The WUWT Hot Sheet for Saturday January 11th, 2014

WUWT_hot_sheet4

Donna needs some help:

Donna LaFramboise has been invited to give a presentation to the Environment and Climate Change Committee in London and has today written a column asking for some help in covering the costs (they won’t even cover her return flight!) She has been a good contributor to this debate for 5 years now, and I think there may be a tipping point approaching in England on the political aspects of this fight, so I suspect that her testimony will be very helpful. I am sure the many WUWT readers would like to help if they were made aware of her upcoming testimony in the WUWT main blog in some way.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/01/10/five-years-later/

She’s paying her own way. Hit her tip jar please. – Anthony  h/t Lance Wallace

=============================================================

Spain cutting its “guaranteed for 25 years” subsidy to solar electric producers, leaving them in financial distress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/world/europe/spains-solar-pullback-threatens-pocketbooks.html?ref=science&_r=0

They’re even taxing producers for the electricity they produce and consume themselves (the “sun tax”)

h/t Quinn

============================================================

‘Storms’ link to climate change uncertain – Met Office’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25675937

h/t shadrach

============================================================

Good, lengthy article about Lindzen at the Weekly Standard:

What Catastrophe?
MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist
JAN 13, 2014, VOL. 19, NO. 17 • BY ETHAN EPSTEIN

…”When you first meet Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, leading climate “skeptic,” and all-around scourge of James Hansen, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and sundry other climate “alarmists,” as Lindzen calls them, you may find yourself a bit surprised. If you know Lindzen only from the way his opponents characterize him—variously, a liar, a lunatic, a charlatan, a denier, a shyster, a crazy person, corrupt—you might expect a spittle-flecked, wild-eyed loon. But in person, Lindzen cuts a rather different figure. With his gray beard, thick glasses, gentle laugh, and disarmingly soft voice, he comes across as nothing short of grandfatherly.

…Lindzen is no shrinking violet. A pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard and MIT, Lindzen sees his discipline as being deeply compromised by political pressure, data fudging, out-and-out guesswork, and wholly unwarranted alarmism. In a shot across the bow of what many insist is indisputable scientific truth, Lindzen characterizes global warming as “small and .  .  . nothing to be alarmed about.” In the climate debate—on which hinge far-reaching questions of public policy—them’s fightin’ words.”….

Read more

Full Article here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html#

h/t donpenim

=============================================================

The goal posts for the falsification of the climate models are being moved considerably by David Kennedy during a UK Parliament Committee hearing, Wednesday 8 January 2014:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/1/8/deben-and-kennedy-sinking-fast.html

Starting at 10:20:20 in the video recording, Kennedy claims that the models do not involve short times scales under 50 years. Up til now the time window for falsification of the models was after all supposed to be 17 years (per Santer):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/19/santers-17-years-needed-for-a-sign-of-climate-change-compared-against-the-ipcc-models/

h/t Pethefin

=============================================================

Questions about the link between flooding in the UK and climate change could be answered within two years, according to a leading scientist.

Prof Myles Allen from Oxford University said the only thing holding back the work was the lack of investment.

Around £10m a year would provide a real time attribution system on the role of humans in extreme weather.

He said it was a “scandal” that the public should be denied clarity on this issue.

Scientists are notoriously cautious about linking single weather events, such as the recent storms and flooding in the UK, to rising global temperatures.

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote

The public is paying that money in the name of doing something about climate change, they deserve to know what climate change is doing to them”

Prof Myles Allen
Oxford University
Researchers can discern a human fingerprint in extreme weather, but it has required huge amounts of computing power to calculate all the possible outcomes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25684933

h/t WillR

==============================================================

It’s Really, Really Cold. It Must Be Global Warming

  • Date: 11/01/14 Kevin Leininger, The News-Sentinel

Between the record low temperatures and the need to rescue researchers whose ship was trapped in a thicker-than-expected Antarctic ice field, the past few weeks have tested the faith of even the most devout global-warming disciples. Their orthodoxy seems to have survived. The same cannot be said for their credibility.

“A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold experienced by much of the United States . . . is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues,” predicted President Obama’s science and technical advisor, Dr. John Holgren.

“Winters still get cold, often unbearably cold . . . but no matter how low the temperature dropped in your area, that doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening,” the Weather Channel warned.

“It’s bitterly cold. Horrifically cold! So what does this tell us about global warming?

Not much,” agreed the Washington Post.

Full story here

h/t The GWPF

=================================================================

Infographic: Scientists Who Doubt Human-Caused Climate Change

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change?dom=PSC&loc=recent&lnk=5&con=infographic-scientists-who-doubt-humancaused-climate-change

Review of 2,258 peer-reviewed scientific articles about climate change.

Perfect example of Jones – “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

h/t Jason

About these ads

68 thoughts on “The WUWT Hot Sheet for Saturday January 11th, 2014

  1. Spain is a good example of what can happen if a govt jumps on an energy bandwagon
    without doing due diligence. Any publically traded company that made such a blunder would have faced years of class action lawsuits by its investors. The wonder is why they failed to notice the
    fairly strong price reductions of solar panels and not jumped in when the prices were so high.
    One can get thin film solar panels now for well under $1 per watt, which is way below what they went for back when these Spanish subsidies laws went into effect. The Spanish govt promised prices that were out of touch with reality, just as here, in the States, where even today, excess
    solar rooftop systems output is bought at almost retail prices, or about 3 to 4 times what the utilities pay power plant operators for their far more valuable reliable power. For the most part (depending upon peak demand ersus non-peak demand) a homeowner who puts an excess kilowatthour onto the [grid] is able to extract that same kilowatthour when he needs power, thus
    has been, in essence, paid retail for the unreliable, uncalled-for excess kilowatthour he put onto the grid earlier. Even more ilogical is the fact that utiities pay nuclear plants around 1/4th
    what they pay rooftop owners, despite the fact that nuclea power is responsible for less than half the lifetime emissions of solar panels. Stupidity all over the place in an essentially stupid
    governing generation.

  2. I’m well in favor of Prof. Allen’s request for 10 million in funding. If it is cut from CRU’s budget and allows for popcorn for the ensuing thunderdome deathmatch among trough dwellers.

  3. Flung a contribution Donna’s way.
    Donna is one of our ‘warriors’ .
    This is one way I can help press the spear point she carries forward.

  4. Not entirely o/t:
    The environmentalist crowd are producing a new film. It’s fascinating to see what happens when a math-savvy Christian pastor is invited to be “educated” and “converted” by climate change celebrities (eg James Cameron), on film. The pastor is Rick Joyner. His response is impressive.

    http://www.morningstartv.com/prophetic-perspective-current-events/environmental-crisis

    The film is to be an 8-segment series, scheduled to be shown in April on ShowTime. He shows the trailer starting at about the 5:30 mark.

  5. arthur4563 says:
    “One can get thin film solar panels now for well under $1 per watt, which is way below what they went for back when these Spanish subsidies laws went into effect. ”

    That’s pretty irrelevant. What matters is the cost of the actual solar panels at the prices that _were_ when they were installed.

    The large feed-in tarifs in some countries mean you can have a “revenue” , if you have a revenue you can apply for credit. Then you give most of the “revenue” from your “free” solar energy to the banking system for the next 10-12 years.

    The trouble is this was never designed to “save the planet” it was designed to feed the banks.

    I can get “Sharp” monocrystaline panels for about 1 euro/ watt now. If I had a root I’d fill it, like our host has. That is thanks to the massive subsidies which were aimed at launching the PV industry. It worked, they should be phased out now.

    Since the UK has just committed the next two generations to paying twice the going rate for nuclear generated electricity, I guess the dream of cheap nuclear is dead and renewables just became competitive.

  6. Say Donna’s interview for 50:1 project a couple of days ago. She’s very well informed and as a journalist , has the relevant facts and names at her finger tips. She will make a very good witness.

  7. Starting at 10:20:20 in the video recording, Kennedy claims that the models do not involve short times scales under 50 years. Up til now the time window for falsification of the models was after all supposed to be 17 years (per Santer):

    It’s backwards. Models have to be proven, not falsified. The burden is on the modeler to prove the model, not on the critic to falsify.

  8. If the climate models can’t be shown to be false until 50 years have passed, then they can’t be said to be valid for 50 years. So let’s take out the green garbage and get on with developing our civilisation.

  9. Prof Myles Allen from Oxford University said the only thing holding back the work was the lack of investment.

    Researchers can discern a human fingerprint in extreme weather, but it has required huge amounts of computing power to calculate all the possible outcomes.

    Clever guy that Prof Myles Allen.
    He can calculate all possible outcomes, with complete understanding of how all the weather works… if he just has his palm crossed with silver.

    Surely he can be convicted under Consumer Protection Regulations?

  10. Let’s all pony up a few dollars for Donna. Sorry, I can’t afford more then a few dollars either. Fifty people at $20 = $1K. Done.

    No matter what her main topic will be, it will be written and presented well.

    This is an acknowledgement of Donna’s knowledge on the subject of climate!! Good stuff Donna!

    Good luck Donna and thanks for doing this.

    CAS
    Alberta

  11. Chris4692 says:
    January 11, 2014 at 10:58 am

    “Kennedy claims that the models do not involve short times scales under 50 years. Up til now the time window for falsification of the models was after all supposed to be 17 years (per Santer):…”

    “It’s backwards. Models have to be proven, not falsified. The burden is on the modeler to prove the model, not on the critic to falsify.”

    Thank you for that. Climate alarmists always seem to get the Scientific Method backward. The onus is not on those skeptical of the models. The onus is entirely on the claims of modelers.

  12. Flung small funds Donna’s way.
    Hopefully Donna can communicate to the committee, things they do not want to hear.
    Got, Into the Dustbin, in the mail this week yet to read, have bought several copies of The Delinquent Teenager and passed them out to friends.
    If anyone can get through the committee speak, Donna can.

  13. dbstealey says at January 11, 2014 at 11:43 am

    Climate alarmists always seem to get the Scientific Method backward. The onus is not on those skeptical of the models. The onus is entirely on the claims of modelers.

    That reminds me of a comment I made on the Guardian back in the good old days, before I was always censored.
    Littlepump said

    Oh dear, you clearly have no idea about how science works. Science provides evidence not proof. Have you never even heard of the notion of falsification? Science progresses through the process of falsification (or DISproof-not that any scientist talks in terms of proof or disproof- as you put it).
    You are completely and utterly wrong in your understanding of even the basic principles of the scientific method.

    Which sounds reasonable. But actually it means that everyone should believe anything from pixies to pro-slavery. So I responded as follows on Obama campaign launches plan to shame climate sceptics in Congress, 26 Apr 2013 10:21am
    ‘littlepump – This dangerous fallacy must be confronted.
    If you propose something you should be ignored unless you have proof you are right.

    If you say Aliens put a probe in your rectum you are not right unless I stick my head up there to find evidence you are wrong. You need to provide proof of the probe and the aliens.

    If you say MMR jabs cause autism you are not right because no-one has done the research to disprove your crazy theory. You are just scare-mongering.

    If you say that natural changes are over-whelmed by changes in trace gas concentrations you are not right because the laws of spectroscopy show that CO2 absorbs and re-emits light. You have to show that the change is significant. You have to show that the natural feedbacks that have governed the world since man evolved no longer can cope. You have to show that the evidence you provide is reliable.

    Do you see the problem here? If you say that any theory should be accepted and the whole world’s economy should be changed then anyone can make up anything and no-one can question it. Just so long as the counter-evidence is far enough in the future. And even then you can just make something else up. (Kids won’t know what snow is until a cold winter comes when it’s caused by AGW anyway, we just forgot to tell you that was coming).

    The scientific principle is called the Null Hypothesis – the general default position. This is that “that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena”. And to suggest otherwise needs proof.’

  14. Hah;
    Donna, prepare to sip from a firehose.
    My pensioner’s pittance of $20 needs only to be multiplied by 50 to cover her fare. Many here sent 2-10X as much. I bet she was covered in an hour or two! The power of a WUWT appeal is considerable. I bet and hope her cup overfloweth, and she can afford to hang around for a week and give ‘em hell.

  15. History and the current state of our Nations tell us Government is an unreliable partner under any circumstances.

    Therefore the public interest at all times should be to keep Government as small and efficient as possible and whistle back any politician who thinks Government ” has to change”, “has to take the lead” or take on any other vague scheme.

    It is important for the pubic to respond quickly and stop undesired Government practices the moment they emerge into the public domain.

    The General public but also individual citizens should take care the Government depends on YOU, not the other way around.
    This way you can’t be cornered or conned.

    If you’re lucky you will be able to remain in control of your freedom and independence.

    The more power is transferred to government and government institutions, the bigger the mess, the waste and corruption and the bigger the chance you loose your civil rights and liberties or even your life.

    History tells us Governments are responsible for more deaths than all the war casualties of all wars put together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

    Therefore it is a healthy attitude to maintain a high level of distrust towards government and government officials and watch them like a hawk.

    As for the private entrepreneurs in Spain who thought they could secure their retirement fund with a state subsidized energy scheme I can only say that they didn’t obey the primary principle to never depend on Government.
    It’s an expensive lesson but a well deserved one.

    When a Government subsidized scheme is proposed, the first question that should have been asked is WHO eventually will be feeding the bill.

    Because in 100% of all cases it is the tax payer who will be on the hook for this type of subsidized schemes the answer should have been clear from the start, “No thank you, not for me”.

    Subsidies are a backdoor Government tool to acquire more influence and power.

    Now if this solar BS would have been such an interesting investment it should have been able to generate a profit without any subsidy.

    The bear fact that solar can’t make a profit without subsidies is proof that it’s a bad investment in the first place.

    The fact that a bank loan was acquired to finance this scheme and the claim the investment was intended as a retirement scheme really blows my mind.

    Under any normal situation people stack up their pension with money they earned and and no longer need for private expenses or their business.

    Everybody knows (at least should know) you never invest with borrowed money

    The risk is simply too high.

    So here we have just another case of a guy with a very poor judgement who engages in a Government subsidized, bank financed Green feel good sustainable energy project and make money from it to secure his pension.

    I think the guy has a severe lack of judgement and the fact he owns a business makes me really doubt his qualities as an entrepreneur and a business man.

  16. Donna LaFramboise’s conclusions in her already submitted written testimony to the Environment and Climate Change Committee in London:

    “CONCLUSION

    47. The IPCC was not established – and is not controlled – by science academies. Rather, it is a child of one of the most politically riven bodies known to humanity, the United Nations.

    48. As a UN entity, the IPCC’s primary purpose isn’t to further scientific knowledge but to provide scientific justification for another UN entity – the 1992 treaty known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

    49. Evidence of this is in plain sight. At a 2008 event celebrating the IPCC’s 20th anniversary, chairman Pachauri told a group of IPCC insiders: “The UNFCCC is our main customer.”

    50. Similarly, a 2011 presentation by vice chair van Ypersele ends this way: “Conclusion: IPCC is eager to continue serving the UNFCCC process.”

    51. An international treaty is a political instrument. This makes it impossible for any reasonable person to conclude that the IPCC is about science for science sake.

    52. This is science for politics sake.”

    I would conclude differently.

    My conclusion would be that what we see in the IPCC’s scientific assessment process is actually a newly created conception of science.

    A new conception of science where ‘a priori’ ideas are held to determine scientific knowledge and observations that support the ideas are the only ones considered by the IPCC’ newly conceived science process. Where insufficient observations are found to support the ‘a priori’ ideas, then adjusted data is found that support the ideas. Non-supporting observations are viewed by the IPCC as not critically important as a part of their new conception of what science is.

    I think the IPCC assessment process is the first widespread prototype of that new conception of science.

    The IPCC’s new conception of science is not science as Feynman and Einstein viewed science; they would view the IPCC’s new conception of science as demarcated outside of objective science; they would view the IPCC new conception of science as ‘pseudo-science’

    Repeating myself (again) => The IPCC’s new conception of science is clearly demarcated as being outside of objective science.

    John

    PS – I just donated to Donna’s trip.

  17. as i commented on a previous Turney Expedition thread, the penguins of Cape Denison didn’t leave a forwarding address:

    9 Jan: BBC: Jonathan Amos: Emperor penguins beat ice cliffs to breed
    Satellite images show colonies moving their locations in years when the thin sea ice on which they habitually breed forms late or is absent.
    Scientists report the observations in the online journal Plos One.
    They reveal the birds travelling long distances to find alternative sites.
    These are further in towards the coast, up on the ice shelves – the thick slabs of glacier ice that jut out over the ocean…
    Co-author Barbara Wienecke from the Australian Antarctic Division said: “These new findings are an important step forward in helping us understand what the future may hold for these animals. However, we cannot assume that this behaviour is widespread in other penguin populations.
    “The ability of these four colonies to relocate to a different environment – from sea ice to ice shelf – in order to cope with local circumstances, was totally unexpected…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25655664

  18. carpediem says:
    January 11, 2014 at 10:40 am

    Not entirely o/t:
    The environmentalist crowd are producing a new film. It’s fascinating to see what happens when a math-savvy Christian pastor is invited to be “educated” and “converted” by climate change celebrities (eg James Cameron), on film. The pastor is Rick Joyner. His response is impressive.

    http://www.morningstartv.com/prophetic-perspective-current-events/environmental-crisis

    The film is to be an 8-segment series, scheduled to be shown in April on ShowTime. He shows the trailer starting at about the 5:30 mark.

    Impressive indeed. A pastor in the lion’s den, refusing to be hustled. Started out the process as a naif, ended up as a rather sophisticated sceptic.

  19. Maybe a stupid question. When donations are made to any of the great blogs we spend so much time reading what are the tax implications of said donations. Are they treated as income or as a charity? Just wanted to know if the gov’ts involved get their pound of flesh. Donna, I’m sure they will be impressed…

  20. climategrog says:
    January 11, 2014 at 10:41 am

    Since the UK has just committed the next two generations to paying twice the going rate for nuclear generated electricity, I guess the dream of cheap nuclear is dead and renewables just became competitive.

    Nah. Still not enough. Even that overcharged nuclear would need to go up another 60% to match. And it takes far less real estate and is as reliable as sunrise, unlike sun-power, etc.

  21. @polski,

    They are considered as Big Oil and as donations from shills from Koch Brothers.
    I guess.

    ;)

    Harry

  22. polski

    In the UK you can give up to £250 to as many people as you like in a tax year without any tax implications for the giver. The receiver would be advised to record any receipts, their source and purpose in case of any subsequent tax investigation. In the UK such gifts would not need to be declared as income. In may different elsewhere.

  23. On the pub-meet with Donna Laframboise in London on 28 Jan – wish I could be there, instead sent a donation for a round of drinks.

  24. Here is an article

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/columnists/and-the-medals-for-climate-change-denial-go-to/article16279953/

    Here is a reader’s comment

    21 hours ago

    I thought the Globe would invoke the Rockefeller/Soros funded CIGI powers of a Thomas Homer Dixon to hammer away the latest explain-it-all peer review publications from the alarmist industry, a la Jennifer Francis type, the kind of stuff that roughly suggests that glaciations were big periods of extreme global warming, that warm air displaces cold air and that China's GHG's contribution is evolving in the right direction thanks to Maurice Strong's permanent residency there. How deluded was I!
    Nope, the Globe mustered the unfathomable lunacy of Southey. The title says it all: climate change denial! Really, has she ever opened a climatology text book in her life or is she getting her vast smug knowledge from Cosmopolitan?

    The recent denial was found in Reuters and the Globe articles about the Guardian sponsored global warming "we told you so" expedition which petard exploded in Turney's hand when their ship was stuck in Antarctica summer ice pack! Not a word about the mission, and all these people were "tourists"… How about that Tabatha for denial?

    Or when Justin came to the Petroleum club peddling a carbon tax… It did not even make front page of the usually so prompt to prop up carbon credits newspaper and its usual pundits! How about that denial Tabatha?

    And YES Tabatha, it is austral summer and the planet is at perihelion in the first week of January -147million km from the sun-, closer than during the boreal summer, it is brutal there and has been historically in Australia as per all meteorological reports in the XIX century. As for bats going down, wind turbines are pretty darn good at that too.

    However dear, this information is not found in People Mag or Justin's Bazaar. Ask you hair stylist, darling, he might know more than you do though…

  25. What these alarmists are creating is New Climate because it has nothing to do with truth and reality or should we call it Falsified Climate. For example 35 degrees C is the new scorcher in Australia. Where in reality summers regularly bring temperatures over 40 C in many places. Of course that now becomes extreme rather than normal. It is the new normal. Hence they have created New Climate. What for? Most likely to convince people that AGW is real. Of course there is no money involved! Yeah right!

  26. arthur4563 says:
    January 11, 2014 at 10:25 am

    “Spain is a good example of what can happen if a govt jumps on an energy bandwagon
    without doing due diligence.”

    Don’t forget the tragic bombing by home-grown terrorists in Spain some years ago was successful in getting the soc_ialists in power. These guys don’t need to do in due diligence.

  27. The goalposts can only be moved back so far before it all becomes a farce. If the goalposts for falsification are set at 50 years, then equivalently that means we cannot expect to see a detectable global warming signal over a timeframe of less than 50 years. But if we can’t even detect it then what merits the expenditure of trillions? In any case where is the calculation that generates this figure of 50 years. These people are so desperate they are just pulling figures out of thin air.

  28. “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold experienced by much of the United States . . . is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues,” predicted President Obama’s science and technical advisor, Dr. John Holgren.

    That’s John P. Holdren. I’ve met the guy, he’s all hat & no cattle as they say in Texas. The powerpoint he gave on “climate disruption” can be viewed here: http://iit.edu/grand_challenges/powerpoint_presentations.shtml

  29. mario, your donation is now complete
    Payment by PayPal

    Confirmation number: … An email with your donation details has been sent to [MarioLento at gmail.com]

  30. I have been following Donna’s progress since the first “I’m invited” at http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/

    I find it disturbing that if you agree to the scam then tens of thousands of people can have an all expenses paid holiday in Doha or Copenhagen. On the other hand, if you do not agree then you have to make your own way even if you have been requested by name.

    Donation duly made. Donna, we need you here!

  31. The various enterprises that jumped on the renewables bandwagon and built solar and wind projects for the 25 year price guarantee have now learned the truth of the old adage that if something seems to good to be true it probably is; maybe the government has learned also.

  32. M Courtney says:
    January 11, 2014 at 12:06 pm [ “…” ]

    Excellent comment, thanks for posting. The alarmist crowd constantly engages in that very fallacy.

    The onus of proof is always on those who put forth the original conjecture:

    Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.

    By improperly placing the onus on skeptics, the alarmists are demanding that skeptics must prove a negative. That is not science, that is false rhetoric.

    Regarding the conjecture that human-emitted CO2 is causing any measurable global warming: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the proposition that there has been an alarming late 20th century spike in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so.

    Neither of those conjectures have been shown to have any scientific proof. CO2 may cause some minuscule global warming. I happen to think it does. However, there are currently no verifiable, testable scientific measurements showing that to be the case. Any such warming is simply too small to measure. Thus, AGW remains a conjecture — merely the first and least important step in the scientific hierarchy [Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law].

  33. Kevin Kilty says:
    January 11, 2014 at 8:37 pm
    The various enterprises that jumped on the renewables bandwagon and built solar and wind projects for the 25 year price guarantee have now learned the truth of the old adage that if something seems to good to be true it probably is; maybe the government has learned also.
    ++++++++++++
    I can just hear them screaming for OTHER people’s money to pay for their so called “investment”. Serves them right.

  34. I usually only watch ShowTime for the “sweet science” (boxing). I cringe at the thought of the bludgeoning to actual science at the hands of Cameron and crew. I hope the pastor is fairly presented, because he sounded pretty good in the clip. Do you think Richard Muller will really be shown embracing and extending the skeptic pastor’s arguments?

    Small tip in Donna’s jar. You go girl (or more correctly, come back).

  35. Regarding the 2258 scientific articles reviewed by James Powell: the claim is that he reviewed 2258 articles “about climate change”. He did not do such thing. He has published the list of the articles reviewed.

    http://www.jamespowell.org/resources/Nov2012thruDec2013.xlsx

    I have had a look just of the first ten, and among them:
    * 5 do not study anything related to climate change,
    * 2 study the capability of some plants to adapt to different climates, which is only indirectly related to the climate change we are currently experiencing and doesn’t study this climate change itself;
    * 3 do indeed study climate change. But that’s a mere 30%. And they do not study anything related to the ATTRIBUTION of climate change. That is, we cannot know from the abstract if the authors support or not the notion of man-made climate change. Their articles certainly don’t.

    Given this absolute inaccuracy about what the study has actually studied, it would not surprise me to find that it is also more than one article that suggests a different, non-man-made origin of climate change. But I don’t have the patience to review the whole list.

    It would also not suprise me if these 10 papers happen to be representative of the overall group of 2258 papers. Which would be noteworthy. It would mean that 7 out of 10 papers published in the scientific literature in the past year that mention global warming, mention it despite the study is about something else. That looks to me like scientists desperately looking for funds to do their investigations, and knowing that global-warming related stuff will probably receive the funds. I.e. people following the money.

  36. “Around £10m a year would provide a real time attribution system on the role of humans in extreme weather.”

    I could write that code for a lot less than ten million pounds. It would have a text input field that would accept a description of extreme weather events. It would have a button that would read “attribute scientifically.” On clicking the button, the following text would appear on the screen: “This event is scientifically attributable to human sin.”

  37. Sorry Frank but a similar thing already exists. Only the name of the button is “submit”. You click on it and a story automatically appears in most left-wing media about this attribution, preceded with the words “Scientists say…” or “climate experts claim…”.

  38. Donna says she would have earned more money working as a barista and with a lot more free time. I made my donation. So much for the big moneys from big oil/gas/coal and big wood too! It has me stuffed how the alarmists really believe that one.

  39. Donation flung to Donna. As a UK pensioner it’s small but it’s the thought that counts…well it is isn’t it? Still 100 at 50 bucks is a start!

  40. Starting at 10:20:20 in the video recording, Kennedy claims that the models do not involve short times scales under 50 years. Up til now the time window for falsification of the models was after all supposed to be 17 years (per Santer):

    That’s because they have just realized there is a 60 year cycle and it will be another 45 years before temperatures are buck up near record levels.

  41. “Review of 2,258 peer-reviewed scientific articles about climate change.”

    Bye bye article – looks like once WUWT links to it these people get shy suddenly.

  42. Anyone.
    The Pay Pal won’t accept my CC donation.
    Wants me to enter a Province. I live in U.S.
    Refuses my donation without Province.
    Refuses my donation with blank Province, or, my U.S. address with any entered province.
    Thanks for any help.
    Ron

  43. One of the papers in the Powell collection is titled

    “X-ray emission from high-redshift miniquasars: self-regulating the population of massive black holes through global warming”

    Come back ET – all is forgiven.

  44. Some other wonderful titles in the Powell collection.
    Review of 2,258 peer-reviewed scientific articles about climate change.

    Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition
    Whole-genome sequencing of giant pandas provides insights into demographic history and local adaptation
    Who is moving where? Molecular evidence reveals patterns of range shift in the acorn barnacle Hexechamaesipho pilsbryi in Asia
    Warming up a stream reach: design of a hydraulic and heating system
    Utilization and performance evaluation of a surplus air heat pump system for greenhouse cooling and heating
    USE OF STEEL SLAG TO NEUTRALIZE ACID MINE DRAINAGE (AMD) IN SULFIDIC MATERIAL FROM A URANIUM MINE
    Transport Pathways for Light Duty Vehicles: Towards a 2 degrees Scenario
    Thermodynamic performance of a hybrid air cycle refrigeration system using a desiccant rotor

    More ominously:

    What Climate Policy Can a Utilitarian Justify?

    I’ll leave others to find their favourites with zero climate relevance.

  45. CRS, DrPH says:

    January 11, 2014 at 7:23 pm

    All kippers and curtains in the UK or all mouth and trousers :)

  46. Ron Richey says:

    January 12, 2014 at 6:53 am

    Anyone.
    The Pay Pal won’t accept my CC donation.
    Wants me to enter a Province. I live in U.S.
    Refuses my donation without Province.
    Refuses my donation with blank Province, or, my U.S. address with any entered province.
    Thanks for any help.
    Ron
    ——————————————————–
    Ron, start by choosing the country first. At the very top. Then you should be good. Looks like the US decided it was cheaper to develop their own oil rather than invading Canada. So Canada and the USA are still separate countries. Until the water runs out…

  47. I have added my pittance to the travel fund. Barely enough for a cup of coffee and a croissant at today’s London prices and more than the amount I have been able to collect for my two grand daughters University funds this month. Needless to say if they choose Reading or UEA they will get nothing. Why “waste” money on bringing a Canadian to London? Because, no opportunity should be lost to drive some sense into the numbskulls in the UK Parliament. A few more of them waking up to reality could save the lives of countless people in the future. Starting with the old and the sick who may die because of Government energy policy this year and going right through to the poor and deprived in Africa and Asia who are being told by the World Bank that they cannot have money to build reliable coal and gas fired power stations but must instead rely on fairy farts and gloworms to provide the power that will enable them to join in the prosperity that we worked so hard to achieve.

  48. Heard Donna in Munich last year at the sceptics conference. [Brilliant] speech, well researched and spoken. Have donated some money for her travel, she deserves it. I hope she can convince a lot of politicians in London…

  49. Mac the Knife says:
    January 13, 2014 at 5:28 pm
    Posted by Donna La Framboise today Jan 13

    +++++++++
    Thank you MtK!! I hope she gets enough to ease the burden she bestows upon herself to get our not-funded-by-oil words out.

    WUWT is very kind to lend its readers who are interested in helping others with noble causes.

Comments are closed.