All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Friday, 31 January 2014



by IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray

JANUARY 30th 2014

Climate Change was defined by the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) in Article 1, as follows:
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”
The 165 countries who signed the Convention accepted this definition as legally binding.

Here, the term Climate Change applies only to a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere but it is in ADDITION to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”

This definition makes a distinction between natural variability whose change is merely observed and a change of climate which alters the composition of the global atmosphere, which can also be attributed directly or indirectly to human activity.

It does not seem to matter who carries out this attribution or whether it is directly or indirectly.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provided another definition as follows:
Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as the result of human activity
This appears as a footnote to the first page of the “Summary for Policymakers” in Reports No 3 and 4 and presumably applies to their title.

It is not a proper definition as it only refers to any change in climate over time. But it does not talk about attribution even if they go ahead and do it in practice.

So, any change of climate is Climate Change. Why do they need a definition at all? 

The FCCC admits that the IPCC has a different definition of climate change as follows:

Definitions of climate change

Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.”
In 3rd, 4th and also the latest 5th IPCC Report (2013) the Glossary says

Climate change

Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.

Weather forecasting provides a service which is considered to be reliable only for a week or two in advance, This is the result of a lack of adequate understanding of the behaviour of fluids and their chaotic behaviour, Since this finding applies to a combination of climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes it seems unlikely that a concentration on the first one alone is going to help forecasters to get beyond current limitations.
The 5th Report claims that they can simulate both components of climate change and project both of them until the year 2100. In their Annex 1 they provide 82 pages of comprehensive global and regional projections. This is their introduction:

This Annex presents a series of figures showing global and regional patterns of climate change computed from global climate model output gathered as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5; Taylor et al., 2012). Maps of surface air temperature change and relative precipitation change (i.e., change expressed as a percentage of mean precipitation) in different seasons are presented for the globe and for a number of different sub-continental-scale regions. Twenty- year average changes for the near-term (2016-2035), for mid-term (2046-2065), and for the long-term (2081-2100) are given, relative to a reference period of 1986-2005. Time series for temperature and relative precipitation changes are shown for global land and sea averages, the 26 sub-continental SREX regions (IPCC, 2012)
augmented with polar regions and the Caribbean, two Indian Ocean and three Pacific Ocean regions. In total this Atlas gives projections for 35 regions, 2 variables, and 2 seasons. The projections are made under the Representative Concentration Pathway scenarios, or RCPs, which are introduced in Chapter 1 with more technical detail given in Section 12.3 (also note the discussion of near-term biases in Sections and Maps are only shown for the RCP4.5 scenario, however the time series presented show how the area-average response varies among the RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 scenarios. Spatial maps for the other RCP scenarios and additional seasons are presented in the Supplementary Material. Figures AI-1 and AI-2 give a graphical explanation of aspects of both the time series plots and the spatial maps. While some of the background to the information presented is given here, discussion of the maps and time-series, and important additional background is provided in Chapters 9, 11, 12 and 14. Figure captions on each page of the Annex reference the specific sub-sections in the report relevant to the regions considered on that page.

The projection of future climate change involves the careful evaluation of models, taking into account uncertainties in observations and consideration the physical basis of the findings, in order to characterise the credibility of the projections and assess their sensitivity to uncertainties. As discussed in Chapter 9, different climate models have varying degrees of success in simulating past climate variability and mean state when compared to observations. Verification of regional trends is discussed in Box 11.2 and provide further information on the credibility of model projections. The information presented in this Atlas is based entirely on all available CMIP5 model output with equal weight given to each model or version with different parameterisations.

Complementary methods for making quantitative projections, in which model output is combined with information about model performance using statistical techniques, exist and should be considered in impacts studies (see Sections 9.8.3, 11.3.1 and 12.2.2–12.2.3). While results from the application of such methods can be assessed alongside the projections from CMIP5 presented here, it this is beyond the scope of this Atlas. Nor do the simple maps provided represent a robust estimate of the uncertainty associated with the projections. Here the range of model spread is provided as a simple, albeit imperfect, guide to the range of possible futures (including the effect of natural variability). Alternative approaches used to estimate projection uncertainty are discussed in Sections 11.3.1 and 12.2.2–12.2.3. The reliability of past trends is assessed in Box 11.2, which concludes that the time series and maps cannot be interpreted literally as probability density functions. They should not be interpreted as `forecasts'

This is an impressive exercise. The snag here is that they do not mention how they can project natural variability (highlighted)

The following Figure (FAQ1.1 Fig 1) is a summary of the IPCC uncertainties. It should be noted that the boundaries are those of 90% significance. This is below the more usual figure of 95% commonly applied in the scientific literature and it means that there is a 10% chance of any value falling outside these bounds.

Since these uncertainties include those of projections of natural variability it is relevant to ask how it compares with the accuracy with which weather forecasters are capable of successful forecasts.

The UK Met Office at has given some typical figures
93.7% of maximum temperature forecasts are accurate to within +/- 2°C on the current day (36-month average 84.0 % of minimum temperature forecasts are accurate to within +/- 2°C on the first night of the forecast period (36-month average).
89.8% of maximum temperature forecasts are accurate to within +/- 2°C on the next day (36-month average). 79.5% of minimum temperature forecasts are accurate to within +/- 2°C on the second night of the forecast period (36-month average).
These actual forecasting inaccuracies are in a completely different universe from the supposed inaccuracies of the IPCC which claims to incorporate them. They feel proud if they can get near ±2ºC. which is way above the claimed IPCC accuracy of their global temperature of a fraction of a degree.

I have the following reservations

• They are still based on completely unrealistic models of the climate where
The earth is flat,
The sun shines all day with the same intensity
There is an energy balance of radiant energy entering and leaving 

No work is done on the system

• They do not have a plausible temperature record from which they could judge their projections.

It is currently impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface. The “Mean Global Temperature Anomaly Record” which they favour has manipulated, unrepresentative and non uniform samples and is subject to upwards bias
  • • The few projections which have been compared with reality have falsified the model (see Newsletter No 324X)
  • •  Intervention in weather forecasting has been disastrous
  • •  According to the above graph the overall global projections are already in trouble

  • •  My previous Newsletter (324X) shows that their models have been falsified.
    Therefore they should be rejected.


    There are two definitions of Climate Change.

  • The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), and the nations who signed it, accept a definition of Climate Change that ir means only changes of climate caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

  • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body which is supposed to advise the FCCC and the signatories, use a definition of Climate Change that includes any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. Any failure of their projections to comply with current or recent climate properties may therefore be due to deficiencies in the projections of both the natural and supposed human effects as in the IPCC definition of climate change, not the FCCC definition which is concerned only with human effects.
  1. The published projections fail completely to take account of the inherent uncertainties of natural variabilility which is supposedly incorporated in them.

Vincent R. Gray , M.A.,Ph.D., F.N.Z.I.C.
Climate Consultant

Crofton Downs
Wellington 6035 

New Zealand 

Thursday, 30 January 2014

The ABC is out of Control and working against Australia's interests

The Australia Network (originally Australia Television International) was originally proposed to heighten Australia's presence in the Asia-Pacific region. 

JULIA GILLARD, PRIME MINISTER: On the Australia Network tender, the Government determined that it was best that the ABC do that work, and that was the right decision. 
STEPHEN LONG, REPORTER: Perhaps, but the process was appalling 
DAVID SALTER, MEDIA COMMENTATOR: A shemozzle from start to finish.  
SKY NEWS REPORT: The Auditor General's report has criticised the Government's handling of the tender process, and says it's raised at least concerns of perception when it comes to a conflict of interest. 
TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: We've seen more evidence of Government bungling today with the Australia Network. It shows that this Government can't be trusted with money, can't be trusted to follow due process, and senior members of this Government can't be trusted to be honest with each other about what's happening. 
However, rather than heighten Australia's presence in the region, recently the AN has brought unverified unflattering reports about the Royal Australian Navy and has stirred up bad feelings with neighbouring Indonesia. (link)

Yesterday, in a radio interview with 2GB's Ray Hadley, Mr Abbott correctly said: (link)
“you would like the national broadcaster to have a rigorous commitment to truth and at least some basic affection for our home team”. 
He complained that the ABC “appears to take everyone’s side but our own”

ABC playing fast and loose with truth

THE scathing description of the ABC as taking “everyone’'s side but Australia's’’ has a firm foundation. Not so the national broadcaster’s repeated airings of asylum seekers’ claims they were tortured by the Australian Navy. 
The ABC’s too-quick-to-condemn reporting of allegations that sailors forced asylum seekers to hold on to hot engine parts was emphatically denied by the Navy. But the damage was done. 
This was always a story that appeared highly unlikely. The burns displayed by asylum seekers on a boat that was turned back to Indonesia were almost certainly caused by their attempts to interfere with the engines, as has happened in the past when people smugglers’ boats have been intercepted.
Andrew Bolt writes:
If the ABC refuses to honor its charter and provide balance in exchange for our taxes, then it deserves all the cuts it’s going to get - and many more besides:  
THE ABC’s $223 million Australia Network Asian broadcasting service is likely to be scrapped in the May budget to save money and end the pursuit of “soft diplomacy” in the region through television… Cabinet ministers believe the ABC’s coverage of Australia in the region is overly negative and fails to promote the nation as originally intended in the Australia Network’s charter by using the “soft diplomacy” of Australian news and cultural programs. 
And as Andrew points out, there is not one ABC presenter today supporting PM Abbott today. And THEY say they are honouring their charter?
Leftist ABC hosts (loopy) Virginia Trioli, Jonathon Green, Fran Kelly and Jon Faine have all challenged Tony Abbott’s claims today. Not a single ABC host has agreed with him.

ABC's Line on Climate Change:

When prior Chairman Maurice Newman said that the ABC had to follow its charter and be even handed on "Climate Change, Christopher Warren, the Federal Secretary of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance responded:
 I was concerned to read yesterday the remarks made by ABC chairman, Maurice Newman, to a gathering of journalists, program-makers and management on Wednesday.
Since his speech I have been contacted by a number of Media Alliance members from the ABC’s news and current affairs team who have interpreted Mr Newman’s remarks as an attempt to influence the ABC’s line on climate change.
It is no wonder even minded Australians are getting hot under the collar because of the lack of objective journalism dished out by "our" ABC.

The ABC Is Out Of Control

Tim Andrews, of the Australian Taxpayers Alliance is leading a grassroots campaign to demad a review of the ABC
The ABC is out of control.
Last week’s disgraceful and unsubstantiated smears are just the latest in a radical ideological campaign by the taxpayer-funded broadcaster.
The ABC’s consistent support of fringe big-government policies, and its consistent refusal to present balanced reporting, is a national disgrace.
The ABC receives a staggering  $1.1 billion in our taxes a year – and for what?
It should surprise no-one that 40% of ABC journalists surveyed admitting voting for the Greens, and a futher 32% for Labor.

Where to from here? 

It is time for a wholesale root and branch review of the ABC and its future in Australia. Use Australian Taxpayers Alliance's form (link) to contact your MP, Malcolm Turnbull, and Tony Abbott,  and demand a review today.  

Let's get "our" ABC back!

Sense Level rises with NSW Government's sea level rise circular.

Gosford Waterfront

In April 2012, the Coastal Residents Group held a rally against sea level rise claims. Their
Pat Aiken addresses rally  2012
President Len Gibbons and Secretary Pat Aiken led the rally and speakers included Prof Bob Carter, Galileo Movement's Malcolm Roberts and Wyong council independents Greg Best and Doug Eaton.

Although no Gosford Councillors attended the rally, shortly thereafter Gosford Council dumped the controverial clause on planning documents which labelled their homes as in danger of sea level rise.

However many other coastal councils still held policies that were reliant on false information from bodies like the Climate Commission ( now known as the Climate Council.) See Climate Council fiddles the figures.
Global warming is real, man made, and could cause the world's sea level to rise a metre by the end of the century, much higher than previously thought, according to the federal government's Climate Commission. 
Melbourne faces extreme and more frequent flooding, while higher sea levels are already "bad news" for fragile areas including Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef, says Commissioner Will Steffen.
Typical alarmist stuff from Steffen and Flannery which even surpassed the IPCC's highest projection. The IPCC's latest range for Sea Level Rise is between 0.26 and 0.97 of a metre by the year 2100.

In 2011,  The Journal of Coastal Research published a peer reviewed paper by Phil Watson, the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change's coastal unit team leader. Watson's paper called into question one of the key criteria for large-scale inundation around the Australian coast by 2100 -- the assumption of an accelerating rise in sea levels because of climate change.
Watson, P.J., 2011. Is there evidence yet of acceleration in mean sea level rise around mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal Research 27, 368-377.  (Link)
It appears that, at least the NSW government is starting to read some of the real scientific literature and not the alarmist propaganda dissembled by the IPCC and the Climate Council. The Australian reports:

Climate doomsday planning powers to be eroded

 COUNCILS in NSW will be instructed to distinguish between "clear and present dangers" of coastal erosion and flooding and "doomsday" UN scenarios of global sea-level rises under a landmark policy on coastal planning and climate change to be unveiled today. 
NSW Planning Minister Brad Hazzard will release a draft circular aimed at stopping some coastal councils from imposing draconian planning restrictions based exclusively on UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions of what could happen a century ahead.
Now all we need are the other states to make similar pronouncements.

AGW: Disproved Again

by Anthony Cox

Some recent papers and articles have shown again that man-made (or anthropogenic) global warming (AGW) is a theory bereft of proof or logic.

The first is by an AGW scientist who has been  ridiculed in the past for his hyperbole and gross alarmism; Steven Sherwood. Sherwood's latest paper deals with aerosols and the fact so little is known about their climatic impact that no predictions about AGW can be made with certainty. The problem with aerosols has been known for some time but it is good to see the AGW high-flyers catch up!

The second is a post by Professor Judith Curry who looks at the uncertainties surrounding the calculation of Ocean Heat Content [OHC].

As is well known the answer by AGW scientists, notably Trenberth, for the failure of temperature to rise for 17 years is because the heat is being stored in the bottom of the ocean. Trenberth’s paper is critiqued here but as Curry shows the conclusions of the recent studies about OHC shows no increase in OHC since 2003 [the crucial date of the introduction of ARGO] by a majority of the studies, Levitus, Ishii and Smith with the studies by Dominques and Palmer having such wide uncertainty bands that their findings of an increase are problematic:

Climate etc

What makes the Trenberth view about the missing heat being in the ocean even more suspect is a recent post by climate researcher Michael Hammer. Michael has looked at the data from NOAA which measures the amount of energy leaving the Top of the Atmosphere [TOA] which is called outgoing long-wave radiation [OLR].

Simply put if the amount of OLR is increasing then there is NO radiation left on Earth to heat the oceans. Michael found a good match between the increase in temperature over the last 30 years and the increase in OLR:

What this means is that when it warms the heat isn’t stored on Earth but, due to well known laws, such as Stefan-Boltzmann, the Earth increases emissions of radiation, reducing the effect of the warming.

A final article by specialist infrared astronomer, Dr Mike Sanicola, shows the warming isn’t even due to CO2. Sanicola shows that due to Stefan-Boltzmann the wavelengths of the radiation leaving the surface of the Earth are NOT wavelengths capable of being absorbed by CO2. In fact the relevant wavelengths are absorbed by H2O, water!

What Sanicola’s work shows is that the vast majority of back-radiation, the method by which AGW supposedly heats, is not done by CO2 but water. This fact has been noted by other researchers. Pierre Gosselin has looked at the MODTRAN system for measuring radiation in the atmosphere and found that back-radiation from CO2 only occurs when there is no water present such as in deserts:

As can be seen from the graph of the MODTRAN data CO2 only causes a slight amount of back-radiation when there is less than 1% of water in the atmosphere.

The question remains, how much longer can supporters of AGW pretend there is any scientific justification for their belief?

Tuesday, 28 January 2014

What ever happened to climate change in Australia?

What ever happened to climate change in Australia?

This is the heading for an article by David Leigh published by on-line opinion.

David tweets as @ecobard and his tweets reveal things about him. e.g.


Climate Champion is a site run by the Greens with the purpose of creating action against the Abbott government's roll back of Green policies. That could help explain his strange article published by On Line Opinion. It is a strange article and has even stranger responses to comments by David Leigh.
In his second paragraph he writes that prior to the election:
the airwaves were full of discussion about the biggest threat to humanity of all time.
 What could he mean by that? A google search finds the top two pre-election hits for "biggest threat to humanity of all time" are:

However,  on a countdown on another hit headed the 5 biggest threats to humanity we find (link):

Ta- Da!

Probably the most pressing threat to our planet, and the life in it, is climate change.

This is surely where David was heading. The greatly misused and confused term "climate change." 

Generally it is used by the alarmists to refer to anthropogenic global warming although its roots go back to the UNFCCC at the earth summit in 1992: (link)

"Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
So, when David uses the term climate change he is surely referring to anthropogenic climate change. Unfortunately the UNFCCC did not define "comparable time periods." We do know that there has been no warming for more than 17 years although atmospheric C02 keeps rising.

David writes that, by closing down the flawed climate commission, PM Abbott has stopped the talk of climate change, (meaning man-made global warming?)
First he attempted to silence the reporting body by removing its funding, as though stopping talk would make it all go away. Now, even the Labor opposition remains quite on the subject. Only the Greens appear to understand that it won't abate
Then he makes what, to this poor reader, is a confused statement.
Despite having just had the hottest year on record and every monthly Australian record being broken and with the US having an unprecedented cold snap with temperatures below –34c the subject has conveniently gone quiet.  
Neither  the Australian nor the US details are true. BOM shows 2013 as being the hottest Australian year; but every other major land and satellite temperature indice contradicts this:

As can be seen in the diagram below (link) the North American cold snap could hardly be called unprecedented. Why do the alarmists keep on using "unprecedented," "Hottest year ever" and other such superlatives.

BUT WAIT! ..... Wasn't the topic climate change in Australia

( Can you separate global warming into countries?)

And why would someone arguing the warmist side of the debate introduce (un)precendented UScold snap. 
Meanwhile, climate change appears to be happening faster than the wishes of the hopeless, the sad wheel treading sycophants, who see only the profits of the mighty as a motive for making political policy.
What a sad statement.  The planet hasn't warmed for more than 17 years. How fast would the mythical hopeless sycophants want it to warm?

Next David refers to the

Renewable Energy Finance Corporation.
He is confusing two associated bodies; the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
The world has recorded its fourth hottest year on record 
Not according to NASA and NOAA.  (link)
The temperature anomaly (above 14.0 deg C) for 2013 is 0.486 making 2013 the 8th warmest year. Statistically with errors of +/- 0.1 deg C ranking the warmest years is meaningless, but it seems to be something many scientists and the media do. 
When some of the commenters referred David to some of the facts on current weather he retorted
Well, I guess it had to happen, the deniers are out there in full swing and with such intelligent comments, very constructive, Your master will be pleased with your performance.
Your master will be pleased with your performance? 

What sort of a world is David living in? What strange, warped mind would think that independent people were being controlled by some mythical master.

Please explain, David, or apologise!

Jesse Peter's out.

It seems that my previous post hit a raw nerve with Jesse Peter. From his facebook  page, perhaps he might enjoy that.....This pic labelled torture station is on his facebook page.

He makes some extraordinary statements:
Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.
You can see this for yourself by comparing the trend from mid-1997 to the trend from 1999 : the latter is more than twice as large: 0.07 instead of 0.03 degrees per decade.
Sks Trend Calculator
 an astute observer might note that australia is hitting record high temperatures

The BoM much trumpeted claim that 2013 was our hottest year is less than robust because some global climate groups disagree (link)

 I posted this graph with data from two peer-reviewed papers:

He replied:
your graphs are bull****. they come from bull*** sources that do not do peer reviewed work that is published in actual scientific journals like Science.

you jokers have a lot of hide. the actual scientists are busy doing the hard work of counting tree rings and drilling ice cores, and you insult them by saying their entire life's work is some communist conspiracy,
What? The ice-cores that show temperature rises before CO2?
Then he resorted to the much rebuffed BigOil argument and shamelessly linked it to the tobacco industry using the shameful term denialist:
THERE. IS. NO. DEBATE. except that manufactured by the denialist industry, funded by big oil money, in the same way that doubt was 'manufactured' by the tobacco industry to delay action against their own insanely profitable ventures.
As usual, the ad hominem argument shows itself to be a singularly pathetic tool to sort out reality — like sifting sand with a hammer, or chopping wood with a fork, it’s the true choice of the confused. 

When I asked
Can you point to ONE thing wrong in the original post?
He couldn't! He then resorted to more inanities and swear words.