Have you ever read a paper on climate science and seen a sentence like this:
“We would like to emphasise that this study does not question the existence of a long-term anthropogenic warming trend during the 20th century.”
Guess what. That means the paper has probably been censored by the climate gatekeepers running the journals.
GWPF has the story from The Times:
“Research that questioned the accuracy of computer models used to predict global warming was “censored” by climate scientists, it was alleged yesterday.
One academic reviewer said that a section should not be published because it “would lead to unnecessary confusion in the climate science community”. Another wrote: “This entire discussion has to disappear.”
The paper suggested that the computer models used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were flawed, resulting in human influence on the climate being exaggerated and the impact of natural variability being underplayed.“
A third reviewer was much more supportive of the paper, saying its “very provocative” suggestion that climate models were flawed was “so interesting that it needs to be discussed more fully”.
However, almost the entire paragraph was deleted, along with the conclusion that “the average sensitivity of the IPCC models may be too high”.
The journal chose to publish only the opening sentence: “We would like to emphasise that this study does not question the existence of a long-term anthropogenic warming trend during the 20th century.”
You all know that the AGW cult likes to go on and on about “Extreme Weather” because the warming stopped in 1998 and they like to think the world is coming to an end and only they can save us. Just another end of the world cult.
So I thought I would look at the same data for the weather station closest to my hometown on the west coast of Canada. The data only starts in the late 1940s so there is no extreme’s from the 1930s and 1940s.
One thing to remember. The 2361 Days Over 25C number (for example) includes the 506 Days Over 30C etc.
I don’t see any increase in extreme hot days. I don’t see any increase in extreme cold days.
Aside from 2 hot days in July 2009 (matched by the 3 days in the 1960s) and 1 cold day in 2008 matched by a day in 1968 it seems to have been getting less extreme.
” India’s domestic spy service has accused Greenpeace and other lobby groups of hurting economic progress by campaigning against power projects, mining and genetically modified food, the most serious charge yet against foreign-funded organisations.”
“Greenpeace denied it was trying to block economic expansion”
“Seventy million households – 35-40 percent of the country’s 1.2 billion people – still have no access to electricity. This summer authorities in north India are battling power breakdowns and public anger as the country swelters under the longest heatwave on record.
The Intelligence Bureau said the foreign NGOs and their Indian arms were serving as tools advance Western foreign policy interests.”
Greenpeace believed that India should embrace renewable energy and improve energy efficiency …
How can rich white people headquartered in Germany hate the poor brown in India so much they deny them the chance of having electricity?
How can you improve the energy efficiency of ZERO electricity for 40% of the people. 500 million people without electricity.
And all the while Germany gets over 50% of its electricity from dirty brown lignite coal
There is a new government in India, and I suspect Greenpeace et al will be facing life and death choices for choosing to condemn so many Indians to poverty.
The AGW Cult is making air pollution worse.
“European Union efforts to fight climate change favored diesel fuel over gasoline because it emits less carbon dioxide, or CO2. However, diesel’s contaminants have swamped benefits from measures that include a toll drivers pay to enter central London, a thriving bike-hire program and growing public-transport network.
“Successive governments knew more than 10 years ago that diesel was producing all these harmful pollutants, but they myopically plowed on with their CO2 agenda,” said Simon Birkett, founder of Clean Air in London, a nonprofit group. “It’s been a catastrophe for air pollution, and that’s not too strong a word. It’s a public-health catastrophe.””
“Nitrogen dioxide is a problem that you get in all big cities with a lot of traffic,” said Alberto Gonzalez Ortiz, project manager for air quality at the European Environment Agency, which is based in Copenhagen. “In many cases it’s gotten worse because of the new fleets of diesel cars.”
I was reading this article by Stephen L Carter and came across this paragraph.
“The literary critic George Steiner, in a wonderful little book titled “Nostalgia for the Absolute,” long ago predicted this moment. We have an attraction, he contended, to higher truths that can sweep away complexity and nuance. We like systems that can explain everything. Intellectuals in the West are nostalgic for the tight grip religion once held on the Western imagination. They are attracted to modes of thought that are as comprehensive and authoritarian as the medieval church.”
Immediately the idea of CO2/AGW as a cult religion sprang to mind.
“We have an attraction, he contended, to higher truths that can sweep away complexity and nuance.”
Yes indeed. Who cares about sunspots or the AMO or PDO or solar cycles or the LIA. There is no need in the AGW cult to really care about any or those or any of the other inputs into climate systems. Blame everything on CO2.
“We like systems that can explain everything.”
Yes. The cult of CO2 explains warming and cooling and more snow and less snow and drought and floods. There is no need for anything else.
“Intellectuals in the West are nostalgic for the tight grip religion once held on the Western imagination. They are attracted to modes of thought that are as comprehensive and authoritarian as the medieval church.”
That explains so many things including the threatened excommunication of anyone who strays from the church of CO2 and AGW.
AGW is a cult that worships CO2 and Climate Change as god. As I’ve said before.
The green plan to destroy forests by burning them in power plants is moving forward. Luckily, all that coal is being saved from being turned into electricity by the brave Biomass Plant Operators.
“Business owners in Cape Breton who rely on the forest for a living say high-quality hardwoods are making their way into Nova Scotia Power’s biomass plant in Point Tupper, consuming a wood supply that instead should be available for value-added businesses such as flooring and lumber.
David Fraser of BA Fraser Lumber in Margaree Valley, Inverness County, says he is seeing fewer quality saw logs and he blames it on Nova Scotia Power’s policy of getting the most amount of biomass fuel for the cheapest price.
Fraser, who runs a sawmill and is also a contractor who supplies wood to customers, said contractors simply can’t afford to separate quality saw logs from lower-quality stands of wood intended for the biomass plant.”
The plant requires 650,000 tonnes of trees per year for the $200 million power plant that only produces 60 Megawatts of power. Nova Scotia is closing coal power plants so they can burn trees instead.
Save The Endangered Coal! Trees are evil and must be burned instead.
“As the planet warms, animals and plants are learning to adapt to their new environment by either migrating or evolving, new research has revealed.”
What kind of idiots didn’t think plants and animals couldn’t adapt?
What an insane world we live in. Did you know that burning wood pellets in power plant produces twice as much CO2 (or more) per unit of electricity as burning natural gas does?
“Some of the most distinguished scientists in the US have written to UK energy secretary Ed Davey, urging him to abandon the government’s “misguided” subsidies for companies burning wood pellets to generate electricity, such as the Drax plant in Yorkshire”
The letter is here:
“Mounting demand for wood pellets in the UK and Europe has led to an explosive growth in facilities
across the Southern US that are manufacturing wood pellets for export to supply the European
electricity market. In 2012, the Southeastern US emerged as the world’s largest exporter of wood pellets
for biomass electricity generation. With continued investments throughout the southern US, export
volumes reached an estimated 1.75 million tons in 2012 and are expected to jump to 5.7 million tons in
2015, according to the North American Wood Fiber Review.
Demand for wood pellets in the UK and Europe is fueled by misguided energy policies, which
incorrectly assume that burning wood will lower carbon emissions and help address climate change.
These policies appear to subscribe to the wood pellet and power industry claim that burning wood is a
carbon neutral process because new trees will eventually absorb and store the carbon that was released
when wood is burned. In addition, industry claims of sustainability are often based on citing positive
growth to harvest rates in the South. We dispute these claims for the following reasons:
First, a growing body of evidence suggests that trees rather than wood waste are the primary source of
the wood pellets exported to the UK from the Southern US. Recent advances in science and accounting
for pollution from different types of woody biomass have clarified that burning trees to produce
electricity actually increases carbon emissions compared with fossil fuels for many decades and
contributes to other air pollution problems.“
DRAX is spending £700 million to kill trees and produce more CO2 all because of EU directives claiming wood is “carbon neutral” and therefore eligible for green subsidies.
What an insane world.
The Hockey Schtick blog brought a recent paper to my attention.
The abstract says:
“A recent observation in NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center’s monthly assessment of the state of the climate was that contiguous US average monthly temperatures were in the top third of monthly ranked historical temperatures for thirteen straight months from June 2011 — June 2012. The chance of such a streak occurring randomly was quoted as (1/3)13, or about one in 1.6 million.”
I’m not going to discuss the “chances”. But I am going to simply note the following.
The NOAA ranks months temperature and precipitation based on the number of months from 1895. So 2012 was the 118th year. If a month is ranked 118 (as of 2012) then it was the warmest month from 1895 to 2012.
Using the same 12 month June to June time frame and using data from October 2012 ( before NOAA’s recent update) it took me about 10 minutes to find out a similar streak.
From June 1933 to to June 1934 8 months were ranked 100 and above. 2 of them were ranked 118.
From June 2011 to June 2012 8 months were ranked 100 and above. 1 of them was ranked 118.
What are the odds of that occurring 80 years apart!