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.
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):
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.
h/t The GWPF
=================================================================
Infographic: Scientists Who Doubt Human-Caused 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
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.
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.
Threw in $15 yesterday. Not much but it all helps, I’m sure.
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
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.
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…
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.
@polski,
They are considered as Big Oil and as donations from shills from Koch Brothers.
I guess.
😉
Harry
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.
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.
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
In relation to Donna’s written submission.
A friend who is of the darkside sent me this a week ago.
Him being just as surprised as me as to its content.
As to where it was.
For those who haven’t read it, I suggest you do.
It confirms what most of us here already knew.
But it is the first time of read it in a Fairfax publication.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-politics-clouds-the-climate-change-debate-20140102-307ja.html
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!
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.
Just donated, lets get Donna back home.
Did my part. Lady deserves our help.
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.
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
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]
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!
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.
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].
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.
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).
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.