Pacific walrus herd hauled out in Alaska during August was as large as last year’s

polarbearscience

So, I guess they didn’t all die because of lack of sea ice in the Chukchi Sea. I said back on 28 August, just after the some unauthorized photos were publicized, that this haulout looked just as large as last year’s, if not larger (walruses are occasional prey of polar bears).

Walruses_USFWS photo_030515_March 2015

Now confirmed by an official US Fish and Wildlife Service estimate of 35,000 – not 36,000 mind you, or 34,000 – it was definitely 35,000. Odd, that. And surprisingly, they didn’t bother going out to count them until the day President Obama came to town. Would FWS have even bothered to get a count if there hadn’t been something newsworthy to tie it to?

Even more strange is the fact that this year, there was no accompanying hype. There were no links in any of the stories to FWS or USGS propaganda website pages, like there were…

View original post 281 more words

NOAA Tampering In Alaska

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/sites/default/files/ClimateTrends/Seasonal_Yearly_Temp_Change_77_F.png

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html

According to the Alaska Climate Research Center, linear trends show that temperatures have actually fallen in Alaska since 1977, by 0.1F.

The stations used give a good geographical spread, and only four sites show any warming at all.

Figure_1_color

Yet NOAA show something totally different, a rise of 0.2F/decade, about 0.74F over the period.

multigraph

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

The divergence between NOAA’s figures and reality is actually much greater. Research has shown a very real and significant UHI effect in Barrow. Excluding Barrow, the Alaska Climate Research analysis would give an average drop of 0.38F, instead of 0.1F.

This is yet more evidence of just how much tampering has gone on with the NOAA record.

View original post

Emma Thompson

So, bottom line is: it’s OK to exaggerate as long as it’s for a good cause. Much like what Steven Schneider said here:

“..Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest…”

Or Gavin Schmidt said here:

https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/639825157201219584

You see the problem with ‘scientization’ of the debate as Gavin puts it, is that the science, and Gaia, and the weather, is totally stacked up against the AGW-fraud-gravy-train. It’s an embarssment to still support this AGW clima-geddon rubbish.

...and Then There's Physics

Emma Thompson’s interview on newsnight has caused a bit of a Twitter storm because she got some things wrong. For example she said

if they take out of the earth all the oil they want to take out, you look at the science – our temperature will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2030, and that’s not sustainable.

Well, this is clearly wrong. Our temperatures will almost certainly not rise by 4 degrees Celsius by 2030, but she did at least get right that how much we burn will determine how much we warm.

She also made strong claims about refugee crisis

Our refugee crisis – which, let me tell you, if we allow climate change to go on as it’s going, the refugee crisis we have at the moment will look like a tea party, compared to what’s going to happen in a few years’ time. Because if…

View original post 478 more words