Global Warming

 Believe "Global warming"? Better have a read.....

Australia's Opposition leader is destroying his party with his  'belief'.

Regarding the ETS. It should be thrown in the bin. Not negotiated. I am
an Australian computer scientist, specialising in computer models and
statistics, ex Australian Bureau of Statistics, founder and ex- chairman
of the QAUUG.... What is your comment on this revelation from one of the
chief climate scientists WITHIN the IPCC?
"Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the
recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author
for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports
that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are
causing the planet to warm dangerously.
Yet in Geneva, Latif was forced to admit that all those An-
Inconvenient-Truth-style fantasy projections showing global temperatures
rising inexorably with C02 levels were wrong.

The world is getting cooler, not warming. It will continue to cool, Latif
reckons, till 2020 or possibly 2030. By how much he doesn't know: "The
jury is still out.""
COOLING Mr Turnbull. I repeat. COOLING.
Wong, Rudd and co tried to put a new spin on this nonsense by invoking
"Oh yeah, we know the atmosphere is COOLING, but the heat is HIDING in
the sea waiting to LEAP at us all". What utter nonsense.
There has been a change in direction by global warming alarmists, as
shown by "Synthesis Report - Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges &
Decisions," published in Copenhagen and released in June.
In that report, those claiming there is a human-induced global warming
crisis have abandoned air temperature as a measure of global climate and
switched to ocean temperature.The change in focus from air temperature to
ocean temperature was predictable given the sustained decline in global
air temperature over recent years.The new report claims ocean
temperatures are rising, and fast.This is rubbish, but it will take time
to inform the public and politicians that it is rubbish. With the U.S.
climate bill and the Copenhagen meeting of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up, proponents of carbon
dioxide restrictions need only to make the public believe these fables
for a few months.
New Claims to Refute. All the public education the climate realists have
accomplished regarding air temperatures will have to start all over
regarding ocean temperatures. Here are some key points to be made:
* Ocean temperatures can be measured adequately only by the Argo buoy
network. Argo buoys dive down to 700m, recording temperatures, then come
up and radio back the results. There are 3,000 of them floating around
all the world's oceans.
* The Argo buoys have been operational only since the end of 2003. Before
that, ocean temperatures were gathered by various methods - usually
collected by ships in popular commercial shipping lanes - that lacked
uniformity, sufficient geographical coverage, and the ability to measure
temperature much beneath the surface. The Argo buoy system has added
uniformity and greater reliability to ocean temperature measurements.
* According to Argo temperature measurements, the world's oceans have
shown a slight cooling since Argo became operational in 2003. In sharp
contrast to model predicted heat build-up.
In short, if one studies the OBSERVABLE DATA for but a moment and ignores
the output of rather poor computer models, the planet has been COOLING
for a decade and is predicted to continue to COOL for the next two
decades, perhaps longer.
The atmosphere is COOLING, the sea is COOLING, the ice in the Arctic
INCREASED by another 10% this year, what is your major problem
Oppose this nonsense and you have my vote, and I suggest the vote of a
lot of other conservative Australians. Negotiate with Labor and I look
elsewhere for a party to represent my interests.
Those of you who saw An Inconvenient Truth may remember, if you
weren't asleep by that stage, the key scene where big green Al deploys
his terrifying graph to show how totally screwed we all are by man-
made global warming. This graph - known as the Hockey Stick Curve -
purports to show rising global temperatures through the ages. In the
part representing the late twentieth century it shoots up almost
vertically. To emphasise his point that this is serious and that if we
don't act NOW we're doomed, Al Gore - wearing a wry smile which says:
"Sure folks, this is kinda funny. But don't forget how serious it is
too" - climbs on to a mini-lift in order to be able to reach the top
of the chart. Cue consensual gasps from his parti pris audience.
Except that the graph - devised in 1998 by a US climatologist called
Dr Michael Mann - is based on a huge lie, as Sceptics have been
saying for quite some time. The first thing they noticed is that this
"Hockey Stick" (based on tree ring data, one of the most accurate ways
of recording how climate changes over the centuries) is that it seemed
completely to omit the Medieval Warming Period.
According to Mann's graph, the hottest period in modern history was
NOT the generally balmy era between 900 and 1300 but the late 20th
century. This led many sceptics, among them a Canadian mathematician
named Steve McIntyre to smell a rat. He tried to replicate Mann's tree
ring work but was stymied by lack of data: ie the global community of
climate-fear-promotion scientists closed ranks and refused to provide
him with any information that might contradict their cause.
This is the point where British climate change scientists appear - and
in a most unedifying light. As Christopher Booker has reported the Met
Office, its Hadley Centre in Exeter and the Climate Research Unit
(CRU) at University of East Anglia are among the primary drivers of
global climate change alarmism. Their data has formed the basis for
the IPCC's "we're all doomed" reports; their scientists - among them
Professor Phil Jones and tree ring expert Professor Keith Briffa -
have been doughty supporters of Mann's Hockey Stick theory and of the
computer models showing inexorably rising temperatures.
Hence their misleading predictions of that "barbecue summer" we never
had. As Booker says: "Part of the reason why the Met Office has made
such a mess of its forecasts for Britain is that they are based on the
same models which failed to predict the declining trend in world
temperatures since 2001.
When McIntyre approached the Met Office and the CRU for more
information they refused, claiming implausibly that it would damage
Britain's "international relations" with all the countries that
supplied it. Later they went a step further and claimed the data had
been mislaid.
And there McIntyre's efforts to uncover the mystery of the Hockey
Stick might have ended, had he not had a stroke of luck, as Chris
Horner explains at Planet Gore.
"Years go by. McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the
original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998
conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper in bolstering his
tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. A Mann
co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of the
Hadley UK Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series
(Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data
archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought and won
access to that data just last week."
This sounds esoteric, but here's the important bit: what McIntyre
discovered was that Professor Briffa had cherry picked his "tree data
sets" in order to reach the conclusion he wanted to reach. When,
however, McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative
range of samples from exactly the same area, the results he got were
startlingly different.
Have a look at the graph at Climate Audit (which broke the story and
has been so inundated with hits that its server was almost
overwhelmed) and see for yourself.
So many hits from the Blogosphere.  Did we hear a peep out of Australian
The scary red line shooting upwards is the one Al Gore, Michael Mann,
Keith Briffa and their climate-fear-promotion chums would like you to
believe in. The black one, heading downwards, represents scientific
We "Global Warming Deniers" are often accused of ignoring the weight
of scientific opinion. Well if the "science" on which they base their
theories is as shoddy as Mann's Hockey Stick, is it any wonder we
think they're talking cobblers?"
What went wrong?
The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The
IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it.
As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific, technical
and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the
risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new
research nor does it monitor climate-related data." But as lead
author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the
When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the
idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and
more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did
The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence
of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results.
Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and
methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive
for almost a decade.
At some point the media WILL HAVE TO acknowledge the fact that AGW is
just kiddology.  The hypothesis fails test after test after test.  Bring
on a DD and get the science on the table.  The average punter is going to
be a trifle pissed when they find they have been the butt of a twenty
year farce.


Contributed by Tony Orman