Advertisements

TIM FLANNERY – Professor of Dud Predictions and Climate Falsehoods

2017 09 13 Tim Flannery Rays of Hope 3.jpg

TIM FLANNERY, former Climate Commissioner of Australia from 20011-2013 earned $180,000 per year for a three-day working week to make predictions and decisions that affected billions upon billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers’ money.

AFTER being rightly sacked by the Abbott government in 2013, Flannery began his own go-fund-me version of the Climate Commission, the Climate Council, which continues the propagandised rollout of catastrophic climate predictions and unreliable-energy pipe dreams.

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

“HOTTEST YEAR EVAH” Claims Tell Us More About Global Warming PR Than Actual Science

heat wave in the city and hand showing thermometer

rottadana/iStock

 

THE “Hottest Year Ever” meme is just one in a long line of marketing techniques used by Climate Crisis Inc. to make you believe the world is burning up.

HOW much of these claims are scientific, versus, pure-propaganda designed to heighten alarm on a publicly waning issue – catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)? A *theory* whose veracity is becoming increasingly questioned by contradictory science, real-world observations and growing public and media awareness of the disturbing trend of temperature data manipulation by our most ‘trusted’ scientific agencies.

THE brilliant Paul Driessen nails it in a foreword to an excellent post on WUWT by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris – “Overheated claims on temperature records

Overheated claims on global temperature records

Foreword by Paul Dreissen

Over and over, we are confronted with claims that last month or last year was “the warmest on record.” Each claim is accompanied by dire warnings that the alleged new records portend “unprecedented” chaos for wildlife, humans and planet.

Virtually never do these scary press releases mention:

  • That the supposed change is mere hundredths of a degree higher than previous measurements.
  • Never do they admit that the margin of error in these measurements is far greater than the supposed increase.
  • Never do they suggest that a little more warmth would be infinitely better than a colder world, with less arable land and shorter growing seasons.
  • And most certainly, never do they admit to the massive deficiencies in the system that supposedly tracks Earth’s temperature … and
  • Always blames any increases on humans and fossil fuels.

This article by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris points out all these highly relevant but often (deliberately) ignored realities.

(Climatism bullets/bolds)

READ the excellent Ball / Harris article here…

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive! TQ…

Donate with PayPal

•••

Related :


The “HOTTEST YEAR EVAH” Meme Exposed

NOAAFakerySeptember2017

AS the old saying goes “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants“. One man who has been tireless and paid-less (sic) in the pursuit of exposing the blatant and unequivocal  global temperature data fraud, executed by taxpayer funded government scientific agencies worldwide, has been Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard.

THERE are literally thousands upon thousands of mind-blowing examples of temperature data manipulation/fraud carried out in-plain-sight by climate activist agencies namely – NOAA, NASA, BoM, Met Office UK – who happen to be the literal gate-keepers of global temperature. They do this simply to make you believe that the climate is warming catastrophically thanks to your carbon dioxide (energy) emissions.

THE blink giff included in this post is really all one needs to know about how climate scientists literally “change the data to fit the theory” – a quote linked to Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs in his ‘Tactics and Ethics’ (1923) though often associated with Albert Einstein as a non-literal quip.

OTHER than driving the climate scare and maintaining taxpayer funding to the tune of $Trillions worldwide, hysterical claims of the “hottest year, month, day ever” tell us far more about global warming climate change marketing than they do about actual ‘science’.

*

Via Tony Heller’s “The Deplorable Climate Science Blog :

Unambiguous Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

The National Climate Assessment claims unambiguous warming globally and in the US since 1880.

CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

They show a very detailed graph and map which expresses the claimed warming.

All that red looks pretty scary. Red is the color of fire, and it isn’t hard to convince some people that their carbon sins will lead to hell fire.

What they aren’t telling is that their graph and map are fake. They have no idea what global temperatures were in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, or in fact the present,  because outside of the US there is very little verifiable data.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-inventory.txt

As late as 1940, there was almost no daily coverage of South America or Africa.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-inventory.txt

NOAA’s current data in Africa and much of the rest of the world is still fake. They make up record temperatures in countries where they have no thermometer data.

Real temperatures       Reported temperatures

By their own admission, the ocean data is also fake.

date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org
to: Thomas Crowley <thomas.crowley@ed.ac.uk>

Tom,

The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.

Cheers
Phil

di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt

The only location on Earth with good long term daily temperature data in the US.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-inventory.txt

Before NOAA tampers with their data, the US shows no warming over the past century.

The lack of US warming wrecks global warming theory, so NOAA and NASA tamper with their own data to create fake warming.

 

1999 Version       2017 Version

The frequency and coverage of hot weather has plummeted in the US over the past century. The US isn’t getting hotter – afternoons are getting cooler.

The US temperature data is tampered with by NOAA in a massive hockey stick.

Which is designed to bring the data precisely in line with CO2 theory.

NOAA knows perfectly well that the US is not warming.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com

US and global temperatures are constantly being tampered with to cool the past and warm the present.

US tampering :

Global tampering :

1981: Challenge_chapter2.pdf         2001: Fig.A.ps     current: Fig.A.gif 

2001 version : Fig.A.ps   2015 version: Fig.A.gif 

All of the claims in the National Climate Assessment about global warming are unsupportable junk science, made largely with fraudulent or imaginary data. Global warming is the biggest scam in science history. It has been thoroughly corrupted by tens of billions of dollars of government money – which fake climate scientists refuse to let go of.

The only thing global and unambiguous in the National Climate Assessment, is the level of junk science and fraud it represents.

Unambiguous Fraud In The National Climate Assessment | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

•••

Related :

NASA / NOAA Data Fraud Related :


THE Inconvenient Truth Is That Catastrophists Are Wrong

Eco-catastrophists - THE AUSTRALIAN

Institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event. | THE AUSTRALIAN

GLOBAL warming alarmists want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate or the environment. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore, what is in danger is freedom, not the climate.

FORMER head of Deutsche Bank, the ABC and ASX, Maurice Newman, writes another insightful piece in todays Australian maintaining that “it’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.”

*

The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong

Maurice Newman | The Australian :

It should come as a great relief to know the freezing temperatures recently experienced in the northern hemisphere do not signal an end to global warming.

Imagine if mankind’s increasingly costly attempts to arrest CO2 emissions were unnecessary. That the misallocation of productive resources, prolonging the misery of the world’s most vulnerable people, was nothing more than a cynical ideological exercise?

Hopefully, those global warming doubters in Florida watching frozen iguanas falling stiff from the trees now know that while they were freezing, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, little old Penrith in Sydney, Australia, was the warmest spot on the planet, recording its highest temperature ever, having “broken the all-time maximum temperature record for … the Sydney metropolitan area”.

Well, perhaps in all that excitement the bureau can be forgiven for overlooking the fact Penrith Lakes started recording temperatures only in 1995 and for missing a much higher temperature recorded in nearby Richmond in 1939. But they were right. It was hot.

In a hurried piece in Fairfax publications, the Climate Council of Australia’s Will Steffen throws hot water on any misconceptions that may have been drawn from abnormal snowfalls in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, the record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US, and the expansion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

He says: “Terms like ‘global warming’ and the mental images they trigger can be misleading when people attempt to understand what is happening to the climate. A far better term is ‘climate disruption’, which captures the real nature of the vast array of changes, many of them abrupt and unexpected, that are occurring.” So fire and ice, it’s to be expected.

Of course you won’t be surprised to learn Steffen claims “the climate disruption we are increasingly experiencing is not natural. It is caused by the heat-trapping gases we humans are pouring into the atmosphere primarily by the burning of coal, oil and gas.”

On the day Steffen’s opinion piece appeared, this newspaper republished Matt Ridley’s article in The Times claiming “the Earth is very slowly slipping back into a proper ice age”. This confirms research by Henrik Svensmark, Australia’s David Evans and others, who correlated low solar activity (fewer sunspots) and increased cloud cover (as modulated by cosmic rays), with a cooling climate.

Indeed, last year scientists submitted 120 papers linking historical and modern climate change to variations in solar activity.

Steffen wasn’t among them. He says: “Whole ecosystems are succumbing to (human-induced) climate disruption. In 2016 unusually dry and hot conditions triggered massive fires in Tasmania’s World Heritage forests, while ocean circulation patterns have moved ­unprecedented underwater heatwaves around the world, driving the tragic coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.’’

Yet the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt, dismisses many of the claims that he says “misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.”

Peter Ridd from James Cook University goes further, saying: “We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the ARC (Australian Research Council) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.”

Steffen’s work could fit this description. He spends much time pushing eco-catastrophism. “Climate disruption” he says “brings growing risks of large-scale migration and conflict as people, particularly the most vulnerable, are forced to deal with increasingly difficult conditions where they live. Some security analysts warn that climate disruption will dwarf terrorism and other conventional threats if present trends continue or worsen.

“Had enough of climate disruption? Then let’s leave our 20th-century thinking behind and get on with the job of rapidly building innovative, clever, carbon-neutral 21st-century societies.”

But Ridley questions the influence of carbon dioxide. He reminds us that: “In 1895 the Swede, Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this was true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.”

But where would manmade global warming “science” be if it relied on just facts? For decades, climate science has been plagued by scandals, deceit and the confessions of whistleblowers.

Penrith’s hyped recording is not new. Scientist and long-time BOM critic Jennifer Marohasy has been calling for an audit and urging Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg “to inform the World Meteorological Organisation that the temperatures recorded by our bureau are not consistent with calibration, nor any international standard”, and, to “direct the bureau to desist from announcing new record hot days”.

Still, institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event.

But despite their best efforts, in the public’s eyes their story is wearing thin. There have been too many false predictions and unwarranted alarmism. People are wising up to the reality that climate science has become an unfalsifiable ideology and resent having their moral conscience questioned should they disagree.

If Ridley is right and the earth is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age, it will be literally cold comfort, not to mention lethal, to keep passing it off as climate disruption.

To survive such an event, our successors will need a plentiful supply of cheap, reliable energy, impossible given today’s intelligentsia’s religious objection to low-cost fossil and nuclear fuels.

It’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.

(Climatism bolds and pic link added)

The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong | The Australian

•••

Related :


In Australia, faulty BoM temperature sensors contribute to “hottest year ever”

“I don’t believe in conspiracies of silence except when it comes to Harvey Weinstein and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.”

“…the Bureau can give us a hottest winter on record, even when there are record snow dumps in the Alps, and record numbers of frosts on the flats.”

BOMBSHELL report from the ever-persistent pit bull down under, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, exposing yet more fraudulent warming bias from Australia’s corrupt Bureau of Meteorology…

Watts Up With That?

More hot days — or “purpose-designed” temperature sensors at play?

Guest essay by Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, republished from the Australian Spectator with permission from the author.

I don’t believe in conspiracies of silence except when it comes to Harvey Weinstein and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

For some time, weather enthusiasts have been noticing rapid temperature fluctuations at the ‘latest observations’ page at the Bureau’s website. For example, Peter Cornish, a retired hydrologist, wrote to the Bureau on 17 December 2012 asking whether the 1.5 degrees Celsius drop in temperature in the space of one minute at Sydney’s Observatory Hill, just the day before, could be a quirk of the new electronic temperature sensors. Ken Stewart, a retired school principal, requested temperature data for Hervey Bay after noticing a 2.1 degrees Celsius temperature change in the space of one minute on 22 February 2017.

In both cases, the Bureau assured…

View original post 1,046 more words


Met Office Falsify Data To Prove “Hottest Bank Holiday”

YET another example of why – sadly – government climate agencies, like the UK Met Office, BoM, CSIRO, NASA and NOAA, who have been captured by the radical environmental movement, cannot be trusted on anything “climate change” or “global warming” or whatever name beats their PR departments alarmist drum the hardest.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

https://twitter.com/metoffice/status/902088907654914049

This is quite an amazing piece of evidence that the UK Met Office are actively involved in defrauding the public.

The above tweet was published early this morning, forecasting the day’s weather (Aug 28th).

Note that the record to beat was 28.3C.

A few hours later they triumphantly sent this tweet:

image

https://twitter.com/metoffice/status/902212321103290368

Miraculously, the previous record temperature dropped by 1.1C!

Is it surprising that nobody trusts official Met Office data any more?

The lengths that the Met Office, NOAA, GISS etc go to in order to distort the truth should surprise none of us now.

But this latest piece of fraud really does take the biscuit, as  many commenters have spotted.

image

https://twitter.com/balinteractive/status/902238903050137604

View original post


OPEN Letter To The Bureau Of Meteorology – Tropical Cyclone Trends

tc-graph-1969-2012.png

Graph showing the number of severe and non-severe tropical cyclones from 1970–2011 which have occurred in the Australian region. Severe tropical cyclones are those which show a minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa.

Dear BoM,

I have been a keen observer of weather and climate for well over a climate point (42 years)!

The chaotic system of climate and “climate change” is ever fascinating. Though, today the ‘chaos’ has been replaced by an unhealthy polarization of “the science”, all too often determined by belief, politics and ideology. Sadly, dogma has trumped empirical evidence, corrupting the scientific method.

That said, I am seeking from you an updated version of the cyclone trends graph which ends at 2011. The BoM site has excellent data up to 2017 to complete the series. Is there a reason why the data has not been translated to the current graph? I would be happy to work on getting it up to date if resources are limited!

As a start, there is a written record from 2012-2015 here: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/index.shtml

However, this record does not quite match the said graph 1969 – 2011. Methodology for what qualifies the graphed record would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jamie Spry (Melbourne, Australia)


UPDATE 29 August 2017

Response from The Bureau’s Climate Help Desk:

Screen Shot 2017-08-29 at , August 29, 6.44.07 PM.png

Dear Jamie,

Thank you for your recent query to the Bureau of Meteorology regarding your interest in cyclones in the Australian region.

The page that you refer to is amongst the pages that we have been updating and we hope to have an updated cyclones graph along with updated text pointing to the most recent science as soon as possible.

The graph shows analysed tropical cyclone activity in the Australian region. The cyclone numbers, especially for recent years, may have changed slightly due to post-event analysis giving the most accurate numbers possible of tropical cyclones in the Australian region.

The web page that you point to in your letter does provide a list of historical tropical cyclones in the Australian region, but please be aware that this list is not exhaustive, with only those tropical cyclones that had an individual cyclone report completed appearing on this list. For a more complete account of historical tropical cyclone track data please refer to the ‘database of past tropical cyclone tracks’ also linked off this page.

Regards,

Climate Information Services

Climate Information Services | Community Forecasts | Bureau of Meteorology

helpdesk.climate@bom.gov.au


From: Jamie Spry [mailto:james_spry@icloud.com]

Sent: Wednesday, 16 August 2017 3:31 PM

To: Accessibility; Business Solutions

Cc: ministerfrydenberg.invitations@environment.gov.au; moran@regulationeconomics.com; ipe_2@bigpond.com; Andrew Bolt; joanne@joannenova.com.au; Alan Jones; info@2gb.com; jennifermarohasy@gmail.com

Subject: Tropical Cyclone Trends – Australia Update

Dear BoM,

I have been a keen observer of weather and climate for well over a climate point (42 years)!

The chaotic system of climate and “climate change” is ever fascinating. Though today the ‘chaos’ has been replaced by an unhealthy polarization of “the science”, determined by belief, politics and ideology. Sadly, dogma has trumped empirical evidence, corrupting the scientific method.

That said, I am seeking from you an updated version of the cyclone trends graph which ends at 2011. The BoM site has excellent data up to 2017 to complete the series. Is there a reason why the data has not been translated to the current graph? I would be happy to work on getting it up to date if resources are limited!

As a start, there is a written record from 2012-2015 here: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/index.shtml

However, this record does not quite match the said graph 1969 – 2011. Methodology for what qualifies the graphed record would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jamie Spry (Melbourne, Australia)

OPEN Letter To The Bureau Of Meteorology – Tropical Cyclone Trends

Appreciate BoM replying to my enquiry, and, look forward to seeing the updated version with with updated text pointing to the most recent science”. With that statement in mind, will be interesting to see what qualifies a cyclone for the updated graph 2012-17.

BoM also notes “The cyclone numbers, especially for recent years, may have changed slightly due to post-event analysis giving the most accurate numbers possible of tropical cyclones in the Australian region.” 

Sounds obscure.

Have their qualification methods changed? Will it be easier to make the cut?

Worth keeping in mind that “severe” cyclones qualify as “those which show a minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa” (BoM).

As noted in original email:

As a start, there is a written record from 2012-2015 here: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/index.shtml

However, this record does not quite match the said graph 1969 – 2011. Methodology for what qualifies the graphed record would be appreciated.

Jennifer Marohasy replied to me on this, in regards to assignment of categories…

Hi Jamie

Thanks for copying me in on this.  

Of course there is also the problem of them wrongly assigning categories, more info here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2015/02/know-cyclone-marcia-category-5-landfall/ 

Cheers,  Jennifer 

Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD

Senior Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, www.ipa.org.au 

Founder, The Climate Modelling Laboratory, www.climatelab.com.au

Own website, www.jennifermarohasy.com

Will wait for the updated version and check the assignment of particular cyclones to the updated version and check against the BoM’s data up to 2017.

In the meantime, checkout Jennifer’s excellent work on the topic:

How do we know that Cyclone Marcia was a Category 5 at landfall? – Jennifer Marohasy

TBC…

*

UPDATE 6 Sep 2017

The Bureau has updated our Tropical Cyclone trends graph. Data updated for period 2010/11 – 2017…

tc-graph-1969-2017.png

Graph showing the number of severe and non-severe tropical cyclones from 1970-2017 which have occurred in the Australian region. Severe tropical cyclones are shown here as those with a minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa.

THE cyclone trend remains on a downward curve as CO2 rises.

WILL further investigate categorisation, and which cyclones made the cut 2010/11 – 2017.

Stay tuned…

*