Paris Climate Party agrees to have another Party

• Guest post •

— by Viv Forbes, Chairman of Carbon Sense

7th January 2016

Hurrah! We all agree to be friends!

Hurrah! We all agree to be friends!

(You can also view the original Carbon Sense newsletter in your browser.)

Premature celebrations by sceptics

Many climate sceptics are celebrating that “nothing in the Paris deal is legally binding.” They should look deeper. They have suffered a huge political defeat.

Sceptics are winning the climate science debate, but the main battle is no longer about facts and science—it is about propaganda and politics. There were few scientists at COP21 talking about atmospheric physics—just politicians, bureaucrats and green activists discussing emission targets, carbon taxes, climate reparations and who will pay.

The Paris party organisers managed to assemble representatives of 196 nations with the aim of getting 100% agreement on something—anything—that would assist their clandestine campaign for world government and world taxes. This process will cripple the industrial power and political freedom of the Western democracies. They achieved agreement because of leadership by UN loving Western centralists like Obama, Merkel, Cameron, Hollande, Trudeau and Turnbull, helped by misguided theologians and supported by vested interests in mendicant nations and some powerful competitors of the West. They spent two weeks reworking the draft document until there was nothing in it that offended any nation. Most of them wanted their benefits clauses made compulsory, but the would-be providers of such largesse dared not sign obviously binding liabilities because the media and their home electorates were watching.

The UN game plan is for this massive global climate circus to meet regularly in pleasant locations, setting illusory targets, generating publicity and seeking even more green levers to pull. So there is only one legally binding clause: an agreement to table targets and to meet again.

Repeating: NOTHING IMPORTANT IS LEGALLY BINDING. This is some small reason to celebrate.

Powerful propaganda victory for climate alarmists

The big picture, however, is very gloomy, at least in the medium term—climate alarmism has been encouraged and will flourish for a time.

This is the first time that those promoting world government have managed to get what they can now parade as a “world agreement” on a radical agenda. They can now be more confident of using the excuse of global warming to “control carbon dioxide” and to tax rich nations in order to somehow prevent “catastrophic man-made global warming.” To sound scientific and credible they have even invented a mythical temperature target (“below 1.5°C”).

The ability to quote “100% support” gives the war on carbon enormous moral, political and propaganda clout. As would-be-world-emperor, Ban Ki-moon, exulted ominously:

What was once unthinkable is now unstoppable.

Therefore things will get worse before they get better. Here, in their own words, is their agenda:

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, [changing] the economic development model that has [reigned] for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and a key organiser of the Paris Agreement.

See also:
http://www.green-agenda.com/
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/exposing-the-green-agenda.pdf
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm

The Paris COP-21 agreement is already being hailed as “an historic landmark.” The whole global network of alarmists with their media friends and the help of green/left politicians will use that 100% figure to intimidate opponents, especially in election campaigns. Even though nothing in the agreement is mandated, the framework and “commitment” is there, and the danger is that globalists among local politicians will scheme for it to become legally binding domestically.

This process will slowly suffocate us via regulation, legislation and coercion by federal, state and local bureaucracies, politicians and even courts. International trade sanctions and offers of green bribery will be used to bully and bribe recalcitrant nations. And as the public and the free media get bored with “climate change alarm”, those planning more carbon taxes and energy rationing will make bigger gains, without publicity, often hidden within claims of environmental protection. With their well-planned war on carbon, they have planted the poisonous seeds of world government and the destruction of Western liberty. Now they will diligently feed and water these seeds.

See: The Coming Green Tyranny

So we can now expect more hyped-up propaganda from the UN greens (or globalists), from the Mendicants and from the Climate Industry. This will coerce politicians and bureaucrats in the developed nations to create more restrictive green tape and to continue throwing billions at a problem that doesn’t exist. Meanwhile the Eurasians will expand their use of carbon fuels while exploiting every loophole and green business opportunity they can find. The flight of industry and jobs from the West to the East will accelerate.

COP-21 is modelled on a key principle of international Marxism: “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.” They have even resurrected a trademark of last century’s failed Command Societies – “The Five Year Plans”.

This new experiment with Marxism will fail, just like the previous ones. We just hope that the cost in human lives and living standards will not be as large.

See:
“Climate Change” is a UN hoax promoting a new world order.
Global Tyranny just getting warmed up.

But thinking greens are concerned

One bright spot in this Paris agreement is that it will provoke dissension in the green ranks.

Some deep greens now realise that even if all pledges are honoured, human CO2 emissions will continue to increase for years to come. There is also no chance of meeting the agreed emission goals while keeping the lights on without a massive expansion of nuclear power, which they hate as much as coal; or an expensive campaign to build rapid-response gas power plants (which also release CO2) to cover the flat spots in intermittent green energy production.

Real defenders of the environment are also coming to see that thousands of wind turbines, solar farms, roads, transmission lines and ethanol plantations cause more real environmental and economic damage than reliable concentrated energy provided by coal, oil, gas, nuclear and hydro.

And in due course, genuine greens will also realise they have been conned by the green energy rent-seekers and financiers who just want their world of green subsidies, tax breaks and mandated markets to continue propping up their dud green-energy speculations.

But the Green Armada is heading for the Rocks of Reality.

There is good news of sorts: the green armada is heading for the rocks of reality, which will prevail over the make-believe world of UN politics and the posh hotels of Paris.

The years of green tomfoolery and waste will be brought to an end by industry closures, job losses, soaring electricity prices and out-of-control deficits. Suddenly there will be no funds for Climate tourism, Climate “research” or Climate aid. When this reality asserts itself, this fatuous Paris agreement will be brushed aside as a stupid distraction.

For example, the Australian economy has always been supported on a three-legged stool: mining/mineral processing, harvesting (farming, forestry and fishing) and foreign inflows (settlers, investors, tourists and export earnings). The rest of Australia is engaged in applying labour, management, marketing, infrastructure, transport, energy, processing, red tape, green tape and taxation to these three backbone industries.

The mining/processing leg has been weakened as commodity prices plunge and soaring electricity prices send refineries overseas. This has been exacerbated by green guerrilla warfare on mining and development: the divestment campaign, legal obstructionism to every development proposal, harassment of investors and financiers, obstruction of exploration activities, delay of every development proposal with claims about heritage or dreamtime, promotion of punitive taxes, lies about “subsidies”, an anti-industry, anti-hard-science bias in state education, and relentless propaganda to associate mining with ideas like “polluting”, “dirty”, “climate altering”, “reef destroying”, “threatens endangered species”, etc.

Examples of anti-mining, anti-coal, anti-development activism

Get Up employs legal warfare to stop the Adani Coal Mine.
Greens plan to end coal mining.

For decades now, green extremists have been sawing away at the mining branch of our economic tree, not realising it was the branch they perched upon. Too late they will discover that much funding for government environmental spending and green energy subsidies comes from direct taxes and royalties on miners and indirectly via government taxes and levies on their massive payments for wages, travel, power, rail transport, and port and contracting activities.

Mining will recover from this double barrelled assault, but not fast enough to take us back smoothly to the golden years.

The second leg (harvesting the biosphere via farming, forestry and fishing) is also suffering from bans and barriers—live export bans, development bans, vegetation bans, land use bans, heritage bans, fishing quotas and bans, logging bans, confusion and disputes over animal rights and land rights for farmers, miners, gas producers, explorers and those claiming indigenous rights. Greens are responsible for encouraging the invasion of natural grasslands by woody weeds, and for the feral pests, weeds and bush-fires that spread in and around their ever-expanding parks, reserves and heritage areas. Green water policies in the huge Murray Darling Basin give preference to irrigating the Great Southern Ocean in preference to human towns, crops and orchards. These policies are promoted by those who support one of the goals of Agenda 21—to depopulate most rural areas.

Farmers are discouraged from continuing or expanding their operations by constant nibbling at their income by compulsory “research” or “marketing” levies on everything they sell. All of this makes our farmers less able to cope with the normal stresses of naturally occurring droughts, floods, fires and cyclones. Should the climate “pause” turn into a natural cooling phase (which will also be drier) farm output will plunge and the second leg will be weakened further. Although for those farmers who hang on, shortages will cause food prices to soar.

The third leg, foreign inflows, is also threatened. As the great primary industries weaken and soaring energy prices cripple processing and manufacturing, the world-wide welfare/subsidy/deficit/debt bubble will burst, and foreign investors and tourists will stay at home.

Our Neck is in the Noose … What must we do?

After the Paris Party, our neck is in the noose. They are planning a global green tyranny.

To escape we will have to fight the UN, the vested interests, the powerful politicians’ club, the public service, the climate industry, the government media, guilt-ridden billionaires, misguided clerics and princes, and the wanna-be-green gang in Hollywood.

But we will win because reality exists even while few recognise it. When economic pains become undeniable, even politically bothersome, and reality resurfaces, new voices will be heard and truth will be spoken.

What must be done?

In the words of David Cameron, we must “cut the Green crap” and return to a sane world with prudent politicians, sound, unshackled industries, and reliable, economical electricity generators.

The battle must go on to protect real environmental values. Every day we delay makes the cleansing correction more painful.

Viv Forbes

Rosewood,
Queensland,
Australia.

forbes [at] carbon-sense [dot] com

24 Thoughts on “Paris Climate Party agrees to have another Party

  1. LukesAreWrongToo on January 7, 2016 at 11:57 am said:

    Carbon dioxide radiation cannot raise the maximum temperature for the day. Warming is assumed to be caused by radiation from carbon dioxide supposedly slowing surface cooling and then, because of that supposed slowing, the minimum temperature for the day is supposedly warmer. But it’s not: it may take a few minutes (or just a few seconds) longer in the night to get down to the minimum temperature, but that’s all. The minimum temperature is determined by all the thermal energy stored in the troposphere, and over 98% of that is in nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules.

    Radiation can only slow that component of cooling which is itself by radiation, and that is only about a third of all surface cooling. Other cooling processes may well accelerate to compensate. Furthermore, the minimum temperature for the night is determined primarily by the supporting temperature in all the air molecules colliding with surface molecules, and carbon dioxide only comprises 0.04% of those. IR-active molecules lower the temperature gradient, so that the thermal plot rotates downwards at the surface end. That is why more moist regions in my study had lower mean daily minimum and maximum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitude and altitude. So-called greenhouse gases lower the mean surface temperature, and the reasons (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics) are here.

  2. David White on January 7, 2016 at 12:57 pm said:

    Are you aware that Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) said, on Jan 1, 2016:

    Patrick Moore ‏@EcoSenseNow Jan 1 Mexico
    To confirm, I raise my bet to US$100,000 that global CO2 emissions will be higher ten years from now than in 2014, based on IEA & GCP.

    To my knowledge, no one has yet accepted his wager.

  3. Richard Treadgold on January 7, 2016 at 2:27 pm said:

    David,

    I wasn’t aware of this wager, but the important metric is what warming might result from such an increase in emissions. To date, this is uncertain and highly controversial. Warming from CO2 is not inevitable.

  4. I rather suspect that climate change will be low on the priority list in 5 years time as Europe tries to contain escalating violence and even civil war.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on January 7, 2016 at 6:05 pm said:

    Not sure the Green factor will have any teeth once global recession really sets in, “the Green Armada is heading for the Rocks of Reality” section sums that up well. No-one will care too much about the IPCC Chicken Littles then (and see articles below).

    >”Mining will recover from this double barrelled assault”

    Why? The driver has been China and as with the rest of the world the Chinese debt-fueled party is over. Viv gets on to this further down:

    >”the world-wide welfare/subsidy/deficit/debt bubble will burst”

    It is already bursting. The most exposed have already burst e.g. Greece, Puerto Rico, Detroit, Glencore. China is a slow moving train wreck. The Chinese stock markets began 2016 by breaking through 2 circuit breakers triggering trading halts (i.e. those who want to sell, cut their losses and get out, cannot until the trading halt is lifted). The first breaker, at -5%, forced a 15-minute trading halt. The second one, at -7%, halted trading for the rest of the day. About half of listed Chinese companies cannot pay interest from profits but nevertheless, the Chinese govt plowed $20 Billion Into the market after a $590 billion rout to prop it up. That sent the US market into a $289 billion wipeout. Eventually the unwinding must run its course, intervention such as China’s right now and the massive US QE’s 1, 2, and 3 can’t stem the tide for ever.

    Here’s a relatively optimistic view of the US situation:

    ‘A stock-market crash of 50%+ would not be a surprise — or the worst-case scenario’
    http://uk.businessinsider.com/stocks-crash-2016-8?r=US&IR=T

    >”Should the climate “pause” turn into a natural cooling phase (which will also be drier) farm output will plunge and the second leg will be weakened further. Although for those farmers who hang on, shortages will cause food prices to soar.”

    Exactly. This should be an item in any opportunities and threats risk analysis (SWOT) for corporates operating in this sector but who is even thinking about it given all the global warming hype?. Australian wheat in particular is well placed for this but New Zealand is now totally reliant on imported wheat, mostly from Australia i.e. the issue is not so much the price NZ would pay but how much grain it can actually acquire in a global market that is no longer producing in optimum climatic conditions as it is now. Why should we expect favours from Australia in that event?

    The following article puts the green factor, in this case man-made climate change, in perspective:

    ‘Trusting climate science a Chicken Little scenario’

    Peter Brunson Jan 5, 2016

    […..Chicken Little scenario in respect to climate science……]

    Here is an interesting quote.

    “For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high agreement).” [IPCC AR5 – see below]

    So what are the other drivers that climate change will have small impact when compared?

    “Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.” David M Hoffer [from AR5 – see below]

    In simpler form, Climate Change impacts are smaller than most everything else you experience in life.

    http://news.hjnews.com/logan_hj/trusting-climate-science-a-chicken-little-scenario/article_e96606a5-0b25-5c37-bb0f-9fed244e3cc1.html

    The above is a synopsis of this WUWT post:

    ‘We have Bigger Problems than Climate Change; So sayeth IPCC AR5’
    by David M Hoffer January 1, 2016
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/01/we-have-bigger-problems-than-climate-change-so-sayeth-ipcc-ar5/

    Not hard to think of other problems around the world that come to mind long before the imaginary threat of man-made climate change either.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on January 7, 2016 at 6:37 pm said:

    >”Not hard to think of other problems around the world that come to mind long before the imaginary threat of man-made climate change either.”

    Like this:

    ‘New Year Brings Snow, Freezing Temperatures for Syrian Refugees in Lebanon’

    Posted: 01/04/2016

    The New Year brought the first significant snow of the winter to Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley – the place many Syrian refugees have settled. Even though the snow amounted to less than four inches, it still was enough to keep many families up all night brushing snow off their roofs. Just a few inches collecting on their makeshift tents can cause collapse.

    The cold temperatures are especially concerning for children in the tents, many of whom don’t have proper winter clothing or footwear.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/world-vision-us/video-new-year-brings-sno_b_8912360.html

    # # #

    It was the same last year:

    ‘Syrian Refugees Are Freezing to Death as Snow Blankets the Region’
    January 8, 2015
    https://news.vice.com/article/in-pictures-syrian-refugees-are-freezing-to-death-as-snow-blankets-the-region

    No mention of this at the Paris Climate Party that I know of.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on January 7, 2016 at 7:10 pm said:

    >”intervention such as China’s right now and the massive US QE’s 1, 2, and 3 can’t stem the tide for ever.”

    “We Frontloaded A Tremendous Market Rally” Former Fed President Admits, Warns “No Ammo Left”

    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/05/2016

    Fisher explains “It is not China,” it is The Fed that is at fault: “What The Fed did, and I was part of it, was front-loaded an enormous market rally in order to create a wealth effect… and an uncomfortable digestive period is likely now.”

    “The Fed is a giant weapon that has no ammunition left.”

    Fisher appears to be undertaking a major “cover-your-ass” episode, proclaiming that he was against QE3 which is what has forced “valuations to be very richly priced.”

    “Will The Fed come on and say ‘we’re sorry, we over-inflated the market’ when it crashes?” We doubt it.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-05/we-frontloaded-tremendous-market-rally-former-fed-president-admits-warns-no-ammo-lef

  8. Richard C (NZ) on January 7, 2016 at 8:54 pm said:

    >”China is a slow moving train wreck. The Chinese stock markets began 2016 by breaking through 2 circuit breakers triggering trading halts”

    Another trading halt today:

    ‘China shares nosedive triggering new trading halt’
    For the second time in a week, emergency measures kick in after stocks tumble by more than seven percent.
    07 Jan 2016 07:30 GMT
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/chinese-markets-suspended-time-week-160107031427586.html

    Chinese funny money has underpinned the Auckland property boom and elsewhere but their appetite is waning:

    ‘Chinese investors in London property market begin to cash in their gains as the ‘buying unseen’ tide turns’
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-3281329/Chinese-investors-London-property-market-begin-cash-gains.html

    ‘Chinese Investors Losing Interest in Aussie Property Market’
    http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/chinese-investors-losing-interest-in-aussie-property-market-cw/2015/11/05/

    When homeland China jitters fray confidence the “greatest fool” will have been found in Auckland and Chinese investment in Auckland will follow suit.

    Greater fool theory:

    “The greater fool theory states that the price of an object is determined not by its intrinsic value, but rather by irrational beliefs and expectations of market participants.[1] A price can be justified by a rational buyer under the belief that another party is willing to pay an even higher price.[2][3][4] In other words, one may pay a price that seems “foolishly” high because one may rationally have the expectation that the item can be resold to a “greater fool” later.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

  9. Richard C (NZ) on January 7, 2016 at 9:17 pm said:

    >”Chinese govt plowed $20 Billion Into the market after a $590 billion rout to prop it up”

    $640 billion plunge today. $1.23 trillion this week. That gives the rest of Asia the jitters including NZ:

    ‘Asian stocks fall as China halted after market plunge’ – NZ Herald 5:55 PM Thursday Jan 7, 2016

    Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 index fell 1.5 percent to 17,920.61 and South Korea’s Kospi lost 1 percent to 1,905.51. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng shed 2.4 percent to 20,479.39 and Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 retreated 2 percent to 5,020.40. Benchmarks in Taiwan, New Zealand and Southeast Asia also fell.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11570554

    2016 is getting off to a rocky start. All that in just the first week.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on January 8, 2016 at 9:31 am said:

    ‘China suspends mechanism aimed at ending stock market turmoil’

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/07/china-suspends-mechanism-ending-stock-market-turmoil

    That was never going to work. £30bn was wiped off the FTSE 100 yesterday. Now China is the global driver in the opposite direction – down, and the brakes are off. This is just the start.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on January 8, 2016 at 9:51 am said:

    It’s worse than we thought.

    “normal weather, unchanged over generations, is now a thing of the past”

    Professor Myles Allen, leader of the Climate Research Programme at the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute.

    http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=11227&mn=31462&pt=msg&mid=15621815

  12. Richard C (NZ) on January 9, 2016 at 9:26 am said:

    Flashback 1963: Chicago Tribune: ‘Faulty Memories’ are ‘to blame for insisting ‘old fashioned winters are a thing of the past’

    http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/climate-is-still-the-same-memories-are-to-blame/

  13. Alexander K on January 15, 2016 at 12:47 pm said:

    Prof. Myles Allen Reminds me of the old adage about inept, eager-to-please-everyone politicians – ‘he only opens his mouth to change feet’.
    How he keeps a tenured position in a reputable university is something of a wonder!

  14. Richard C (NZ) on January 16, 2016 at 9:55 am said:

    ‘Climate Alarmists Invent New Excuse: The Satellites Are Lying’

    by James Delingpole 15 Jan 2016

    The climate alarmists have come up with a brilliant new excuse to explain why there has been no “global warming” for nearly 19 years.

    Turns out the satellite data is lying.

    And to prove it they’ve come up with a glossy new video starring such entirely trustworthy and not at all biased climate experts as Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann , Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth and Ben Santer. (All of these paragons of scientific rectitude feature heavily in the Climategate emails)

    The video is well produced and cleverly constructed – designed to look measured and reasonable rather than yet another shoddy hit job in the ongoing climate wars.

    Sundry “experts”, adopting a tone of “more in sorrow than anger” gently express their reservations about the reliability of the satellite data which, right up until the release of this video, has generally been accepted as the most accurate gauge of global temperatures.

    This accuracy was acknowledged 25 years ago by NASA, which said that “satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.”

    More recently, though, climate alarmists have grown increasingly resentful of the satellite temperature record because of its pesky refusal to show the warming trend they’d like it to show. Instead of warming, the RSS and UAH satellite data shows that the earth’s temperatures have remained flat for over 18 years – the so-called “Pause.”

    Hence the alarmists’ preference for the land- and sea-based temperature datasets which do show a warming trend – especially after the raw data has been adjusted in the right direction. Climate realists, however, counter that these records have all the integrity of Enron’s accounting system or of Hillary’s word on what really happened in Benghazi.

    Given the embarrassment the satellite data has been causing alarmists in recent years – most recently at the Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)9 “Data or Dogma” hearing last December – it was
    almost inevitable that sooner or later they would try to discredit it.

    In the video, the line taken by the alarmists is that the satellite records too have been subject to dishonest adjustments and that the satellites have given a misleading impression of global temperature because of the way their orbital position changes over time.

    These sound plausible criticisms till you look at this graph provided by one of the scientists criticized in the video, John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

    Graph http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/01/GL_MT_Avg_2015-1024×696.png

    What it shows is how closely the satellite data corresponds with measurements taken using a completely independent system – balloons. If the satellites are lying then so are the balloons.

    Christy told Breitbart:

    There are too many problems with the video on which to comment, but here are a few.

    First, the satellite problems mentioned here were dealt with 10 to 20 years ago. Second, the main product we use now for greenhouse model validation is the temperature of the Mid-Troposphere (TMT) which was not erroneously impacted by these problems.

    The vertical “fall” and east-west “drift” of the spacecraft are two aspects of the same phenomenon – orbital decay.

    The real confirmation bias brought up by these folks to smear us is held by them. They are the ones ignoring information to suit their world view. Do they ever say that, unlike the surface data, the satellite datasets can be checked by a completely independent system – balloons? Do they ever say that one of the main corrections for time-of-day (east-west) drift is to remove spurious WARMING after 2000? Do they ever say that the important adjustment to address the variations caused by solar-shadowing effects on the spacecraft is to remove a spurious WARMING? Do they ever say that the adjustments were within the margin of error?

    He adds:

    I’m impressed someone went to so much trouble and expense. The “satellite data” must be a real problem for someone. Do we know who financed this video?

    Yes, we do. It was made by the Yale Climate Connection and part funded by the Grantham Foundation. The Grantham Foundation is the creation of a UK born US based hedge funder called Jeremy Grantham (and his wife Hannelore) and has since 1997 been at the forefront of promoting climate alarmism.

    Among the beneficiaries of Grantham’s green largesse are Lord Stern — author of the heavily discredited Stern Report, now with a cosy sinecure at the Grantham Institute — and Bob Ward, a failed paleopiezometrist and crop-headed pit bull impersonator who is lavishly funded to write angry letters to newspapers and other institutions explaining in boring detail why climate change sceptics are evil and wrong.

    As for the motivation behind this well-funded smear video – it’s actually explained at the website which is promoting it.

    In coming days, we will hear announcements from NASA, NOAA and others that 2015 was the hottest year in the modern instrumental record.

    There will be pushback from the likes of climate denier Ted Cruz, who uses a misreading of satellite temperature data to claim, as he did on Seth Meyer’s show – “no warming in 18 years”

    This is the story of how that distortion came to be.

    In other words it’s yet another case of the increasingly desperate climate alarmists playing their usual game:

    If the facts don’t suit your discredited theory, change the facts.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/15/climate-alarmists-invent-new-excuse-the-satellites-are-lying/

    # # #

    Ha! Ben Santer, of all people, throwing used-to-be warmist darling RSS under a bus.

    This just keeps getting better and better.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on January 16, 2016 at 10:24 am said:

    ‘Activists attack satellite temperature record in brazen new video’

    Thomas Richard, Boston Environmental Policy Examiner, January 15, 2016

    “Apparently NASA has something no other agency does: orbiting piles of junk beaming back temperature readings that are completely worthless”

    http://www.examiner.com/article/activists-attack-satellite-temperature-record-brazen-new-video

    The Climateers new pause excuse born of desperation: ‘the satellites are lying’

    Anthony Watts / 2 hours ago January 15, 2016

    “Riiight”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/15/the-climateers-new-pause-excuse-born-of-desperation-the-satellites-are-lying/

    Friday Funny (or not so funny) – ‘satellite deniers’

    Anthony Watts / 57 mins ago January 15, 2016

    The recent act of desperation from the collection of Climategate Climateers trying to diss the satellite based global temperature record has spawned a cartoon, and it isn’t from our usual cartooning friend, Josh.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/15/friday-funny-or-not-so-funny-satellite-deniers/

    # # #

    From the ‘satellite deniers’ thread above:

    ShrNfr January 15, 2016 at 12:36 pm

    “As a guy who did his PhD thesis on how to tease temperatures out of the brightness temperature to get temperature at the standard levels in the 1970s, it is almost impossible to fudge the data other than by outright fabrication. As the horn rotates around, one of its views is of a calibration load with a known temperature. Altitude will effect the weighting functions a tad, but those are an evolving process over time and the altitude of the satellite is well known and so the weighting function can be evaluated on the basis of the physics of the oxygen molecular spectrum. I suppose it is remotely possible that the observation frequency could change substantially, but I, for one, have never encountered that. Compared to the “adjustments” that are made to the surface temperature network, there is almost zero wiggle room in the microwave sounders.”

  16. Richard C (NZ) on January 16, 2016 at 10:55 am said:

    >”Ha! Ben Santer, of all people, throwing used-to-be warmist darling RSS under a bus.”

    Here’s why this is extraordinary, from the RSS website:

    RSS Journal Publications by Author

    Santer, BD, TML Wigley, GA Meehl and others, 2003, Influence of satellite data uncertainties on the detection of externally-forced climate change, Science, 300, 1280-1284.

    Santer, BD, TML Wigley, AJ Simmons and others, 2004, Identification of anthropogenic climate change using a second-generation reanalysis, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D21104, doi:10.1029/2004JD005075.

    Santer, BD, TML Wigley, CA Mears and others, 2005, Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere, Science, 309, 1511-1556.

    Santer, BD, CA Mears, FJ Wentz and others, 2007, Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 15248-15253.

    Santer, BD, PW Thorne, L Haimberger and others, 2008, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, International Journal of Climatology, 28, 1703-1722.

    Santer, BD, KE Taylor, PJ Gleckler and others, 2009, Incorporating model quality information in climate change detection and attribution studies, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 14778-14783., doi:10.1073/pnas.0901736106.

    Santer, BD, CA Mears, C Doutriaux and others, 2011, Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale, Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, D22105, doi:10.1029/2011JD016263.

    Santer, BD, JF Painter, CA Mears and others, 2013, Identifying human influences on atmospheric temperature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 26-33., doi:10.1073/pnas.1210514109.

    Santer, BD, JF Painter, C Bonfils and others, 2013, Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 17235-1724, doi:10.1073/pnas.1305332110.

    Santer, BD, C Bonfils, JF Painter and others, 2014, Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature, Nature Geoscience, 7, 185-189., doi:10.1038/ngeo2098 .

    http://www.remss.com/support/publications

    # # #

    Santer seems to be implying that all of his RSS-based publications above that utilize the RSS satellite temperature series, are moot.

  17. Humans could evolve webbed feet if sea levels rise, scientist claims
    Dr Matthew Skinner claims humans could evolve to have webbed hands and feet and less body hair so they could move quickly through the water

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12096103/Humans-could-evolve-webbed-feet-if-sea-levels-rise-scientist-claims.html

  18. Richard C (NZ) on January 16, 2016 at 12:11 pm said:

    >Humans could evolve webbed feet if sea levels rise, scientist claims

    I thought headlines like this were normally reserved for April 1st.

  19. I did check the date and also checked it wasn’t The Daily Mash, The Onion or NewsThump

    Alas, this appears to be “real research”

  20. Richard C (NZ) on January 16, 2016 at 12:40 pm said:

    >”Santer seems to be implying that all of his RSS-based publications above that utilize the RSS satellite temperature series, are moot.”

    The phrase ” Santer’s 17 years” comes from this paper from the above list:

    Santer, BD, CA Mears, C Doutriaux and others, 2011, Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale,
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract

    Abstract

    Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

    2. Observational and Model Temperature Data

    [9] We compare simulated and observed global-scale TLT trends using three different observational data sets, each based on measurements of microwave emissions made by Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) on polar-orbiting satellites. The three MSU TLT data sets analyzed here were developed by research groups at the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) [Christy et al., 2007] and Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California (RSS) [Wentz and Schabel, 1998; Mears and Wentz, 2005]. Differences between the temperature-change estimates generated by UAH and RSS arise from different choices made in the data set construction process, particularly in the treatment of inter-satellite biases, drifts in instrument calibration, and the effects of orbital drift [Karl et al., 2006]. Two versions of the RSS TLT data
    (versions 3.2 and 3.3) were available, which differ only in terms of the amount of information they incorporate from Advanced Microwave Sounding Units (AMSUs), and therefore differ only after 1998. All observed MSU data sets span the period from 1979 through to the end of 2010.

    # # #

    Monckton reports that Santer’s “at least 17 years” criteria has been satisfied in RSS but no warming:

    ‘El Niño shortens the Pause by just one month’ – No global warming at all for 18 years 8 months

    By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, January 10, 2016

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/10/el-nio-shortens-the-pause-by-just-one-month/

    Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 8 months since May 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/clip_image0021.jpg

    Obviously then, the satellite technology, methodology, and entire rationale of satellite temperature sensing, MUST be wrong.

    Either that or Santer has not thought this through very well.

  21. Richard C (NZ) on January 16, 2016 at 3:38 pm said:

    The right sidebar shows WTI and Brent crude prices ($29.42, $31.01) but what are other prices and the price in 1998 dollars?

    ‘The Real Price of Oil Is Far Lower Than You Realize’ [$26]

    ‘The ‘Real’ Price Of Oil Is Below $17’ [1998 $s]

    ‘Crude At $10 Is Already A Reality For Canadian Oil-Sands Miners’

    http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2016/01/re-covering-oil-and-war/

    “And when, in a few years’ time, all the production cuts due to shut wells become our new reality, and eventually they must, then no, there will still not be an oil shortage. Because the economy will be doing so much worse by then that demand will have fallen more than supply.”

  22. Richard C (NZ) on January 16, 2016 at 3:52 pm said:

    >”The right sidebar shows WTI and Brent crude prices ($29.42, $31.01) ”

    Financial Times was reporting both below $30 at one stage:

    ‘WTI, Brent Oil Sink Under $30’ – “WTI is at $29.67 per barrel, down 4.9% to a new 12-year low. Brent, meanwhile, is down 3.31% to $29.87”

    In the late 1990s, Brent touched $10.32 at one point.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on January 16, 2016 at 4:09 pm said:

    Reuters:

    Oil prices rebounded on Thursday, with international benchmark Brent futures rising 2.4% to $31.03 a barrel, recovering from its 12-year low of $29.73 hit earlier in the day. But that rally, largely driven by short-covering after a 20% fall since the start of year, proved to be shortlived.

    Brent crude opened weaker on Friday and lost 0.6% to $30.69. U.S. crude fared even worse, slumping 1.8% to $30.63

  24. Very sad news about Bob Carter. RIP

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation