Saturday, September 25, 2010

It's the Sun, Stupid

Anthony Watts in a posts titled: Climate science solar shock and aweinforms us of a story in New Scientist headed: The Sun joins the Climate Club.

Where has New Scientist been hiding?

A week before, Science Now published an article entitled SAY GOODBYE TO SUNSPOTS reporting on a paper -Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields Authors: Matthew Penn, William Livingston submitted 3 September, 2010 to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium.

Astronomers have been observing and counting sunspots since Galileo began the practice in the early 17th century. From those studies, scientists have long known that the sun goes through an 11-year cycle, in which the number of sunspots spikes during a period called the solar maximum and drops—sometimes to zero—during a time of inactivity called the solar minimum.

The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century.

Are Monbiot and the Guardian Deniers?

What The Guardian first printed and then deleted. I saw this comment just after mine. Now it isn't there. THE CENSORSHIP by the Guardian really makes them deniers, doesn't it?

In his usual abusive and ad hominem style, Georgie Moonbat has an article in the Guardian under the heading: "Are the climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?". Piers Corbyn put up a reply in their comments section which the paper deleted. The comment is below:

George, YOUR "poser" must be applied to yourself!
You ask: "Are people who entertain a range of strong beliefs for which there is no evidence naturally gullible?".

Well you are a person with a strong belief in man-made(CO2) Global Warming / Climate Change, and there is no evidence for it. So are you naturally gullible?

If you have observational data evidence for the theory - using available data for the last hundreds, thousands and millions of years - let's have it. We don't want your usual opinion-polls, bluster, innuendo and opinion of peoples' attitudes, vibes and mental states we want EVIDENCE-BASED SCIENCE.

There are three key points which must be be understood:

1. The theory of Man-made Global Warming & Climate Change is failed science based on fraudulent data. IT JUST DOESN'T ADD UP!

All the dire predictions of the UN (IPCC) since 2000 have failed. CO2 does not cause extreme weather. The world is cooling not warming. There is no evidence in 600, 600,000 or 600million years of data that changes in CO2 levels in the real atmosphere drive world temperatures or change climate; indeed it is temperatures which generally drive CO2 levels. - See . Extra CO2 has ZERO effect, and any concession to the notion there is somehow some 'weak' effect waiting to happen falls into the trap the Climate hype industry machine has set for the ill-informed and the usual Appeasement brigades who surface in all political conflicts.

2. The driver of all important weather extremes is solar activity.

In the end it is extreme weather that matters rather than averages and this is controlled by Jet stream shifts and extra activity of weather fronts, and These are driven by changes in solar activity and largely predictable – See ongoing discussion in Comments as link above, - espec comment Aug 8th concerning predicted changes in the jet stream + records of the solar activity that caused them.

3. MORE CO2 is GOOD not bad.

CO2 is plant food and more CO2 increases the productivity of agriculture. Carbon fixing policies are madness which if carried out in the name of ‘Clean coal’
[NB Smoke from coal is easily removed and should be, but that is another issue]
would double the cost of electricity and double the amount of coal used to produce power because carbon fixing (‘sequestration’) is very energy intensive.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Monbiot plants foot in mouth

Boy! Does the Moonbat know how to put his foot in it? You bet he does.

On his blog - link in title - he does it continually!

He starts:

Are the climate change sceptics with no evidence just naturally gullible?

Point one: "Climate Change Sceptics". Who are the Climate Change Sceptics? I know most people I associate with are greatly sceptical of the "Science" of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) but are very aware that climate changes, that climate has changed since the beginning of time.

We know that there have been periods of warming and periods of cooling. We know that there have been Ice Ages and Inter-Glacials. We know that in the current interglacial that there has been warmer periods than the late twentieth century. The Minoan Warming, the Roman Warming, The Medieval Warming.

Even CRU's Phil Jones admitted that there was nothing unusual about the late twentieth century warming. Therefore no Climate Sceptic who I know could be called a Climate Change Sceptic.

On the other hand, the Alarmists wanted to erase the medieval warm period to show that the late twentieth century warming was unusual (Overpeck to Deeming) and so the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph was created. M & M showed that putting phone numbers from the Canadian phone book into the Hockey Stick code still produced - quel surpris! - a hockey stick. AND why the hockey stick? To show there is unusual warming in the late twentieth century. Denying the fact that climate changes!

The Alarmist, therefore, are the true Climate Change Deniers!

So, back to Monbiot's Heading - Are climate change sceptics with no evidence just naturally gullible? OR
Are the Alarmists, the true climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?

Point Two. No evidence?

Let's ask the Alarmists where is the evidence that AGW is caused by Carbon Dioxide. I have been asking this question for a decade. There is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emission are causing AGW.There is however evidence from the Vostok Ice Core sample to show that warming precedes rise in atmospheric CO2 by 800 +/-200 years.

So, I suppose we can ask: Are the Alarmists with no evidence just plainly gullible.