Guardian of climate John Vidal

Though untruth be widely believed, it will never be true. Since open-minded people can be too busy to research complex climate issues, the CCG helps by presenting reliable fact and comment with links to sources. We strive to understand the ill-conceived global warming campaign, describe it accurately yet memorably, expose distortions that poison the policy debate, give easily assimilable descriptions of climate’s complexity and provide perspective.

Most national leaders have been convinced by the UN climate crusade that human activities are dangerously warming the earth, but the theory of man-made climate change is soaked in error. Giving a patina of scientific justification to the UN’s scandalous campaign (‘fight climate change’—how’s that for far-fetched?) has necessitated nothing less than the corruption of science.

There is literally no evidence of a dangerous human influence on global temperature, now or in the future, but the UN is determined that countries form climate policy on the basis of their fraudulent theory. Nobody describes this better than retired Canadian climatology professor Tim Ball.

Phantom crises

Journalists, op-ed writers and other activists prop up the illusory climate science with ever-more-alarming phantom crises. This was the case three days ago with John Vidal, the Guardian’s environment editor, whom the Herald merrily republished, claiming that human activities create ‘strange’ weather.

But there’s nothing strange about temperature changes, more rain or less rain, droughts, hurricanes, heat waves or any other kind of weather—changes in all of which remain stubbornly within natural limits of variability (for all the expensive resources devoted to discovering otherwise). But the likes of Vidal and his editors conjure terror from every breeze. When the distortions in his account are corrected, the false scientific underpinnings of the UN’s ridiculous climate crusade are destroyed. What does he say?

John Vidal 1: December temperatures in London have been warmer than July’s.

Literally true, but a gross distortion, for it applies only to a few data points, not monthly averages, and only July’s coldest days. Temperatures in July on average are about 12°C higher than in December (, but on a few days this year the highest December temperatures overlapped a little with the lowest July temperatures ( It happens most years. In 1985 there was a greater overlap than this, and on more days. But then the December temperatures plunged to -5°C.

JV2: Scotland is balmier than Barcelona.

I can find no evidence for that. Long-term records show annual temperatures in Edinburgh range from 3°C to 15°C ( Annual temperatures in Barcelona range from 10°C to 24°C ( Vidal may have found a day or two where these ranges overlap, but he won’t say so explicitly, because it would make his exaggeration obvious. The statement is clearly a fabrication.

JV3: Artificial snow covers European ski slopes.

Resorts in Finland, Norway and Sweden have mostly avoided the unusually mild air streaming over Europe for the past four weeks ( The winter is young; randomly shifting air currents and a mild start to winter have nothing to do with man-made global warming.

JV4: Africa faces its worst food crisis in a generation as floods and droughts strike vulnerable countries.

This blames the food crisis on new-fangled man-made global warming instead of old-fashioned man-made violence. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Food Program in a report cited in the Wall Street Journal in May this year (, “the number of African countries facing severe food shortages has doubled over the past two decades, as extreme weather conditions, natural disasters and insurgencies disrupt farming across the continent.” Food insecurity in country after country is blamed on political instability, civil strife, conflicts and violence. The UN report on extreme weather events (SREX, 2012 – pdf, 31MB) officially takes catastrophic global warming off the table; it’s not even certain of a warming trend since 1950. The report says no dominant anthropogenic influence is expected for at least 20 or 30 years. So the latest African food crisis has no connection with man-made global warming.

JV5: With unusual weather from Britain and France to Australia and New Zealand, scientists are blaming climate change – but also the natural phenomenon called El Nino, which is raising temperatures and disrupting weather patterns.

Who could disagree? The ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation), aided perhaps by a microscopic human influence, completely dwarfs other climatic influences and causes periodic temporary warming or cooling. There’s even a paper on it. Vidal seems to give up the fight here.

JV6: A double whammy then, but how disturbed should we be as the records tumble?

We shouldn’t be a bit disturbed. The records ‘tumble’ by a mere few hundredths of a degree (it’s not measured, only calculated from averages). Such a small temperature difference is undetectable.

JV7: Britain’s Met Office says the exceptional warmth in Britain and northern continental Europe is linked to the strongest El Nino ever recorded.

El Niño conditions are present and expected to remain strong until a transition to ENSO-neutral conditions about March. There is no evidence that the current El Nino is anywhere near the strength of the 1997/98 El Nino. This is wishful thinking.

Each of Vidal’s first seven statements is wrong. They exhibit woeful scholarship or perhaps the intention to mislead. Whichever it is, who would trust him?

Hits: 322

29 Thoughts on “Guardian of climate John Vidal

  1. Mike Jowsey on 29/12/2015 at 8:25 pm said:

    But the likes of Vidal and his editors conjure terror from every breeze.

    Hilarious quotable quote! Love your work RT.

  2. Richard Treadgold on 30/12/2015 at 12:00 am said:

    Thanks, man!

  3. Simon on 30/12/2015 at 9:33 pm said:

    You must admit though that there is some pretty crazy weather at the moment.
    Christmas tornadoes in the US, record rains in the UK, and a North Pole with temperatures above freezing in the middle of winter.

  4. Andy on 30/12/2015 at 10:12 pm said:

    It’s worse than we thought. We even had rain in Christchurch this evening, in the middle of a supposed record breaking drought,

    When will this madness end?

  5. Richard C (NZ) on 31/12/2015 at 8:41 am said:

    >”You must admit though that there is some pretty crazy weather at the moment.”

    Maybe we need an IPCW. It is the Idiocene after all:

    ‘Welcome to a new geologic era – the Idiocene’

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 31/12/2015 at 8:46 am said:

    I watched (TV, NFL) the Minnesota Vikings play NY Giants at the uncovered university stadium on Monday (Sunday US). Temporary arrangement while a new stadium is built downtown (see story below). As with other uncovered stadiums, north at Green Bay in particular and even south at Denver (snow a couple of games ago), weather is a factor. It was a night game and the temperature at the start was -10 C (14 degrees Fahrenheit).

    Games in the past at that field have been played in 11 F (-11.7 C) and probably colder too. No sub-surface heating then so the ground had to be unfrozen with gas burners on the surface before the game.

    ‘TCF Bank Stadium getting $6.6M upgrade to prepare for Vikings’

    The Golden Gophers’ [University team] home turf is being torn up to make way for a new heated football field for the Minnesota Vikings.

    A “hydronic heated field” will replace the turf at TCF Stadium and “will ensure a safe playing surface” for the NFL teams, according to Vikings’ communications director Jeff Anderson.

    The NFL team will play at the University of Minnesota’s football field for the 2014 and 2015 seasons while the $1 billion Minnesota Multipurpose Stadium is built on the site of recently departed Metrodome. The Gophers play football at their stadium in the fall, but the Vikings play into December and ideally, January. Upgrades are necessary to enhance the field and protect the stadium from colder weather.

    The $6.6 million cost for renovations comes from the $1 billion budget for the Multipurpose Stadium being built by the Vikings and the state’s taxpayers.

    Other enhancements for the Vikings: increased storage space throughout the stadium, television platforms, heating in various areas, concessions upgrades on the concourses and temporary bleachers to accommodate 2,000 more fans. The total capacity at TCF Bank for the Vikings will be more than 52,000.

    # # #

    >”Other enhancements for the Vikings: …………. heating in various areas”

    TV pics of the gas burners heating the players benches. When the big linemen took their helmets off, the top of their heads were steaming.

    Vikings won 49 – 17 and go on to playoffs, Giants eliminated.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on 31/12/2015 at 9:29 am said:

    >”rains in the UK”

    And unmitigated floods, thanks to EU insanity.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on 31/12/2015 at 10:09 am said:

    >”The $6.6 million cost for renovations comes from the $1 billion budget for the Multipurpose Stadium being built by the Vikings and the [Minnesota] state’s taxpayers.”

    A similar upgrade of the multipurpose Oakland Colosseum (O. Co.) for the return of the NFL Raiders from LA (Raiders were originally at Oakland) has gone horribly wrong. A bad deal for all concerned and now the Raiders are looking to move again, maybe back to LA (as are the San Diego Chargers). This would leave Oakland with just baseball at the stadium (Oakland A’s) and $100 million of debt.

    Raiders colours are black and silver. Hence, these days, the O. Co. stadium is known as the “black hole” due to the ghoulish black/silver getups of the fans. Could just be a financial black hole soon if the Raiders move.

    I watched the Raiders play Washington Redskins at O. Co. donkey’s years ago before the Raiders went to LA and well before “black hole” days. Boring game so I went for a wander around the stadium. Clouds of marijuana smoke up in the top tier and a bit heady so I ended up down at the front watching the cheerleaders. No recall at all who won the game.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 31/12/2015 at 11:50 am said:

    >”a North Pole with temperatures above freezing in the middle of winter” [link to Holthaus article]


    “The remarkable storm will briefly boost temperatures in the Arctic basin to nearly 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal—and the North Pole itself will be pushed above the freezing point, with temperatures perhaps as warm as 40 degrees. That’s absolutely terrifying and incredibly rare.”

    [Image] A weather forecast for Wednesday morning shows a rare midwinter warm front over the North Pole, with temperatures a few degrees above freezing—about 50 or 60 degrees warmer than normal for late December. GFS model courtesy of Levi Cowan

    Except this is speculation based on one model, GFS as above. Lets see the conditions and forecast from another source:

    Weather forecast for North Pole Updated at 19:39. Next update around 4:00.

    Today, Wednesday 30/12/2015 Time Forecast Temp. Precipitation Wind
    23:00–00:00 Clear sky -30° 0 mm Fresh breeze, 10 m/s from south-southwestFresh breeze, 10 m/s from south-southwest
    Tomorrow, Thursday 31/12/2015 Time Forecast Temp. Precipitation Wind
    00:00–06:00 Fair -31° 0 mm Fresh breeze, 9 m/s from south-southwestFresh breeze, 9 m/s from south-southwest
    06:00–12:00 Clear sky -33° 0 mm Moderate breeze, 9 m/s from south-southwestModerate breeze, 9 m/s from south-southwest
    12:00–18:00 Partly cloudy -36° 0 mm Light breeze, 2 m/s from southwestLight breeze, 2 m/s from southwest
    18:00–00:00 Cloudy -39° 0 mm Light breeze, 3 m/s from north-northeastLight breeze, 3 m/s from north-northeast
    Friday, 01/01/2016 Time Forecast Temp. Precipitation Wind
    00:00–06:00 Partly cloudy -38° 0 mm Moderate breeze, 6 m/s from northModerate breeze, 6 m/s from north
    06:00–12:00 Partly cloudy -40° 0 mm Gentle breeze, 5 m/s from north-northwestGentle breeze, 5 m/s from north-northwest
    12:00–18:00 Clear sky -43° 0 mm Gentle breeze, 4 m/s from westGentle breeze, 4 m/s from west
    18:00–00:00 Clear sky -44° 0 mm Gentle breeze, 4 m/s from south-southwestGentle breeze, 4 m/s from south-southwest


    # # #

    So far, the “absolutely terrifying and incredibly rare” event appears to be occurring only in the minds of Eric Holthaus, his readers like Simon, and Levi Cowan’s GFS model.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on 31/12/2015 at 12:09 pm said:

    >”the North Pole itself will be pushed above the freezing point [on Wednesday], with temperatures perhaps as warm as 40 degrees [Fahrenheit]”

    4.4 degrees Celcius, or not. -30° Celcius for Wednesday 30/12/2015 at 23:00 above.

    But what’s 34.4 C error in the Holthaus hothouse anyway?

  11. Richard C (NZ) on 31/12/2015 at 1:36 pm said:

    >”But what’s 34.4 C error in the Holthaus hothouse anyway?”

    There was a very brief spike Wednesday morning but the nearest buoy to the pole didn’t get above -9C, one further south by 2 degrees latitude went just over for a few hours:

    North Pole modeling and observations:

    So a 10C over prediction for the spike nearest the North Pole in GFS (+0.71 vs -0.9) but only 3C over in ECMWF (-6 vs -9), Close prediction a bit south of the pole in GFS but not ECMWF.

    And then it’s back to normal frigidity by Wednesday night.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on 31/12/2015 at 1:50 pm said:

    >”record rains in the UK”

    Record rains, or record flooding due to insane EU policies? There is a difference.

    ‘Historic weather records rubbish Cameron’s attempts to blame floods on global warming’

  13. Andy on 01/01/2016 at 9:16 pm said:

    Happy New Year folks

    For a year in review, Mark Steyn takes a bit of beating

  14. Richard C (NZ) on 02/01/2016 at 9:58 am said:

    A happy new year it is, if you like snow:

    ‘Record Snowfalls hit Canada, Mexico, Texas & China – ‘Insanely cold’ in Calif. – Peru sees ‘heavy snowfall’ in Summer’

  15. Richard C (NZ) on 02/01/2016 at 11:14 am said:

    Steyn post:

    ~On December 8th Steyn was at the US Senate to testify to Ted Cruz’s sub-committee on the ugly climate of intimidation in climate science. The hearing itself was a fine example thereof, beginning as it did with attempted witness-tampering by Greenpeace and proceeding to high-handed senators attempting to shut off disagreement with a snotty “I didn’t ask you a question!”

    Boston radio colossus Howie Carr devoted his newspaper column to an exchange between Mark, Dr Judith Curry and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey – and how Markey “let two hostile witnesses take over a Senate subcommittee hearing on global warming and begin questioning him”.

    No member of the Senate staff could recall a time when witnesses had turned the tables and begun peppering the blowhard senator with questions – questions he was unable to answer.

    # # #

    Judith Curry’s latest:

    ‘Unnatural consensus on climate change’

    Judith Curry, Special to Financial Post | December 29, 2015

    “Without an understanding of natural climate, there’s no strong basis for predicting climate change”

    “What is the global warming hiatus, and why does it matter?”

    “Climate models can’t explain the warming from 1910-1945 or the mid-century grand hiatus”

    “The politically driven push to manufacture a premature consensus on human-caused climate change has resulted in the relative neglect of natural climate variability”

  16. LukesAreWrongToo on 02/01/2016 at 11:49 am said:

    2016 will be the year when Physics Departments of most major universities throughout the English/German/French speaking world will be notified by our group regarding the false physics in the Greenhouse Radiative Forcing conjecture.

    Whilst the mean ocean surface temperature is indeed due to solar heating, it is important to understand that the “solar heating” is not achieved by way of direct solar radiation reaching the ocean surface and (mostly) passing through the first meter or so. Stefan-Boltzmann calculations readily confirm this.

    Instead, the ocean surface receives the required thermal energy by means of the non-radiative “heat creep” process that I have been first in the world to explain based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    The science of heat transfer lies totally within the realm of physics, and so only those with a sound knowledge and understanding of entropy and thermodynamics will understand what I have explained at

    In summary, the old 20th century Greenhouse Radiative Forcing conjecture cannot explain the required thermal energy transfers and the reason why a planet’s surface temperature rises each planetary morning. The process of entropy maximization is totally ignored and there is a false assumption that separate sources of radiation (the atmosphere and the Sun) have a compounding effect so that (they think) the sum of the fluxes can be used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. That is wrong, but it is indeed what those energy budget diagrams imply. If it were correct and one electric bar radiator could raise an object to 350K, then 16 such radiators would raise it to 700K. That doesn’t happen, so the greenhouse conjecture is totally and utterly debunked.

    The correct 21st century “heat creep” hypothesis is, instead, based on the laws of physics and it explains the morning warming for planets like Earth and Venus, as well as the observed temperatures. You cannot prove it wrong. Nobody has in nearly two years, despite the AU $10,000 reward on offer for doing so.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on 02/01/2016 at 6:19 pm said:

    Doug Cotton, you say:

    “Whilst the mean ocean surface temperature is indeed due to solar heating, it is important to understand that the “solar heating” is not achieved by way of direct solar radiation reaching the ocean surface and (mostly) passing through the first meter or so. Stefan-Boltzmann calculations readily confirm this. Instead, the ocean surface receives the required thermal energy by means of the non-radiative “heat creep” process that I have been first in the world to explain based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”

    It’s not as if sub-surface ocean heating and dissipation was not already understood by oceanographers Doug. There’s the definitive Fairall el al (1996) paper here:

    ‘Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature’

    And Cronin and McPhaden (1997) documented it in this paper:

    ‘The upper ocean heat balance in the western equatorial Pacific warm pool during September-December 1992′

    Cronin and McPhaden show heat budget diagrams in Figures 10a,b (top) and 10c,d (bottom). [click to enlarge or see figures linked directly below]

    Figure 10. Box diagrams of the heat balance (equations (2a) and (2b)) for (a) the pre-wind burst period from September 19 to October 17, 1992, (b) the wind burst period from October 18 to November 12, 1992, (c) the post-wind burst period from November 13 to December 7, 1992, and (d) the beginning of the December wind burst from December 8 to 17, 1992. The mean wind speed during each period is listed, and the mean layer depth is indicated in the boxes. As discussed in the text, although we generally interpret the residual in terms of entrainment mixing, during the post-wind burst period the residual is positive and therefore cannot represent mixing. Instead, we believe that during this period it may represent horizontal advection of a sharp temperature front. [Fig 10a,b] [Fig 10c,d]

    # # #

    Obviously, depending on wind speed at the surface, more or less energy leaves the surface by the 4 egress mechanisms once “heat creep”, as you put it, facilitates dissipation of stored heat in the sub-surface to leave the surface.

    But not all of the heat in the sub-surface leaves by way of the surface above it. Heat also propagates both vertically downward and horizontally (see diagrams above). Accumulated tropical ocean heat that does not leave the surface there moves towards the poles (horizontal heat transport) where it is dissipated. Just this last month (December) the warm water from the tropics has reached New Zealand raising the sea temperature here nearly 3C. See the Bay of Plenty temperature change as measured by this wave buoy:

    This arrival of heat from the tropics by horizontal transport could not have occurred if all tropical oceanic solar energy ingress was matched by egress in the tropics i.e. no surplus.

    But then, you don’t defer to literature and you’re not interested in any other view than you own are you Doug? You’re just spamming the blogs again and will never re-visit this thread to read this or comment again.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on 02/01/2016 at 6:57 pm said:

    James Renwick at HT:

    “The hiatus, if it ever did exist, is definitely over now. This is worrying, if we are now heading back into a more El Niño-dominated period (as in the 1980s and 90s). A period of rapid warming such as we saw in the late 20th century would blow global temperatures right through the 1.5°C warming “guardrail”, given we are already at one degree of warming since pre-industrial times.”

    Heh, “definitely over now”? I don’t think so. There’s a good chance a super La Nina to follow this super El Nino. Renwick’s jumping the gun.

    “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” – Mark Twain

  19. Andy on 02/01/2016 at 7:28 pm said:

    Climate change is now defined by a 12 month horizon determined by an El Nino spike.

    I see, taking notes here….

  20. Richard C (NZ) on 02/01/2016 at 8:36 pm said:

    >”Climate change is now defined by a 12 month horizon determined by an El Nino spike.”

    Or a 6 hr “bomb cyclone” spike in the Arctic too according to Eric Holthaus upthread. Either way, we’ve entered a new time frame for climate; the 30 year convention is out the window.

    Lookout! Instant climate change is goin’ to getcha (paraphrasing hippie karma-speak).

  21. Richard C (NZ) on 02/01/2016 at 9:32 pm said:

    There’s an item in the Al Jazeera news banner at the moment that reads:

    “30 metres of new snow falls on Buffalo NY”

    I have my doubts about the accuracy of the report, that’s the height of a 10 story building.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on 03/01/2016 at 9:23 am said:

    More instant climate change:

    ‘A Foolish Bet about 2016 Global Surface Temperatures – It’s Nothing More than a Silly Publicity Stunt’

    Bob Tisdale / 5 hours ago January 2, 2016

    I saw the Huff Post article by Mark Boslough that Tisdale is referring to. Boslough’s brain must have been disengaged when he wrote it, no mention of El Nino. Unknown previously but he’s certainly made a name for himself now.

    Tisdale relished the opportunity to provide a model-observations update using GISS LOTI (natch). Might give Boslough pause for thought, but I’m not betting on it.

  23. Andy on 04/01/2016 at 4:49 pm said:

    There has certainly been some wild weather in my old stomping ground in NE Scotland

  24. Andy on 05/01/2016 at 11:03 am said:

    Here is a nice video of some useless German birdchoppers

    Not even chopping birds. Useless.

  25. I have just posted on your new year rain event – 1st to 4th Jan – also water supply issues – hoping to get people to report local rainfalls – you take it over if you want it Richard –
    Worthwhile New Zealand rain reported as “a drop in bucket”

  26. Richard C (NZ) on 06/01/2016 at 9:10 am said:

    ‘Update of Model-Observation Comparisons’ [HadCRUT4 & RSS]

    Steve McIntyre, posted on Jan 5, 2016 at 12:27 PM

    In comments:

    Caligula Jones Posted Jan 5, 2016 at 2:08 PM

    “Unfortunately, pointing this out gets skeptics nowhere. I once posted a link to the IPCC itself, showing how little confidence it had in their models. I had absolutely no comeback to the inevitable “Why would scientists use models if they didn’t work, you ignorant, oil-industry shrill liar idiot scumbag troll”. I may have amalgamated some responses for that last part.”

    Linking to the IPCC got Andy banned from Gareth Morgan’s blog.

  27. Andy on 06/01/2016 at 11:47 am said:

    “Linking to the IPCC got Andy banned from Gareth Morgan’s blog.”

    I expect a lot more of telling the truth (in various domains, not just climate) to be labelled as “hate speech” or similar, and banned, in the months ahead

  28. Richard Treadgold on 09/01/2016 at 10:17 am said:

    From Climate Audit:

    Unfortunately, pointing this out gets skeptics nowhere. I once posted a link to the IPCC itself, showing how little confidence it had in their models. I had absolutely no comeback to the inevitable “Why would scientists use models if they didn’t work, you ignorant, oil-industry shrill liar idiot scumbag troll”.

    Abuse of this kind always seems unexpected and frequently stuns us silent (I know the feeling well). But there is always an answer to abuse. This case simply needs evidence. All mathematical models of reality are compared at some stage with reality to verify their realism. If all is well with climate models, their realism is evidenced in the comparison with reality. Simply ask politely to see this evidence. You are entitled to it—it’s their argument.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation