are error margins but we are not party to most of them. But for example the temperature measurements on land are under 25% real while the rest, like a gas bill, are estimated. Sea level varies from inch to inch and moment to moment, and while local tide gauges are almost infallible (the only variable being the land rising and sinking, which can be measured very well) when you add the land based ones and all the sea bobs and satellite measurements you will see a random selection of slopes per spot per day/week/month/year. Say five spots are taken per 1000 miles (as a site has done) no trend at all can be seen. Take sets from maybe 100 countries and a gradual pattern may form, but the sample set is so small you can imagine how many points you would need to get the genuine picture. The same goes for temperature but many times more, as it not only varies per point on the surface but at each level in the air. And below the surface of the sea. The warm/cool currents are so complex that if you just drop down a few yards the temperature of the sea changes many times, and also increases with depth which I only recently discovered.

As the climate brought the term 'chaos theory' as it was so complex trying to follow a small change to its conclusions was never the same twice so virtually beyond any ability to measure in the future, and nearly as hard in the present. Until man made warming was an issue there was little need for long term or worldwide measurements. Satellites didn't exist to do it till 1979, everything before then has been from basic land, air and sea thermometers and as said only cover a quarter of the planet with huge areas almost absent as so inaccessible. Most are in urban areas where they are concentrated together and then places like Siberia and the rain forests are filled in using who knows what algorithms. Therefore I believe the climate is indeed the most arcane area of all natural sciences, and as such the ideal ground for the opportunity to slip through information not quite right, much as structured financial instruments which even the sellers did not understand in some cases. In something like astronomy or medicine there is simply not the opportunity to do so, as amateurs can use telescopes and everyone who visits a doctor knows what they can and can't do. But no one without a satellite and super computer, plus a PhD to interpret the figures can have more than a faint hint of the world climate beyond looking at the ice caps. That puts the climate in a very different category to me.

Someone's just put together two of three diagrams re CO2 (commonly accepted across the board) and while again not talking Daily Mail the temperature diagram was the IPCC's own, suddenly discarded in 1995 for the hockey stick.

CO2 vs temperature

Anyone familiar with the temperature records would say 'How can these be so different to the set we now use?' and I would ask exactly the same question. This is not a switch of temperature records by a dodgy paper or think tank, it's the UN. Although they appear not to have been caught till now, they simply took what had been the official world temperature records used for the whole 20th century beforehand and replaced them with a totally new set. At best this means they got it so wrong before they had to rewrite history, and if that was the case how much confidence does that give you in the discipline, where at the very least they have admitted they got it so totally wrong they had to replace long-standing data with absolutely new, and at the very worst they have just changed something which may well have been perfectly accurate with one that isn't.

Either way it doesn't give me confidence in the whole area, and am utterly flabbergasted it manages to be maintained in about 90% of the general public, even the handful who learn about this. At the very least this shows climate measurements to be in their very infancy, and I personally do not want infants running my world.

NASA, led by James Hansen, although officially a space exploration organisation, has led the world in global warming campaigning, and in an unprecedented move seven astronauts and a selection of other scientists numbering around fifty have just written to them asking them to stop peddling unproven material about global warming and get back to space.

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

The status of these individuals lends a huge blow to the claim the science is settled. There cannot be a consensus if more and more of them are coming out openly and disagreeing with it. I strongly suggest all the down the line believers look at these points very closely and think about why they would possibly want to do such a thing unless they genuinely thought the position was not a tenable one.

In their letter, the group said that thousands of years of data challenge modern-day claims that man-made carbon dioxide is causing climate change. “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from (NASA’s) Goddard Institute for Space Studies leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled,” they wrote.

NASA article

Not in direct response to the challenge, this week NASA's latest research has now confirmed the changes in climate throughout history have been mainly driven by solar influences. As a result, how anyone can discount their effects since the industrial revolution, as if the added CO2 somehow makes the previous known driver of most changes insignificant I do not know. But from the side of logic if the sun did it before then it always has to. Unless they can prove an increase in about 0.03% of the official greenhouse gases (the rest are mainly water, about 97%) is actually able to have a stronger influence than the gradually becoming known solar influences they should not try and claim it can.

It's the sun, stupid.

...new study released from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland measuring the global temperature variance during the past 100 years has found the sun's heat and variable cycles have indeed made a significant, measurable impact and greatly influenced Earth's climate.

In fact, the influence extends as far back as the Industrial Revolution.Goddard's research shows that the solar cycle's ups and downs directly affect the temperatures and long term climate. During solar minimum they discovered about 1.36 watts per square meter of solar energy hits Earth's mesosphere; solar maximum escalates to 1.40 watts per square meter.

This is not from a blogger, think tank or oil company. NASA's GISS and the CRU at East Anglia are the two main sources of climate data for the IPCC. I'd say once either of them start changing their tune those below ought to take note.

Keeping up, those naughty Himalayan glaciers are not only not shrinking but now the Karakorum range is growing. The models didn't expect that either but then again who can predict the future as a person, let alone a computer?

Report here

I really wonder what the 'tipping point' (to borrow a phrase) of these events is before the paradigm shifts? How much strain can the theory take before it at least bends?

Oh wow, two in a day! It's like a domino effect already!
--------------------------------



Emperor penguins, whose long treks across Antarctic ice to mate have been immortalised by Hollywood, are heading towards extinction, scientists say. Based on predictions of sea ice extent from climate change models, the penguins are likely to see their numbers plummet by 95% by 2100. That level of decline could wreak havoc on the delicate Antarctic food chain. The research is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. --BBC News, 26 January 2009


Nearly twice as many emperor penguins inhabit Antarctica as was thought. UK, US and Australian scientists used satellite technology to trace and count the iconic birds, finding them to number almost 600,000. The extent of sea ice in the Antarctic has been relatively stable in recent years (unlike in the Arctic), although this picture hides some fairly large regional variations. --Jonathan Amos, BBC News, 13 April 2012

Wow, some years after the NOAA website had been showing a sea level rise of the low millimetres a year, until it started falling a couple of years ago, someone's finally picked it up in the research field.

"A paper published today in Climate of the Past finds that sea level changes in the tropical Pacific during the period 1950-2009 are explained due to natural changes in the cycle of El Ninos and La Ninas [called "internal variability"]. The authors state, "While our analysis cannot rule out any influence of anthropogenic forcing [man-made 'greenhouse' gases], it concludes that the latter effect in that particular region is still hardly detectable." The paper finds no evidence of accelerating sea level rise and instead shows the running 17 year average rise has decelerated over the past 59 years."


Details here

This follows the previous study, taking five years and £3 million which found rich people had more money than poor people. I so wish I'd got a PhD now.

Dear oh dear oh dear. Like a student who only answers half a question, the IPCC and all the scientists working under them have kept us in the dark. Unless the writer is deluded (I have checked as much as I can and it appears the CO2 figures are fairly well known generally so unlikely) the greenhouse effect has been exagerrated almost infinitely as CO2 halves in power as it doubles, so it adds 1C at 260ppm, 1.5C at 520 (absolutely accurate as it is consistent with current measurements at 390ppm which only attributes about 0.4C, which is then only an estimate), and 1.75C at 1040 etc. This means it won't even reach the IPCC turning point of 2C which they consider a safe increase. Unfortunately unless the media get hold of such technical information and share it people simply wouldn't know- I only just found it last week and follow everything actively online.

Unlike mass measurements of climate this is a discrete physical property anyone with a physics or chemistry degree (that counts me out so must hand it over to one of our scientists here as well as many others I know on Facebook) can confirm or deny. If true the IPCC have been lying to us all so brazenly since the start the UN could be up for treason if exposed. Like I'm doing here basically.

CO2 diagrams

I am not exaggerating. The cost of their story has diverted aid from the third world for clean water, cataract operations, draining swamps for malaria, as well as doubling or tripling western energy prices so 3000 people in Britain have died of hypothermia every year since they went up. All these deaths and those caused by making people use their food crops for biofuel which has caused many more deaths in the third world from starvation we see another holocaust in the making nobody even realises is happening, much like the last one.

I don't know how or why this happens, but after 12 years of being well covered up, this paper has now surfaced, from James Hansen who always says exactly the opposite (he could be described as the father of man made warming theory) this now comes up:

..we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols..


Scientific papers, especially those used to make laws, are supposed to be kept for the public to access, yet this has been hidden since publication in 2000. Hansen also said before then the safe amount for CO2 was 350ppm. The fact it's now over 390 and without the media telling you things are changing you and I really couldn't tell, and the temperature can't either.

More surprises

Yes, I admit in advance I've been cherry picking again, but in my defence if you add a cherry to the previous cherry and then the previous three pages that's enough for a pie and a few pots of jam into the deal.

I have just been reading a serious official guide to global warming to improve my scientific awareness around it, and was almost dropping off until this jumped out at me:

"To summarize, Hanson et al. believe that it is quite possible Earth could end up ice free with CO2 levels of 350 ppm which is well below where we currently are. Because the melting of Antarctic ice takes centuries there is time to lower the "tipping point" level of CO2 before it is too late. When Antarctica was last ice-free, sea levels were 70m (~230 feet) higher than today."

To make such claims in advance, it means sooner or later, and with CO2 rising 2ppm a year this would have meant over 20 years ago, reality will either confirm or refute your predictions. Reality says the Arctic (10% of land ice) has shrunk maybe 1% while the Antarctic has grown a little. Basically little significant can be measured anyhow.

Now besides being kind enough to leave this gem in despite updating the site at least monthly with the latest figures, this is one huge example (among many others I've mentioned already) of discredited guesses. Possibly the worst so far although I have a growing list, this may be the ultimate before the next one happens. One cherry may indeed provide so little nutrition it is barely worth the trouble, but when you get a whole bowl then it's enough to keep you going till dinnertime. And I'd say this is more like a melon really. Add up the fruit salad so far and the confidence in all these wonderful graphs where 90% of them haven't happened yet ought to drop to the same level as the ice was expected to. I will concede strictly speaking Hansen (that's how you ought to spell it) was implying it would lead to the melt happening in centuries, but that's the same as saying if you die before me I'll leave everything in my will to your family. It may happen, but you'll never know about it and shouldn't rely on an impossible claim anyway. Making impossible claims is not scientific, and while the sun has a fixed amount of fuel to predict (ie on a linear scale) when it will run out, so can predict an indefinite period ahead as we can work it out, you cannot use such methods in an open system as they are chaotic, just look at the differences from the other predictions made in the 1990s I already referred to, this one is so against logic let alone anything else I'm amazed the peer review system, designed to weed out anything dodgy (so I'm told) didn't catch this one as even if it was correct how would we ever know?

Basically it's the same as using out of body projection to see what happens after you die, and then publishing a peer reviewed paper. It may actually be right, but none of us will ever know. That's called cheating in any other field.

An Enron executive spills the beans. Global warming was an excuse to receive massive subsidies and increase the value of their gas reserves. Once the roots are rotten how can you accept the tree and all the fruit? The tracks are clear, Enron, GE wind and BP solar banded together to outlaw coal and attract huge payments from taxes for their existing businesses. Besides the scientists themselves industry has easily made the most money out of these schemes, so of course makes perfect sense they are behind them.

The usual suspects

None of this is either a secret or a surprise, or ought to be if you are still not surprised by such disgusting fraud on a scale the mafia would sell their souls for.

This is interesting. Not being qualified in science but law this request is pretty much what you'd expect from a mafia informant. You don't ask for criminal immunity unless, well, you are worthy of it. This is virtually a public and totally unexpected admission of guilt, meaning they have realised it must be preferable to admit something now than try and cover it up and risk long prison terms and criminal records. Basically you don't ask for something if you don't need it.

Here it is

Climate researchers working for the United Nations have issued an astonishing plea for immunity from prosecution. Government-funded personnel sought the ruling on the eve of the latest round of international climate talks scheduled for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (June 20, 2012).

Can you think of any other scenario where this would have been done besides the bloomin' obvious one? I can't, this is normally the last shot of a desperate man during a police investigation. I'm sure the other lawyers around will support me on that, especially those with a criminal practice while I am only a teacher.

For those accusing me of being anti science here, I would point them to this study just released by the US National Academy of Science. Following the IPCCs similar predictions for temperature in the 90s which have now been shown to be totally bogus, as the actual temperature wasn't even on the diagram, they have one now for sea level, a foot in 20 years now predicted despite a steady rise of 8 inches a century for the last two. This is both impossible to propose, as the climate is an open system and simply can't make predictions about more than a few months at best, and secondly the science itself (which I have had to check to learn this) makes such a rise impossible as it requires a temperature rise of a few degrees C at least, and then a rapid melting of a huge portion of land ice, which takes too long to be seen due to latent heat making a temperature a few degrees above zero before it melts, so adding a couple more C to even allow the ice to melt after it's gone up already.

Now basically people's memories aren't that long. In 20 years no one will even remember global warming, let alone the ridiculous guesses these professional people have churned out knowing full well only the present will take them seriously while the future when they don't happen will see many new events overtake anything they've pretended to forsee. No, this is not science, it is a crime. If they were just saying it for attention I'd say they were simply making themselves look stupid, but these reports are used by governments to raise taxes. That, to me, is treason. I am not anti science, it's because of that I must do my best to expose those who are.

Lies, lies and more utter rubbish

I've seen some pretty rough stuff over the last 30 years, best of all James Hansen's a few feet of sea level rise, but that was one man without a shred of evidence (he still stands by it apparently 20 years later despite the actual levels doing nothing) whereas this is one of the top groups in the world, presumably on a par with the equally deluded Royal Society over here. But such nonsense has now destroyed their credibility as what they have claimed cannot even happen. It's not a 'long shot' or exaggeration, it is physically not possible to melt that much ice within such a short time while there is no known potential cause. The CO2 rise has already proved beyond doubt it cannot cause positive feedback, so there simply isn't a mechanism to cause a rise by any other means. This equation is watertight. Nothing known can make it happen, and if they believe it then they should be retired, and if they don't they should be jailed.

Take their breeding licenses away! Refuse to issue marriage licenses to them. Perform a Lysistrata on them!

This month's 'Scientific American' says the Antarctic Ice Cap is now disappearing at an alarming rate. They say the glaciers there are growing into the sea (so how's that prove loss? It proves glacier growth fer cripes sake!) and calving at an alarming rate. So, this has never happened before?
(Note: many detractors of that otherwise fine magazine claim that the oil/energy consortium directs its editorial board. They do buy a lot of ad space.)

I checked the Antarctic figures and didn't find anything conclusive till just now, it seems previous estimates were actually based more on models than actual measurements, meanwhile after two year's worth of measurements they are indeed stable after all. I doubt any of the warming lot will take any notice though, it would ruin their whole game.

Antarctic is not actually melting


"It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ..."

Well fancy that. Now what was I saying about scientists before?

It's been a quiet day, and often means I do my research to see whatever turns up. Considering this utter bombshell is almost two years old and I only just found it, despite having tens of newsfeeds during my waking hours, shows what a great job the media and lobbyists did covering it up, till now.

Previously unknown to me interested parties have indeed taken a government temperature record to court as (like all the ones posted here and many more) it varied from the original, with all having the same 30' or so tilt to make the right side higher than the left.

This went to trial in 2010 and the judge forced the government to abandon the new graph and replace it with what was clearly the genuine data (bear in mind unlike government policy courts are legally bound to have experts on both sides) which showed absolutely no warming whatsoever from start to finish.

Hitherto unknown court case

Now if they can do it in New Zealand, they can do it in America, as they've done exactly the same thing. After an NOAA report in the late 80s saying the US had broken the world trend as showed no warming at all, and it meant nothing as it only comprised 1.5% of the planet anyhow, in 2000 it joined the rest with the upslope. Until Steven Goddard got hold of the actual graph before it sloped. It followed the utterly featureless trend of the previous one up to the present once the picture had been straightened from the angle they added. I don't think those capable (if I knew who they were I'd let them know) of bringing a case there (anyone help me here?) are aware this is possible and has been already successful, as legal precedent tends to be the same in all similar systems both simple error posing as reality and most importantly the legal authority to try and then reverse the action are both present. They just need the right people to bring a case and if a similar precedent exists only in another country using their system it is admissible as a guide. That was why the Privy Council heard final appeals for the whole Commonwealth and the principle has applied across British law in both directions where no home precedent exists.

Same scenario, different location

These are not two isolated cases either, just the best documented. If you check for yourselves you will see it is actually standard practice, therefore as world temperature is created by adding the countries together, and NZ and now US have been found to be false, what does that do to the total they make up (rhetorical question)?

These pesky scientists just can't agree when it comes to climate:

Temperature rise analysis

In contrast to Crutzen and Molina, Giaever found the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case:

“What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”

He disagreed that carbon dioxide was involved and showed several charts that asserted, among other things, that climate had even cooled.

The way temperatures are measured, once known, are basically filling in the spaces and comparing apples with oranges before finally calculating three different figures: Raw data, adjusted data and anomalies. No set is more or less accurate than the others, while the adjustments are supposed to weed poor measurements and urban heat islands out they tend to increase temperatures rather than the expected reduction consistently.

The whole climate issue can only be one of perception. No one has even a fraction of the whole picture- it was only this year before the Himalayan glacier range and sub-Antarctic sea could be measured directly, and both proved the guesses totally wrong. Temperature diagrams vary between studies and mix proxy, land and satellite temperatures as if identical before reaching the final figures. But the bottom line is what Gevaier says, how can a figure within the error margin be significant whether accurate or not? And if it is accurate why is it related to CO2 when the sort of variation which would never once have been focused on it without a rise of CO2.

If the input is small then the output can never be any larger. Just imagine a 1C variation above what you had today or yesterday, what difference do you think that would make? That is all they mean, everyone's overall temperature is 0.8C higher than it was 160 years ago, if they have even managed to measure it properly. And for that governments are winding us back to the dark ages?

I'm guessing this one's peer reviewed so take any objections up directly and not with me. More evidence existing temperature records are wrong,

A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today - despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.

"We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, one of the scientists leading the study. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy."

If nothing else, those who return time and again accusing me of being anti science must be reminded: This IS science.

Roman and medieval warm periods

The Weather Channel: Sound bit: "Global Warming", proof: Glacier and Ice Cap exhibited glacier calving and shrinking iceburgs.

Speaking to the contrary:
1) Glaciers 'calve' because they are growing; and,
2) Iceburgs (fresh H2O) melt in salt water because salt water has a lower freezing temp, meaning 30^oF sea water will melt an iceburg.

They also said Antarctica set a record for highest temp ever recorded of 9^o! Wow. all twenty years of extensively covered geophysically measured temps (meaning they are only now measuring the entire continent) produced a high side result. Though they say that was the high, it was actually an average reading of many measurements and not a single one. Some places may have seen 10^o!. In a population of twenty average high temps a new bell curve tail end was set! Statisticians love that, NOT. It's insignificant statistically. What place on Earth might you say would be removed from man's influence and tell us the story of what is going on naturally climate-wise? Why, the Antarctic of course!

Let's look at this calving thing. As glaciers grow, usually down a valley they have carved, they stay together because the ice, though brittle, is supported underneath by solid land. When they grow out over a place where the land drops away or a shore line sinks the sea floor from under them, the physical pull of gravity is enough to fracture off the unsupported sections (a sort of example of why cantilevers work, but in this case, it's how lacking a cantilever causes failure). Another way they calve is that glaciers are strong in a straight direction, slightly downward in the heading of their growth. Once they reach open water, there is Archimede's Principle brought into play. A buoyant force upward is exerted on them by the surrounding water. Being brittle, the ice fractures and chunks fall away. How do these things move toward the water? They are pushed from behind by new glacial material. Ice is considered a solid form of water. But it is NOT a solid! it is a flowable material like glass. The flow rate is extremely slow so it seems not to be occurring but it is. If you don't push it, it stops flowing (or flows at an even slower rate). So, if there was melting and no new growth going on, there would be no physical force to be pushing the mass to it's calving points.

Looking at this the other way, what would you expect to see if the glaciers were melting away? The depth on average would be lower (they disappear from top down not front to back) and the flow of melted water underneath the ice (run-off) would be increased. They would appear to shrink away from the points where they traditionally did calving. Calving would cease to occur. I see no depth numbers and no run-off numbers being reported as having decreased and increased respectively.