Final proof that “New ‘scientist'” is just a political campaigning rag mag?


I saw this article appear on

Resisting Trump: How women can protect reprod­uctive rights New Scientist THE Climate forecast for the next four years is bleak. Donald Trump notori­ously tweeted in 2012 that global warming was a hoax created by China to damage US manufac­turing. As president-​elect, he has chosen a climate change denialist to head the … and more »

When I clicked on the link it took me to a redirect page (suggesting the original article had been removed) which then took me to this article:

Resisting Trump: How scientists can fight a climate witch-hunt

Anyone group of idiots abusing science to push their politics is not going to be happy in 1day 22hours and 34minutes.

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

1 day to go till T-Day

OK, it’s 1day 23 hours and 57 minutes … but who’s counting?

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

PPI, PFI & now the scandal of wind

PPI was a scheme where companies sold financial products to individuals knowing that many would be unable to claim under the terms of the product. PFI, is a scheme whereby government put government borrowing off the government accounts by agreeing to “borrow” money in the third hand way, by getting private companies to do the borrowing and then agreeing to pay the “interest” at extortionate rates (in the guise of rent for the hospitals, schools, etc.)

Now the GWPF and an article by Stop These Things have exposed the £300billion cost of wind. But what even they are only just starting to realise is just how obscene and anti-democratic the whole scam has been:

The report, which is based entirely on official figures, exposes the mischievous attempts by ministers to try and disguise the true cost to households.

“Hardly anyone in Westminster is aware of this even though it is more than double the cost of HS2, Heathrow and Hinckley put together.

How did they get away with such eye-watering costs (£5000 per person) with absolutely no real public scrutiny and except for the GWPF and people like myself? (e.g. Andrew Montford, Josh, Lord Monckton and many other individuals)

The answer is simple, like PFI, the way wind is financed  is done in a way that neither the parliaments who agree to it, nor the individuals who pay for the extortionate waste of money, ever actually see as an obvious cost to them. Instead, the cost is nominally born by the electricity companies – but in a way that there is absolutely no competitive advantage in telling the consumer why their bills are going up.

Indeed, like oil companies – electricity companies just love the scam because it drives up costs. That’s because, it’s done in a way where the consumer has no choice (you can’t avoid it by changing company) and as such every company is putting up prices. And because we are far less aware of a 1p on a £2 litre of petrol than a 1p on a 50p litre of petrol electricity companies can cream off more the higher government makes the cost of energy. So they just love energy prices going up – when it’s done in a way that means every company’s prices go up the same amount.

So, just as the oil companies get a higher profit when government tax raises petrol costs, likewise, electricity companies make more money when government forces up the cost of electricity to pay for all those damned bird and bat mincers.

So the consumer never gets told why our bills are going up – “it’s the price of energy deary – is about all most people know”. But …. and here’s the real scam …. because the eye-watering sums going into the pockets of evil wind scammers isn’t a government tax …. there is never any reason for politicians to discuss the obscene and immoral costs or its affects on fuel poverty. BECAUSE IT’S NOT THEIR PROBLEM.

And because the cost is not one politicians are forced to discuss as part of the government budget – the media don’t have a yearly ritual of reminding everyone just how expensive all these government policies are to us personally. And because so many like the BBC are blatant liars on climate – very few people know the truth horrific costs of this obscene policy.

Until the cost of these obscene policies is part of the government budget as it clearly should be no government will ever be held to account.


That is the real scandal of wind. Not only is the cost of wind destroying our economy by rising electricity costs, not only is it destroying our scenery and killing wildlife, but it is massively increasing the public debt … but like PFI, that debt does not officially belong to “the government”. Instead, they have effectively signed each of us up to a PPI contract – for a product that has no benefit to use – and like PFI it has an eye-watering publically unaccountable cost (£5000 for each of us). This massive debt, doesn’t appear on government accounts, it doesn’t appear on your own personal accounts, it isn’t even part of electricity company accounts. It is a massive black hole in the accounting system of £300billion  – instead it is a debt we will only be aware exists as our energy costs increase and our economic competitiveness falls.

The problem of bringing these PFI and wind costs back into government accounts

As it was the last Labour government who not only so appalling managed the official government debt, but also massively increased it through PFI and wind who are to blame, it would seem pretty easy for the May government to do the honourable thing and bring these costs back onto government books so that they can be examined by parliament as they must.

However, as the BBC and other fifth columnist media outlets were pushing for these treacherous policies in the first place, there is no doubt that they will do all they can to pin the blame on those who are not actually responsible. Instead, all the public will hear from these evil and loathsome media outlets is that the Tories “government debt has gone up by 100s of billions”.

As such, these “off-book” costs need to brought back into accountability in such a way that they do not feed the media parasites of our civilised society.

Therefore I suggest that they are included in future budgets as a separate figure perhaps “unofficial” or “off book” debt. I would also like to see an act of parliament requiring all such debts to be reported in government accounts and for them to be part of any budget.

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

Guardian’a mind meltdown to mush

I’m not sure at one point I stopped caring what the Guardian wrote. I think it was quite a long time before they finally banned my comments (for repeating that there had been no warming and all the models got it wrong … time and time and time again). What I remember was the sense of relief that I need no longer waste my time on the ridiculous student rag.

But increasingly I now find myself drawn to the Guardian purely for the comedy. Take their latest headline:

Prepare for reanimation of the zombie myth ‘no global warming since 2016’

Apparently it has something to do with the cooling since last year’s El Nino… but how do they link it with Zombies? You’ve got to hand it to them, they sure can make me laugh!


Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

A quick summary of “global warming” & Climate Change

This is a quick summary of global warming and climate change I prepared to help someone with their school project.

What is Climate Change & Global Warming

Climate change refers to any change of the climate including getting wetter or more wind. The world’s climate is constantly changing. Likewise, “Global warming” refers to one aspect of climate change: periods of increasing temperature. So there have been many periods of global warming. It has warmed since the last ice age, it has warmed since the little ice age (in 19th century). But in the last 19 years the satellites show no significant warming. And indeed in 2017 we saw huge global cooling as we came out of an El Nino. So “global warming ” is scientifically a very meaningless term without specifying the period you are referring to.

Whilst “Global warming” can refer to any period during which the earth has seen warming, it’s main use now, tends to be in the political arena where it is used to refer to the 20th century warming and the POLITICAL implication (which is not scientifically valid) that this “unprecedented” warming was caused by rising levels of CO2 and more specifically that this change will continue. However only a small fraction of the warming can be attributed directly to rising CO2, and most of the proposed warming is due to other feedback effects. These are highly speculative and at best unproven.

CO2 Warming

However, it is generally agreed the average temperature of the earth likely warmed in the 20th century, but that was a period when we came out of what was called the “little ice-age”. There is good science to suggest a fraction of the warming was due to a rise in CO2.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, because it strongly absorbs and emits infra-red radiation (IR). As such, it tends to block IR from the surface which is at one temperature and emit IR at the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere and because the atmosphere gets cooler as we move up from the surface, more CO2 tends to block more IR from the surface and emit it from higher in the atmosphere at a colder temperature. So, the average temperature of the IR reduces, which means that less heat is emitted to space. And because less heat is emitted, the average surface temperature increases. However, this effect is small amounting to only a 1C increase for a doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Climate Change & Global Warming in context

However, there are many other things that cause temperature to change from the amount of cloud, to volcanos to changes in ocean currents. As a result the world’s temperature varies naturally.

But not only temperature changes. Climate change refers to any change of the climate including getting wetter or more wind. The world’s climate is constantly change. So, “Global warming” refers to just one aspect of climate change.

But the earth’s climate is constantly changing and so there have been many periods of global warming. It has warmed since the last ice age, it warmed since the little ice age (19th century). But in the last 19 years the satellites show no significant warming. And indeed in 2017 we saw huge global cooling as we came out of an El Nino.

But whilst “Global warming” can refer to any period during which the earth has seen warming, in the popular press and less respected areas of academia, it is now used in a political way to refer to the 20th century warming to suggest it was caused by rising levels of CO2 and more specifically that this change will continue. However only a small fraction of the warming can be attributed directly to rising CO2, and most of the proposed warming is due to feedback effects which are highly speculative and unproven.

It is generally agreed we warmed in the 20th century by about 0.75C, but that was a period when we came out of what was called the “little ice-age” so it started “unusually” cold. But there is good science to suggest a fraction of the warming was due to a rise in CO2. However, the longest temperature record from Central England also shows several similar scale warming periods in the last 350 years. Indeed the warming from 1690 to 1730 of about 2C was larger than the 20th century warming.

As no one attributes the 1690-1730 warming to CO2 and instead we assume that it and the other similar scale warming periods are due to “natural variation”, we know there is significant natural variation such that all the warming in the 20th century could be explained by natural variation.

On the other hand, ice-core records show an increase in CO2 at the time when ice-ages end. Many have taken this to suggest that there is some form of “positive feedback” that increases the small amount of warming that science predicts rising CO2 will cause. In other words, if CO2 directly caused 1C warming, they are suggesting there are other “effects” that must cause much more warming. However, there are also problems with this idea because CO2 lags the rise in temperature in the ice-core record – so rising CO2 appears to be caused by Temperature. However, we cannot be absolutely certain that air bubbles do not move very slowly through the ice which means cause and effect is hard to determine. Also, if there were massive positive feedbacks, why would the relatively sudden rise in temperature coming out of the ice-age stop? Surely if “global warming” could cause catastrophic warming today, then surely it would have happened when we warmed after the last ice-age. Something appears to make our present inter-glacial period relatively stable preventing further warming.

All we can say honestly

All that we can really say honestly, is that we still do not know how the climate works, and there is a huge amount of uncertainty. So, the only real test of whether rising CO2 (with positive feedbacks) would lead to massive warming is whether models predict what is happening in the climate. However, whilst the IPCC using this theory predicted at least 0.14C rise in temperature per decade, this did not occur in any of the temperature measurements predicted to rise. Indeed, the satellite temperature record shows no significant warming for 19 years. And note, the satellite measurement was introduced at great expense because of the known problems with surface based measurements. (E.g. there is no measurements from central Africa or central S.America and much of the sea area is unmeasured).

So, (unless we see a massive rise in temperature soon), the models predicting temperature rise now appear to be invalid. In other words, the speculation that there are positive feedbacks has not proven to be correct.

Why is Global warming called a hoax

Because of the difference between the serious scientific uncertainty and the popular certainty and lack of scientific rigour, many people call global warming a “hoax”. This is not to deny that the earth warms and cools regularly, because that would obviously be scientifically invalid. Instead it is a criticism of those that pick out just one such period of warming and suggest that this one is special and means the earth will continue warming. It is also a criticism of the lack of scientific rigour of many academics and researchers who fail to acknowledge that the 19 years without significant warming in the satellite record is strong evidence that their theory is invalid. It is certainly not proof in “global warming”!

It is also criticism of those like NASA who are constantly changing the data from their ground based measurements so as to suggest warming where there has been none. For example, all the warming since 1940 in the NASA temperature record is due to their adjustment of the data. So to suggest this adjusted data “proves” global warming is politically inspired non-science.

Is warming really a problem?

Throughout the world today, more people die from cold than heat (according to an article in the doctors magazine the Lancet). The figure in the UK is around 37,000 extra winter deaths each year and even in hot places like India there are more winter deaths. In the UK, winter deaths reduce in mild winters. We also know that many crops have to be grown in greenhouses in higher temperatures. So, it is not surprising that we expect to get huge benefits from a small increase in temperature. For example, northern countries like Scotland could do particularly well out of any warming because it would dramatically increase the growing season.

But at around 2C many academics postulate that the scale of predicted harm becomes significant, such that they predict that there will be net harm if the temperature rose higher. This is a difficult figure to quantify and being subjective the calculations are likely to be affected by the individuals views. But in effect the change is as if everyone moved a few hundred miles closer the equator. In the UK, it is like moving to Spain – and as many UK residents retire to Spain – they clearly see the higher temperature as beneficial. No one argues that at some temperature the bet harm will exceed the net benefits, but again, no one really knows whether it is 2C or 4C or indeed 6C warmer. All we do know, is that the world has been a lot warmer in the past and e.g. in the carboniferous with higher levels fo CO2, the world’s plants and animals seems to have flourished.

Is CO2 a problem on its own

The other thing worth mentioning is that rising CO2 also has an effect. As a plant food it is literally causing a “greening of the planet” particularly in dry areas. On the other hand, a rise in CO2 will change the PH of the oceans REDUCING the alkalinity of the water slightly (approximately the same scale as occurs naturally between day  and night). Moreover, in periods such as the carboniferous when CO2 levels were much higher than today, there seems to have been no ill effects on plant or animal life.


Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

ARghhhhh! 12 more hours with Obama!!

As the whole of the arena of climate is about to be overturned when Trump becomes president, there seemed to be little to say except to repeat the countdown.

Then I realised something was odd – and I tracked the problem to the time which I’d put in as 5AM not 5PM.

That however, means I have to endure 12 more hours of the most anti-science US president the world has ever seen.

So now instead of waking up to the beginning of a new era of science on the 20th, I’ll have to wait till 5pm.

Posted in Climate | 3 Comments

A triple hit for alarmists: Trump, La Nina and AMO

For some time, I’ve been using the assumption that there’s an approximately 60 year long cycle in the climate corresponding to the AMO (Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation). This is not so much because I have a high confidence there is a connection between global temperature & AMO, but instead because there isn’t much else that is predictable. So whilst my confidence in a connection is perhaps only 50%, and because we can largely ignore CO2 and because we have no other predictable climate changes, the decline in global temperature that is suggested by AMO whilst far from certain is the best guess of future change we have. To some figures on the cooling, when I last checked, it looked like the peak in AMO warming should have been around 2010. As such, we’ve been rather overdue for cooling, which should reach a maximum rate of cooling in 2025 and reach another low around 2040. (Perhaps up to 0.5C cooler than today)

Then we had Trump.

But before Trump we had the El Nino – with it’s predictable rise in global temperature. And even more predictably, the vile alarmists claimed it proved global warming was happening (and not all of them could have been totally ignorant that the rise was highly predictable from El Nino). But after El Nino … we tend to get La Nina and with La Nina we get global cooling (for which the alarmists have no answer except to try to ignore it).

Then I came across an article on warwickhughes. A string of spotless days on ole Sol. So, at first the warwickhughes “article” (~27 words) appeared to be just another comment on Sun Spots:

From 2nd to 9th Jan so far and SILSO has New ‘Spotless days’ page with several graphics to ponder.

And yes, many suggest a link between Sun Spots and climate, and I think it is a viable hypothesis. But I’ve yet to see a predictable link. So I’m interested, willing to consider the idea, but still waiting to see anything approaching positive preditive confirmation of the link.

However … unexpectedly the warwickhughes article went on:

OT but the SOI is nudging positive too.

SOI means Southern Oscillation Index, and it is one of the metrics that tell us something about the El Nino/La Nina/Enso cycle. Here is a graph of some recent values which unfortunately doesn’t include the recent 2016 peak of El Nino, but if it did, the value of SOI would be negative. (Note it varies around 20-30 either side of the axis).

Source AGBM

Source AGBM

Continue reading

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

10 days till T-day

or a scam built on nothing but hot air and fraudulent data, what surprises me, is the total lack of understanding from the alarmists as to how Trump can so easily destroy the monster.

Instead, we’ve had articles like one from “Mother f*cking Jones” about how difficult it will be for Trump to destroy Obama’s legacy – by which they assume Trump will attack the government actions taken in response to the supposed “science”. Because these scientifically illiterate journalists are clueless how flimsy the foundations of the scam are. They just don’t seem to understand is that the natural climate denying  “science” is the soft underbelly of the global warming scam. But does Trump?

To be fair to MFJ, Trump will  undoubtedly target the ridiculous spending on climate non-science. What is less certain is that he will also target the non-science.

So, until we start to see how Trump’s administration acts, we will not know whether  Trump will be sending a well aimed bullet direct at the head of the denialist monster and destroying it – or whetehr he will be blindly lashing out like a blind man, and merely cutting the tentacles, leaving the monster largerly unscathed and just making it more cross and more determined to carry on.

But whether by intention and his direct action – or just by creating the environment in which others can act to force through investigations, I’ve little doubt that Trump’s election heralds the end of the climate scam.


Posted in Climate | 5 Comments

May 2016 was El Nino Max, October 2017 should be another Minimum

Now that UAH have updated their global temperature graph we can see that the 13 month average has now started to drop:maxThis suggests that May 2016 was the peak and that this peak was ~0.05C warmer than the 1998 peak. This suggests around 0.3C warming per a century.uah_lt_1979_thru_december_2016_v6I think we can safely say that there is no evidence of a crisis – except for those who make a living by falsely asserting there is a crisis.

However, now we have a peak, because in 1998 it took around 17 months to reach a minimum, then if it now follows a similar trajectory, this suggests global temperatures will keep cooling until +/- a couple of months around October 2017

It’s also possible to compare the rate of cooling: and this month is now about 18% more cooling from the peak than occurred in 1998. However the noise is so large relative to the signal that this is best interpreted as “2016 is cooling at faster rate, but not a significantly different rate than 1998″.

Putting this all together, my best estimate is that the 13 month average mean will be back floating around the axis around October this year.

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

Where’s the global temperature – Is it massive December cooling?

A long time ago, as I watched HADCRUT3 global temperature, I began to realise that whenever the month was particularly cold globally, that the release of that information would be delayed.

Today, I realised when discussing temperature, that I hadn’t heard anything of the usual “warmest evah” for 2016 nor had anyone reported on the latest temperature for December.

So, thinking I must have missed it, I went to search – but nothing can be found.


  1. Everyone got so drunk over Xmas/Newyear that they are incapable of producing the temperature.
  2. There’s been a massive rise in temperature – but they don’t want to spoil the festive season for us sceptics.
  3. There’s been a massive cooling of the temperature due to the La Nina conditions, and as I learnt from HADCRUT3, they are already planning a massive publicity campaign to try to avert the PR disaster.

So, it’s not impossible we’ve had a massive cooling in December, which could well knock 2016 off the “Warmest evah” perch.

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment