Let’s Change the Data

In order to persuade the public that global warming is occurring the think-tanks involved in trying to prove their theory right look at the data and see how they can manipulate and change the data in such away that it proves their theory even if the data says something completely different.

The politicians then use this made up crisis to pass legislation for a CO2 emissions tax on your electric service.

 

Here is one such email from these scientists:

 

If The Data Doesn’t Match Their Theory, They Simply Change The Data

If The Data Doesn’t Match Their Theory, They Simply Change The Data

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

<x-flowed>
Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.

So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.

</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\TTHEMIS.xls”

Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\TTLVSO.XLS”

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

Lawrence Solomon
Sunday, Jun. 13, 2010

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Read the rest of this article here

——————————

A Gaggle is not a Consensus by Anthony Watts

consensusYou have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a “consensus” of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe.

We do not seek to make the scientific arguments here (we did that in an earlier letter, sent a couple of months ago), but simply to note that the claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no.

We know of no evidence that any of the “leaders” of the scientific community who signed the letter to you ever asked their memberships for their opinions, before claiming to represent them on this important matter.

We also note that the American Physical Society (APS, and we are physicists) did not sign the letter, though the scientific issues at stake are fundamentally matters of applied physics. You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.

Read the rest of this article here

The Antarctic ‘research’ fiasco – ‘would you, could you, in a boat’?

And this is why we don’t believe in global warming or the resulting carbon tax on American energy…it’s a scam to tax us more and it’s a carefully constructed consensus not a scientific endeavor.

“As we reported previously on WUWT here and here, the saga of the “climate scientists/tourists trapped in ice” continues to fascinate many. Now a second ship has given up on rescue, after the Chinese ship “Snow Dragon” gave up two days ago. The Aurora Australis has abandoned rescue of the trapped Russian “research”vessel in Antarctica and a helicopter evacuation in now being ordered. This episode has taken on a heightened comedic fiasco-like quality.

Now, with such a fantastic failure in full world view, questions are going to start being asked. For example, with advanced tools at their disposal (that Mawson never had) such as near real-time satellite imaging of Antarctic sea ice, GPS navigation, on-board Internet, radar, and satellite communications, one wonders how these folks managed to get themselves stuck at all. Was it simple incompetence of ignoring the signs and data at their disposal combined with “full steam ahead” fever? Even the captain of the Aurora Australis had the good sense to turn back knowing he’d reached the limits of the ship on his rescue attempt. Or, was it some sort of publicity stunt to draw attention? If it was the latter, it has backfired mightily.

One might argue that with photos like the one below, this whole “Spirit of Mawson” research expedition, is little more than a media stunt.”

media

Read more on this story here: Wattsupwiththat.com

Lies my President told me

liesClimate exaggeration and prevarication bring horrid policies and massive wealth redistribution

“Under my plan, if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period. Nothing changes, except your health insurance costs will go down.”

It was just a couple of renegade IRS agents in Cincinnati.

benghaziBenghazi was a spontaneous protest that got out of control in direct response to an inflammatory video posted on the internet.

During September 2012, our rebounding economy created an astonishing 873,000 jobs. And on and on.

If we have learned anything about President Obama and his administration, it is that they are compulsive, practiced prevaricators – determined to advance their agenda of “fundamentally transforming” America and imposing greater government control over our lives, living standards and pursuit of happiness. When caught, they dissemble, say they were “not informed directly,” issue false apologies, or fire back with “What difference, at this point, does it make anyway?!?”

Keep all this in mind when the President and other Washington politicos bring up “dangerous manmade global warming,” insist that we slash fossil fuel use, and tell us we need to give poor countries billions of dollars a year to compensate them for “losses and damages” they incurred due to warming we caused.

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/12/01/lies-my-president-told-me/

Solar Panels Are Pointless For Reducing CO2 Emissions

spoonIf your trying to save money, go off-grid then I say go for it, invest in some solar panels. If your trying to reduce your carbon footprint because you think the earth is warming from fossil fuel CO2 emissions then please listen, DON’T believe the HYPE!

As an example to make my point….Vermonter Bill McKibben was recently quoted in Salon Magazine:

“The roof of my house is covered in solar panels. When I’m home, I’m a pretty green fellow. But I know that that’s not actually going to solve the problem.”

Why would an avid solar panel consumer say such a thing? If you do the math it starts to make a whole lot of sense why him and many others are very clear in just how much solar helps in reducing CO2 emissions and at what cost.

The common buzzword is “sustainability” but if ever there was something that was unsustainable it is in the idea that all residential homes will one day have solar panels on their roofs or receive solar power via solar farms.

In reality the idea is feasible only if  you can convince the tax payer and politician to continuously subsidize solar at a cost of $155,000 per ton of CO2 or in clearer terms, the equivalent of paying $2.00 for every teaspoon of gasoline you put in your cars gas tank. The math on this can be found at this article

Based on this kind of cost solar hasn’t a prayer in being a contributor at any large degree in meaningfully reducing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, ever!

“Bill McKibben’s solar panels in Vermont are indeed avoiding CO2 emissions in Vermont (one of the data points at the far right side of Figure 1), at a cost of around $155,000 per ton CO2. This is equivalent to paying a carbon tax of $2.00 for one teaspoon of gasoline.”

solarSo where have people found the best answer for reducing CO2 emissions? Experts agree that natural gas offers the cleanest fossil fuel option and best bang for the buck in lowering CO2 emissions. Using natural gas and increasing efficiency is mankind’s best option until we perfect fusion, miniature nuclear power and these other more cost effective approaches to clean energy.

It’s an opportunity cost decision, a tax of the equivalent of $2 a teaspoon of gasoline should be rejected by any sane politician or consumer in America. There are better options to reduce CO2 than solar panels.

In summary, man-made CO2 isn’t having any measurably dangerous warming effect on the planet. The push to tax CO2 is a UN agenda 21 mandate that seeks to use environmental issues to bring in socialism into all countries across the globe. You will hear the word “sustainability” being promoted more often and things like solar panels and wind mills are simply greasing the wheels and wills of public opinion to fall in favor with this environmental propaganda.

You can read more about this topic here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/21/do-the-math-solar-panels-and-hockey-sticks/

Electricity Bid helps you find an electric rate and provider to save you money and keep life simple.

Get in touch with us!