Why would William McDonald defend Nazca desecration?

Greenpeace has desecrated a sacred archaeological site in Peru in recent days as part of an AGW-related protest. The result of their renewable-energy-advocating sign unfurling can be seen in the red dotted line here:

1000's of years ago people decided, as part of their religious observations, to make a picture of a hummingbird, and took the time to walk only in very precise lines, so that the images -- formed from lighter coloured clay being brought to the surface by the trampling -- could be preserved and viewed by the gods.

AGW is already falsified

The global atmospheric warming pause, going on 18 years now, together with the lack of sea level rise acceleration, has already falsified the AGW hypothesis.

There are dozens of explanations

"The Conversation" claim contradicted by BoM press release

In a Conversation article about Jennifer Marohasy's claim of temp fudging at Australia's Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) (1,2,3) authors Lisa Alexander and Andy Pitman claim that BoM's homogenisation adjustments are to reduce the extremes of Australia's temperature trend. 

 

Exactly what "reduce the extreme temp trends" means is not 100% clear, but I assume it means that the slight increase in temp from 1910 to 2014 is lessened post-homogenisation.

Cooling is natural; warming is AGW

Those familiar with AGW theory will know that since industrial times, all warming is caused by CO2, while all cooling is natural. There's a paper to that effect described on WattUpWithThat explaining that the current pause in warming is, of course, all natural and merely masks the AGW warming that would otherwise occur. 

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/21/claim-natural-variation-masked-global-warming-creating-the-pause/

...links to this paper:
 

Climate Institute's curious 2014 online survey

 

The Climate Institute of Australia's new glossy brochure is based on an online survey of 1,145 Australians. These 1,145 participants were selected by invitation by email and/or by selecting the survey from a list provided (and tailored) on the user's home page (example below). 

An AGW believer's clumsy attempt to mislead

An AGW believer made a deceptive, outdated post on the Ron Paul forum (here) and has linked to it on a recent comment here, on Harold Ambler's recent post:

 

http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice/#comment-1711

 

 

@oraclepresence's comment and my reply is at bottom. Here's a few choice highlights:

 

First, @oraclepresence uses this graph stopping in 2011:

 

 

I point out the updated graph:

Dog bites man; Warmist makes wrong claim

In another day of dog-bites-man news, a warmist makes a wrong claim. On this webpage:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/06/u-s-post-office-introduces-global-warming-stamp/

..about a new postage stamp from the US post office. An Anthony Watts article is linked to:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/05/postal-service-issues-global-warming-forever-stamp/

And user "Sherry" makes the following comment (plus my reply). I took a screen shot in case she removes it for sheer embarrassment:

 The comment refers to this pic:

Arctic death spiral 2: return of the sea ice

My latest tweet and graph regarding Andy Lee Robinson -- the "Arctic death spiral" guy (website). Sometimes so-called death spirals come back. I should write a song as a musical rebuttal to his song entitled Arctic Death Spiral.

 

Mine will be called: Arctic ice: the return. But the horror of such an Arctic sea ice return movie could be considered cruelty to warmists.

Top is @ahaveland profile pic to Jan2013, bottom is to Feb2014. Y not update? Hide the incline? pic.twitter.com/TwpwZPi1Gq
— Paul Clark (@cbfool) June 4, 2014

Mt tweet had this accompanying pic:

How to spin global sea ice gain into a decline

 

How do you downplay the Antarctic sea ice gain and exaggerate the Arctic sea ice loss? Easy: compare the (change in) summer Arctic sea ice extent to the (change in) winter Antarctic ice extent, so that you're not comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

 

Here is a tweet from Climate Reality:

 

 

You can see it's interpreted by their followers that the Arctic has lost 6 times as much sea ice as the Antarctic has gained. 

Oh dear! Clima-tastrophe not working out

Well this isn't going according to script for the clima-tastrophists. Why isn't Mother Gaia playing ball?

 

They said drought would increase. Tim Flannery said even the rain that falls would be absorbed into the ground and not make it to the dams. Truth is: drought is no worse, in fact it is better:

 

Updated graph reveals Inconvenient Truth

Two years ago Al Gore tweeted this (h/t Tom Nelson @tan123):

Vanishing Great Lakes’ ice: http://t.co/CM1OVphv
— Al Gore (@algore) April 5, 2012

Al Gore's post links to this equally old Climate Progress post (screen shot):

 

 

Bogus Reentry Vehicles (Video part 1 of 2)

The first half of my expose on the faking of all manned space travel.

 

The description from the video:

 

Part 1 concerns the International Space Station hoax. Part 2 concerns details of the reentry vehicles and how they would burn up on atmospheric entry. I'll put link to part 2 here when it's done.

Why Tyndall's experiment does not prove the greenhouse effect

Jump to: The experiment to prove the greenhouse effect

The number one experiment quoted as proof of the greenhouse effect is Tyndall's experiment.  Specifically the absorption experiment described in his 1861 Bakerian lecture to the British Royal Society.^[1]

In Tyndall's experiment various gases are introduced into the gas observation chamber and it is noted that some gases ("greenhouse gases") absorb more "calorific rays" (infrared) than others. This absorption is referred to as "proof of a greenhouse effect".

It was the result of several months work on his part. But in fact Tyndall's experiment shows nothing more than that EMR from a warmer object is absorbed by a colder one. Such absorption is not proof of a greenhouse effect.

In order for Tyndall's experiment to prove the greenhouse effect it would have been necessary to measure a gain in overall heat in the objects of the experiment, particularly in the emitting and absorbing objects.  But this did not happen in the experiment, could not have happened, and was not even attempted to be measured.

 

Tyndall's experiment

All my comments removed from Guardian article without trace

Update 2

Well this is a new one. I've had my comments removed from the Guardian plenty of times before, but you can still see the stub. Here's an example:

More NOAA trickery in US Feb 2014 temps?

Following my post from a few weeks ago about January temperature anomalies, Harold Ambler notices a similar strange thing on his website: http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com, about February 2014 temperatures in the United States. He states:

 

"As the map above shows, NOAA seems to have struggled in creating a temperature map that accurately conveys what New Englanders recently experienced"

 

See more here:

 

Another trick from the hockey stick team

Well this is a new one...for me anyway.  A graph that uses a tricky quasi-log scale on the X-axis to minimise 1000's of years of warmer Holocene temperatures, to make today's temperature seem scary and warm:

 

 The poster of this graph on Twitter says it's a "usual graph":

 

Arctic "death spiral" melts away when put in perspective

The AGW team uses September Arctic sea ice extent (the lowest point in the annual cycle) to show how the Arctic sea ice is disappearing as a result of dangerous, "scary-scary" global warming. They even omit the 50% recovery of 2013 to promote the notion of calamity:

 

The propagandists of "climate science" prefer to omit the inconvenient 2013 Arctic sea ice recovery.

Blocked on Independent Aus after one comment

I made one comment on the Independent Australia and was banned on this thread by DeSmog Blog:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/roy-spencer-calls-people-who-accept-climate-science-nazis,6219

I thought twice about commenting here because the level of the discourse was so low. I thought: these people are too stupid even to talk to. But I was angry enough at this guy's comment to do so:

Blatant deception in NOAA percentiles graph

If you go to this NCDC NOAA page there are a couple of graphs on it:

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/1

 

One has actual numbers for temperatures on it:

 

 

 

The other uses undefined percentile bins:

Why backradiation has no warming effect

We are told by greenhouse theorists that backradiation from the sky warms the ground -- 33C warmer than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect. In greenhouse theory, backradiation from the sky is recycled and counted again. For example:

 

NASA "radiation budget", or as I call it: "how to count energy twice"

 

Some insist that it's not the backradiation that does the warming, it's that light (EMR) is "slowed down" or "trapped" by the greenhouse layer. But even if EMR is trapped optically by the greenhouse gas layer it continues on its merry way in an energy sense.

Even if EMR is trapped by absorption, every photon that is absorbed by the greenhouse gas layer is matched by one that is emitted. This must be so per Kirchhoff's Law, unless the gas layer is changing in temperature. It will change in temperature from time to time, but not overall, not in a way that energy can be gained.

Only one 20 yr period of warming correlation to CO2 output

@350SantaBarbara @tan123 @billmckibben @JeffreyGoldberg Only one 20yr warming period '78-'98 matches human CO2 output pic.twitter.com/DEPaEvuQWp
— Paul Clark (@CarbonFooledYa) January 16, 2014

Not much correlation between Arctic temp and sea ice loss

We are told that runaway global warming is causing the sea ice loss at the North Pole. Although, like the rest of the world, Arctic warming stopped in 1998, the point in time when Arctic sea ice loss really took off. And such warming is pretty small anyway.

If you take the data from UAH and RSS for 60 degrees north to 82.5 degrees north and put it next to the sea ice loss, there's not much (inverse or reverse) correlation:

Quick critique of comments from Age article

Here's a quick critique of a few comments from The Age article:

 

Lack of accountability clouding the climate change debate

 

 

The Age is a heavily warmist Fairfax paper, with a following among the trendy latte sipping libaratchicks of inner city Melbourne.  The vast majority of comments, maybe 90%+ are warmist.

The article is by John Mclean and is critical of the IPCC.