This page is for discussion or presentation of news related to global warming and its issues.

251 Thoughts on “News

  1. Richard C (NZ) on January 13, 2013 at 7:33 pm said:

    Reuters are spinning a tricky news story with a little help from some warmists but they’ve been forced to eat a plate of crow in doing so:-

    Warming has slowed, however, not only by comparison with 1998 but in the years since then. The new modelling from Britain’s Hadley Centre, which forecasts global average temperatures to 2017, suggests the present decade may turn out to be no hotter than the last one.

    That is something of a bombshell to the previous climate narrative of inexorable temperature rises decade by decade.

    Read more:

    “Bombshell” to Reuters, old news to sceptics.

    Note the use of the word “slowed”. Their headline is also titled ‘Slowing global warming no cause for complacency’. No warming is to be characterized as “slowing’ or “slowed” when there’s crow in the diet – it helps digestion.

    There’s a bunch of “help explain” rubbish in the rest of the article but at least the UKMO/HadCRUT revision issue and “slowed” warming is being aired in the MSM, albeit cloaked in warmist vernacular.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on January 14, 2013 at 9:49 am said:

    Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming… so who are the ‘deniers’ now?

    By David Rose–deniers-now.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    “We all get things wrong, and by definition futurology is a risky business. But behind all this lies something much more pernicious than a revised decadal forecast. The problem is not the difficulty of predicting something as chaotic as the Earth’s climate, but the almost Stalinist way the Green Establishment tries to stifle dissent.

    There is, for example, the odious term ‘denier’. This is applied to anyone who questions the new orthodoxy about global warming. It doesn’t matter if one states that yes, CO2 does warm the planet, but the critical issues we need to address are how fast and how much: if one doesn’t anticipate catastrophe, one must be vilified, and equated with those who deny the Holocaust.

    Yet the real deniers are those who don’t just claim that the pause is insignificant, but that it doesn’t exist at all. Such deniers also still insist that the ‘science is settled’. The truth is that the unexpected pause has triggered a new spate of research, in which many supposed ‘consensus’ conclusions are being questioned.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 15, 2013 at 11:16 am said:

      Has the Met Office committed fraud?

      Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

      In short, the Met Office lied repeatedly to do down a journalist [David Rose, Mail on Sunday] who had uttered the inconvenient truth that there had been no global warming for at least 15 years.

      The Fraud Act 2000 defines the serious imprisonable offence of fraud as dishonestly making an express or implied representation that the offender knows is or may be untrue or misleading, intending to gain money or other property (here, grant funding) or to cause loss or risk of loss to another ($30 billion a year of unnecessary “green” taxes, fees and charges to the British public).

      So I reported the Met Office to the Serious Fraud Office, which has a specific remit to deal with frauds that involve large sums (here, tens of billions) and organized crime (here, that appreciable fraction of the academic and scientific community that has been telling similar porkies.


    • Richard C (NZ) on January 15, 2013 at 11:22 am said:

      “Why not try your local police?” said the Serious Fraud Office.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on January 15, 2013 at 8:13 pm said:

    Placed a carefully crafted comment Monday in the NZ Herald online taking to task “as the world continues to get warmer”

    Checked to see if the comment was posted today (Tuesday) only to be greeted with “Debate on this article is now closed.” Forgot to to keep a copy unfortunately. I note other comments were posted today (Tuesday) but not mine.

    Had better luck at the TV3 de Freitas article:-

  4. Richard C (NZ) on January 21, 2013 at 1:53 pm said:

    Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung

    Von Axel Bojanowski

    Wie stark erwärmt sich unser Klima wirklich? Nasa-Forscher belegen, dass der Temperaturanstieg seit 15 Jahren eine Pause macht. Gleichzeitig gibt es Indizien dafür, dass sich das Problem verlagert: Die Umwelt könnte sich vorläufig an ganz anderer Stelle erhitzen.


    Translates to:-

    Researchers Puzzled About Global Warming Standstill

    by Axel Bojanowski,

    How dramatically is global warming really? NASA researchers have shown that the temperature rise has taken a break for 15 years. There are plenty of plausible explanations for why global warming has stalled. However, the number of guesses also shows how little the climate is understood.


    Doesn’t matter how you say it, there’s still some explaining to be done. This however (also Hansen, Sato and Ruedy’s line) sticks in my craw:-

    “Meteorologists interpret that 2011 and 2012 were the warmest La Niña years since records began as a sign of progressive warming.”

    Yeah right. There was only one La Niña event overlapping both 2011 and 2012 but 2012 also had a complete El Niño event. The previous 3 La Niña’s don’t show a rising trend either.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on January 25, 2013 at 9:15 am said:

    Whatever happened to global warming?

    Margaret Wente

    The Globe and Mail [Canada]

    “In other words, climate change is very, very complicated. Greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels are just one of many factors that affect the climate. Other factors – ocean temperatures, soot, clouds, solar radiation etc. – turn out to be a lot more important than we thought and aren’t so easily captured by computer models.”

  6. Richard C (NZ) on February 3, 2013 at 9:25 am said:

    Branching out on climate

    * From: The Australian
    * February 02, 2013 12:00AM

    THE world’s great forests have long been recognised as the lungs of the earth, but the science establishment has been rocked by claims that trees may also be the heart of its climate.

    Not only do trees fix carbon and produce oxygen; a new and controversial paper says they collectively unleash forces powerful enough to drive global wind patterns and are a core feature in the circulation of the climate system.

    If the theory proves correct, the peer-reviewed international paper co-authored by Australian scientist Douglas Sheil will overturn two centuries of conventional wisdom about what makes wind. And it will undermine key principles of every model on which climate predictions are based.

    The paper, Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapour condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics, is not designed to challenge the orthodox view on climate science. But Sheil, a professor of forest ecology and conservation at Southern Cross University’s School of Environment, Science and Engineering, says he is not surprised that is how the paper has been received internationally.

    Boiled down, he says, bad science is protecting shoddy climate models.


  7. Richard C (NZ) on February 9, 2013 at 10:55 am said:

    Newsweek 1975 : Climate Scientists Wanted To Melt The Arctic – To Save The Planet From Bad Weather

  8. West Burton power station: EDF to sue protesters

    Climate change protesters who staged a seven day sit-in at a Nottinghamshire power station claim they are being sued for about £5m by the facility’s owners.
    A statement on the No Dash for Gas website reads: “EDF has launched a civil claim for damages against the group and associated activists for costs the company claims to have incurred, a figure it puts at £5m.

    “Should the claim succeed, several of the campaigners face losing their homes, and all could face bankruptcy or be forced to pay a percentage of their salaries to EDF for decades to come

  9. Richard C (NZ) on March 18, 2013 at 8:01 am said:

    The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along

    By David Rose

    The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.

    Read more:

  10. Richard C (NZ) on March 30, 2013 at 9:55 am said:

    Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

    * by: Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor
    * From: The Australian
    * March 30, 2013 12:00AM

    DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

    In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity – the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels – would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

    Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

    For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it’s good news that probably won’t last.

    International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming

    But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

    Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

    “The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

    “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says.

    Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

    The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.


    According to The Economist, “given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified.”


    A sensitive matter

    he climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away

    Mar 30th 2013 |From the print edition The Economist

    OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”


  11. Richard C (NZ) on April 7, 2013 at 1:54 pm said:

    Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?

    Climate change scientists acknowledge that the decline in rapid temperature increases is a positive sign

    By Geoffrey Lean

    05 Apr 2013, 451 Comments

    “Besides, a broader problem remains: on present policies, atmospheric CO2 levels will not stop rising when they reach the doubling point, but go on soaring past it – meaning that the world will still reach the danger point, even if more slowly.”

    Unless of course the rising CO2 levels are primarily a natural lagged effect of solar-driven rising temperature rather than being due to fossil fuel emissions (the lessor factor by far) in which case CO2 will not “go on soaring” when temperatures fall as they inevitably will now solar input is falling.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on April 17, 2013 at 9:43 am said:

    (Reuters) – Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.


    A rapid rise in global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s – when clean air laws in developed nations cut pollution and made sunshine stronger at the earth’s surface – made for a compelling argument that human emissions were to blame.

    The IPCC will seek to explain the current pause in a report to be released in three parts from late 2013 as the main scientific roadmap for governments in shifting from fossil fuels towards renewable energies such as solar or wind power, the panel’s chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on May 18, 2013 at 9:38 pm said:

    STOP PRESS – Underwhelming Breaking News

    ‘Climate change may have little impact on tropical lizards’

    Eureka! Science News – ‎17 hours ago‎

    A new Dartmouth College study finds human-caused climate change may have little impact on many species of tropical lizards, contradicting a host of recent studies that predict their widespread extinction in a rapidly warming planet.

    “….a host of recent studies….” ????

  14. Magoo on May 27, 2013 at 11:48 am said:

    Nice little article in the herald today, with comments open:

    • Magoo on May 27, 2013 at 11:53 am said:

      Well the comments were open until I left one, now they’re closed it seems.

    • Andy on May 27, 2013 at 12:09 pm said:

      I wonder how long it will take the usual suspects to start huffing and puffing over this article.

    • Magoo on May 27, 2013 at 12:20 pm said:

      I have to disagree with his closing statement:

      ‘One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence, one way or the other, is no reason for complacency.

      I will concede that.’

      We can imagine all sorts of disaster scenarios such as the sky falling on our heads, but without evidence or even a strong possibility of them actually happening, what’s the point in doing anything other than keeping an eye on the data? Shoveling truckloads of money down the dunny on the unlikely off chance of a ‘what if’ bit of unfounded paranoia is nothing more than a vast waste of money.

    • keeping an eye on the data

      You’ve spotted the key, Magoo, because that’s not being complacent. Complacency stops us from seeing what’s actually happening and is never a good idea, even when there seems to be no evidence. So Chris’ “concession” to what is simply good sense can raise a smile.

      Oh, and I noticed your remark about the Herald closing comments so I posted the article here, thanks.

  15. Andy on May 27, 2013 at 12:39 pm said:

    Why I think we’re wasting billions on global warming, by top British climate scientist

    By Professor Myles Allen

    Take the fun quiz at the end of the article too

  16. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2013 at 5:41 pm said:

    Anyone else have a problem with this Bloomberg reporting?

    ‘Globe warms at unprecedented rate, WMO report says’

    The planet has warmed faster since the turn of the century than ever recorded, almost doubling the pace of sea-level increase and causing a 20-fold jump in heat-related deaths, the United Nations said.

    “The decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented,” WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement. “Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far-reaching implications for our environment and our oceans.”

    Read more:

  17. Richard C (NZ) on August 10, 2013 at 1:53 pm said:

    These little gems turned up news outlets lately in “Reuters” (apparently) articles on the ‘2012 State of the Climate report’ but the “Reuters” articles have all been re-edited somewhere along the publishing process (maybe tailored for each customer?) e.g. Stuff includes Renwick and Salinger not found in the others but omits the all-important Tom Karl attribution:

    [Jim Salinger in Stuff] – “Warming of surface temperatures has slowed somewhat over the last decade…..”

    Followed by the obligatory – “… the excess heat goes into warming up the deep global oceans”

    Fortunately Stuff clears the fog with what is attributed to Tom Karl elsewhere:

    “It [the report] showed a complex picture, with global temperatures actually declining by 0.05 degrees Celsius in the decade leading up to 2012.”

    From Reuters in the Sydney Morning Herald with Karl attributed and a little more precise than Salinger in Stuff:

    “However, in the decade leading up to 2012, global temperatures actually declined by 0.05 degree celcius, according to Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Centre”


    “The recent decrease in atmospheric temperatures has been noted by climate change sceptics who question the impact of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, on climate.”

    Followed by the obligatory:

    Other reports including NOAA’s, though, indicate the oceans have been warming up as they absorb more heat.

    Read more:

    The Rueters “However” is also to be found at CBC (Radio Canada) but curiously a different version to the Sydney Morning Herald. Instead of the obligatory heat-going-into-the-oceans there is another “However” which is not as explicit:

    “However, other changes detailed in the report paint a more complex picture:……….”

    “Ocean heat was near record high levels in the upper half-mile (.8 km) of the water, and temperatures also increased in the deep ocean.”

    Also in Today Online with “But” instead of “However”:

    “But in the decade leading up to 2012, global temperatures actually declined by 0.05°C, said Dr Thomas Karl, Director of the NOAA’s National Climatic Data Centre.”

    Followed by a “However”:

    “However, other changes detailed in the report — such as [NOTHING ABOUT OCEAN HEAT] — paint a more complex picture.”

    # # #

    Getting a bit tricky for the MSM, they’re having to call on “actually”, “however” and “but” quite a lot now.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2013 at 12:21 pm said:

    ‘And now it’s global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year’

    * Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
    * BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
    * Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month

    By David Rose

    Read more:

    • Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2013 at 12:24 pm said:

      ‘Global warming? No, actually we’re cooling, claim scientists’

      A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

      By Hayley Dixon

    • Bit of silence from GW pause deniers at HT on this one. I though Arctic Sea Ice was a bit of a favorite over there

    • Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2013 at 2:10 pm said:

      The NOAA hasn’t got the 2013 news yet, their 2012 extreme weather and climate report comes up in Google News too:

      ‘New analyses find evidence of human-caused climate change in half of the 12 extreme weather and climate events analyzed from 2012′

      I like this bit:

      Arctic Sea Ice:

      * The extremely low Arctic sea ice extent in summer 2012 resulted primarily from the melting of younger, thin ice from a warmed atmosphere and ocean. This event cannot be explained by natural variability alone. Summer Arctic sea ice extent will continue to decrease in the future, and is expected to be largely absent by mid-century.

      # # #

      I look forward to their 2013 report in 2014.

    • I expect they’ll put it down to “natural variability”, as with anything that doesn’t fit the narrative these days

    • Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2013 at 2:55 pm said:

      Yes, what “cannot be explained by natural variability alone” will probably be explained by natural variability…..err…..alone.

      Meanwhile over at SkS, the pause is “more accurately” the slowdown:

      “So, what about the whole current debate about global warming having “ended” or at least “slowed down” over the past decade-and-a-half? The whole issue of the warming “pause” or, more accurately, slow-down, and its practical implications and significance will be subjects of several upcoming Yale Forum postings…”

      And a Dr Chris Brierley has got the huff and resigned from the editorial board of the journal Climate because it published Akasofu’s paper “On the present halting of global warming”:

      As AW puts it “Tough Times For Sea Ice Melt Enthusiasts…” and, I would add, Anthropogenic Global Warming Enthusiasts.

    • Great move from Chris Brierley.


    • Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2013 at 6:51 pm said:

      [Gareth] “….no slowdown in global warming” and “… buying into the denier-promulgated myth of a hiatus, pause or slowdown in warming”

      So at SkS it’s “more accurately” the slowdown but at HT there’s no slowdown, a slowdown is “the denier-promulgated myth”.

      Wires crossed in Warmer World – and ignorance of recent peer-reviewed papers evidently.

    • Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2013 at 6:59 pm said:

      >’….ignorance of recent peer-reviewed papers evidently”

      Ignorance now displaced I see (well maybe):

      David Lewis September 7, 2013 at 4:27 am

      I don’t think it is useful to dispute whether there is discussion in the literature about something generally described as a “hiatus, pause or slowdown in warming”. It is not some “denier-promulgated myth”.

      Solomon wrote “the trend in global surface temperatures has been nearly flat since the late 1990s despite continuing increases in the forcing…”, in 2010. Hansen disputed this in 2010, saying it “is not supported by our data”, but by 2013 even Hansen is writing about “the standstill of global temperature in the past decade”. Trenberth is one of many who use the word “hiatus”, eg. in this recent NPR interview

      “Hiatus” seems to be a hot topic. A recent study used the word “hiatus” in its title. ScienceNews, and Nature magazine both published reports about it. i.e. saying it “adds to mounting evidence that cooling in the tropical Pacific is the cause of the global warming hiatus….”

      The study itself states that the fact that “the annual mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty first century” is “challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming”.

      […..reverts to HT form….]

      A poke in the eye for Gareth.

  19. Richard C (NZ) on September 24, 2013 at 10:53 am said:

    The Los Angeles Times spells it out:

    ‘Global warming ‘hiatus’ puts climate change scientists on the spot’

    “Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth’s average global surface temperature has failed to rise despite soaring levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and years of dire warnings from environmental advocates.”


  20. Russians Charge All Greenpeace Activists On Arctic Sunrise With Piracy

    and face up to 15 years in jail

  21. Richard C (NZ) on September 29, 2013 at 9:23 am said:

    ‘It’s not as bad as we thought – but global warming is still a disaster, warn UN experts’

    * Report compiled by over 800 scientists and used 9,000 scientific studies
    * But conceded that world temperatures have barely risen in past 15 years
    * This is despite more greenhouse gases being pumped into atmosphere
    * Critics say this shows carbon dioxide isn’t as damaging as was claimed
    * Report said CO2 has reached levels unprecedented in at least 80,000 year

    By Fiona Macrae

    Read more:

    # # #

    Just a matter of picking up on the models/obs “divergence” and Fiona Macrae will be reporting the sceptic argument soon.

    • Richard C (NZ) on September 29, 2013 at 11:13 am said:

      Fox News are on to it:

      ‘UN climate change report dismisses slowdown in global warming’

      The Earth has changed in “unprecedented ways” since 1950, the U.N. says, and its scientists are 95 percent certain that humans are responsible.

      Yet the planet has largely stopped warming over the past 15 years, data shows — and a landmark report released Friday by the U.N.’s climate group could not explain why the mercury has stopped rising.

      Global surface temperatures rose rapidly during the 70s, but have been relatively flat over the past decade and a half, rising only 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade according to data from the U.K.’s weather-watching Met Office, a trend current models of the world’s climate have been unable to predict. A draft of the report leaked in early September acknowledged that trend and put it bluntly: We simply can’t explain it.

      “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.”

      But a final version of the report released Friday morning by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) strips out the failure of models and explains away the downward trend.


    • Richard C (NZ) on September 29, 2013 at 4:32 pm said:

      No let up from David Rose either:

      ‘Met Office proof that global warming is still ‘on pause’ as climate summit confirms global temperature has stopped rising’

      * The Mail on Sunday first revealed global temperature pause a year ago
      * IPCC report confirms no significant rise in global temperature since 1997
      * IPCC accused of sinking to ‘hilarious level of incoherence’
      * But the IPCC insists 2016-2035 will be 0.3-0.7C hotter than 1986-2005

      Read more:

  22. Rodney Hide in NBR

    Hidesight: Zombie Greens chant false science mantra

  23. BBC coverage criticised for favouring climate change sceptics

    /face palm

  24. Richard C (NZ) on January 12, 2014 at 9:31 am said:

    [BBC] – “It was -17C (1F) in the small town of Hell, Michigan, prompting online jokes that the weather was so bad even hell had frozen over”

  25. Richard C (NZ) on January 22, 2014 at 8:30 am said:

    Google > News > Climate Science (you gotta laugh at this News category today)

    NASA Says 2013 Was Seventh Warmest Year – ‎1 hour ago‎

    NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880

    NOAA Says 2013 Was The Fourth Warmest Year – ‎1 hour ago‎

    The globally averaged temperature for 2013 tied as the fourth warmest year since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA scientists.

    # # #

    Note that NOAA actually has 2013 in a tie with 2003 for fourth. I also like the usual NASA spin:

    “…..continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures”

    At least hints there’s a little more to the story:

    “….this appears to confirm that the so called pause in global warming that began around 1998 appears to have continued in 2013″

    But do they really have to use the word “appears” twice?

    It’s as if they can’t quite bring themselves to face the realisation of it all.

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 22, 2014 at 6:42 pm said:

      Curiously the NASA article has already “disappeared” from the Google Climate Science News category but the NOAA article is still there.

      Apparently, fourth warmest is news at Google – but seventh warmest isn’t.

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 23, 2014 at 7:25 am said:

      NASA article’s back and ahead of the NOAA one this morning – weird.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on June 16, 2014 at 6:19 pm said:

    ‘Greenpeace worker loses $5.5m in currency market gamble’

    The Hague: A Greenpeace employee has been fired after losing the environmental charity €3.8 million euros ($5.5 million) in a failed gamble on international currency markets.

    “Nothing suggests at this point that he acted for personal gain, it seems to be a terrible miscalculation,” Greenpeace communications director Mike Townsley said.

    The unnamed employee “went above his authority” in agreeing the deal with a broker who was meant to mitigate currency losses for the charity, he said.

    “The contract turned out to be a very bad one,” Mr Townsley said, adding that an internal investigation was under way.

    Netherlands-based Greenpeace, like many big charities, agrees fixed-rate foreign exchange deals with third-party brokers to try to protect themselves from world currency fluctuations.

    “It is common practice for organisations like ours, with a worldwide presence,” Mr Townsley said. “We would be too exposed to currency fluctuations and risk to lose a lot of money.”

    Greenpeace, known for its anti-drilling campaigns at oil rigs in the Arctic, has a total annual budget of around €300 million.

    No Greenpeace campaign would suffer as a result of the loss, which would be absorbed by reducing expenses such as infrastructure over the next two to three years.

    “We would like to apologise” to donors, Mr Townsley said. “We will do whatever it takes to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

    Read more:

  27. Richard C (NZ) on September 11, 2014 at 12:43 pm said:

    ‘Bureau of Meteorology warms to transparency over adjusted records’

    Graham Lloyd, The Australian
    September 11, 2014 12:00AM [Paywall]

    THE Bureau of Meteorology has been forced to publish details of all changes made to historic temperature records as part of its homogenisation process to establish the nation’s climate change trend. Publication of the reasons for all data adjustments was a key recommendation of the bureau’s independent peer review panel which approved the bureau’s ACORN SAT methodology.

    ‘Scientists should know better: the truth was out there’

    Graham Lloyd, The Australian
    September 11, 2014 12:00AM [Paywall]

    IT reflects poorly on key members of Australia’s climate science establishment that tribal loyalty is more important than genuine inquiry. Openness not ad hominem histrionics was always the answer for lingering concerns about what happened to some of the nation’s temperature records under the Bureau of Meteorology’s process of homogenisation.

    • Under pressure, Australian BOM puts up facade of “transparency” — too little, too late

      Graham Lloyd’s article in The Australian yesterday shows that the BOM is under pressure, but their lack of transparency continues, and this new page appears to be more like a public relations effort than a big advance scientifically.

      What Australia needs is a full working replication of the BOM methods and techniques — only then does a true scientific peer review process begin. If the BOM is so sure it’s doing obvious world’s best practice, why won’t it release the full code? Unpacking and replicating this detailed procedure would take months of analysis. If the Australian government is serious about our climate, they need to fund a proper independent study instead of leaving it to volunteers to do on the weekend, and hoping that someone with the right combination of IT, statistical, climate, and scientific skills will find it entertaining and want to do it for free.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on September 12, 2014 at 10:54 am said:

    ‘Last decade’s slow-down in global warming enhanced by an unusual climate anomaly’

    Science Codex, September 11, 2014

    A hiatus in global warming ongoing since 2001 is due to a combination of a natural cooling phase, known as multidecadal variability (MDV) and a downturn of the secular warming trend. The exact causes of the latter, unique in the entire observational record going back to 1850, are still to be identified, according to an article by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC).>>>>>>

    Whoop-de-doo – what sceptics have known for yonks. More in this thread (#58):

    And see #54/54.1 re Climategate:

    [2007] Wils:
 “What if climate change appears to be 
just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?
 They’ll kill us probably

  29. Richard C (NZ) on September 26, 2014 at 8:49 pm said:

    ‘Dogged lord [Stern] of climate change’

    By Chris Barton, NZ Herald. Sep 11, 2010

    […] What bothers him [Stern] most is the way deniers seize on “oscillations” or fluctuations in temperature and try to argue there is no trend. “If you’ve got an undergraduate student, trying to estimate the growth of the economy by joining a line between the peak of the last boom to the bottom of the last recession and think they are estimating the growth rate you would throw them out of class.”

    The same poor logic is used by deniers who try to argue temperature stopped rising 10 years ago – completely false when you look at the trend, ask about the overall average and apply knowledge about why decadal oscillations occur.

    “Ordinary sensible people looking at evidence will know that you have to take an average over time and if you do that you see every decade over the last five to six decades has been hotter than the previous ones.” […]

    # # #

    Big problem now for the dogged lord. Apart that is, four years on from 2010, that this current decade isn’t following the progression he describes. Stern’s problem is that it is not so much the “oscillations” now that “deniers” are arguing with e.g. multi-decadal variation (MDV), and the literature is documenting MDV “oscillations” now anyway, belatedly. MDV has another 18 years or so in negative phase. That by itself would prolong the “pause” until around 2032 so Stern will have to weather that (ha!) for some years in any case.

    No, Stern’s problem actually is the very trend he’s hanging his hat on. More precisely, the secular trend (ST) is turning down away from CO2. Here’s Stern’s nemesis:

    ‘Last decade’s slowdown in global warming enhanced by an unusual climate anomaly’

    Date: September 11, 2014
    Source: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)
    A hiatus in global warming ongoing since 2001 is due to a combination of a natural cooling phase, known as multidecadal variability (MDV) and a downturn of the secular warming trend [ST]. The exact causes of the latter, unique in the entire observational record going back to 1850, are still to be identified, according to a new article.

    Diego Macias, Adolf Stips, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz. Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record. PLoS ONE, 2014; 9 (9): e107222 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107222

    More, and see graph.

    I found the same turn down in the residual of an EMD analysis of HadSST2/3 a couple of years ago when prior to that the residual was turning up.

    The NZ blog TUMEKE! seized on the Herald article and quote above back in 2010:

    Time to eat crow TUMEKE!

    • Richard C (NZ) on September 27, 2014 at 7:15 pm said:

      >”I found the same turn down in the residual of an EMD analysis of HadSST2/3 a couple of years ago when prior to that the residual was turning up”

      Not really news, so have several others in the literature e.g. see:

      ‘Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years’

      Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian
      With 6 Figures
      Received May 2, 2005; revised October 24, 2005; accepted April 6, 2006
      Published online: July 31, 2006 # Springer-Verlag 2006

      A novel multi-timescale analysis method, Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), is used to diagnose the variation of the annual mean temperature data of the global, Northern Hemisphere (NH) and China from 1881 to 2002. The results show that: (1) Temperature can be completely decomposed into four timescales quasi-periodic oscillations including an ENSO-like mode, a 6–8-year signal, a 20-year signal and a 60-year signal, as well as a trend. With each contributing ration of the quasi-periodicity discussed, the trend and the 60-year timescale oscillation of temperature variation are the most prominent. (2) It has been noticed that whether on century-scale or 60-year scales, the global temperature tends to descend in the coming 20 years. (3) On quasi 60-year timescale, temperature abrupt changes in China precede those in the global and NH, which provides a denotation for global climate changes. Signs also show a drop in temperature in China on century scale in the next 20 years. (4) The dominant contribution of CO2 concentration to global temperature variation is the trend. However, its influence weight on global temperature variation accounts for no more than 40.19%, smaller than those of the natural climate changes on the rest four timescales. Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes.–Xiuan-MeteorAtmosPhys-2007-d1227bc1-3183-456f-a935-69c263af1904.pdf

  30. Richard C (NZ) on October 2, 2014 at 10:09 am said:

    ‘Drought lengthened by climate change’

    OLIVIA WANNAN. Stuff 02/10/2014

    The evidence is in – humans have left a distinctive fingerprint at the 2013 drought crime scene.

    In an international paper released this week, New Zealand scientists have analysed climate models around the extreme weather event, which knocked at least $1.3 billion out of New Zealand’s economy.

    While the natural variations played a leading role, human activity was a definite accomplice, according to National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research scientist Sam Dean.

    With two Victoria University and two fellow Niwa scientists, Dean used computer modelling to compare the 2013 climate over New Zealand with a simulation of the world “that might have been” without the greenhouse gases and chlorofluorocarbons that people have pumped into the atmosphere.

    “We found that the drought was a little more intense than it would have been without climate change.”

    In summer, greenhouse gases and the ozone hole intensified the high-pressure systems that brought dry weather, Dean said.

    >”greenhouse gases and the ozone hole intensified the high-pressure systems”

    This is new. How?

    [BTW, went to post this in ‘New Zealand’ – got 404 Not found, does not exist, etc]

  31. Brent Crude now down to $72 a barrel

    This is almost half the price it was earlier this year. Many layoffs and pay cuts coming in the industry

Comment navigation


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>