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

Guardian Jump On The Extreme Weather Bandwagon Again

“What is sad about these pathetic little attempts to blame everything on global warming is that they stop us having a balanced and objective debate on the subject.”

Spot on Paul. Great post. Cheers

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/27/meteorologists-are-seeing-global-warmings-effect-on-the-weather

The Guardian have dredged up a US meteorologist, Paul Douglas, to come up with a list of “extreme” weather events, which he then uses to claim that climate change is making worse.

Whatever happened to normal weather? Earth has always experienced epic storms, debilitating drought, and biblical floods. But lately it seems the treadmill of disruptive weather has been set to fast-forward. God’s grandiose Symphony of the Seasons, the natural ebb and flow of the atmosphere, is playing out of tune, sounding more like a talent-free second grade orchestra, with shrill horns, violins screeching off-key, cymbal crashes coming in at the wrong time. Something has changed.

Let’s start by looking at some of his claims:

A warmer atmosphere is increasing water vapor levels overhead, juicing storms, fueling an increase in flash floods in the summer, and heavier winter snows along the East Coast of the USA…

View original post 1,118 more words


Leo Takes Private Jet To Collect Environmental Award!

What matters is seeming green, not actually doing it.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

Leo DiCaprio picked up an environmental award in NYC this week — but hypocritically expanded his carbon footprint by 8,000 miles when he obtained the honor, by taking a private jet from Cannes, then flying straight back to France on another jet for a model-packed fund-raiser a night later.

DiCaprio was at the Cannes Film Festival this week, and was spotted there partying at club Gotha on Monday with model Georgia Fowler, then jetted back to New York for the Riverkeeper Fishermen’s Ball at Chelsea Piers on Wednesday, where he was honored by the clean-water advocacy group and Robert De Niro.

Just 24 hours later, DiCaprio reappeared back in France for amfAR’s glitzy Cinema Against AIDS gala, where he gave a speech.

http://pagesix.com/2016/05/20/hypocrite-leo-takes-private-jet-to-collect-green-award/

View original post


Climate Craziness of the Week: Aussie Artists bag $10,000 Public Grant to Attack Christmas Climate Waste

The Green-Left despises the freedom that nurtures them. They have little notion of the hardships in store for them if they succeed in strangling it.

Watts Up With That?

Screen shot of a publicly funded Sydney sex clown attacking Christmas and Climate Change Public money at work – Screen shot of a publicly funded Sydney sex clown attacking Christmas and Climate Change

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A group of Sydney artists have collected $10,000 of public money, to perform a single showing of a play which featured a sex clown attacking the negative impact of Christmas on the global climate.

According to The Daily Telegraph;

SYDNEY Lord Mayor Clover Moore has slugged already hard-up ratepayers a whopping $10,000 to fund a controversial left-wing review that attacked Christmas as being bad for the environment.

The show, called Climate Change Variety Hour, was performed in front of tiny audience of just 70 people at Sydney University on Saturday night.

The poor turnout means Ms Moore spent about $142 of ratepayers’ cash per audience member.

One of the acts featured a ­bizarre performance by a near-naked “sex clown”.

Read more (paywalled): The Daily Telegraph

Link…

View original post 75 more words


People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception

Dr. Tim Ball must read via WUWT :


“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
“There’s nothing we can do to stop it (climate change). Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”

Watts Up With That?

Update: A guest post response, along with a comment from me has been posted, please see A big (goose) step backwards

Guest Opinion: Dr.Tim Ball

Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? Some skeptics seem to believe it is just poor quality scientists, who don’t understand physics, but that doesn’t explain the amount, and obviously deliberate nature, of what has been presented to the public. What motive would you give, when asked?

The first step in understanding, is knowledge about how easily large-scale deceptions are achieved. Here is an explanation from one of the best proponents in history.

“All this…

View original post 1,859 more words


How Did The IPCC’s Alarmism Take Everyone In For So Long?

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to 
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC 
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of 
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

Screen Shot 2014-04-07 at , April 7, 10.47.44 pm

Award winning author and Telegraph reporter Christopher Booker sums up the great global warming hoax, and how we have been so ingeniously suckered in by that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which..will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group.

via The Telegraph :

How did the IPCC’s alarmism take everyone in for so long?

Climate scaremongers are still twisting the evidence over global warming

4:16PM BST 05 Apr 2014

When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. They will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.

They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt. But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group. It had been set up in the 1980s by a small band of politically persuasive scientists who had become fanatically committed to the belief that, because carbon dioxide levels were rising, global temperatures must inevitably follow; an assumption that the evidence would increasingly show was mistaken.

Five times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports – another emerged last week – and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster – hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief “Summary for Policymakers”, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.

Each time it would emerge just how shamelessly these Summaries had distorted the actual evidence, picking out the scary bits, which themselves often turned out not to have been based on proper science at all. The most glaring example was the IPCC’s 2007 report, which hit the headlines with those wildly alarmist predictions that the Himalayan glaciers might all be gone by 2035; that global warming could halve African crop yields by 2050; that droughts would destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest. Not until 2010 did some of us manage to show that each of these predictions, and many more, came not from genuine scientific studies but from scaremongering propaganda produced by green activists and lobby groups (shown by one exhaustive analysis to make up nearly a third of all the IPCC’s sources).

Most of the particularly alarmist predictions came from a report by the IPCC’s Working Group II. This was concerned with assessing the impact on the world of those changes to the climate predicted by the equally flawed computer models relied on by Working Group I, which was charged with assessing the science of climate change. The technical report published last week was its sequel, also from Working Group II, and we can at once see, from its much more cautious treatment of the subjects that caused such trouble last time, that they knew they couldn’t afford any repeat of that disaster.

 

Looking at the Summary for Policymakers, however, we see how the scaremongers are still playing their same old game. On pages 12-14, for instance, they are still trying to whip up fears about extreme weather events, killer heatwaves, vanishing tropical islands, massive crop failures and so on, although little of this is justified by the report itself, and even less by the evidence of the real world, where these things are no more happening as predicted than the temperature rises predicted by their computer models.

This latest report has aroused markedly less excitement than did its hysterical predecessor in 2007. They have cried wolf once too often. The only people still being wholly taken in, it seems – apart from the usual suspects in the media – are all those mindless politicians still babbling on about how in Paris next year they are finally going to get that great global agreement which, if only we put up enough wind farms and taxes, will somehow enable us to stop the climate changing.

They can dream on. But alas, the rest of us must still pay the price for their dreams.

Continue Reading »

•••

See also : 

Related :

Agenda of the United Nations and the Political Elite :

Climatism Related :


30 Years Since Government Climate Experts Said That New York Would Turn Into Florida

Did they predict, by 2010, Florida would turn into New York? http://markwallheiser.photoshelter.com/image/I0000XzNY.usjXhE

Real Science

ScreenHunter_45 Feb. 15 23.58

IDEAS & TRENDS (CONTINUED); A DIRE LONG-RANGE FORECAST By JAMES GLEICK Published: May 12, 1985

Beginning in a decade or two, scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps, raising the level of the seas, flooding coastal areas, eroding the shores and sending salt water far into fresh-water estuaries. Storm patterns will change, drying out some areas, swamping others and generally throwing agriculture into turmoil. Federal climate experts have suggested that within a century the greenhouse effect could turn New York City into something with the climate of Daytona Beach, Fla.

IDEAS & TRENDS (CONTINUED) – A DIRE LONG-RANGE FORECAST – NYTimes.com

View original post