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:

Tuesday, 30 December 2014

Levels of CO2 under various conditions

The following summarises levels of CO2 under various conditions:
40,000 ppm: The exhaled breath of normal, healthy people.
8,000 ppm: CO2 standard for submarines
2,500 ppm: CO2 level in a small hot crowded bar in the city
2,000 ppm: The point at which my CO2 meter squawks by playing Fur Elise
1,000 to 2,000 ppm: Historical norms for the earth’s atmosphere over the past 550 million years
1,000 to 2,000 ppm: The level of CO2 at which plant growers like to keep their greenhouses
1,000 ppm: Average level in a lecture hall filled with students
600 ppm: CO2 level in my office with me and my husband in it
490 ppm: CO2 level in my office working alone
390 ppm: Current average outdoor level of CO2 in the air
280 ppm: Pre-industrial levels in the air, on the edge of "CO2 famine" for plants
150 ppm: The point below which most plants die of CO2 starvation
(all of these data vary a little with size of the space, ventilation, wind, and the like)

From CO2 data shows nobody's dead from a little carbon dioxide (link)

Cause of Pause in Global Warming

Professor Fred Singer has written an informative piece for American Thinker:
There has been essentially no global warming since 1998.  Some would choose 1997, others would more conservatively use 2002 as the proper starting date, based on satellite data.  Of course, this is quite unexpected, since CO2 -- a leading GHG, which climate models presume to cause anthropogenic global warming (AGW) -- has been increasing rapidly in the 21st century.  
Even if we cannot readily find the cause for the “pause” -- as it is sometimes called -- we can be absolutely sure that it was not predicted by any of the dozens of the UN-IPCC’s General Circulation Models (GCMs).  Therefore, logically, such non-validated GCMs cannot, and should not, be used to predict the future climate -- or as a basis for policy decisions.
Professor Singer then talks of the hiatus or "pause" - "a real crisis for alarmists; it can no longer be ignored by any who consider themselves to be scientists...." 

The Alarmists have been scrambling for explanations for the pause and, as Hockey Schtick have noted, there are now up to 58 excuses. The latest:
New excuse for the "pause" of global warming #58: Colder eastern Pacific and reduced heat loss in other oceans 
Internal and external causes 
When we look at possible causes, we should first of all distinguish between internal and external ones that might offset the expected GW from CO2.  Internal causes rely on negative feedbacks from either water vapor (WV) or clouds; they act to decrease the warming that should be attributed to increasing CO2.  The problem with internal effects is they can never fully eliminate the primary cause -- almost by definition.  So even if they diminish the CO2 effect somewhat, there should still be a remaining warming trend, though small.  
It is quite important to obtain empirical evidence for a negative feedback.  In the case of water vapor, one would look to see if the cold upper troposphere (UT) was dry or moist.  If moist, as assumed implicitly in current IPCC-GCMs, one gets a positive feedback -- i.e., an amplification of the CO2-caused warming.  On the other hand, if the upper troposphere is dry, then most emissions into space take place from WV in the warm boundary layer in the lower troposphere.  This leaves less energy available to be emitted into space from the surface through the atmospheric ‘window,’ and therefore produces a cooler surface.
Professor Singer looks at various possible explanations and then concludes:
Regardless of any unsettled science details, it seems sure that current climate models cannot represent what is actually happening in the atmosphere -- and therefore one should not rely on predictions from such unvalidated models that are based simply on increases of carbon dioxide.  It should be obvious that this discussion has important policy consequences since so many politicians are wedded to the idea that CO2 needs to be controlled in order to avoid “dangerous changes of the global climate.”

Read more: 

Monday, 29 December 2014



by IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray

DECEMBER 28th 2014


Most scientists would agree that carbon dioxide and other trace gases cause a warming of the global climate as a result of absorption of the infra red radiation from the earth by their spectral bands.

Weather forecasting meteorologists measure the many properties of the climate, and provide a daily presentation of their influence on the global climate. but they have never found evidence that trace gas concentrations are sufficiently important in forecasting even to require regular measurement.

Scientists involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argue that carbon dioxide and other trace gases are not only important, but even the only cause of climate warming since 1750 and responsible for further warming as the concentrations rise. They characterise the extent of this warming by the Climate Sensitivity. which is essentially the additional temperature change, modified by feedbacks, of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. It may be defined thus:

        ΔTCS = ΔTT x ΔFCS /ΔF
ΔTCS is the Climate Sensitivity
ΔTT is the temperature change since 1750
ΔFCS is the radiative forcing from doubling carbon dioxide 
ΔFT is the radiative forcing since 1750.

The earth does not possess a temperature and there is no procedure whereby its average temperature could be measured.

As a substitute, the IPCC has promoted a global temperature anomaly based on weather station and sea surface measurements. This suffers from several violations of mathematical and physical principles,well exposed in the early paper by Hansen and Lebedeff (1997) who launched it. They assumed that the unreliable mean of the maximum and minimum temperatures from a weather station applied over a circle of 1,200 km The globe was divided into 5o x5o squares, the weather stations from each area averaged once more and subtracted from the average temperature for a reference period ...

The measurements are not from representative samples and even this absence of representativity changes with time. The number of stations varies and the entire sequence lacks acceptable uniformity and estimates of accuracy and bias. 

It is assumed that apart from solar change or effects of volcanoes, all other temperature change since 1750 was caused by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. This assumption derives from the Framework Convention on Climate Change which stated
"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.
This definition assumes that the natural climate properties measured by meteorologists are merely variable so that over a long period, such as that from 1750 to 2000 they could be assumed not to change at all but just vary.

Appendix II of The IPCC 5th Report lists figures for their temperature anomaly projections for every futures scenario, and these are used with the  figures for radiative forcing based on the supposed temperature increases since 1850  to calculate climate sensitivity

Geologists know that there are changes of climate from natural reasons in every geological period, short or long, whether or not human influences existed. There have been several where carbon dioxide concentrations were not related to assumed temperatures.

The FCCC assumption that all natural climate properties are merely variable may not be true. Perhaps some or all of the claimed temperature change since 1750 had natural causes. The First IPCC Report (1990) suggested that recent temperature increases could have been a recovery from the Little Ice Age (1550 -1850). Some increase was due to urban development and some. to the persistent attempts to manipulate the record as summarized by DAleo and Watts (2010).

The Mean Global Annual Surface Temperature Anomaly is now incompatible with all the current models. As shown by this diagram from Chapter 2 of IPCC 2013:
Figure 1 Comparison between the IPCC Mean Annual Global Surface 
Temperature Anomaly and the current IPCC climate models 
(IPCC AR5 - Technical Summary)

Because of this failure and the fact that the IPCC Mean Annual Global Temperature anomaly has not changed for the past 17 years, they have decided to treat it on a decadal basis instead, as follows:

Figure 2 IPCC Decadal Temperatures ( IPCC 2013 Chapter 2)

This irregularity is simply not compatible with a theory that it is caused by a steadily increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. 

There is a much more plausible temperature anomaly record from measurements in the lower atmosphere since 1978 by Microwave Sounder Units (MSU) on NASA satellites. measuring the microwave spectrum of oxygen. Their resukts are confirmed by weather balloons which have been providing a record since 1958. Since 2000 all of the records are beginning to resemble one another .

They provide further evidence that IPCC models are currently incapable of predicting climate properties. These results show that IPCC figures for climate sensitivity are far too high, and the opinion of the meteorologists that its value is negligible is confirmed.

Figure 3 Comparison between surface temperature records
and IPCC climate models
Figure 4 Comparison between temperature measurements of
the lower atmosphere and surface with climate models


It is surely evident that the estimates of climate sensitivity given by the IPCC are grossly exaggerated. The true figure is most probably near to that which is already assumed by the weather forecast meteorologists, negligibly low. This remark would also apply to calculations published by sceptics who have accepted too readily the earlier parts of the IPCC temperature anomaly and of some of the calculations from it.


D’Aleo J. and Watts. A. 2010 “Surface Temperature Records, Policy-Driven Deception”.

Hansen, J., & S. Lebedeff. 1987. “Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature” Journal of Geophysical Research 92 13345-13372.

IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp

McKitrick, R.R. and P.J. Michaels, 2007, Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data, J. Geophys. Res. 112, D24S09, doi:10:1029/2007JD008465

Spencer Roy 2013
Spncer Roy 2014

Friday, 26 December 2014

No Global Warming Period will soon be Longer than the Global Warming Period

Peter Ferrara writing for notes that

The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming

If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse. 
But the record of satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperatures now shows no warming for at least 17 years and 5 months, from September, 1996 to January, 2014, as shown on the accompanying graphic. That is surely 17 years and 6 months now, accounting for February.

It is now 18 years and 2 months but what's a few months between friends. A child who started their schooling in 1996, would be around 23 years of age now. That child was probably taught about catastrophic global warming all through the schooling but in fact there has been NO warming during that period.
If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse. 
But the record of satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperatures now shows no warming for at least 17 years and 5 months, from September, 1996 to January, 2014, as shown on the accompanying graphic. That is surely 17 years and 6 months now, accounting for February.
Ferrara then discusses the solar activity previously addressed in these pages and then continues:
Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 years with no global warming. The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013 regarding Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, “Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’” His colleague Yuri Nagovitsyn is quoted in The Voice of Russia saying, “we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” Skepticism over the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is increasingly embraced in China and elsewhere in Asia as well.
Read More HERE

Tuesday, 23 December 2014

Great Scientific AGW Predictions

What if Obama’s climate change policies are based on pHraud?

Reblogged from Heartland's Somewhat Reasonable

by Marita Noon

"Ocean acidification” (OA) is receiving growing attention. While someone who doesn’t follow climate change science might think OA is a stomach condition resulting from eating bad seafood, OA is claimed to be a phenomenon that will destroy ocean life—all due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. It is a foundational theory upon which the global warming/climate change narrative is built.

The science and engineering website Quest, recently posted: “Since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s, we have been mining and burning coal, oil and natural gas for energy and transportation. These processes release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. It is well established that the rising level of CO2 in our atmosphere is a major cause of global warming. However, the increase in CO2 is also causing changes to the chemistry of the ocean. The ocean absorbs some of the excess atmospheric CO2, which causes what scientists call ocean acidification. And ocean acidification could have major impacts on marine life.”

Within the Quest text is a link to a chart by Dr. Richard A. Feely, who is a senior scientist with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL)—which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Feely’s climate-crisis views are widely used to support the narrative.

Feely’s four-page report: Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy, offered on the NOAA website, contains a similar chart. This chart, titled “Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2,” begins at 1850. Feely testified before Congress in 2010—using the same data that shows a decline in seawater pH (making it more acidic) that appears to coincide with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

In 2010, Feely received the $100,000 cash prize from the Heinz Family Foundation awards (established by Teresa Heinz, wife of Secretary of State John Kerry). The Heinz award site touts Feely’s work: “Ocean acidity is now considered global warming’s ‘evil twin,’ thanks in large measure to Dr. Feely’s seminal research on the changing ocean chemistry and its impact on marine ecosystems.”

The December edition of the scientific journal Nature Climate Change features commentary titled: “Lessons learned from ocean acidification research.”

However, an inquisitive graduate student presented me with a very different “lesson” on OA research.

Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered a startling data omission that he told me: “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.” Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in email communications with Wallace (which I have read). And, as Wallace determined, there is real world data. Feely, and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH levels.

Feely’s chart, first mentioned, begins in 1988—which is surprising as instrumental ocean pH data has been measured for more than 100 years since the invention of the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter. As a hydrologist, Wallace was aware of GEPH’s history and found it odd that the Feely/Sabine work omitted it. He went to the source. The NOAA paper with the chart beginning in 1850 lists Dave Bard, with Pew Charitable Trust, as the contact.

Wallace sent Bard an email: “I’m looking in fact for the source references for the red curve in their plot which was labeled ‘Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2.’ This plot is at the top of the second page. It covers the period of my interest.” Bard responded and suggested that Wallace communicate with Feely and Sabine—which he did over a period of several months. Wallace asked again for the “time series data (NOT MODELING) of ocean pH for 20th century.” Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,” adding that if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career.” He then included a few links to websites that Wallace, after spending hours reviewing them, called “blind alleys.”  Sabine concludes the email with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.” But communications did continue for several more exchanges.

In an effort to obtain access to the records Feely/Sabine didn’t want to provide, Wallace filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

In a May 25, 2013 email, Wallace offers some statements, which he asks Feely/Sabine to confirm:
“…it is possible that Dr. Sabine WAS partially responsive to my request. That could only be possible however, if only data from 1989 and later was used to develop the 20th century portion of the subject curve.
“…it’s possible that Dr. Feely also WAS partially responsive to my request. Yet again, this could not be possible unless the measurement data used to define 20th century ocean pH for their curve, came exclusively from 1989 and later (thereby omitting 80 previous years of ocean pH 20th century measurement data, which is the very data I'm hoping to find).

Sabine writes: “Your statements in italics are essentially correct.” He adds: “The rest of the curve you are trying to reproduce is from a modeling study that Dr. Feely has already provided and referenced in the publication.”

In his last email exchange, Wallace offers to close out the FOIA because the email string “clarified that your subject paper (and especially the ‘History’ segment of the associated time series pH curve) did not rely upon either data or other contemporary representations for global ocean pH over the period of time between the first decade of 1900 (when the pH metric was first devised, and ocean pH values likely were first instrumentally measured and recorded) through and up to just before 1988.” Wallace received no reply, but the FOIA was closed in July 2013 with a “no document found” response.

Interestingly, in this same general timeframe, NOAA reissued its World Ocean Database. Wallace was then able to extract the instrumental records he sought and turned the GEPH data into a meaningful time series chart, which reveals that the oceans are not acidifying. (For another day, Wallace found that the levels coincide with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.) As Wallace emphasized: “there is no global acidification trend.”

Regarding the chart in question, Wallace concludes: “Ocean acidification may seem like a minor issue to some, but besides being wrong, it is a crucial leg to the entire narrative of ‘human-influenced climate change.’ By urging our leaders in science and policy to finally disclose and correct these omissions, you will be helping to bring honesty, transparency, and accountability back where it is most sorely needed.”

“In whose professional world,” Wallace asks, “is it acceptable to omit the majority of the data and also to not disclose the omission to any other soul or Congressional body?” 

Wallace met with staffers for both of his Senators, Martin Heinrich and Tom Udall (both NM-D), and shared his findings with them to no response. Heinrich and Udall both claim adherence to the climate crisis narrative.

These taxpayer-funded scientists are leaders of the OA narrative. They participate in well-funded OA research programs and sit on advisory councils, such as the Wendy Schmidt Ocean Health X Prize that offers a $2 million prize related to ocean pH measurements. “It all seems authentic and quite legitimate.” Yet their work is based on, as Wallace calls it, “a new history of ocean pH.” One that “is significantly different from the history suggested by actual measurements and other sources of peer review literature.”

Wallace came to me, because I’ve addressed similar cases of data omissions or use of bad science in relation to climate change issues, and he hoped I’d see the importance of his discovery—where his Senators did not. I am not a scientist, but I understand the broader issues. I’ve read through the emails, the FOIA, and Wallace’s recounting of the details. I’ve had several scientists review this accounting. It holds water (no pun intended).

As he initially did with Wallace, Sabine (should he see this) will likely dismiss me as some two-bit blogger who “will not last long” in my career. I invite him to prove me wrong—as Dr. Tim Ball has done with Michael Mann of the “hockey stick” fame.

In addition to my efforts to raise awareness of this issue, Wallace authored a petition that he urges my readers to sign. We also strongly encourage you to ask your representatives in Washington questions on this issue. Wallace concludes: “Ocean acidification may seem like a minor issue to some, but besides being wrong, it is a crucial leg to the entire narrative of ‘human-influenced climate change.’ By urging our leaders in science and policy to finally disclose and correct these omissions, you will be helping to bring honesty, transparency, and accountability back where it is most sorely needed.”

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.

Friday, 19 December 2014

Lose weight to green the planet! And lose more weight!

Friday Fun

Source: BMJ
The University of NSW has issued a press release re a paper by Ruben Meerman and Professor Andrew J Brown, published in the British Medical Journal this week. (link)

When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go? BMJ 2014349 doi:

(Published 16 December 2014)Cite this as: BMJ 2014;349:g7257

Weight we want to “lose” 
Excess carbohydrate or protein in the diet is converted to triglyceride and stored in the lipid droplets of adipocytes. Excess dietary fat needs no conversion other than lipolysis and re-esterification. People who wish to lose weight while maintaining their fat-free mass are, biochemically speaking, attempting to metabolise the triglycerides stored in their adipocytes. 
The chemical formula for an average triglyceride molecule can be deduced from fatty acid composition studies. In 1960, Hirsch and colleagues published data that yield an “average fatty acid” with the formula C17.4H33.1O2.1 This 50 year old result is in remarkable agreement with more recent data.2 Three “average fatty acids” esterified to the glycerol backbone (+3C, +6H) give an “average triglyceride” with the formula C54.8H104.4O6. The three most common fatty acids stored in human adipose tissues are oleate (C18H34O2), palmitate (C16H32O2), and linoleate (C18H32O2),1 2 which all esterify to form C55H104O6. 
The complete oxidation of a single triglyceride molecule involves many enzymes and biochemical steps, but the entire process can be summarised as:

Ruben’s novel approach to the biochemistry of weight loss was to trace every atom in the fat being lost and, as far as I am aware, his results are completely new to the field,” says Professor Brown.
“He has also exposed a completely unexpected black hole in the understanding of weight loss amongst the general public and health professionals alike.”

If you follow the atoms in 10 kilograms of fat as they are ‘lost’, 8.4 of those kilograms are exhaled as carbon dioxide through the lungs. The remaining 1.6 kilograms becomes water, which may be excreted in urine, faeces, sweat, breath, tears and other bodily fluids, the authors report.

“None of this is obvious to people because the carbon dioxide gas we exhale is invisible,” says Mr Meerman. (Bold added for the media who depict CO2 as dark soot) 

So, in the mind of this fairly unscientific blogger, if you lose 10g of ugly fat, you create the ingredients for photosynthesis: you create plant food.

So Lose weight and green the planet!    WOW!

But wait! There's more.

Note that, from the top Figure, 10 grams of fat converts to 55 CO2 and only 52 H2O. As photosynthesis uses equal CO2 and H2O, therefore we have a surplus of 3 CO2.

What do we do with the surplus carbon dioxide?


What is Carboxtherapy? Carboxytherapy is a non-surgical procedure used to infuse CO2 gas below the skin. Carbox? Carbon and Oxygen or CO2.

Carboxytherapy works in two different ways: it first fragilizes fat cells with a pressure traumatism, then, in second, CO2 leads to flood vassels dilation in the area where the gas is injected. This reaction to carbon dioxide injection gives a better oxygenation of skin layers with increased lipolysis capabilities. The end result is fewer fat cells and skin tightening.
So, it's a bit like perpetual motion. You lose weight, exhale CO2, inject the excess CO2 and lose more weight.


Thursday, 18 December 2014

Climate Change: The Facts 2014

The Institute of Public Affairs has brought together this important collection of 21 essays by outstanding authors including Professor Richard Lindzen, Andrew Bolt, Professor Ian Plimer, Mark Steyn, Professor Stewart Franks, James Delingpole, Professor Bob Carter and many more. These authors have been a constant and steady voice for reason in the climate change debate,  and the IPA is proud to publish this important work. The IPA will keep arguing the science of climate change just as we have been doing every year for the last two decades.

To Whet your appetite, here is a sampler piece from Mark Steyn.
You'd have to have a heart as cold and as unmovable as Commonwealth Bay ice not to be howling with laughter at the exquisite symbolic perfection of the Australasian Antarctic expedition(AAE) stuck 'in our own experiment', as they put it. I confess I was hoping it might drag on a bit longer and the cultists of the ecopalypse would find themselves drawing straws as to which of their number would be first on the roasting spit. On Douglas Mawson's original voyage, he and his surviving comrade wound up having to eat the dogs. I'm not sure there were any on this expedition, so they'd probably have to make do with the Guardian reporters. Forced to wait a year to be rescued, Sir Douglas later recalled, several of my toes commence to blacken and fester near the tips. Now there's a man who is serious about reducing his footprint.
Moving on from Turney's debacle, Steyn then talks of Al Gore's earlier expedition on the Akademik Shokalskiy.
Anyway as part of his 'Living on thin ice' campaign, Al Gore's own luxury Antarctic Vessel boasted a lineup of celebrity cruisers unseen since the 1979 season finale of the Love Boat– among them the actor Tommy Lee Jones, the pop star Jason Mraz, the airline entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson, the director of the Titanic James Cameron, and the Bangladeshi minister of forests Somebody Wossname. If Voyage of the Gored had been a conventional disaster movie like the Poseidon Adventure, the Bangladeshi guy would have been the first to drown, leaving only the noble-winning climatologist (Miley Cyrus) and the Maverick tree ring researcher (Ben Affleck) to twerk their way through the ice to safety. Instead and very regrettably, the SS Gore made it safely home and it fell to Prof Turney's ship to play the role of our generations' Titanic.

A bit of fun but Climate Change: The Facts 2014 also covers some thoughtful pieces and some serious science. To buy the book, go to THIS LINK.

Denying the evidence and using ad hominems

Our Friend Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition has written a moderating piece for the Hutchinson Leader (LINK) in which he calls for Taming the climate debate.
Billions raining down on the hoax.
The climate controversy is one of the world’s most important discussions. At stake are billions of dollars, countless jobs, and, if U.N. representatives now meeting in Peru are right, the fate of the global environment itself. We need leaders in science, engineering, economics and public policy to contribute to the debate without fear of retribution.
Sadly, the opposite is happening. Because the issue is poisoned with personal attacks, censorship, illogic and even death threats, many of the world’s leading experts are too frightened to comment publicly. They don’t want to be falsely accused.
Tom  calls for a "change in tenor of the debate."

For example, when advocates are criticized as “leftist, foreign-funded eco-nuts” or “right-wing, oil-funded deniers,” philosophers should explain, “That is irrelevant. Nature does not care about the political orientation of the debaters or who funds them. All that matters is the validity of their arguments.” It is an error in reasoning to dismiss someone’s assertions because of suspected vested interests.
And calling someone an eco-nut or a denier is an “ad hominem” logical fallacy, “against the man,” instead of the idea, a tactic that has no place in rational discourse.
Unfortunately, this voice of reason is ignore by the other side of the debate.

Recently the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry posted an open letter declaring that "Deniers are not Skeptics." 

Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.
OK, as far as it goes. They blow it when they continue:
As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. 
Uh-oh. Now these "Skeptical Inquirers" are trying to claim the high ground and intimating that those of us on the realist side of the debate -
  • deny reality
  • do not engage in scientific research
  • do not consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong

Who is denying reality?

They deny reality. They deny that the back-bone of their belief, the  AGW hypothesis has been multi-falsified (once is enough).

Who does not engage in Scientific Research?

Consider the scientists on the realist side of the debate:

Tim Ball, Gordon Fulks, George Taylor, John Christy, David Deming, Ivar Giaever, The Idsos, David Legates, Bob Carter, Willie Soon, Ole Humlum, Jennifer Marohasy,Chris de Freitas, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Steve Koonin, Denis Rancourt, William Happer, David Evans, Bill Kininmonth, Don Easterbrook, Garth Paltridge, Ian Plimer, Murry Salby, Nir Shaviv, Fred Singer, Nils-Axel Morner, Richard Lindzen and another 31,000 or so.
Consider the reports from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC )

Who does not consider the evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong?

Did they consider the evidence from the above-mentioned NIPCC reports? Obviously not. 

Did they consider that Global temperatures have paused for more than 18 years? Obviously not.

Did they consider that,  this century, atmospheric CO2 has risen by almost 30% whilst global temperatures have fallen? Obviously not.

All or Any member(s) of the Skeptical Inquirer panel are invited to respond.

This Flawed Post led to ars technica to respond

In a flawed response, the "Friends of ARS" wrote:
The letter called for the news media to stop allowing doubters of climate change to use the label "skeptic" and instead label them deniers, based on the root "denial," which was defined as "the a priorirejection of ideas without objective consideration."
Get up of your ARS, "friends" and do some checking of your own.

Name just ONE from our side of the debate who doubts climate change? 
"Denialist" is one of the most common labels that gets attached to people who don't accept the evidence for climate change. And frankly, there are a fair number of people in that camp who don't accept any of the evidence that's been generated. 
We accept the "evidence of climate change." Do the "friends?"

Consider the fraudulent Mann "Hockey Stick Graph." Did you "Friends" accept this attempt to deny that climate had changed from the MWP to the LIA to the 20th Century Warming?
IPCC Lead Author Jonathan Overpeck thought that David (Deming) was in sympathy with the Alarmist scammers. Overpeck emailed Deming saying that they had to get rid of the MWP. Phil Jones referred to it in the Climategate emails. (link)

Cheap Oil will destroy Costly Renewables

The benchmark U.S. oil price settled 2 cents higher at $55.93 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices traded as low as $53.90 a barrel and as high as $57.15 a barrel in the session. 

Brent crude, a global price gauge, settled down 2% at $59.86 a barrel, its lowest settlement since May 19, 2009. (Link)

This is good news for consumers but bad news for Alarmists and Politicians pushing the Falsified AGW hypothesis.

The Independent Weekly laments the fall:
The collapsing oil price that is reshaping the global economy could derail the green energy revolution by making renewable power sources prohibitively bad value, experts have warned.

A new “era of cheap oil” would be good news for consumers and motorists – but analysts say the consequences for politics, industry and the climate could be even more radical.
However,  cheap energy from coal has not had the same effect of keeping prices down.
“Renewable energy subsidies have been mostly sold to the public on the basis of the economic benefits,” said Peter Atherton, an energy analyst with Liberum Capital. “But the economic arguments hinged on the idea that fossil fuel prices would get more expensive, while expensive renewable subsidies would be able to come down over time. That’s looking doubtful now.”
Although the Independent says: "the consequences for ...... the climate could be even more radical," it has been shown that, for this century atmospheric CO2 has risen by almost 30%, there has been a slight fall in global temperature.