In Australia, faulty BoM temperature sensors contribute to “hottest year ever”

“I don’t believe in conspiracies of silence except when it comes to Harvey Weinstein and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.”

“…the Bureau can give us a hottest winter on record, even when there are record snow dumps in the Alps, and record numbers of frosts on the flats.”

BOMBSHELL report from the ever-persistent pit bull down under, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, exposing yet more fraudulent warming bias from Australia’s corrupt Bureau of Meteorology…

Watts Up With That?

More hot days — or “purpose-designed” temperature sensors at play?

Guest essay by Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, republished from the Australian Spectator with permission from the author.

I don’t believe in conspiracies of silence except when it comes to Harvey Weinstein and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

For some time, weather enthusiasts have been noticing rapid temperature fluctuations at the ‘latest observations’ page at the Bureau’s website. For example, Peter Cornish, a retired hydrologist, wrote to the Bureau on 17 December 2012 asking whether the 1.5 degrees Celsius drop in temperature in the space of one minute at Sydney’s Observatory Hill, just the day before, could be a quirk of the new electronic temperature sensors. Ken Stewart, a retired school principal, requested temperature data for Hervey Bay after noticing a 2.1 degrees Celsius temperature change in the space of one minute on 22 February 2017.

In both cases, the Bureau assured…

View original post 1,046 more words

Advertisements

UNMASKING The Great Arctic Sea-Ice “Death Spiral” Scam

afp_g38de

More scientific evidence that polar bears are doing just fine – a 30% increase in population with some of them “as fat as pigs.”

CONTRARY to popular myth, Arctic sea ice extent is not in a “death spiral“. In fact, there has been no real shrinking of Arctic sea ice in 10 years, which also corresponds to the fact that there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for nearly 20 years.

ALL this despite record “CO2” emissions over the same period, and record hot air bloviated by the trillion dollar climate crisis industry.

THE following is a remarkable post by Tony Heller from his Deplorable Climate Science Blog showing just how corrupt and politicised the “science” of the Arctic has become via the fake-news media and – sadly – from many our most respected scientific institutions including, yes, NASA…


More Spectacular Arctic Fraud At The New York Times

 

The New York Times just published another fake climate article – this time about the Arctic.  They start the article with the claim that satellites were first used to study the Arctic in 1979.

 

Given that we traveled to the moon in 1969, it is absurd to suggest that satellites weren’t used to study the Arctic before 1979. Here is a 1964 satellite image of the Arctic which was published in National Geographic in 1965.

 

Here is a detailed National Geographic Arctic sea ice map from 1971.

 

Here is a detailed satellite image of Antarctica from 1976, also published in National Geographic.

 

The 1990 IPCC report included NOAA Arctic satellite data back to 1973, when it was much lower than 1979.

 

In a spectacular display of scientific malpractice,  NOAA now hides all of the pre-1979 peak Arctic sea ice data. By starting right at the peak, they produce a fake linear downwards trend.

 

This 1985 DOE climate change report had Arctic data back to 1925, which showed little ice from the 1930s to the 1950s.

So why did the New York Times cherry pick 1979 as their start date? Because it came at the end of three of the coldest US winters on record , and Arctic sea ice was at a century peak. The graph below combines the 1985 DOE graph with the 1990 IPCC graph.

If the New York Times authors had bothered to research their own paper, they could have found this out for themselves. It was very warm in the Arctic in 1958

 

Three years later, the New York Times reported a unanimous consensus that earth was cooling.

 

By 1970, the Arctic climate was becoming more frigid, the ice was getting “ominously thicker” – and scientists were worried about a new ice age.

 

The polar ice cap had expanded 12% by 1975, after shrinking 12% before 1958. Icelandic ports were blocked with ice for the first time in the 20th century.

By hiding all the data before the 1979 peak, the New York Times is defrauding its readers. Arctic climate is cyclical – not linear.

Ninety-five years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.

 

 

 

 

Eighty years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.

 

Sixty five years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.

 

Then the New York Times  went on to obscure their graph (below) to hide the fact that there has been a large increase in minimum extent since 2012. Note the “End of summer minimum” label is at the 2012 minimum – not the 2017 minimum.

 

The Arctic minimum extent has been increasing for a decade. The New York Times doesn’t want their readers to know this.

 

The New York Times is defrauding their readers at many levels. It is the fake news we have learned to expect from them.

More Spectacular Arctic Fraud At The New York Times | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

•••

See also :

The Other (Inconvenient) Pole :

Global Warming “Pause” Related :

97% Of Climate Scientists Got it Wrong About Effects Of Global Warming, related :


Simon Holmes à Court – Wind Weasel

SimonHolmesSM (1).jpg

Simon Holmes a Court’s Hepburn operation is yet to return a cent to its eco-gullible investors.

Few things are so deadly as a misguided sense of compassion.” – Charles Colson


What “Community” Wind Farms are really like

Via StopTheseThings :

As STT readers know all too well – the wind weasel is low.  But the lowest of the low are those kings of smarm that promote and run so called “Community” wind farms.

Australia has its own “community” wind farm at Leonard’s Hill in Victoria.

Known as “Hepburn Wind”, it was set up by a bunch of smart Alecs who pulled up in Mercs and Beemers one day and decided to impose their brand of “groovy” corporate tyranny on a tight-knit little community who had no idea what was coming.

The people behind it couldn’t care less about the impact on ordinary people – they’re “saving the planet” – and the suffering of those trying to live next to their little monuments is a sacrifice that the backers are more than willing to make – of course they are – they all live in plush digs in the quiet, leafy suburbs of Melbourne, 120km away.

If you think the stories of Hepburn Wind’s victims are any less tragic than the stories at Fairhaven, think again.  Here are just two of the many tragic victims at Leonard’s Hill.

These long suffering souls have Simon Holmes a Court to thank for their endless, daily misery.

Simon has been running around like the proverbial headless chook over the last couple of months.  Apparently, Simon is very worried about what a Coalition government will do for his plans for another “Community” wind farm.

He’s had a go at trying to ingratiate himself with SA’s favourite Greek, Nick Xenophon and – when his smarmy overtures failed – he resorted to veiled threats about what opposing wind power would mean to Nick’s political future. Nick politely showed him the door.

We guess the “threat” took the form of lining up with Vestas and Co to pour $millions into the Green’s efforts to unseat Nick to help save ex-Martian, Sarah Hanson-Young.  Nice try – it wasn’t money well spent –  Sarah’s got a date with the political dustbin on Saturday.

Not content with that little effort, Slimin’ Simon has tried to worm his way into the long suffering Macarthur community.  He was all “sweetness and light” in his correspondence with Annie Gardner – Simon wanted to “visit” so he could “experience” what it was like to live next a “real” wind farm.

The ploy lasted just as long as it took Annie to rumble him and put terms to him about his “visit” that included making sure he came with Liberal MPs, Craig Kelly, Chris Back and Angus Taylor in tow – and that there would be full media coverage, including Graham Lloyd from The Australian – for the duration of his “farm stay”.

Needless to say, Simon has gone quiet on that score.

STT has a tip for our Macarthur readers – if he turns up – lock the doors and windows.  He’ll eventually go away.

And STT has a couple of tips for Simon – worry less about your plans to put together another community atrocity – and worry more about what happens when the Coalition starts investigating the REC fraud.

The Clean Energy Regulator might be sitting on their hands at the minute, but give it a week or two.  The new head boy has already signalled he’s not going to turn a blind eye to REC fraud.  And STT hears the REC fraud story is about to run in a number of major papers. But remember folks – you heard it here first.

Hepburn Wind is in the same league as Acciona’s Waubra wind farm.  STT’s seen work from independent acoustic experts that shows Hepburn’s operation does not and can not comply with the noise conditions of its planning consent.  Collecting RECs when in breach of State law – for eg, the noise conditions of a planning consent – is unlawful.

So, Simon – you might want to worry more about chickens coming home to roost at Hepburn –  rather than running about like one with its head removed – using your considerable “charm” to pressure Senators and MPs, and trying to inveigle yourself at Macarthur.

Simon – the “game” is over – after Saturday, the grown ups will be back in charge.  The end is nigh.

•••

Fuel Poverty (RET) Related :

World Coal-Fired Power Surge Related :

Unreliable Energy Related :


Met Office Falsify Data To Prove “Hottest Bank Holiday”

YET another example of why – sadly – government climate agencies, like the UK Met Office, BoM, CSIRO, NASA and NOAA, who have been captured by the radical environmental movement, cannot be trusted on anything “climate change” or “global warming” or whatever name beats their PR departments alarmist drum the hardest.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

https://twitter.com/metoffice/status/902088907654914049

This is quite an amazing piece of evidence that the UK Met Office are actively involved in defrauding the public.

The above tweet was published early this morning, forecasting the day’s weather (Aug 28th).

Note that the record to beat was 28.3C.

A few hours later they triumphantly sent this tweet:

image

https://twitter.com/metoffice/status/902212321103290368

Miraculously, the previous record temperature dropped by 1.1C!

Is it surprising that nobody trusts official Met Office data any more?

The lengths that the Met Office, NOAA, GISS etc go to in order to distort the truth should surprise none of us now.

But this latest piece of fraud really does take the biscuit, as  many commenters have spotted.

image

https://twitter.com/balinteractive/status/902238903050137604

View original post


THE “97%” Climate Consensus Lie Nailed

97_percent_busted.jpg

ALEX EPSTEIN, author of the New York Times best-selling book “The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels” brilliantly and succinctly lays out why the much touted “97% of climate scientists agree” meme, amounts to nothing more than clever PR and propaganda used by climate alarmists to promote the Left’s pet environmental/political cause – “man-made global warming climate change”…

Before you view Alex’s terrific 4:36min presentation, ask yourself how plausible a 97% consensus of any belief or argument really is, without it having been subject to bogus and deceitful manipulation.

  • How many elections are won by a 97% majority?
  • 100% of doctors believed passive smoking caused cancer until that theory was quashed.
  • 100% of doctors believed cholesterol was deadly until recently.
  • If 97% of Meteorologists can’t predict the weather next week, why do 97% of climate experts alarmists think that they can predict the climate 100 years from now?

Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.

•••

These 30,000+ “scientists” weren’t sucked in by the “97%” climate consensus hoax…

petition-warming-screenshot.jpg

31,487 Sigs (9,029 PHD’s) Global Warming Petition Project

The “97%” Hoax Related :

consensus-peer-review-climate.gif


Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Government Climate Data

THE emperor really has no clothes!

Earlier this week we learned Michael Mann and his fraudulent Hockey Stick have been slapped down in a Canadian court. Mann was ordered to produce the data on which his fake claim was based (as good science demands). He refused the request and Contempt of Court charges will follow!

Add EPA Pruitt’s “red team” to the mix and the house of climate cards is looking like a dangerous place to reside!

Don’t expect the Goebbels Media to utter a peep about any of this.

Watts Up With That?

Cartoon by Josh at cartoonsbyjosh.com

Guest essay by Michael Bastasch

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming…

View original post 719 more words


Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy

Surprise, surprise again…

“Press officers work with scientists within agencies like the National Oceanic Administration (NOAA) and NASA and are responsible for crafting misleading press releases on climate, he added.”

Watts Up With That?

by Chris White

A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.

“What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print is that it actually decreased in…

View original post 244 more words