The big fightback is now in earnest it seems. Over in Australia the ABC science correspondent of many years, Robyn Williams, said in 2007 he actually thought it was possible that global sea levels will rise 100m in the next 100 years. He is now saying that AGW supporters are not agressive enough and need to fight back against the rising tide of scepticism (see www.climategate.com ). This theme is also apparent in America where three scientists, their job description is given as biologists, have bandied together in order to mount an advertising campaign in favour of AGW. The sceptics are getting too much publicity, they think, and the AGW bandwagon is becoming unhinged (by the usual culprits such as Big Oil and King Coal). Paul Erhlich, Steven Schneider and Paul Falkowski really do believe in the stuff they pedal - either that or they are attached to their well paid jobs. Unfortunately, they have had the rug snatched from under their feet as an exchange of emails between the trio has been hoisted from the National Academy of Sciences listserv and made public. Not a lot that most people did not know already was divulged however, as they come across as extremely childish and exceedingly gullible chappies. What the emails do prove is that not everybody at the Academy is thrilled by the shrill trio who seem to display in inordinate amount of cockiness in their ability to influence the faculty. It took the comments section at the bottom of the article for the information to emerge that their real job description is 'conservation biologists' = green activists. They belong to the social sciences rather than the physical sciences and that probably explains their attitude in respect of AGW (see story at http://wattsupwiththat.com ).

Over in Australia scientists and universities are defending the idea of Climate Change with equal enthusiasm (see http://joannenova.com.au ) and in Europe they are just as raucous. The EU eurocrats have said they are going to introduce a new carbon taxation in spite of the fact that at the Copenhagen beanfest the West was sidelined - in particular the EU. It is Brazil, Russia, India and China that are now in the driving seat but this does not seem to deter eurocrats from dreaming up new ways to shut down our industry by self immolation.

Meanwhile, at www.physorg.com id 187286987 March 8th - it seems that Musk Oxen in Greenland are now threatened by Global Warming. This is deduced by the fact that musk oxen were a fairly common species in the Late Pleistocene but disappeared over most of their range at around the time of the Younger Dryas event. As the climate warmed up sharply when this event came to a conclusion it is being suggested that it was the sudden warming of the early Holocene that was responsible for their demise - yet they managed to survive earlier interglacial episodes.

Over in Holland (http://climategate.nl ) March 9th - an English translation from a Dutch blog reports on an alarmist story that struck Dutch media with glaring headlines to the effect new research was saying global temperatures would go up by 4 degrees by 2050, quoting a science paper with an origin at the University of Tilburg. They had made a substantial statistical analysis of temperature data and the influences of C02 and solar radiation and had concluded that aerosols were masking much of AGW. As evidence, from another dubious paper, had claimed the sky was getting brighter, and aerosol influence would fade in the next few decades, this implied that all the currently masked C02 influences would burst on the scene on top of the increasing levels of the stuff being pumped into the atmosphere by fossil fuell emissions. The scientists were naturally calling for more drastic measures to be taken and the Dutch media pounced on the story - it was too scary to miss. The blogger passed the paper to Ross McKitrick in Canada and within an hour he was back and said the study was completely irrelevant. They had used an obscure CRU dataset (CRU TS 2.1) which was not designed to detect AGW. It was constructed to permit environmental modellers to incorporate into their models month by month varations such as urban development and land use change. It is recommended that for the detection of AGW an alternative dataset is used.

The brightest story of the week however comes from the Welsh rural affairs minister, Elin Jones. He has been advised to 'permanently house' cattle in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (see http://eureferendum.blogspot.com ). The advice comes from a quango with the title, Land Use Climate Change Group and you'll be pleased to know they have ample funds to make sure large parts of the lowland Welsh countryside are covered in giant cow sheds. They were established to consider how agriculture can adapt to AGW following a decision by the Welsh Assembly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Principality by 80 per cent by 2040. The decision left them in a pickle as industry has almost vanished from Wales. That only leaves the farmers to harass. Gareth Wyn Jones, apparently a professor and the head of the quango, is deadly serious. He says that if cattle aren't housed the only alternative is to get rid of 60 to 70 per cent of farm animals - completely.  However, do not fear - that might be a veneer. It emerges the nutty professor is actually a beneficiary of a giant green grant - and Welsh universities were handed £4 million in 2009 by another quango called the Climate Change Consortium - but what are they going to do about all those sheep on the Welsh hills, and the droppings that stick to your boots when you go for a walk?

The blogosphere sometimes seems the only sane place - but this might be an illusion as it has it's share of raving loonies too. You only need to read some of the comments that follow articles. It's best to avoid the comments - or scan through them very quickly. Lots of people are upset as they are beginning to wake up to the scale of the AGW scam - it involves politics, environmentalists, and rubbing their hands with glee all those City types who loused up the Banking system and are now set to make a new fortune with the carbon trading scheme. On top of that are Big Oil and other fossil fuel investors, and a very large criminal element who are busy syphoning off the thick creamy layer at the top from nondescript premises in run down areas of European cities where anonymity is the magic key to raking in untold wealth. They even think criminals are abandoning drug trafficking as the rewards are so high. 

In spite of all that rancour some very good articles are produced that ignore the seamier side of AGW. The sceptic train is rolling forward now somewhat like a steamroller the other side can't halt - but no doubt some well laid plans are being hatched so watch this space as they say.  At http://quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/ Bob Carter has an article with the title, 'Lysenkoism and James Hansen', an essay that Australia's ABC network tried to ban. It asks is Hansen more dangerous than Lysenko? It then draws a number of parallels between the two controversial scientists. James Hansen, a NASA computer modeller appeared on the scene in 1988 with a graph that showed late 20th century warming was accelerating. He was instrumental in getting AGW up and running and it is estimated that worldwide expenditure is now at $10 billion a year. Lysenko was a Lamarckian biologist who rose to power in the Soviet system and amassed a lot of evidence to show the correctness of his biology as opposed to that of Darwin and Mendelian genetics. Data was massaged and manipulated to support a cause which was genuinely thought to be on a higher plane of truth. Idealogical zeal was enough to silence those scientists with dissident views - they daren't put their noses above the parapet because the Gulags were always a constant threat. The situation is indeed somewhat similar to AGW but dissent will not lead to a Gulag prison camp - but it might cost you your job and the prospect of another one in the same field. However, Lysenko damaged Russian science - and the Soviet system. The cult set in motion by Hansen, and Houghton and such ilk, is more insidious as it has global influence - but perversely not in Russia (once bitten twice shy).

At www.thunderbolts.info there is an interesting Forum thread on Electric Weather. It begins with the career of Piers Corbyn at Weather Action, a commercial company selling weather forecasts to builders and farmers (in the main). He works from a pokey office in South London, it is alleged, with a few PCs and laptops and yet he is able to predict weather with an accuracy much greater than the Met Office with its modern office complex and expensive C02 generating super computer. Corbyn is an astro-physicist and developed a technique involving Sun cycles and influences on the Earth from the Sun (and space). The Forum is therefore suggesting that Corbyn might be using something similar to the Electric Universe model - on the basis Corbyn and colleagues study solar ions and how they interact with the ionosphere of the Earth, making changes in the upper atmosphere that affect the lower atmosphere, the driver of global climate. His success rate and reputation is based on his ability to predict high energy events - such as the white-out that blanketed the December conference in Copenhagen. His success rate is 85 per cent in predictions of storms, heavy rainfall, extremes of heat and cold, and so on and he actually put his money where his research led him. He placed bets against Met Office predictions and for his own predictions - and urban legend claims he cleaned up. That was not too difficult as the Met Office have a woeful record of forecasting weather months in advance - yet Corbyn is able to do it with ease. AGW critics, instead of acknowledging his expertise, have demanded he release details of how his incredible forecasting skill is done as if they suspect skulduggery of some kind, implying almost that he is a witchdoctor rather than a climate specialist. Naturally, as Corbyn is running a commercial enterprise he is loathe to release the inner details of his magic forecasting methods - so www.thunderbolts.info can only speculate. See if you think there might be something in their argument.

 At http://wattsupwiththat.com a guest post by David Archibald might interest some people. Its title is, 'The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide' and is basically an argument against the current consensus view that increasing amounts of C02 = increasing amounts of global warming. He begins by saying the Earth is 30 degrees warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases which play a role in keeping the surface of the earth warm. C02 contributes 10 per cent of that 30 degrees = 3 degrees. The pre-industrial level of C02 was 280ppm it is generally said, and therefore you might say each 100ppm amounts to 1 degree of C02 warming. As the atmosphere contribution of C02 is rising at an average of 2ppm a year it should go up by 100ppm each and every 50 years = 1 degree of warming. This is basically what the IPCC accepts is happening - I didn't know that it was as fragile a theory as that but there you are. Hence, a continuing warming of the atmosphere based on ever increasing levels of C02 emissions will of course lead to alarming levels of warming - especially if it is projected 100 years into the future. However, Archibald claims the relationship is not linear - it is logarithmic. He produces a series of charts/graphs to show that heating does not happen in the way IPCC scientists imagine it does, and derides claims that the rise will be as high as 6 degrees as a result of doubling the pre-industrial level of 280ppm. One phrase caught my eye, 'if plants were doing climate science instead of us humans, they would have a different opinion about what is a dangerous C02 level' - it could be lifted straight from David Bellamy. 

Archibald hails from Perth in Australia but over in Melbourne (www.physorg.com id187152313 March 7th) climate has become a bit more sticky. A storm dumped so much rain on the city and across the State of Victoria and southern Queensland there was severe flooding and the drought came to an immediate and instantaneous halt as fields of dust turned into mud. It goes on to claim there were hail stones the size of tennis balls, driving winds over 60 mph  and one inch of rain in an hour. I like the comment by the Queensland premier, she said, 'this is a massive water event ...'.

At http://eureferendum.blogspot.com March 7th there is a piece that begins by quoting The Observer regards a scientific dispute which illustrates the uncertainties of climate science and the way it's advocates tie themselves in knots in such a masochistic fashion. A major study undertaken by a government department has cast doubt over claims that rising temperatures are causing soil to pump greater amounts of C02 into the atmosphere, fueling global warming. The original prediction was produced in 2005 in Nature by a rabid green activist - financed by a nice juicy grant. Meanwhile, the research that has just been released was still in progress, and has been going on for a number of years unlike the hastily produced Nature piece produced on the hoof with a preconceived outcome. It was reported in The Guardian in 2005 under the headline, 'Loss of Soil Carbon will spread global warming' - and claimed that over the past 25 years of global warming 100 million tons of C02 had been released from the soil of England and Wales. The figure cancelled out all the emission  cuts in the UK since 1990. However, the new study, funded by DEFRA, the quango that seeks to control agriculture, has found no net loss of C02 from soil over exactly the same 25 year period. It seems that DEFRA is not very keen on this outcome as it means they don't have the leverage they want over farmers - and they have decided to recruit an independent statistical expert to re-examine both reports - and presumably smooth and homogenise the data to reach a compromsie. However, the redoubtable Richard North has discovered the Nature article was funded to the tune of a £176,931 grant. Computer modelling played a prominent role in the results and DEFRA is to shell out another £99,712 to 'model' the impact of climate change on soils in order to 'clarify' the science.

At http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=269 there is a blog site with the title, Harmless Sky. It is quite interesting why he chose the title. It happened after a visit to the small Welsh community by an IPCC scientists who told them it was important to preserve the beauty of the surrounding landscape. Within a few months it was ruined by the erection of wind turbines on the hill sides. However, in this particular post he targets the IPCC level of predictions, a quite novel way of looking at some of their projections of future warming. He takes a list of IPCC extreme weather events and gives the probability factor they assign to each of them in relation to AGW influence - the heat wave in Europe a few years ago, Hurricane Katrina etc. What he discovers is that the probability factor is in the order of around 60 per cent but when it comes to the IPCC projection in respect of future AGW towards the end of the 21st century the probability factor goes up to over 90 per cent. Why is this he wonders? One of the commenters says that blaming heat waves and other extreme weather events on AGW also has an element of hunch whereas projections of future trends in global climate are made from climate models and therefore begin on the assumption such a trend exists and they simply use that data to produce an outcome which has a far higher probability factor as a result of the data, it is again assumed, being able to provide a correct assessment. Hence, one more example of IPCC reliable and untainted science.  

 Finally, to a new blog, that of 'Chiefio' the computer specialist EM Smith (see http://chiefio.wordpress.com March 8th) which is really for anyone interested in code and software. The article is 32 pages long so don't do a print-out unless you are genuinely interested in the contents. The title is , 'Assume a Spherical Cow - therefore all steaks are round' and covers a lot of his work over the last few years. It was written to counter some criticism he received following the article he produced on temperature data (see earlier posts) and he is at pains to point out that it is the structure of the temperature data that is currently being passed around by the likes of NASA GISS and the Met Office that he is targeting. What he has found is a permanent bias in the spacial and temporal distribution of temperature recording stations used by GHCN. That bias is real, exists, and is demonstrable. That does not mean it is impossible to correct for such bias - but first you have to admit the bias is there. This is an in-depth study at how global temperature is calculated - and it is amazing. What he has discovered is not neccessary evidence that the world is warming or is not warming but evidence that the data that is used is biased (maliciously or by incompetence). That bias is towards warming. When the bias is removed the C02 warming signal disappears - completely. The process of 'averaging' or smoothing the data hides the interesting regional differences. Not only that, instead of addressing bias at the first instance global temperatures are homogenised first - including any biases - and it is only after this that any attempt is made to address problems. The implications are quite clear - because the bias factor produces a warming factor into the data the modellers want it to remain in order to produce the kind of results they are aiming towards.