PAR FOR THE COURSE….

Sadly, I haven’t time to dissect properly last night’s Panorama stitch-up about climate change, but it should not go without mention. James Delingpole does a wonderful job here. Suffice it to say that Panorama reporter Tom Heap – laughingly believing he was being objective – deliberately distorted the statements from the “sceptics” he spoke to. In other words, par for the course.

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to PAR FOR THE COURSE….

  1. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Delingpole did a great job with this.  I can’t think of anything else to say except ask that maybe excerpts could be posted here?

       0 likes

  2. DP111 says:

    The socialist EU, and the present USA dominated by socialists, need the money to fund global socialism in the West, as well as the failed states in Africa. It is why all African states and the UN are all for AGW. If they can get an international treaty for the next 50 years, before the Democratic majorities in Congress and Senate vanish, they will have a treaty that will be difficult to reverse. The West will then be locked into a socialist command control economy.

    I believe that this is the reason for the AGW push by the BBC. America’s Congress and the Obama White House, will also use the BP accident in the Gulf to further Cap and trade, and from that a comprehensive AGW international treaty.

    The November elections in the USA are the deadline to which the BBC and the Obama administration are working towards. 

       0 likes

  3. DP111 says:

    The science of Climate is not a science, and is unlikely to be ever a science, as it involves too many ‘sciences’. For a start a real climate scientists would have to be expert in Solar dynamics, planetary mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetics and radiation, oceanography- particularly the thermodynamics of heat exchange in the oceans, and the behaviour of living organisms. Thats for a start.
    Then the interaction, linear and non-linear, time delayed, feedback, noise, etc etc. Can’t see how it can be done.

    Even a committee of experts would be unable to handle it. The only way left is to the take temperature readings and extrapolate.

    Then this set of questions by the BBC is absurd.

    “How certain are you that mankind is warming the climate?”

    “How certain are you that C02 and the other things are greenhouse gases?”

    “How certain are you that we are emitting more CO2 which is one of the greenhouse gases?”

    Who ever asked questions pertaining to science to a group of disparate scientists on matters on which they were not expert? The whole idea of proving a theory on the basis of a questionnaire is ridiculous. Scientists may or may not come to a consensus, but they do not rely on proof on the basis of consensus – cart before the horse.

    The real reason is not the science of AGW that concerns the BBC and governments, but the monies and politics of AGW. They have invested too much political and other capital, for them to let it go, especially as the gains are in trillions in tax levies, and the bonanza of patronage that results from a windfall in taxes. The others reason is that the West will be locked into a command and control, economy for the foreseeable future.

    I sometimes think that AGW is the vehicle for Western socialists to take revenge on the West, and Thatcher and Reagan (and the Vatican) for bringing down their beloved USSR.

       0 likes

    • Chris says:

      Then the interaction, linear and non-linear, time delayed, feedback, noise, etc etc

      This of course means that they also need to be expert statisticians as well!

         0 likes

      • Bupendra Bhakta says:

        Statisticians – quite.  Which is why it beggars belief that the Ministry of Truth at the University of East Anglia did not hire such a person.

           0 likes

  4. Kevin Law says:

    i have spent my whole working life trying to adhere to the scientific methodology i learnt as a student.

    sometimes i have had to reject dearly held therories when it turns out they were not right.

    so it makes me want to punch the wall with frustrations when i see some warmists who call themsleves ‘scientists’ (they are not scientists) parading  themesleves in progs like last nights nights Panorama telling what borders on lies and worse still destroying the repuatation science has.

    as some politicians have proved (Tony Blair) if you keep exaggerating and lying then eventually people stop listening to you. science used to be respected in this country but these climate change fanatics with their half truthjs and lies are destroying its reputation and it will take years to rebuild

    and they are not just taking down themsleves – they are taking down those like me that try to abide by the scientific methodology

       0 likes

  5. MarkE says:

    DP111

    Your first paragraph illustrates perfectly the first lie of the warmists; not only is the science not settled as they claim; the whole subject is too complex and our level of understanding too low for it to be possible to to possess the certainty they so blythly claim.

       0 likes

  6. breakspear says:

    I with the help of other members I have produced a blog that summarises the facts and observations about Climate Change for the Space special interest group of the high IQ society Mensa. Man made CO2 warming is so small that feedback is an irrelevance as feedback is always a fraction of the initial warming, and also like Mars the Earth cools over four times faster than it warms, unlike Venus which has an equilibrium between warming and cooling, or in other words a true Greenhouse effect rather than a molecular one. See the Blog below.

    Global Warming on Mars and Climate Change from Space – Part 1

    Mars Global Surveyor studied the surface of Mars from 1999 to 2006, four Martian years, this coincided with a five and a half year rise in solar activity reaching the Solar Cycle peak in 2002. During a Solar Cycle maximum the Sun irradiates 0.1 percent more energy than at a Solar Cycle minimum, for Mars this means an increase in Global temperature of 0.21 Kelvin in three Martian years. At Perihelion Mars receives 44 percent (6.8 percent for Earth) more radiation than at Aphelion as the orbit of Mars is seven times more eccentric than Earths, a 21 percent eccentricity. Mercury is the only planet to have a more eccentric orbit than Mars. Perihelion occurs during the Southern Summer and ever since the 1830s it has been noted that during warming periods a dark band appears around the periphery of the shrinking polar cap, and with dust storms being more common during this period, this has decreased the Martian Albedo from 0.16 to 0.15 and increased the Martian Global temperature by 0.65 Kelvin. This has also caused more frozen CO2 to melt and turn into gas than usual for three Southern Summers in a row. With 95 percent of the Martian atmosphere made up of CO2 (0.038 percent on Earth) and only 0.03 percent Water vapour (1 percent on Earth). CO2 induced Global Warming is almost an irrelevance for Mars as it is for the Earth, as the CO2 has already absorbed most of the radiation available for absorption. The Warming on Mars raises the average surface temperature by 3 Kelvin to 211 Kelvin from 208 Kelvin. Both Planets can cool much faster than they can warm up, so Mars with almost a 100 percent transparent dry CO2 Atmosphere and without the problems with feedback (other than dust storms) from Water Vapour, Clouds, Oceans or an Atmospheric Mass 2,600 times that of CO2. Then Mars is the perfect example to use to test the theory of CO2 warming on Earth. Mars receives the equivalent of 81.5 percent of the Solar Radiation that the Earth receives. The surface has a 7 millibar CO2 atmosphere (0.39 millibar CO2 atmosphere on Earth). So the equivalent 7 millibar CO2 Atmosphere on Earth would produce a temperature of 3.68 Kelvin. If you deduct the 0.24 Kelvin increase for a doubling of CO2, four times you get 2.72 Kelvin for a 0.4375 millibar Atmosphere. This makes 2.7 Kelvin for a 0.39 millibar Atmosphere. The 2.7 Kelvin includes, 1.2 Kelvin for CO2 absorption only, plus half of the 1.5 Kelvin that CO2 absorption shares with Water vapour. Confirming that the CO2 induced Warming on Earth is about 2 Kelvin, and also four times weaker than on Mars. Confirming the irrelevance of its ability to increase Global temperature much more, even with significant increases in Carbon Dioxide.
    Man made CO2 is natural CO2 which has been fossilised for millions of years and does not have the
    Carbon-14 Isotope. Levels of this Isotope show that 4 percent or 15ppm of the increase in CO2 in over 100 years is due to Man & 85ppm due to Nature, this is also confirmed by the ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 in the Atmosphere. All evidence in Ice core data and direct measurements point to changes in the temperature causing the changes in CO2 levels as on Mars, this increase being due to the 0.76 Kelvin increase in Global Atmospheric temperature over the last 200 year bounce back from the Little Ice Age. But ice core data shows that this is mainly due to the 800 year lag in the changes in deep ocean CO2 levels after the Medieval Warm Period, the ocean contains 93.5 percent of the Earths CO2. The increase has added only 0.1 Kelvin to the 2 Kelvin that CO2 gives to the Warming of the Earths Surface Temperature. This means that man-made CO2 has only increased the Global temperature by 0.015 Kelvin.

       0 likes

  7. breakspear says:

    Global Warming on Mars and Climate Change from Space – Part 2

    The Solar Cycle Amplitude and more importantly the Solar Cycle Length and the Forbush Effect being responsible for the further 0.66 Kelvin increase.

    The largest effect on Climate Change is the Length of the Solar Cycle, short Solar Cycles cause a warming and long Solar Cycles cause a cooling. Between 1913 and 1996, only one of eight Solar Cycles was longer than the mean Solar Cycle length of 11.04 years. The last of these was the shortest Solar Cycle for more than 200 years.
    Short Solar Cycles cause a decrease in cosmic rays when Solar activity is high, decreasing cloud cover and leading to the enhancement of Global Warming on the Earth, a 1 percent decrease in cosmic rays causes a 0.13 Kelvin increase in Global temperature. This is called the Forbush effect and is caused by coronal mass ejections which are ten times more common during Solar maximum and have a ten day period that can be predicted four days before the event. This is carried by the solar wind to the Earth on the Suns magnetic field lines.he changes in the brightness of Neptune correlate with the changes in the Earths Global Surface Temperature.
    A study of Luna Earthshine shows that the Albedo of the Earth decreased from 0.32 in 1985 to 0.29 in 1997 showing a 6.5 percent decrease in cloud cover. The Earths Albedo has since increased to 0.31 showing that 69 percent of solar energy is absorbed, 50 percent by the Surface, 19 percent by the Atmosphere (13.3 percent by Water Vapour, 1.6 percent by Carbon Dioxide and 4.1 percent by Dust, Ozone, Nitrous-Oxide, Methane and other gases). In the last hundred years the Earths Albedo has been as high as 0.44 and as low as 0.29 with an average of 0.36. The Albedo effects the North more than the South because the land snow zone for the south is mainly in the sea.
    Weather from the Sun was first postulated two hundred years ago when William Herschel tried to prove the price of grain was inversely correlated with the sunspot number, which was subsequently proven, the sunspot number being low during the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820) at the end of the Little Ice Age. The sunspot number was close to zero during the earlier Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) during the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, this is also confirmed by tree rings formed at sunspot minimum which have a higher amount of carbon-14 due to the Forbush Effect.
    The enhancing effects of the Albedo changes on the Earth and Mars would more than explain Global Warming on both Planets and would explain why the cause of Global Warming on other Planets is not that definite other than the finding that t
    When the Earths temperature increased, the Atmospheric Water Vapour content increased, but if this increase had been due to CO2 then the Tropospheric temperature would have increased at twice the rate of the Surface temperature increase. This did not happen.
    Over half of all Solar radiation is absorbed by the Earths Oceans which are almost 300 times the mass of the Earths Atmosphere. This helps to regulate the effects of the changes in the Earths climate which then responds to these changes after a five year lag.

    Global Warming peaked in 1998 and ended with the last Solar Cycle peak, and after a five year lag in the Climate. Global Warming finally ended in 2007. As did the increase in Atmospheric Methane. So it seems quite clear that Climate Change is ruled by the Sun.

       0 likes