Skip to content


Bringing some sanity to the Climate Change debate.



181 Comments leave one →
  1. February 19, 2012 6:09 pm

    Hi Paul, I am interested in using an extract from your article the CCA for a briefing to MPs – is the okay? Contact me

  2. Ed Caryl permalink
    February 23, 2012 6:10 pm

    Your article on Reykjavik prompted me to look at many arctic stations for which I had stored data last year. May i use the comparison figure in your article in mine? I will be putting it on TheNoTricksZone. I didn’t happen to store Raykjavik.

  3. May 24, 2012 8:05 pm

    Interesting climate blog!

  4. pcopeland permalink
    June 11, 2012 12:02 am

    Do you have an RSS feed enabled on your site?

  5. December 31, 2012 2:54 pm

    Hi Paul,

    Have you ever seen or created – or do you know where the data is to do it – a scatter plot of power generated by wind (or % of capacity) against winter temperature? I assume the dynamics could well be different in summer.

    The whole idea of a power generation technology which does not actually produce power when it is most needed is fascinating.

  6. Jeffery permalink
    January 17, 2013 6:00 pm


    Great stuff, always useful. Have you seen the NIPCC site? This is not spam, I’ve been reading along and forwarding your pertinent (and often “pert”) questions to my AGW zombie friends. NIPCC generally has some pretty interesting links along similar lines culled from science publications. Great that there are places to find polite but serious questions about catastrophic AGW.

  7. February 11, 2013 4:20 pm links to your site’s Feb 8 blog. If I may, please allow me to point one other largely unreported facet of AGW, namely the baseless accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the issue. I wrote an exclusive for ClimateDepot nearly two years ago titled “Climate Depot Exclusive: “Smearing Skeptic Scientists: What did Gore know and when did he know it?” ( ), and the rest of my pieces on this narrow topic are here: “The ’96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists”

    Folks like me having no science background at all can contribute to a wider understanding of the politics surrounding the issue, at least.

  8. Ebeni permalink
    February 25, 2013 4:07 pm

    Is there a “tutorial” for lay people (albeit with an appreciation for science) that explores the AGW/CAGW controversy? My thought is an easily followed map that, step by step, follows the scientific method and general principles. One that shows how the science has been corrupted through each step of the scientific method and associated principles and continues to be supported with unfounded assertions and logical fallacies. Perhaps a tutorial that has citations and proof statements to support the assertions. I have a big file of papers/blogs etc on various positions on AGW/CAGW, I can grasp much of it but have limited capability to discuss it other than in generalities. Does such a tutorial exist or can someone write it up–again for the lay person with a grasp of scientific method.
    Regards and Thanks

    • February 25, 2013 5:23 pm

      From the scientific point of view, the debate seems to revolve around two main issues:-

      1) What will feedbacks be?
      2) What will be the effects of a slightly warmer planet?

      There are certainly wide disagreements between scientists themselves about both these questions, but I am not aware of any write up that summarises everything.

      • April 24, 2014 10:37 pm

        I recommend, UN and UNEP websites, and the Club of Rome 1991 report “The First Global Revolution” as precursors to science. A step by step “procedure” to demonstrate how the scientific method would be used by researchers to determine the cause(s) of an observed climate change is a great idea, and an excellent way to highlight the contrast between scientific research and the propaganda we’re being inundated with . A compendium of the various methods that have been used to distort and misrepresent the science would be helpful, too.
        The most important issue in the AGW/CAGW controversy is that the concept that anthropogenic CO2 was affecting climate was proposed as a method to achieve political and economic goals. The corruption of the science and unfounded assertions and logical fallacies Ebeni mentions, as well as the severe weather events; earthquakes, typhoons and hurricanes of unusual magnitude, created or exacerbated by HAARP ELF and chemical dumps (Chemtrails) shown in satellite photos and radar, are essential means of achieving these goals. The major controversy is based on the fact that AGW isn’t science. Japan’s gosat satellite (greenhouse gas observing satellite) in 2009 showed that most CO2 was evolved from the ocean, sparsely populated vegetated areas in Africa, the Middle East, China, and northeast Asia, titled something like “need for economic justice from third world nations”.

      • April 24, 2014 10:50 pm

        Feedbacks alone are an issue, since nearly all feedback in natural systems is negative and maintains stability in the system, and IPCC predictions unaccountably assume positive feedback.

      • JDoherty permalink
        June 27, 2014 12:37 am

        The problem from any field geology or archaeology scientist’s point of the current science of climate appears to make no serious effort to determine what the geohistorical effects of similar or greater changes in the past were. There is quite literally no reliable empirical, field evidence that CO2 has any long term correlation to planetary temperature. At shorter, but still geological scales of time, the field evidence supports only the idea that warming oceans degas CO2. Warmer oceans CAUSE higher atmospheric CO2.

        Also, and worse, no effort is made to determine how patterns observable in the past, as reflected in geological data, would be seen in the present. Throughout the last quarter of the Pleistocene it is plain that CO2 lags marine temperature – or at least d-O18 changes – by several centuries. The implication is that if this pattern continued to the present, current increases in CO2 are due to events that took place during the Medieval Warm Period. We may very well have an effect on carbon isotope balances without significantly altering the efficiency of the carbon sinks that have been operating since life appeared on the planet.

      • Throgmorton. permalink
        December 6, 2014 8:42 pm

        Those are important considerations, but I believe that the central issue is one of attribution, or whether there actually exists a distinct anthropogenic signal which can be isolated from natural variation. The sole argument for the anthropogenic signal comes from the models which ‘replicate’ the warming in the presence of CO2, but show a ‘flat’ line without. But the reason the line is flat is because of the working assumption that natural variation is random, not cyclic, and so the perturbations in individual model runs are smoothed out over the ensemble.

        I don’t doubt that anthropogenic CO2 is having some input, but the question remains about whether it is significant to the overall result.

    • January 9, 2014 2:57 am

      Ebeni, I my page “Observatorio ARVAL – Climate Change; The cyclic nature of Earth’s climate”, at I begin with:
      After the alarm caused by Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006, these are my findings about the drivers of Earth’s global climate.

      I try to present this science in this long page.
      It is all about science published by well-known scientists, with links to the original works.
      As you can see below, I’m not a climate scientist, far from it. That’s why I had to do this research; To find out what happened, what is happening and maybe what could most probably happen. I hope you’ll find it interesting.

      Andres Valencia
      Electronics Engineer, Solid State Physics

  9. March 13, 2013 3:00 pm

    New Anthony Watts Interview Just Published: Climate Change without Catastrophe (News Tip)

    Dear Shub,

    I just wanted to send you a quick mail to let you know that we have just conducted a very interesting interview with the well known figure in the climate debate Anthony Watts.
    It’s a very interesting chat and whether you agree or disagree with his comments I thought you and your readers would find some value in taking a look

    A few of the topics we discussed are:

    • The difference between “global warming” and “climate change”
    • Why CO2 is partially responsible but oversold
    • Why recent major weather events cannot be linked to CO2
    • Why we should be more worried about another ice age
    • Why carbon taxes won’t have any effect on the whims of Mother Nature
    • How the climate debate has taken on religious proportions
    • Why the Keystone protests are all for show
    • Why Mother Nature will be the final arbiter of truth
    • What we should and shouldn’t be doing to address global warming
    • Why “climate change” has become a favorite bogeyman
    • Why scientifically we’ve only scratched the surface of climate change

    You can read the full interview at:

    I hope you find the interview interesting.

    Best regards,

    James Stafford

  10. May 1, 2013 1:22 pm

    Be careful posting anything about The Environment Agency (Wrong Type of Rain etc.) – they’ve got a large calibre scatter gun to deal with uppity bloggers.

    We were just missed by one blast that hit of all places Narrowboat World and prompted us to investigate how much media control a single UK government agency indulges in

  11. alf permalink
    June 2, 2013 6:21 pm

    “Because if you look at satellite data at the top of the atmosphere, you clearly see we have an excess of energy, more energy going into our planetary system then what is going out.”

    comment by a physicist quoted in a post on the NoTricksZone blog under the post title; Puzzled Schellnhuber: “Not At All Surprised” Short Term Models Are Wrong…But Insists Long-Term Models Are Correct!” Would you have any comments.


  12. June 3, 2013 11:37 am

    Hello Mr. Homewood,
    I did some datamining on a few British coastal weatherstations to see if the Atlantic Ocean is still warming.
    I’ve written an article about that subject on my own blog:
    It is in Dutch, but the graphs speak for themselves.

  13. alf permalink
    June 3, 2013 3:50 pm

    here is the link –just wondering if in fact the above statement is true.


    • June 3, 2013 5:14 pm


      I don’t know where he gets his data from, but Lindzen & Choi came to the opposite conclusion.

      There is certainly much debate about whether they are right or not, but I think it shows just how far away scientists are in being able to measure and understand such things.

      But the bottom line is that if Scnellhuber is right, the added heat would be measurable at the surface, which it is not.

  14. alf permalink
    June 3, 2013 6:54 pm

    I would assume that it is easier to measure outgoing radiation then incoming due to cloud cover and other factors. thanks for the link


  15. Joseph Yates permalink
    June 27, 2013 11:55 am

    “The more I look at climate issues, the more I realise that we cannot always rely on what the climate establishment tell us.

    I hope that, in my own small way, I can help to put that right.”

    Well, Paul, that’s an admirable goal, but I have a couple of questions.

    1) Who are you – what are your credentials?

    2) Have you published anything in any peer-reviewed scientific publication?

    3) What is your academic background?

    4) What professional certifications, if any, do you possess?

    Don’t take this as a personal attack. It’s just that if I was going to have brain surgery, I’d really want to know that the surgeon who was going to perform the surgery was actually qualified to cut on me. It is no different with respect to the search for expertize in any field, for instance, in Climate science. And so I think you owe us a little information on your background.

    • June 27, 2013 6:50 pm

      Thanks for the question, Joseph, and I appreciate the reasons for it.

      However, I deal in facts. If you think I have made any factual errors, or misrepresented any issues, I would be delighted to discuss them with you.

      As I am sure you would agree, Climate Change is an enormously important area of public policy and debate, and I believe that the more facts that are out in the public arena, then the better.

      One more point, and perhaps the most important. I always encourage people to do what I have done, and check the facts for themselves, rather than simply believe what they are told. So I usually try to provide links etc for readers to do just that.

      (BTW – I am an accountant)

  16. Camburn permalink
    August 8, 2013 2:11 am

    Paul: here is an interesting discussion I had with a few folks tonight.

    The hottest year in the U.S. was 1921. 1934 was second. The average temperature for the 48 contiguous states in 1921 was 55.6°F. To confirm this one can read the first paragraph of THE WEATHER OF 1940 IN THE UNITED STATES (W.W. Reed) or THE WEATHER OF 1942 IN THE UNITED STATES (J.L. Baldwin).
    The average temperature in 1934 was 55.1°F. The original temperature measurements published each month for each state for those years by the U.S. Weather Bureau will add up correctly.

    BTW… Two-thirds of the state record high temperatures in the U.S. were recorded before 1955. More than half were recorded from 1921-1934. Few have been recorded since 2003. Yes, it is warming today, but it also did so during the first half of the last century… and at about the same rate

    OK. Here are some numbers. The first column shows weighted monthly temperatures for the 48 contiguous states (no Hawaii or Puerto Rico) derived from the original 1921 US Weather Bureau monthly reports… the Tables in the Condensed Climatological Summary. Example:
    The average temperature (°F) for each state is given in these official reports. Only the contiguous 48 are used. The second column gives the temperatures from the NCDC-NOAA 1895-2009 US database where, presumably, the same historical information is given for each state, each month. The third column is the amount that the NCDC has lowered each temperature.

    JAN 36.0 33.8 2.2
    FEB 38.5 35.9 2.6
    MAR 49.5 47.5 2.0
    APR 53.7 52.2 1.5
    MAY 61.9 60.5 1.4
    JUN 72.1 70.8 1.3
    JUL 76.1 75.3 0.8
    AUG 73.0 71.6 1.4
    SEP 69.0 67.7 1.3
    OCT 56.4 54.9 1.5
    NOV 44.7 42.9 1.8
    DEC 36.7 34.5 2.2

    YEAR 55.6 53.9 1.6

    Note that the annual average for 1921 has been lowered by 1.6°F. This lowering has the net effect of removing the year 1921 from its position as the warmest year on record in the US… as the Weather Bureau observed in several annual reports I cited earlier. The same pattern of lowering can be found in other years. I’ve checked 1934, 1938, 1940. All of the original Weather Bureau temperatures have been systematically changed and all have been lowered. The winter months have been lowered more the summer months…every time….WHY?

    • April 25, 2014 9:27 pm

      “The winter months have been lowered more the summer months…every time….WHY?” Lowering summer month temperatures creates the impression of recent warming. Lowing historical winter temps supports the alarmist sea-level rise, catastrophic flooding meme by making current winter temps appear unusually warm, supporting predictions of a trend toward unprecedented glacier and polar ice melts. My guess, anyway.

  17. Joe Lalonde permalink
    November 12, 2013 3:22 am


    There is not much actual physical facts being used in climate science.
    They just have been following temperature data for the last 150 years and tweaking in garbage and calling it a model.

    Facts are completely irrelevant.
    Hunting for any pattern to call a trend in a system that is in completely unique every moment and every place. Never to find that exact pattern. All of this is irrelevant to the many processes and material differences in play on a rotating planet that has many different velocities with many different pressure differences on an ORB.
    Any mathematical equation is pure horseshit as they all assume a single point that does not interact or move. PI(3.14159) was never designed for motion and every rotation after the first distorts due to the equation being open ended.
    We have NEVER measured distances of a fantastic amount of planetary data that gives some understanding to how this planet actually mechanically operates. The gas of nitrogen being 80% interacts against water vapor and does so much more to moving water vapor in creating snowflakes and keeping water vapor separated and changes density with the cold.

    In simple terms…

    Our planet is getting colder due to the suns inactivity which gives off great amounts of material that our atmosphere has lost catching in the last decade to insulate the planet with the gases by the thickness. We are in constant loss of material including water vapor over 4.5 billion years.

    There is vast amounts material and questions to understand by pure facts. All the answers ARE here, just our scientists have gone on a different direction and will protect the garbage to the bitter end and keep the citizens ignorant.

  18. December 9, 2013 5:30 pm


    Your graphic on 97% and 52% about the AMS survey is great. May I use in in presentations, citing you of course?

    By the way, I would like to connect with you. Please send me an email.

    Steve Goreham

    • December 9, 2013 8:27 pm

      Please do, Steve.

      BTW – the graphic came from Anthony’s, not sure where he got it from!

  19. Dave Ellerby permalink
    January 8, 2014 11:16 am

    Dear Paul,
    1) thanks for your site which has become my 1st visit on most days, usurping WUWT, mainly due to your UK emphasis.
    2) it may be my workstation today, but I note that comments aren’t available and also you appear to have lost your google ranking from my search protocol in that I do not get your site offered when searching on ” not a lot of..” where previously those four words initiated a direct link being offered. Hmmm – do these indicate some google-filtering? Could be worth a check.
    3) I live in Morayshire, Scotland. The Scottish Government have adopted even more banzai climate madness policies than their UK/English & Welsh counterparts. Should you ever have time, it would be interesting to have a column or posting dealing with Scottish issues – especially as the looming referendum draws near.
    4) Happy New Year!

    • January 8, 2014 11:31 am

      Thanks Dave

      I use Yahoo search and that works fine. I have just tried Google , and it finds it typing the full “Not a lot of people know that” in.

      Even comes top of the list! So there’s probably nothing to worry about.

      I have had other comments today, but please let me know if you still get problems.



  20. Steve permalink
    January 14, 2014 4:58 pm

    You might be interested in the text on page 156 of the linked document (in the public domain) that talks about the effect of climate change on aircraft safety. Extract: However, greater weather changes are anticipated as a result of global warming, with lightning implications.


  21. dave ward permalink
    January 22, 2014 1:06 pm

    Paul – your post about the EADT article I tipped you yesterday has created a bit of an opportunity. One of my friends has emailed the editor and linked to your article. He particularly challenged the use of “Carbon” pointing out that it was a meaningless term, that they should have used CO2, and how this was only a tiny percentage of the atmosphere.

    He’s just had a response from the editor inviting him to submit a reply or article, and thinks you would be able to produce a far better answer than he could. As I can’t find a direct contact on your site, would you be good enough to email me (at the address on this post) and say if you are prepared to help? If you are, I will put you in touch with my friend and he can pass on the correspondence so far.

    Many thanks in anticipation.

  22. dave ward permalink
    January 22, 2014 1:14 pm

    Sorry – I meant at the email address you should have from my comment in your logs. I don’t wish to post it in public, to avoid being hit by spammers!

  23. January 22, 2014 6:01 pm

    Paul – As you have posted regarding Kevin Anderson and Tyndall recently you may be interested in an appearance last night on an Irish television programme, Eco Eye. I think you can view the RTE player in the UK (I could in Australia, but it may be country specific. Here I can view theChannel 4 player but not the BBC player, other than for radio. The URL is

    The other main interviewee was one John Gibbons, who has earned a mention at Bishop Hill. I’ve earlier this week posted at on a blatant misrepresentation of IPCC projections by him, and by An Taisce, the Irish National Trust, which has as President an IPCC AR4 lead author and review editor, who has, in my opinion, unwisely said nothing. As for John Gibbons it is nothing unexpected – I filled in someone else recently that the Irish Times allows columnists such as John Gibbons write pseudo-scientific nonsense and rarely prints corrections or dissenting opinions. (To be fair, John Gibbons does also sometimes make sense, although on those occasions I usually find myself checking if I’ve missed something. Surprisingly, he is prepared to support a nuclear option when this in anathema for virtually all Irish ‘environmentalists’. He is also thorough
    when it comes to ‘disappearing’ blog posts which have become embarrassing by revealing a very poor scientific understanding, although he has not been able to purge these when reproduced elsewhere. It may help to judge the state of Irish Climate Science when you know that one of his past gems (“First, the science bit. Global average temperatures have increased by 0.8 degrees since industrialisation began. This translates to a world that has
    become 6.5 per cent warmer”) is still carried without comment on the website of Professor Sweeney’s ICARUS (Irish Climate Analysis & Research Units) unit at NUI Maynooth!

  24. John Crasige permalink
    January 30, 2014 3:18 pm

    H Paul
    I noticed when reading your article about the bad weather in England on Anthony’s blog that
    in the comments section you referred to a blogger by the name of Carbon500 who had a comment regarding your article. I would like to get in touch with this person re this as I think
    he could help me in relation to ongoing battle I am having with the local FOE group. Of course
    only let me have contact details if he is willing to let you release them.
    Many thanks
    John Craige

  25. February 14, 2014 9:22 am

    Dear Paul,

    Your site is fascinating – thank you for all your work, and for my education.

    I have a question about the recent UK rainfall articles you’ve written using Met Office data.

    The articles are very clear as always, but can the data tell us anything about rainfall intensity, by which I mean lots of rain falling in a very short time?

    This is always the response to the argument that rainfall totals are not all that exceptional. It’s also where the Met Office seem (to me) to be going (i.e. that the new improved models show increasing and more intense regional weather effects).

    Clearly the effects of a given total of rainfall will be very different if spread over three months rather than one, but presumably a really wet year like 1929/30 must have had rainfall at least as intense as we’re now experiencing?

    Is it just as simple as saying that “rainfall intensity” is directly related to the amount of rainfall in a period, therefore that it cannot really be varying as is incessantly claimed? Flash floods and local geography (Boscastle/Seaton) excepted of course.


    Steve Brown

    • February 14, 2014 10:20 am

      The Met Office do keep rainday data, so you can work out daily averages. However, this only starts in 1961, which coincided with an unusually dry couple of decades. Therefore, any trends are unreliable.

      I did do an exercise that used daily rainfall data on the England & Wales series, that records it since 1931. The exercise showed quite clearly the dry interlude (with fewer heavy rainfall days), and suggested that the last decade was no different to 1931-60.

  26. April 8, 2014 7:32 pm

    Hi Paul
    Had a couple of thoughts that I can’t find the answer – wondered if you might know!
    1. What is the cost to maintain a wind turbine?
    2. I am assuming that wind turbines are subsidized in a similar manner as solar pv and that the subsidy only lasts for 25 years. At the end of that time the wind “farmer” I presume, get the going rate per kwHour at wholesale rates (solar pv get 4.5p per kw). If so what is the actual average output of a turbine and will it be sufficient to cover the maintenance costs?
    3. I just have a vision of lots of broken wind turbines in 25 years time that have become uneconomic to be fixed and that the wind farmers will just abandon them and build another turbine nearby to get the green subsidy again for another 25 years.

    Wouldappreciate your thoughts/figures?

    • April 9, 2014 10:52 am


      The subsidy for wind turbines will be for 15 yrs, under the new strike price contracts.
      I don’t know mtce costs, but such marginal costs would bge fairly low – most of the cost is the upfront capital cost.

      In theory, the planning process should ensure that they are properly decommissioned, but in practice what will happen if the operator just walks away?

  27. William Abbott permalink
    April 25, 2014 7:06 pm

    Paul, I know your beat is weather history, so this is “off topic” a bit. I ran across information about a remarkable Englishman, a veteran of World War I. I believe I read he was England’s most decorated solider in that war. Being from the states, perhaps is why I have never heard of William Coltman before. Have you? Its just interesting. Here a couple links to biographical material. I didn’t see any books.

    I do appreciate your work. No conversation about weather or climate is even coherent without a firm grasp of past observations. Its preposterous to model the future without apprehending the past.

  28. S Taylor permalink
    May 8, 2014 5:52 am

    Paul, You’re going to love this one. Report on The Register

    • S Taylor permalink
      May 8, 2014 5:58 am

      Apologies Paul, You have already referred to it in one of your earlier posts. Note to self: Use the scroll bar more often…

  29. June 2, 2014 7:46 am

    Hi Paul,

    Have been following your blog for some time now and have recommended it to numerous people.

    I wonder whether you might be interested in this article discussing the potential impact of climate change on the medical profession and what their ethical response should be. I came across this in the Student BMJ (my daughter is in her third year) and here is an online link:

    You need to register (for free) to read the full article.

    This is a good example of the way climate change has insinuated itself into every thread of discourse in modern life and is described as fact by someone who clearly has no knowledge of the subject he is pontificating on but is driven by the collective groupthink that pervades this topic.

    Doctors and nurses have enough to worry and should (and probably do already given lack of comments) ignore exhortations to take part in a phoney war on climate change.

    Steve Davison

  30. Alf permalink
    June 26, 2014 2:04 pm

    So far you have avoided commenting on steven goddards claims about data tampering. Is he really that far off the mark?

  31. Alf permalink
    June 26, 2014 11:17 pm

    Thanks; I have followed Steve’s blog for some time and dispite his personality he seems to be on to something.

  32. July 3, 2014 10:41 am

    Hi Paul,

    In researching the recent Facebook psychological experiment scandal I came across this article about filter bubbles:

    Nothing really surprising but in combination with the fact that Facebook have been manipulating the bubble to see the effects (without our knowledge or consent) one quickly realises the potential ramifications in terms of its misuse being able to influence what we think, buy and more scarily, vote.

    Clearly none of us can escape from this if we spend any time on the internet and it does help to explain why a dangerous meme like CAGW takes hold so perniciously. A little depressing but I do wonder whether like the butterfly effect, there might sometime soon be a chaotic switch which consigns that meme to the dustbin of failed ideas. One can only hope!

    I continue to share your posts with family, friends and colleagues but with little feedback. It would be interesting to know what influence your other readers have in this respect? I suspect several of my “friends” have already set their Facebook filters to quietly hide my posts!

    Best wishes


    • RockySpears permalink
      May 13, 2015 12:59 pm

      I realise how old this comment is, but I read it just as I post the exact same thing on another site. I have tried, and now do not bother mostly, to engage friends and relations in this topic, but none has even the slightest interest, not even my own children at University.
      Ok, so this website of yours is filled with information, but who, other than those that have an interest, will read it?
      How do we convince people to even give a damn? Those that ignore my queries, have no interest in the other side either, it is just utter apathy for the whole subject.
      AGW (or climate change as it is now) is such an influencing topic at high levels of world Government, but generates almost no interest in ordinary people.

      How can we get people to care, one way or the other. I really don’t mind, so long as they choose.

      • November 3, 2015 12:27 pm

        Hi, an old reply to your reply! I have been concerned about this for some time and have unfortunately developed a “certain” reputation amongst my family and friends. I have had more success recently with some as the fraud has become more widespread. The issues of diesel pollution, steel plants being closed, wind farms springing everywhere despite local opposition and the sacking of Phillipe Verdier has been useful issues to bring out the general point. All these things appeal to people even if they don’t care about politics and the erosion of democracy that is required to support this fraud. I have “converted” a few people but you have to proselytise hard and be incredibly thick skinned.

  33. Ron C. permalink
    July 11, 2014 10:43 pm


    I have developed something that could be of interest. It’s a way of doing temperature trend analysis that neatly avoids all the data manipulations so much discussed recently. I have built an Excel workbook for this method, and have done a study of Kansas US in order to prove the concept and the tool.

    At this point I need someone with a skeptical mind to critique what I have done. If you are willing I can email you the Kansas workbook and you can see if it stands up to scrutiny.

    I have started building a Canada workbook with this template, but there are many stations, and it will take time. I also want to verify that I am on the right track before making the full effort.

    I can also send a text document explaining the rationale for temperature trend analysis.

    Please let me know what you think..

    • July 12, 2014 8:39 am

      Thanks, I would be interested Ron.

      I’ll email you.

    • Ron C. permalink
      July 12, 2014 11:29 am

      Thanks. I have sent the material to you by return emails.

  34. July 25, 2014 10:39 am

    Paul – you may like to publicise this…

    Or you may not! However, I thought I’d bring it to your attention

    Classify the terms “denier” , “climate denier” or variants thereof as hate speech.



  35. JustAnotherPoster permalink
    July 29, 2014 1:48 pm

    Paul. See if you can access Sheffield Weston Park Weather Station records. You might have to make a trip to the museum…..

    130 Years of history

    Its situated at almost exactly the same position for that time.

    It MUST be one of the longest sited class A weather stations in the world.

    There isn’t much development around the site which would change the conditions.

    It would make a cracking blog post.

    I bet you ANY money it doesn’t show dangerous warming.

    Then see how this raw data compares with NASA, GISS and the like. There should be any adjustments really at all on it.

  36. Paul B permalink
    August 16, 2014 7:09 am

    Hi Paul

    Earlier this week the BBC website carried a piece by David Shukman on ‘the pause’ – as I recall, it was notable insomuch as not entirely discounting natural cycles as playing a role. It was at least questioning which surprised me given the BBC’s biased policy on the subject of anything to do with climate change. Anyway – having only initially skimmed through the article I returned to it the following day to find that it had vanished. Did you see it or did anyone else see it or was I dreaming or is it another example of BBC censorship at its ugliest?



  37. August 22, 2014 9:10 am

    Hi Paul,

    Have just put up my first personal blog post with a link to yours here:

    Hope you like it.

    Best wishes


  38. Saunders of Bungay permalink
    October 8, 2014 10:18 am

    Private Eye has a good cartoon this fortnight on p24. A dog team labelled Arctic Ice Survey, is driven by a man crying “Mush!”
    You could post it. I can’t.

  39. October 13, 2014 6:50 pm

    Paul – image now missing
    on your blog page

    ..your blog is nearly at 1 million hits I see ..965K so far

  40. November 13, 2014 11:15 am

    Hi Paul,

    you may be interested in this link, commentary on the “landmark” deal between the US and China, which I had understood not to be that significant reading between the lines. However, this chap thinks it is a real step towards saving the world:

    See if you can keep your face straight reading it.

    • November 13, 2014 12:34 pm

      They’re as deluded as Obama!

      Just posted my analysis

      • November 13, 2014 2:34 pm

        You would have thought an academic could have taken the trouble to come up with something similar to your analysis, it doesn’t bode well for our educational system.

  41. November 27, 2014 4:55 pm

    Hi Paul,

    I have just added a comment to this funding notice here for a CCS projects – you get a mention, hope you don’t mind.

    Best wishes


  42. Terbreugghen permalink
    November 29, 2014 9:22 pm

    Had an interesting real-world demonstration of UHI yesterday. Was driving south from Green Bay, Wisconsin USA in a snow squall, temps just below freezing. Hit Milwaukee, approx. population 1 million, snow turned to light mist – temps just above freezing. Kept going same highway south of Milwaukee, snow squall again. hmm.

  43. December 3, 2014 3:00 pm

    More cobblers from the Conversation:

    Some of your favourites here Paul: steam cooling image, “carbon” emission, comparing their new equation to models, no hint of reality creeping in anywhere as far as I can tell.

    I think I need to cancel my subscription to this idiotic publication before I blow a gasket.

  44. Mark Roberts permalink
    January 3, 2015 5:53 am

    At a friend’s invitation in our climate change debate, I am reading Kathatrine Hayhoe’s “A Climate for Change” and wonder if you can point me to a good (therefore fair) review of it. Thank you.

  45. Mark Roberts permalink
    January 5, 2015 7:22 pm

    Thanks, Paul. I (a layperson re climate studies) intend to read carefully and check what I can. I think I followed links to you regarding her Figure 14 “Carbon Dioxide and Temperature: An Unnatural High” (in the glossy sheets tipped in halfway through the book). it gets hammered by critics for minimizing (I guess) both temperature and CO2 highs some seem to know of within the last 6000 years (the span of her Figure). If you can point me to a more accurate historical reconstruction of those, I’d be grateful.

  46. January 13, 2015 3:17 pm

    Paul, I think my comment went to the “spam” folder (probably because it has lots of links):

    Sorry to post this here; I couldn’t find contact info for you. Would you mind sending me an email, so that I can email you privately next time?


  47. rwoollaston permalink
    February 2, 2015 12:55 pm

    For a long time I’ve been concerned about the scientific method used in climate science (and indeed all endeavours that aim to call themselve sciences but are not.) Rather than comment myself, here are some relevant quotes from probably the greatest philosopher of science in the 20th century, Karl Popper:

    “Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.”

    “True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.”

    “But the secret of intellectual excellence is the spirit of criticism ; it is intellectual independence. And this leads to difficulties which must prove insurmountable for any kind of authoritarianism. The authoritarian will in general select those who obey, who believe, who respond to his influence. But in doing so, he is bound to select mediocrities. For he excludes those who revolt, who doubt, who dare to resist his influence. Never can an authority admit that the intellectually courageous, i.e. those who dare to defy his authority, may be the most valuable type. Of course, the authorities will always remain convinced of their ability to detect initiative. But what they mean by this is only a quick grasp of their intentions, and they will remain for ever incapable of seeing the difference.”
    ― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume 1 : The Spell of Plato

    “The more we learn about the world, and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific, and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know; our knowledge of our ignorance. For this indeed, is the main source of our ignorance – the fact that our knowledge can be only finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.”

    “The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.”

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    ― Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

    “The discovery of instances which confirm a theory means very little if we have not tried, and failed, to discover refutations. For if we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmation, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in favour of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been refuted.”
    ― Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism

    “With the idol of certainty (including that of degrees of imperfect certainty or probability) there falls one of the defences of obscurantism which bar the way of scientific advance. For the worship of this idol hampers not only the boldness of our questions, but also the rigour and the integrity of our tests. The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.”
    ― Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

    “We all have an unscientific weakness for being always in the right, and this weakness seems to be particularly common among professional and amateur politicians. But the only way to apply something like scientific method in politics is to proceed on the assumption that there can be no political move which has no drawbacks, no undesirable consequences. To look out for these mistakes, to find them, to bring them into the open, to analyse them, and to learn from them, this is what a scientific politician as well as a political scientist must do. Scientific method in politics means that the great art of convincing ourselves that we have not made any mistakes, of ignoring them, of hiding them, and of blaming others from them, is replaced by the greater art of accepting the responsibility for them, of trying to learn from them, and of applying this knowledge so that we may avoid them in future.”
    ― Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism

  48. rwoollaston permalink
    February 2, 2015 1:09 pm

    Linked to the manipulation of the climate change agenda is the need for its supporters (now including all meteorological services and nearly all politicians) to convince the public of its supposed impact. Over the last year or two (at least in the UK) I’ve noticed an escalation in the language used in weather bulletins. Two examples spring to mind: “Weatherbombs” and “Embedded Thunderstorms,” both of which have connotations with terrorism, and lead to the thought: “Who or what is responsible?”

    The answer is easy – climate change of course!!

  49. Peter Stevens-Guille permalink
    February 21, 2015 3:22 pm

    Paul, The Canadian Newspaper, the globe and mail, has an informative article re the honest volunteers across Canada who record temperatures from their Stevenson screens daily. Do you know if Canadian temperatures are manipulated like the ones from S. America and Iceland that you recently reported?

  50. Steve T permalink
    February 24, 2015 8:00 pm

    Hi Paul,

    Hot off the press from the BBC web site: . Talking about 128mm rise in sea level north of New York city.

  51. February 27, 2015 9:20 am

    Hi Paul,

    You may be interested in developments in Australia. A group of us has for some time been concerned about the homogenization of the very good raw temperature record for many parts of Australia. Late last year, after much disquiet, the government finally established a panel to oversee what out Bureau of Meteorology has been up to with all the ‘adjustments’.

    So far this new panel has not asked for our opinions, but we have nevertheless made unsolicited submissions. You can read them here…

    And you will get some idea of the extent of the problem with the official Australian temp. record.

    You might also be inclined to make a submission to this panel, and if you do, please send me a copy so I can upload to this page.

    Indeed it would be good if the panel was given some idea of the extent of the problem internationally.

    Cheers, Jennifer Marohasy

  52. rwoollaston permalink
    March 1, 2015 7:58 am

    Have you seen this report?

    It includes this from leading Yale researcher Anthony Leiserowitz: “Indeed, many people were a bit surprised to find that global warming was not, in fact, a myth; and more importantly, that the state of global warming was nearing critical mass and we are now in a place where we must make drastic changes or face equally dire consequences.

    The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication lead researcher continues, “There have been a number of studies that have shown that some people will change their views of climate change based on extreme weather. It’s not enough to simply experience a heat wave — it then needs to be contextualized. It needs to be interpreted by thought leaders and trusted people in a community and by the media and scientists saying, ‘This is an indication of global warming.’”

    So dismiss the fact that it is just a theory, not fact, and use any extreme weather event to support the theory. Dishonest or what?

    When will our academics understand that scepticism, rigour and honesty are the foundations of science?

  53. March 4, 2015 6:06 pm

    Hi Paul,

    A new post on my blog with a couple of links to your good self:

    If you think there are better links for the hiatus and dodgy data manipulation please let me know.


  54. James3563 permalink
    March 5, 2015 4:46 am

    Mr Homewood,

    What is the utility of Benford’s Law in evaluating climate data sets? Is it applicable?

  55. John Williams permalink
    March 5, 2015 10:28 am

    I’m not sure if you picked this up:
    Penultimate paragraph:
    There’s much to learn from extremophiles living deep below Earth’s surface or seabed. For one, because these organisms feed on hydrocarbons, they produce methane as a byproduct which is a greenhouse gas thousands of times more potent than CO2 at trapping heat. How many of these organisms are there below the oceans? Billions, trillions, billions of billions? We need to know if we’re to build a solid model that faithfully assess their impact on the climate.

    We can’t even model the global economy and get it right, and that’s a human construct orders of magnitude simpler than the climate system

  56. rwoollaston permalink
    March 6, 2015 2:21 pm

    OMG now Naomi Klein’s on the bandwagon linking up everything she doesn’t like with climate change:

  57. April 13, 2015 8:39 pm

    Hi Paul

    Any comments on this article in today’s Australian press. The Age newspaper is a major climate change supporter.

    You mentioned something about warming oceans in the southern hemisphere in the past few weeks I think.



  58. May 8, 2015 12:05 pm

    May 7 07:03 PM


    Meteorologist Joe Bastardi posted this letter from Dr. Bill Gray on Joe works for Weatherbell. Its a pay site. I think he would be happy if you read it. Its the best explanation of why the climate model feedback loops are completely unhinged from reality.

    Dr Gray sent this out today to alot of people. I am of the impression he wants to make it clear to as many people as possible how he feels about the AGW situation, so I think its worthwhile sharing it with you. I think alot of the younger generation out there ought to listen to Dr Gray, because when I was freezing at PSU he was warning ( loudly) about the cyclical nature of climate and the coming uptick in hurricanes linked with warming overall. He also made clear that by 2020 we would be out of that cycle. So call me naive, but I listen to people who have proven themselves to be right, not Johny come lately Climate heroes that explain things after the fact, and in a way where nothing they said is accountable and is claimed to be right anyway

    to the letter:
    This is for your general information.
    I am appalled that scientific objectivity has been so blatantly disregarded by our government and the world’s environmentalists who would use erroneous climate model results to justify their faulty AGW pronouncement which are injurious to humanity.
    Gray’s View on AGW. We AGW skeptics need to be able to offer two basic plausible physical explanations in order to negate the AGW hypothesis.
    1. Why projected CO2 increases over the next 50-100 years will only be able to bring about very small amounts (0.2-0.4°C) of global mean temperature rise.
    2. Why there is natural climate change unrelated to CO2 variations? We need a believable physical explanation for the global climate changes over the last few thousand years (Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, etc.) and in particular the apparent quite modest global warming of the last century. We also need an explanation of the shorter time-scale multi-decadal global warming periods (1910-1940, 1975-1999) and of the global cooling or neutral periods (1880-1910, 1940-1974, and 1999-2015).
    Explanation #1 can be understood as a result of CO2 increases causing more global precipitation and associated increase in the globe’s deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convective clouds. These CO2 induced precipitation increases bring about upper tropospheric drying which allows more infrared (IR) flux to space – a negative water-vapor feedback. This extra rainfall enhances surface evaporation cooling which acts to balance out most of the expected global warming resulting from CO2’s increasing blockage of IR to space (3.7 Wm-2 for a CO2 doubling). This prevents CO2 increases from bringing about any significant global warming. Only minimal warming (0.2-0.4°C) is going to occur with a doubling of CO2. The main effect of CO2 increases will be an enhancement of global average precipitation of about 3 percent. This enhanced global rainfall will occur in regions where it is already raining and should be hardly noticed.
    Explanation #2 can be explained by the multi-decadal and multi-century variations in the globe’s deep ocean circulations (or Meridional Overturning Circulation – MOC) which are primarily driven by space and time variations of oceanic salinity. Salinity changes occur in ocean areas where there are long period differences in surface evaporation minus precipitation. This is especially the situation of the Atlantic where ocean evaporation is 10-20 percent greater than precipitation. Salinity driven ocean changes bring about alterations in the strength of the Atlantic Ocean Thermohaline Circulation (THC), and through Pacific basin upwelling response variations to variation in the Pacific multi-decadal oscillation (PDO) as well. There is also salinity driven ocean subsidence around the Antarctic continent. All these factors influence the strength of the MOC.
    Most of the globe’s last century weak global warming has, in my view, been a consequence of a modest slowdown of the global oceans MOC. This last century long MOC slowdown is also detected in an associated weak increase (in milliseconds) in the earth’s rate of rotation.
    Lack of Ability of Other Suggested Non-ocean Climate Change Mechanisms to Rival or be Superior to Coming CO2 Influences. The many other non-ocean proposed physical ideas for climate change (where orbital parameters do not play a role) such as
    1. Solar variability
    2. Sun-spot changes
    3. Cosmic ray variability
    4. Aerosol changes
    5. Human land use changes
    6. Volcanic activity
    may each play a minor role in some aspects of the globe’s climate alteration. But the individual physical influence of each of these suggested mechanisms is too small to be used as a dominant physical argument against the CO2 change hypothesis.
    None of the above proposed climate change mechanisms well match the observed past changes in global temperature. In addition, the magnitude of potential energy change from these above non-ocean physical mechanisms does not have the power to come close to producing the climate changes which the variations of the deep ocean circulations are capable of bringing about.
    We AGW skeptics who have proposed non-ocean climate change mechanisms as an alternate to CO2 induced climate changes will continue to have difficulty in rebutting the CO2 advocates. These alternate physical hypothesizes do not have enough supporting observational evidence to allow any one of them or a combination of them to be judged to be more dominant than the changes which future CO2 increases will be able to bring about.
    We critics of the AGW CO2 warming hypothesis need a more dominant alternate physical hypothesis which is stronger and which better conforms in time with the global observations. Changes in the ocean’s deep circulation currents appears to be, by far, the best physical explanation for the observed global surface temperature changes (see Gray 2009, 2011, 2012, 2012). It seems ridiculous to me for both the AGW advocates and us skeptics to so closely monitor current weather and short-time climate change as indication of CO2’s influence on our climate. This assumes that the much more dominant natural climate changes that have always occurred are no longer in operation or have relevance.
    Cumulus Convection Influences. Most cumulus convection is organized in meso-scale cloud clusters containing 10 to 20 individual Cb convective elements which are typically concentrated in areas of 200-500 km wide. The individual deep Cb convective cells within these cloud-cluster systems are often arranged in lines and new convective elements are continuously being formed and dissipated. Each new Cb convective element goes through a typical lifecycles of an hour or so. The strong downdrafts from the late stages of these dying Cb elements typically contribute to the low-level mass forcing needed for the initiating of other new adjacent Cb clouds. This is why multiple Cb clouds tend to cluster together.
    Cb clouds penetrate well into the middle and upper troposphere. The excess mass within the weakening upper-level Cb elements diverge and spread out as cirrus clouds. This higher level extra mass and cirrus cloudiness then begins to undergo sinking so as to make space and satisfy mass balance for the new emerging upper tropospheric Cb penetrating elements.
    Subsidence Drying. Cumulonimbus updraft elements have very high rainfall efficiency as they weaken and die in the very cold upper troposphere. The very cold air at these upper tropospheric levels can hold (even at saturation) very little water-vapor (only about 1% of the low-level moisture content by mass and 0.1 of 1% by volume) compared to the middle and lower tropospheric moisture contents. This very low water-vapor content air from the upper Cb outflow then sinks, evaporates its cloud particles, and arrives at lower levels where the saturated water-vapor contents are much higher. The original upper-level dry air then mixes with the lower level air. This mixture of air at the lower level becomes drier than the air at this level was before any of the upper-level air mixed into it.
    A saturated air parcel from a dying Cb cloud which sinks from the 200 mb (12 km height) level to the lower pressure height of 300 mb (10 km ht.) will arrive at this lower-level with a RH of only 10-12 percent of the lower level air. These unusually large upper-level subsidence drying amounts are a consequence of the very large gradient of saturated vapor pressure in the upper troposphere. Vertical gradients of saturated vapor pressure at middle and lower tropospheric levels are, percentage wise, much smaller.
    An increase in global deep convective (Cb) activity as a result of CO2 increases will thus bring drying (not moistening) to the upper troposphere, just the opposite of the climate models projections. This upper tropospheric drying acts to lower the infrared (IR) radiation emission level (EL) to a lower height and a warmer temperature where larger amounts of IR energy (σT4) are able to be fluxed to space. Increases in net global Cb convective activity results in higher amounts of IR energy being fluxed to space, not lower amounts as all the climate modelers and their fellow AGW advocates believe.
    Our extensive analysis of the ISCCP data well shows the degree to which the broad upper-level sinking air from the global rain areas have had their RH reduced when an enhancement of the global rainfall rate (and accompanied increase in Cb convection) occurs. Please see the attached short write-up “Crux of AGWs Flawed Science” for more detailed discussion and clarifying figures and tables.
    How Global Temperature Will Change as CO2 Increases. The rise of CO2 gas occurs very slowly. By contrast, the troposphere’s hydrologic cycle and its energy dissipation cycle operate on a time-scale of only around 10 days. Any CO2 radiational induced warming will be quickly felt by the earth’s surface and will immediately act to enhance surface evaporation. The more surface evaporation, the less the surface will warm.
    A doubling of CO2 gas in the atmosphere will cause an alteration of our global climate but not in the same way as envisioned by the climate modelers or by the majority of scientists studying this topic. Most researchers concentrate only on the direct radiation influences which CO2 increases bring about. They tend not to consider the other related feedback mechanisms which will be simultaneously activated as CO2 amounts increase. The increased global evaporation from CO2 increase will extract energy from the earth’s surface and enhance surface cooling. This will act to reduce the pure radiation assumed 1°C warming through both enhanced IR energy flux to space and enhanced surface evaporation. The more evaporation from a doubling of CO2 will act to further reduce the 1°C direct radiation only temperature response. As the CO2’s induced speed-up of the globe’s hydrologic cycle continues the cooling influences of the enhanced surface evaporation-precipitation will greatly suppress any pure radiation assumed rise of 1°C. Doubling CO2 will thus be able to bring about only a quite modest global warming. The main influence of a doubling of CO2 will be to increase average global precipitation.
    Basic Flaw of the AGW Hypothesis. It is the climate models parameterization schemes for cumulus convection (particularly the deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convection) which are grossly unrealistic and which completely negates the global modeler’s projections of 2-5°C warming for a doubling of CO2. This does not mean that the globe won’t be measurably influenced from CO2 doubling. But this CO2 influence will occur primarily as an enhancement of the global hydrologic cycle (precipitation) and only minimally from a rise in global surface temperature.
    The AGW hypothesis that warming from increased CO2 will enhance global rainfall is correct. But the assumption that this added rainfall and added tropospheric condensation warming will greatly increase upper tropospheric temperature and water-vapor (through the assumption of constancy of relative humidity) is not at all valid. The opposite occurs. Increased deep Cb convection causes dryness to the upper troposphere. The climate modeler’s large increase in upper tropospheric water-vapor and temperature from added CO2 does not agree with the physics of how real-world deep Cb convection functions. And the additional positive feedback doubling of the upper troposphere warming and moistening which they add to the direct CO2 radiation blockage is completely bogus. This additional feedback assumption greatly increases the divergence of their model simulations from reality.
    Summary. The global climate modelers assumed that CO2 enhanced global rainfall will bring about large upper-tropospheric water-vapor and temperature increases. These upper-level water-vapor increases are then projected to bring about even larger temperature increases and additional water-vapor (positive water-vapor feedback) amounts which add twice as much additional blockage of infrared (IR) energy to space than the initial influence of the CO2 blockage alone. Such large water-vapor and temperature increases are not at all realistic. This is the Achilles-heel of the whole AGW theory.
    Comment. None of the global climate modelers or other AGW advocates seem to know that the globe’s deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convection processes act, not to increase upper level water-vapor, but in an opposite sense to reduce the globe’s upper tropospheric water-vapor content. The global climate modelers live in a very isolated Ivory Tower world. Their positive water-vapor feedback schemes in their doubling of CO2 simulations shows that they know next to nothing about how the atmosphere’s cumulus convective and moisture processes really function.
    Gray Research Project. I and my Colorado State University (CSU) research project have a long background in studying cumulus convection, and particularly deep and intense cumulonimbus (Cb) convection of the tropics associated with meso-scale rain systems and tropical cyclones. We have published a lot of material on this subject over many years. These convective studies appear to provide crucial background information fundamental to establishing the invalidity of the AGW hypothesis. My CSU project’s over 50 years of tropical meteorology research has, by necessity, had to make the study of cumulus cloud convection a priority item for the understanding of tropical circulations and tropical cyclones. Our information has been gained from my project’s extensive involvement in many field experiments and from rawinsonde compositing activities over many years and recently through extensive analysis of ISCCP and NOAA Reanalysis data. To my knowledge, none of the AGW proponents have ever referred to any of my project’s many published papers and project reports.
    Any scientist having advanced and detailed knowledge and working level experience of the globe’s deep cumulus convection process can completely negate the scientific validity of the AGW hypothesis. This could have been done decades ago if there had been an open and honest debate and further research on how changes in cumulus convective dynamics are related to CO2 increase. This greatly needed open and objective debate on cumulus convection process began and was taking place during the late 1960s and 1970s. But these studies were discontinued during the 1980s-1990s when the global models began to show useful results which the politicians, environmentalists, and the world government advocates could use to back up their desired AGW hypothesis. They did not want any further tampering with the models and the earlier momentum build-up for cumulus-moist process research did not go forward. The AGW advocates needed to utilize the unrealistic CO2 doubling climate model warming results as a scare mechanism to advance their agendas. And the CO2 global climate modeling community was quite happy to provide this justification and be well rewarded for their efforts.

    Please see the attached paper “Crux of AGW’s Flawed Science” for full background discussion with figures and tables.
    Best regards,
    Bill Gray
    Here is Grays paper on the Meridional Overturning Circulation ( MOC)

  59. RockySpears permalink
    May 14, 2015 12:07 pm

    As a new commer trawling the archives, is there any chance you could put the whole months’ archive on 1 page please? Every time I have to “show more” to get the next article, and that after going “Back” (maybe a “Next/Previous Article” button could be found at the bottom of each page.

  60. RockySpears permalink
    May 16, 2015 9:41 am

    Maybe it is my browser (Firefox), but each month has more than a page worth of articles (something each day more or less, GREAT), so when I read articles not on page 1, I have to go back, then “Older posts”, at the end of the month I can be doing this 5-6 times each article. Maybe it is the way it is, but if it can be fixed, all to the good.

  61. RockySpears permalink
    May 17, 2015 2:37 pm

    Can I ask opinion on this (if already covered ok).

    … I ask because the obvious question ” Do they think we have stopped ice ages forever?” is never asked, or even posited.

    The article itself seems ludicrous as it claims that a few hundred thousand farmers produced enough GHG (ok ok they didn’t. But the article says ….) to stop a cycle of climate change that is shown to have been in place for at least 2 million years.

    Where the Hell did some one come up with this from?

    • May 17, 2015 5:23 pm

      The BBC are very good at overstating Mann-made effects!

      My reaction is that the ice age was already ending then anyway. Certainly, farming did not really take off till maybe around 5000BC.

      If farmimg was increasing emissions, then why are temperatures lower now than in most of the Holocene?

      We know that when global temperatures rise, as at the end of the ice age, CO2 levels rise as the oceans release it. Any influence from man would pale into insignificance in comparison.

  62. RockySpears permalink
    May 22, 2015 9:23 am

    First the BBC have a Uni Bristol story of Antarctic peninsular glacier catastrophe, now we have this:

  63. rwoollaston permalink
    May 23, 2015 4:28 pm

    Now we have cli-fi novels being written specifically to indoctrinate the young:

    • Felipe Ordoñez de Rivera permalink
      July 4, 2015 9:57 am

      The operative word/contraction here is “fiction”.

  64. Randy Hall permalink
    May 23, 2015 7:15 pm

    California mandates oxygenated fuels. It is supposed to clean the air. It is lower in energy than HC based fuels and you must burn more of it. Since we have to burn more the only winner is the state in selling more fuel. Oxygenated fuel is another environmental scam. Thanks for what you do.

  65. Bill Berry permalink
    July 10, 2015 8:55 am

    This article appears today, without comment or analysis in a UK tech farming blog. As per usual the original paper PIK is paywalled

  66. rwoollaston permalink
    July 13, 2015 6:01 pm

    Stunning new scientific discovery! Planes only fly into the wind. Look at this drivel:

  67. John Palmer permalink
    July 20, 2015 3:57 pm

    Hi… has anyone else had a look at this so-called ‘Handbook’ for dealing with we dreadful ‘Deniers’. Seems that their main defence lies in just finessing their presentations, nothing as straightforward as relying on properly stated science – that’d be too easy for us to counter! Take a look…

    Or if you can’t download it look at the COIN website.


    • 1saveenergy permalink
      August 22, 2015 9:55 am

      Downloaded it last night, Wow have they have got the ‘marketing’ right !!

      “telling human stories about the people affected by climate change (and how they are responding to it) is crucial – shifting climate change from a scientific to a social reality.”

      “One strategy is to create a vivid ‘mental model’ of climate change in people’s minds. A visual artist can capture the concept of sea level rise better than any graph”

      “But flip the statement around — using an ‘uncertain time’ framing — and suddenly it is clear that the question is when not if sea levels will rise by 50cm.”

      I love these bits –
      on pg5 – “ Emphasise that science is an ongoing debate, and just because scientists don’t know everything about a subject, they do know something.” BUT on pg6 – “the science is effectively settled. Communicators should not shy away from stating that clearly.”

      We should ALL download it & learn the techniques from it.

  68. August 3, 2015 9:30 am

    “Recent temperatures have once again broken all records for a British July. We are now approaching the 370th month in succession that global temperatures have been above the 20th-century average.”

    Staggering claims still abound:

  69. rwoollaston permalink
    August 3, 2015 7:06 pm

    On top of climate change models we now have ‘thought experiments!’

  70. August 7, 2015 1:40 pm

    BBC quotes “hottest temperatures ever”

  71. rwoollaston permalink
    August 13, 2015 11:29 am

    Where’s the electricity going to come from?

  72. August 14, 2015 7:12 am

    BBC once more come out with a “story”, complete with Global Warming

    I read this story a few weeks ago;

    BBC comes to the party a month late at least. (and uses odd language in the article to boot)

  73. August 17, 2015 10:14 am

    UNEP miscounting the number of trees planted just came up.
    In response to a poster that Canadian Oil corps planted 12million trees and Greenpeace zero, you’d expect GP just to fire back with the ‘huge’ number of trees Green NGOs as a group plant… but when I checked UNEP it seems there is something fishy with the stats ?

    When that poster came out in April their lot just posted the same old angry snarly nasty comments against oil companies. With valid credible comments being overshadowed
    like : that those oil trees might be monoculture, that some seedlings might have died.
    I can actually see a UNEP page whose target makes that 12million look like a speck ie its 250,000 times bigger at 14billion PER country but so far AFTER 8 YEARS they are at 14billion total ie 0.4% of their target (at rate it’ll take 2,000years)
    However you know Green groups have a terrible reputation for flaky figures.
    If 14 billion trees have already been planted then as one of the world biggest tree areas, you’d expect Canada to have planted at least 1 biilion maybe 4 billion but the top two for Canada are reforest corps that planted
    100 million in 2010
    and another that planted 12.4 million in 2011
    with the next 10 biggest totalling about 19million
    – The entire Canada total listed there cannot be more than about 150 million. As someone says “Itdoesn’tAddUp”.

    I reproduced a screenshot of top Canada planting stats on The Galileo Movement’s FB post

  74. August 17, 2015 10:59 am

    Of course they actually mean 14 billion total target for the world … The wording “GOAL 14,000,000,000 PLANTED TREES PER COUNTRY” is faulty page layout on their part… but even with the target 250 times smaller
    ..their listed total of Canada planting less than 1% of the worlds trees seems fishy.
    like where were the other 99% planetd ..I can’t imagine net gains in countries like Russia/China/India.

  75. John Kay permalink
    August 20, 2015 10:01 am

    “There has been an exponential increase in weather-related natural disasters” – really?

  76. Jeffery permalink
    September 3, 2015 3:51 pm

    Latest catastropic warming claims being passed around on the internet. . .

  77. September 10, 2015 10:11 am

    Watch out extremes/worst ever

    “These heavy rains are unprecedented. We can say this is an abnormal situation ”

  78. September 14, 2015 7:06 am

    Met Office and BBC; another “could be” story: hottest years evah!

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      September 14, 2015 10:18 am

      But it must be true, Horrid Harrabin says so !!

  79. penny kirkman permalink
    September 14, 2015 8:19 pm
    Please what is the real source of this story as it is spreading fast on Facebook Thank you.

    • September 14, 2015 9:49 pm

      I don’t know, Penny. It is the first time I have seen it.

      Polar bears, as all wild animals, commonly die of starvation when they get old. This is probably the main cause of death for older animals, as they no longer have the strength to compete for food.

      For a proper analysis of polar bears, Susan Crockford, who is a biological expert on them, is definitely worth a read.

      In reality, polar bear populations are thriving in most regions.

  80. 1saveenergy permalink
    September 17, 2015 6:15 am

    8.3 earthquake 11.30 last night • possible 2m tsunami •
    full details –

  81. September 17, 2015 12:04 pm

    Paul you need to check out the stats from the Indonesia haze, every year for more than 20 years now, but 2015 is a mega year, which must be having HUGE health and global temp effects NOW
    see my post

  82. September 17, 2015 1:05 pm

    Paul, as part of my research I have been collecting comprehensive daily weather data since Oct 1998. I was wondering if you might like to use it? My contact no. is on my website

  83. rwoollaston permalink
    October 1, 2015 2:39 pm

    With the recent suggestion from Sir Paul Drayson that diesel cars should be subject to a scrappage scheme to encourage drivers to switch to electric or hybrid vehicles, I started to wonder what the emissions of an electric vehicle might be when power generation emissions are taken into account.

    Coal is around 900Kg/Mwh, while gas is around 500. Then there is nuclear, and of course solar, wind and biomass account for around 25%. Lets be generous and assume that biomass is indeed carbon neutral.

    Lets assume the average CO2 emissions from generating 1 Mwh is 500Kg (=500g/Kwh). The best power consumption figure I’ve seen is for a Nissan Leaf at 34Kwh/100 miles. This means that the Leaf would indirectly cause CO2 emissions of at least 106g/km. However any dramatic increase in electric vehicle usage is likely to come largely from traditional (non-green, non-nuclear) generating capacity which has a higher emissions content. So taking these factors into account, together with real life consumption of say 120% of the quoted figure, we could easily end up with a real life emissions figure approaching 200g/km.

    I suggest he is careful what he wishes for!

    On the biomass subject, has anyone calculated the acreage of woodland required to ‘sustainably’ produce one ton of material per annum?


    PS any corrections to my schoolboy maths welcome!

    • October 1, 2015 5:00 pm

      Transmission loses? I believe they are about 30%. Are you figures for power generated or power at the domestic socket?

  84. rwoollaston permalink
    October 1, 2015 5:51 pm

    The figures are for power generated, not at the socket so that makes the emissions equivalent higher.

  85. 1saveenergy permalink
    October 5, 2015 9:33 pm

    I see Scientific American is re-promoting a 2012 E-book – ‘Storm Warnings: Climate Change and Extreme Weather’
    ( “Hurricanes. Blizzards. Flooding. Drought. Extreme events like these seem to be on the rise….. The likelihood of these extreme weather events are increasingly being tied to anthropogenic—or manmade, mostly through overproduction of carbon dioxide—global warming.”)

    Presumably foreplay to get the troops aroused for the Paris orgasm.!!

  86. John Kelly permalink
    October 6, 2015 11:45 pm


    Do you have any thoughts on this article?



    • October 7, 2015 10:13 am

      I try to steer clear of science!
      But it is obvious to anyone who studies climate history that the Earth has natural mechanisms which prevent runaway cooling or heating.

  87. Niall Allsop permalink
    October 7, 2015 1:07 pm

    Just completed the BBC survey … wasn’t able to submit it because I live outside UK (though, of course, am UK citizen). Mentioning this so that others in same position don’t waste their time.
    Best wishes,

  88. October 7, 2015 2:50 pm

    Have you seen this?

    Good news, a spot of media coverage.

    Perth Edition, The Sunday Times

    Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate

    Photo: AustralianClimateMadness
    A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

    A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

    He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

    He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

    It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says…

    The series of posts flows under the tag: “Climate Research 2015″

    Rating: 8.9/10 (153 votes cast)

  89. October 7, 2015 6:47 pm


    The University of Nebraska invited me to a meeting, (seminar) about Climate Change and its coming impact on forestry in Nebraska. (They will undoubtedly regret inviting me.) I have been collecting your ‘extreme’ rainfall charts and graphs (Holland and Texas) and it has occurred to me how much I would like to have the same type data for Nebraska. The meeting is on October 14th. If you can’t do it in the time frame — You have already given me great ammunition. Nothing speaks truth to power like data.

  90. 1saveenergy permalink
    October 8, 2015 8:38 am

    from ‘Real Science’
    “AndyG55 says:
    October 8, 2015 at 6:58 am

    For those that haven’t seen it..

    This is TRULY UGLY for the AGW scammers..

    Sit back and have a good laugh.. avoid coffee on keyboard etc etc

    I really would ask that everybody PLASTER this video URL far and wide.

    Twit it, Faceplant it, whatever. :-)

    If it “disappears”… I have a copy of the video.”

    I concur ( at least 97% of me does, my left knee is uncertain), spread it far & wide, pure gold from a warmister top gun !!!

  91. John Kay permalink
    October 10, 2015 9:38 am

    An article in the Guardian this week that would have been enhanced by some evidence to support the assertions of the journalist.

  92. October 12, 2015 3:26 am

    Well Blogged. Many thanks.

  93. ralfellis permalink
    October 13, 2015 1:47 pm

    *** Albedo regulation of Ice Ages, with no CO2 feedbacks ***

    My analysis of Ice Age initiation and propagation is now up on the Warwick Hughes site. It speculates that the primary feedback for Ice Ages was actually albedo, not CO2. The overwhelming power of albedo was only overcome when CO2 dropped to dangerously low levels, resulting in widespread plant dieback and several millenia of dust storms. These dust storms reduced the albedo of the ice sheets, and allowed the Interglacial warming periods.

    But Interglacial warming only happened when the precessional Great Year’s summer season increased insolation in the northern hemisphere. So several components are necessary for an Interglacial — very low Co2, plant dieback, dust storms, low ice albedo, and a Great Year summer season. So CO2 does falicitate Interglacial warming, but only by getting so low that all the plants die !!


  94. rwoollaston permalink
    October 16, 2015 2:12 pm

    From the Washington Post: U.S. Exports its Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Coal–as-coal-profitable-coal/2015/10/08/05711c92-65fc-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205_story.html

    This is similar to the way the developed world has exported its greenhouse gas emissions from consumer goods production to the developing world. We still consume just as much if not more than we did; the CO2 isn’t produced here any longer, but it is still produced, and arguably in greater volume and with more pollution than if it had remained onshore in a more tightly regulated environment.

  95. October 20, 2015 7:57 am

    Anyone here seen November’s “Focus” magazine from the BBC? In the first paragraph in a story about Conspiracy Theories (non-existent moon landings, JFK, 9/11 etc etc) it adds “Global Warming is a hoax”.
    Now I know we all disagree with AGW (as a major like, thing), and accept GW up to the late 1990’s, but does anyone call GW “a hoax”?
    This seems to be just a part of BBCs attempts at discrediting the whole AGW debate, or worse, putting a spin on the whole thing, after all, who wants to be associated with Conspiracy Theorists. They even do the whole “Tin Hat” meme, with pictures.

    (BTW, I do not get Focus, but my father in law has received a free copy somehow)

  96. October 22, 2015 7:31 am

    BBC Goes all Permafrost/methane gooey.

  97. October 23, 2015 11:40 am

    Hurricane Patricia: Mexico awaits ‘strongest ever’ storm.

    Have the Alarmists finally got what they have waited almost a decade for?

  98. wayfarer95 permalink
    October 30, 2015 7:10 pm

    Hi Paul

    Have you seen the latest Met Office blog reviewing October’s weather?

    The headline reads ‘Warm, sunny and dry October’, and the introductory paragraph reads ‘Sunshine and temperatures were above normal in most places’.

    However, this is grossly misleading, for the so-called warmth of the headline is not reflected in the mean temperature record, which shows them to have been ‘near average’ (their words later in the blog): the Met’s own records show an anomaly of only 0.3 to the 29th).

    Interestingly, the blog does not show the anomaly map of mean temperatures for this month, only those for sunshine and rainfall; I suggest that the mean temperature map would not look ‘warm’ at all.

    Next, the headline says ‘sunny’, but the sunshine map tells quite a different story, with only Scotland and parts of Northern Ireland showing above-average sunshine for the month.

    Finally, why publish this three days before the month has ended?

  99. Ben47 permalink
    October 31, 2015 10:47 am

    Look here!

    Oct. 30, 2015
    NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

  100. November 2, 2015 11:37 am

    Any one noticed this:

    (I saw it on Ice Age Now: )

    • November 2, 2015 4:37 pm

      25th Oct JoNova covered it
      Be careful and check if is the official French Maths academy (it isn’t)
      It sounds as if it is a private company run by Bernard Beauzamy
      \\But, in 1995, I decided to leave my Professor position at the University and to start a company, named “Société de Calcul Mathématique, SA” (in short, SCM). What this company sells, and how it sells it, is the topic of the present talk. We have four branches: defense, environment, statistics and operations research.//

      If you wade thru jonova’s commenters there’s more info
      “Seems to be a 20 year old group, 10 staff. Central Paris. Assets of $500K. Profitable. Specializing in mathematics and mathematical modelling in the natural sciences field. A few books published and other works. Qualified people. It seems to be outside academia, competing in the commercial world of mathematical modelling”

  101. November 21, 2015 8:17 pm

    When it was like that then I know w lot of it when it is the best reason to always tell someone about it and it is a lot with loads me people there

  102. Green Sand permalink
    November 23, 2015 3:47 pm

    Hi Paul, not sure about this but there is an intriguing comment at WUWT:-

  103. Svend Ferdinandsen permalink
    November 25, 2015 12:22 am

    Dear Poul
    I have followed your checking of the temperature compilations and got more and more in doubt. Ole Humlum has also grown more sceptic to the main temperature series.
    As usefull it is to do just an anomaly, it is so much easier to introduce a bias that’s very hard to check.
    In theory the anomaly is computed for every station and then the anomalies are averaged.
    So long so good, but as they do that, you can’t se if the reference for the anomaly changes or the recent temperature has changed. All anomalies back to 1900 or before is calculated every time, so you can not see if the anomaly for say 2000 changes when you update from 2014 to 2015. (Unless you have saved it). Everybody thinks it must stay constant, but it dos’nt.
    The anomaly way to do it means, they can change stations at will, take some out or put others in, it is anyway “just” anomalies they average. Every station comes with its own reference, so you can not check how the references changes with station changes.
    The history of changes to old temperatures is strange, but it seems just as strange, that they have to change the way to calculate these averages nearly once every year, and every time the changes goes the same way.
    What are the reasons for updating the way to make those averages? What new information have they got between 2008 and 2014 of the old data from 2000 or 1900, that could justify these changes that Ole Humlum has saved?
    I have not the skills to dig into these matters, but i hope you will follow up.

  104. 1saveenergy permalink
    November 25, 2015 8:51 pm

    Teflon Tim the Trougher Trashed. He lied in libel trial !!!

    Tim Yeo Ex-chairman of the energy and climate change select committee lied in his libel trial

    His ‘Evidence was untrue & dishonest’ (no change there then )

    Dismissing the case, Mr Justice Warby said he was unable to accept Mr Yeo’s evidence that he was unable to remember an email which mentioned a “generous remuneration package”.
    “I can think of none who convincingly claim to have no interest in money, yet end up with an annual income in excess of £200,000,” the judge said.
    “I do not consider that Mr Yeo is such a person. In my judgment this evidence was untrue.
    “I am not persuaded that it was honest either.”
    Yeo has agreed to pay legal fees of £411,000 within 28 days, with any further costs to be assessed.
    He spent most of his life lying & bullying, shame its taken so long to get him in court, Gummer, Davey, Hune & Milliband need a trip there as well.

  105. November 26, 2015 10:31 am

    Paul, have you caught any of the current BBC series “Power to the People”?
    Lots of inside information about Ferrybridge in the first episode and interesting to hear what some of the workers think about wind turbines and climate change

    • November 27, 2015 5:34 pm

      Thanks, I’ll have a look.

    • November 27, 2015 1:41 pm

      A statement at the end of the second programme stated:

      “In spring 2015, renewables generated more electricity than coal, or nuclear, for the first time.”

      I am not sure what “or” means. i.e. does it mean either coal or nuclear but not both?

      My recollection is that it was for a short period of time (24 hours) but not the entire spring.

  106. swordfishtrombone permalink
    November 27, 2015 12:37 pm

    A pretty damning story from the North Devon gazette:

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      November 27, 2015 5:37 pm

      £375,000 of public money, & the potential maximum saving a year was only £3,600, do the maths = 104 years
      (the life of solar systems is ~ 25yrs).
      Looks like a bean counter needs sacking

    • November 28, 2015 3:36 am

      “2005 in a project led by North Devon Council and thanks to a grant from the Department of Trade and Industry.

      In 2011 the Gazette reported how the system was not working due to inactive panels.

      DCC said at the time the potential maximum saving a year was £3,600, depending on electricity costs, so over 10 years it will not have paid for itself.”

      …Steps back in amazement, Your Devon Council people are good at maths !
      A £375K projects savingmaxm £3.6K/year didn’t pay for itself in 10 years

  107. November 27, 2015 5:33 pm

    Thanks, I thought the information was misleading.

  108. November 27, 2015 5:36 pm

    Sorry, my previous replies haven’t appeared where I expected them to.

  109. November 28, 2015 3:28 am

    Hot News #1 , Swansea redundancies,
    #2 Humber mothballed gas plants reopening

    #1 Tidal Lagoon Power axes 17 jobs after Swansea Bay project delay

    Meanwhile near my village
    #2 £63m power station joy for South Humber Bank Grimsby Telegraph
    being refitted prior to 2017 re-opening
    “guaranteeing the future of the site up to 2027, while creating 10 more jobs.” 1.3GW

    Meanwhile Keady is ALREADY switched on now
    The Nov 1st story :Keadby Power Station to re-open two years after being mothballed
    “The gas-fired plant will reopen on Monday, November 9, more than two years after it was mothballed in March 2013.”
    They’ll move workers from Ferrybridge coal PS (closing sometime)
    (early 2015 I listed other local gas PS which were scheduled for closure like Killingholme and Brigg)
    oh hangon – South Bank power station (Brigg) saved from closure

    70Km south Sutton Bridge was given permission in September to build new 1.8GW (awaiting corp final decision

    I guess the windfarm engineers are still flying in on their special daily flights from Denmark to Humberside Airport . No, no they ran for 6 months and got cancelled.

    • November 28, 2015 11:42 am

      Thanks Stew.

      That answers a question that DECC could not tell me!

      All these mothballed plants are still in DECC’s list of current power stations, which I based my capacity load scenarios on a week or two ago.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: