Yearly CO2 variation Shown as Change in DLWIR?

Not sure about this post.
The data used is short
The data is noisy
Subtracting noisy signals does not improve accuracy!!

{UPDATE This data has now changed - I have nulled out the day of year changes and the long term variation(whole record) which significantly changes the results - the results will be posted at a later date]

Basically if CO2 is low then "back radiation" (DLWIR) should be lower than when CO2 is high
There is an annual cycly where CO2 dips in late spring and rises in autumn - see other posts.

So if you remove all factors changing downward long wave infrared radiation other than CO2 then what should be left is the yearly change in CO2 plus the long term increase.

The nulled data is inspected and a simple curve fit is applied and limits chosen that provide the best null for that factor.

Returned data that meets the criteria are averaged using a TRIMMEAN function to remove spurious high/low values

If the data is treated as a reapeated annual set then the long term becomes averaged and only the annual effect remains.

In the plots below the Nulled measurements are shown and CO2 at La Jolla is plotted for comparison.

The hourly measurement data is used

The analysis has been run many times each time there is always a dip starting at ~190 ( some ~60 days after the CO2 starts reducing)
Accuracy is nonsensical if less than 3 valid data are returned This unfortunately eliminates dec jan feb!.

However here are the final plots:

The raw data  (all points returning under 3 samples ignored) compared to La Jolla CO2

The smoothed data  (all points returning under 3 samples ignored) compare to La Jolla CO2

To pick sensible values for a number of variables the following limits are used.

Precipitation limit is set to eliminate any reading during "precipitation"
Cloud can only be measured during daylight
Only opaque cloud is considered
Humidity % is not used but is converted to absolute water vapour 

The Nulling Process

Each of the variables is nulled by plotting dlwir against the variable. Fitting a polynomial (order 1 to 6) to the resultant and then providing limits that deviate from the polynomial.  The polynomial is then applied to the extracted data.
Each variable is treated this way and then the process repeated until little change occurs. This produces the follwing limits.

start month	1
End month	12
hour min	11
hour max	15
Temp min	12.4
Temp max	29.4
Humidity Min	0
Humidity Max	1000
opaque Cloud Cover % min	2.8
opaque Cloud Cover % Max	30.9
cloud cover min	-999999
cloud cover max	1000
abs humid min	2.12
abs humid max	10.5
dlwir min	0
dlwir max	1000
ulwir min	445
ulwir max	595
dlwir as pc uplwir min	0
dlwir as pc uplwir max	100
start day	1
end day	19.2499
Pressure Min	809
Pressure Max	825
precipitation min	-1
precipitation Max	0.00001

These are the corrections applied:

	Temperature	opaque cld	ABS HUMIDITY	ULWIR	hour	Station pressure
x^6	-2.925607E-06	0.00E+00	0	0	0	0
x^5	4.16E-04	-1.30E-05	0	-1.73074E-09	0.01161075	0
x^4	-2.35E-02	1.05E-03	-0.01922243	4.37603E-06	-0.794129	0
x^3	6.78E-01	-3.04E-02	0.5449762	-0.004404108	21.56523	-0.001826181
x^2	-1.05E+01	3.83E-01	-5.604792	2.20558	-290.4116	4.45165
x	8.40E+01	-1.07E+00	29.91783	-549.6395	1938.646	-3617.085
c	3.22E+01	2.81E+02	108.4733	5.40E+04	-5133.338	979613.7

The nulling plots (not prettied up!)

Red plots are the result of nulling
blue lines are before nulling

Excel sheet is available (large)
Data is from (hourly):
http://www.nrel.gov/midc/srrl_bms/

Currently ~ 80,000 lines are analysed

Grape Harvest Temperature Reconstructions - More Stuff

Western European climate, and Pinot noir grape harvest dates in Burgundy, France, since the 17th century

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c046p243.pdf

from the document:

And something I did a few years ago.
Note the vertical scales are offset but per division scales are correct

And a comparison to CET

There seems to be no further analysis (more recent than 2003) which was done by:

 Chuine I, Yiou P, Viovy N, Seguin B, Daux V, Leroy Ladurie E (2004) Grape ripening as a past climate indicator.

From the above it seems that grapes despite possible  cultivar changes give a good proxy for temperature.

http://www.cefe.cnrs.fr/images/stories/DPTEFonctionnelle/BIOFLUX/Chercheurs/isabelle_chuine/publications/ChuineNature2004.pdf

http://www-ecole.enitab.fr/people/kees.vanleeuwen/articles/PI_36.pdf

Windmills - just no good? or more untruths in the press

The statements are mainly led by this document

http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/280/ref.hughes.19.12.12.pdf

worthy of note is this blasting of prof hughes
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/468709/imperial-college-supp-evidence-to-eec-wind.pdf

Nuclear and coal are often cited as always available
For example DRAX in uk is mentioned in bishops hill

But figures for recent availability (excludes time not required and not producing) come out at approx. 80%

Some plots using data from REFs own database

Each Turbine with approx 10 years record load factor plotted against year

A linear curve fit to Turbines output gives change in load factor per year

Note that the first graph shows all turbines load factor reducing until 2011 when a large recovery occurs. Is part of the loss caused by a reducing wind speed profile which then improves in 2011?

The second plot does show a general loss in efficiency over 10 years but nearer 7% total not the 15% suggested by Hughes document.

The REF site admits that 2010 was a low wind year:

"Overall, it is clear that the load factor for 2010 was low in comparison with preceding years, indicating that winds in this year, and particularly in the winter 2009-2010, were themselves relatively low."

There are 2 plots on the REF site:

http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/217-low-wind-power-output-2010
http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/229-renewables-output-in-2010

Note offset zero! If you ignore 2010 (low wind) the load factor looks pretty flat for the remaining 6 years

Offshore and onshore data combined?

Both plots from the owner of the daming report of Hughes show a different outcome to the reports conclusion.

2013-05-31
Diseases/disturbances reported by opponents:
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindfarmDiseases.pdf
Well worth a read if you are looking for reasons to oppose the construction!

What DID happen to the ice during the Arctic Storm?

The daily rate of change is plotted below:

During the storm period 3 days show increased loss. Over the 2007 loss this is 292812 sq km

WUWT claim that this loss exposed more ice to later attack but only 2 other periods show gross changes:
During the period 15th August to 17th August (additional loss over 2007 is 178438 sq km)
During the period 22nd August to 23rd August (additional loss over 2007 is 174687 sq km)

So the Absolute maximum loss that could possibly be attributed to the "Great Arctic Storm" of 2012 is 645937 sq km.

The difference between the 2007 and 2012 minimum is 765468sq km

So even if you subtract the largest possible storm induced loss you would still have a 119531 sq km additional loss in 2012 when compared to 2007.

Sky Temperature and Thermal Imaging

Sky, High and Low cloud temperatures  as measured on a thermal imaging camera.

These images show the cloud and sky temperatures as measured by a camera with a 2µ to 13µ pass band.

From a previous test done at night the clear sky temperature is less than -40°C (the camera lower limit).

These pictures show that this clear sky value is maintained as expected during daylight (about -43°C).

Cloud temperatures range from -20°C for high light cloud to +1.1°C for low heavy cloud.

The pictures were taken on 21^st December 2012 at approx. 14:00pm  (sunset @ 16:00)
All area temperatures are maximum for that area.
 

 

 

 

These temperatures of course represent what the camera "sees" through its Germanium lense. And as can be seen from the previous thermal camera stuff the camera struggles to measure temperature of gasses - they just do not give black body radiation.

 

Previous posts:

http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/water-vapour-and-thermal-imaging.html

http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/thermal-imaging-how-not-to-measure.html

http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/cool-body-can-transfer-measurable-heat.html

 

 



 

Water Vapour and Thermal imaging

More stuff about thermal imaging.

Looking at the sensitivity spectrum for a FLIR thermal camera much of the CO2 and H2O emission spectra are included but it is not a black body spectrum as the camera expects.

So does this mean that CO2 and water vapour should be less visible to the camera?

For the camera this is important since taking a photo through air which is emitting photons visible to its sensor would make its use limited – you would see the air not the object behind the air.

So a simple test using water vapour was done to see if this was the case

Some videos of a hot plate with 2 wells filled with water, The water is boiling but no hot vapour visible (vapour bubbles show approximately the expected temperature but the only vapour visible is less than 40°C.

If you now place a sheet of paper in the vapour the actual temperature of the vapour as it hits the paper can be seen (greater than 70°C)

Steam shows up at 28C

Shows paper being heated to 75.5C by steam invisible in gap between boiling water amd paper.

Heated plate showing 2 wells with boiling water

These videos show differen views of the hotplate - steam - paper system.

  

Steam visible + paper

Top view of plate, boiling water and paper

side view of plate boiling water and paper

Above videos seem to have problems  so a youtube version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l3t9XeTIA1w

Conclusion: H2O vapour behaves as expected - despite the temperature being near boiling (100C) it does not appear so to the camera.

WUWT - cherry picking again

Water Vapour
The Watts nail in the coffin of AGW headline:

Another IPCC AR5 reviewer speaks out: no trend in global water vapor

Posted on December 14, 2012by Guest Blogger

New global water vapor findings contradict second draft of IPCC Assessment Report 5 (AR5)

Well, the paper this blogger / expert reviewer is behind a paywall so we have to assume that what he quotes is correct. But a quick search pulls up this paper

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-86-2-245

This from the abstract TPW=total precipitable water:
...Further, we found out that the TPW anomalies are driven by the global surface temperature anomalies, but with a lag.

and from the text:

Time series plots of monthly and annual anomalies of TPW for the two datasets are shown in Figs. 8a and 8b, respectively. Also included in Fig. 8 is the global surface temperature anomaly, computed based on NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) global surface temperature data (Hansen et al. 1999).

The first 3 yr (1988–90) and part of 1996 show significant discrepancies between the anomalies of the two TPW datasets. There is, however, a good agreement for most parts of the other years. Linear regressionsbetween the two datasets show a correlation coefficient of 0.66 for the monthly anomalies and 0.74 for the annual anomalies. TPW anomalies are closely correlated to surface temperature anomalies. The correlation with surface temperature is higher for R-2 than for NVAP (Fig. 8d). The maximum cross correlation between TPW and surface temperature is reachedwhen the temperature leads the TPW by 2 months and equals 0.67 for R-2 and0.50 for NVAP. This suggests that precipitable water anomalies are driven by the temperature anomalies.

 

The problem is which cherry to pick?!!!!

 

 

Then of course Watts puts his foot in the wet and smelly with this blog post:

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’

Posted on December 13, 2012by Guest Blogger

So in this headline post we have a total misreading of a document. One of the authors  (and surely he should know) sais so on Australian Radio: .

The leaked IPCC drafts cover a range of subjects from the quality of climate models to measurements of sea level rise and Arctic ice loss.

Professor Steve Sherwood is a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.

He is also a lead author of chapter seven of the IPCC report, which happens to be the one the sceptics are claiming for their side.

But Professor Sherwood is scornful of the idea that the chapter he helped write confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming.

STEVE SHERWOOD: Oh that's completely ridiculous. I'm sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible.

MARK COLVIN: They're saying that it is the first indication that the IPCC recognises something called solar forcing.

STEVE SHERWOOD: It's not the first time it recognises it. What it shows is that we looked at this. We look at everything. The IPCC has a very comprehensive process where we try to look at all the influences on climate and so we looked at this one.

And there have been a couple of papers suggesting that solar forcing affects climate through cosmic ray/cloud interactions, but most of the literature on this shows that that doesn't actually work.

MARK COLVIN: So you're saying that you've managed to basically eliminate this idea that sunspots or whatever are more responsible for global warming than human activity.

STEVE SHERWOOD: Based on the peer-reviewed literature that's available now, that looks extremely unlikely.

MARK COLVIN: So what have these people done? Is this just a case of cherry-picking a sentence?

STEVE SHERWOOD: Yeah, it's a pretty severe case of that, because even the sentence doesn't say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3654926.htm

It looks as if IPCC has played a blinder.

They can see where the "skeptics" will find inconsitancies and then clarify before publishing and all for free

They also show that sketics cannot read or comprehend!.

 

Cycle Mania and Hadcrut3

From the fun school of posts here are a couple of plots that reconstruct hadcrut3v from a series of sine waves.
One shows reconstruction from cycles only; this has problems getting a good fit in the 1800s but shows rhat the next few years should be a period of reducing temperatures. The long period controlling the plot is 317 year long
The other is constructed round a smooth increasing trend. A better fit in the 1800s and still shows that despite the trend the temperatures will be flat for a few more years before increasing with a vengance. The underlying trend is defined by this polynomial
y = 2.40389E-07x3 - 1.34093E-03x2 + 2.49320E+00x - 1.545547E+03

Do either have any predictive skills. = NO

The most importasnt thing shown is in the the trending plot where  despite an ever increasing trend there is still a period where temperatures appear not to increase - from 1998 to 2018. this is due to an underlying 60year period being on a down part of the cycle. This is something that the "skeptics" cannot seem to grasp - CO2 is increasing so why is temperature static?.

The all cycle:

317 year and 60.1 year cycles controlling the "trend"

The trend+cycle plot

Trend and 59.75 year cycle controlling trend

So what curve are we "following" - only another 4 or so years will tell!.

Earlier posts:
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/simulation

Thermal Imaging - How Not to Measure Temperature

Thermal imaging cameras offer amazing perfomance - The one used here is accurate to +-2K and will discriminate temperatrue differences of as low as 0.08K.

However it seems that not many people realise they have limitations:
You cannot just point one at a subject and say what the temperature is. In some cases it is not possible to even guess the temperature of the object (reflective surface).

Here are some indications of what can go wrong.
A copper heatsink 3mm thick with various surface finishes is used to show the pitfalls:

One end of the matt tinplated copper block was polished until pure copper was exposed

The centre of the block was polished untill the tin plate was still present.

The plate was then spray painted down one half with matt grey paint.

First a video showing reflection from the unpainted side of a hot object moving

A still from the video

:

Now a video of the WHOLE of the plate heating :





Is the temperature of the block 23 26 or 41C?

 

 Note that the painted area shows insignificant change to the temperature whereas the unpainted side shows a reflection causing the reported temperature to change by approximately 20C

Next observe the plate being heated by electronics attached to the other side.
You will see the painted area slowly heating whils the bare metal changes very little: 

Finally Just to prove that the shiny side has not been masked Plate is hot and shiny side reflects hot object

How good is the grey undercoat at normalising the emissivity These 2 plots show how the temperature changes along the line LI01 placed first in the unpainted area and then in the painted area.:

With no paint this is the response of the plate

Painted - not perfect but a lot better.

So just what is the temperature of the plate? The answer is I do not know - it is approximately the temperature shown on the grey painted area... but since I have not calibrated the emissivity of the paint I do not know! And since I have not measured the humidity I do not know. And since I did not measure the distance from sensor to object I do not know. And since I did not measure the air temperature I do not know.

How about outside - NOTE these are not calibrated images no emissivity/atmospheric corrections applied.
Time taken 2012-11-14 17:45  Ambient temperature 7.0C Camera range -40 to 120C hence some of the temperatures measured are outside the camera range (-45C seems to be the saturation level of measurement). Humidity ? high

So it seems that clear sky no sun has a "temperature" of about -44C and seems to decrease linearly with angle above the horizon.

Take a picture of a MMT thermometer and claim that the temperature of the case is X is wrong unless you have eliminated reflections and calibrated the emissivity.

Take temperatures of houses and you will show heat leaks and hot spots but you cannot claim that the temperature has much accuracy (it will be more accurate than the shiny MMT surface)

What is interesting is of course that you can take thermal images through the atmosphere. This proves there is little emissions in the thermal IR band from resident gases.

The IR spectrum (from FLIR documentation):

 FLIR S45 camera Spectral Range 7.5 to 13um

Germanium used for lens has this transmission vs wavelength property:

Beware of what you read at WUWT!

see also this post:
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/cool-body-can-transfer-measurable-heat.html





GWPF, Lies, Damn Lies

WUWT-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/25/an-ill-wind-blows-from-wind-turbiines/

An ill wind blows from wind turbiines


Posted on October 25, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Newsbytes from the GWPF, Lies, Damn Lies And Green Statistics

Almost all predictions about the expansion and cost of German wind turbines and solar panels have turned out to be wrong – at least by a factor of two, sometimes by a factor of five. –Daniel Wentzel, Die Welt, 20 October 2012

==========================

A simple calculation:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=gm&v=81


electricity consumption 545×10^9 kWh

subsidy cost 20×10^9

20/545=3.7 eurocents per kWh

========================

Where it gets distorted:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-15/german-renewables-surcharge-rises-47-percent-opening-government-rift
The four grid companies set the fee paid through power bills at 5.28 euro cents (6.8 cents) a kilowatt-hour in 2013, up 47 percent from 3.59 cents now. Economy Minister Philipp Roesler wants to lower a federal electricity tax to help counter the increase, he told reporters today in Berlin. Environment Minister Peter Altmaier wants to offer consumers free advice on saving energy instead.
...
Total Subsidy

The total subsidy next year will amount to about 20.36 billion euros, which is paid for by consumers through their power bills. The fee increase will raise the bill of the average German household with 3,500 kilowatt-hours of consumption by 59 euros a year. That impact was inflated by exemptions for big industrial users and leftover costs from the previous year, the operators said.
...
While Altmaier says the country needs to take time to discuss changes to the clean-energy subsidy law, Roesler supports new legislation as quickly as possible, he said today, citing a proposal for a new model his party put forward last month.

Alarming Signal
The new surcharge is an “alarming signal,” Roesler told reporters. Altmaier’s proposal to draw up a bill after a round of stakeholder talks ends in May 2013 doesn’t reflect the urgent action needed, Roesler said. “We must act now,” he said.

Instead of blaming renewables, Roesler should cancel unnecessary exemptions for industrial consumers including banks and slaughterhouses, Juergen Trittin, co-leader of the opposition Green Party, said today in a statement. Such a move would reduce subsidy costs by 4 billion euros and push down the fee by 1 euro cent, he said.

The debate over power prices is short-sighted because Germany will save 570 billion euros by 2050 if it scraps nuclear plants, said the Renewable Energy Research Association, a group of clean-energy research institutes.

“The investments made now, at the beginning, will pay off within a foreseeable time frame and have a positive economic impact,” the group said on Oct. 10.

To contact the reporter on this story: Stefan Nicola in Berlin at snicola2@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net

==============================

So even at the rate inflated by giving a free pass to some industries will cost 59euros a year and it seems as if the nuclear industry is also subsidised

Lots of stuff al mussed up to produce a GWPF headline that cannot be supported.

Arctic/Antarctic Ice Extents 2012-09-30

No real comment - it's all been said elsewhere:

 

 

Watts & Co Misuse of Blogs

 

"THEY" talk about corruption of peer review

"THEY" talk about climate scientists forcing publication editors to resign.

 

"THEY" find it quite ok trying to destroy a scientists reputation because they disagree with his results - DESPICABLE, TWO-FACED ... etc. etc.

From CA

Anthony Watts

Posted Sep 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Reply

for those that are keeping track, and wish to register a complaint on the statistical methodology being faulty (not to mention the sampling) you can contact:
Professor Robyn Owens

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)

The University of Western Australia, M460

35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009

[full phone email details were included here]

• thefordprefect
  Posted Sep 22, 2012 at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Reply
  Your comment is awaiting moderation. well done watts trial by blog is an ideal way to improve science
• HAS
  Posted Sep 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Reply
  Another way in is through the funding agency. L. is part funded through a Discovery Australia Linkage Project LP120100224 “Creating a climate for change: from cognition to consensus” (you can find details of the Australian Research Council site). The administering organisation is the University of NSW who have a contract with the ARC for this funding (the generic contract is on the ARC site). Ben R Newell Assoc Prof @NSW is likely the lead.
  Anyway there a number of points in the ARC contract that are possible breached by L. et al. and the associated publicity around it. A quick scan suggests that those climate sceptics that feel aggrieved should review clause 18.4 and 18.6 of the funding contract that reference the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) (also available at the ARC web site).
  The sections dealing with conflict of interest (L. other blog interests); respect for research participants; reporting results; and communicating research findings (informing interested parties before the media) appear to have been breached. These are matters that could well be referenced regardless of the contract in any communication directly with the UWA. The Code lays down the process for UWA to follow.
  However while UWA may seek to balance Code compliance with academic freedom there is the issue of the ARC contract under which L.’s activities have been part funded. It seems that UWA and the U. of NSW also have a responsibility in this regard that are not balanced by academic freedom, and the ARC as funder has a clear interest in breaches. These could all be approached by anyone who feels L.’s work has breached the code (or any other part of the funding agreement) pointing out these obligations are independent of academic freedom.

"Saving Humanity" or "Where's my Handout"

No one actually 100% understand how the climate works -  I think this is a fair statement.

So ask yourself is it SAFE to experiment with the only place we can live when you have

• No idea what the controls do
• Whether there are unknown controls
• What the linkage is between controls
• If it is a linear system
• If there are "tipping points"
• little idea of what positive feedbacks and their magnitudes are
• little idea of what negative feedbacks and their magnitudes are
• Only 200 years of prior data that is vaguely reliable.

And of course

• It takes 30+ years for the effect of each experimental tweak of a control to become clear
• It takes longer than 30+ years for the effect of the tweak to dissipate (much longer if you trigger an ice age).  
• It is not just YOUR hand tweaking the controls - there are other humans and natural inputs simultaneously affecting your experiment.
• Each experiment is disastrously expensive.

Even Watts believes that CO2 is causing warming and some of that is from anthropogenic sources. He just believes it is irrelevant.

Here's a plot with all data zeroed:

Note how small the swings in TSI are.
A couple of Kelvin increase in 288K may seem small but the wealthy nations rely on stability. We no longer have an easy option of migrating to colder/warmer areas, moving our dwellings from the shores of continents as they get inundated (see doggerland! on wiki).

The inhabitants of doggerland simply packed their dwellings took their pots and moved uphill. This would be a trifle more difficult now.

It is not even possible to say leave it until we are sure that there is a problem - the built in time constants ensure that by the time we are sure and take action there will be another multi-decade of environmental changes before we see the effect of our corrections.
I think it is very telling that from all the revelations from "climate gate" and other hacks not ONCE have I seen any one pointing out any climate scientists email (which it is obvious the scientists thought were and always will be private) which suggests that they have vast wealth to spend on themselves.
Watts seems very delighted at having access to a private blog on sks where he foams at the mouth over this snippet:

============================

And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.

  

Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.

  

..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.

==============================================

To me it sound a bit like "saving humanity" not "where's my handout".

  

Lewandowsky Survey Lunacy

Firstly this survey seem just a bit of fun Just read the title.
It certainly mock the fake sceptics. And it is obviously this that causes the skeptic blogs to light up.


There was no need to do the survey. Just look at the kooky Komments on the skeptic blogs.
Iron Sun
marxist conpiracy
global covernment
new world order
common purpose
UN
its all there in abundance


My posting at Climate Audit pointing out that Smokey at WUWT knew about the survey and a link was posted in the comments

 

will it get past moderation?!!

 

« The SkS “Link” to the Lewandowsky Survey