UN IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray: ‘The claim that increase of human-induced ‘greenhouse’ gases in the atmosphere would cause “global warming” ran into serious trouble right from the start.’

he claim that increase of human-induced “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere would cause “global warming” ran into serious trouble right from the start.
It happens that there is no current technology that is capable of measuring the average surface temperature of the earth. There is no way that temperature sensors could be situated randomly over the whole surface of the earth, including the 71% that is ocean and 10% that is desert, and measure it all instantaneously for sufficient time to find if it is rising.
It is not even possible to measure the temperature reliably in one place. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, who has made a reputation for promoting “global warming”, has an item on his website as follows:
“GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature   (SAT)
Q. What exactly do you mean by SAT?
A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10ft or 50ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest) the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50ft of air either above ground or on top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been adopted. I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.
Q. What do we mean by daily SAT?
A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every two hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.
Q. What SAT do the local media report?
A. The media report the reading of one particular thermometer of a nearby weather station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT even at that location and

Europe’s Global Warming Fanaticism Is Killing its Economy…Is The US Next?

Europe’s Global Warming Fanaticism Is Killing its Economy…Is The US Next?


Ladies and Gentleman welcome to the future of America.  According to Forbes, Europe’s artificially high energy costs created by their increasing dependence on expensive renewables is killing its economy.

The costs for electricity across Europe are more than twice than here in the US, for example Counting the costs of electricity from all sources, the Institute for Energy Research reported that “Germans pay 34 cents a kilowatt hour compared to an average of 12 cents in the United States).”

  Their cost of electricity is high, and they might not be able to pass it on to consumers when consumers are free to patronize businesses operating where electricity costs are much lower. Many businesses under pressure are likely move to a lower-cost location, and jobs will go with them. Antonio Tajani, European Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship, warned: “We face a systemic industrial massacre.”
The Boston Consulting Group reports electricity is one of the biggest factors that determine manufacturing costs.

That sucking sound of European business going to the US The Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) reported that its surveys indicated many German business executives would rather move operations to the US than remain handicapped by high European electricity costs as they try to remain competitive in world markets. DIHK Chief Executive Martin Wansleben acknowledged that “The U.S. has become much more attractive to companies than Europe.”

It’s no wonder more European companies are opening or expanding facilities in the U.S., and more U.S. multi-nationals are shifting overseas operations back home:

Airbus is building an aircraft assembly plant in Mobile, Alabama. It will produce A320 jets for the American market. Der Spiegel noted that Airbus “could save on manufacturing costs compared to its plants in Hamburg, Germany, and Toulouse, France.”

Siemens, a German multi-national engineering and electronics company, is making turbines for fossil fuel power plants in Charlotte, North Carolina. 

BASF, the German chemical company, has opened a $33 million facility expansion in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

Michelin, the French tire producer, is developing a $750 million facility in Greenville, South Carolina.

BMZ GmbH, a German company, opened its U.S. facility in Virginia Beach, Virginia for research, development, assembly and distribution of lithium ion rechargeable batteries.

SO.F.TER Group, an Italian plastics compounding company, is building a new plant in Lebanon, Tennessee.

British-based Rolls Royce …

Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming: ‘The 97% figure represented just 75 individuals’ – – Another study’s ‘results add up to little more than ‘carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas’ and ‘mankind affects the climate.’

Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming


Meaningless consensus on climate change

Andrew Montford, Special to Financial Post | 19/09/13 8:51 AM ETMore from Special to Financial Post

NASA file/APa wealth of new empirical and semi-empirical evidence is now suggesting that any warming is likely to be far, far less than has been predicted by the vast electronic hypotheses that are the climate models.

Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming

Apart from a handful of eccentrics, everyone believes in the reality of manmade climate change. That’s the message of a recent paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the latest in a series of similar efforts that have been used as a stick with which to beat policymakers. But scratch at the surface of any of these publications and you find that there is considerably less to them than meets the eye.

The earliest paper in this series, by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois, reported the results of an opinion poll of climate scientists that Zimmerman had prepared for her MSc thesis. The headline conclusion – that 97% of climatologists thought that mankind was having a significant impact on the climate – was widely reported at the time.

However, although the survey was sent to over 10,000 scientists, there were actually only 79 responses from climatologists, so the 97% figure represented just 75 individuals. [The Hockey Schtick broke this news here] And what was not reported in the paper or in any of the ensuing publicity was that many participants were appalled by the survey and recorded their feelings at the time, calling it simplistic and biased, and suggesting that it was an attempt to provide support for a predetermined view.

A second paper, by William Anderegg and colleagues, took a rather different approach, dividing scientists into those who were “convinced” and “unconvinced” by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and then assessing their relative numbers and their scientific credentials. It was observed at the time that the authors appeared to be trying to create a handy blacklist of scientists non gratae, and so their conclusions – that 97% of scientists were “convinced” and that their expertise was greater than that of their “unconvinced” colleagues – were unsurprising.

But again, the problems with the …