German Scientists Call Rahmstorf’s Selective Citing Of Literature “Embarrassing …Science-Ethically Very Unclean”

Science-ethically dubious: Stefan Rahmstorf silent on large body of dissenting Gulf Stream results in newspaper interview

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

There was an interview with Stefan Rahmstorf in the German daily Märkischen Allgemeine Zeitung (MAZ) on March 23, 2015:

A tipping element on which the globe’s future hinges
Climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf and his colleagues at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have evidence of a further weakening of the Gulf Stream.”

That’s old hat. As we have already reported here, other teams of scientists unfortunately have been unable to find any such weakening of the Gulf Stream, and so Rahmtorf is pretty much standing all by his lonesome in the middle of nowhere. And that did not did not remain unnoticed by the MAZ, which persisted courageously:

MAZ: Climate skeptics such as former Environment Hamburg Senator of Fritz Vahrenholt characterized the weakening of the Gulf Stream as part of the natural cycles.

Rahmstorf: I’d be curious to see evidence of that – unfortunately Herr Vahrenholt has published practically nothing in the scientific literature. We also looked for natural cycles and have determined that there have not been any significant fluctuations over the past 1000 years.

True, Fritz Vahrenholt did not publish anything on that topic. But others have to a great extent and Vahrenholt quoted them. This is how science works: You do not need to research everything yourself, rather you turn to the large research networks and peer-reviewed literature. Notable here are for example studies from the University of Rhode Island, NASA, University of Heidelberg, University of Hamburg. The scientists in Hamburg have just recently shown natural cycles. It is quite amazing that suddenly Rahmstorf is unable to recall any of these studies and prefers to indulge in some Vahrenholt-bashing. Apparently the MAZ also found his excuse hardly helpful and continued to persist:

MAZ: Climate scientist Mojib Latif also does not believe in the currently diminishing speed of the Gulf Stream.

Rahmstorf: The current weakening has also been confirmed by other studies. We simply track the stream with the help of proxy data further back in time. In a 2004 study fellow scientist Latif used temperature differences from the North and South Atlantic in order to determine the speed of the stream. Here it was not taken into account that we had an aerosol blocking of the sunlight because of air pollution in the northern hemisphere. This effect cannot be so clearly separated from that of a change in the stream; thus we have refined his methods.

Who believes? Rahmstorf here is peddling to a newspaper his very one-sided view as the supposed consensus within the science field. Embarrassing and science-ethically very unclean. That’s a shame.

===============

It seems Rahmstorf may have a growing habit of not playing cleanly. -PG

Energy Physicist Implores NOAA To Return To Credibility… “Get Out Of Adjusting Business”!

Response to NOAA’s claim adjustments are improvements
By Mike Brakey

The email from NOAA’s Derek Arndt confirms that they conducted a massive rewrite of U.S. data in 2014. He also confirmed that the 1913 Maine climate data was indeed lowered a whopping 40F as noted in my article, Black Swan Climate Theory.

My response is based on actual unadjusted temperature data from the Lewiston-Auburn area of Maine, which I secured from a local source and provided in prior emails. (I have attached that data and links to the websites the data was extracted from).  As shown in Chart 1, between 1895 and 1937, the Lewiston-Auburn region (Zone 19 in Chart 2) was typically ¾0F warmer than Maine’s overall state average, based on NOAA data I downloaded in 2013.

Brakey_1

Chart No. 1 & 2.

This data is the black line on Chart 1. I would expect the Lewiston-Auburn area to be slightly warmer than Maine as a whole because it is in southern Maine. Based on the 2013 data, Maine’s average temperatures were about ¾0F colder or less than those for Lewiston-Auburn during the period from 1904 to 1939, and again from 2008 through the present.

The green shaded area shows what the NOAA data would have looked like if that ¾0F difference had remained constant through 2015.  Looking at the year 1913, I might agree with Mr. Arndt that they had an error and I would understand a temperature correction of approximately  ¾0F, but not 40F.

Contradictory data

I am suspicious of the NOAA data, both the original from 2013 and the revised, between 1940 and 2008 because the Maine average temperatures are so significantly less than those for the Lewiston-Auburn region. The other oddity is that there was a downward trend in temperatures for Lewiston-Auburn starting in 1998. However, both sets of NOAA data show temperatures rising for the state of Maine during that same time period.

As well-intended as I believe most NOAA associates likely are, I implore NOAA to please make available the plain, unexciting, unfiltered temperature data (as typified by the green line in Chart 1 above).  If the RAW temperature data is always made available, I would be happy to entertain any theories and projections NOAA or IPCC wishes to make…as long as we all know the true base line (similar to what we have for the green line in Chart 1 with Lewiston-Auburn historical temperature data).

In conclusion, I implore NOAA to return credibility to its website, by getting out of the statistical smoothing and adjusting business and by just providing the scientific community with the basic unfiltered temperature data at all of its site locales. Let’s stay away from all the havoc created between Charts 3 and 4.

Brakey_3
Chart no. 3 & 4.

Watch the entire series of YouTube videos on how I found the NOAA adjustments.

Academics Seeking Power Over Global Policy Launch “Australian-German College of Climate & Energy Transitions”

Tony Thomas at the Australian online Quadrant site here has an excellent overview of who and what is really behind the far-out alarmist “science” coming from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK): “Die Grünshirts Parachute Into Parkville“.

Some excerpts follow.

On Hans Schellnhuber:

PIK was founded in 1991 by climate doomsday professor, Herr Professor-Doktor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, who continues to lead it and seek for it world-changing powers. In an interview with Der Spiegel in 2011, Schellnhuber was asked: ‘Do you feel that the government’s abrupt change of course in relation to its energy policy is adequate?’ He replied (emphasis added):

‘No. It can only be the beginning of a deep-seated shift. The German Advisory Council on Global Change, which I chair, will soon unveil a  plan for a transformation of society. Precisely because of Fukushima, we believe that a new basis of our coexistence is needed.’ “

On Otmar Edenhofer:

One of his master plans for renewable energy involved, he said, a cost of ‘a mere twelve thousand billion dollars by 2030′ to put the world onto 75% renewable energy by 2050.

Someone’s calculated that USD12 trillion is about eight times the cost of World War 11. And Edenhofer doesn’t even mention the costs from 2030-50, or the untold billions spent already to deliver 0.3% renewable energy to the globe so far. Could Edenhofer have   triple-digit trillions in mind?”

On Stefan Rahmstorf:

In 2011 he was found by a German court to have made ‘untruthful assertions’ against a journalist, Irene Meischner, who had dared to criticize blunders in the IPCC (she was not even a sceptic).  He wrote on his blog that she had been dishonest, sloppy, had never read the IPCC report, and  had even plagiarized writings. Meischner stood up,  sued and won.”

On Dr Leena Srivastava:

…is Acting Director-General of the TERI think-tank, until February run by IPCC chair (now ex-chair) Rajendra Pachauri. The New Delhi police, who are taking a keen interest in the disgraced warmist, allege that the 74-year-old spent much of his final 15 months at TERI stalking a 29-year-old female staffer.

Read the entire piece here.

Incredibly even the Vatican has hitched its wagon to these individuals and their movement. The Church truly has been corrupted.

 

German Climate Physicist: Alternative Energy, Climate Are A “Religious Creed”…”Miles Away” From Openness

Yesterday approximately 15,000 coal miners turned out to protest the German government’s energy policy.

German Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel announced earlier he intended to levy a CO2 surcharge on older coal power plants with the aim of shutting them down.

Lüdecke

Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke. Photo EIKE.

Before yesterday’s demonstration, German physicist and climate scientist and spokesman for the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, published a sharply-worded commentary here on the government’s anti-fossil fuel/nuclear power policy. As the introduction Lüdecke wrote:

Climate protection and the switch over to renewable energies were instilled in German citizens by state propaganda, green brainwashing and with the help of all of Germany’s mainstream media. The unconditional necessity to advance into alternative energies has become a religious creed. By historical and global comparison, such a thing happens the most easily here, time after time. The logic used by the politically interested parties every time appears to be infallible. [..]

The argument goes as follows: The rescue of the planet from a death by heat and the immediate shutdown of the irresponsible German nuclear power plants are essential. The question of whether this is really true is not be asked, let alone discussed.”

Lüdecke says, however, that public awareness over the madness of Germany’s energy policy is beginning to dawn and that he believes “now is the phase of sobering up, but unfortunately not yet one of reason.” Leading print media are beginning to soften their support for the so-called Energiewende as it now stands, he writes. As angry coal miners take to the street, and thousands of industrial jobs become threatened, it is becoming increasingly apparent something has gone awry.

Lüdecke thinks that the sobering-up process will take time because every political party has made green issues part of its platform. “Green is a very difficult color to wash away,” the German physicist writes.

Lüdecke then explains the primary disadvantage of renewable energy: their low energy density, i.e. meaning they require vast areas and that the major ones are weather-dependent. The German EIKE professor does not know how long the sobering-up process will take, citing the immense power of an array of lobbies behind the green movement.

Lüdecke also aims harsh words at Germany’s pompous and one-sided media:

Finally a word for the German media, here especially for the public TV and radio networks. They are rightly being compared by the current contemporaries to the conditions of former East Germany or even earlier times.”

At the political level, Lüdecke blasts the atmosphere of intimidation against people who have alternative views, who often are threatened with physical violence from radical leftists groups.

When it comes to openness, such as that proclaimed by French philosopher Voltaire, the German climatologist writes “in the dark media of Germany, we are miles away.”  He adds:

Factual discourse, connected with polite listening and taking the arguments from opponents seriously, is definitely not in fashion.”

Lüdecke describes Germany as a desert when it comes to independent reporting and expression of opinions.

 

Elitism: “17 Prominent Scientists” Express Contempt For Democracy…Demand Policymaking Power

By Dennis Ambler and Pierre Gosselin

One of the most worrisome aspects of the climate science movement, other than its outright fudging of data, is its unabashed contempt for democracy.

Yesterday a tiny group of “17 international scientists from world class institutions“, who are unhappy with the current development course of civilization because it has not been to their liking, released in a statement the elements of a global climate agreement, and “what needs to be done in order to meet the 2°C target.”

The 17 elitist “scientists” call themselves “The Earth League“.

Not surprisingly the statement calls for the fundamental reorganization of global human civilization and society.

Yesterday the ultra-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) also published a press release about that statement from the “international alliance of prominent scientists“, which calls for “bold action by decision-makers to pave the way for a successful international agreement to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change“. The Earth League statement announces:

It is a moral obligation, and in our self-interest, to achieve deep decarbonization of the global economy via equitable effort sharing. This requires reaching a zero-carbon society by mid-century or shortly thereafter, thereby limiting global warming to below 2°C as agreed by all nations in 2010. This trajectory is not one of economic pain, but of economic opportunity, progress and inclusiveness.”

Such promises of zero-pain are not new. Ten years ago Germany’s Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin claimed the transition would “not cost citizens more than a cone of ice cream“. That cone of ice cream today has since exploded to 355 euros – each year – and CO2 emissions still haven’t dropped!

The Earth League’s statement coincides with Earth Day. Not surprisingly among its members is PIK director Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. The statement clarifies what an international climate agreement should achieve in Paris in December.

The scientists include Mario Molina of Centro Mario Molina, Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute, Ottmar Edenhofer of Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Carlos Nobre of National Institute for Space Research (INPE) (and UNESCO), Lord Nicholas Stern of London School of Economics and Political Science, Johan Rockström of Stockholm Resilience Center and other authors.

People familiar with the PIK recognize that this is very much a “Schellnhubris” Potsdam initiative. Indeed it is amazing to see them claim “scientist” status for Jennifer Morgan, former WWF Climate Director and now a member of the Potsdam “Scientific Advisory Board”.  Her qualifications are in Political Science and “International Affairs”. Former World Bank economist Stern is chairman of the Grantham Institute at LSE and has also been on Schellnhuber’s Potsdam “Scientific Advisory Board”.

Edenhofer is also an economist and deputy director at Potsdam, although he is now named as Director of yet another new institution, the Mercator Institute on Global Commons, (that’s the air we breathe, in their book and it must be regulated so everyone gets their fair share. The West has had more than its fair share so we must recant and breathe less). He is famous for his quote that it is no longer about the science, but about wealth redistribution.

Rockström is a long term campaigner, an ecologist not a climate scientist and formerly at the Beijer Instituite which has merged with the Stockholm Resilience Centre. He is the vice-chair of the science advisory board at Potsdam and “he was also co-chairing the visioning process on global environmental change of ICSU, the International Council for Science.”

The Earth League does have a few scientists onboard, such as Sir Brian Hoskins, IPCC and Director of the Imperial College, London, Grantham Institute. He is also on Schellnhuber’s “Scientific Advisory Board”.

Another non-scientist is Leena Srivastava, deputy to the currently “on leave of absence” Rajendra Pachauri.

Of course none of these 17 “leading scientists” will ever admit their contempt for democracy, yet their demands tell us a different story. What their statement tells us is: Yes, citizens are allowed to elect their leaders, but the leaders must do what us elite “scientists” tell them. If that is not contempt for the democratic process, then what is? The PIK Press release writes:

The Earth Statement will be presented by Rockström and Schellnhuber at the 4th Nobel Laureates Symposium on Global Sustainability in Hong Kong “4C: Changing Climate, Changing Cities” hosted by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Asia Society Hong Kong (22-25 April) on Thursday – this will mark the beginning of outreach to leading decision-makers and thinkers.”

Welcome to the next wave of authoritarianism.

Weblink to the full Earth Statement and further information: www.earthstatement.org

Weblink to the Earth League: http://www.the-earth-league.org/

 

Alarmist Potsdam Institute Concedes: “Natural Variability Underestimated”…”WE ARE CURRENTLY FACING A COOLING PERIOD”!

By Dennis Ambler and Pierre Gosselin

Few institutes have been as adamant and dogmatic about man-made global warming as the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), headed by German climate doomsday professor, Herr Professor-Doktor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber.

Schellnhuber

German climate doomsday professor Hans Schellnhuber forced to postpone climate doomsday scenarios due to natural factors, but insists warming is still happening, and it will be worse – at a later time in the future. Photo: PIK

The institute has long maintained that the science was settled, and was instrumental in formulating a master-plan for re-organizing global society and watering down democracy in order to avert the modeled disaster. Their master-plan calls for allotting more power to an elite group of “visionary” scientists – like to Herr Doktor Schellnhuber himself.

So today it’s all the more surprising that they are announcing a paper that concedes natural factors indeed are more powerful than the 0.01% CO2 atmospheric concentration added in part by humans over the last 150 years. This is a milestone for the PIK, which earlier claimed they could not find any real evidence of other factors driving the climate.

Their press release writes (emphasis added):

So far it seemed there were hardly any major natural temperature fluctuations in Antarctica, so almost every rise in temperature was attributed to human influence,” says Armin Bunde of Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (JLU). ‘Global warming as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels is a fact. However, the human influence on the warming of West Antarctica is much smaller than previously thought. The warming of East Antarctica up to now can even be explained by natural variability alone.’ The results of their study are now published in the journal Climate Dynamics.”

They had us going there for a minute, but no, it isn’t a real admission they were wrong: global warming has been merely hiding behind natural variability as well as in the oceans, they insist.

The press release continues:

The scientists did not only analyze data from individual measuring stations but also generated regional averages. The results show a human influence on the warming of West Antarctica, while this influence is weaker than previously thought.

However, the warming of Antarctica altogether will likely increase more strongly soon.

Soon? How long are we to wait? Many are losing patience in their long wait for the promised catastrophe. Suddenly things look as if they are losing their urgency.

For several years temperatures in Antarctica, but also globally, have been increasing less rapidly than in the 1990s. There are a number of reasons for this, e.g. the oceans buffering warmth.

The study now published by the German team of scientists shows that man-made global warming has not been pausing – it was temporarily superimposed and therefore hidden by long-term natural climate fluctuations like in Antarctica.2

How do they know it’s temporary? From their models? Well, they have been wrong since day 1. Obviously there’s much more to the climate system than just trace gas CO2.

‘Our estimates show that we are currently facing a natural cooling period – while temperatures nonetheless rise slowly but inexorably, due to our heating up the atmosphere by emitting greenhouse gas emissions,’ explains Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.

‘At the end of this natural cold spell temperatures will rise even more fiercely. Globally, but also in Antarctica which therefore is in danger of tipping.”

The good Herr Dr. Schellnhuber never lets you down. Just be patient longer than we thought. The catastrophe that we promised is just taking longer to get here – but when it does, by golly, it’ll be a lot worse – you’ll all be sorry for not doing what we told you.

This is taking on comical dimensions.

 

Scientists On Trial? Retired Lawyer’s Blogsite To Examine Earlier “Predictions” Made By Climate “Experts”

38 Models_ Joe BastardiWe already have Climate Audit, but now it looks like we may be getting “Climate Scientists on Trial”. Here’s a site you’ll want to subscribe to, bookmark – or at least visit on a regular basis:

climatechangepredictions.org

As the name says, it focusses on earlier climate predictions made by the global warming alarmists (and there have been many) and compares them to what really happened. The climatechangepredictions.org site is run by Ian Hipwell, a retired lawyer from Sydney, Australia.

I think Ian will be a real asset because in his profession one is often trained to hold people’s feet to fire. Many like to say or write things, but are they able to back it all up later on. After all people who listen to these experts often act and make decisions based on the things said, and thus may incur either benefit or major damage as a result.

Alarmist scientists have said lots of things in the past, and it’s time to go back and look at them. The approach could be something like: Mr. Scientist, 15 years ago you said snow and ice would be things of the past, yet we are now seeing record snowfalls and harsh winters. Which is the lie?

In an e-mail to me Ian has written that although he is not scientifically trained, he has “followed the climate change issue as a hobby for some years. It was the name calling by AGW supporters that first made me suspect that the case wasn’t as strong as we had been led to believe.”

He writes that his intention is “to invite people to consider that perhaps the science isn’t settled after all“. Yes, the jury is still out.

And because so many of the earlier predictions made over the past 40 years have been within the realms of absurdity, Ian writes that the blog will surely provide a fair amount of humor. Indeed. For us skeptics the earlier claims of snow being “a thing of the past” and the Arctic being ice free by 2014 still continue to be the source of much laughter.

I think having this kind of blog, which devotes effort on examining past predictions, is a great idea because this is what science really gets down to. After all if the observations contradict the hypothesis and predictions, then the hypothesis is simply wrong.

 

Climate Audit On Rahmstorf/Mann: “Dreck”…”Reputable Science Community Should Cringe With Embarrassment”!

Global warming science nemesis Steve McIntyre of the solid Climate Audit site calls the new paper by Rahmstorf and Mann making claims about Atlantic Ocean currents based on proxies rather than on measurements “much worse than we thought.”

Hat-tip: Reader BruceC

Rarely does one see science get so harshly criticized.

“Dreck” in peer-reviewed literature

One problem, McIntyre writes, is that Rahmstorf’s and Mann’s results are not based on proxies for Atlantic current velocity, but on a network consisting of iffy proxy series which are “statistically indistinguishable from white noise“. McIntyre comments: “It’s hard to understand why anyone would seriously believe (let alone publish in peer reviewed literature) that Atlantic ocean currents could be reconstructed by such dreck...”.

Obviously Rahmstorf and Mann are unable to come to terms with the results derived from real observed data, and thus feel compelled to create another reality based of very fuzzy, indirect data that can be interpreted as desired.

“Balderdash” getting by peer-review process

So how does “dreck” end up getting published in journals? McIntyre quotes Andrew Weaver:

They let these random diatribes of absolute, incorrect nonsense get published. They’re not able to determine if what’s being said is correct or not, or whether it’s just absolute balderdash.” […].

The reputable climate science community should collectively cringe with embarrassment.”

The Canadian statistics expert also writes that the proxies that Mann and Rahmstorf used “do not contain any useful information on the past history of the AMOC.”

McIntyre ends by assigning readers little homework. The answers aren’t that tough.

Read entire post here.

I think an investigation needs to be launched to determine why taxpayer money is being spent on creating such rubbish. Taxpayers have the right to get answers.

 

Georgia Tech Climatologist Curry: “No Sign Of Slowdown” In AMOC…Sees Atlantic “Arctic Sea Ice Recovery”, Hints Of Greenland Cooling

Michael Mann’s and Stefan Rahmstorf’s recent AMOC paper has been promptly and widely discredited since it came out, see here WUWT, WUWT, and NTZ. The sharp criticism has since picked up.

Veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi for example blasted the paper in a comment at WUWT, calling the claims “nonsense” and reminded that renowned climatology expert William Gray had predicted what is now happening already 40 years ago.

Bastardi wrote that it is all part of the natural end-game of the Atlantic’s warm cycle. The veteran meteorologist rated the paper’s claims:

This idea borders on delusional, an attempt to self verify the idea that co2 is actually influencing the oceans, laughable since the heat capacity of the oceans is 1000x air, and co2 is only .04% of the air.”

Curry calls the paper’s methodology “remarkable”

The latest high profile climate scientist criticizing the work is Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry at her Climate Etc. site here. First she is unconvinced of the paper’s methodology of using climate model simulations and “Mannian proxy analysis” of decadal to millennial scale ocean circulations and internal variability in place of direct measurements, calling it “remarkable”.

She poses the rhetorical question:

So, who you gonna believe? Climate models and Mannian proxies, or direct and satellite observations of ocean circulation?

AMO is behind the changes

Curry says that the cooling of the high latitude North Atlantic can be traced back to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which now appears to be at the start of its descent into its cool phase. She writes there is some evidence that the warm phase of the AMO already peaked circa 2007. Moreover she hints that the transition could be sharp, as was the case in the late 1990s.

Curry scoffs at the notion that climate change is likely behind the cooling of the North Atlantic. In her summary she writes (my emphasis).

What we are seeing in the high latitudes of the North Atlantic is natural variability, predominantly associated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Based open observational analyses, there is no sign of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream or the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

Now, I am very interested in the AMO, since it strongly influences Atlantic hurricanes, Arctic sea ice, and Greenland climate.  We are already seeing a recovery of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic sea ice, and some hints of cooling in Greenland.”

If This Cold Is Warming, Then ISIS Is Peace … USA’s Stunning Shock-Freeze Contradicts NOAA Warmth Claims

Not only last winter was a brutal one for the USA, which saw the Great Lakes freeze over, this year is also turning out to be an epic one as record cold temperatures continue their unrelenting grip across the nation and massive snowfalls bury large regions across the east.

The UPI’s Fred Lambert recently wrote the bitter cold extends all the way to Siberia and had killed dozens across the US. Lambert writes:

According to the Weather Channel, the cold air mass now seizing the country stretches as far west as Russia, moving down through Canada and into the United States in what some meteorologists call the “Siberian Express.”

New all time records

The UK’s Mail online here reports that New York City’s 1°F reading set yesterday broke it’s 65-year old all-time cold record temperature. In Minnesota the mercury plummeted to -41°F. The Mail continues:

The temperature in Boston is below freezing, as the city is set to break the record of 16 days below 32F set in 1961.

In Florida, strawberry and orange crops have frozen over because of the harsh winter weather.”

The online English daily presents a spectacular series of winter photos. Even Niagara Falls has frozen over!

Unexpected freeze

As of Wednesday, over 85% of the Great Lakes was frozen over with experts predicting 100% ice cover in perhaps just a matter of a few more days. The USA Today here quotes George Leshkevich of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory:

Nobody expected 2014 to be as bad as it was, almost record breaking for ice cover and this year it’s the same thing with these very cold temperatures.”

“Historical ice cover record”

This morning mlive.com here shows images of Lake Huron, which it writes: “Lake Huron is almost entirely covered in ice. It is only 2.7 percent away from its historical ice-cover record.”

All this in the “6th warmest winter”?

Strangely, despite all the record freezing, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) claims that it has been the sixth-warmest winter on record. NCDC officials may want to go back and check their thermometers, as these claims are looking a lot like “padded room” quality.

If this cold and ice are warming, then ISIS is peace.

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi explains the breathtaking, acrobatic tricks the NOAA used to produce the reality-disconnected result (see 1:30 mark).

Next cold blast to arrive next week

Dr. Ryan Maue at Twitter tells us that the cold wave is not yet done:

Maue Twitter

Note Maue warns of more records to possibly come. Obviously the US weather never got the message that it is supposed to be the 6th warmest on record.

 

German Analysis: “97 Percent Consensus” Does Not Exist … Demands To End Debate Are “Way Off Sides”

I’ve always found the discussion over consensus in science extremely annoying. History is clear: When it comes to science progress, consensus has ended up being the loser every single time.
=======================

The ninety seven percent problem: which consensus?

By Uli Weber
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

We constantly hear and read about the claim that 97 percent of all scientific papers (or sometimes all scientists) confirm man-made global warming. The Consensus Project made such a statement in a scientific paper which precisely wants to prove the point. The paper titled: “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” by Cook et al. in the Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 024024 (7pp) points to the 97% consensus for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as follows:

  • 12,465 scientific papers examined for statements on AGW
  • 4014 papers contain own statement on AGW
  • Of these 4014 papers with statements on AGW, 97% confirm the AGW theory.

The supposed 97 percent AGW consensus is calculated using only a part that is 4014 of the originally surveyed 12,465 scientific papers, and not on the totality of the examined papers. The calculation approach of course is totally absurd and virtually meaningless. If one could even present such a statement on AGW in such a way to begin with, then the so called “consensus“ using the correct method of calculation would yield a result of only 32% of the surveyed scientific papers. Yet at the same time the approximately one third of the 12,465 surveyed papers are supposed to represent the entire spectrum of proponents of the AGW theory as well as the so-called luke-warmers who believe that a human contribution to climate is possible, but reject the catastrophe scenarios for the future climate.

Thus for the forecast of global future climate catastrophe scenarios, what is really left is only a consensus of considerably under one third of the papers surveyed and not more. And when one looks more critically at the information, one indeed does find there is a stated restriction to the described partial amount of papers in the Consensus Project. Here it is written in fine print behind the huge “97%” (emphasis added),

of published climate papers with a position on human-caused global warming agree: GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING – AND WE ARE THE CAUSE”,

However, in a thorough consideration of all the scientific climate publications surveyed by Cook et al., the result looks entirely different:

  • A two thirds majority of the examined scientific climate papers take no socio-political stand on AGW.
  • Judging from socio-political views, only about 1% of climate realists are said to be opposed to AGW.
  • The AGW protagonists on the other hand, with about one third of all the surveyed publications, are far less reserved when it comes to their statements on scientific publications.

Result:

The ominous and often cited 97% consensus for the acceptance of the AGW theory in climate science does not exist. Thus the scientifically hostile demand for “an end to the climate discussion” is morally and computationally way offsides. In the Cook et al. study it is clearly shown that the protagonists of the climate catastrophe bring their social-political positions in scientific papers. Finally, in the given study a comparison is made between diametrically opposed socio-political positions using a subjectively selected sampling amount as a yardstick for a supposed consensus in the entire climate sciences.

The one positive result the study yields is that it allows us to determine that in climate science there is still a “silent” two thirds majority who choose to refrain from the socio-political discussion in their scientific publications. In the end, however, in the public depiction of climate science, the socio-political opinion of a one third minority is being sold as scientific 97% majority consensus.

So with the backdrop of the proven “one-third truth“ for man-made climate change, it is indeed very peculiar that the so-called “climate deniers” are getting lumped together with deniers of every type by the climate catastrophe followers again and again. Moreover in an open scientific discussion on the fundamentals of the dreaded climate change, it is completely incomprehensible that a climate of hatred is being applied to an equal extent against both the “climate deniers” and “luke-warmers” (Kalte-Sonne article of 3 February 2015). And that is not only the case in Great Britain and in USA, but elsewhere as well. For example in a 2013 brochure issued by the German Ministry of Environment (to which a link no longer exists), climate change critics were universally declared as being clueless. German daily WELT even carried an article titled: “A government authority declares the climate debate over“.

German Experts: New Paper By Gleisner Shows 2013 Cowtan And Way Arctic Data Hole Paper Was A Lemon

German experts Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt tell at their Die kalte Sonne site us why the 2013 Cowtan and Way paper has proven to be a flop.
========================================

Failed spectacularly: Arctic data hole theory for the warming pause collapses
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

For quite some time climate scientists have been desperately seeking an explanation for the unexpected warming pause. On November 15, 2013 in the Süddeutsche Zeitung Christopher Schrader declared that the solution had been found: There was no pause; the data had only been missing from the Arctic.

Climate change without pause
According to the data, the earth had not warmed over the past years. However, this impression is likely related to missing data from the Arctic. And there the temperature appears to have risen much more strongly than the global average.[…] These [temperature] measurements have large holes: Approximately one sixth of the earth is not covered. Foremost in the Arctic there are not enough thermometers. But according to all signs it is warming considerably more quickly than the rest of the planet. An English and a Canadian scientist now show how this hole can be closed up with estimated values and how the supposed warming pause practically disappears. Kevin Cowtan of the University of York and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa refer to satellite data. […] Thus ultimately Cowtan and Way arrived at the result that the Arctic warmed eight times faster than the rest of the planet. Before that it had been thought that it was warming three times faster.”

Unfortunately Schrader did not mention that the two scientists were climate activists who were close to the IPCC-friendly Internet platform Skeptical Science. Yet, he still was unable to let slip out a couple of critical words about the two authors:

However the process is too complicated in order to find widespread recognition. Doubt will be stirred up among many because both authors have no name in climate science. Kevin Cowtan is a theoretical physicist and computer specialist at the Department of Chemistry at his University. Robert Way is still busy writing his doctorate dissertation.

It’s been a full year since the appearance of the dubious paper by Cowtan and Way, one that was highly praised by Stefan Rahmstorf. So just how was this pioneering paper received by the science community? On January 29, 2015 the answer from their colleagues appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters. The dodgy Arctic data fill-in model has failed spectacularly and has been soundly rejected. The answer to the pause is not to be found in the Arctic as Cowtan and Way suspected, rather it is to be found at the lower geographical geographical latitudes, as a team of scientists of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen led by Hans Gleisner reports in a new publication. What follows is the paper’s abstract:

Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low-latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends. Recent studies have attempted to attribute this so called temperature hiatus to several causes, amongst them incomplete sampling of the rapidly warming Arctic region. We here examine zonal mean temperature trends in satellite-based tropospheric data sets (based on data from (Advanced) Microwave Sounding Unit and Global Navigation Satellite System Radio Occultation instruments) and in global surface temperatures (HadCRUT4). Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes cannot explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the prehiatus period. Instead, the dominating causes of the global temperature hiatus are found at low latitudes. The combined use of several independent data sets, representing completely different measurement techniques and sampling characteristics, strengthens the conclusions.

Joe Bastardi Schools Dr. Michael Mann On How To Read A Weather Chart … Heavy Snow “Is Because It’s Cold”

The Northeast USA is being socked by frightful cold and massive snow. The brutal New England winters are back and now we are witnessing last ditch efforts by disgraced climate scientists to blame the brutally cold winters on a warming planet (which in reality has not warmed in 18 years).

At his latest Saturday Summary at WeatherBell Analytics, chief meteorologist Joe Bastardi delivers a stinging critique of Michael Mann’s recent claims: “Sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England right now are at record levels, 11.5C (21F) warmer than normal in some locations.” Mann also claimed there’s two times more moisture in this warm air, and thus is responsible for the turbocharged snowy icebox winter Boston has been experiencing.

At his Saturday Summary Joe thoroughly demolishes these claims.

Falsehood 1: It’s 11.5°C warmer than normal “off Cape Cod”

Joe calls Mann’s assertions a mistake, and shows that the area of warm sea surface water “off the coast of Cape Cod” is in fact way off the coast. At the 2:25 mark Joe shows how the waters along the eastern seaboard “are close to normal” and that a small patch of 3°C above normal water is some 1000 kilometers off the coast, and that a larger patch of 5°C above normal water is in fact 2000 kilometers off the coast (see following figure):

SatSum 14 Feb 2015

Dr. Mann’s warm water is in fact 2000 kilometers “off the coast”. Cropped from WeatherBELL.

Joe tells his viewers, and Dr. Mann, at the 3.00 mark:

There’s no way that that moisture is getting fed back into New England.”

Climatologists need to learn how to read a weather chart

So why would a climatologist like Mann make such an absurd claim? Joe tells us that a climatologist making a statement does not understand how the weather works, and advises them to first learn how to read a weather chart (2:15) before making such statements.

Falsehood 2: Heavy snow due to warm sea surfaces

The real reason it snowed so much over New England, Joe explains, is because of the “tremendous horizontal temperature gradient” in the area where extremely cold Arctic air clashes with normal temperature maritime air (3:30). It’s the cold, stupid!

At 5:27 Joe explains:

Where this storm was embedded, it’s cooler. You cannot use the argument that we use for warm eddies, and hurricanes where we see some blow up over the warm eddy. You can’t use that with these.”

Falsehood 3: Two times higher water vapor in the air

At the 5:45 mark the veteran Penn State graduate meteorologist shows the water vapor situation in the region where the storm developed:

During this time of the snow blitz over New England, the mixing ratios, which is the water vapor, is below normal! It’s below normal! It’s not above normal! In the area that we’re targeting, this period that we’re looking at, that had all this snow, is below normal.”

Snow (surprise!) is due to cold

The reason why water vapor is so low is “because it’s so darn cold”. The heavy snowfalls are related to the extreme cold, and not the unrelated warm patch 2000 kilometers “off Cape Cod” (6:10).

At the 7:47 mark Joe summarizes on warmist climatolgists’ claims:

If they’d looked at this, they would have seen how bogus their argument is. There is nothing above normal in that area. What happened was that it was so darn cold that it creates a very strong horizontal temperature gradient. […] It’s not because it’s so much warmer and humid off the eastern seaboard; it’s the exact opposite reason in this particular case. […] It’s because it’s cold.”

At the 9:30 mark Joe shows a chart of the AMO which that he says “has major implications“. The AMO has dipped sharply downwards, and although the current PDO is warm, it will turn colder within a couple of years. Implication: don’t expect global warming anytime soon.

Also Joe explains how cold winters across the United States are predominantly dependent on the ENSO. In years of El Nino spikes, US winters do greatly tend to be colder.

In summary this year’s brutal New England winter has nothing to do with the bogus, made-up explanations being served up by climatologists who are desperate to salvage their disgraced science.

 

Government (Junk) Science Advances 100 Million Funerals At A Time

According to University of California pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig, the US had 6 million “seriously overweight” kids in 2001. Since then that number has skyrocketed to over 20 million.

Worldwide there are 366 million people with diabetes. By 2030, if trends are not curbed, 165 million Americans will be obese and by 2050 100 million will have diabetes. Lustig calls it “a standard pandemic” The related health costs will be astronomical – and unaffordable. No modern civilization can survive that.

Tragically these are the numbers that were necessary to finally get the US government to concede that its longstanding dietary guidelines (once solidly and irrefutably confirmed by the “vast consensus of scientific experts”) had been severely flawed for decades. Read here and here.

Why did it take so damn long for the government to wake up? It gets down to obstinate egomaniacal scientists, greedy food and pharmaceutical industries, and governments corrupted by the same industries. See here.

Because established scientists have a long habit of insisting their pet theories are right and scoff at those who challenge them, renowned German physicist Max Planck once wisely remarked, “Science advances one funeral at a time.” he noticed that false theories don’t die until their founders do. Sadly, as the case of nutritional sciences shows, hundreds of millions of people have gotten or are about to get early funerals. Hence, government science advances 100 million funerals at a time. Such is now the case with the science concerning saturated fats and human health.

The very same tragedy has begun in earnest in climate science today. Just as the saturated fat theory was founded on the junk science and phony 7-Country chart of Ancel Keys, the CO2 global warming theory was founded on the junk science of NASA scientist James Hansen and the dubious hockey stick graph of Michael E. Mann. And just as dissenters were ignored, marginalized and cut off from funding in the nutritional sciences, so are skeptic global warming scientists experiencing the same today. And just as a consensus among all scientists was claimed endorsing the saturated fat theory (fully backed by the National Academy of Sciences and virtually every American medical association), an illusionary 97% consensus is also being claimed in climate science today. And just as the American Dietary Guidelines were promoted and made official by a Democrat Presidential loser candidate (George McGovern), the global warming science and proposed energy dietary guidelines are being promoted today by Democrat Presidential loser candidate Al Gore. The parallels between the two sciences indeed could not be more stunning.

It would be nice if the parallels ended there, but it is unlikely they will. Just as the case has been with the saturated fat theory, the CO2 climate change theory now risks killing hundreds of millions in the future – thanks to energy poverty and starvation. Without energy, people die horrible deaths from exposure.

All of this could be avoided, of course, if only governments were honest in their interpretation of climate data and stopped making up excuses for colder and colder  winters, and 18 years of zero warming. Unfortunately that does not appear likely to happen anytime soon. Tragically it’ll probably take tens of millions of unnecessary premature deaths resulting from energy deprivation to get the governments to realize they have made a horrible mistake. Instead of making a course correction on the climate issue, the US government, led by NASA, is now altering the historical temperature data in a manner that would even make Ancel Keyes blush.

People can argue about the impacts of faulty science on human life. But one thing cannot be argued: Truth leads to life; lies lead to death.

Clearly the US policy will likely have to see another 100 million or so early funerals before it allows climate science to advance.

 

Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!

Reader Jimbo left a comment which I’ve upgraded to a post.

Below he presents a list of 25 examples where climate alarmism organizations and scientists were more than happy to take in big money from Big Oil and industry. Even Michael Mann (Example no. 19) benefitted from the Koch Brothers!

============================

By reader Jimbo

We are often called fossil fuel funded climate change deniers. So you can imagine my shock when I came across these past and present takers of fossil fuel money. Imagine if skeptics hauled in such money.

1. Climate Research Unit (CRU)
History

From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BP’s Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases,

This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Petroleum…Greenpeace International…Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates…Sultanate of OmanShell……

2. Sierra Club
TIME – 2 February 2012

Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry
TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…”

3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
[Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC]

2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
2007: Partners – BP
2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell

4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
Berkeley Earth team members include: Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director……Steven Mosher, Scientist…

Financial Support First Phase (2010)
…Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Second Phase (2011)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Third Phase (2012)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)…
Fourth Phase (2013)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000)…

5. 350.org

350.org caught up in fossil fuel ‘divestment’ hypocrisy
[Rockefellers Brothers Fund] RBF has given 350.org $800,000 in recent years and almost $2 million to the 1Sky Education Fund, now part of 350.org, according to foundation records.”

6. Union of Concerned Scientists

The 2013 Annual Report PDF

UCS thanks the following companies that matched members’ gifts at a level of $1,000 or more….Chevron Corporation…”

Annual Report 2002 PDF

The Union of Concerned Scientists gratefully acknowledges the following individuals and foundations for their generous contributions of at least $500 during our fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001–September 30, 2002)…”

Friends of UCS

The Friends of UCS provide substantial support for the ongoing work of the organization…Larry Rockefeller…Matching Gift Companies…BP Amoco Matching Gift Program…Philip Morris Companies, Inc…”

7. University of California, Berkeley
CalCAP, Cal Climate Action Partnership

What is CalCAP?
The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley.”

8. University of California, Berkeley
UC Berkeley News – 1 February 2007

BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois.”

9. Climate Institute
About Us

The Climate Institute has been in a unique position to inform key decision-makers, heighten international awareness of climate change, and identify practical ways of achieving significant emissions reductions…

Donors
American Gas FoundationBP…NASA….PG&E Corporation [natural gas & electricity]Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Shell Foundation…The Rockefeller Foundation…UNDP, UNEP…”

10. EcoLiving

About
…EcoLiving provides events and hands-on workshops to teach Albertans about ways to reduce our collective ecological footprint, create more sustainable and energy efficient buildings, and share information about local environmental initiatives and services…”

Sponsors
2008 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips…Shell 2009 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips Canada…2013 Sponsors:…Shell FuellingChange…”

11. Nature Conservancy
Climate Change Threats and Impacts

Climate change is already beginning to transform life on Earth. Around the globe, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels are rising…… If we don’t act now, climate change will rapidly alter the lands and waters we all depend upon for survival, leaving our children and grandchildren with a very different world…”

12. Washington Post – 24 May 2010

…What De Leon didn’t know was that the Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of its business partners. The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years….The Conservancy, already scrambling to shield oyster beds from the spill, now faces a different problem: a potential backlash…”

13. America’s WETLAND Foundation

Restore-Adapt-Mitigate: Responding To Climate Change Through Coastal Habitat Restoration”

PDF

Coastal habitats are being subjected to a range of stresses from climate change; many of these stresses are predicted to increase over the next century The most significant effects are likely to be from sea-level rise, increased storm and wave intensity, temperature increases, carbon dioxide concentration increases, and changes in precipitation that will alter freshwater delivery…”

Sponsors

World Sponsor: Shell
Sustainability Sponsors: Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil
National Sponsors: British Petroleum”

14. Green Energy Futures
About Us

Green Energy Futures is a multi-media storytelling project that is documenting the clean energy revolution that’s already underway. It tells the stories of green energy pioneers who are moving forward in their homes, businesses and communities.
Gold Sponsor: Shell”

15. World Resources Institute
Climate

WRI engages businesses, policymakers, and civil society at the local, national, and international levels to advance transformative solutions that mitigate climate change and help communities adapt to its impacts.

ACKNOWLEDGING OUR DONORS (January 1, 2011 – August 1, 2012 PDF 5MB

Shell and Shell Foundation…ConocoPhillips Company…”

16. Purdue Solar
Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013

Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe)…”

17. AGU Fall Meeting
9-13 December 2013
Thank You to Our Sponsors

The AGU would like to take the time to thank all of our generous sponsors who support the
2013 Fall Meeting and the events at the meeting.
ExxonMobil…….BP, Chevron…..Mineralogical Society of America…”

18. Science Museum – Atmosphere
About our funders

…exploring climate science gallery and the three-year Climate Changing… programme. Through these ground-breaking projects we invite all our visitors to deepen their understanding of the science behind our changing climate.

We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world….

Principal Sponsors: Shell…Siemens…”

19. Dr. Michael Mann
WUWT – October 15, 2013

…it is enlightening to learn that his current employer, Penn State, gets funds from Koch, and so does where Dr. Mann did his thesis from, the University of Virginia. Those darn facts, they are stubborn things. See the list that follows…”

[Comments]

Jimbo October 16, 2013 at 11:49 am

Why stop at Koch funding?
Exxon Mobil Corporation
2012 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments
…..Pennsylvania State University [$] 258,230…”

20. Stanford University
New York Times – 21 November 2002
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford
Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming….In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program…”

21. National Science Teachers Association – Jun 11, 2012
by Wendi Liles

You are invited this summer to the 4th Annual CSI: Climate Status Investigations free climate change educator professional development in Wilmington, DE…. You will also get to participate in a climate change lesson with the staff from Delaware Nature Society to investigate the effect of climate change on their urban watershed…..a few fun giveaways thanks to our sponsors-DuPont, Agilent Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Chevron, Delaware Nature Society…”

22. Duke University

ConocoPhillips Pledges $1 Million to Climate Change Policy Partnership at Duke 2007

ConocoPhillips, the third-largest integrated energy company in the United States, has pledged $1 million to support an industry-university collaboration working to develop policies that address global climate change, Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead announced Wednesday.”

23. Alberta Water Council PDF

Growing demands from an increasing population, economic development, and climate change are the realities impacting our water allocation system.
…Breakfast Sponsor: ConocoPhillips Canada…River Level Sponsors….ConocoPhillips Canada”

24. University of California, Davis
Institute of Transportation Studies PDF

10th Biennial Conference on Transportation and Energy Policy
Toward a Policy Agenda For Climate Change
Asilomar Transport & Energy Conferences
VIII. Managing Transitions in the Transport Sector: How Fast and How Far?
September 11-14, 2001. Sponsored by US DOE, US EPA, Natural Resources Canada, ExxonMobil, and Chevron (Chair: D. Sperling)…”

25. Washington Free Beacon – 27 January 2015

Foreign Firm Funding U.S. Green Groups Tied to State-Owned Russian Oil Company
Executives at a Bermudan firm funneling money to U.S. environmentalists run investment funds with Russian tycoons
A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle……The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011….“None of this foreign corporation’s funding is disclosed in any way,” the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee wrote of the company in a report last year…”

 

Top Swiss Avalanche Expert Werner Munter Calls IPCC Report “A Scientific Farce”…”Piss Take”!

He looks more like a guru, even a prophet. In Switzerland 73 year old Swiss Alps mountain guide Werner Munter is known as the “avalanche pope”. No one knows more about avalanches in the Alps and their risks than he does.

Munter

Werner Munter: Image credit: www.berge-im-kopf.ch.

Having authored some 20 books, he is credited for having revolutionized the science of avalanches.

The online Swiss swissinfo.ch here featured the expert and his position on the IPCC’s latest report late last year. Swissinfo.ch writes that although Munter is not a climate expert, he has read up on the subject extensively, and quotes Munter:

It’s unbelievable arrogance to believe that we would be able to sustainably influence the climate.”

He also tells Swissinfo.ch that he has found no evidence showing how CO2 could warm the climate. Swissinfo writes:

He views the current claims of most climate scientists as well as the experts of the UN (IPCC), who say mankind’s activities are causing climate change, as ‘piss take’.”

“Piss take” definition: here. Why is Munter skeptical? He cites hundreds of scientific papers opposing the current opinion of the IPCC and that there isn’t any consensus at all. Swissinfo.ch reports Munter does not dispute climate is changing, but believes man is not responsible for it.

Munter to Swissinfo.ch:

During the Holocene – a period on earth going back about 10,000 years – there were five phases when it was just as warm as it is today, or even warmer.”

Munter also tells Swissinfo.ch “CO2 is not a pollutant” and that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 stemming from man is “negligible”. He also doesn’t believe that CO2 is even a greenhouse gas, citing a paper by physicist Robert Wood.

On why the earth is warming, Munter says it all goes back to the sun. And by the sun he not only means solar irradiance but also the sun’s magnetic field, thus lending support to Svensmark’s theory.

Munter’s skepticism worryies media like Swissinfo.ch, and established climate scientists in Europe – for example Mike Schäfer, a risk communication professor at the University of Zurich. He tells Swissinfo.ch that Munter is not alone as a skeptic because “in the USA 20 to 30 percent of the population are climate skeptics” who do not believe man plays any real role on climate or the projected consequences.

Media do not share skeptic positions

Interestingly Swissinfo.ch writes that the number of skeptics in Germany and Switzerland is far smaller than in the USA. Schäfer attributes that to the fact that “practically no media share the positions of the climate skeptics.”

On skepticism in Switzerland, Swissinfo.com quotes Marko Kovic, president of an association for critical thinking: “Skeptiker Schweiz”, who claims skepticism in Switzerland is limited to only a few individuals:

These are people who as a rule who have read American website and blogs.”

Next Swissinfo.ch highlights how in Europe there is a strong popular consensus that man is responsible for climate change, and that this is not so in English speaking countries like the USA, Great Britain and Australia because the “vast majority of these persons have some kind of relation with the business lobbies of oil, coal or the automobile industry, who deny the impact of emissions on climate“.

Whew! The Swiss really are backwards and shallow in some ways. Little wonder Swiss women were not allowed to vote until 1971. It’s kind of like a “just shut up and get back to your place!” sort of culture.

Munter on the other hand also thinks there is corruption, telling Swissinfo.ch that climate science has been corrupted by money and politics. That does not go down very well. To refute Munter’s claim, Swissinfo.ch promptly contacted Urs Neu, Director of ProClim (a state-supported institute). Neu denies the accusation and cites an “evaluation of 12,000 scientific papers published between 1991 and 2011, which found that 97 percent of the authors suspect that human activity is the cause of climate change.”

Right. And before 1970, a survey by Swiss men showed 97% of half of Swiss men believed that women were too dumb to vote. Again it’s the caveman wooden club of authority thing.

Swissinfo.ch sums up by quoting state-funded warmist University of Genf professor Martin Beniston on the need for skeptics like Munter:

Skeptics allow scientists to tweek their arguments and to drive additional studies with which they can respond to their critics. If there had not been any opposition, then it would not have been possible to have made the great progress in climate science that we have seen.”

Right again. Swiss men also need a few independent-minded women to talk back from time to time – because this is what has allowed them to make great progress in being better-knowing husbands.

Hats off to Werner Munter for taking on such a conceited bunch.

 

Is 2014 The Warmest Year?

According to the news (the Associated Press, Seth Borenstein) 2014 is the hottest year on record. His numbers come from NOAA and NASA, so of course they are correct (sarc off).

And of course the record Seth is quoting only goes back to the last half of the Nineteenth Century, so that leaves out the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period, the Holocene Climate Optimum, and previous interglacials, but I digress.

Several things are left out of most of the discussions on the relative warmness of 2014:

  • Statistically, averaging thermometer readings that are accurate to 1 degree and sussing out a record that differs from another year by 0.01°C is one problem.
  • Spatially, averaging grid boxes that have as few as one thermometer, (and more than a few have zero!) with grids boxes that have scores of thermometers is another problem.
  • Correcting (homogenizing) a city thermometer by adjusting adjacent rural thermometers upwards to “correct” for the urban heat island is a whole different problem.
  • Pretending that changing the measuring instrument type and numbers, as well as the measurement times world-wide in the 1980’s and 90’s, didn’t change the resulting readings is also a large problem. See here and here.
  • This report is also guilty of “cherry-picking”. If it is the Meteorological Year that is picked, December to November, the record is still held by 2010, by 0.01°C. If it is satellite data (UAH) that is picked, 1998 is still the record, 0.15°C warmer than 2014.

Global GHCN & UHA Temps

Figure 1 is the latest GHCN and UAH Meteorological Year (December through November) data, along with the difference plot when the data are matched (normalized) at 1979.

In Figure 1, except for El Niño years, satellite data is not warming nearly as fast as the GHCN global data. The difference is now averaging more than 0.1°C.

GHCN adjustments

GHCN is constantly changing their data. Every time they get new data, they completely recalculate the whole database all the way back to 1880. This gives ample opportunity for confirmation bias to adjust the numbers. Here is an example. I had downloaded the global data last September, with numbers updated through August. Just now, I downloaded the current data with the numbers through December, completing both the meteorological and calendar years. Here is a chart of the monthly differences between the two data sets for the last 17 years Beware. This data will change every time they get new data and recalculate. The chart shown was from data downloaded at 1 PM eastern time on January 18th, 2015, today. It is different from the data I downloaded last Friday.

Adjustments since 1998

Figure 2 is a plot of the changes in GHCN data for all the months since 1998 up to August of last year. The vertical scale is in 1/100 degree C.

The changes are small, but they are nearly all in one direction, warmer. One would think that data corrections would be in both directions, some warmer, some cooler, but in the last 17 years, a total of 200 months, only three months were corrected in the cooler direction. Note that in the last year the corrections were mostly in the warmer direction by .02° or more. Only one, August in the September update, was cooled. It was completely offset by the July change. All the changes in the first six months of 2014 were sufficient to make 2014 the warmest calendar year.

 

German Scientist Slams, Mocks PIK’s Use Of Tacky Madison Avenue-Style Marketing To Sell (Junk) Climate Science

When a science finds itself having to resort to using professional marketing campaigns to get the public to buy it, then you can be reasonably sure something is awfully wrong.

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning responds to and mocks the Potsdam Institute’s report released together with the World Bank.
===================================

Learning from the PIK means learning how to win: Clever Climate Marketing 2.0
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning
(Translated by P Gosselin)

When it comes to the business of climate change, we are dealing with lots of money. Thus it is only natural that the World Bank is getting into the act and playing the climate doomsday music. But to do this, it needs an ally. Fortunately there’s the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), which is sort of a mill that regularly churns out and markets new, entertaining horror scenarios.

The World bank has contracted the PIK to conjure up an entire series of climate alarms. Part 3 of the cooperation came to light in November 2014. Of course here one finds nothing new. Yet again the attempt was made to shock a climate-weary public with the usual old Biblical extreme-weather cocktail: hellish heat, huge floods and giant cyclones descending from the heavens.

Their efforts seem to have been accompanied by a professional marketing department that took on the task of coming up with hard-hitting marketing slogans and catchy messages. And so this is how they got the title ‘Turn down the heat 3‘, which also could be the name of a rock album. Hats off. The same can be said for the slogan: “Confronting the new normal”. Sounds great.

So why can’t us climate skeptics do the same? In our reports we all too often use ineffective terms, calling the other side names like “stupid alarmists”, “swindlers”, or “senseless”. What if instead we used terms like “Let’s get back to reason 5.0″ or “Accepting and understanding the Medieval Warm Period”?

Overall the structure of the PIK press release and the psychological fundamental elements used are carefully considered and crafted. The claim “Climate change impacts foremost the world’s poor” really does play on the heart strings:

‘Global warming impacts in the next decades are likely to hit those hardest that contributed least to global greenhouse gas emissions: the global poor.’ Developing countries are expected to experience the most severe climate impacts, notably in the tropics, while lacking the means to build resilience. And within these countries, again those parts of the population with the least means are most vulnerable to additional stress.”

A great marketing gag: the evil westerners are destroying the climate, particularly in developing countries. From a scientific point of view, it is totally baseless, yet it sounds really good and almost no one will dare to challenge the claim. That simply does not befit the rich westerner. Here for example the coral horror would be of much worth. Here’s how it’s written by the PIK:

In the Caribbean, coral reefs are threatened of significantly higher probabilities of annual bleaching already at 1.5-2 degrees warming… .”

Apparently knowledge of the latest literature on that subject is quite lacking at the PIK. Otherwise the Potsdam scientists would have known that the coral reefs have turned out to be far more warmth-resistant than previously feared. Yet the cooperation between the World Bank and the PIK has far less to do with facts, and much more with moral declarations formulated in catchy language that makes for good prose. The PIK director puts on his best act to mislead:

‘Tackling climate change is a matter of reason, but also of justice,’ says the report’s lead-author Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of PIK.”

This method would also work effectively for the climate realists side. For example we could write:

‘Recognizing the climate’s natural variability is a matter of reason, but also of justice,’ says Sebastian Lüning, DkS website director and number 2 lead author of the sustainable climate report ‘Die Kalte Sonne’.”

As is known since the discovery of the motion picture in Hollywood, a good story has a happy ending and allows for a bright outlook. Thus it is no surprise that this technique also gets used by the PIK and the World Bank:

‘The good news is that we can do something about it’
[…] The good news is that we can take action that reduces the rate of climate change and promotes economic growth, ultimately stopping our journey down this dangerous path. World leaders and policy makers should embrace affordable solutions like carbon pricing and policy choices that shift investment to clean public transport, cleaner energy and more energy efficient factories, buildings and appliances.”

A positive call to action is simply far more effective than making threats. The phrase “Good News” has been successfully employed in religions for a very long time, and also by cults. “The good news: You can transfer one third of your income to the account of our religion founder, and so cleanse yourselves of all your sins.”

Us skeptics should do as the PIK does and band together with a top performing team of marketing experts and psychologists so that we too can promote our scientific messages in the suitable format.

This step is not only a matter of reason, but also of justice. Learning from the PIK means learning how to win.

=======================
Sebastian Lüning is a geologist who has published numerous papers in his field. He is co-author of the climate science skeptical book: The Neglected Sun.

 

German Physicist Sees Dangerous Return To “Medieval Scholasticism” – Climate Models Have Failed Conclusively

At EIKE distinguished German physicist and climate expert Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke writes how we are witnessing a notable paradigm shift in climate research today: the resurrection of medieval scholasticism. In plain language: the science of the Dark Ages.

Lüdecke

German climate physicist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke says today’s climate science paradigm has shifted to a “medieval scholasticism” and is a real threat to science and society as a whole. Photo: EIKE.

Scholasticism dominated medieval western Europe and was based on the writings of the Church Fathers, with strict adherence to traditional doctrines. To say the least, it was effective in stifling enlightenment.

The breakthrough from this crusty, dogmatic approach, Lüdecke writes, came with Galileo, who gave highest priority to systematic and numerical measurement, which today remains the standard method of science. With Galileo’s approach hypotheses or theories that are not confirmed by measurements get discarded and are no longer pursued. The method led to giant leaps and bounds in technology, medicine and science, from which today humanity is benefitting immensely.

Richard Richard Feynman summarized Galileo’s approach beautifully, saying that if a hypothesis disagrees with observations, then it’s wrong.

This fundamental approach, the Lüdecke writes, is no longer in use in climate science and, what is worse, the old medieval scholastic method is even now dangerously invading other fields of science.

According to Lüdecke, the key question today: Is the climate change witnessed since 1850 unusual, and thus due to man, or is it well within the range of natural variability the planet has seen throughout its history? The German physicist says a hypothesis’s burden of proof is clearly not on its skeptics, but on the one proposing the hypothesis. He writes:

It is senseless to favor a certain hypothesis – senseless according to our still valid scientific paradigm – when no confirming measured data can be shown to support it. One can occupy himself with a hypothesis, put it at the center of his research, and even have complete faith in it. However one cannot use it as a basis for taking rational action without first having confirmed measurements. In summary: If we cannot observe any unusual climate activity since 1850 compared to the times before that, then we have no choice but to assume natural climate change.”

In order to assume there has been “unusual activity”, Lüdecke says, it would be necessary to have comprehensive data about the oceans before 1850. This doesn’t exist, and so a comparison is not possible. Lüdecke reminds: “It is mandatory to prove that the climate data since 1850 are indeed unusual when compared to the period before that.” A comparison is already very difficult to do with atmospheric temperatures. With ocean data: “Who today can tell us what temperature distributions the oceans had back during the Medieval Warm Period?” Lüdecke writes Assuming that today is unusual without being able to compare it to anything from the past is not science at all, he tells us.

When it comes to extreme weather events, there are plenty of paintings and recorded accounts showing that they too existed earlier on, and that today’s events are nothing new, Lüdecke writes. Even the IPCC has reached that conclusion. The German climatologist puts the assumptions of more future extreme weather events in the category of “crystal balls” and not modern science.

Prof. Lüdecke also blasts the over-emphasis on climate models, writing that “the models fail already for the past” and that they cannot even predict the next El Nino correctly or the missing tropospheric hot spot. He writes:

Using the R. Feynman yardstick these climate models are not only inaccurate or a bit false; they are totally false. […] Anyone selling climate forecasts from climate models as scientific is using a medieval paradigm. He is conducting moral sciences instead of physics.”

Ouch. Lüdecke also then calls the alliance between the IPCC and policymaking “dubious” and one that was set up with the target of reaching an already predetermined result. He calls the manner in which policymaking is moving ahead “embellished nonsense”.

In his conclusion the German professor advises those engaged in a discussion with alarmists, or listening to a presenation by an alarmist, to not go easy on them. There are three points, he advises:

1. The modern science paradigm of priority on measurement over theoretical model remains valid. The climate alarmist must prove that his hypothsies is confirmed by observations and measurements. It is not up to you to prove his hypothesis is false.

2. When the climate alarmists “starts beating around the bush” insists he name a peer-reviewed paper that proves, based on measurements, that the climate change since 1850 is unprecedented compared to earlier times (there isn’t any).

3. Don’t let yourself be drawn into the discussion over climate models. That the models are unable to describe the climate development means they are false, as to point no. 1.”

The distinguished professor ends by blasting climate policymakers, warning they are bordering on “criminal activity” in their conscious misuse of science to formulate policy:

We are allowing hundreds of thousands of people in the poorest developing countries to starve in order to be able to finance climate protection and energy transformation that are not based on today’s valid science paradigm. That is not only idiotic, but also borders on criminal activity by the politically responsible persons.”

 

Christian Schönwiese, Hans Von Storch: “2°C Target” Purely Political One…From “Politicians Disguised As Scientists”

Rainer Hoffmann of the German language Klimamanifest has produced a short clip on the 2°C target we keep hearing about.

According to activists the globe mustn’t be allowed to warm up more than 2°C over its 1900 level, otherwise it will tip into an irreversible and unstoppable spiral to climate catastrophe that will lead to “the end of civilization as we know it”.

Many of us have been misled to believe that the 2°C was established by leading climate scientists and even made to “international law” that now has to be strictly adhered to, and that CO2 emissions must start falling by 2020. Prof Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber (0:18 mark), Director of the ultra-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, for example, claimed on German public television on July 3, 2011, that the 2°C target indeed was “international law” and that CO2 emissions needed to start falling by 2020 if humanity was to have any chance of reaching the 2°C target.

But these are two patented alarmist falsehoods. Don’t take it from me, but from the climate scientists themselves.

On December 3, 2014, Schellnhuber admitted that the 2°C target was not international law (0:53) and then postponed the year CO2 emissions would have to start dropping by an entire decade, to 2030. Suddenly we got goalposts that were not international law and had been moved out another 10 years.

2°C target is purely political

On the question of: Is the theoretical 2°C target a scientific one? The answer to that question is also a definite “no”.

On February 2, 2010, Prof. Dr. Christian Schönwiese (1:27) told FAZ journalist Christian Bartsch on German public television:

They formulated a 2°C target. It is not from a climate scientist, or a physicist, or a chemist, but from an outside person who simply plucked it out of thin air and said ‘2°C'”

Bartsch asks Schönwiese rhetorically:

“So it’s no scientific target?”

Schönwiese acknowledges: “Right.”

At the 2:03 mark of the video, Prof. Hans von Storch in a speech he made in January, 2011 confirmed Schönwiese:

We are in a time where scientists and politicians claim, or at least suggest, the science, in the form of the IPCC, or the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), has shown that the 2°C target is scientifically mandatory, and is thus no longer a political question that has to be negotiated by society, but rather a target that policymakers only must execute – quasi an order. However the IPCC has never in any way presented the 2°C target as mandatory. Rather this was done by a few scientists, or shall I say: politicians disguised as scientists.”