All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Friday, 20 January 2017

18 answers from a (man-made warming) climate sceptic

Richard Willmsen has written a piece:

18 questions for climate deniers
which starts:

  1. Do you accept the science of how babies are created?
  2. Do you accept the science of how ice is formed?
  3. Do you accept the science of how the earth goes in circles?
  4. Do you accept the science of where eggs come from?
  5. Do you accept the science of how water is heated?
And his trite questioning includes what he probably thinks is his stinger:
Do you accept the science of how greenhouses work?
And an even stranger one, considering the position he is coming from:
Do you accept the science of how flowers can grow?
Let's look at, first of all, his opening statement. 18 questions for Climate Deniers.

This is an inane question. I doubt that Richard (has he assumed the title of Tricky Dicky?) realises how stupid the title is. Does anyone deny climate?

Mark Twain has been attributed with the remark:
The climate is what you expect; the weather is what you get.
Or, as Professor Bob Carter once wrote: (Link)
Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.
So,  Mr. Willmsen, how can anyone deny climate.

This, of course, goes back, before the ~20-year plateau in warming, when we realists were called "Global Warming Deniers." As the planet wasn't warming, we were, to use their perjorative term, 'Deniers."

However, as the warming ceased and we reached the ~20-year plateau of no warming, the pushers of the man-made global warming hoax, had to find a different term to describe us climate realists.

They foolishly settled on Climate Deniers.

So, before I answer some of Mr. Willmsen's questons, here are a few for him:

Mr. Richard Willmsen:
  1. Do you accept the science that the rise in temperature precedes the rise in atmospheric CO2?
  2. Do you accept the science that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is greening the planet?
  3. Do you accept the science that CO2 is just above starvation level for plants?
  4. Do you accept the science that the alarmists mistakingly call carbon dioxide - carbon?
  5. Do you accept that the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified?
Is it you who are the denier, Mr. Willmsen?

You ask, do you accept how the greenhouses work?
Yes, we know that the primary greenhouse gas is simply H2O or water vapour.

As the American Chemical Society says: (link)
It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. 
And then you ask, against all your AGWhoax deluded questions:
Do you accept the science of how flowers can grow?
Well, yes. And as atmospheric carbon dioxide increase, the flowers, and all the biomass is increasing.

That creates more food for man and beast.

Are you sure, Mr. Willmsen, do YOU understand how our marvellous planet works?

Thursday, 19 January 2017

Latest Analysis of Official Temperatures Suggest Increase Since 1900 Only from “Natural Drivers” or Errors by Official Agencies

As we watch our TV news showing well below freezing temperatures in parts of Europe, even in Greece, and North America, we are also told by official meteorological agencies that 2016 was one of the warmest years on record. For example, in its report on 2016, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology  claims that year was 
Australia's fourth-warmest year on record (the national observational dataset commences in 1910), with Australia’s area-averaged mean temperature for 2016 being 0.87 °C above the 1961–1990 average. 
It also claims that 
sea surface temperatures in the oceans around Australia were the warmest on record at 0.73 °C above average. 
The UK Met Office claims that provisional statistics published by it show 2016 as 13th warmest year in the UK (in the series going back to 1910) and that globally 2016 shares the warmest year with 2015. 

An important question is why there is such a focus by official agencies on the warmest year and whether that phenomenon helps understand the causes of the increase in temperatures published by official agencies.
As to the causes, the Australian BOM report acknowledges that “the Australian climate in 2016 was influenced by a combination of natural drivers and anthropogenic climate change”. But the UK Met mentions neither of these and the Aus BOM does not say anything about the relative contributions made by natural drivers and human activity. 

We can say however that, even if temperatures have increased by about 0.8ºC since around 1900 (which is the standard official message), this has done no harm. To the contrary, as illustrated in the attached report by the FAO, 2016 produced record agricultural output and since 1900 there has been a strong increase in food and other consumer production, with poverty rates falling. This suggests that, even if CO2 emissions did contribute to increased temperatures, there is no need to reduce the CO2

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

The Paris Climate Agreement Won't Change the Climate

For Prager U, Bjørn Lomborg explains the Paris climate agreement.

For an example, when the committee asked the head of the US Environmental agency:  
Exactly how much will this treaty reduce global temperatures? 
she could not, or would not say.

As Bjørn says:
The agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming. 
The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won't do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer--except politicians and environmentalists. Bjørn Lomborg explains.

Green Energy is a Charter for Crooks and Liars

Energy & Environmental
Newsletter - 16/1/17

AWED Friends:

The next edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter is available.

Some of the more informative energy articles in this issue are:
Watch for an update of this national story in the Wall Street Journal!
Excellent short video: The “F” Word

Some of the more interesting Global Warming articles in this issue are:
Dr. Happer Interview (on Climate Change, etc.)

John Droz, jr.

physicist & citizen advocate

Copyright © 2017; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see

Thursday, 12 January 2017

Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant.

The two truthful expression that the Alarmists hate are
  • There has been a twenty-year plateau in global warming; and
  • Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Twenty-Year Plateau in Global Warming

Roy Spencer, PhD,  points out on his UAH blog that

Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998 

Strong December Cooling Leads to 2016 Being Statistically Indistinguishable from 1998 
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December 2016 was +0.24 deg. C, down substantially from the November value of

Tuesday, 3 January 2017

Energy & Environmental Newsletter -2/1/17

AWED Friends:

Welcome to 2017 and the year’s first edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter! It looks like it will be an exciting time, so fasten your seat belt...

There continues to be so many Trump-related happenings, that I’ve set up two new Newsletter sections: Trump & Energy, and Trump & Global Warming.

Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:
Obsolete Calculations of Cost of Carbon (an extremely important matter!)

Some of the more interesting Energy articles in this issue are:
Outstanding podcast on Energy and Climate Change
Excellent Study: Energy Deregulation
Cutting the Crap at DOE (See new Newsletter section on Trump & Energy)

I hope that you have an enjoyable and rewarding New Year...

John Droz, jr.

physicist & citizen advocate

Saturday, 31 December 2016

Reducing Sunspot activity indicates Global COOLING.

From NASA: (link)

Sunspot Numbers

In 1610, shortly after viewing the sun with his new telescope, Galileo Galilei (or was it Thomas Harriot?) made the first European observations of Sunspots. Continuous daily observations were started at the Zurich Observatory in 1849 and earlier observations have been used to extend the records back to 1610. The sunspot number is calculated by first counting the number of sunspot groups and then the number of individual sunspots.
The "sunspot number" is then given by the sum of the number of individual sunspots and ten times the number of groups. Since most sunspot groups have, on average, about ten spots, this formula for counting sunspots gives reliable numbers even when the observing conditions are less than ideal and small spots are hard to see. Monthly averages (updated monthly) of the sunspot numbers (181 kb JPEG image), (307 kb pdf-file), (62 kb text file) show that the number of sunspots visible on the sun waxes and wanes with an approximate 11-year cycle.

Environmental Consultant 
Edmund Contoski, writing for the Heartland blog, says that The Sun, Not CO2, Determines our Climate.
The chart [above] clearly shows a weakening trend of sunspots in solar cycles 22, 23 and 24. These are the latest in a sequence dating from 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. Note that the peak of solar cycle 24, which occurred in 2014, is only about half that of solar cycle 22, which peaked about 1989. 
This portends global cooling—not global warming. Sunspots are dwindling to lows not seen in 200 years. In 2008, during the solar minimum of cycle 23, there were 266 days with no sunspots. This is considered a very deep solar minimum. You can check out pictures of sunspots—or their absence—day after day for recent years at (Source - bold added)

After explaining Sunspot activity, Edmund Contoski continues
After about 210 years, sunspot cycles “crash” or almost entirely die out, and the earth can cool dramatically. These unusually cold periods last several decades. Of greatest concern to us is the Maunder Minimum, which ran from 1645 to 1715. Below is a chart that shows the paucity of sunspots during this time. Some years had no sunspots at all. 

The astronomer Sporer reported only 50 sunspots during a 30-year period, compared to 40,000 to 50,000 typical for that length of time. 
Since the Maunder Minimum, a less extreme but still significantly below-average period of cooler temperatures occurred during the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830), also shown on the graph. 
At least as far back as 2007—before Cycle 23 had bottomed—a Russian solar physicist, predicted what we are seeing now. Professor Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia, noting that solar irradiance had already begun to fall, said a slow decline in temperatures would begin as early as 2012-2015 and lead to a deep freeze in 2050-2060 that will last about fifty years. 
Read More HERE