About Me

I have always been fascinated by the weather and enjoy most of what is thrown our way, especially the time between the autumn equinox and summer solstice. For total captivation nothing can compare to the way cold weather from frost, fog to snow (which can be a rare beast in Southern England) so transforms the landscape around us. I am also rather partial to a good thunderstorm although an intense squall has its own meteorological charms. I rather enjoy the interplay of cold dry and warm moist air masses that dance over our heads on these Islands perched on a North West outcrop of Europe.

My interest in weather makes me take on a global perspective. Something so beautiful and alluring can also be unbelievably cruel as we see all too often. Imagine then how hard it was for our ancestors without access to the food, medicines and machines that keep us breathing. It takes reliable energy to sustain life.

I used to believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming due to the changes I saw going on before my eyes – seasons changing, heatwaves  (that lasted more than two days) and gorgeous summers – until the stream of propaganda made me doubt what the media were telling me. The real thaw came when snow returned in 2008 onwards to remove our Mediterranean tinted glasses, but no matter what Mother Nature threw our way it all became just another affirmation that it was all our fault – even if it had happened before in my lifetime. I became sick of the Met Office forecasts beyond 5 days of endless barbecue summers and found my limited experience of the weather enabled me to make better predictions than they could using just common sense. I recalled the words of those much older than I who talked of cycles repeating. Having a fairly open mind I began reading the likes of Piers Corbyn and Joe Bastardi to see if they were better at predicting the next cold wave (like I said I love snow). They weren’t the conspiratorial lunatics I was led to believe and took the time to explain, even if I didn’t agree with their dismissal of CO2 as being anything but a minor cause of the climate changes I have seen in my lifetime.

As the warmth was failing I noticed more and more excuses arose and CO2 possessed mythic powers capable of just about anything provided their was funding – or I just stopped believing the blatant fear mongering by the mainstream media and politicians. The more I read (and I read a lot) the more I realised we were being lied to so Al Gore and the Green Mafia can line their pockets preaching ‘do as I say, not as I do’. Every weather event is an opportunity to peddle their religion on us. That annoys me. Weather is one of the few neutral conversational topics allowed in Britain and now it’s loaded where you can barely mention a slightly unusual event without someone saying it’s ‘climate change’.

Science lacks curiosity and follows the money, not observations. Most industries and professions are no different when anything that challenges THEIR funding – rightly or wrongly – is dismissed and made out to be crazy. When someone  keeps crying FIRE whenever you ask a question about why there is no smoke or flames someone is bound to smell a farting rat. It’s politics not science and if it’s politics then it sure as hell isn’t sustainable.

This is all a horrible joke. Let me pause and note that I have never been more confused than I have been over the past year by all the fraud and all these bizarre junk studies. It’s disorienting. This can’t be what science is. Science is this precious, wondrous thing. It’s arguably the best thing humans do. Political ideology is eating science alive. This collapse of integrity, the incredibly bold acts of fraud and scientific authorities’ attempts to protect that fraud, the apparent lack of serious peer review and of even minimal methodological standards, this is all a disaster. Science can’t be this. Politics is just killing us right now. Politics is acid on science. It always has been. But I think our era is more political than many other eras. I think the the influence of political ideology in academia is at a historic peak.

José Duarte

There is a difference between a scientist farting in a bottle and then applying this discovery into the field by farting in a cowfield so he/she can blame humans for the existing stench.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

  • and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite…Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “About Me

  1. I would be interested to know which other generally-accepted fields of science you disagree with? Evolution, the age of the Earth, plate tectonics, genetics? Or do you just reject climate science?
    [The implication being I reject science? A sad, tired old ploy and quite pathetic really that you have resorted straight up to an ad hominem implication. You guys must try harder- Craig]

    • Maybe you would like to pick one piece of climate science that you feel stands up to scrutiny and let us put our case.

      Blindly following the output of organisations such as the IPCC, without doing your own due diligence, smacks of religious belief rather than intellectual honesty.

      The AR5’s SPM, issued by by the IPCC, and used as the MSM’s sound-bite library, bears little relationship to the obfuscation and misinformation contained therein.

      Unfortunately for you and your bands of Al Gore acolytes the time has arrived for you to try harder. As to ad hominem tactics, you need to remember who started using them first.

      • Here’s another…
        Science lacks curiosity and follows the money, not observations. Most industries and professions are no different when anything that challenges THEIR funding

  2. Hi Craig, Fantastic intro to your blog and all very true. Models are going to struggle in the coming days, weeks & months due to the intense energy levels. Earth & our solar system is changing fast.

    • Thanks Yamkin. I enjoy getting the updates from your blog & also your twitter feed. You pick up changes fast.

      I agree regarding the models, think there is a rather big change in the mix that will sneak up (I’m publishing further winter thoughts soon which may be of interest)…keeping an eye on the Pacific high/ridge in the Aleutian islands, Alaska which if it migrates east would lead to some v. cold temps for NW Alaska – shades of winter 46/7*. Already cold there as it is with ice building over the east coast of the Americas’s.

      Craig

      * also around solar max…brrrr

  3. Hi Craig,

    Great to see someone getting actively involved in all this.
    I am thinking of ways to raise the awareness of this scientific approach to weather prediction and am considering teaching myself app development and potentially creating a long range weather app for people to use.

    What I need to do first is learn a bit more about the actual science behind this. i.e. the Solar and Lunar science.
    I am by no means expecting Piers to give away his scientific secrets or Joe Bastardi for that matter, but are there any good quality open source sites or documents which can help me to get my head around all this properly?

    Happy New Year and all the best for 2014!

    Rich

  4. Thanks, Craig.

    Ancient scriptures of many different religions agree that ultimately, “Truth is victorious, never untruth.”

    Mother Nature is now showing politicians and post-normal scientists how little they understand about Earth’s ever-changing climate.

  5. Politics are certainly enmeshed in the topic of global warming. Have you looked at http://www.skepticalscience.com/ ? They address a large number of challenges to global warming (they are both the best list of all such complaints and rational responses that I’ve found.) When thinking about weather vs climate, I’ve run across this: Your grocer can estimate how many apples to order for next month (climate) but won’t know if you’ll buy an apple today (weather).

  6. Craig, your introduction is an excellent narrative that covers the issues very well. Science is burgeoning but its following the money as you say. Eisenhower identified the problem.

    When I look at the evolution of knowledge about the stratosphere the contributions of private researchers working away in their own self funded time stands out. One was De Bort who launched hundreds of balloons near Paris and the other is Gordon Dobson, working away in his garden shed to make his Dobsonmeters.

    In 1968 Dobson reviewed his work (see here http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ozwv/dobson/papers/Applied_Optics_v7_1968.pdf) and wrote this:

    The wartime measurements of the humidity of the upper atmosphere, showing that the stratosphere is very dry, were of interest in relation to the question of the equilibrium temperature of the stratosphere. The temperature of the stratosphere was generally regarded as being controlled by the absorption and emission of longwave radiation, the chief absorbing gases being water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone. If the air in the stratosphere were nearly saturated with water vapor, then water vapor would far outweigh the others in importance. When it was found that the stratosphere only contained a few percent of the water vapor required to saturate it, the picture appeared quite different and the three gases appeared to be of equal importance in determining the temperature of the stratosphere. Another interesting result to come out of the measurements with the frost point hygrometer was that there were often layers of very dry air quite low down in the troposphere, which must have descended from high in the troposphere if not from the stratosphere. The results of this wartime work were presented in the Bakerian Lecture of the Royal Society for 1945.

    A Biography of Dobson is provided by University of Oxford Department of Physics at:
    https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/research/atmospheric-oceanic-and-planetary-physics/history/biography-dobson

    In that biography you will find this statement:

    Dobson inferred correctly that the cause of the warm stratosphere was heating by the absorption of ultraviolet solar radiation by ozone,

    Dobson also wrote this:

    Chree,’ 2 using the first year’s results at Oxford had shown that there appeared to be a connection between magnetic activity and the amount of ozone, the amount of ozone being greater on magnetically disturbed days. Lawrence used the Oxford ozone values for 1926 and 1927 and in each year found the same relation as Chree had done. However, when he used the average ozone values for Northwest Europe-which should be less affected by local meteorological conditions-he found no relation at all, so it was concluded that both Chree’s results and his earlier ones had been accidental. This investigation has never been repeated.

    and he wrote this about his very early observation that TCO mapped surface pressure:

    At this time it was well known from the work of Dines and others that the stratosphere was warmer in cyclonic conditions and colder in anticyclonic conditions, and Lindemann also suggested that these differences of temperature might be due to different amounts of ozone in the stratosphere-cyclonic conditions having much ozone and anticyclonic conditions little ozone. It also seemed just possible that cyclones and anticyclones might be actually caused by different amounts of ozone in the upper atmosphere. We know now that there is, indeed, more ozone in cyclonic conditions than in anticyclonic conditions but that this is not the cause of the different pressure systems.

    Dobson had a position at Oxford University that was no doubt important to him. I smell a rat. I reckon that he was being leaned on very heavily by some important people who were dead set on pushing a particular narrative.

    Re private researchers: There is of course the additional instance of the fellow who was an assistant examiner in a patent office in Bern, Switzerland.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s