The IPCC; Never Has So Much Been Made Out of So Little by So Many at So Great A Cost

(Apologies to Winston Churchill the brave Battle of Britain people.)

By Dr. Tim Ball- Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the people who formulated the structure that directed their research, constantly manipulated the data and the methods to predetermine the results. It began with the definition of climate change given to them as Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This involved overstating and misrepresenting the amount of atmospheric CO2 currently, and in the past. It also included misrepresentation of its movement through the so-called carbon cycle.

You can pick any segment of the Carbon Cycle they show in Figure 1 (Their Figure 6-1, Fifth Assessment Report) and none of it is based on actual measures, that is real data; everything is an estimate and can’t qualify even as an educated guess.

clip_image002

Figure 1

Continue reading

Advertisements

Freeze, Reduce or Eliminate CAFÉ Fuel Standards

By Paul Driessen – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Too many small, lightweight cars cause too many deaths and injuries to justify tighter mpg rule

A 2002 National Academy of Sciences study estimated that automotive mileage standards had helped cause as many as 2,600 extra fatalities in 1993 – at a relatively lenient standard of 27.5 miles per gallon. Other studies reached similar conclusions. And yet, in 2012, the Obama Administration began ratcheting the standards upward, with the goal of hitting 54.5 mpg by 2025.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #318

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org The Science and Environmental Policy Project

By Ken Haapala, President

Problem of Induction: As briefly discussed in the May 26 TWTW, the scientific developments of the 19th and early 20th century resulted in a questioning of the philosophical bases for knowledge about the physical world, particularly about the ability to make predictions. Newtonian mechanics could not describe Brownian Motion. Quantum Mechanics, advanced at the beginning of the 20th century by Max Planck, Einstein, and others, does not fit into Euclidian geometry. The questioning of the ability to predict the future highlighted the extremely skeptical views expressed by Hume in “A Treatise of Human Nature” (1739). Hume had questioned the grounds by which we come to our beliefs about the unobserved using inductive inferences.

Continue reading

Does Global Climate Change Require a Global Solution?

By Andy May – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Al Gore wrote in the Huffington Post (August 28, 2014) that the need for “bold action” to curtail “old dirty sources of energy … is obvious and urgent.” The proper scientific response to an assertion like that is why? How can I test this idea? Science is not a belief, it is a method of testing ideas. We use an idea to make predictions and then we gather data to see if the predictions are correct. If the predictions are accurate, the idea survives. If any of the predictions fail, the idea is disproven, and it must be modified or simply rejected.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #316

By Ken Haapala, President

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Constant, Not Accelerating: On May 16, SEPP Chairman emeritus S. Fred Singer had an essay in the Wall Street Journal explaining why there is little humanity and governments can do to stop the constant rate of sea level rise. Unfortunately, in the print edition, the sentence “But there is also good data showing sea levels are in fact rising at a constant rate,” was muddled into reading “But there is also good data showing sea levels are in fact rising at an accelerating rate.” [Boldface added]. The error was corrected in the online editions. The central issue of Singer’s essay is” that sea-level rise does not depend on the use of fossil fuels.”

Continue reading

Clouds and El Nino

By Willis Eschenbach – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

After the turn of the century, I became interested in climate science. But unlike almost everyone else, I wasn’t surprised by how much the global temperature was changing. As someone with experience with heat engines and engine governors, I know how hard it is to keep a heat engine stable under a changing load. As a result, I was surprised at how little the temperature was changing.

Over the 20th Century, for example, the temperature changed by a trivially small ±0.3°C. Since the average temperature of the planet is on the order of 287K, this means that the global temperature varied only about a tenth of one percent in a hundred years … that that is amazingly stable.

Continue reading