By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers
Gisborne Herald refuses Climate Sceptics any more space to express their views
Warsaw Climate Talks
Very interesting reflections from Pointman
Bryan Leyland answers Prof Ralph Sims
Our children are being brainwashed
Matt Ridley's piece on NZCPR
More on IPCC AR5
'Taxing Air' by Bob Carter
by Robin Grieve- Pastural Farming Climate Research
The television news painted a grim picture when it announced the findings of the IPCC’ fifth assessment report. “Rising sea levels, more extinct species and possible food shortages are the grim prediction” intoned the news reader, her grim seriousness matched by the image of a sad looking polar bear behind her. “And New Zealand is set to feel the heat too. The capital had its worst storm in 40 years, harsh drought hit the North Island summer and this winter was the warmest on record.”
The direness of our situation called for desperate action and I decided to take it. I decided to read the fifth assessment report for myself. With fourteen chapters all between one and two hundred pages, it was a desperate action.
This report is not written by hundreds of scientists, as they like to say it is. Hundreds of papers are submitted by scientists, which are then referred to in a sort of summary written by others. There are many scientific papers, a number of which are contradictory. Summaries throughout the fourteen chapters try to reach conclusions from the diversity of evidence and often end up contradicting conclusions made in other summaries. The only consistency in the whole thing being that each summary tries to paint as dark a picture as it can.
The CERTAINTY FRAMEWORK
Extracted from a post at WUWT by Doug Proctor
The IPCC 95% type is Computational Certainty, that is, the outcome as proposed by models is consistent with input data and mathematical relationships between identified factors. McKibben’s certainty is based in Computational Certainty, as in “Do The Math”. It could also be labelled “Intellectual” Certainty, as it is based on the idea that nature is deterministic enough, and we are smart enough and knowledgeable enough to figure out what is going on in a usefully predictive way. The application of the argument by ignorance is applicable to this form of certainty: if we can’t think there is another way, then it must be the way we say. While naively reasonable, and a reflection of the arguments Sherlock Holmes was claimed to use in solving crimes, how it is used by the IPCC adherents is actually a perverse misuse of what Holmes did: Holmes used the concept to bring to the table non-current, usually non-obvious solutions, which would be then investigated closely. The IPCC cabal use it to dismiss the non-current and non-obvious).
Ever since Martin Durkin got initially slain by Tony Jones in the ABCs orchestrated debunk of the 2007 BBC 4s magnificent documentary, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, Ian Plimer, who was the basis of Martins comments about volcanic activity even though he did not appear on screen, has been on the back foot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsygjXunTs http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/abc-australias-tony-jones-and-the-great-global-warming-swindle-debate/
In the light of subsequent evidence about the temperature changes of the last 10 years, both George Monbiot and Tony Jones now have a lot of explaining to do. However, today Antony Watts, in his latest blog, Nov.16th, http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html has put the final nail in the coffin of that infamous critique and so much more of the official scientific background to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming movement, the CAGW. It may have been that Plimer’s basis for his belief in the importance of volcanic output of CO2 was as much gut feeling about undocumented submarine volcanic activity as it was about published science, but today he has been backed up by a peer reviewed paper in a high level scientific Journal. http://www.minsocam.org/MSA/RIM/RiM75/RIM075_C11.pdf
Two members of our team have put the following message together in the hope, perhaps forlorn, that the politicians, and people like Peter Gluckman, a marvellous paediatrician, but no analyst of matters climate or weather, and will take note of reality
So it is Tuesday, and we are grumpy, very grumpy.. Why?
Because our Government is still talking nonsense on CC – even at CHOGM
Below is a link to the full version of a serious message that should be noted by all.
And Tony Abbott will love it - Christopher Monckton at his best.
John Key, Bill English, Steven Joyce, and Tim Groser (et al) , not to mention all those pantywaists in MFAT, would do well to read and take note. It is hopeless to attempt to persuade people like the idiot greens, who are more like a sack cloth and ashes cult than a sensible political organisation. Even though they may not confess it, we are sure that they are aware of the truth.
The response from Bryan Leyland:
Commentary on IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
Matt Ridley: Global lukewarming need not be catastrophic
A Changing Climate- The Spectator
Sea Level Rise- a challenge from Bryce Wilkinson
Generation Zero's local election hopes
That Victoria University survey
Ice Caps- now it's global COOLING
My name is Esther Henderson and through the NZ Climate Science Coalition I received your email requesting participation in your survey along with a request to forward it on to our networks.
The Climate Realists Network which my husband and I founded and run (www.climaterealists.org.nz ) has been forwarded your invitation which has since generated quite a response.
I have decided to collate the responses I have received thus far and send them along to you so you gain an understanding of some of the shortcomings of a survey of this kind.
As you read through the responses below, bear in mind one or two of these people have emailed you separately. I have still included their responses in this collation for your convenience.
I have studied, reviewed and appraised every one of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Since the First Report made it plain that constructive critics are unwelcome these have been very few. I believe I am the only one who has commented on every Report. They did not answer my comments and most were ignored. It is unpaid hard work.
Why have I done it? It has given me a valuable insight onto the operations of what I have slowly become convinced is a comprehensive international-based fraud, and an attack on genuine climate science. There are many who try to control the flames from the dragon;s jaw. I believe in striking at the heart.