Global Warming is an issue far from settled – Part 2

The Mail on Sunday (Feb 5th 2017) ran the headline ‘How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data’. The paper claims that the ‘world’s leading source of climate data (America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris agreement on climate change’. The NOAA report stated that there had been no pause in Global warming – as UN scientists claimed in 2013 – between 1998 and 2015 and that global temperatures had been rising faster than expected.

A ‘whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist claims that the data was never subjected to the NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process which he himself had devised.

The ‘pause’ in global warming being refuted led this ‘landmark paper’ to be called the ‘Pausebuster’.

In our recent article about Global warming being a hoax, we argued these key points:

1. The many ‘expert scientists’ had changed the dialogue in the late 1990s from Global Warming to Climate change, as there had been a glitch in the global warming data starting around 1998.
2. There is little doubt that we have Climate Change, but it was ever thus. We live on a piece of molten rock which hurtles, spinning, through space. How much of ‘Climate change’ is man-made (fossil fuels, plastic bags etc.) and how much is ‘natural’ (earth quakes, volcanic eruptions, El Nino etc.)? A number of people wrote to us, adding the effect of sunspots which have apparently been pronounced in the past decade or so and even ‘Chem trails’ where high altitude spraying is trying to change/control weather patterns.
3. There is a resurgence in the recent claims for global warming, but a number of expert measurements, (we mentioned two from space), disagree. We also mentioned that a former economics professor from Sonoma, Jamal Munshi, who specializes in statistics and who gains no financial benefits from the personal work he does, was puzzled because on analysis of the first thousand temperature measuring points around the world, he had found NASA’s data to be consistently too high. Several writers attempted to discredit him personally but that is just nastiness.
4. We received 5 ‘complaints’ and 8 ‘agreements’. The complaints almost always used the ‘fact’ that 97% of the World’s experts agreed on global warming and that fossil fuels were totally the cause. When asked, Professor Munshi himself provided the data FOR the fossil fuel cause; See:
and why it was WRONG; See:

Others pointed out to us, the existence of the UN paper. Published by UN expert climate change scientists, it claimed that the growth in global warming had slowed greatly after 1998, yet CO2 levels had continued their upward trend, thus questioning the supposed link.

We note that the Mail on Sunday claims that:

1. NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new sets of data – one measuring land temperatures and the other, sea temperatures.
2. Both were flawed and the NOAA is currently replacing the sea temperature data. Revised data will show lower temperatures and a slower rate of warming. (The inaccurate data presented to World leaders had been collected from ships, which are known to give higher readings than isolated buoys, which will now provide the data).
3. The Land temperature data was collated with ‘unstable’ software and has never been officially verified.
4. The actual NOAA paper – underpinning Pausebuster – has still to be published. It is now agreed by the NOAA that the rushed presentation of it, contained flaws and inaccurate data.

Based on this rushed and inaccurate paper, the British Government – just one of many – has agreed to pay 320 billion pounds out of our economy by 2030.

Fake News

Already we note that articles countering the above claims have appeared, most usually attempting also to discredit Dr. Bates, and the journalist, David Rose, and dubbing this ‘Fake News’. It is standard skeptic practice to discredit the messenger.

Skeptics are not sceptics. Sceptics are free thinking independent people who use data to question the status quo. Skeptics often have vested interests.

‘Fake News’ was originally used to highlight the manipulation of the Mass Media by the Clinton campaign.

However, it is a now a term being used by mainstream media and institutions with any article voicing a different opinion to conventional wisdom. For example, an article claiming that chemotherapy drugs do not cure or are an expensive waste of money might be dubbed ‘Fake news’, as would one which pointed out the dangers of vaccines. That the world spun around the sun would have been dubbed ‘Fake News’ in Galileo’s day.


Please see Junk Science? Number 99 for Part 1.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Global Warming and climate change hoax

Jamal Munshi, Professor Emeritus at Sonoma State University is a climate change skeptic, who uses hard factual evidence and data to point out glaring inadequacies and inconvenient truths in the global warming/climate change hoax.

Going back 15 years or so, when Al Gore was winning plaudits for worrying the world about ‘Global Warming’, (how the world was becoming hotter and the seas were rising), Professor Munshi was writing papers telling us that the opposite was actually true. The 15 or so years where the seas did rise and the world became warmer had actually ceased and, if anything, the longer-term down trend in temperature and sea height was back in action.

The socially-minded left continued their concerns about greenhouse gases none-the-less. They were causing climate change.

Professor Munshi published a paper in 2016(1) explaining that, while CO2 emissions were increasing there was absolutely no evidence that this was caused by fossil fuel emissions. “Although the science of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 is well established, all efforts to relate this phenomenon to fossil fuel emissions has failed because of deficiencies in the methodology used in the presentation of empirical evidence. Circular reasoning is used in the IPCC carbon budget to relate atmospheric CO2 to fossil fuel emissions as a way of dealing with insurmountable measurement problems. No evidence exists to relate changes in atmospheric CO2 or the rate of warming to fossil fuel emissions because correlations presented for these relationships are spurious. The UNFCCC holds annual COP meetings and calls for reductions in fossil fuel emissions to attenuate global warming without evidence that warming is related to emissions.”

The fact is that we are all living on a piece of molten rock which spins as it hurtles through space. Climate change has occurred forever since we began our voyage.

We’ve had explanations for recent climate change which range from the earth has wobbled on its axis (apparently Inuit Elders think their world has shifted(2) – the sun comes up at a different angle to their forefathers days and this has caused climate change in their region(3)) and/or is the whole phenomenon caused by earthquakes(4)?

Surely some serious scientist could measure the validity of these claims, rather that the skeptic community squabbling over them?

But here’s the rub:

NASA itself is right behind the global warming thesis arguing that the earth has warmed for the past 4 decades and quoting a myriad of top Government scientific bodies who agree(5). But other experts are concerned that the figures are simply ‘fiddled’. Professor Karl Fredrich Ewart has analysed NASA’s own figures and concluded(6) that Nasa has ‘intentionally and systematically rigged the official Government figures on temperature’.

According to a review in the Daily Telegraph, the hottest year on record (2014) if measured by two different systems from space, was nothing of the sort(7). Indeed the new Global Warming Policy Foundation is so concerned about fiddled data that it has enlisted 5 top – and unbiased – experts to review the accuracy of all the data, something Professor Munshi has queried for years. “Every time you look at the latest figures, the official ones look more and more suspect”, he says.

Indeed Munshi goes further – he has questioned the whole validity of the United Nations (who play a significant role in ‘Climate Change’ along with Kyoto Summits and the like). His recent paper(8) states, “The United Nations is financed mostly by taxpayers from a few donor countries but the large and growing bureaucracy is too far removed from those taxpayers to be directly accountable to them. It is run by unelected, unaccountable, undisciplined, and incompetent bureaucrats. The organization’s size, budget, and scope are unconstrained. The budget funding process provides perverse incentives for these bureaucrats to increase the size and scope of their organization simply by creating multitudes of agencies and programs, and by inventing problems and environmental crises set on a global scale”.

Politicians and scientists inventing problems and thus programmes, taxes and jobs for the boys – whatever next?

We are always going to have climate change as long as our molten planet hurtles through space. Whether we need to be worried about our consumption of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions, if they are connected, is another issue. Frankly, it is also naïve to assume other factors like environmental pollution (not the product of us all but rather that of the poorly regulated big Chemical, Pharma, Fracking companies etc.) is not a potential factor. But not too many fingers are pointing in that direction.



Please see Junk Science? Number 100 for Part 2.

, , , , , , , , , , ,