|
|
|
|
Don't let anyone tell you that "the science is settled" and "the debate is over" and it's "beyond any reasonable doubt" when it really isn't. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the hype and low-level panic about man-made global warming. (You should always be a little skeptical of anything you hear about environmental issues on television.) There are plenty of atmospheric scientists, and others, who aren't buying the hype. Before we are compelled by way of taxes to pay for a solution to the problem of global warming, a real and present danger must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As you can see below, there is plenty of reasonable doubt. Subsections: Confected emergencies and the new world order. [Scroll down] There is no climate emergency. The oceans are not boiling. Rather, as we emerge from the recent CO2 famine and mini Ice Age, ten times more people still die each year of cold than of heat. But, to carry out its work, the growing supranational world order requires there to be a climate emergency, and many others, so as to continue stealthily under their cover to implement their changes. And that is why they are now invoking authoritarian instruments, hatched and rehearsed under Covid, to protect people from bad weather. The most heretical idea in the world. The view of the people we're told to give us guidance on these issues is that we're obviously in a climate catastrophe that's becoming an apocalypse; maybe some will say a climate problem on the verge of catastrophe. And yet empirically, if you look at how livable our climate is from a human-flourishing perspective, it's undeniable that it's never been better. This is a chart of what's happened in the atmosphere. We've put in more CO2, and that indeed has caused some warming and has other climate effects. But at the same time, the death rate from climate disasters — so storms and floods, extreme temperatures, et cetera — has gone way down. It's gone down actually 98% in the last century. [Chart] This means that a typical person has 1/50 the chance of dying from a climate disaster compared to what somebody used to have. And if you look at things like damages, we're not actually more threatened by climate. If you adjust for GDP, we're safer from climate still. The reason I raise this is: we have this situation where the supposed experts on something say that we have a catastrophe, and yet in reality, it's never been better from a human-flourishing perspective. Globalist Misinformation: No, the Earth is Not Warming. One man's disinformation is another man's speaking truth to power. Who is the referee? We, the people, or the administrative state? This is a multifaceted war, including all things COVID, vaccinations, election integrity, crime statistics, illegal immigration, and the Earth's climate. I want to focus on climate change, once known as global warming. Climate warriors insist the planet's climate is changing. No one will argue that. We have had ice ages burying the upper Midwest under a mile-thick sheet of ice, with the planet cooling enough to create these massive glaciers, followed by subsequent warming and melting. [...] The Denver Post breathlessly exclaims, "Mile High City ties the 132-year-old high-temperature record." Big deal. [...] Does the Denver Post know if there was a warmer late September day in Denver in the 1700s? Or the 700s? Or 2700 BC? [...] The data goes back to 1872. What if 1772, 772, or 772 BC were hotter? Carbon Dioxide: A Pollutant or the Food of Life? You be the judge. For over thirty years, we have all been bombarded by the rhetoric that our future is doomed. The Earth is "Boiling", the oceans are rising, and everything which could possibly go wrong with our planet is "About to Happen", "Any Minute", "Won't be Long Now", we all face "Catastrophic Extinction", and man-made Carbon Dioxide is the culprit. However, the huge problem for the catastrophists is that this isn't happening. At all! Not even a bit! Sure, weather and other events are still occurring, some a little weird, but the promises of doom just haven't eventuated. [...] Global average temperatures have also only increased by about 0.8[°]C over the last 140 years. At least they had up until the Hunga Tonga sub-oceanic volcano blew 150 million tonnes of water into the Stratosphere in 2022. The doom-saying ideologues were ecstatic as we got a small temperature bounce from the "Greenhouse" effect of upper atmospheric H2O. MSM Journos Inadvertently Reveal Shocking Truth About Global Warming. In recent years, particularly around mid-July (the peak of the Northern Hemisphere summer), there has been a noticeable surge in headlines featuring the "hottest day" ever on record in corporate media outlets — which is of course pushed by climate alarmist journalists citing questionable studies. This timing coincides with hot weather, so naturally, it's quite convincing to persuade readers that the world's oceans are boiling and planet Earth will ignite into a fireball unless drastic actions are taken — such as more climate taxes, 'carbon credits,' banning cow [emissions], prohibiting new petrol-powered vehicle sales by X date, and pushing spending bills to procure more solar panels from China, to save the planet. The problem is that corporate media only focuses on recent history — and not "in context" (as they love to say). Context is particularly important when it comes to climate change — as their narrative collapses when looking at a long enough timeline. David Lammy warns climate change is a more urgent threat than dictators such as Vladimir Putin or terrorism. Foreign Secretary David Lammy will today say that climate change is a more urgent threat than terrorism or dictators such as Vladimir Putin. He is set to unveil plans for a Global Clean Power Alliance — a coalition of countries committed to speeding up the production of green energy. But Mr Lammy's comments risk opening Labour up to accusations that the party is in the pockets of eco-zealots. The Editor says... 10 Lies Leftists Tell You. Lie #2: Man-made climate change will make the Earth unlivable for humans in (pick one) 5, 10, 39, or 5,000 years. Ha, ha! If you think our Creator would allow us, His/Her/Zey's most ambitious, creative, and intelligent organism, to destroy our beautiful terrarium, then you're either a fool or an atheist, possibly both. Our most brilliant minds can't predict tomorrow's weather with precision, our weather records extend a mere blip into the nearly five billion years of the planet's estimated existence, and the only reason the scam's called "climate change" is because leftists gave up on "global warming" when the Earth inconsiderately stopped warming. The Top Five Climate Science Scandals. Science is science because it is self-correcting. That means that when researchers go down a dead end path they turn around and look for another route. However, science in highly politicized situations can face obstacles to self-correction, meaning that it can be more difficult to change course when science gets off track. This is especially so when bad science becomes politically important. That's where climate science finds itself in 2024. Long time readers here at THB will know that climate change is real and poses risks. At the same time, the climate science community appears to have lost its collective ability to call out bad science and get things back on track. Today, particularly for the many new readers that THB has gained this year, I summarize the top 5 climate science scandals covered here at THB over the past few years. I define a scandal as a situation of objectively flawed science — in substance and/or procedure — that the community has been unable to make right, but should. Polar Bears, Dead Coral and Other Climate Fictions. The petrified tone of heat-wave coverage twists policy illogically. Whether from heat or cold, the most sensible way to save people from temperature-related deaths would be to ensure access to cheap, reliable electricity. That way, it wouldn't be only the rich who could afford to keep safe from blistering or frigid weather. Unfortunately, much of climate policy makes affordable energy all the harder to obtain. Activists do the world a massive disservice by refusing to acknowledge facts that challenge their intensely doom-ridden worldview. There is ample evidence that man-made emissions cause changes in climate, and climate economics generally finds that the costs of these effects outweigh the benefits. But the net result is nowhere near catastrophic. The costs of all the extreme policies campaigners push for are much worse. All told, politicians across the world are now spending more than $2 trillion annually — far more than the estimated cost from climate change that these policies prevent each year. J.D. Vance on climate: The idea of an environmental crisis was 'created' to please Democratic donors. Former President Donald Trump has picked Sen. J.D. Vance — an author and former venture capitalist who has been dismissive of climate change concerns but outspoken on rail safety — to be his vice presidential running mate. Trump, the Republican nominee in November's presidential race, announced his pick Monday on the first day of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Vance's energy and environmental agenda in the Senate has aligned closely with the Republican Party. The senator has been dismissive of concerns about climate change. "Even if there was a climate crisis, I don't know how the way to solve it is to buy more Chinese-manufactured electric vehicles," he said in 2022, saying the idea of an environmental crisis was "created" to please Democratic donors. NOAA's June 2024 Climate Data Shows No "Record High" U.S. Maximum Temperature Anomaly or Absolute Temperatures Occurred. A recent ClimateRealism Fact-Check June 2024 article addressed the climate science data unsupported claims by climate alarmist media that hyped phony temperature "records" have occurred in June across the U.S. which the article establishes as being completely false. NOAA has updated its Contiguous U.S. climate temperature anomaly and absolute temperature measurement data results through June 2024 with these results showing that the temperatures experienced this June were not "record" high outcomes as falsely portrayed by the climate alarmist media's phony political campaign hype. 'They'
shrieked about 'global warming' — but now they admit we were 'accidentally
cooling'. [Scroll down] Here are some of the questions.
Climate change season is upon us! Climate has been called the long-term average of prevailing weather patterns. But the political left, which controls the narrative, assumes there is a single, universal, all-encompassing climate — a sort of one-size-fits-all environment — that can be easily be boxed up and presented as being identical all over the world. But can we compare the climate of, say, Antarctica to that of southern Florida? Of course not — they are two completely different climates, and what's true for one isn't necessarily true for the other. The truth is, there are thousands of climates around the world: regional climates, local climates, micro-climates and even artificial climates. But the idea that there's a single worldwide climate is a fallacy. The second fallacy is that the global climate (which doesn't actually exist) is somehow changing, or, more specifically, getting warmer due to the activities of man. But in point of fact, temperatures are not rising in the aggregate, but have remained steady for at least the last 20 years if not longer. What exactly are Biden's achievements in his first three-and-a-half years? [Scroll down] We have been told for around 40 years that there is an existential threat from global warming and climate change, and the government is throwing lots of money to green pushers to supposedly correct this climate change. The Biden administration took $7.5 billion to build 500,000 electric charging stations, and after three years, they have built a grand total of... seven. What a raging success. So, what has happened to the climate in the last 40 years because of these government policies? Sometimes we have record cold and sometimes we have record warmth. Sometimes we have droughts and sometimes we have lots of rain and floods. Sometimes there are small amounts of snow and sometimes we have record snow. Some years have huge and damaging storms, and some don't. In other words, the weather changes cyclically and normally as it always has. It's Been 6 Years Since Greta Thunberg Warned We Have 5 Years to Stop the Extinction of Humanity. How do climate alarmists expect the rest of us to care about their cause when they can't even distribute information from experts accurately? Internationally known climate alarmist Greta Thunberg, the 21-year-old Swede with a penchant for leftist causes, warned the world in 2018 that mankind had five years to stop using fossil fuels or all of humanity will be wiped out. The since-deleted social media post — a tweet on the platform then known as Twitter — can be found via a screenshot from another post below. [Advertisement] [Tweet] While Thunberg's post did not say humanity would end in five years — we did make it past 2023 after all — there was one glaring problem with it. The article that Thunberg linked misquoted the scientist who made the relevant remarks. Unforgivable ignorance at the heart of Net Zero. [Scroll down] For instance, one of our more serious newspapers put up three objections: wind and solar are more expensive, not cheaper; insufficient cash is available for scaling up generation; and the record of nationalised industries is very poor. That has completely missed by far the most serious flaw, and is at the same time the unforgivable ignorance at the core of all Net Zero politics. The author of the piece knows nothing of meteorology and is assuming that the wind will always blow and the sun will always shine. But 2030 will meteorologically be no different from other years, during which the sun will as usual set at night, contributing nothing in winter to the solar panels for the peak evening energy demands. The wind will blow sometimes as gales, other times as a gentle breeze, and occasionally not at all. UN Claims About 'Extreme Weather' Debunked. The nature of the statistical fraud being used was first exposed by a group of Italian scientists led by Gianluca Alimonti and Luigi Mariani who concluded that "on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet". Their original paper of November 2021 was retracted under a highly politicised process, but they issued a related paper which was accepted in July 2023. Their basic insight was that looking for a trend in the total number of weather events recorded over a long period cannot generate meaningful results as the phenomenal increase in recording technology and population growth would inevitably increase the number of recorded events. They showed that when you started splitting recorded weather events into different categories of severity then there was no meaningful increase in the number of severe events over time. Their logic was that the recording capacity of severe weather events was more or less constant over time and if there were genuine trends then they should be noticeable in severe weather events. Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems. We were charged by Marty Rowland and the American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES) with writing a literature review paper supporting the skeptical (aka "denier") position with regard to dangerous man-made climate change. Our paper is fully peer-reviewed and presents what we think is the most convincing argument. Unfortunately, the paper is paywalled, but the submitted version, containing all the changes suggested by the peer-reviewers, can be downloaded [elsew]here. When planning the article, we called it the "Yes, but" paper. That meant, yes, most scientists think man-made CO2 drives climate change and might be dangerous, but what about ...? Other articles in this special climate issue of AJES deal with other points of view on possible man-made climate change and its potential dangers. "To Use Terms Like 'Global Boiling' Is Clearly Absolute Nonsense". "Don't believe what Wikipedia writes about me," Professor Ian Plimer emails me when I arrange an interview with him. Of course, the first thing to do in this case is to check the Wikipedia article about him. "Ian Rutherford Plimer (born 12 February 1946) is an Australian geologist and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. He rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. He has been criticised by climate scientists for misinterpreting data and spreading misinformation," are the first sentences of the Wikipedia article about him. Plimer is indeed an Australian geologist and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, where he once was Professor and Head of Earth Sciences. During his long academic career, he has also been a professor at the University of Newcastle, University of Adelaide, Ludwig Maximilians Universität in Munich, Germany, and has work relations with several other universities. He has published more than 130 scientific articles and was one of the editors of the comprehensive five-volume Encyclopedia of Geology. Republicans purposely lost Held v Montana. In June 2023, Montana Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen Purposely lost the critical Held v Montana climate lawsuit, which was the most important climate lawsuit in America. AG Knudsen had three years to prepare his defense. He could have easily defeated Held v Montana. He only needed to defend climate truth, which is easy. A good trial attorney with good climate expert witnesses would easily have proved the plaintiffs' climate experts were wrong. That's why Knudsen blacklisted me and other climate physicists who would have defeated Held v Montana. The World Economic Forum (WEF) needs the climate myth to support its plan to control us. The climate myth creates dummies who vote to help WEF make them slaves. If we had defeated Held v Montana, we would have destroyed WEF. To make it a quick death, Knudsen gave away Held v Montana in the first few minutes of the trial on June 12, 2023. His assistant attorney stipulated that Montana agrees with the Plaintiffs' climate and damage claims. Game over. WEF won. Knudsen's trial attorneys did not challenge any Plaintiff expert witness. They presented no expert witness in climate or law. They laid down a legal red carpet to let the Plaintiffs easily win. Knudsen is not that stupid. Knudsen serves WEF. 12
reasons why I don't believe there's a climate emergency. I'm not a scientist.
But I have reasons why I don't fully trust the 'climate emergency' narrative. Here they are:
Biden's Climate Change Scare Tactics Aren't Working. First, the stage must be set. The joke that currently occupies the Bully Pulpit says he's the first climate president, says he's making history by confronting the climate crisis, not denying it. "I'm taking the most significant action on climate ever in the history of the world." Now to his latest tactic. Biden gave a warning on climate change in September 2021, when he surveyed damage caused by Hurricane Ida in New York and New Jersey. "We've got to listen to the scientists ... they all tell us this is code red. ... The nation and the world are in peril, and that's not hyperbole. This is everybody's crisis." While in Louisiana he said, "We don't have any more time." [...] There's little doubt that our "first climate president" is trying to scare people, especially young voters, into thinking climate change has reached crisis mode and we must do whatever it takes to mitigate it — now! Trust the Science? 19 Scientific Journals Shutting Down Simultaneously After Being Rocked by Retractions and Fraud: Report. "Trust the science" was always a stupid phrase, deployed by leftist institutions, government and the establishment media to silence opposition to the woke cause of the moment. Whether it's to force compliance with the concept of "climate change," or coerce behavior in the depths of the coronavirus pandemic, the phrase has been a cudgel wielded by the powerful. It means nothing, seeing as "science" is hardly a monolithic block of infallible knowledge, with scientists constantly disagreeing with each other in the midst of making new discoveries. Exposing the lie that humans and our use of natural resources controls the climate. These skulls full of mush on college campuses that are chanting "death to Israel" and "death to America" have also been indoctrinated about climate change. They have been taught not to ask questions or to do research. They have been intentionally dumbed down. Politicians and bureaucrats, who pretend they can control temperatures within one degree forever, can't even control people enough to allow peace on college campuses. They can't even control the inflation they created! There is no scientific data that shows a link between temperatures and our use of oil, coal, and natural gas — and this intentional destruction of progress by power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats must be stopped before it is too late. Democrats are referred to as progressive, but there is nothing forward-looking about trying to move the country backward by essentially outlawing the use of oil and other natural resources which have greatly improved our quality and length of life. That is committing economic suicide. As the World Takes Off, Net Zero Britain Stays Grounded. All around the world new airports are being built and existing airports enlarged in countries which appear to realise that the supposed 'climate crisis' and the need for Net Zero are just a load of nonsense. The largest new airport project is probably in Dubai. Within 10 years Dubai's main airport will move to a new desert mega-hub, projected to be the busiest on the planet. [...] It will replace the existing Dubai International Airport, already the busiest in the world for international traffic, handling 87 million passengers in 2023. Given that the Dubaians are increasing the capacity of their airport from 87 million passengers a year to a massive 260 million passengers a year, it doesn't look like they're too worried about what the world's greatest climatologist, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, calls "global boiling". Why climate change ISN'T going to end the world. Young people are terrified that climate change will destroy Earth by the time they grow up, but the world is not actually ending, argues Cambridge professor Mike Hulme. Humanity is not teetering on a cliff's edge, he says, at risk of imminent catastrophe if we don't reach net-zero carbon emissions by a certain date. And he has made it his mission to call out the people who claim we are. In his most recent book, Climate Change Isn't Everything, Hulme argued that belief in the urgent fight against climate change has shot far past the territory of science and become an ideology. Hulme, a professor of human geography at the University of Cambridge, dubs this ideology 'climatism,' and he argues that it can distort the way society approaches the world's ills, placing too much focus on slowing Earth from warming. The Editor says... Washing away the Climate Lunatics. At the same time that the climate fanatics are encountering irresistible political headwinds, the intellectual arguments of the climate skeptics are becoming steadily more unanswerable. A brief filed with the court of appeals in The Hague in November by three eminent, American climate-related academics, Richard Lindzen of MIT, William Happer of Princeton, and Steven Koonin of New York University, the Hoover Institute, and former climate adviser to President Obama, challenged the finding of a lower court and held that scientific analysis, as opposed to an aggregation of "government opinion, consensus, peer review, and cherry-picked or falsified data," shows that "Fossil fuels and CO2 will not cause dangerous climate change, there will be disastrous consequences for people worldwide if fossil fuels in CO2 emissions are reduced to net zero, including mass starvation." They assert that the poor, future generations, and the entire West will suffer profoundly from any such policy. The imaginary "climate crisis" is a product of climate activists and click-bait media. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") reports don't define what a "climate crisis" is. The crisis that supposedly requires society to achieve zero carbon emissions or, at least, "net zero." On the contrary, the IPCC's latest Assessment Report ("AR6") published in 2021 points out that corporate media's opinion of climate change has moved away from a neutral position by adopting and promoting terms like "climate crisis," "global heating" and "climate emergency." Such a statement by the IPCC should leave no doubt that the concept of an ongoing "climate crisis" is a joint product of climate activists and the click-hungry media, lacking a solid scientific basis, Aivar Usk writes. Climate 'Experts' Are 0-41 With Their Doomsday Predictions. For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 [updated to 54] predictions wrong. In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent ... and it never happened. And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true. Think about that: the so-called experts are 0-41 with their predictions, but those of us who are skeptical of "expert" prediction number 42, the one that says that if we don't immediately convert to socialism and allow Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy to control and organize our lives, the planet will become uninhabitable. Why would any sane person listen to someone with a 0-41 record? Popular Nullification of the State's Propaganda. [Scroll down] A Marxist globalist needs only one smart-sounding commie to create a wave of mockingbird mimickers eager to repeat exactly what the "lone genius" says. How do Marxist globalists effectively control any public narrative? They (1) prohibit truly intelligent people from presenting opposing messages while (2) flooding the media space with intellectual lightweights who wish to be seen as geniuses. That's how you construct a false reality in which every media voice claims that catastrophic, man-made "climate change" is "settled science" when scientific research says nothing of the sort. Censorship of opposing voices combined with the "lone genius effect" creates unanimous journalistic consensus. Totalitarians always rise to power by preying on insecure people because, once mesmerized by the tyrant's speech, eager repeaters become goose-stepping sycophants of the highest order. Review: Climate — The Movie (The Cold Truth). Earlier this month, I noted that the CO2 Coalition had joined the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the Heartland Institute had presented the American premiere of Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth). Climate: The Movie is an engaging and informative review of the other side's perspectives on the climate change debate. It is supported by scientists who have signed Clintel's World Climate Declaration, which states that there is no climate emergency. I had a chance to sit down and watch the film this week. I am delighted to report that it was one of the most engrossing documentaries I have ever viewed. As advertised, the movie documents the cold, hard truth about how the climate change narrative arose and why its supporters are bitterly clinging to their beliefs about carbon dioxide and its impact on global warming. Guyana President Lights Up BBC Host Who Tries to Climate Shame Him Over Extracting Oil. I'd like to introduce you to Mohamed Irfaan Ali, President of Guyana. What he did in the face of climate activism being thrown at him has now gone viral (almost 3 million views on the video below) and it isn't hard to see why. BBC host Stephen Sackur essentially asked him during an interview isn't it a bad thing for you guys to extract $150 billion of oil and gas off your coast because of the carbon emissions that would ultimately be released into the atmosphere? Ali's response is just pure gold. He stops Sackur cold and then just rips him a new one. [Tweet with video clip] The Editor says... An entertaining comprehensive primer on climate change fraud. I received an email from the Art of Liberty Foundation suggesting that we watch a free video about the truth behind Climate Change hysteria. Knowing that there are a lot of well-intentioned but boring, confusing, or simply amateurish movies out there regarding the climate, I approached this with trepidation. I need not have worried. The movie is wonderful. Watch it, share it with open-minded friends, and store up its arguments for those times when the climatistas try to shut you down. Climate The Movie (The Cold Truth) came out in 2023 but is now available for free, in high definition, on YouTube. In a mere 80 minutes, you will be inundated with accessible data told through interviews with enormously prestigious scientists and people who worked in the climate change field, actual data often generated by the climatistas themselves, and a clearly presented narrative about the Earth's climate history and the political and economic uses driving today's hysteria. Dr. Jennifer Marohasy: There Is No Climate Crisis. [Scroll down] The climate is changing. And it is warming too now, according to Marohasy. But was the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres correct to say in July last year that we have entered an era of 'global boiling'? Not according to Marohasy. She explains that through her work she has come to understand how temperature measurement data is actually handled and reported today. Marohasy says that the kind of linear upward trend in temperature on which today's claims of global warming are based is not actually reflected in the raw data. Marohasy has looked at data from Australia, Indonesia, China, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Greenland, for example, and says the growth trend model has been plotted by a process of data homogenization and adjustment. According to Marohasy, in Australia the measurements of the last century actually show a cooling at the beginning of the graph, followed by a warming. Poll: 45% of young voters [are] unwilling to spend $10/month to fight 'climate change' despite it apparently being a top priority. In perhaps the most scathing condemnation yet of the young "activists" known for their pseudo-concerns for the environment, a new poll revealed that around half of them are unwilling to put their money, even a measly ten bucks (or less), where their mouth is. [...] Apparently, humanity's very survival is riding on addressing this crisis, which is allegedly at critical mass — despite that having been the story for the last hundred years. There is an "existential threat" to the world's habitability, with life as we know it on the precipice of global boiling and apocalyptic natural disasters, but it's not even worth their pocket change? How many of these same people are buying $10 coffees every day? How many have Netflix subscriptions? Amazon Prime? Online gaming services? Are they reliably using Uber Eats, DoorDash, or Grubhub? Do they have at least $10 to spend at the local thrift store, so they can signal how deeply committed they are to lowering their carbon footprint? Scientists: Take away corrupted data and there is no 'climate crisis'. Climate activists and world governments are using problematic temperature recordings that have corrupted data to build models that then forecast catastrophic global warming, according to multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue. Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as "homogenization," scientists from around the world said, citing peer-reviewed studies. The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data — and the models based on it — essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) told The Epoch Times. The scientists said that when data corruption is considered, the alleged "climate crisis" supposedly caused by human activities disappears. Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, the scientists say. Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data. Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times. The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment report as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human activities. The document states that human emissions of "greenhouse gases" such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in response. But scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back. In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say it's time to reexamine the whole narrative. Fixation on CO2 Ignores Real Driver of Temperature, Experts Say. Each year from 2023 to 2030, climate change sustainable development goals will cost every person in economies such as the United States $2,026, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development estimates. In lower-income economies, the per-person annual cost ranges from $332 to $1,864. In total, the global price tag comes to about $5.5 trillion per year. [...] But any decrease in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions won't have an effect for hundreds to thousands of years — even under the most restrictive circumstances, according to some experts. "If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to 'pre-industrial' levels," the Royal Society states in a report on its website. The organization describes itself as a "fellowship of many of the world's most eminent scientists." "Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions," the report states. "The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales." JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock drop out of massive UN climate alliance in stunning move. JPMorgan Chase and institutional investors BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) on Thursday announced that they are quitting or, in the case of BlackRock, substantially scaling back involvement in a massive United Nations climate alliance formed to combat global warming through corporate sustainability agreements. In a statement, the New York-based JPMorgan Chase explained that it would exit the so-called Climate Action 100+ investor group because of the expansion of its in-house sustainability team and the establishment of its climate risk framework in recent years. BlackRock and State Street, which both manage trillions of dollars in assets, said the alliance's climate initiatives had gone too far, expressing concern about potential legal issues as well. The stunning announcements come as the largest financial institutions in the U.S. and worldwide face an onslaught of pressure from consumer advocates and Republican states over their environmental, social and governance (ESG) priorities. Lake Shasta reservoirs 'well above' historical average after 'experts' predicted a global warming drought. Why did the so-called climate change experts predict a continued drought in California, instead of predicting the record snow and rain the state actually received? Precipitation that has caused the reservoirs to be well above the historical average? [...] Why was it unexpected? Why should we believe they can predict climate conditions a hundred years from now when they can't predict the current weather? Why should we base policies on computer model predictions that have continuously been wrong? How is Alaska reaching such extreme negatives when the Democrats and other green pushers tell us that everything we do and use are causing existential warming? Respect for Authorities 'Died Suddenly'. Alas, the gullible are getting only more gullible. Perhaps this is why "climate change" is still the globalist boogeyman that haunts so many pliant imaginations around the world. The unscrupulous authorities who lied about the efficacy of lockdowns, masks, and experimental "vaccines" would never lie about "climate change," right? What kind of monsters would tell the world that carbon is killing the planet if the science isn't sound? Maybe the same globalist monsters who used COVID as a propaganda vehicle for establishing a "Great Reset" are also interested in using "climate change" hysteria to convince people that they must surrender their private property, privacy, and human rights in order to survive. Would an ethically challenged scientific community work with an even more ethically challenged political class to push a "climate change" hoax that justifies the erosion of individual liberties and the implementation of widespread communism prepackaged in an irrational fear of hydrocarbons? Duh, of course it would. When governments became the de facto funders of all academic research in the West, impartial, rigorous, and objective scientific inquiry "died suddenly," too. Some questions for the blowhards at the World Economic Forum. Where is the scientific data that shows that gasoline-powered vehicles, jets, and other things control the temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity? Will they go silent or just repeat their lie that the science is settled? Where is the scientific data that shows electric cars would lower the temperatures? Haven't temperatures fluctuated both up and down since data were kept at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution? Doesn't that show a zero correlation between temperatures and our use of coal and oil? Why do you think it is good to use lithium when it is a highly flammable and toxic pollutant? Why do you want to use so many rare Earth minerals when so much of the mining is done by child labor? Why do you fly in private jets if you believe they are destroying the planet? Was 2023 really the second hottest year since 1884? According to the UK Met Office, 2023 was the second hottest year in the UK since 1884. Quite obviously, this is complete nonsense. Unless they are troglodytes that never venture out in daylight, why would anyone in the UK believe such absurd drivel? [...] The UK summer of 2023 — where I live — was a thoroughly miserable affair. We had a few weeks of decent sunshine in the spring and a couple of hot weeks of Indian summer. That was it! The rest of it was cold, wet and comprehensively devoid of anything we might traditionally call "summer." The winter preceding and following it wasn't particularly cold, but nor was it unusually warm. I'm knocking on a bit and can remember about 50 years of my life. I know, for a fact, that I have lived through many warmer years. Sure, this is anecdotal, but I haven't completely taken leave of my senses and I still have a functioning memory. No way am I unquestioningly buying the Met Office's silly claim. Twilight of the Democrats. The recent revelation that Hertz is dumping about 40% of its electric vehicle fleet because people don't want to rent them and they're about twice as expensive to maintain as gas-powered vehicles — somehow got past the guardians of correct thought (a.k.a. censors). Perched on top of this unpleasant revelation is the other current story about the record cold weather affecting the northern Midwest and Northeast. Seldom is an NFL game ever rescheduled because of weather, but the Bills-Steelers game has been postponed due to extreme cold. Go figure. Concurrently, the credibility-challenged media are continuing to vomit up revelations of 2023 being the warmest year "on record." Not mentioning at all that we've only had thermometers for 300 years. The earth is a lot older than that. Does the Earth have a fever? Is it boiling? Have we hit the tipping point? The answer is clearly no. The green agenda is based on the lie that "the science is settled" that humans, rising CO2, and our use of oil, coal, natural gas, eating beef and a huge number of other things cause dangerous warming. There are no scientific facts to support those statements. Most of the media is guilty of promoting these lies that will substantially harm the poor and middle class. They just repeat what they are told without doing research or asking questions. That is dangerous and no more valuable than a wooden puppet. They clearly don't care about facts as they seek to silence anyone who tells the truth that the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally by disparaging them as climate change deniers and anti-science. The purpose of the massive fraud is to transfer money and freedom from the people to greedy politicians and bureaucrats who keep a lot of money for themselves before trickling out significant kickbacks to greedy green pushers who donate to and vote for Democrats. New Study Finds No Evidence Of A CO2-Driven Warming Signal In 60 Years Of IR Flux Data. CO2 increased from 310 ppm to 385 ppm (24%) during the 60 years from 1948 to 2008. Observations indicate this led to a negative radiative imbalance of -0.75 W/m². In other words, increasing CO2 delivered a net cooling effect — the opposite of what the IPCC has claimed should happen (Miskolczi, 2023). Also, there is "no correlation with time and the strong signal of increasing atmospheric CO2 content in any time series," which affirms "the atmospheric CO2 increase cannot be the reason for global warming." "The Arrhenius type greenhouse effect of the CO2 and other non-condensing GHGs is an incorrect hypothesis and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is also an artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing." Should We Be Concerned Over Climate Change? "There are natural climate cycles, which are normal," research scientist Roy Spencer says, adding that "If you move beyond the temperature to things like storminess, you know, hurricane activity, there have been no demonstrable, long-term changes in anything other than a modest, relatively benign increase in temperature." When it comes to climate change, Spencer, a meteorologist and research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says he's "been hearing the rhetoric and the fearmongering since the 1970s." Asked if he personally worries about climate change, Spencer says: "No, if I was seriously worried about it, you know, I'd be worried for my children's future and my grandchildren's future. And I'm not." "I'm more worried about what our government is doing on a number of fronts, including regulatory mandates, which is going to make life much more expensive for them and therefore reduce their standard of living," adds Spencer, who has researched climate change for 40 years. Does the Global Temperature Record Really Show a 'Climate Emergency'? Clearly, the global temperature data does not support the idea of a "climate emergency", because when you view it on the proper scale of normal human experience, the steep rise in temperature disappears. Not-So-Scary Truth About Climate Change. United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry says it will take trillions of dollars to "solve" climate change. Then he says, "There is not enough money in any country in the world to actually solve this problem." Kerry has little understanding of money or how it's created. He's a multimillionaire because he married a rich woman. Now he wants to take more of your money to pretend to affect climate change. Bjorn Lomborg points out that there are better things society should spend money on. Lomberg acknowledges that a warmer climate brings problems. "As temperatures get higher, sea water, like everything else, expands. So we're going to maybe see three feet of sea level rise. Then they say, 'So everybody who lives within three feet of sea level, they'll have to move!' Well, no. If you actually look at what people do, they built dikes and so they don't have to move." People in Holland did that years ago. A third of the Netherlands is below sea level. In some areas, it's 22 feet below. Yet the country thrives. That's the way to deal with climate change: adjust to it. Climate and COVID — Making It Up As They Go Along. [Scroll down] Were COVID public health recommendations on masks, vaccines, and distancing about the medical science or the political science? Now pivot to climate change, formerly known as global warming. No scientist will argue that the climate is not changing. The planet has gone through numerous ice ages, large and small, obvious evidence of a changing climate. The disagreement is over what is causing that change. If human activity, specifically cars, airplanes, gas stoves, backyard barbecues, and so on are the culprit, then it stands to reason that before the last century when these technologies did not exist, the climate was static. Five hundred years ago, no one was driving, flying, using plastic bags or gas stoves. Electric vehicles were not a thing yet. The only vehicle was a horse, possibly pulling a carriage. There was even less CO2 activity 5000 years ago or 5 million years ago. Yet the climate was changing back then. How does science explain that? Or are they making things up now? Planet Earth has experienced ice ages followed by warming, numerous times, all occurring before humans existed or had any significant influence on the world around them. Our Institutions Have Betrayed Our Trust. Perhaps the most promoted "crisis" of our times is "global warming." 97% of scientists agree, so it must be true. But facts are stubborn things, and scientists are now coming forward revealing they have been pressured to only do studies that confirm the theory. Our trusted scientists, who supposedly rely on peer review and verifiable experiments, have promoted a theory that has led to a war on fossil fuels that has ruined the our economy. Alarms about climate are delusions. I am against hysterical legends. Climate change is real. Carbon dioxide is not the reason. That is not what warms up the atmosphere. Are human beings in danger from carbon dioxide from use of fossil fuels? No. We are not in danger: famines and floods exist and will continue to exist. If man actually wants to contribute to the elimination of hunger, the best thing is to increase carbon dioxide[.] Another Critical Thinker Reaches the Obvious Conclusion: Intermittant Renewables Cannot Work on their Own. Let me welcome to the small and elite club of critical thinkers on the supposed energy transition a guy named Balázs Fekete. Fekete, with several co-authors, has recently (September 18) succeeded in getting an article published in a journal called Frontiers of Environmental Science, with the title "Storage requirements to mitigate intermittent renewable energy sources: analysis for the US Northeast." Fekete then followed up by publishing on November 14 at Judith Curry's Climate, Etc. blog a lengthy post summarizing the article, titled "Net-Zero Targets: Sustainable Future or CO2 Obsession Driven Dead-end?" As with the previous competent analyses of energy storage requirements needed to back up intermittent renewable generation that have been featured on this blog and in my energy storage Report, there is nothing complicated about the Fekete, et al., analysis. The authors call it "a modified surplus/deficit calculation [as] taught to water engineers to size reservoirs for meeting water demand when the water resources vary." When there is surplus production you add it to storage, and when there is a deficit you subtract; and then you sum over a year (or two, or ten) to calculate how much storage you need. It's all basic arithmetic. What could be simpler? You will not be surprised that the conclusion is "CO2 obsession driven dead-end." Cop28 should prompt a net zero rethink. There is no doubt that divine providence has a sense of humour. As our King and Prime Minister joined tens of thousands of eco-warriors at Cop28, in Dubai, to decry (and contribute to) the threat of carbon emissions warming the planet, Alpine ski slopes were covered in pre-seasonal snow and Britain has had its earliest snowfall in 15 years. It reminded me of the night, 15 years ago, when Parliament passed the Climate Change Act amid terrifying predictions of catastrophic heatwaves. Then, too, providence teased us as, outside Parliament, snow fell in London in October for the first time in 74 years. [...] So, I asked ministers if they know of any peer-reviewed study accepted by the IPCC (the UN body established to assess the science of global warming) that forecasts the extinction of humanity if the world takes no action to phase out fossil fuels. The answer was clear: there are none. Nor is there a serious threat of humankind being reduced to poverty, hunger and wretchedness if we don't reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. "No Science Out There" That Says Phasing Out Fossil Fuels is Necessary to Stop Global Warming, Says UAE Host of COP28. Dr. Sultan Al-Jaber, the COP28 President from the United Arab Emirates, has said that there is "no science" supporting the call to phase out fossil fuels. [...] This fits perfectly Michael Kinsley's famous definition of a 'gaffe': "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say." 'No science' behind phasing out fossil fuels, says UAE's Cop28 president. There is "no science" behind the demand to phase out fossil fuels, the United Arab Emirates politician and Cop28 president has said in the latest difficult revelation for the summit's Emirati hosts. During a meeting in the run-up to the summit, Dr Sultan Al-Jaber, who also heads the state oil company Adnoc, said the phase-out of fossil fuels was not necessary to achieve the Paris Agreement target of limiting warming to 1.5C. "There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what's going to achieve 1.5C," he said in response to a question from Mary Robinson, the former Irish president. The revelation will put further pressure on the UAE, the wealthy petrostate that faces the task of securing a global agreement on reducing emissions by the end of the two-week summit. Dr Al-Jaber, also the head of the renewable energy company Masdar, has already come under scrutiny following reports that he planned to use meetings with other governments to push oil and gas deals. He and the Cop28 team have repeatedly dismissed the reports as false. It's time to scrap Net Zero. The cost of decarbonisation is rising all the time. The Treasury will lose huge amounts of revenue from fuel duties when we are all whizzing around in electric cars. And rising interest rates mean governments can no longer pay for everything with cheap debt. Still, never mind. The OECD has a clever wheeze for meeting the cost of Net Zero: scrapping the triple lock on pensions. We'd be better off scrapping Net Zero instead — and giving our pensioners the lockdown thank-you they deserve. The Paris-based grouping of the world's leading economies has been taking a close look at Britain's public finances, and it makes for dismal reading. With low growth, an aging population, and lots of expensive commitments, it has come to a stark conclusion. The numbers don't add up. Taxes have already been pushed to the limit, there is little sign of extra growth, and existing plans for reducing carbon emissions imply both extra spending and lower revenue, and all at a time when the costs of existing debt and fresh borrowing are soaring. This article should end all the furor over "carbon emissions" and "carbon footprints" and "carbon offsets" and "carbon credits." Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: Alarms about climate change 'are delusions'. Albrecht Glatzle William Happer visited Paraguay last week on invitation of the Federation of Production Cooperatives FECOPROD. He gave several presentations and talked to political and technical decision makers (including the head of state Santiago Peña). [...] This visit was well timed, just before COP 28 in Dubai. Hopefully, William Happer's message will strengthen the resistance of Paraguayan politicians against the pressure exerted by the global climate alarmist community of the UN to sign the global methane pledge which would tremendously harm the paraguayan cattle industry and which has, totally incomprehensibly, already been signed by mayor livestock producing countries, such as Brasil, Australia, Argentina and Uruguay (mass hypnosis?). Three Graphs That Show There Is No 'Climate Crisis'. The looming economic costs of a Net Zero target are leading to some political pushback. Nevertheless, the recent jury acquittal of nine Extinction Rebellion vandals shows that passionate belief in the imminent dangers of CO2 is not limited to activists. Climate science is complicated, but the key question is simple. The climate does seem to be getting warmer, but are we responsible? Does the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide have a major effect on the temperature of the earth? The standard answer is "yes, of course". But in fact there are good reasons for doubt. Popular accounts of the 'climate emergency' rarely show quantitative data. Yet there are widely available graphs that anyone can understand. Here are three graphs which suggest that the answer to the question is probably "no". It is likely that beyond a certain point, carbon dioxide has a relatively minor effect on planetary temperature. The "Climate Emergency": Fueled by 21st Century Marxism. The eternal "climate emergency" is upon us. While doomsday is said to be around the corner, the reality is that the only thing rising is the level of government control. [Podcast] Pope Francis: Climate Change Puts 'Life on Earth' at Risk. Pope Francis asserted Sunday that global warming is contrary to God's plan and presents a significant risk to all "life on earth." "Besides war, our world is threatened by another great danger, that of the climate, which puts life on Earth, especially for the future generations, at risk," the pontiff stated in a written text, which was read aloud by his aide Monsignor Paolo Braida following the weekly Angelus prayer. The Editor says... Meet the New Dark Age. All plant and animal life on Earth, including the buried fossil fuels, is mostly composed of carbon and its various chemical compounds. All this carbon has been previously extracted from (guess what) the atmosphere. The fatuous mysticism underpinning weather hysteria is classic dark age stuff. Science, however, doesn't work this way. Peer review, the exposure of one's findings and conclusions to possible criticism by others working in the same field — in order to more thoroughly validate such findings — is the foundation of scientific progress. Paying researchers to follow dictated guidelines, in order to get politically expedient results has nothing to do with progress. This Summer Was Not Even in America's Top 10 Hottest, Say Scientists. The mainstream media continue to fall hook, line and sinker for the tempting alarmist bait set by urban heat corruptions. The Guardian said a record was set this year in the U.S. city of Phoenix during a "hellishly hot summer" with the most hot days over 110°F. The BBC's report on Phoenix took the opportunity to add that heatwaves are becoming more frequent and intense, "because of human-induced climate change". It is often hellishly hot in the desert state of Arizona, and in fact last summer was the warmest in Phoenix going back to 1933. But strip out the heat created in the ever-expanding concrete and tarmacked metropolis, and it turns out the area was only the 11th warmest on record. If the record hot summer in Phoenix was due to global warming, as claimed in almost all media, then it would show up at weather stations surrounding the city — "right?" asks Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). CNBC Eliminates Climate Desk, No More Dedicated Staff Covering Climate Change. CNBC has reportedly shut down its climate desk and will no longer have dedicated journalists covering climate change. The Comcast-owned business news cable network hasn't publicly commented on the decision, which was first reported by Bloomberg Green journalist Akshat Rathi. [Tweet] Rathi cited a LinkedIn post by recently laid-off CNBC "climate innovation and technology" reporter Catherine Clifford, who recounted a conversation she had with her "editor's boss." "As part of wider newsroom headcount reductions, there would no longer be any staff at CNBC dedicated to covering climate, this boss said," Clifford wrote. "The climate desk was being dismantled and my position covering climate tech and innovation was being eliminated, this boss told me." CNBC has "dismantled its climate desk" amid layoffs and will no longer have a dedicated team to cover our impending doom. CNBC is going through budget cuts (I wonder why!), meaning they have to decide which news divisions are the most important and which they can cut. The 24-hour news network has decided that its going to be "dismantling" its "climate desk," which was the company's full-time team for covering climate doom. I guess either climate change was solved or they decided it's not actually the most important crisis of our lifetime anymore. Do We Really Know That Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cause Significant Climate Change? Do human emissions of CO2 and other such "greenhouse gases" cause significant global warming, aka "climate change"? Based on the belief that an affirmative answer to that question is a universally accepted truth, our government has embarked on a multi-trillion dollar campaign to transform our economy by, among other things, eliminating hydrocarbon fuels from electricity generation (without any demonstrated workable plan for the replacement), outlawing the kinds of vehicles we currently drive, suppressing fossil fuel extraction, banning pipeline construction, making all your appliances work less well, and much more. Express any doubt about the causal connection between human activities and climate change, and you could very well get labeled as a "climate denier," fired from your academic job, demonetized by Google or Facebook, or even completely ostracized from polite society. But is there actually any real proof of the proposition at issue? In fact, there is not. Global Warming Delayed, Who Could Have Guessed? I am an avid reader of the UK newspaper The Telegraph. [...] It is both a reliable source of news, including US news and lacks the left-wing bias of The New York Times or the Washington Post without being a tabloid. It is a respectable broadsheet, leaning a bit right but hardly ideologically predictable. It is one of my go-to sources. A great example of how The Telegraph covers stories that get ignored or downplayed in the MSM is one published today about climate change. It describes a new study out of Ohio State University that shows current models, which are used to push apocalyptic predictions of runaway global warming, grossly underestimate the uptake of CO2 by plants. [Tweet] Note that this is a study of an actual, measurable phenomenon, not some blathering by an activist scientist or the regurgitation of a climate model that is tuned to create extreme results. Woke Lancet Warns: 'Highest Global Temperatures in over 100,000 Years'. The once prestigious Lancet medical journal has made the astounding claim the year 2023 saw "the highest global temperatures in over 100,000 years," even though temperature data collection only began in the 19th century. According to NASA, three of the world's most complete temperature tracking records, maintained by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, and the U.K. Meteorological Office's Hadley Centre, began in 1880. Who Are the Real Climate Change Deniers? The Medieval Warm Period is a particularly inconvenient truth for the modern climate activists because it shows that warming has beneficial effects on humanity. As the European region became warmer, agriculture spread and generated food surpluses. The European population doubled. In short, the Medieval Warm Period underscores the reality that, while humans struggle in colder weather, we generally thrive in warmer weather. In other words: no crisis justifying extraordinary intervention. But more importantly, what does a constantly changing climate say about the effects of anthropogenic CO2? The fact that the climate has been changing significantly for thousands of years raises the question: what causes climate change? This is a messy question. [...] When we understand the climate is always changing, and was changing well before the rise of anthropogenic CO2, then we are confronted with the reality that other factors are at play. Putting the 'climate change' propaganda into perspective. [Scroll down] Jeff Bezos, who owns the WaPo, an outlet that spreads the green propaganda every day, spent $68 million buying a three-bedroom house on the ocean in Miami. He clearly doesn't believe it is going to be underwater soon as the WaPo constantly tells us. And wildfires in California, an often-cited natural disaster, weren't "worse" this year, there were far fewer than normal. That is why we didn't read about them. Stories of fewer wildfires wouldn't scare people into capitulating to the green pushers, and the propaganda would be ineffective. [...] What the public never gets to see from the media, the UN, John Kerry, Biden, bureaucrats, scientists, educators, entertainers, and other green pushers is any scientific data that shows a link between temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity because there is none. That pesky 35-year cooling period from 1940 [to] 1975 shows it has always been a lie and a massive fraud. 'Climate Change' Apologists in Retreat. Have you noticed how the scientists screaming hysterically about "climate change" have no discernible sense of humor? It's as if they're so tied up in being righteous that every other emotion has deserted them. [...] Prominent skeptics like Willie Soon have long argued that changes in climate may not be wholly, or even significantly, tied to tiny changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. Maybe, for example, the sun has something to do with it? Soon and other scientists discuss this and other alternative ideas in the peer-reviewed papers referenced in the piece. The urban heat island effect was discussed in some detail in one of the papers. It is well established that urban areas, where a great many meteorological stations are located, retain more heat than rural and uninhabited areas that make up most of the area of the nation. Is this distorting effect properly accounted for in the temperature record? The authors make a compelling case that it is not. Similarly, there is ample evidence to suggest that recreations of the climate record going back to 1850 and beyond are flawed as well. This is the famous "hide the decline" issue that troubles many a scientist that the authors raise once more. Taken together, the new papers provide strong evidence of a fact that should be obvious: our climate system is not entirely controlled by a single variable (greenhouse gas concentrations) among the hundreds of variables the contribute to climate behavior. Era of 'Unquestioned and Unchallenged' Climate Change Claims is Over. Leading voices in the climate science community are in an uproar as their warming hypothesis is coming under fresh assault by new scientific papers. The authors of the papers are being attacked and say that "activist scientists" threatened by the new findings are "aggressively conducting an orchestrated disinformation campaign to discredit the papers and the scientific reputation of the authors." Indeed, from insults on social media and furious blog posts to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests demanding emails from a journal editor and federal scientist, the controversy is getting heated. Several scientists who spoke with The Epoch Times expressed shock at the tactics used against those whose latest research is casting renewed doubts on the official climate narrative. The Climate is Indeed Changing — Grab a Warm Jacket. Over the past few years, we have been lectured to by professed scientists to "follow the science," echoed by the corporate media that often sees financial gain in following particular views of science. [...] Climate change scolds insist that the Earth is heating up and will be uninhabitable in just a few years. For decades, climate "scientists" have predicted doomsday apocalypse scenarios a decade away, none of which thus far have come to pass. Failed past predictions should question the credibility of any future predictions, but there is no accountability for a string of failed prognostications over the decades. What climate scientists conveniently ignore is the cyclic nature of climate. [...] A simple question for the scientists would be what is the "normal" temperature? There is no absolute normal as the temperate waxes and wanes on a time scale far longer than man's influence. Five reasons why claims of a climate emergency are plain wrong. A group of 1,808 scientists and professionals recently signed the Global Climate Intelligence Group's "World Climate Declaration," stating that there is no climate emergency and that climate science ... [Paywall] Embedded links omitted for clarity: The Latest On Global Warming Is ... There Is No Global Warming. A new study out of Norway is exactly what was needed to shut down the climate alarmists. Its findings show that man has not set fire to his home planet. Right from the top, in the abstract not 10 lines into the study, the authors get to the point. "Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find," the researchers say, "that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years." In other words, our words, the greenhouse effect is so weak that it should be sidelined as an argument. From there, the bad news only gets worse for priests of the climate religion. "Even if recent recorded temperature variations should turn out to deviate from previous variation patterns in a systematic way it is still a difficult challenge to establish how much of this change is due to increasing man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases." A New Report Throws Cold Water on Man-Made Global Warming Pseudoscience. Statistics Norway just published a bomb-shell of a paper that offers a real analysis of global temperatures. The English translation of the paper is available [elsewhere], and is well worth looking at for anyone interested in the facts behind global temperature trends. [...] What the Norwegians did was conduct statistical analyses of observed and reconstructed temperature series and test whether the recent fluctuation in temperatures differs systematically from previous temperature cycles potentially due to the emission of greenhouse gases. For example, the researchers gathered all the data from various sources, including those related to the four previous glacial and inter-glacial periods, and did a statistical analysis to see how more recent Global Climate Models (GCMs) compare. ["]In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations. Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a 'warming' trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes.["] Exclusive: Climate Expert Calls 'Three Strikes' Against Climate Alarmism. Facts and data show "three strikes and climate alarmism should be out," climate truth-teller Steve Milloy told PJ Media. "But it's still at bat and swinging," propped up by the "fake news media." Junk Science's Milloy explained the three biggest truths undermining the mainstream narrative in exclusive comments to PJ Media. "We are 35 years into climate alarmism, and we've had no global warming since 2015 despite 450 billion tons of emissions; no type of natural disaster correlates with emissions or warming; and no apocalyptic climate prediction has ever come true," Milloy stated. It's time to admit the fraud. "That's three strikes and climate alarmism should be out. But it's still at bat and swinging because the fake news media shares its leftist agenda and will not call it out," Milloy added. After all, governments can use climate change as a convenient excuse for increasing their power and control. The Problem With Climate Change Hysteria Is That It's Always Wrong. In August, The Hill, a climate-change-embracing publication, published an article by Glenn C. Altschuler, insisting that "Climate Deniers Are Entitled To Their Own Opinions But Not Their Own Facts." When it comes to facts, though, who is really advancing his own facts about what's going on with the Earth's climate? The article promises a brief summary of facts about climate change and its effect on the lives and livelihoods of all Americans." Below, I've taken each of Altschuler's "facts" and exposed them to actual facts. [...] Norwegian Agency: Man-Made CO2 "Not Sufficiently Strong" to Cause "Systematic Changes" in Weather. A study from a Norwegian government agency has declared that mankind's emissions of CO2 are not strong enough to cause the widespread global warming that climate hysterics claim. Statistisk sentralbyrå, Norway's statistics bureau, has published a paper this month that appears to contradict the climate cult's conclusion that mankind's emissions of carbon dioxide and other trace atmospheric gasses are leading to out-of-control global warming. Researchers John K. Dagsvik and Sigmund H. Moen published the paper this month, and their abstract makes clear that, in their opinion, the supposedly vast amount of CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere during the industrial age is insignificant when it comes to affecting the world's temperature. Carbon Dioxide Does Not Cause Warming. The climate-change scheme and net-zero carbon policy are based upon a false notion that carbon dioxide and other gases cause global warming. They do not. We don't have to guess about this. We have empirical and scientific proof. I owned a Weights and Measures gas-physics test-and-repair facility and conducted tests. We learned gas physics from engineers at factories that manufacture gas-physics instruments. They must understand gas physics, or their instruments won't work. In 1988, James Hansen flip-flopped from "global cooling" to "global warming" being dangerous. Al Gore fed the fear with $22 billion in annual funding for universities and professors to study the matter. Hansen's claim is a falsehood. People move to warmer climes for their health. Consider all the species, in the plant and animal kingdoms, that thrive near the equator, whereas none survives at the poles. Yet, out of desperation for the money, professors cornered themselves into attempts to prove a falsehood to be true. To do that, one must lie. Each lie created new falsehoods until they have made gas physics look like a child's messy bedroom strewn with theories. Nearly everything we have heard about global warming for the past thirty-five years has been from the professorial world, which has been untested theory. How often have their declarations and predictions come true? Climate 'experts' assure us they weren't wrong, it was just a 'miracle' year. Before the record wet winter which saw torrential downpour and floods, the "experts" were predicting a continuous dangerous drought — but the inaccuracy wasn't because they were wrong, it was simply a miracle! [...] Two days back, Yahoo noted that "Antarctic sea ice" was at an "all-time record low for winter" but what the report didn't tell us was that the Antarctic ice rapidly thickened two years ago when the region had the coldest six months on record and the temperature was an average negative 62.9 degrees, which is six degrees below normal. The media and other green pushers conveniently omit information that doesn't support the "warming" narrative, and don't want the indoctrinated public to see factual information that would destroy their theory. What is actually a miracle is that anyone believes the scam, when previous dire predictions have been wrong 100% of the time. Why would anyone believe "experts" who predicted droughts before record snow would be able to accurately predict what the climate will be one hundred years from now? Climate Change Lies. The current climate change hoax began with the "hockey stick" temperature prediction chart below. It came from the computers of obscure researchers and Michael Mann. Published in 1998, it was adopted by Al Gore, a climate change baron now worth more than 300 million dollars. We know the world did not end in 2000 as predicted, but that did not deter the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from announcing that "the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" due to human industrial activity. Maan [sic] and his colleagues went on to publish a book and, like many climate change "experts," reap the rewards of commissions for studies to amplify their propaganda. [...] A graph by Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Glacial Geology and Environmental and Engineering Geology at Western Washington University, also reputes the hockey stick graph that the UN's IPCC promotes. Easterbrook and others have stated that: "Global warming ended in 1998. There has been no global warming in 15 years;" "The Antarctic ice sheet is not melting, the main ice sheet is in fact growing;" "CO2 cannot possibly cause global warming;" and "We're in for about 25 [to] 30 years of global cooling." A gander at Joe Biden's executive orders tells us a lot about his presidency. As of May 9, 2023 President Biden has signed 115 executive orders. Here a few of them: [...] Executive Order 13990 — Protecting public health and the environment and restoring science to tackle the climate crisis. There is no climate crisis and science has been politicized as far as climate change and global warming are concerned. Blaming the so-called climate crisis on one gas CO2 and fossil fuels is highly inaccurate and scientifically and experimentally unprovable. Climate change is a fact of life which the sun is mostly responsible for and about the only thing that you can do to make things humanly better is to slow down the deforestation of the earth. Nobody can alter what goes on with the sun. [...] Executive Order 14008 — Tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad. "The scientific community has made clear that the scale and speed of necessary action is greater than previously believed. There is little time left to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic, climate trajectory. Responding to the climate crisis will require both significant short-term global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and net-zero global emissions by mid-century or before." This text from the executive order is blatant fear-mongering and recommending gargantuan law changes towards a net-zero global emissions which is politically undoable worldwide and nothing that we should be wasting our tax payer's money on. Further, the scientific community has been politicized and is giving a lot of useless advice based on inaccurate climate models since climate change and global warming have not been proven or experimentally shown to be factual and based purely on emissions of gases like CO2. The net zero faithful must justify their beliefs. I have previously outlined some of the fundamental problems with the rationale behind net zero. There are "falsifying events" that disprove the underlying hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gases are the "prime mover" causing climate change. There are also factual observations that in themselves exonerate CO2 and methane beyond reasonable doubt. Precisely how climate alarmists have therefore managed to get away with the canonisation of their beliefs — such that they were excused from scientific cross-examination and are now consensus — is a debate for another day. One thing is for sure, the planet's future shouldn't be left to the catastrophist prophets of doom. Thankfully, there is now pushback from realists who recognise that the prognosis is the polar opposite of what the climate alarmists would have you believe. The new head of the IPCC, Jim Skea, recently (and somewhat sheepishly) declared that "the world won't end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees" and, even if temperatures do rise that much, it "is not an existential threat to humanity". Cooling the Heat on Climate. Warming and cooling, warming and cooling, warming and cooling has been a repeating pattern of earth's climate in the tens of thousands of years of recent geologic history. I learned of these cycles and of the interglacial periods between them when I studied geology at Brooklyn College. I have learned, too, of the fluctuating mini-cycles of earth temperature changes within a major swing. Whether the earth is entering another Ice Age, as1970s doomsayers alarmed the public with, or is still warming from the last global "chill," must be predicated on reliable weather data assembled from very wide sampling and connected over very long periods of time. The assumption that all the relevant data regarding mini-cycles needed to arrive at a comprehensive and intelligent analysis could even be gathered, let alone assembled, to establish a long-range trend is false to begin with. In common parlance, this is known as guessing. Pull Back the Curtain on False Federal Narratives. [Scroll down] False narrative Number 3 is a politically motivated "farce" called climate change. Predictions of impending climate doom are based on sketchy mathematical models and trend analysis over one or two centuries. The earth has experienced large climate swings, hot to cold, humid to dry, over several billion years. During that time, there was no fossil fuel to blame. Based on the climate change narrative, authoritarians encourage a "Chicken Little Syndrome" where fear paralyzes the population. People will then accept anything officials say will save them from, "The sky is falling," even suppression of an energy source from fossil fuels that has dramatically raised the standard of living for billions of humans. Meteorologists, Scientists Explain Why There Is 'No Climate Emergency'. There's no climate emergency. And the alarmist messaging pushed by global elites is purely political. That's what 1,609 scientists and informed professionals stated when they signed the Global Climate Intelligence Group's "World Climate Declaration." "Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific," the declaration begins. "Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures." The 'Climate Emergency' Is a Hoax. More than 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, have signed a declaration saying that "There is no climate emergency." [...] Of course it would be helpful to research what can be done to relieve the problems brought about by man, such as the "hole in the ozone layer," which is now closing, but climate change is not an apocalyptic emergency and needs to be attended to without bringing devastation to the hundreds of millions of people already in extreme poverty. The Biden administration, however, appears not to be concerned about the widespread poverty and massive starvation that will be caused by the unavailability of cheap and reliable energy in underdeveloped countries, or the inflation caused by the skyrocketing prices that are crushing Americans "barely able to afford one meal a day". These are man-made problems, created by importing expensive (nearing $100 a barrel again) — often dirtier — oil from adversaries of the United States, such as Russia and Venezuela, instead of extracting it far less expensively at home. The Biden administration also does not seem concerned that so long as China and India keep burning coal — the Chinese Communist Party is permitting two new coal-power plants a week, easily cancelling out whatever benefits the US might be providing, and reportedly exceeding "all developed nations combined" in carbon emissions. Climate Lies Will Destroy Your Standard of Living. Under President Trump, the US economy was thriving. In 2023, that same economy — together with those of most European countries — is being destroyed by a campaign of lies about climate. One of the biggest attempts at disinformation ever perpetrated is the allegation that man-made global warming is our number one threat. We can thank opportunists like Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Greta Thunberg for spreading the hysteria that the ice will melt, the oceans will rise, and we will all die from heat exhaustion. Contrary to their frightening warnings, the glaciers have not melted and the world has not come to an end. The global warming hoax is the result of faulty science that has been endorsed by inept politicians at the UN, the WEF, the EU, and the Biden administration. Government policy in the US and most of Europe is based on the delusion that human beings can control the climate. This is pure nonsense that is contradicted by the facts. 'Experts' swear the world is on the brink of disaster — again. Weather forecasters have trouble predicting weather accurately a few days out, yet we are supposed to believe they can predict the climate 100 years out within a degree if we just cave to the radical green pushers and surrender all our liberties. Does that make any sense? The Earth Has No Average Temperature. Frequently, I read where a politician like John Kerry; Al Gore; Joe Biden; or António Guterres, the secretary general of the U.N., has stated: "We must keep the increase of the average temperature of the Earth to 1.5°C or less; it has already risen 1.1°C since the beginning of the industrial age." The implication of such a statement is that the Earth is on a path to thermal destruction if we humans don't take action to save the planet. Aside from exhibiting the height of man's hubris to think that we could control any basic aspect of nature; such a statement demonstrates either a profound ignorance about fundamental physics or an intent to deceive. I suspect that it is both. The concept of an average temperature of the Earth is a figment of the climate scientist's imagination, conjured up to try to prove a fraudulent hypothesis. The Earth has no average temperature; the temperature of the Earth is different at every point in time and space. The Earth is never in thermal equilibrium. New Discoveries In Climate Science. Climate science is a wild and woolly multi-disciplinary field in which virtually every proposition is controversial. It is only the politics that is settled; the science is up for grabs. A recent study in Climate illustrates the point, not by introducing new concepts but by measuring the obvious: ["]A new study published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Climate, by 37 researchers from 18 countries suggests that current estimates of global warming are contaminated by urban warming biases.[... "] One hundred percent of the energy that heats the earth — that prevents it from being a cold, dead rock — comes from the Sun. So the suggestion that variations in the Earth's climate, which have occurred for millions of years, might relate to variations in solar activity, is an obvious one that Greenies have tried hard to obfuscate. The Giant Science Lie that Underpins the Entire Collectivist Net Zero Political Project. The false notion that the climate is collapsing due to human activity lies at the heart of the drive to collectivise human populations under a Net Zero global agenda. Everything about it is a lie. The science is not 'settled', it is an unproven hypothesis, and stating otherwise is giving credence to an obvious political construct. There is no way that scientists can calculate how much of the gentle rise in temperature seen over the last 200 years is caused by humans burning fossil fuel rather than natural influences. The idea that there is a 97% 'consensus' among scientists that humans cause the majority of warming is a whopper as big as they come, not least because holding that view is beyond current scientific knowledge. This latter ubiquitous claim was recently revisited in a short essay published by the CO2 Coalition. Let's Call It Treason. There is some good news we need to cheer that you will not get in the mainstream press. A collection of 1,609 scientists, including Nobel Prize winners from around the world, have signed a World Climate Declaration in August announcing that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. They maintain that the climate has always changed and always will and that carbon dioxide is essential for life on this planet, not the villain they portend. They complain that politicians have weaponized it for their own purposes. And their purposes are power and money. We have seen these things, but were, for too long, a voice crying in the wilderness. More than 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, declare climate "emergency" a myth. A coalition of 1,609 scientists from around the world have signed a declaration stating "there is no climate emergency" and that they "strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy" being pushed across the globe. The declaration does not deny the harmful effect of greenhouse gasses, but instead challenges the hysteria brought about by the narrative of imminent doom. The declaration, put together by the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL), was made public this month and urges that "Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific." CLINTEL is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. "Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures," the declaration says. "Global Boiling": An Assault On Reason and Science. An interesting and troubling double standard is applied to the acceptability of individual actions and those of political agents. An individual declaring an emergency when none exists, e.g., shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema, would lead to rightful punishment, yet public officials can do so without attracting the same scrutiny. According to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, "the era of global warming has ended" and "the era of global boiling has arrived." Of course, this statement was made with little or no sense of perspective or the possibility that any sensible human would challenge or refute it. This comment is the latest reference relating to what is and has been going on with the weather and climate. After the warming showed a slowdown; climate change became the operative term, but this was found to be insufficiently alarming. In turn, climate action became the necessary antidote to a "climate emergency" or "climate crisis." Having gone full circle, with the focus back to the fetish with high temperatures during a seasonal, localized and predictable heatwave, the assertion is that we are in the midst of climate boiling. Can We Stop Volcanoes with Solar Panels? Quick set up a summit. Give me a grant. Climate Change causes more rain (except when it causes more drought), and apparently the weight of "up to" four meters of monsoon rainfall can compress a crustal plate leading to earthquakes. Now, four meters of rain means a lot to a pitiful 1.8 meter homo sapiens, but it's hard to believe a plate of rock 30 kilometers thick would care less or even notice. It's all absurd. The whole article, written by a "Reader in Physical Geography" at Coventry Uni makes out the climate change is all around us, but unwittingly depends on the idea that the Sun is just a big torch shining on Earth, and not a raging nuclear magnetic dynamo 300,000 times bigger than the planet, blasting us with charged particles at a million miles an hour and with a magnetic field that stretches past Pluto. Poor Dr Blackett with his 20 years of university education was never taught about the Sun. He has a pretty graph pointing out some correlation between earthquakes and monsoons but doesn't once ask if The Sun might be causing both. What's more likely, that changes in the solar magnetic field destabilize tectonic plates or your SUV does? Retractions of peer-reviewed scientific papers has risen 13,750% in this century. The present and growing dark age: According to the watchdogs who run the website Retraction Watch, the number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that have been retracted each year has risen from 40 in 2000 to 5,500 in 2022, an astonishing increase of 13,750%. According to these watchdogs, there are two reasons for this increase in research failure: ["]Retractions have risen sharply in recent years for two main reasons: first, sleuthing, largely by volunteers who comb academic literature for anomalies, and, second, major publishers' (belated) recognition that their business models have made them susceptible to paper mills — scientific chop shops that sell everything from authorships to entire manuscripts to researchers who need to publish lest they perish. These researchers are required — sometimes in stark terms — to publish papers in order to earn and keep jobs or to be promoted. The governments of some countries have even offered cash bonuses for publishing in certain journals. Any surprise, then, that some scientists cheat?["] The Fake Climate Consensus. We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an "overwhelming scientific consensus." "It's a manufactured consensus," says climate scientist Judith Curry in my new video. She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue "fame and fortune." [...] It made Curry realize that there is a "climate change industry" set up to reward alarmism. "The origins go back to the ... U.N. environmental program," says Curry. Some U.N. officials were motivated by "anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along." The U.N. created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "The IPCC wasn't supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. The IPCC's mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change." "Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding ... assuming there are dangerous impacts." The researchers quickly figured out that the way to get funded was to make alarmist claims about "man-made climate change." Questions for the UN and John Kerry. The UN has gone from global warming to climate change and now the Earth is boiling. It is obvious that these people have no ability to tell the truth when they falsely claim that their dire predictions have come true because July was warm. They pretend that they can tell this is the warmest in recorded history and warmer than it has been in over 120,000 years as if all the weather stations are in the same place. Why wasn't LA, a huge city with millions of people, millions of cars, and lots of buildings and cement warm a month ago if all the things we are told cause warming actually do? There weren't nightly news stories about how cool and comfortable coastal California cities were because those stories clearly wouldn't push the leftist agenda. [...] Las Vegas didn't hit 100 until June 30th, the latest on record yet the media still doesn't question the talking points. [...] Or why did Antarctica have the coldest winter on record two years ago after 160 years of an exponential rise in crude oil and coal use? The
myth of an overheated planet. Anyone commentating responsibly on summer temps must
acknowledge 4 facts:
Don't overstate 1.5 degrees C threat, new IPCC head says. The newly appointed head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Jim Skea, spoke to two major German news outlets over the weekend, soon after his appointment to the role. Speaking to weekly magazine Der Spiegel, in an interview first published on Saturday, Skea warned against laying too much value on the international community's current nominal target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared the pre-industrial era. "We should not despair and fall into a state of shock" if global temperatures were to increase by this amount, he said. In a separate discussion with German news agency DPA, Skea expanded on why. "If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyzes people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change," he said. The Editor says... Strangely, an awful lot of these "climate change" wildfire were started by arsonists, not excess CO2. [Tweet with video clip] 'A Hoax': Steve Milloy Exposes Climate Fearmongering About Hot Weather. After 50+ years of failed eco-apocalypse predictions, it's no surprise to find that climate alarmists are cherry-picking or manipulating some data and ignoring inconvenient evidence to prop up their climate narrative. Media and politicians are ignoring the areas of America that are cooler than previous summers — but they're also ignoring data upending their claims of record heat. Data shows that the world has not in fact experienced global warming for the last eight years. Also, a recent study found that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are too low to cause global warming. Not only that but no fewer than 36 climate models were also recently found to have overestimated warming in the U.S. corn belt. These are the stories you won't hear from climate alarmist media. A century of 'Climate Change'. The Washington Post has released a story headlined "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt." Highlights of the article include seals finding waters too hot, there is a radical change in climatic conditions, temperatures are rising in the arctic, and glaciers are disappearing. Same old story, and I do mean an old story — this particular item appeared in 1922. The Left has taken umbrage at the circulation of the story on social media because it was embellished with a warning that the sea level would rise and coastal cities would become uninhabitable. It's true that the archived article says nothing about rising sea levels or the habitability of coastal cities. It is also true that the mainstream media has been issuing strident warnings that melting polar ice will render coastal cities uninhabitable. Hot Weather Does Not Mean Climate Change. As Ambassador Rahm Emanuel once said as chief of staff to President Barack Obama, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Hillary Clinton is taking this to heart, using summer temperatures to justify Democrats' profligate spending on green energy in the Inflation Reduction Act. [Tweet] No matter that hot summer days in cities do not equate to climate change; that climate change models are poor predictors of warming; and that the incidence of hurricanes and tornadoes has not increased over time. Renowned Physicist Cuts Through the Climate Change Propaganda. The inexorable pushing of the climate hoax by green activists and their sycophants has reached the point where any local weather anomaly is blamed on "climate change" (formerly known as anthropogenic global warming until that phrase passed its sell-by date as all the associated catastrophic predictions somehow didn't materialize). One of the newest sensational theories is that "climate doom loops" could result in catastrophic changes to the Earth's climate, as discussed in Live Science a few weeks ago. A research study was quoted predicting that "more than a fifth of the world's potentially catastrophic tipping points — such as the melting of the Arctic permafrost, the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet and the sudden transformation of the Amazon rainforest into savanna — could occur as soon as 2038." There always seems to be a new theory that energizes green activists when the old theories don't pan out (or are later debunked by real science). A Leading Climate Scientist Expresses Doubt About the Veracity of the Global Warming Movement. A new book by a leading climate change scientist gives reason for hope that the light of truth is shedding a few rays into the dark, dystopian, ideologically driven pseudoscience known as global warming. With the 2023 publication of Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response, geoscientist Judith A. Curry, Ph.D., acknowledges that, in 2007, she "joined the consensus" in supporting the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report as "authoritative." What changed her perspective was Climategate, the 2009 hacking and unauthorized release of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The email exchanges between climate scientists and IPCC authors confirmed her "concerns and suspicions" that "politics and personal agendas" had encroached on the IPCC assessment process. In 2017, Curry resigned from a prestigious faculty position as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Nobel Prize winner silenced by IMF after saying 'I don't believe there is a climate crisis'. Nobel Laureate Dr. John Clauser, who has disagreed with President Joe Biden's climate policies, was slated to present at a seminar on climate models to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). His talk was canceled after Director of the Independent Evaluation Office for the IMF Pablo Moreno read the information for Clauser's talk which questioned the "climate crisis." Dr. Clauser was awarded a Nobel prize in 2021 for his work in the development of computer models to track global warming and won another for physics in 2022. Clauser has been critical of other climate models for not taking into account the factor of visible light reflected by cumulus clouds that cover the earth and made a model that took it into account. Failing to incorporate the factor of clouds reflecting the light back into space overestimates climate temperature increases. 56 Years of Climate Codswallop That Never Happened. Let's see how many old-timey words for "nonsense" I can squeeze into one article about 56 years of climate change balderdash. Soap-dodging prairie fairies have been ringing the Chicken Little climate klaxon for at least five decades. That means we are celebrating more than 50 years of "the sky is falling" horsefeathers. Every climate gloomster has one thing in common: when it comes to their grim predictions for the planet, they're all batting zero. A lot of them also seem to ignore actual climate-related emergencies, like the ongoing train derailment trauma in East Palestine, Ohio, where residents suffered vomiting, rashes, nose-bleeds, and bronchitis as they watched their pets and livestock die. NBC just repeats climate predictions by the UN, no matter how many previous dire projections have been 100% wrong. It seems that every day the media will repeat a doomsday prediction about the climate from the UN or elsewhere to scare the public. They never ask questions even though previous dire predictions have been 100% wrong. The purpose is clearly to mislead the public that predictions are equivalent to facts, and they must capitulate to radical leftist policies to save the planet. The prediction below is that people in the southern U.S won't be able to survive unless they give up gas cars, gas furnaces, and other conveniences. [...] What will make the South more uninhabitable is if they succed in destroying the power grid and we have less air conditioning. The intellectual counterargument to the Climate Crisis crowd. Dr Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and the author of numerous books, including his latest title "False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet." [Video clip] Marian Tupy is the editor of Human Progres.org and a senior fellow at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. He specialises in globalisation and global well-being and politics and economics of Europe and Southern Africa. [Video clip] Randall Carlson is a master builder, architectural designer, teacher, geometrician, geomythologist, geological explorer, and renegade scholar. Listen to him talk about climate change. [Video clip] Tim Ball -- The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science: [Video clip] Heaven forbid that anyone challenge a meteorologist on his climate change talking points. [Scroll down] What you didn't see in the article was any connecting of the dots between climate change, extreme weather, or temperature and our consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas and that is the theory that is being used to justify the destruction of industries that produce reliable and reasonably priced energy that greatly improves our quality of life. The reason we don't see that anywhere in this or any article is that there is no scientific data that supports that theory. We are seeing lots of daily reports now that the Earth is having the warmest temperatures ever and they can measure the worldwide temperature within hundredths of a degree. About That Claim That July 3-4 Were the 'Hottest Days on Record'.... The headlines were stark and specific. Reuters claimed, "World registers hottest day ever recorded on July 3." Well, "ever recorded" is misleading since the records have only been "recorded" since 1979. But what kind of a headline would that have been? At least the BBC was honest about their scare headline: "World's hottest day since records began." The bottom line: We're all going to burn up and we're all going to die unless we throw an hysterical climate change tantrum and demand that our government take panicky steps to save us from the climate change demons. There's no doubt that this Independence Day was hot. It was very hot. It was uncomfortably hot if you were dumb enough to spend time outdoors. That's why God created air conditioning and double-scoop chocolate ice cream cones. Hottest Days Ever? Don't Believe It. The global-warming industry has declared that July 3 and 4 were the two hottest days on Earth on record. The reported average global temperature on those days was 62.6 degrees Fahrenheit, supposedly the hottest in 125,000 years. The claimed temperature was derived from the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer, which relies on a mix of satellite temperature data and computer-model guesstimation to calculate estimates of temperature. One obvious problem with the updated narrative is that there are no satellite data from 125,000 years ago. Calculated estimates of current temperatures can't be fairly compared with guesses of global temperature from thousands of years ago. A more likely alternative to the 62.6-degree estimate is something around 57.5 degrees. The latter is an average of actual surface temperature measurements taken around the world and processed on a minute-by-minute basis by a website called temperature.global. The numbers have been steady this year, with no spike in July. Moreover, the notion of "average global temperature" is meaningless. Average global temperature is a concept invented by and for the global-warming hypothesis. It is more a political concept than a scientific one. Greta Thunberg: All humanity is now extinct on Earth, because we didn't do anything about global warming. How dare you! On June 21, 2018, Greta Thunberg informed us [...] that we only had five years left to stop using fossil fuels, and if we didn't "climate change will wipe out all of humanity." I am hardly the only person to note this example of global warming fraudulence. Numerous reporters have also gleefully noted it, with this essay today at American Thinker by Andrea Widburg probably the most [scathing], not so much for noting the ignorant rantings of this uneducated high school drop-out whom the left made their icon of knowledge and top global warming expert, but for the list she provides of the endless number of other failed doomsday predictions by global warming activists and politicians. That list was compiled in 2019, and thus it did not yet include Thunberg's absurd prediction. Nor did it include the endless string of additional false doomsday predictions that this crowd has continued to issue in the years since, all of which I guarantee without any uncertainty will all fail, just as their hundreds of past doomsday predictions have failed. The Editor says... That's Smoke, Not Climate Change. The Yankees postponed their game with the White Sox. Exceedingly low visibility forced LaGuardia Airport to ground planes for a time. By evening the worst had passed, though the smell of something burning lingered. If only the effects on public policy were equally fleeting. Evaluating the causes of this complex event calls for humility, curiosity and thoughtfulness. But politicians are in charge. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer jumped in front of a camera on Wednesday to proclaim that "we cannot ignore that climate change continues to make these disasters worse." President Biden called the Canada burn "another stark reminder of the impacts of climate change." Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau joined the chorus. Their claims are bunk. Can the Climate Heal Itself? The theory of climate change is that excess carbon dioxide and methane trap the sun's radiation in the atmosphere, and these man-made greenhouse gases reflect more of that heat back to Earth, warming the planet. Pretty simple. Eventually, we reach a tipping point when positive feedback loops form — less ice to reflect sunlight, warm oceans that can no longer absorb carbon dioxide — and then we fry, existentially. So lose those gas stoves and carbon-spewing Suburbans. But nothing is simple. What about negative feedback loops? Examples: human sweat and its cooling condensation or our irises dilating or constricting based on the amount of light coming in. Clouds, which can block the sun or trap its radiation, are rarely mentioned in climate talk. Why? Because clouds are notoriously difficult to model in climate simulations. Steven Koonin, a New York University professor and author of "Unsettled," tells me that today's computing power can typically model the Earth's atmosphere in grids 60 miles on a side. Pretty coarse. So, Mr. Koonin says, "the properties of clouds in climate models are often adjusted or 'tuned' to match observations." Tuned! The Editor says... This is some of the garbage we can expect with indoctrinated kids and greedy lawyers. These children say that their lives have been destroyed because of coal and oil so they are suing Montana. [...] Lawsuits and policies should be based on the truth and scientific facts, not on easily manipulated computer models and made up predictions which have consistently been wrong, like this lawsuit and the radical green policies which are being forced on the American people. Maybe the state should take the kids to underdeveloped countries that haven't developed and used their natural resources to see how lucky they are. Then the state should send them a bill for greatly improving their quality and length of life. The line of defense against this nuisance lawsuit is long because it is based on factual scientific data. They can have it presented in the simplest form since they have been taught not to ask questions or do research. They should be told that the Earth was just as warm 1,000 years ago as it is today. Then they should have the scientific fact pointed out to them that a Little Ice Age occurred from around 1300 to 1860 where the Earth cooled a little. The summer doesn't need a health warning. Warm weather during a British summer used to be something to enjoy. Not least because it's often so fleeting. But it seems the UK authorities now have other ideas. They want to frame a spell of what used to be known as 'nice weather' as a problem, a risk, a threat. Even summer, it seems, is now to come with a health warning. This week, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and the Met Office have issued something called a 'heat-health alert' for England, ahead of this weekend's warm temperatures. This alert has been coded 'yellow' for most of the country, which apparently means that the 'vulnerable' are at risk. For the Midlands, the south-east, south-west and the east of England, this has been upgraded to 'amber', which means that high temperatures 'could affect all ages and impact the health service'. An official warning of some sort might be understandable if we were set to endure some truly unprecedented weather event this weekend. But we're not. These warnings are being issued because temperatures might touch 30 degrees Celsius, and even then only in some parts of the country. Democrats are seeking to destroy the greatest country that ever existed. Why doesn't the media report things about the climate that don't correspond with the dire predictions we have heard for decades? The answer is obvious. Facts don't make any difference to the media and other Democrats when they are pushing an agenda to control the people. They want to intentionally mislead students. They do not want students to ask any questions or do any research. After all, the media refuses to ask questions and do research themselves. That is why Democrats oppose letting poor and minority kids go to better schools. [A recent] article shows that the capital of India has been experiencing record cold periods since 2017. As far as I can tell, India's population is still growing, they are still driving, they continue to use coal and oil, CO2 is still rising, Methane is rising, and yet they are setting record cold temperatures that have stood in place for a long time. Two New Science Papers Cast Further Doubt on Human Contribution to Climate Change. Two important papers have recently been published that question the extent to which humans are causing global warming by burning fossil fuel and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The works will of course be ignored by mainstream media outlets, but they represent further evidence that a more nuanced view of human-caused or anthropogenic warming is gaining traction among scientists, tired of working within the political constraints of 'settled' science. In a paper to be published next month in the journal Health Physics, three physics professors led by Kenneth Skrable from the University of Massachusetts examine the atmospheric trail left by CO2 isotopes and conclude that the amount of CO2 released by fossil fuel burning between 1750 and 2018 was "much too low to be the cause of global warming". Important climate change "Save That Date" in 17 days. Contrary to the hyperbole on the evening broadcast and the Weather Channel's penchant for naming every breeze that goes by, we are not in bad shape at all. [Chart, not shown here.] Although the media has upped their graphics game to match the current CLIMATE EMERGENCY. Red makes everything more dramatic, so maybe the Luddites will pay attention to our shrieking now. When fake dire climate predictions turn out to be wrong, they just come up with new scare tactics. Humans and our use of natural resources did not cause the drought in California and government policies didn't end it. Record rain and snow, that were not predicted, ended the drought. Droughts, and other weather events, throughout history have always come cyclically and naturally and always will. It is a massive fraud, to scare the public into submission, when politicians, bureaucrats and others make dire predictions and then claim they can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity if we just let the government confiscate trillions of dollars and give up our quality of life and freedom. Indoctrination, repeating something over and over again, is the only explanation for anyone believing that electric cars and getting rid of gas stoves and gas heating will change temperatures and the climate. Why are the predictions on climate change always so wrong? For decades we have been getting predictions that humans and our use of natural resources are destroying the oceans and species at a rapid rate. [...] But the predictions aren't coming true. Here is a story that we don't see on the nightly news, from the UN, from educators, from entertainers, from John Kerry, Bill Gates, Al Gore, Joe Biden, or anyone pushing the radical, green agenda to destroy our economy. [...] The Australian Great Barrier Reef has made a rapid recovery and it did it cyclically and naturally. We did not stop using coal, oil, cars or anything else we are told caused the damage. We did not stop breathing out CO2 and we didn't bury all the carbon. Species are not only not being destroyed rapidly by humans and our use of natural resources. Scientists are actually finding many more new species than the number that they have identified as going extinct; so why don't they tell the truth? The answer is because it doesn't support their destructive agenda and the truth would not allow the government to infect the public and get them to capitulate. The Corruption of Climate Science. It is no exaggeration that every major institution in America has now committed itself to the elimination of affordable and abundant energy. If it isn't stopped, this commitment, motivated by misguided concern for the planet but also by a lust for power and money and enabled by moral cowardice and intellectual negligence, will destroy Western civilization. For over 50 years, with increasing frequency, corrupted, careerist scientists have produced biased studies that, amplified by agenda-driven corporate and political special interests, constitute a "consensus" that is supposedly "beyond debate." We are in a "climate crisis." To cope with this climate emergency, all measures are justifiable. This is overblown, one-sided, distorted, and manipulative propaganda. It is the language of authoritarians and corporatists bent on achieving even more centralized political power and economic wealth. It is a scam, perhaps the most audacious, all-encompassing fraud in human history. Here is some scientific data that the UN, US government, the media and others won't show the public. For the last 40 years, after they stopped seeking to scare us about global cooling, the UN, media, Democrats, educators, scientists, and other radical leftists have sought to scare us that we were going to die soon because we use our natural resources to improve our lives. They use easily manipulated computer models and made-up predictions instead of using scientific data to support the destruction of industries and forcing us to give up our quality of life. Here are three tables that I have designed with actual data. [...] Results of the graph: the temperature today is approximately the same as it was over 1,000 years ago while the number of cars is up by 1.5 billion. There is obviously no correlation between cars and trucks on the road and temperatures. When there is no correlation, there can be no causation. Scientists say real estate poses more threat to the Big Apple than climate change. New York is sinking fast and new research reveals that real estate developers' 'bigger is better' ethos is the cause. A team from the US Geological Survey and the University of Rhode Island found that the weight of the city's giant skyscrapers is causing the five boroughs to sink one-to-two millimeters yearly. The team analyzed the weight of 1,084,954 buildings constructed across a 302-square-mile city, including over 6,000 skyrises — 247 of which are skyscrapers over 150 feet tall. The Counterattack of Reason. I've always believed that destroying the world's economies and impoverishing poor people around the globe in a narcissistic belief that man can control the climate was lunacy. More research revealed every week justifies my belief that this war on reliable, plentiful fossil fuels has been pure hokum. This week, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) took a major hit to its credibility. Federal Reserve Governor Believes We Should Save the Banks, Forget Climate Change. I believe a that a society can only be as compassionate as long as it can spend other people's money. When you start spending your own money, it's funny how cruel and selfish people can get. And an industrialized society can only be as green as it can afford to be without destroying itself. Save the trees — as long as you can still build my hardwood floors. These are very simple rules that great big grown-up countries should live by. Immature nations ignore those rules and end up circling the drain. Fortunately, there are just enough leaders in the United States like Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller who understand the rules and want to save us from the climate change hysterics. [Tweet] Climate change not 'serious risk' to financial stability, Fed's Waller says. Climate change does not pose such "significantly unique or material" financial stability risks that the Federal Reserve should treat it separately in its supervision of the financial system, Fed Governor Christopher Waller said on Thursday in a detailed rebuttal of demands for climate initiatives by the U.S. central bank. "Climate change is real, but I do not believe it poses a serious risk to the safety and soundness of large banks or the financial stability of the United States," Waller told an economic conference in Spain. "Risks are risks ... My job is to make sure that the financial system is resilient to a range of risks. And I believe risks posed by climate change are not sufficiently unique or material to merit special treatment." Three Equations to Defeat Global Warming Zealots. The true economic, social, and political cost of the measures proposed by governments (in the West only) to destroy their nations' businesses and jobs and to impoverish every household is becoming ever more visible. At last, therefore, a few brave souls in the scientific and academic communities are beginning to question what I shall call — with more than a little justification — the Communist Party line on climate change. Three devastating equations have emerged, each of which calls fundamentally into question the imagined (and imaginary) basis for the economic hara-kiri by which the West is throwing away its gentle and beneficent global hegemony. The IPCC Radical Climate Change Agenda Is a Neo-Marxist, Postmodern Value Narrative. The sad truth is that government-funded climate scientists know CO2 is not the control knob of Earth's temperature. The postmodernist mind lives in the John Lennon world where "reimagining" is required to advance us into their carbon-free utopia. In this bizarre world, post-modernism rejects the Enlightenment's confidence in a fact-based, rule-driven reality anchored by scientific proof that overrides subjective desires. To them, reality is a "language game" (in Wittgenstein's terms) or, as they say, a "narrative." [...] In 2018, the IPCC issued a policy statement requiring governments to limit or discontinue the burning of hydrocarbon fuels to reduce the emission of CO2 to keep the planet from exceeding 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Politically correct global warming/climate change true believers assume all who love Earth must think we have no choice but to abandon hydrocarbon fuels. The IPCC "scientific consensus" is operative on a normative level, not as an Enlightenment science-tested statement of proven fact. Climate Change Alarmism and the Stupidity of 'Certainty'. Climate scientists working with ice cores from Greenland have data that agrees with climate-crisis alarmism. Temperature measurements have indeed been rising steadily over the last 150 years or so. They also show that doesn't mean what it appears to mean. The time when scientists started measuring temperatures happened to be the coldest moment in 10,000 years. The earth's temperature naturally rises and falls over long periods of time. Common sense tells us that if temperatures reach their lowest point in 10,000 years, they might just start naturally bouncing back up from there. This doesn't prove climate alarmists are wrong about human-caused global warming. It only proves that the climate policies they're forcing on us are scientifically unsupported, ethically monstrous, and supremely stupid. The IPCC's perversion of science. You don't need to be a scientist to know that a proper climate synthesis report should include both an evenhanded and precise account of our climate impacts and an account of our ability to master climate danger. And if you read the IPCC Synthesis it's obvious it fails at both. None of the eco-doomsday predictions have come true. From predicting ecological collapse and the end of civilization to warnings that the world is running out of oil, all environmental doomsday predictions of the first Earth Day in 1970 have turned out to be flat out wrong. [...] Considering the current doomsday predictions scaremonger activists are verbalizing about global warming that will result in the demise of civilization within the next decade, many of those unscientific 1970 predictions are being reincarnated on today's social and news media outlets. Many of the same are being regurgitated today, but the best prediction from the first earth day five decades ago, yes 50 years ago, was that the "the pending ice age as earth had been cooling since 1950 and that the temperature would be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000". The
media is clearly confused about the difference between made-up predictions and factual news. A
significant percentage of news stories are made-up predictions, not factual reporting. [...] Here is a small sample:
Thirty Years of Global Warming Prophecies. NBC News recently touted a report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that says, "The chance to secure a livable future for everyone on Earth is slipping away." It further reported, "There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all." This was echoed by Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council: "This is the stone cold truth laid out in unassailable science by the world's top climate experts. We're hurtling down the road to ruin and running out of time to change course." That's the same U.N. that was wrong 34 years ago when Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, said that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000." Fiona Harvey, Environment Editor at the Guardian, says, "Scientists have delivered a 'final warning' on the climate crisis, as rising greenhouse gas emissions push the world to the brink of irrevocable damage that only swift and drastic action can avert." She cited a report from the IPCC, comprised of the world's leading climate scientists. When Will This Climate Madness End? What do gas ranges, Dutch farmers, and moose have in common? In a normal everyday context, very little. But in the world of apocalyptic climate change, everything. [...] In 2021, Biden signed an executive order banning the federal government from purchasing gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 and requiring federal contracts for all goods and services to be carbon-neutral by 2050. Despite claims to the contrary, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has already begun the process of banning gas stoves by approving an official Request for Information on the hazards related to them. At the same time, California is charging ahead with its own environmental plans. The state will ban the sale of gas-powered water heaters and furnaces by 2030. In addition, it and six other states intend to ban the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035. Last Monday, the United Nations released a report saying, "The world is rapidly approaching catastrophic levels of heating." U.N. secretary-general António Guterres said developed countries should attempt to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040 instead of 2050. The Editor says... The public has never seen any scientific data that shows that our use of natural resources increases temperatures or controls the climate. In 1850, countries used almost zero crude oil and today World consumption is around 100 billion barrels per year. If humans' use of coal, oil, natural gas, CO2, methane and all the derivative products that we are told cause temperatures to rise, we would not have had fluctuating temperatures the last 170 years with a total temperature rise of one to two degrees. This is especially true since an over-400-year little ice age ended around 1850. It is normal for temperatures to rise after an ice age ends. People pretending to be journalists do not have to be scientists to understand that, but they clearly don't care. The globe also would not have had a thirty-five-year cooling period from 1940-1975, so significant that a dire ice age where billions would die from starvation was predicted if all the things we are told cause warming actually did. Again, it does not take any intelligence to understand that. Challenging the NSTA's Position Statement on Climate Change. The CO2 Coalition has reviewed the National Science Teaching Association's Position Statement on Climate Change and has found that it has serious problems, which we address in this assessment. [...] A primary role for the NSTA should be to develop critical thinking skills for students and to instill in them knowledge and use of the scientific method. Students should be encouraged to review all facts on a subject (in this case climate change) and make up their own minds rather than be indoctrinated into an established political agenda. Unfortunately, the NSTA has taken a strong position that is antithetical to the scientific method, critical thinking and open scientific debate. Its position is one of censorship of any scientist or science that does not support the NSTA-approved "science." The 1.5 C Temperature Fiction, Already Exceeded. It is all over the news, another climate change report from the IPCC — the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Of course, it tells us that the end is nigh unless we do something to prevent temperatures exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius. Meanwhile, not one of the contributors has any proven capacity to accurately forecast the weather more than a few days in advance, nor much of an idea of the quality of the temperature data inputted into the simulation models claiming the Earth is burning up. Yet they claim to be able to forecast temperatures years in advance and repeat over and over the value of 1.5 C as representing a tipping point. The reality is that annual maximum temperatures across Australia were mostly falling, and by much more than 1.5 C, from at least 1910 to 1960 and then increasing, and by more than 1.5 C, since 1960. The Age of Conspiracy. Going forward there are likely to be three kinds of conspiracies history must deal with: 1) the cons, 2) the heresies that turn out to be wrong and 3) the heresies that turn out to be right. The way to spot the "cons" is to follow the money. From this point of view it is actually climate change ironically that looks most vulnerable. Heresies that turn out to be wrong tend to get empirically weaker over time, while heresies that are ultimately right become gradually more accepted. 1500 Scientists Say 'There Is No Climate Emergency'. Very few people actually dig into the data, they simply accept the UN IPPC reports. Yet many highly respectable and distinguished scientists have done exactly that and found that the UN-promoted manmade climate change theory is seriously flawed. Are you aware that 1500 of the world's leading climate scientists and professionals in over 30 countries have signed a declaration that there is no climate emergency and have refuted the United Nations claims in relation to man-made climate change? [...] The reality is that the climate changes naturally and slowly in its own cycle, and solar activity is the dominant factor in climate and not CO2. We can conclude that carbon emissions or methane from livestock, such as cows, are not the dominant factors in climate change. In essence, therefore, the incessant UN, government, and corporate-media-produced climate hysteria in relation to carbon emissions and methane from cows has no scientific basis. Please note that I have no commercial interest in stating that climate change is not caused by CO2. In truth I am against 'real' pollution, and the reality is that the CO2 component is not a pollutant. A Handbook for Climate Change Skeptics. Stephen Einhorn, a Cornell, Brooklyn Polytech, Wharton School educated chemist/businessman, has published Climate Change: What They Rarely Teach in College with the intention of providing a reader friendly, handy, and thorough book that provides a straightforward approach to nullifying and disproving the claims of climate change fanatics. Considering the widespread acceptance of nonsense climate change scaremongering, we need the help, and he is very effective in providing some help. [...] For years I have been involved in educating people about the warming/climate scare and getting them to realize that a warmer earth is a better earth to live on — that Carbon Dioxide at 400 parts per million is just a little over the minimum and certainly not the ideal for plant life, that a warmer planet will be easier on humans, plants, and animals, reducing disease and increasing vitality, prolonging life because death is increased by cool and cold. Greta Thunberg's 2018 Prediction That World Would End In Five Years Doesn't Turn Out So Well. Being the international spokesperson for a fake crisis can be tough, as the child actor who acts as the mouthpiece for the climate change industry has just been reminded. On Saturday, Human Events senior editor Jack Posobiec tweeted at pint-sized climate scold Greta Thunberg, "Hi @GretaThunberg! Why did you delete this?" The deleted tweet in question had Greta quoting this: "A climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years." The date on Greta's tweet? June 21, 2018. Either we have just over three months to live, or Greta's tweet was juuuuust a trifle hysterical. Her deletion of the tweet suggests that even Greta knows that the sun is likely to rise on June 22, 2023. The Editor says... Undeniable Proof that Climate Change Will End the World in 2024 If We Don't Act Now! [Thread reader] The media claimed that "97%" of scientists believed climate change was real but ignored hundreds of thousands of scientists who disagreed with that statement. The MSM removes photos from older articles that conflict with their narratives to make them harder to find. For over 60 years, warnings about global warming, global cooling, and "climate change" have been pushed by the media. Every few years, climate change doomsayers claim that the world has only 12 years to reverse the trend. Experts have made 41 predictions, and all have been wrong. On December 5, 2009, ABC News covered leaked emails from 1998 and 1999 involving Climate Change Summit scientists. This email proved experts excluded or manipulated research that did not support the global warming narrative or disproved it. Why would they hide this data? Challenging
"Net Zero" with Science. We are career physicists who have specialized in radiation physics and dynamic heat transfer for decades. These are
processes integral to atmospheric climate science. In our scientific opinion, all of these "Net Zero" regulations and actions are scientifically
invalid and fatally flawed science because they:
Where Is This "Climate Crisis" That Activists Keep Talking About? Climate change hysteria has been an ongoing point of social contention since at least the 1980s. For the past 40 years, western countries have been relentlessly bombarded with global warming propaganda and predictions of an environmental cataclysm. Many people spent their formative childhoods and school years being indoctrinated with tales of oblivion -- A world in which the oceans rise hundreds of feet and land masses are swallowed by the waves. A world in which exponentially rising temperatures create havoc with the weather as millions die from hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding and drought. As many of us now know, all of these claims ended up being false. The glaciers and polar ice caps never melted. The land is not covered by the seas. Some Basic Questions Democrats Can't (Or Won't) Answer. On "climate change" I have to ask how it is we're supposed to take you seriously when nothing you've predicted has come to pass? We're well past 30 years of 10-year predictions of coastal flooding, yet Florida still exists. In fact, all the 10-year predictions of doom and gloom haven't happened. If you were the leader of a cult who told their followers the world would come to an end on Sunday, come Monday morning you're going to have some serious explaining to do. With the climate change cult there is no similar question, all they've done is stop making 10-year predictions and now make 100-year predictions. This isn't because the data they have is somehow more accurate the further away from its collection you go, it's because everyone who heard the prediction will be dead when it doesn't happen. A 10-year prediction isn't provable, but it will come to pass in most people's life. A 100-year prediction isn't provable, but it's also not disprovable since it will be long forgotten by the time it doesn't come to pass. It's brilliant, actually, if your desire is to simply scare the hell out of people to force them to act. If you're at all interested in the truth[,] less so. So, if we haven't acted on climate change and the "polluting" countries are still pumping out CO2 like it's a sport, why haven't your predictions come true? Why didn't you try to save Barack Obama millions when he bought his mega-estate on Martha's Vineyard? Testimonial: No Climate Emergency. [Quoting Dr. Matthew Weilicki: "]I think if we take an objective look at the data, it's very difficult to see any metric that would allow us to explain the state of the climate as in an emergency or in a crisis, as you commonly hear. If we look at, for example, human lives lost from natural disasters, I ask my students this all the time and they are convinced that there has been significantly more lives being lost in natural disasters today than over the last hundred years. Let's say that number has decreased by something like 97%. And so it's clear. And the graphic you're showing now [not shown here], another question that I ask is how often are how many natural disasters are occurring? And so these students are usually freshmen and sophomores and things like that. And I ask them these questions about about the state of the climate. And I'm noticing that they have the exact wrong view of what's happening. They're convinced that more people are dying, more disasters are happening. And if you look at the empirical evidence, the data just doesn't support that claim. And I think that the mental health effects are really damaging to these young people. [...] ["] The Climate Scare Narrative Continues To Collapse. Hot, cold, wet, dry, sunny, clear, snow, no snow — it doesn't matter, it's caused by global warming, the climate alarmists tell us over and again. Their desperation is palpable, the cords that keep them tethered to reality fraying more than ever, their charade coming apart. For more than 30 years, the crisis peddlers have carried the narrative that man's carbon dioxide emissions are creating an existential threat. They've cajoled, bullied, lied, deceived, screeched and burned an immense volume of fossil fuels to get their hard-left agenda codified and executive ordered, and they have some successes to refer to. But their efforts have been, and always will be, useless. Despite their insistence, facts tell a story that's quite different. Hot Air: No Global Warming for Eight Years. Recently published data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that there has not been global warming for the past eight years. And NASA satellite data reportedly confirms that evidence, showing no global warming for eight years and five months, according to JunkScience's Steve Milloy. [...] Recently published evidence also showed that there was actually a near-record low of major hurricanes in 2022, indicating that weather isn't getting progressively and exponentially worse globally, despite the climate frenzy of the media and governments. Jiggery-Pokery Wokery. The woke love to destroy whatever they touch — culture, infrastructure, social cohesion, rational thought. To be woke is to embrace chaos and injury as a philosophy. From an anthropological perspective, wokeism is fascinating because its practitioners believe they are creative freethinkers while they act as lobotomized sheep. Whatever the woke wizards posing as priests tell their needy followers, the woke herds accept as truth. [...] Hydrocarbon energies are bad for the environment, but mining for the rare earth elements needed for electric vehicle batteries, covering endless hectares of land with solar panels, and dotting the skyline with giant fan blades that routinely kill flocks of birds are all environmentally friendly. Fair wages are essential, yet African and Chinese slave labor should be ignored. Using coal and natural gas is dastardly, yet recharging electric vehicles with power generated from coal and natural gas is ingenious. Extreme cold kills far more people than extreme heat, yet we must obsess over global warming. The cycles of the sun, the rotation of Earth's magnetic core, ocean currents, geothermal activity, and the shifting magnetosphere all directly alter the Earth's climate, but man alone must be held responsible for changes in the weather. Net Zero won't be as pleasant as greenies think. Long before the first steam engine puffed along the first railway, Earth was periodically battered by natural disasters — earthquakes, tidal waves, pole shifts, magnetic reversals, volcanic eruptions, wild weather, and droughts. Huge areas were covered by suffocating continents of ice, desert sands, massive flows of mud and lava, beds of salt, and thick coal seams. Thousands of species disappeared, including dinosaurs, mammoths, and Australia's megafauna. Modern humans are not immune to the threat of extinction, but it will not come from today's warm, moist atmosphere or from the gas of life, carbon dioxide. It will probably come from the next glacial climate cycle of this era, where long, bitter glacial eras are separated by short warm periods. These global weather cycles are triggered by changing orbits in the solar system. The Green New Deal is A Communist Plot. [Scroll down] Dr. William Happer, is a scientist's scientist, who has served in many pinnacle positions in the scientific world. [...] In point of fact, the climate has been warming 1/10 of a degree per decade for the last few decades as we emerged from the Little Ice Age. In the 1970's, Happer points out, he watched ice floes come down the Hudson River. "You could almost walk from Manhattan to New Jersey, the ice was so thick." The temperature is unlikely to rise more than that for next five thousand years. Climate Change has not been tested. It has not been subjected to rigorous review. "It has been reviewing itself," says Happer. It has not been fairly debated, it has never received any rigorous fact-checking, activists have built a cobweb of assumptions and cherry picking and lies. All our malaise, even and including the Ukraine conflict, which our corrupt leaders think will help them evade prosecution for their many crimes, can be set at the door of this flagrant outrageous lie. Thousands of perverted incentives have colluded to create an imaginary threat that serves leaders and screws the public. Good 2022 Climate News the MSM didn't tell you. No minimally informed person denies that climate changes. The climate has always changed. Since 1860 the predominant climate change has been warming, which is fortunate because if we had a winter like those of 1800-1850, we would be in for a shock. No one has been able to prove that global warming is primarily a consequence of our emissions. It is reasonable to assume that increased CO2 has contributed to warming since the mid-20th century when our CO2 emissions increased significantly, but no one knows how much they have contributed, no matter how much the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) insists that "humans are the dominant cause of observed global warming over recent decades." (IPCC AR6, page 515). There is no evidence for this statement. I know this because I have read thousands of scientific papers looking for it. And no, computer models are not evidence of anything but the programming skills of their authors. Models and their predictions are constantly changing and when our knowledge of climate changes, they must be redone. The absolute lack of evidence contrasts sharply with the decision to cut our CO2 emissions to zero by completely changing our fossil fuel-based energy system and calling CO2 a pollutant — when it is as essential to life as oxygen. All this while most of the world doesn't [care] about emissions and many are only on board for the promised money. Too Wet? Too Dry? It's All Climate Change! Climate change, as defined by the United Nations: "Refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, such as through variations in the solar cycle." That's actually a good definition. But not willing to leave well enough alone, the UN goes further, spoiling a simple and straightforward definition with: "But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas." It is amazing that before humans burned fossil fuels two centuries ago, it was only natural cycles that changed the climate, not backyard barbecues, gas stoves, and SUVs. Yet the UN does not explain how previous ice ages developed due to global cooling, followed by melting of mile-thick ice over the upper Midwest due to global warming, multiple times over the Earth's history, long before there was any significant human activity. So Wrong So Long. On January 1, "60 Minutes" featured a segment with Paul Ehrlich, who predicted that earth is headed straight for extinction. For Ehrlich, 90, this is not a new theme. "The battle to feed all of humanity is over," was the first line of his 1968 The Population Bomb. During the 1970s, the author contended, "hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." By 1979, Ehrlich prophesied, the oceans would be without life and by 1999 pesticides would reduce the population of the United States to 23 million. None of that happened, and it wasn't even close. On Frontpage Magazine, David Harsanyi was all over it. "Couldn't '60 Minutes' find a fresh-faced, yet-to-be-discredited neo-Malthusian to hyperventilate about the end of the world?" Harsanyi wondered. "Why didn't producers invite a single guest to push back against theories that have been reliably debunked by reality?" 'No scientific basis': MIT-trained physicist slams climate alarmism in new paper. [An] indictment of the Net Zero political project has been made by one of the world's leading nuclear physicists. In a recently published science paper, Dr. Wallace Manheimer said it would be the end of modern civilization. Writing about wind and solar power he argued it would be especially tragic "when not only will this new infrastructure fail, but will cost trillions, trash large portions of the environment, and be entirely unnecessary." The stakes, he added, "are enormous." Manheimer holds a physics PhD from MIT and has had a 50-year career in nuclear research, including work at the Plasma Physics Division at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. He has published over 150 science papers. In his view, there is "certainly no scientific basis" for expecting a climate crisis from too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the next century or so. He argues that there is no reason why civilization cannot advance using both fossil fuel power and nuclear power, gradually shifting to more nuclear power. There is of course a growing body of opinion that points out that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to all the fashionable green technologies. Electric cars, wind and solar power, hydrogen, battery storage, heat pumps — all have massive disadvantages, and are incapable of replacing existing systems without devastating consequences. The Climate Is In Great Shape. It doesn't come as any surprise to regular Power Line readers that the politically and economically motivated climate hysteria with which we are constantly bombarded is false. This piece by Javier Vinós at Watts Up With That, titled "Good 2022 Climate News the MSM didn't tell you," does an excellent job of summing up the reality that is usually obscured. As Vinos says, there has been mild warming during the last 40 years. But the rate of warming has been slowing down, not accelerating as the alarmists' models predict: [...] The "current cooling period" refers to the fact that mean global temperature has declined over the last seven years. Symptoms Of Global Warming And Global Cooling Are Identical. "People who don't understand the destabilising effect of global warming on the polar vortex are convinced unusually cold temperatures prove it's all a #climatescam." [Tweet] "In 1975, @ScienceNews used the same diagram to explain global cooling. According to members of the #ClimateScam cult, global warming and global cooling have identical symptoms." [Tweet] 1,200 Scientists and Professionals Declare: "There is No Climate Emergency". The political fiction that humans cause most or all climate change and the claim that the science behind this notion is 'settled', has been dealt a savage blow by the publication of a 'World Climate Declaration (WCD)' signed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. There is no climate emergency, say the authors, who are drawn from across the world and led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. The scale of the opposition to modern day 'settled' climate science is remarkable, given how difficult it is in academia to raise grants for any climate research that departs from the political orthodoxy. Dick Reaney: It's madness, madness, madness, there is no climate emergency. Climate Change is normal and natural and has gone on for millions of years without any help from the human race. The scaremongering now going on by the media, politicians and climate alarmists, is so utterly misguided to be nothing but tragic. That we have an End of the World scenario is even more ridiculous. It is a regress back to the past and has the stamp of Dark Age soothsayers and witchcraft on it. The rhetoric is at such bizarre levels that the greenwashing by the media and government is truly taking us down the road of reduced living standards, if not to a disaster for the country, the economy, and the farming community whom we rely on so much.What is being painted by Labour, National, and the Greens is totally without common sense or scientific reasoning. It is all based on a false premise of pseudo-science which is totally without foundation. The fact that they have signed in for the Nett Zero Carbon legislation is a blind man's approach to persuasion. The ACT Party have not done this and are the only ones who have looked at the science and realised it cannot be achieved. What's more it's extremely important that it does not happen. We need carbon dioxide to live and survive and every plant in the botanical kingdom needs it for photosynthesis. A process that leads to the release of oxygen into the atmosphere, which is life sustaining for animals and humans. The 'save the world' racket is a scam: Stop falling for it. Collectivism is now cloaked by environmentalism. Bankman-Fried's fraud is dwarfed by "climate change," a financial scam and global power-grab of such monumental proportions that even collectivist megalomaniacs like Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong wouldn't have dreamt of achieving it. Using dubious "science" and massive propaganda campaigns, governments are imposing draconian policies that will never affect the planet's climate but will make proponents unimaginably wealthy, while stripping most of the world's population of their property and their freedoms, leaving them destitute and starving. Clergy Hold Multi-Faith 'Climate Repentance' Ceremony as UN Summit Wraps Up in Egypt. [Scroll down] One must wonder, however, whether the doomsday rhetoric can be trusted. After all, 50 years ago the UN warned mankind had only "ten years to stop catastrophe." Forty years ago, the UN said we have until the year 2000 to prevent the equivalent of a "nuclear holocaust." And 15 years ago the UN warned that if climate change wasn't stopped by 2012, "it would be too late." The world has not only failed to end, Co2 emissions are still up more than 50%. With even the UN now admitting its policies have failed, it plans to throw even more money at the 'problem.' After 26 previous climate summits and trillions spent on climate policies, the UN still doesn't have a blueprint to lower the Earth's temperature. [...] And all the failed prophecies of doom over the years don't seem to matter. Steve Milloy, the editor of the website Junkscience.com, asked "If you're Al Gore, if you're John Kerry, if you are any climate activist, how do you walk this back? We've been doing this for 30 years and these people have come out with the direst warnings, by the way, none of which have turned out to be true. How do they ever walk it back? They can't. They just have to just keep it going." This is the best explanation a godless humanist can offer: The Editor says... The climate 'crisis' isn't what it used to be. The climate "catastrophe" isn't what it used to be. Circa 2013 with publication of the IPCC AR5 Report, RCP8.5 was regarded as the business-as-usual emissions scenario, with expected warming of 4 to 5°C by 2100. Now there is growing acceptance that RCP8.5 is implausible, and RCP4.5 is arguably the current business-as-usual emissions scenario. Only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that followed RCP4.5 with 2 to 3°C warming was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2°C seems to be in reach (now deemed to be the "threshold of catastrophe"), the goal posts were moved in 2018 to reduce the warming target to 1.5°C. Climate catastrophe rhetoric now seems linked to extreme weather events, most of which are difficult to identify any role for human-caused climate change in increasing either their intensity or frequency. The main stream media is currently awash with articles from prominent journalists on how the global warming threat [is] less than we thought. Be Afraid! The climate is changing (as it always has). Another day, another doomsday report from the United Nations on the climate. [...] The purpose of all of these reports is to scare the public into submission and spend massive amounts of money supporting the extremists' green agenda. As always, the media just regurgitates this information without any questions. They don't care that previous reports have been wrong. President Of Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) Says 'There is No Climate Emergency'. [Scroll down] As well as CLINTEL's founder and president, Guus Berkhout is a professor emeritus of geophysics and a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). In his message to the world below Berkhout explained why is there such a big difference between the scaring climate activists' narrative and the optimistic climate scientists' message who believe there is no climate emergency. In the past decades, the public has been flooded with fear-mongering stories, telling them that global temperatures will rise to catastrophically high levels. Climate activists claim that the cause of all this impending doom is the increasing amount of CO2 produced by human activities. The proposed solution is the so-called net-zero emission policy, aimed at lowering human net CO2 emissions to the levels of the pre-industrial era of the late 1700s. Those activists also claim that people should panic, and that time is running out: "Be aware that it is five minutes to midnight, we must act without delay!" Many thousands of scientists disagree; more than 1400 are CLINTEL signatories. What has all that investment in renewables actually bought us? For decades now we have been inundated with propaganda that insists we move away from fossil fuels to renewable alternatives. The hysteria has been escalating ever since Al Gore rebranded himself the Global Warming Ambassador at Large with the release of An Inconvenient Truth. What had been a constant but relatively muted refrain from the Left became a unstoppable roar that has only increased in volume. We have been treated to lectures about biofuels from switchgrass (remember that — never happened), the new hydrogen future (never happened), solar, wind, and unicorn farts all powering the future. We are called to save the sinking islands (they are fine), save the polar bears (they are plentiful), and stop the hurricanes from killing us all (deaths from weather events have been declining for decades). We are warned of the apocalypse, inconvenienced and enraged by activists who pour out milk, throw soup at art, glue themselves to every available surface, and scream constantly about "science" as if having tantrums is how science is done. Climate science: Unsettled? Scientists are not unanimous about what data show on climate change and its projected effects. One noted NYU physicist has taken issue with how media and some scientists describe the scientific record. Dr. Steven Koonin raised concern with the way some scientists and media outlets make dire-sounding predictions about climate change. In Koonin's reading of the science, the future of climate change impact is much more nuanced. He anticipates climate-related challenges for some areas of the world, but Koonin believes other regions will experience minimal or no effects. This interpretation of the scientific record differs from what the UN and other government bodies offer. [Video clip] The Globalist Climate Agenda Is a Crime Against Humanity. [Scroll down] It should be easy to see the hidden agenda behind this repression. If you control energy and food, you control the world. The biggest multinational corporations on Earth are empowered by ESG mandates, because marginal or emerging competitors lack the financial resiliency to comply. From small independent private farmers and ranchers to small independent nations, once their ability to produce is broken, the big players pick up the pieces for pennies on the dollar. But that's not what you read in the Washington Post. In a blistering editorial published on September 18, under "The Post's View," the editors wrote "The World's Ice is Melting: Humanity Must Prepare for the Consequences." For at least 30 years, and with increasing frequency and intensity, it is not the weather that has become extreme, but rather these proclamations. We have now reached the point where every major institution in the Western world is bent on spreading this panic. Yet very little of it is justified by the facts. The Media's Rank Dishonesty About 'Climate Change' And Hurricane Ian. [Scroll down] [Australian meteorologist William] Kininmonth noted that while the temperature of the tropical oceans has risen over the past four decades, the cause is not CO2. He attributed the likely cause to "a reduction in the transport of heat as the oceans slow." He stressed that recent tropical ocean warming "is probably simply the result of a fluctuation in the ever-changing ocean circulation; carbon dioxide must be recognized as a very minor contributor to the observed warming and one that is unlikely to prolong the warming trend beyond the peak generated by the natural oceanic oscillations." Kininmonth's final paragraph reads: ["]The pattern of recent global warming underscores the validity of what meteorologists widely recognize: the oceans are the vital inertial and thermal flywheels of the climate system. The corollary is, if one wants to control climate, it will be necessary to control the oceans. Efforts to decarbonize in the hope of affecting global temperatures will be in vain.["] Little Known Climate
facts from the IPCC:
"Nothing To Do With Man" — Astrophysicist Says Climate-Cultists "Are On A Gravy Train" To Make Money. Given that it's all 'settled science', the following RT News anchor was probably expecting a rote response to his questions about climate change. He was in for a big surprise. Piers Corbyn — physicist, meteorologist, and elder brother of former UK Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn — explained to the shocked RT anchor that the climate "has always been changing, but this has nothing to do with man[.]" The astrophysicist instead believes that changes in the Earth's climate and its weather are dictated primarily by cyclical activity on the surface of the sun (and not, pointedly, by the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). What Climate Crisis? A new group called Climate Intelligence (Clintel for short) has been founded in the Netherlands with the express purpose of combatting the extremism of the climate change campaigners. One of their early efforts is a statement, signed by 1,100 scientists and policy experts from around the world, that argues "There Is No Climate Emergency." There Is
No Climate Emergency.
A Short History of Climate Alarm. Noel Brown gave us until 2000 to save the planet. But over the years, the impending date of doom has been continually pushed back. In 2009, Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister at the time, baldly stated that we had 'fewer than 50 days to save our planet from catastrophe'. His deadline ran out on 9 December 2009. Australian Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett, was more optimistic. Just days before Gordon Brown's zero hour arrived, she warned us we had an extra five years to save the world from disastrous global warming. Three years earlier, in 2006, Al Gore was much more specific, threatening that, unless drastic measures were taken to reduce greenhouse gases within ten years, the world would reach a point of no return. When the world ignored Al Gore's warning, the UN's Christiana Figueres gaveus another three years' breathing space, but that deadline unfortunately ran out too, just five months ago. However, it is Prince Charles who must take the prize for getting it wrong most often. Long List of Failed Climate Predictions. A list of 107 failed climate predictions with another 300 posted in the comments section. The Basic Math Problem that Undoes Global Warming Hysteria. If someone proposes a solution to an "existential problem" that has no chance of success, should we be forced to take the problem seriously? If the climate alarmists truly believe there is a climate emergency, then they should be able to answer the first basic question about "the plan." Are the numbers in the plan even remotely achievable? Remember: based on their screeching, we have only twelve years before we all die from "man-made climate change." To answer that question, let's break part of the plan into the most basic math problem: can we replace 25%, 50%, or 75% of the cars on the road in ten years? [...] The automobile situation in the U.S. alone cannot be resolved in twenty years, let alone in ten years. Here is where the math gets a little more fun: If we are currently producing 1 million electric vehicles a year, and we are struggling to attain the materials to hit that number, what is the maximum number of electric vehicles we can produce without a "magic wand"? Greenpeace's Patrick Moore and the hardcore evidence against climate change myths. One of the most interesting persons I interviewed for the New York Sun was Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. I had mistakenly expected him to be one of those left-wing environmental wackos, but he was anything but. He had left Greenpeace after realizing the group was more interested in social machinations than in helping humanity. He was also the only one in Greenpeace at the time with a scientific background. The Climate Agenda Is What's Melting. President Biden is being urged to declare a climate emergency, which may happen as early as this week. If he does, the irony will be rich, as the 911 call should really be for the climate agenda. The president apparently hopes to take advantage of the ongoing record-setting European heat wave and string of wildfires, and an ongoing heat wave in the U.S. Midwest. While it certainly is very hot in Europe and the Midwest, it is relatively cool elsewhere. The unfortunate reality for Biden's planned exploitation is that today's average global temperature per the University of Maine is a mere 0.2[°]C warmer than the average from 1979-2000. It's called "global warming," and yet there's really not much of that occurring. We also know that heat waves are not associated with carbon dioxide emissions. The frequency and intensity of heat waves has dramatically declined in the U.S. over the past 100 years despite ever-rising emissions, per the National Climate Assessment conducted by the Obama-Biden administration. Climate Emergency? What A Crock, Part 1. Joe Biden did not declare a climate emergency last week, as many in his party urged him to do. One Democratic senator claimed that the changing climate required "bold, intense executive action" from the president. Another said Biden needed to move because "the climate crisis is a threat to national security." But there's no emergency. It's a wholly manufactured charade. The Big Lies We Cannot Question. Perhaps the biggest lie in terms of how it is going to damage the prosperity and freedom of Americans is the so-called "climate emergency." Almost every major news network now devotes a significant portion of its headline content to what used to be relegated to local television weather reports. Once in a great while, a massively destructive hurricane used to dominate national news. Nowadays, every major heatwave and every big storm is heralded as evidence of devastating "climate change." These events are often tragic and should never be trivialized, but the implication is that any measure, no matter how draconian, is justified to supposedly stop them. The reality of climate change is not in dispute. The Big Lie is that we face a "climate emergency." That lie, in turn, is built on many lies: Anthropogenic CO2 is the sole cause of climate change. The most likely climate scenarios are catastrophic if we don't act now. Weather has never before been this extreme. Renewable energy is more sustainable and climate-friendly than conventional energy. We can accomplish dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions without destroying the American middle class. It is feasible to replace fossil fuels. Humans have to be concentrated in cities because that is more "climate-friendly." Other nations will follow our example, regardless of the consequences. People who question the climate emergency are "deniers" and should be marginalized if not prosecuted. Global warming is certain to cause more harm than good. An honest fact checker would rate every one of these assertions as "mostly false." Climate Emergency? What A Crock, Part 2. Just last week, congressional Democrats were urging President Joe Biden to declare a climate emergency because some Americans were enduring a patch of hot weather. Though more than a bit meshuga, they couldn't match the fever of Bill Weir. The CNN chief climate correspondent said, also last week, that "the fate of life on earth is at stake" because Washington isn't doing more to cool the planet. Yet again, pieces of a puzzle a pre-schooler could put together in a couple of minutes are missing. One of those lost pieces is the surface temperature record that the climate alarmists tell us is evidence that man is overheating Earth. They treat the record as if it's irrefutable fact. But it's not quite that. The reality is the temperature record has "been substantially corrupted," according to a new study. The Great Flattening of Joe Biden's Eco-Hammer. What is a climate emergency? Since climate is weather averaged over 30 years or more, no one really knows. Could it have something to do with the summertime heat wave stressing electrical grids in California and elsewhere? You might think so, but summertime heat waves are short-term weather phenomena. This is not climate gone wild. In other words, a heat wave does not a climate emergency make. Has there been a sudden demand from the American people to do something about climate change? Considering that only 1% of American families see climate change as one of their biggest concerns, the answer is no. The vast majority of pharmacology, psychiatry, vaccine science and published research is a complete fraud. [Scroll down] As a hilarious example of the junk science lunacy of the climate cult, look no further than the corporate-controlled media which now claims that every country in the world is heating up faster than every other country in the world. Such a claim is mathematically impossible, yet it has become the default lunatic claim of the climate cult media, regardless of its incomprehensible nature. Cross-Examining the Climate Change Cultists. If you want to watch the pinkos fret, simply state the indisputable truth that what they call "climate change" is a massive hoax. [...] It's pretty popular to claim that the recent heatwave in Europe proves global warming. But then, why doesn't a cold wave disprove it? In fact, what set of facts would disprove the climate change theory? Isn't the scientific method about generating a theory for a phenomenon and then testing it by trying to find facts that disprove it? So, what would disprove global warming? None, of course. Everything always proves it. How sciency! And while we are at it, since "global warming" has been replaced by "climate change," what, precisely, is the climate we need to maintain? What is the "correct" temperature? Is the goal to stop all climate change? Do we need to counteract natural climate change? You do agree that climate does change naturally, right? Saving the Planet, or Themselves? Since well before the publication of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit in 1992, we've been told we can "save the planet" by eliminating fossil fuels. Many environmentalists ride bikes to work, refuse plastic bags at stores, and vote for more solar and windmills, but is any of it "saving the planet"? Bjorn Lomborg's book False Alarm exposes a host of false claims by environmentalists, including the notion that warming has been producing more storms, drought, and floods. In fact, all of these have remained at the same level over the past 100 years. As Lomborg writes, "deaths caused by climate-related disasters have declined precipitously over the past century" (p. 73) — not because of fewer storms, but because increasing wealth has made it possible to protect ourselves from climate events. The real danger lies in useless spending on climate change that will bankrupt societies and make it impossible for their people to protect themselves. Expert scientists immediately predict climate change causes triple La Ninas — right after they happen. ENSO is playing games with climate scientists — mocking their ability to predict the single greatest natural short term climate swing factor. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation drives floods, droughts, bushfires, and essentially pushes the planetary temperatures up and down on a year by year basis. Nothing determines the year's climate headlines more than this one thing, yet climate scientists haven't the faintest idea what drives it. Imagine what it would look like if they could? They'd be able to say [for example] solar wind changes driven by, say, solar barycentric dynamics will lead to El Ninos in 2023, and '25, a weak one in 2026. Farmers could plan ahead. Dam managers would know when water would be scarce. The UN would know which years to ask for even more money. Instead we get this vague post hoc prophesy: [...] A great book shreds the climate change arguments against fossil fuels. Alex Epstein, an energy expert, may have written the most effective defense of fossil fuels you ever read. His book is Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas — Not Less (Portfolio 2022; 480 pages). In it, he makes the case for flourishing humanity as opposed to blindly "protecting" the non-human environment. [...] Epstein's book, by challenging these stale, dangerous ideas, should be a mind-blowing exercise for millions — or at least, for the millions who have never really thought carefully about the climate change theory. Epstein has applied jujitsu to the climate change mantras. What do renewables provide as an alternative to fossil fuels? Not nearly enough to justify the hype. Not enough to sustain and foster economic development. What are the charges against fossil fuels? Rising temperatures that do what? The advocates for doing away with fossil fuels have an obligation — that they've failed to meet — to explain and prove the science behind their claims and what the actual, as opposed to theoretical, damage is within a reasonable range. Do fossil fuels have any benefits? By arguing that they don't, the climate change side exposes its blatant bias. There are obvious benefits for fossils, just as there are obvious costs on the renewable side. How do these benefits and costs balance out? There has never really been a full and open debate in an objective forum. Report: "No Evidence of a Climate Crisis". A new report, released this month by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), states that empirical evidence shows that, despite the dire predictions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is "no evidence of a climate crisis." Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Oslo laid out his case in his annual State of the Climate Report. Humlum is a professor emeritus of physical geology and hydrology, with a specific interest in geomorphology and climate variability. He believes that much of the "climate change" that we see is the result of poorly understood but very natural cycles. Humlum does report some gentle warming of the planet, but finds no cause for the alarm bells being sounded by climate alarmists. "Air temperatures measured near the planet's surface (surface air temperatures) are at the center of many climate discussions, but the significance of any short-term warming or cooling should not be overstated," the report states. We can't stop climate change — so let's embrace it. Now that the COVID nonsense is mostly winding down, despite the best efforts of the fear-mongering left, it's likely time to start ramping up the fear of the greatest threat to mankind, again. [...] Sure the term climate change has been used, although quite sparingly, since about 1854, but it only began creeping into the modern lexicon in 1988. And now it has eclipsed and virtually replaced global warming. Now for those who wish to argue semantics, that climate change and global warming are not synonymous, technically this is correct. But practically you'd be wrong. Just take a drive around and you'll likely see the same signs as do I, peppering homeowners' lawns. They say "Climate Action Now!" They don't, or no longer, say anything about stopping global warming. COVID, Gender, Climate, and the Collapse of Science. Almost from its onset those who proposed what might be called the standard model of climate change have demanded freedom from criticism. The problem was completely defined, the future was known with reasonable certainty, and those who objected were likened to Holocaust deniers. The science was settled. That last statement is particularly startling. Science, by its very nature, is never settled. The answer to any problem is not only subject to future modification, it invariably raises many more questions than it answers. Then there was the appeal to the majority, as if the history of science doesn't offer countless examples of the majority of scientists being wrong. Here Comes Another Climate Deadline That Will Pass Without Notice. More than a half-century of global warming warnings have come and gone with the sky exactly where it was on the first Earth Day in 1970. The fact that it hasn't fallen has left the end-of-the-world cult with no choice but to continue to recalibrate its projections. And that's exactly what it will do, because the global warming scare isn't about the environment, or saving man from himself. It's about what has been accurately labeled as a "transformative" agenda to change governance in the West toward more authoritarian systems and to squeeze the life out of capitalism. The truth about global warming, man-made climate change, or whatever it is to be called by the smart people these days, is that while man's CO2 emissions likely have some effect on the climate — it is, after all, a greenhouse gas, though weak and only a minute part of the atmosphere, a little more than 400 parts per million — its impact is not enough to be a threat of much if any consequence. Why
don't the media ever ask why previous IPCC predictions have been so wrong? Once again, the UN intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change is warning that we are doomed by climate change. The media, Biden administration, and the IPCC
like to scare people. [...] If fossil fuel consumption causes temperature to rise substantially, why has the temperature over
the last 150 years only gone up one to two degrees while crude oil consumption went from around zero to 100 million barrels a day?
Climate Alarmism Is Facing Collapse in Face of Reality. The U.S. and global climate agenda is in big trouble. Climate data is refuting the high-warming model scenarios ("the pause" continues into its eighth year); consumers prefer carbon-based energies; and wind, solar, and batteries are encountering their own economic and ecological problems. Rather than moderate the exaggeration and deal with real problems, Big Environmentalism — teamed with Big Wind, Big Solar, and Big EV in the bootleggers and Baptists coalition — want to double down on failure. Never mind the Texas power crisis and the EU/UK gas and power crisis, each the direct and indirect result of the government-forced energy transformation to wind and solar, the unreliables. Never mind the tripartite boom in oil, gas, and coal that is refuting Net Zero by the hour. Government energy planning must continue and accelerate. The US Must Face an Existential Threat, but It's Not Climate Change. Democrats are committed "to eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035." They want banks to stop financing fossil fuel development by 2030, and they want to end the use of fossil fuels completely by 2050. [...] Democrats are bent on the destruction of the oil industry. They contend that climate change is an "existential threat" that political and environmental factions describe in millions of pages of mind-numbing documentation. Climate change is a theory. One may accept the theory and reject the prescribed remedies of the Democrat party. Democrats offer an apocalyptic vision of climate change intended to scare the American people into voting for Democrat candidates. They ignore the human capacity to innovate and adapt to changing conditions. They assume that if oceans rise, people will throw their hands up and surrender coastal communities or drown. The Dutch addressed life below sea level hundreds of years ago by building dikes and creating pumps powered by windmills to remove water. There is no climate crisis. [Scroll down] If there were a genuine climate crisis, the IPCC wouldn't feel impelled to surreptitiously turn the dial to claim that there is one. The data wouldn't need the IPCC's helping hand by making nonsensical assumptions such as ignoring the possibility of future adaptation to climate change or using the widely discredited RCP 8.5 climate scenario, which even the Grantham Institute's Bob Ward calls "extreme." The fact that it does so constitutes strong evidence for the non-existence of a climate crisis. In this regard, the IPCC's behavior is similar to that of Covid modelers back in December, who hugely over-forecast hospitalizations and mortality from the Omicron variant, forecasts that in Britain came within a hair's breadth of pushing the country into a third lockdown. The climate crisis disappearing act. [Scroll down] Mr. Biden forgot to mention that there is no evidence — none — of a climate crisis or of any attendant "devasting effects." His entire proposal to achieve net-zero US emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 would reduce global temperatures by less than 0.173 degrees C by 2100, using the EPA climate model under assumptions that exaggerate the effects of emissions reductions. (An immediate and permanent 50 percent emissions cut by China: 0.184 degrees C.) And "environmental justice," notwithstanding the infinite elasticity of that phrase, means massive subsidies for Democratic Party constituencies, both geographically and politically. It cannot mean anything else. Would the up-front cost of "weatheriz[ing] your homes and businesses" be less than the present value of the annual $500 energy-cost savings of Mr. Biden's imagination? If so, why are households and businesses not doing it already? Is the president oblivious to the reality that the expanded use of unconventional electricity has yielded skyrocketing energy costs in Europe and in the US despite all the subsidies and other policy favoritism? (As Pravda in its glory days would have put it: It is no accident that California has almost the highest electricity costs in the lower 48 states.) Is there anything "clean" about unconventional energy? Yes, emphatically, if we ignore the heavy-metal pollution, wildlife destruction, noise and flicker effects, massive and unsightly land use, landfill pollution, and all of the other environmental problems created by unconventional energy. And about that monthly savings of $80 "because you'll never have to pay at the gas pump again": Does Mr. Biden believe that the electricity consumed to recharge electric vehicles is free? Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. This report is the result of collaboration among three organizations: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Science & Environmental Policy Project, and The Heartland Institute. [...] Like its predecessor reports, this volume provides the scientific balance that is missing from the overly alarmist reports of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which are highly selective in their review of climate science and controversial with regard to their projections of future climate change. Although the IPCC claims to be unbiased and to have based its assessment on the best available science, we have found this to not be the case. In many instances conclusions have been seriously exaggerated, relevant facts have been distorted, and key scientific studies have been ignored. Worst-Case Climate Change Scenarios Are Highly Implausible, Argues New Study. Before rushing to kit out your climate prepper bunker, you might want to take a look at the new study by University of Colorado climate change policy researcher Roger Pielke that confirms what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found in August 2021, namely that the worst-case climate scenario is increasingly unlikely, and that while our future will be warmer, it will not be catastrophically so. These dire predictions were based on calculations derived from a scenario of the future in which fossil fuel and agricultural emissions over the course of this century would boost atmospheric carbon dioxide to nearly 1,400 parts per million (ppm) by 2100. The current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is just under 420 ppm, and that is up from the pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm. NPR has figured out that most companies are faking their efforts to reduce their carbon footprint. For decades, without scientific evidence, the public has been indoctrinated to believe that there is proof that humans, CO2, fossil fuels, cars, methane, and many other things are causing an existential threat of global warming, and that leads to catastrophic climate change. Politicians and bureaucrats from countries throughout the world gathered in Paris to sign a worthless piece of paper that pretended they can control the climate because we only have a few years left to solve the problem. We know they were just pretending to care because they allowed the biggest polluter to start pretending they would comply until 2030. Why would anyone trust China when the Chinese won't allow a legitimate investigation of COVID? A Danish newspaper decided to finally ask questions. Sadly, most American journalists won't. Sadly, most people pretending to be journalists, won't ask any questions. They are too busy campaigning for Democrats and pushing their leftist agenda to remake and destroy America. I keep wishing some enterprising reporter would do a simple amount of investigative reporting on climate change. There needs to be just one question: Can you show us some piece of scientific data that shows a direct relationship between temperatures and fossil fuel use over the last 150 years? Give the simple project to a 7th grader with two variables, temperature and crude oil use, and ask for a line graph. The temperature line, would be horizontal, with periods where the temperature goes up and down and with a minor rise over the total period. The crude oil line would be almost vertical with an exponential rise from around zero to around 100 million barrels per day. Why would anyone advocate destroying an industry, that has greatly improved the quality and length of everyone that uses it, when there is zero correlation? Understanding the Global Warming / Climate Change Scam. The Politics, Science and Religion behind today's most proclaimed scare. [Video clip] Brilliant Fools Are Causing Terrible Societal Damage. How far back must we go to discover something that was never hidden? [...] It took an Orwell to grasp that brilliant and foolish are compatible. The prophetic author of 1984 and Animal Farm saw that very clever people can be very silly. We don't have to upturn rocks to uncover them. Look no further than all-consuming causes to find them — brilliant fools stuck like barnacles to Climate Crisis and COVID mandates. The brainiest of people are convinced that (1) unless we de-carbonize, the planet will burn up and (2) natural anti-bodies do not exempt "anti-vaxxers" from the compulsory two jabs and a booster. Can predictions be made using less than 1% of the data? Global climate data has been collected since roughly 1880 (141 years), according to most reports. The accuracy of this data can be debated, such as collection methodology, data handling, interpretation, etc. [...] The "data," if it is even accurately assessed in the first place, represents far less than 1% of the earth's history if you embrace the long-age view of 4.5 billion years, resulting in .000000031% of earth's history. In the case of a 6,000-year-old planet, 141 years is just 2.35%. [...] Is this hysteria based upon science or another misguided paradigm based on the erroneous worldview of evolution, which assumes the earth is billions of years old and that the earth's atmosphere, which now supports life, was derived from some continuously varying mix of poisonous gases and took billions of years to evolve into the mixture of gases that now support life? Or, was the earth's atmosphere created very stable with some random variations over time? Is it far more robust than some randomly evolved atmosphere? Obama and the false prophets of climate alarmism. For a media that allegedly hates lying former presidents, there sure seems to be a deafening silence when former President Barack Obama does it. Speaking before the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland, Obama blamed the Trump administration for "active hostility toward climate science," NBC News reported. In doing so, Obama also peddled the same, tired, climate change cultist rhetoric that many leftists embrace despite their bearing no relation to science. "You've been bombarded with warnings about what the future will look like if you don't address climate change," Obama said. "And, meanwhile, you've grown up watching many of the adults who are in a position to do something about it either acting like the problem doesn't exist or refusing to make the hard decisions needed to do something about it." But what if the "warnings" are hype and not based on any sort of scientific consensus? Our World Gone (Climate) Mad. Five years ago, Donald Trump's win over Hillary Clinton was a death sentence, according to the real smart people we should all be listening to. Ten years earlier, another of those real smart people said "we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most." Let's not forget that in 1989, the media, naturally relying on revered experts, warned that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000." The world has reached a tipping point, but not the one the climate alarmists have been screeching about for more than a generation. We have entered an era in which claims without evidence are presented as unassailable fact, and much of the advanced world is buying the story. Temperature Regulated Cooling Dominates Warming and Why the Earth Stopped Cooling At 15°C. It is said that the Earth's surface temperature variations are controlled by [human-induced] greenhouse gases. This is not the case. When cooling systems dominate, surface temperatures are set by the cooling system and not by the system that is warming the surface. On Earth the surface cooling system dominates; temperatures are set by the natural cooling system. The strength of natural surface cooling is set by temperature. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere does not make any difference for surface temperatures. Their initial warming effect is neutralized by extra surface cooling and by a diminished uptake of solar energy. The cooling system dominates. Climate Summits Only Worsen Global Warming, Especially When Joe Biden Is Talking. I can't be the only one who's fed up with all this climate-summit hooey. It goes nowhere every few months when advocates want a junket to another intriguing global city on taxpayer-funded expense accounts. We're set up today for two full weeks of it as Joe Biden and some actual world leaders meet again — this time in Glasgow — to doom-say our lives and everything anyone has ever worked for since the beginning of time. It's all in urgent jeopardy, you know, if we don't do something fast. Unless we spend billions upon billions of dollars ASAP to change things that have been changing on their own for a very long time. Which data show that humans, CO2, and fossil fuels cause global warming? Another day, another dire warning about global warming. [...] As always, journalists just print and repeat these ever-ending reports to scare the public into submission with no questions asked. For decades, journalists, educators, scientists, bureaucrats, and other Democrats have colluded to spread these dire warnings, (misinformation) without scientific evidence, to scare and control the public. We are repeatedly have been told that we only have a few years left to solve the problem. The end date always evolves. No matter how wrong these dire predictions are they just repeat them and say the science is settled to cut off debate. Why are people who are always so wrong considered experts? Many CEOs, Republicans, and others repeat the same claims without evidence because it is so much more pleasant to go along instead of being called anti-science, or worse still, "deniers." Warming and Drying part 2: Natural Cycles, Climate see-saws and failed models. Natural cycles like the Madden Julian Oscillation and the El Nino Southern Oscillation cause regions of rising moist air and precipitation varying with regions of sinking cloudless dry air that allow intensified solar heating and modern and historical regional heatwaves and droughts. Climate hypothesis suggesting global warming will cause wet regions to get wetter and dry regions to get drier is not supported by observations [Video clip] It's Time To Stop Terrorizing Our Children. If man is responsible for giving Earth a fever, why was the highest surface temperature ever recorded (134° F) in Death Valley, California, on July 10, 1913? This heat wave happened several months before the invention of smog and commercial aviation. Pollution from a volcanic eruption (Mount Tambora) in April of 1815, cooled the planet enough to create a year without a summer. What Unicorn Factory or government agency is capable of manufacturing a cork large enough to prevent the next cauldron bottle of vintage Mountain Magma from popping? Instead of inducing constant panic, why can't liberal idealogues offer sleepless children some comfort by suggesting that plate tectonics, climate cycles, and asteroid impacts are part of a much bigger plan? As unsettling it sounds to news desk editors headline writers, uncontrollable scenarios involving Mother Nature's tempest are... uncontrollable. Hockeysticks don't die, they just get more corrupt. In the 6th dimension of Intergovernmental Climate Propaganda, which arrived last week, the long discredited Hockeystick is not just a sidenote, it's the very first graph the IPCC uses in their Summary for Powerful people (the ones who make policy). As per usual, hundreds of years of warmth has been retro-extinguished. Thousands of proxies around the world all deviated from the real temperature and non-randomly in the same direction. It's a conspiracy I tell you! Luckily the IPCC has found scientists who can correct these simultaneous errors of proxiness which mostly they do by just tossing out the results they don't like. They ignore whole series they don't like, delete the years that don't work for them, and flip that data upside down if they need to. And if that's not enough they use trees that grow larger rings when CO2 is higher. And when they are not deleting data, they're using the wrong trees. No one is even pretending anymore. They've done it all before and no one went to jail or even lost a job. The problem with climate change politics. The UN has been predicting planetary disaster for decades, usually scheduled to happen in about a decade's time. In 1972 — half a century ago — Maurice Strong, the first UN Environment Programme director warned that the world "had just 10 years to avoid catastrophe". In 1982 his successor, Mostafa Tolba, the then head of the UN Environment Programme told the world that it had just 18 years before "an environmental catastrophe as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust". Yet 2000 came and went and we just partied like it was 1999. As sea levels would rise, we were told that the Maldives islands would be under water over a decade ago, they're building more luxury hotels. We were told the source of the great Ganges River in the Himalayas, the glaciers, would have melted long ago. The great Ganges River still flows, and the glaciers are still there. The Australian Great Barrier reef would be dead, it is alive and thriving. We were told by the UN Food Programme in the sixties that Earth could not feed a growing population and that the future was bleak with much of humanity facing starvation. The earth's population has more than doubled since the sixties with fewer people in absolute poverty. Climate Scientists Admit Exaggerated Warming. [Scroll down] Some climate scientists, like Roy W. Spencer and Judith Curry, point out that many warming theories depend on computer models that are badly flawed. If the empirical, observational evidence — which Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman called "the key to science" — doesn't keep these theories standing, what does? It appears that it's the veneer of authority embodied in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, now scientists deeply embedded in the IPCC have admitted that the models exaggerate warming. They raise concerns about the implausibility of the exaggerated warming levels. Science noted, "But as climate scientists face this alarming reality, the climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist. Many of the world's leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast." These new admissions reaffirm findings in 2014 and 2019 that most models exaggerate warming — though the evidence is that they exaggerate not "a little" but a lot. Zombie chimps from heck. [Scroll down] Meanwhile, the Earth's temperature is determined by a star 93 million miles away radiating at 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and it is affected by the massive forces of ocean currents and atmospheric patterns. The Great Lakes were left behind when the massive ice covering of the northern hemisphere suddenly melted 15,000 years ago. Europeans lived and raised animals on Greenland until it got too cold around the 1700s. Climates change, near- and long-term. Man's generation of carbon dioxide, an inert molecule constituting less than one-twentieth of one percent of the atmosphere, is obviously not the critical determinant of the "global" climate. A quick data check reveals that CO2 levels rise and fall with cyclical regularity over millions of years and that the current rise began 15,000 years ago. Man, who contributes perhaps a tenth to natural CO2 levels, is but a wart on the giant frog of climate change. Still, the bosses would have us re-order the economic world and tear down — like superstitious primitives — a robust, multi-layered energy network in favor of costly and fragile "green" projects that cannot yet pass market muster on their own merits. Putting Climate Models On Trial. A number of North American cities have set record-high temperatures. But this is summer and that's not indisputable evidence that man's use of fossil fuels is overheating the planet. [...] If climate models were on trial — and they should be — that doubt would be magnified by a new post from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder, which confirms "models may overestimate warming." "Today's climate models are showing more warmth than their predecessors, forecasting an even hotter future for the same rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. But a paper published this week highlights how models may err on the side of too much warming: Earth's warming clouds cool the surface more than anticipated, the German-led team reported in Nature Climate Change," says CIRES. Jennifer Kay, a CIRES fellow and an associate professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at Colorado University, says "the increase in climate sensitivity from the last generation of climate models should be taken with a huge grain of salt." Climate Change for Christians. Presently, a naturalistic worldview dominates public policy on climate change, both in Washington and in many blue states. Modern naturalism posits that the universe evolved through random physical processes. This hypothesis entails that our Earth is extremely fragile and that man, often viewed as a clumsy Johnny-come-lately, could completely destroy it if he's not careful. [...] The biblical worldview (BWV) posits that God is the creator, sustainer, and ruler of all things, including the weather. [...] Christians go on to emphasize what all honest scientists admit: it is difficult to ascertain the precise causes of climate change. To say the recent warming trend is caused solely by man-made CO2 is simplistic and highly improbable. Ninety percent of greenhouse warming — so vital for life on Earth — is due to water vapor and clouds. As one scientist puts it, "CO2 is a bit player." Furthermore, most CO2 is generated by sunlight interacting with the oceans. Human activity accounts for a minuscule 5%. If our contribution were truly significant, why the constant fluctuations of the last 150 years? Physicist to Tucker Carlson: Climate Change Is 'Fiction of the Media,' Not an 'Existential Threat'. Democrats and their media lapdogs are rabidly hyping the bogus narrative that climate change is an imminent "existential threat" to mankind as part of a cynical move to promote left-wing agendas. That's the takeaway from a Fox News interview with physicist Steven Koonin, who offered scientific support to those who believe grifting climate alarmists are flippantly weaponizing this sham talking point to enrich and empower themselves. "It's a fiction of the media and the politicians who like to promote that notion," Koonin said on Fox Nation's "Tucker Carlson Today." Lest anyone dismiss Koonin as "right-wing," it bears pointing that he was undersecretary for science in former President Barack Obama's Department of Energy. The theoretical physicist and engineering professor is currently the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. Is Climate Change 'Science'? We are watching the rapid collapse of COVID-19 experts, like a house on a Malibu cliff after a heavy rain. Will the unsustainable hoax of climate change be far behind? [...] There has never been an empirical experiment to test whether CO2 causes a planet to be warmer. Have we tested Venus or Mars by removing some of the CO2 from those planets? No. Then we don't know what role CO2 plays. You can strongly believe it. But that's faith, not science. [...] The assertions of climate change are impossible to test. The Earth is too big. The atmosphere is too complex. There are too many forces at work, known and unknown. Science presumes that what cannot be confirmed is treated as false (for now). We cannot pretend we know things we don't know. Facebook Censored My Video Questioning Climate Change Alarmists. Whom does Facebook trust to censor content posted on its platform? A Ph.D. graduate from France. Really. The Frenchman, Emmanuel Vincent, started a fact-checking group he calls "Climate Feedback." It does "a new kind of fact-checking." It sure is new — and wrong. I released a video in which some climate scientists argue that climate change is not a "crisis." They believe people adjust to changing temperatures. [Video clip] The video features clips of a debate I moderated in 2019 at the Heartland Institute. Well, it was supposed to be a debate, but it turned into a panel when the 30 to 40 climate change alarmists Heartland invited did not show up. "It's warmed up around one degree Celsius since 1900 and life expectancy doubled in industrialized democracies," said panelist Pat Michaels, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. "And yet, that temperature ticks up another half a degree, and the entire system crashes. That's the most absurd belief." I included that clip in the video that Facebook then censored. More than 25 million people watched it on Facebook. The More Alarmists Talk, The More We Know Global Warming Is A Scam. It's said that conspiracies can't remain secret forever because someone eventually talks. This is certainly true of the global warming swindle. The climate fanatics have a habit of regularly revealing that they're running a racket. The most recent example occurred last month during a "Critical Climate Moment?" segment on CBS that featured its global warming "expert." When asked why an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius in global temperature has been determined to be a tipping point, the network's "climate specialist" admitted it's a "symbolic" figure. "Because, I mean, humans chose it, we chose 1.5, we chose 2 degrees," said meteorologist Jeff Berardelli, whose entire on-camera spiel was an exercise in fearmongering based on speculation. So there it is. A number pulled out of the ether. No (real) science behind it. A benchmark used to do nothing more than frighten the public — a Menckenian hobgoblin. Smart People Say Dumb Things: Bill Gates Edition. Bill Gates has written a book: How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. Unfortunately, the book is a disaster. He doesn't get past the introduction before making mistakes that negate the rest of the book. He claims Carbon Dioxide emissions must be reduced to zero to avoid a climate disaster. Assuming that CO2 can even cause a climate disaster, about half the CO2 emitted every year is reabsorbed by the Earth — by the oceans and by plants. Thus, you don't need zero, a fifty percent reduction would stop the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is vastly more difficult to cut out all emissions compared to cutting them in half. Gates claims we have to deploy solar and wind faster and smarter. I wrote a book about wind and solar with the title: Dumb Energy. There is no smart deployment of wind and solar. They are very dumb and very, very expensive. It is routine for solar to cost five times more than electricity from natural gas. Heavy solar deployment makes it even more expensive due to the use of auxiliary batteries. Gates says we need to create and roll out breakthrough technologies. That's called the pie in the sky. Do We Know Earth's Global Temperature? The next target of mainstream media propaganda is to convince the public that human industry is causing climate change. [...] I suggest laying the axe to the root: Humans have never actually measured the temperature of planet Earth. Let's just start with that. Is the Earth getting warmer, cooler, or staying the same? Without knowing the planet's overall temperature, we cannot say. Weather stations were never intended to measure global temperatures. They were designed and installed to assist ships and airplanes with navigation — not to measure the Earth on a planetary scale. The limits of scientific measurements must be kept in mind. Climate-Alarmist Junk Science and the Base-Line Fallacy. With the composite president known as "Joe Biden" pushing ahead with implementing the Green New Deal, the climate-alarmist industrial complex will be ramping up its propaganda to scare as many people as possible into believing that Planet Earth is about to burn up. [...] So now is a good time to explore the biggest fallacy of all underlying climate-alarmist junk science. This is the "base-line fallacy," which is a cousin of the statistical "base-rate fallacy"; both result from probabilistic errors when assessing the likelihood of scenarios based on the pattern of prior events. The "base-line fallacy" involves the selection of a starting-point in the dataset which conveniently omits confounding data, so that the conclusion reached is determined not by objective patterns in the whole dataset but by short-term trends in the partial snapshot of data used in the study. This outcome may be the result of an innocent error by the researchers, and peer-review should pick this up and cause it to be corrected. But this does not appear to have happened with climate-alarmist research. Instead, it is beyond doubt that the base-line fallacy is embedded in the research methodology of such studies and is actually normal practice. This is not credible science. It is political ideology masquerading as — at best — junk science. It's possibly the biggest intellectual fraud thus far in the history of science. The Left's Idea of a Happy Future. Liberals are fond of predicting the future, and their predictions, which are always dire, then become the pretext for more government. [...] Liberals are wrong about the future because their theories are based on ideology, not on the facts. Unlike conservatives, whose ideas are grounded on prudence and a clear view of human nature, liberals really have no conception of what drives human beings: their thinking is built on a handful of fixed ideas that can be traced to a number of shallow-minded philosophers including Rousseau, Malthus, Marx, Dewey, and Gore. What all of these thinkers have in common is the misconception that a centralized, planned economy can transform society into a utopia. In every case, they've been wrong. The Earth's population did not starve (Malthus); capitalism was not replaced with a socialist utopia (Marx); the earth has not been consumed by storm, drought, and rising seas (Gore). The Climate Headline The Legacy Media Wouldn't Dare Write. Barack Obama's undersecretary of energy for science has shattered the popular global warming narrative. If he had worked in the Trump administration, he'd be labeled a "denier" and hounded like a suspected witch in 17th century Massachusetts. But because he was an Obama appointee, the press simply ignores him. Steve Koonin, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology- and CalTech-educated physicist, said last week that "discussions of existential threat, climate crisis, climate disaster are really at odds with what the official science says in reports that are issued by the U.N. and the U.S. government." Shouldn't the press have picked up on this? Koonin, in an interview on Fox Business with Larry Kudlow, busted the tale that humans are wrecking the planet and endangering themselves through their fossil-fuel burning habits. The Politicization of Energy Policy Needs to Stop. Climate change isn't a scam, since climates are constantly changing. Climate action or deciding whether or not man is causing anthropogenic global warming is where the debate should take place. Trillions of dollars are being spent with no positive influence on emissions, pollution, or the climate since "nature as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming." Understanding the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate modeling is another point of contention distorting energy policies in the U.S. and globally. These models have repeatedly overestimated the amount of anthropogenic warming. The gap is far and wide between what is understood about the climate and the modeled outcomes. The IPCC has done a good job revealing warming is lower than previously thought, models are inadequate for setting energy policy void of politics, CO2 is food for plants and the earth, and natural disasters are not increasing. Patrick Moore and the Agenda of Fear. Politically motivated climate alarmists are using fear to gain control of human behavior and environmental resources and undermine free, prosperous societies. Dr. Patrick Moore, an ecologist and disillusioned cofounder of Greenpeace, exposes their agendas and false claims in his recent book Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom. [...] His latest book gives example after example to demonstrate that the "climate crisis" is fake news driven more by ideology than real science. He demolishes fallacious doomsday prophesies one by one. A chief characteristic of these scares is that they conveniently use data related to invisible (CO2, radiation) or remote (coral reefs, polar bears, walruses) entities that average citizens cannot validate through independent observation. For explication, the public is forced to rely on activists, the media, scientists, and politicians — all of whom have huge financial or professional stakes in propping up dubious catastrophic scenarios. Contrary to Biden's Executive Orders, There Is No Climate Crisis. The Biden administration has hit the ground running, issuing more than 50 executive orders in its first three weeks. Many of these orders have been aimed at reversing the environmental policies of the preceding administration. The United States is back under the strictures of the Paris climate accord, for instance, and the Keystone XL pipeline is now canceled. With the stroke of a pen, President Biden has put thousands of people out of work and halted the development of new oil and gas activity on federal lands. A week after the inauguration, another executive order made climate change an essential part of not only U.S. foreign policy but also national security policy. But none of this economic carnage or policy misdirection was necessary. These executive actions assume that the planet has little time left to avoid catastrophic change. But since the late 19th century, the global average temperature has risen a mere 1.2 degrees to 1.5 degrees Celsius. In addition, even if the goals of the Paris accord are met, global temperature increases would still only be on the order of 1.0 degree Celsius or so by the year 2100 — and that is being generous with the models. Why The Texas Blackout Has The Greens So Scared: Deflecting blame to a more exciting apocalypse. While the belief in man-made global warming rests on a scientific theory (rising carbon dioxide levels from burning fossil fuels will produce a large increase in water vapor, a greenhouse gas, raising the earth's temperature), no scientific theory underpins "climate change." The climate has shifted dramatically over time, clearly without benefit of human activity. Twenty thousand years ago, a mere moment in geologic time, what is now Chicago was buried under ice a mile thick. To pontificate about "climate change" is to give fake profundity to a silly statement of the obvious. Morano: Paris agreement is nonsense. "The U.N. Paris agreement, regardless of your views on the legality of the United Nations, will do nothing to 'save the climate,'" says Marc Morano, founder of Climate Depot. In November 2020, John Kerry, now a climate envoy to the Biden administration, said the Paris agreement was not enough to reduce emissions. "At Climate Depot today, I have a chart up that shows since every United Nations environmental/climate summit and treaty, emissions have continued to rise without the slightest care about what the UN declares, agrees to, makes people sign onto, or what anyone tries to comply with," Morano continues. "So it is just nonsense from beginning to end, but what it really does is it signals an end to the America First sort of foreign policy." Morano says America is now back into that "nightmare world of John Kerry being our ambassador and traveling around in luxury hotels via private jet negotiating bad deals for America." Climate
'Crisis' Or Leap Of Faith? Our Politicians Are Clueless. Governments are currently fighting climate change to the tune of
billions. For this to make sense, each idea in the following chain of reasoning needs to be bulletproof:
Are Record Temperatures Occurring More Often in the Conterminous United States? There has been a storm brewing in the US about a collection of short brochures published by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on climate change. Naturally attempts have been made by the warmist media and climate establishment to have them taken down, as they embarrassingly undermine the official dogma about climate emergencies. Is There a "Climate Emergency"? The word "emergency" means a crisis that threatens immediate harm unless urgent action is taken. "Climate change" refers to long slow variations in key features of our weather, such as 30-year averages of temperature and precipitation. It is only measurable over decades and centuries. Some of the changes can be beneficial and some can be harmful depending on how we adapt. Regardless of whether climate change is natural or human-caused, the words "emergency" and "crisis" do not apply. Book: Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom. [Description by the author:] "It dawned on me one day that most of the scare stories in the media today are based on things that are either invisible, like CO2 and radiation, or very remote, like polar bears and coral reefs. Thus, the average person cannot observe and verify the truth of these claims for themselves. They must rely on activists, the media, politicians, and scientists — all of whom have a huge financial and/or political interest in the subject — to tell them the truth. This is my effort, after 50 years as a scientist and environmental activist, to expose the misinformation and outright lies used to scare us and our children about the future of the Earth. Michael Mann Appeals to, Then Ignores Scientific Consensus on 60 Minutes. Prominent scientist and climate activist Michael Mann appealed to an asserted scientific consensus to chastise President Donald Trump on CBS's 60 Minutes program last night. Ironically, Mann himself ignored clear scientific consensus in order to promote his own, out-of-the-mainstream climate change theories. While interviewing Mann, CBS's Scott Pelley said, "There have always been fires in the West. There have always been hurricanes in the East. How do we know that climate change is involved in this?" Pelley followed up with, "The president says about climate change, 'Science doesn't know.'" Replied Mann, "The president doesn't know, and he should know better. He should know that the world's leading scientific organizations, our own U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and national academies of every major industrial nation, every scientific society in the United States that's weighed in on the matter. This is a scientific consensus. There's about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity." Mann's description of the conclusions of the "scientific consensus" however, is exactly the opposite of what scientific bodies report. 49 NASA Scientists Tell The Truth. Next time someone tells you that scientists all support the "dangerous climate change from CO2" hypothesis, point out to them that forty-nine former NASA scientists have written an open letter to NASA pointing out that NASA is hyping unsubstantiated and unverified claims about climate. Democrats, The Party Of Science (Fiction). Before the pandemic, Democrats called anyone who didn't kneel before the shrine of Al Gore and activist researchers trafficking in climate fear to be a "science denier," just as they will again once the coronavirus no longer dominates the headlines. "The Republican War on Science," written by journalist Chris Mooney, summarizes as well as any other rant the Democrats' contention that the political right is anti-science. The Publishers Weekly reviewer, no doubt eager to join the charge, said the tome "is the first to put the whole story, thoroughly documented, in one place." This is all rather funny, because the "science" the Democrats put their faith in is often little more than a set of baseless theories that fit their policy agenda. They treat their own share of "settled science" as if it's witchcraft. A Science Project in Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day. I challenge far left politician such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, all Democrats, journalists, entertainers, professors and scientists to look at the scientific data from the last 140 years and show any correlation between temperature and the other variables which are blamed for climate change. (There is none). For some reason the incurious media will never ask questions to justify the Democrats radical policies. I would also challenge everyone to look at the dire predictions from the last 100 years and find any that are true. I can't find any. How long do you wait for something to not happen? [Scroll down] A variation on this ploy is global warming. This one, they pushed out about twelve years. One refinement is to push it out twelve years today, twelve years from tomorrow, and always twelve years without ever starting the countdown. Another refinement of this technique is to run out the clock and claim that the efforts to avoid the catastrophe were successful or at least successful enough to avoid any obvious signs of our ultimate destruction. Another refinement in this line came after doom was predicted from global warming. After the initial prediction of disaster by global warming, nothing much happened. No warming. The brain trust quickly moved to climate change. Thus, any change, whether warming or cooling, was a sign that the end is near. Throwing cold water on hot climate models. The only climate model that agrees with observations says there is NO climate emergency. Meanwhile half of the IPCC models are getting hotter than ever before, hence getting further from reality than ever before. A modeling showdown is looming and CLINTEL is a leader among the climate critics. They make a strong plea that in the current health emergency any climate action should be put on hold. "Why construct a false climate crisis on top of a true corona crisis?" How Exactly Do They Plan to Ban Fossil Fuels? Forget the headlines and models, and look at hurricane, tornado, sea level and other historic records. There is no crisis, no unprecedented warming or weather events, certainly nothing that proves humans have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate changes and weather events. Climate Alarmists Knowingly Use False Advertising to Push Radical Action. Prior to the of the release of the Fifth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the purported human causes of climate change, researchers developed four different scenarios, referred to as, "Representative Concentration Pathways" (RCPs), to describe how carbon emissions might change through 2100. The most extreme of these scenarios, RCP8.5, projected a 500 percent increase in the use of coal, which it referred to as the "business as usual" scenario. IPCC projected RCP8.5 could result in a warming of more than 6 degrees Celsius by 2100, resulting in all manner of catastrophic consequences. More than 2,000 research papers, including U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) produced in late 2018 by holdovers from the former Obama administration, referenced RCP8.5, treating it as the most likely outcome of the present rate of human greenhouse gas emissions. The mainstream media counted these reports as authoritative and used them to shut any who disagreed with the IPCC's claims out of news reports covering climate change, saying continued debate was not just unjustified, but, because of the seriousness of the purported crisis, dangerous. The problem is RCP8.5 was never a likely outcome, and IPCC modelers knew this at the time they produced it. Latest Climate Report Feeds into Alarmist Fearmongering. The latest National Climate Assessment, released just last week, aims to plant yet another seed of climate catastrophism into the mind of the public. [...] But last year's National Climate Assessment on extreme weather tells a different story. As University of Colorado Boulder professor Roger Pielke Jr. pointed out in a Twitter thread in August 2017, there were no increases in drought, no increases in frequency or magnitude of floods, no trends in frequency or intensity of hurricanes, and "low confidence for a detectable human climate change contribution in the Western United States based on existing studies." It's hard to imagine all of that could be flipped on its head in a matter of a year. "Hottest" January? More Globaloney Bloviating from NOAA and the Media. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on February 13 issued a press release claiming "January 2020 was Earth's hottest January on record." Predictably, mainstream media trumpeted the news. ABC's treatment was typical. [...] So what we're seeing is more of the typical journalistic fearmongering, driven by politicized science in government agencies like NOAA. Global Warming In a Few Charts. Climate change hysteria has been dialed up to 11 over the last year or two. Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who knows little or nothing about the subject, apparently will continue being nominated for a Nobel Prize until she wins one. But, hype aside, what is actually going on with the Earth's climate? Anthony Watts offers seven charts that show the effects of the last decade of alleged global warming. The first one has to do with the beneficial effects of increasing CO2 — plant food — in the atmosphere. Climate Change Fears of Teen Activist Are Empirically Baseless. At a recent United Nations summit, 16-year-old activist Greta Thunberg claimed that the Earth is on the brink of destruction and that older generations are betraying younger ones by not doing enough to stop climate change. The media has amplified these allegations by giving her speech broad, glowing coverage. However, the fears she expressed are not grounded in reality. Thunberg says that she is "one of the lucky ones" who are not already "dying" from global warming and claims that with "today's emissions levels our remaining CO2 budget will be gone in less than 8.5 years." [...] Thunberg says her fears are justified by "more than 30 years" of "crystal-clear" science, but as detailed below, just the opposite is true. Contrary to predictions made three decades ago, a broad range of environmental and human welfare indicators related to the effects of climate change have stayed level or improved. Global Warming's 50 Years of Fraud. The theory for those pushing the green new deal or some other radical energy policy that will destroy tens of millions of jobs and greatly harm the poor and middle class is that humans, CO2, and fossil fuels cause warming and climate change. This warming causes the ice to melt in Alaska, then the melting ice causes sea levels to rise and the rising sea levels will cause coastal cities to under water. They have predicted the coastal cities to disappear for the last 100 years and they have been wrong for 100 years. Meanwhile, Alaska has been exceptionally cold for the last few months. As a nerd who knows that the people pushing the garbage theory of humans causing climate change is based on a series of lies, I look at actual data. It is a shame most of the media, entertainers and other Democrats just repeat talking points instead of doing research. Suppose a Prepper.... Climate change activists behave exactly like the preppers do. "The earth will be doomed if the global temperature rises 2 degrees C. Not only that, this will happen in 10 years, 2 months and 5 days. After all, this is settled science (whatever that is!). [...] Human beings are the smartest of all life on earth. We live in all sorts of climates. We build shelters to survive and live comfortably when the outside temperature is -30 degrees F. Air conditioning we invented copes with extraordinarily warm temperatures. But somehow, human beings are not smart enough to be able to find adaptations needed to cope with a 2 degree C increase in the global surface temperature? That is just incomprehensibly silly! 2019 Science Data Refutes Climate Alarm On Every Front. No alarm on every aspect: stable polar ice, normal sea-level rise, no consensus, growing snow cover, less tropical storms, tornadoes, shrinking deserts, global greening, predictions wrong, models flawed, climate-driven by the sun, ocean cycles, biodiversity, warmer 1000 years ago, etc. [...] These new findings show there is absolutely no climate alarm. [Numerous links] 3 degrees C? [Scroll down] While we complain about the 21st century 'weather' and now call them 'climate disasters', few of them have plausible arguments for being associated in any way with manmade climate change. Overall the weather in the early 21st century is relatively benign by the standards of the Little Ice Age or even the early 20th century. The slow creep of sea level rise started circa 1860, well before there was significant manmade global warming. Why I Am So Critical of Climate 'Science'? I've devoted my career to atmospheric science and am passionate about it. I don't wish to see all of the good we have accomplished put under a cloud by the global warming clique. The mainstream media has almost completely bought in to global warming alarmism which, in turn, has been spread by global warming 'experts' who know nothing about climate or how the atmosphere actually works. Climate Zealots, Firing Squads, And A Load Of Manure. The United Nations' 25th Conference Of The Parties climate summit ended Sunday with participants unable to agree on what are the media are calling "key" emissions targets. Some participants are blaming America's absence for the failure. The more sober-minded, though, are grateful President Donald Trump has no time for the global warming nonsense. Shouldn't
the media report how bad previous climate change predictions have been instead of participating in the indoctrination?
Here is a small sample of questions for politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, educators, [...] and people who pretend to be
journalists peddling the indoctrination and pushing the agenda.
The U.N. Is Holding Its 25th Climate Conference. Prince Charles has been predicting imminent doomsday for more than a decade, as has Al Gore. Before the conference began, Vice was trying to convince the world that "The Collapse of Civilization May Have Already Begun," while Extinction Rebellion has been barking madly that "billions will die" and "life on Earth is dying" because of man's use of fossil fuels. Despite decades of warnings that the end "is in sight," as the Competitive Enterprise Institute recently assured us, "none of the apocalyptic predictions" of environmental disaster "with due dates as of today have come true." As the conference's nominal host, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez took up the cudgel because there can be no meeting of the climate clan without an othering of the "deniers." "Luckily," said Sánchez, "only a handful of fanatics deny the evidence." What evidence would that be, Sr. Prime Minister? Of course he can't point to any evidence, because there is none. Global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate emergency, climate catastrophe, climate collapse or existential threat? It's another day and another dire warning from the UN. Of course, almost 100% of the media repeats these dire warnings in order to indoctrinate the public, especially the young, with no questions asked as the media pretends they are fact checkers. What is always missing from these articles and warnings is factual historical data. There are no statistics to show how little the temperature has changed the last 140 years, only made up numbers about the future. There are no statistics to show how little the sea levels have changed the last 140 years, only threats about the future. There are also no statistics on hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards or drought the last 149 years, only made up numbers about the supposed threat. Somehow, these supposedly educated journalists never point out how wrong previous predictions have been, but the solution is always to transfer freedom and trillions of dollars to bureaucrats and politicians throughout the World. Today we only have a few years left and the cost has gone up substantially. Climate-heating greenhouse gases hit new high, UN reports. The concentration of climate-heating greenhouse gases has hit a record high, according to a report from the UN's World Meteorological Organization. The jumps in the key gases measured in 2018 were all above the average for the last decade, showing action on the climate emergency to date is having no effect in the atmosphere. The WMO said the gap between targets and reality were both "glaring and growing". The rise in concentration of greenhouses gases follows inevitably from the continued surge in global emissions, which was described as "brutal news" for 2018. The world's scientists calculate that emissions must fall by half by 2030 to give a good chance of limiting global heating to 1.5C, beyond which hundreds of millions of people will suffer more heatwaves, droughts, floods and poverty. The Editor says... Pew: Religious Americans Distrust Clergy Advice on Climate Change. A full 68 percent of U.S. adults who attend religious services at least a few times a year say they have "a lot" of confidence in the advice of their clergy on growing closer to God, yet just a small fraction of this number (13 percent) say they have this confidence when the topic is climate change, Pew found. An Open Letter to Greta Thunberg. You have declared yourself a leader and said that your generation will start a revolution. You have comported yourself as a credentialed adult and climate change activist who has fearlessly addressed politicians and world leaders. You have dropped out of school and declared that there isn't any reason to attend, or any reason for you to study since there will be no future for you to inherit. You have, rather than attend your classes, been leading Friday Climate Strikes for all students in your generation across the globe. Your attendance at oil pipelines has been striking. There, you unequivocally declare that all oil needs to remain in the ground where it belongs. I shall, therefore, against the backdrop of your activism, address you as an adult rather than as a child. [...] Few can afford to cross the Atlantic in a $6M zero carbon yacht financed by rich people who made their wealth by the very means you condemn as loathsome. What you know about climate change is probably wrong. You might say I'm skeptical. Why? Partly because I paid attention during sixth-grade science and because there is sufficient evidence to suggest that many of the so-called "consensus" scientists have strong biases at best, and a hidden agenda at worse. In 2009, emails obtained (albeit by hackers) from scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia indicate that they had manipulated temperature data while voicing private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. More troubling though was what seemed to be a concerted effort by scientists to freeze out researchers and editors who expressed doubts about man-made climate change. So, is there a correlation between human activity and an increase in the amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere? Does an increased level of CO2 correlate with a rise in global temperatures? Are temperatures, in fact, rising globally? Did the IPCC predict a climate apocalypse? No.. Most of the findings in the SPM of this Special Report are of two kinds. First, stating that the effects of 1.5°C warming are less than those of 2.0°C warming. Pretty obvious, but it means little unless we know the effects of 2°C warming. It seldom quantifies the difference in effects from that extra 0.5°C warming, which is the key information necessary to know when assessing the cost-benefit of limiting the coming warming. Second, there are more specific findings — bad but not disastrous — given at a "medium" level of confidence. The IPCC uses five levels of confidence: very low, low, medium, high, and very high. "Medium" is a weak basis for extreme measures to restructure society and the global economy. Especially since it is human nature to overestimate confidence more often than to underestimate it. Quitting the Paris Climate Accord Is Trump's Most Important Achievement. While the case for man made global warming being a problem continues to get thinner and thinner, the powerful green propaganda machine has got correspondingly shriller, noisier and more aggressive. Almost every major Western economy has been bludgeoned and bullied and worn down into accepting the propaganda of the Climate Industrial Complex: that only through 'decarbonisation' — i.e., crippling the economy and consumers with green tariffs, regulations and expensive, unreliable, renewable energy — can the planet be saved from disaster. Only one Western nation has taken a stand against this dangerous nonsense and that is President Trump's USA. Climate Change Fears Of Teen Activist Are Empirically Baseless. At a recent United Nations summit, 16-year-old activist Greta Thunberg claimed that the Earth is on the brink of destruction and that older generations are betraying younger ones by not doing enough to stop climate change. [...] Thunberg says that she is "one of the lucky ones" who are not already "dying" from global warming and claims that with "today's emissions levels our remaining CO2 budget will be gone in less than 8.5 years." She frets that if we exceed this so-called budget, we risk "setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control." Such apocalyptic beliefs are common among young people. [...] Thunberg says her fears are justified by "more than 30 years" of "crystal-clear" science, but as detailed below, just the opposite is true. Contrary to predictions made three decades ago, a broad range of environmental and human welfare indicators related to the effects of climate change have stayed level or improved. Global Warming Honcho Shockingly Honest About Climate Change Policy. Most of my professional career has been in finance and accounting, but I also have a science degree. While I am not a practicing scientist, I know what it is about, I know its potential, and I have a very high regard for those people who dedicate their lives to digging deeper into the amazing world that we inhabit. I am also familiar, however, with how mathematics and statistics can be manipulated to give results that reflect the biases and goals of the manipulators. I am aware that summaries and conclusions don't always reflect the underlying science. Much of what we see on the news, from politicians, or from business is not truth, but rather stories, true or not, filtered through the biases of the presenter. If everyone was more skeptical, the world would be a better, more honest place. Dozens of Failed Climate Predictions Stretch 80 Years Back. Apocalyptic climate and environmental catastrophes of global proportions have decimated the world many times over in recent decades — at least based on dozens of predictions made by various scientists, experts, and officials over the past 80 years. Newspaper clippings documenting the predictions were recently published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Many of those were first collected by geologist and electrical engineer Tony Heller, who frequently criticizes — on his RealClimateScience.com website — what he considers fraud in the current mainstream climate research. The predictions, some going as far back as 1930s, not only at times contradict each other, but sometimes foretell the same imminent catastrophe repeatedly for years, even decades, seemingly undeterred by past failures. Global Warming Fraud. One of my friends back in Missouri has caught Trump Derangement Syndrome and along the way has joined the AGW religion. He told me that the last five years have been the warmest on record and of course it has been caused by humanity. This doesn't really surprise me since he gets all of his news from MSDNC. He used to be a lot smarter than this. I found this wonderful video at Zero Hedge that documents how the climate alarmists cherry pick data to convince us that the planet is coming to an end. Take the time to watch the whole thing. It will be worth it. [Video clip] Ted Cruz destroys Chris Hayes on Climate Change. On Saturday [9/28/2019] Ted Cruz sat down with Chris Hayes for a one hour discussion on a myriad of topics at the 2019 Texas Tribune Festival. One of those topics was Climate Change and I must say Ted Cruz wiped the floor with Hayes who was just no match for him: [Video clip] 'There is no climate emergency,' Hundreds of scientists, engineers tell U.N.. Lost amid the coverage of Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg at last week's U.N. Global Climate Summit were the 500 international scientists, engineers and other stakeholders sounding a very different message: "There is no climate emergency." The European Climate Declaration, spearheaded by the Amsterdam-based Climate Intelligence Foundation [CLINTEL], described the leading climate models as "unfit" and urged UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to pursue a climate policy based on "sound science." "Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy," said the Sept. 23 letter signed by professionals from 23 countries. Climate Scientists Write To UN: There Is No Climate Emergency. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation. Top-level climate modeler goes rogue, criticizes 'nonsense' of 'global warming crisis'. A highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials has rejected the unscientific bases of the doom-mongering over a purported climate crisis. His work has not yet been picked up in this country, but that is about to change, Writing in the Australian site Quadrant, Tony Thomas introduces the English-Speaking world to the truth-telling of Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. Steve Milloy Contradicts Climate Alarmists on Plastic Straw Bans, Eating Meat. Steve Milloy, founder of Junk Science website, spoke to Breitbart News Sunday, countering climate alarmists' proposals that would force Americans to stop eating meat and ban plastic straws. Host Matthew Boyle spoke with Milloy regarding the climate change activists' "strike" to force America to adopt more radical climate change programs. Milloy contended that the left's climate politics serve as a cynical ploy for more control over Americans' lives.
Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions. Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science. More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science. While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited. Time to Put an End to the Climate Cult.
The climate cult has gotten out of hand. It now threatens to prevail in politics by convincing the ignorant that the science is settled. Anybody who
has a basic understanding of the science knows that it is not settled. A number of inconvenient facts seriously undermine the idea that catastrophic global
warming caused by humans is about to overwhelm us. Here are three of them:
Michael Mann's Tree-Ring Circus. This has been a tough week for climate hustler Michael Mann, who lost his defamation and libel lawsuit against respected climatologist and warming skeptic Dr. Tim Ball at the same time it was announced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that there has been no U.S. warming since 2005. Mann, who poses as a climatologist at Penn State, has had his court case against genuine climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball dismissed, with Mann ordered to pay court costs, for failure to produce supporting evidence to prove his claim that global temperatures took a sharp upward turn when the Industrial Revolution and fossil-fuel use began pouring CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. He didn't because he can't, and the fact is that the global warning he speaks of is Mann-made, a fantasy based on a career of perpetrating climate fraud, as indicated by NOAA's report that there hasn't been any U.S. warming for nearly a decade and a half and maybe even beyond that. Democrats dump climate change debate, recognizing how badly it will bomb with voters. If you want to win an election, yelling about global warming and blaming air conditioners, cars, plastic straws, and jets — while jetting in to do it — is probably not the best way to sell it to voters. [...] We all know what was really going on here: Global warming may excite the Democratic Party's base, but it's an absolute loser of an issue to the broader base of voters, ranking down there at the absolute bottom of voter priorities according to polls, meaning, the audience for this one's likely to be composed of viewers mainly there to see if there are outrageous statements to tweet out. With each crazy claim coming as each Democrat tries to outdo the next one, there's little doubt they'll repel voters. The Great Global Warming Hoax.
There is No 'Climate Emergency!' Speaking at the 13th International Conference on Climate Change held on July 25th in Washington, D.C., Dr. Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville said, "There is no climate crisis. There is no climate emergency. Even if all of the warming we've seen in any observational data set is due to increasing CO2 (carbon dioxide), which I don't believe it is, it's probably too small for any person to feel in their lifetime." Yet, on July 9, Reuters News Agency reported "Democratic lawmakers, including six presidential candidates, on Tuesday unveiled a Congressional resolution declaring a climate change emergency to spur 'sweeping reforms' to stem a dangerous rise in global temperatures. Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice". A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies. Climate Scientists and Warmist Journalists Have No Integrity. At this point, you are probably wondering, do ideologically compliant climate scientists and warmist journalists have any integrity at all? In light of the latest barrage of global warming propaganda, Tony Heller of Real Climate Science provides the definitive answer: [Video clip] Fortunately for leftists, they control the media. The Fake Science of Global Warming. The debate over global temperature trends rages on numerous levels, and the alarmists are getting the worst of it pretty much everywhere. Actual science is winning over "climate science." Heat Wave Hysteria? Climate activists seem to ignore the fact that nature tries to find a balance. If they took note of equilibrium, they wouldn't be fretting over this heat wave, simply because there's reasonably cool temperatures relative to average out west to balance it all out in the total picture. Another thing that really annoys me with these people is that they get anxious because the weather is not "normal," and by normal they mean climatologically "normal." Most people, even those who aren't fascinated by the weather like me, understand that "normal" weather rarely happens. It's usually one extreme or the other; hot or cold, warm or cool. Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: Climate Change is 'not a clear and present danger'. Dr. Judith Curry is a climatologist, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and president of Climate Forecast Applications Network. She is in the forefront of the climate skeptic movement, often drawing fire from others in the scientific community. Dr. Curry and Anthony Watts discuss her experience within the scientific community, changes in sea-level and how climate change is not a clear and present danger. [Video clip] 25 Simple Bullet Points Proving CO2 Does Not Cause Global Warming. [#2] IPCC's very existence relies on public belief in manmade or 'anthropogenic' global warming (AGW) by CO2 emissions. [...] [#4] 'Climate change denier' & 'global warming denier' are despicable & dishonest terms for 'AGW doubters'. No educated person disputes global warming, as thermometers measured 1°C rise from 1850 to 2016 (with pauses). [#5] The 'Greenhouse Hypothesis', on which IPCC's belief in AGW is based, is that atmospheric gases trap heat. But this old (19th century) notion is merely an idea, not a hypothesis, because it is untestable, impossible to prove in a laboratory as no experimental container can imitate Earth's uncontained, well-mixed atmosphere. Endless Failure Of Climate Doomsday Tales. On June 29, 2017, the Dailymail in UK ran an article headlined "Four years to save the Earth: 2020 is the deadline to avert climate catastrophe, experts claim in chilling commentary." Two years later and halfway to deadline, the earth has not changed much. If anything, the El Niño of the 2016-17 season gave way for much cooler temperatures across the globe and the past two years have been colder than 2016. This is just one of the many climate doomsday news articles that gets published in our mainstream news media every single day. Trump Saves Us From Prince Charles, Mitt Romney, and Global Warming Foolishness. The Wall Street Journal says "some Republican lawmakers" are breaking with their "party on climate change." These congressmen "favor market-based solutions over government regulations." "Solutions" implies that there's a problem. Can these GOP lawmakers clearly identify the problem? Where's the evidence that human-produced carbon dioxide emissions are warming Earth? With what degree of certainty can any politician, scientist, or activist say that man is causing the climate to change in ways that threaten him? 100%? No one can say this. 75%? No serious person would make such a claim. 50%? A 50-50 chance simply isn't worth the known costs of carbon taxes and other mitigation proposals (Green New Deal, for instance). 25%? No serious person should consider such low odds to be grounds for making significant policy changes — the unknown is too great. The Summer of Climate Change Discontent. Climate change will be another source of discontent for Democrats as their predictions once again get buried under a snowpack of reality. My local paper, the left-wing Denver Post, reports: "Water content of Colorado's snowpack raises flood concerns, with levels peaking at 728 percent in the San Juans." Imagine that, snowpack over seven times more than normal. How can that be with global warming broiling the planet, with only a decade before Earth burns to a crisp, at least according to a former bartender from the Bronx. UN hysteria linking climate change and species extinction mindlessly parroted by media. Then there were all those looming disasters projected by scientists on the first Earth Day almost fifty years ago. A quick summary: We would all be dead by 1985 to 2000. (I would ask Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez what she thinks of that one.) We would be out of food either in the 1970s or 1980s. During the 1980s, four billion people would die, including 65 million in the U.S. By 1980, urban dwellers would have to wear gas masks to survive. Soon, none of our land will be usable because of too much nitrogen. The rivers will be out of oxygen, and freshwater fish will all be gone. By 1995, 75% to 80% of species will be gone. And ecologist Kenneth Watt said, because we were going into an ice age, that the Earth would be four degrees cooler by 1990 and eleven degrees colder by 2000. I thought CO2, humans, and fossil fuels caused warming and it was a consensus, so how did anyone predict a coming ice age? It's about time to review the evidence for man-made global warming. Some people seem to think man-made global warming has been proven. Others believe there's no evidence that man-made warming exists. Neither is correct. Evidence exists, but, as people familiar with courts of law will know, what's submitted as evidence is not automatically proof. Hypothesis: Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age. [Scroll down] There is NO credible scientific evidence that climate is highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2, and ample evidence to the contrary. Catastrophic human-made global warming is a false crisis. Competent scientists have known this fact for decades. In a written debate in 2002 sponsored by APEGA and co-authored on our side by Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson and me, we concluded: "Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming — the alleged warming crisis does not exist." "The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply — the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels." Many scientific observations demonstrate that both these statements are correct-to-date. The current usage of the term "climate change" is vague and the definition is routinely changed in the literature, such that it has become a non-falsifiable hypothesis. It is therefore non-scientific nonsense. Fake Climate Science and Scientists. Real science — and real scientists — seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and experimental data. [...] The last thing fake/alarmist climate scientists want is a full-throated debate with real climate scientists — a debate that forces them to defend their doomsday assertions, methodologies, data manipulation — and claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less that 0.02% of Earth's atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%). There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations. A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation[.] Climate change activists are filled with hysteria, hot air. There are Holocaust deniers, most of whom are Democrats these days. Then there are climate deniers. These are usually teenagers who wear shorts outside when it is below freezing. Or old ladies who wear fur coats during summer months. And then there is the mix of the two — perhaps the dumbest of the lot: the famed history deniers. These are people who fell off the back of a turnip truck two weeks ago and believe history began the moment they had their first conscious thought. These people also, often, happen to be Holocaust deniers and are, especially, climate deniers. They are forever holding anti-global warming rallies when it inexplicably snows outside. Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw: Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion. William Happer is one of the most important scientists in the United States. He is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton and a long-serving adviser to the federal government. His scientific discoveries and inventions are extensive. Currently, he serves in the White House as a senior adviser to the National Security Council. The Trump administration is thinking of forming a "Presidential Committee on Climate Security." The press has been told to direct questions to Dr. Happer. That is enough to bring out the climate hyenas. They can't stand the thought that Trump might have some solid scientific advice concerning climate change. The hyenas are running an all-out attack against Dr. Happer. Following Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, the camp followers of the global warming industry try to create polarization. The Left vs. Logic. From its inception the global warming farce was troubled by the lack of information. In order to know what the average temperature actually is we have to measure everywhere — tops of mountains, middle of oceans, the steppes of Russia, the jungles of the Amazon. The temps also should be at ground level, not up in the stratosphere. And we need data from all four seasons, night and day, rain or shine. We need to factor in cloud cover, etc. Since most sampling stations are located in heavily populated areas, that variation has to be factored in as well. And then we need similar data from hundreds of years ago. The best we could do was computer models and they haven't proven reliable. We need empirical adequacy to know what is going on here and we don't have it. Correction Issued for Alarming Ocean Temperature Paper. Researchers with the University of California at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University issued a correction to their widely publicized study which had raised fears of a rapid increase in the Earth's temperature. The study published in Nature on October 31 claimed ocean temperatures have risen roughly 60 percent more than the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated. Independent climate researcher Nicholas Lewis discovered significant methodological flaws in the paper. The authors admitted their error after Lewis and others publicized his findings. Lysenkoism and Climate Science Heresy. Science has evolved a whole system of publication, peer-review, and challenge-and-review around the effort to make sure that scientific results can be trusted. Not "proven" in the sense most people understand the word, but at least trusted, and it depends on that famous Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify." For science to work, for us to be able to both trust and verify, disagreements must be published and discussed openly. In the Soviet Union, under Lysenko, that was no longer the case, and Soviet science suffered from it for decades. Sadly, it's not always true in the United States either. Delingpole: Twelve Debunked Climate Scares We Can Laugh at in 2019. 2019 won't be the year the climate change scare finally dies, unfortunately. But the people pushing it will look increasingly desperate, sad and piteously short of evidence to support their junk science theories. Here, courtesy of the Global Warming Policy Forum, are the top twelve climate scares debunked in 2018. Share it with your alarmist friends to wish them a happy, sceptical New Year. Recently Dropping Global Temperatures Demonstrate IPCC Claims are Impossible. When you put the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in perspective, you get a very different picture that defies logic. I decided to do this because of their recent hysterical claims in Special Report 15 (SR-15) designed to frighten and bully the world into completely unnecessary and enormously expensive environmental and energy policies. [...] Even some members of the IPCC admit it is not about climate but involves an excuse for ideological actions such as a transfer of wealth. However, the majority of the IPCC and its proponents would disagree. They would claim the concern and demand for action are based on science set out in the AR5 Working Group I Report, The Physical Science Basis. Well, let's examine what they say. [...] Climate Nonsense. The USGCRP has just released another report that has been trumpeted by the mainstream media as showing that increased risk and peril are upon us. According to report, "The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) ... provides a detailed analysis of how climate change is affecting the physical earth system across the United States." The report is long on a scary narrative but short on clear supporting factual data. It claims the "Earth's climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities. The impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future." If we are to believe this narrative, temperatures are climbing at an unprecedented rate, hurricanes are becoming more severe, and sea level rise is increasing and represents a greater threat to coastal areas — all of which represent an unprecedented risk. [...] NOAA's Hurricane Data Center publishes hurricane data as far back as 1850. These data completely contradict the report's assertions. The Left Favors Global Warming. The environmentalists' claim that the earth will soon reach an irreversible, disastrous tipping point if dramatic action to halt man-caused warming is not taken immediately is utterly ridiculous. To begin with, there is no scientific proof of a "tipping point," nor is any "proof" possible. The notion of a tipping point is merely a totally unsubstantiated assertion that has entered the climate dialog in remarkable coincidence to the nonfulfilment of past years' predictions of warming-induced calamity and devastation. Shorelines have not crept miles inland, wiping out cities, ports and civilization along the way. Manhattan is still not underwater despite ABC's risible 2008 claim. Pestilence and disease are not on the rise. If the undefined notion of a "tipping point" is valid, it would appear that we we're not even remotely close to reaching it. Environmentalists, of course, are symptomatic of the fundamental problem with Democratic Party politics as practiced today: In order for their party to be successful, there has to be a victim group in need of their "rescue." The UN's Terrifying, But Ever-Receding, Human-Caused Climate Catastrophe. For years I assigned statistics students to pick any apocalyptic climate claim in the media and trace it back through the UN reports to its genesis in a scientific study. I knew they would discover that these reports are not scientific documents based on the peer review process, but political documents "approved by governments" and intended to scare the public into supporting constraints on the production and use of energy. A powerful publicity machine magnifies the alarm, bombarding citizens with exaggerations and claims of certainty that are proven wrong as you dig down to their underlying scientific studies. Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People. I sometimes get asked for a concise and accessible summary of my skeptical views on global warming. After a year or more of thinking and writing, my new Kindle book Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People is meant to fill that need. As a bonus, I guarantee it will be easier to understand than Neil deGrasse Tyson's Astrophysics for People in a Hurry. At nearly 32,000 words with 40 high-res illustrations it's more comprehensive than my previous Kindle books, but still readable in about 2-3 hours. The book is not meant to cover all of the skeptical views out there, but rather everything that I believe is most important to the global warming and energy policy debate. The Childish Antics of Global Warming Alarmists. Yes, climate change is real. I agree. So does every significant skeptic of the idea of dangerous human-induced climate change I know of, people like S. Fred Singer, Roy W. Spencer, John Christy, Judith Curry, David Legates, Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Neil Frank, Joseph D'Aleo, Joe Bastardi — the list of skeptics whose professional accomplishments as climate scientists meet or exceed those of every signer of the letter could go on and on. After 30 Years Of Data, Global Warming Alarmism Is Proven False. It has been 30 years since the specter of global warming began to loom before the world. It was 1988 when James Hansen, a scientist at NASA, first testified before Congress about the supposed link between the greenhouse effect and observed global warming. Al Gore was late to the party when he released his Oscar-winning movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," in 2006. With three decades of predictions about warming to look back on, we can now assess the accuracy of those early claims about global warming. Physics Proves Climate Concerns Overblown, Book Shows. With Global Warming Temperatures and Projections, MIT- and Princeton-educated physicist William Lynch, who ended his career as director of prestigious Bell Labs, provides a thorough analysis of the roles of carbon dioxide and water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere. Lynch rigorously applies physics and mathematical modeling to understand the greenhouse effect, with the intention of calming peoples' fears that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will create runaway climate change. Antarctic Temperature Data Challenges Warming Claims. Antarctica, considered by many climate alarmists to be a harbinger of future climate conditions for the rest of the globe, apparently is not warming as fast as the doomsayers thought. In fact, it may not be warming at all, with data suggesting that the continent was much warmer than it is now a century ago. The Japanese Meteorological Agency's research outpost, Showa Station in Antarctica's Queen Maud Land, reports a slight cooling trend, even as atmospheric CO2 levels rose sharply from 1985 until 2017, according to Japanese climate blogger Kirye. But lest you think this is some sort of Japanese climate denial scheme, there are other examples. The Australian research outpost Davis Station also reports no warming trend in six decades. Scientist Andy Oz tweeted, "Australia's Antarctic bases have no trend in temperatures over past 60 years." Climate Scientists Mount Misleading Attack On IBD Editorial About Global Warming. Various climate scientists took issue with our editorial on climate change that highlighted a new study regarding nitrogen in rocks, saying it misrepresented the study. The criticism appears on Climate Feedback, a website that has taken it upon itself to critique news and commentary on global warming issues. But right off the bat, the "fact check" misrepresents what we said. The Climate Feedback headline reads: "Investor's Business Daily editorial misrepresents study to claim plants will prevent dangerous climate change." That's not what we said at all. The headline in our editorial says the study "could" render doomsday forecasts obsolete. There's an important distinction between "could" and "will." And we weren't referring to "dangerous climate change" — whatever that means — but the end-of-the-world predictions that climate scientists have been making for decades. Thus, the word "doomsday." The New EPA And Why The Radical Left Is Losing It. In just over a year as EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt has worked with the president to roll back dozens of needless regulations that will save America's manufacturing and energy sectors billions annually. Most recently the Pruitt EPA announced how his agency will take much more realistic view of how the automobile industry can work with government regulators to reduce vehicle emissions. Liberals and green activists immediately cried foul — making chicken little claims of how the sky will immediately fall. The truth is for many years EPA has issued regulations and mandates by bureaucrats who are completely ignorant of how real businesses and industry sectors operate or the compliance costs they already must endure. What's even more appalling is how these bureaucrats blatantly ignored or distorted inconvenient facts in conjuring up their suffocating, anti-growth decrees. Global Warming: The Evolution of a Hoax. [Scroll down] The only real proof of the scientific theory was computer models, programmed to assume that increasing carbon dioxide was the most important factor driving climate. One of those who objected to the "predetermined" conclusions of such models was Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His 1992 paper pointed out that the models ignored other important factors that would have had cooling effects — namely, water vapor, cloud cover, and oceans. Lindzen also noted that global temperatures had risen in the 1920s and 1930s, when carbon dioxide emissions were comparatively low, but fell back between 1940 and the 1970s, when emissions were rising much more steeply. In Startling Reversal, Scientific American Counsels People to 'Chill Out' over Global Warming. Apocalyptic scenarios attributed to global warming are simply false and the human race will be able to accommodate whatever "climate change" throws at us, claims a remarkably sober new essay in Scientific American. The essay, penned by John Horgan, the director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, analyzes two recent reports by "ecomodernists" who reject climate panic and frame the question of climate change and humanity's ability to cope with it in radically new terms. How Do Liberals Flunk Science? Let Us Count the Ways. One of the easiest jobs in the world has to be that of climate doomsayer. No matter the weather, the climate kooks can scream, "Man-made global warming!," and the faithful will follow with a hearty "Amen!" In spite of the folly and the pseudo-science behind the man-made global warming movement, time and again, the modern left insists that it is conservatives — especially Christian conservatives — who have abandoned science and reason. Roger Pielke Jr. describes the decay of climate science. There are a number of very prominent examples of the flouting of scientific norms within the climate community. It is not the sort of discussion that gets you onto Christmas Card lists, but it is easy to list leaders in the community who've decided that expected norms of behavior don't apply to them: [...] Another Global Warming Study Casts Doubt On Media's Climate Change Fairy Tale. With climate change activists and the big media still in high dudgeon over President Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Deal, yet another study shows no acceleration in global warming for the last 23 years. Piece by piece, the church of global warming is being dismantled. The Never Ending Climate Hustle. The climatistas and their toadies in the media can't stop scratching their heads and asking/demanding why conservatives/Republicans refuse to credit "the science" about climate change. Maybe because of articles like the one in the New York Times today [11/20/2017], which makes clear that the left sees climate change as an excuse for a massive political power grab: [...] The Great Climate Hoax Challenged by 31,000 Scientists. [Scroll down] While the liberal left will tell you there is a scientific consensus on Climate Change (and consensus is definitely not the way science works), the reality is that there are over 31,000 scientists who say that global warming is a total hoax. The scientists in question have decided enough is enough, and have united against the political agenda of global warming. The scientific consensus supporting the concept of man-made Climate Change includes over 9,000 scientists (less than a third as many of those who are denying the reality of man-made Climate Change). The "deniers" have decided the hoax has gone long enough and are now speaking out against the hoax of global warming and how global agreements to limit greenhouse gases are actually destructive to all plant and animal life on the planet. A petition has been put into play, and includes important peer-reviewed research. The research is backed by various scientists with a wide spectrum of expertise, and serves as a warning to the United States against signing international treaties that only put a financial burden on the citizens of the country, steal national sovereignty, and restrict its energy production. The global warming alarmism, in other words, is pseudo-warfare designed to take down a country.
Is the Earth's Climate History Largely a Fraud? Liberals want us to turn control of our economy over to them, not because their stewardship has been successful in the past — heh — but because if we don't, the Earth faces imminent climate catastrophe in the form of global warming. Some (e.g., liberal reporters) accept such claims uncritically, while the rest of us want to see evidence. In this debate, there are two types of evidence. The first is the raw material of science, observation. The second is climate models created by alarmists for the purpose of generating scary scenarios. Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with science understands that observation (type 1) trumps theory (type 2). Which is a serious problem for the left-wing warmists, since temperature records show that their models are wrong. How have liberals chosen to deal with this conundrum? By admitting that their theory, as embodied in their models, was wrong? Don't be silly. They control pretty much all of the Earth's historic temperature records, so they have changed them to make their theory look more credible — although, even with their adjustments and "corrections," it still fails. Former NASA GISS climate scientist tells new NASA head to stop funding "corrupt, carpet-baggers". A new incendiary blog by Dr. Duane Thresher and Dr. Claudia Kubatzki unleashes on NASA Goddard Institute (one of the two main motherlodes of climate activism), calling for them to be defunded because they are "ignoble", with "herds of do-gooders", and "NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that truly should be torn down. Take the money and buy a rocket." They are a husband and wife team, both producing peer-reviewed climate papers. He worked at NASA GISS for seven years. Since they came out as skeptics in California, they've had to move house. Climatologist, Former NASA Scientist: 'Houston Flood Not Sign of Climate Change'. Houston is underwater after being slammed with rain brought to shore by Hurricane Harvey. Officials say it could be weeks before the roads are traversable. While the mainstream media and other alarmists are eagerly pegging human-caused global warming on the rising waters, others are saying, "Not so fast." One of them is climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. Going Medieval on global warming. Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, is a skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. She wrote of her work in trying to determine temperatures centuries ago. It is tedious work, undermined by zealots like Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, who admitted to fudging facts — "hide the decline" — in emails made public in 2009. Big data finds the Medieval Warm Period — no denial here. Using the proxy record from the Northern Hemisphere composite, decomposing this through signal analysis and then using the resulting component sine waves as input into an ANN, John Abbot and I generated forecasts for the period from 1830 to 2000. Our results show up to 1°C of warming. The average divergence between the proxy temperature record and our ANN projection is just 0.09 degree Celsius. This suggests that even if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century — to at least 1980, and of almost 1°C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, relying on General Circulation Models, and giving us the Paris Accord, also estimates warming of approximately 1°C, but claims this is all our fault (human caused). Stephen Hawking and the Temple of Dooms. Hawking made headlines in July by claiming "Donald Trump could turn Earth into Venus-like planet with 250C and sulphuric acid rain." In the case of the global warming into Venus idea, it was quickly debunked: There simply isn't enough CO₂ to do the job, and the Paris Accords would have in any case only reduced the total warming by 0.2 percent. If they were really followed. A notion for which there is little evidence. It's similar for the other two Dooms. Scientists Discover Atmospheric Pressure, Not 'Greenhouse Gases' Cause 'Greenhouse Effect'. Scientists Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller have a unique and extremely elegant peer-reviewed and published research paper entitled 'New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model' that proves that the accused Greenhouse Gases (Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Water Vapor (H2O), etc.) are actually innocent of the mistaken claims that they are the cause of Climate Change and the 'Greenhouse Effect'. Their work comes out of left field; it provides a shocking new paradigm heretofore unbeknown to science; it is physically plausible, and it proves beyond a doubt in principle that greenhouses [sic] gases cannot cause, the global warming observed since 1850. In other words the paper offers scientific proof that humans are NOT responsible for climate change on Earth. Defeat rather than disclosure for Michael Mann. How [condemnatory] must the "data" be to his assertions concerning "climate change" in general and his reputation as an honest scientist if Professor Michael Mann would rather face the loss of his cases in Canada and mandatory punitive court damages rather than let said data be seen in open court? Would you trust someone who did this? Global Warming Skepticism is Part of the Final Phase of the American Revolution. [Scroll down] Marshall McLuhan's global village was realized through the electronic village of the Internet. The power of the Internet and thereby its threat to the power elite who want total government control. The mainstream media and their political masters were end run by the people ignoring them and seeking facts evidence and information from fellow citizens. Internet success and power were confirmed when the power elite and media tried to participate by creating websites. [...] For the first time in history, the people had access to and control of information. Study Blows 'Greenhouse Theory Out of the Water'. A new scientific paper contends the entire foundation of the man-made global-warming theory — the assumption that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere by trapping heat — is wrong. If confirmed, the study's findings would crush the entire "climate change" movement to restrict CO2 emissions, the authors assert[.] [...] The paper argues that concentrations of CO2 and other supposed "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere have virtually no effect on the earth's temperature. They conclude the entire greenhouse gas theory is incorrect. Inventor Of Fraudulent Temperature 'Hockey Stick' Is Humiliated In Canadian Court. Penn State climate scientist, Michael 'hockey stick' Mann commits contempt of court in the 'climate science trial of the century.' Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann's humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S. 5 Prominent Scientists Skeptical of Climate Change. We're often told that the science on global warming is "settled." Our planet is warming, humans are the primary or sole cause, and something must be done or our planet will soon look like this. But is that really the case? As it turns out, many distinguished scientists are not on board with this assessment. Here are five distinguished scientists who take issue with the notion that the science on climate change is "settled." [...] Global Warming: The Imminent Crisis That Never Arrives. [Scroll down] But we have neither the space nor time to rack up all the missed global warming predictions. So we will merely point out that instead of these disasters, we have the climate alarmist community admitting that there has indeed been a pause in the warming and that its models failed to predict it. Yes, that's right. The alarmists are acknowledging in the abstract of a research paper that was published this month in Nature Geoscience that there have been "differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates." "In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble," wrote the climate scientists led by "climatista" Benjamin Santer and including the litigious Michael Mann, purveyor of the hockey-stick graph that supposedly proves human-produced carbon dioxide is overheating the planet. Paris Climate Agreement Wasn't Going to Save the Planet. Committing plans to paper does not mean actually fulfilling them. India, for example, has been praised for developing "the most ambitious renewable energy program in the world." It involves generating 40 percent of its installed electric power capacity from renewables. That includes 100 gigawatts of solar capacity that, Pearce points out, would be equivalent to replacing 100 large conventional power plants. But whether India, literally half of whose 1.3 billion-strong population lacks rudimentary access to electricity, will stick to this plan given its vast coal reserves is an open question. Indeed, India's leaders are notorious for saying one thing to the world and doing something quite different, even when it's in their country's interest to stick to their word. 'Global Warming' Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017. By "global warming" these papers don't, of course, mean the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that. Rather, they mean "global warming" in the sense that is most commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, and huxter politicians, and scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed mainstream media (MSM) environmental correspondents. "Global warming" as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown. Freakout in Paris. Here is another contender for most over-the-top reaction to President Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord. Francois Hoisbourg, described as a French defense expert who advised President Macron during his campaign, said: ["]We have just witnessed President Trump putting an end to European-American relations.["] Something must have been lost in translation — sanity. [...] Are the Indians and the Chinese going to intervene militarily to protect NATO countries, as the U.S. is committed by treaty to doing? Of course not. But on the subject of climate change, India and China are the nations the Europeans should be working with. They are "problem children." Good luck working with them in any meaningful way, though. Watch As Rand Paul Totally Levels Through Every Global Warming Talking Point! President Trump was absolutely doing the right thing when he pulled the US out of the monstrous Paris Climate Accord. That agreement would have cost the US in excess of $3 trillion over the next few years. It is a massive wealth redistribution scheme that benefited countries such as India, Iran and China. Those last two are enemies of ours and China is the biggest polluter on the planet. Paul is also correct in saying it would have cost us 6 million jobs. It's a Ponzi scheme that would have destroyed us economically, period. The Scientific Argument against the Paris Climate Agreement. The Paris Agreement is based upon a fundamental misconception of climate history and science. The objective is to hold temperatures to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, and to "pursue efforts" to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The key misconception is that all of the warming since the Industrial Revolution — 0.9 degrees Celsius — is a result of human activity. [...] If, as the Paris Agreement erroneously assumes, all of the warming of 0.9 degrees is a result of human activity, there is no way that the aspirational goal of 1.5 degrees can ever be met. Thanks to the huge thermal inertia of the ocean, current models show there's between 0.4 degrees and 0.6 degrees of warming on the way, even if emissions were capped at 2000 levels. That's a total of 1.5 degrees already guaranteed. Meeting the 2 degrees objective allows only an additional half of a degree in wiggle room. The Paris Agreement only mitigates about 0.2 degrees of warming. Again, believing in those models, that would be an additional warming of over 2 degrees Celsius this century. So according to the United Nation's own climate models, it is scientifically impossible. Bill Nye the Science Lie. The idea of fighting climate change is not science — it's a non sequiter, an indication that your data does not back up your politics. The climate is always changing. It's like warning us about daylight change because the sun is getting closer to the horizon. True, but there's more to the story. Isn't there? Now, this is a perfect example of how the left works. They tell half of the story because they do not trust the American people with anything. Skepticism, you left-wing fascist idiots, is in fact the entire cornerstone of the scientific method — that's why we have to have reproducible experiments, control groups, and all the rest. Science — real science, not science guy science — is the process of using any and all data available to destroy a theory. The ideas that cannot be experimentally destroyed are probably true. That's science, and not just saying the atmosphere does not match my computer model so the atmosphere must be wrong. So maybe we don't need Bill Nye to save the planet.
Is There a Trend in Global Average Temperature? In June 2015 in an online article in Bloomberg entitled "What is Really Warming the World" graphs were presented demonstrating that increases in global average temperature since 1880 are due neither to orbital changes, changes in solar activity, volcanic activity, deforestation, ozone changes nor sulphate aerosols. [Chart] Only atmospheric CO2 concentrations resemble the observed increase. Unsurprisingly they conclude that increases in greenhouse gases must be causing the observed temperature changes. Unfortunately the authors seem unaware of the simplest and most obvious correlation, i.e. the correlation of global average temperature with its value in each preceding year. 15 New Studies Abandon Claims of Man-Made Influence on Arctic Climate The Unscientific Claims of the March for Science. The posters were wittier and there were fewer pink hats, but last weekend's March for Science was no less about partisan grandstanding and name calling than any other political rally. The message this time? We are pro-science and anyone who disagrees with us is anti-science. [...] Marchers allege "an alarming trend toward discrediting scientific consensus and restricting scientific discovery." They are fighting for "science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest." For all its lofty rhetorical appeal, however, the argument suffers from glaring flaws in logic. The Marcher for Science conflates scientific findings with public-policy choices. Climate science: Dishonest for decades. Scientific showmen have been manipulating climate data as a way of shaping policy for decades. In 1983, for instance, a veritable supergroup of scientific rock stars, including the self-promoting pothead Carl Sagan, published a paper in Science called "Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions." Sagan and his colleagues presented a complex equation to justify their thesis that even a limited nuclear exchange would cause global temperatures to drop by more than 35 degrees Centigrade. [...] Sagan rolled his thesis out in the popular Sunday supplement Parade and supplemented that the following day with a well-publicized conference in Washington co-chaired by the equally ubiquitous alarmist Paul Ehrlich. Between the two of them, in fact, they would appear on the Johnny Carson show more than 60 times. "This is not the way science is done," said the late Michael Crichton. "It is the way products are sold." Dead Sea Indicates Climate Change for 220,000 Years. There is a direct relationship between hydrological and chemical changes in the Dead Sea over 220,000 years, a time interval covering two glacial and three interglacial periods on Earth, according to research conducted at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. As one of the saltiest lakes on Earth in an arid region and the lowest point on Earth, the lake has recorded climate change in the region over geological periods, with lake-level rises during wet periods and lake-level drops during dry periods. There Is No Scientific Basis for the Paris Climate Treaty. The Paris Climate Treaty is supposedly an attempt to keep global temperatures from increasing 2 degrees C, but this objective is based on political science, not climate science. The goal is an arbitrary political target based on climate activists' demands for a number, no matter how dubious or fake, to use in their fundraising letters and to appear on their signs at protests. There is no scientific evidence suggesting a warming of 1.9 degrees C is safe while 2.1 degrees C is not safe. Climate models that forecast temperature increases of more than 1 or 2 degrees during the next century are not scientific. They flunk the objective requirements of scientific forecasting. They are educated guesses by activists whose credibility and livelihood depend on showing ever-increasing certainty of impending doom, even as their data point in the opposite direction. J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method. Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong. Professor Armstrong, who co-founded the peer-reviewed Journal of Forecasting in 1982 and the International Journal of Forecasting in 1985, made the claim in a presentation about what he considers to be "alarmism" from forecasters over man-made climate change. So how did the California drought end? On Nov. 12, 2009, [Al] Gore told the Tonight Show the earth was several million degrees two kilometers below the surface. He was only about 100% off which is as close as most of his predictions. Normally when someone is that far off they are not considered an expert. The reason Gore and others won't debate is because they use a computer model instead of facts to support their theory. I blame the media for the indoctrination and fear mongering because they never ask questions. They call it settled science. It's about time the media starts asking questions before the greedy powerful government destroys the economy. Climate-Change Models are Flawed Because Climate Science is so Incomplete. 'Do you believe," CNBC's Joe Kernen asked Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency's new director, in an interview last Thursday, "that it's been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate?" Replied Pruitt: "No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no — I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don't know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis." It was an accurate and judicious answer, so naturally it sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation. Uh-oh: Investigation Launched Into Obama Climate Study Over Unverified Data. Would you believe the Obama administration may have rushed out a climate change study with unverified data just to advance his agenda? Of course you would! It's totally believable. Now the Commerce Department under Trump has launched an investigation based on the claims of a whistle blower. With Ice Growing at Both Poles, Global Warming Theories Implode. As The New American reported last month, virtually every falsifiable prediction made by climate theorists — both the global-cooling mongers of a few decades ago and the warming alarmists more recently — has proven to be spectacularly wrong. In many cases, the opposite of what they forecasted took place. But perhaps nowhere have the failed global-warming doom and gloom predictions been more pronounced than in the Antarctic, where sea-ice levels have continued smashing through previous records. Five Reasons Why Ridicule Is The Proper Response To Global Warming Alarmists. [#1] They're wrong. The devastating heat they predicted simply hasn't happened. Climate scientists Roy Spencer, John Christy and others have showed this numerous times. [#2] They've hidden their true agenda. The zealots want to destroy capitalism and take over the world's economy. [...] [#3] They're hypocrites. Every year, delegates, many of them on private jets, fly to Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum, from where they hector the rest of us about our carbon footprints. Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud? We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled." But in fact, "science" itself is in a deep crisis over making claims it can't back up, especially about climate. [...] Being able to reproduce others' experiments or findings from models is at the very heart of science. Yet, radical climate change advocates would have us spend 2% of global GDP, or roughly $1.5 trillion a year, to forestall a minuscule amount of anticipated warming based on dubious modeling and experiments. Meanwhile, the federal government spends literally billions of dollars a year on climate change, with virtually none of the money funding scientists who doubt the climate change threat. There is no serious debate. This is a problem for all of science. Mish Michaels isn't alone: Many meteorologists question climate change science. They observe changes in the atmosphere like astronomers study the stars, analyzing everything from air pressure to water vapor and poring over computer models to arrive at a forecast. But for all their scrutiny of weather data, many meteorologists part ways with their colleagues — climate scientists who study longer atmospheric trends — in one crucial respect: whether human activity is causing climate change. Meteorologists are more skeptical than climate scientists, and that division was underscored by the recent departure of Mish Michaels from WGBH News. Establishment Politicians Using 'Carbon Tax' to Foil Trump. According to Shultz and Baker: "...there is mounting evidence of problems with the atmosphere that are growing too compelling to ignore." That statement is simply wrong. There is no mounting evidence. Global temperature has been flat for 2 decades. The seas are not rising more than usual and the weather is not more extreme than usual. These important persons have simply fallen for the global warming hoax. Inconvenient Truth: Shultz and Baker's Disastrously Mistimed Carbon Tax. Actually the first person I saw arguing this approach — that although the extent of man-made causes of climate change (neé global warming) can be questioned, we have to do something about it for reasons of "insurance" — was none other than that distinctly non-conservative former secretary of state, John Kerry. Perhaps this was at a moment Kerry realized his own scientic limitations, that everything he knew was based on the advice of "experts" he didn't really completely understand. But no matter. Almost every politician in Washington was the same way. If Global Warming Is Real, Why Do Government Scientists Have To Keep Cheating? Government-paid researchers are desperate to perpetuate the climate shock. They know that if there is no warming as they have predicted, the generous public funds that support their work will eventually dry up. It is in their financial interest to keep the public tied up in knots of anxiety and to dupe politicians, who are eager to assume the posture of caring guardians of the environment so they'll to continue to hand them money[.] And it fits right in with the other evidence problems that undermine the global warming narrative, such as the hopelessly flawed temperature record, the unreliable models that can't even predict the past, and the possibility that as many half of the alarmist research papers could be wrong. Climate Scientist Announces She's a Skeptic, That She's Had It With the "Craziness" of Politicized Science, and Resigns Her Tenured Job at Georgia Tech. The science is unsettling. 'Craziness' in climate field leads dissenter Dr. Judith Curry to resign. [Scroll down] Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc. How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists). The Growth Of Global Warming Nonsense: Surely We've Reached Peak Madness. They have tried for decades to frighten everyone on the planet and all this time later, few are scared because they see the gaping holes in the narrative, the miserably failed forecasts, the glaring lack of evidence and the garbage dump of lies. Yet the activists continue to behave and screech as if the world is on the brink and there are only days left to save it. Average Westerners simply trying to live their lives honestly and work hard for their families aren't moved by the braying. Original Environmentalist Denounces Global Warming Hoax. Slowly but surely the world's foremost scientific minds are discovering that their previously held beliefs on global warming are complete and utter trash. The latest convert to the church of actual scientific reasoning is James Lovelock, one of the world's premiere environmentalists, and in many ways the grandfather of the entire climate change theory. Lovelock, who is now 97 years old, has taken to the press to explain the reasoning behind his awakening. As Many As Half Of Global Warming Alarmist Research Papers Might Be Wrong. The global warming alarmist community firmly believes it has science on its side. The science is settled, its members repeat incessantly to show how "sciency" they are, despite the fact that they are wrong. And 97% of scientists believe man's carbon dioxide emissions are causing climate change, they say with great conviction, even though it's simply not true. Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry. It is often said that non-scientists must rely on "expert opinion" to determine whether claims on alleged "catastrophic man-made global warming" are true. Putting aside the fact that there is no global-warming "consensus" among experts, one does not have to be a scientist, or even proficient in science, to be able to review past predictions, and then form an informed opinion regarding the accuracy of those predictions. Suppose, for example, you regularly watch a local TV weatherman forecast the weather for your area. Would you need a degree in meteorology in order to decide for yourself how reliable, or unreliable, the weatherman's forecasts are? Warnings have been issued for many decades now regarding catastrophic climate change that forecasted certain trends or occurrences that we should already have witnessed. Yet such predictions have turned out to be very, very wrong. Skeptic to UN Climate Conference: Global Warming Is Bunk. As the United Nations met in Marrakesh, Morocco, to devise more ways to loot wealthy countries under the guise of halting "climate change," one of the world's foremost climate-change skeptics delivered what should have brought the entire conference to a swift conclusion: a 44-page report debunking many of the claims of the global-warming alarmists. Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting 'State of the Climate Report' to UN Summit. "All of the so-called 'solutions' to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!" [...] Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming. [...] So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few hundredths of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit — differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration. Top University Stole Millions From Taxpayers By Faking Global Warming Research. A global warming research center at the London School of Economics got millions of dollars from UK taxpayers by taking credit for research it didn't perform, an investigation by The Daily Mail revealed. The UK government gave $11 million dollars to the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) in exchange for research that the organization reportedly never actually did. Many papers CCCEP claimed to have published to get government money weren't about global warming, were written before the organization was even founded, or were written by researchers unaffiliated with CCCEP. Study warns that science as we know it is evolving into something shoddy and unreliable. To draw attention to the way good scientists are pressured into publishing bad science (read: sensational and surprising results), researchers in the US developed a computer model to simulate what happens when scientists compete for academic prestige and jobs. In the model, devised by researchers at the University of California, Merced, all the simulated lab groups they put in these scenarios were honest — they didn't intentionally cheat or fudge results. But they received greater rewards if they published 'novel' findings — as happens in the real world. They also had to expend greater effort to be rigorous in their methods — which would improve the quality of their research, but lower their academic output. "The result: Over time, effort decreased to its minimum value, and the rate of false discoveries skyrocketed," lead researcher Paul Smaldino explains in The Conversation. The "Science" Underlying Climate Alarmism Turns Up Missing. [W]hile the President lectures us about our sins against the planet, his EPA and other agencies embark on the project to impose penance on us by forcing the closure of coal and other fossil fuel power plants, blocking pipelines, bankrupting the coal mining industry, subsidizing intermittent power sources that can't possibly run a fully operational electrical grid at reasonable cost, and multiplying our cost of electricity by an order of magnitude or so. To save the planet! But is there actually any scientific basis for this? Republicans Demand Proof From Obama That Global Warming Is A National Security Threat. Republican lawmakers are demanding the Obama administration back up with evidence a recent executive memoranda requiring federal officials to consider the impact of global warming on national security. [...] President Barack Obama has argued global warming is a national security concern for years, and now Republicans want the administration to show what sources it uses to issue orders to federal agencies. The EPA Uses New Math to Justify Costly Global Warming Regulation. In 2010, global warming alarmists in the Obama administration set out to find a way to justify the huge costs of the global warming regulations they wanted to pursue. This effort focused on creating a "social cost of carbon," which purports to put a dollar figure on the alleged future economic harms of global warming. The bureaucrats could then take this theoretical "cost" and use it to claim that their regulations were actually saving the economy from future damage. To estimate future costs, the government selected three integrated assessment models which try to project the economic future. Not surprisingly, all three tend to estimate substantial harms from global warming, even though there is still a great deal of debate over both how much warming might happen in the future and whether any such warming will be harmful (but for the purposes of this discussion that can be left aside). When the federal government's standard 7% discount rate was applied to these theorized future harms, the present value of those costs dwindled to insignificance. Indeed, applied to one of the models, the present "cost" is actually negative, implying that taking no action to reduce carbon dioxide could actually be economically beneficial. Most Scientific Findings Are Wrong or Useless. [Daniel] Sarewitz cites several examples of bad science that I reported in my February article "Broken Science." These include a major biotech company's finding in 2012 that only six out of 53 landmark published preclinical cancer studies could be replicated. Researchers at a leading pharmaceutical company reported that they could not replicate 43 of the 67 published preclinical studies that the company had been relying on to develop cancer and cardiovascular treatments and diagnostics. In 2015, only about a third of 100 psychological studies published in three leading psychology journals could be adequately replicated. A 2015 editorial in The Lancet observed that "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." A 2015 British Academy of Medical Sciences report suggested that the false discovery rate in some areas of biomedicine could be as high as 69 percent. Seven days worth of data gathering cause alarming headline: "Global warming's next surprise: Saltier beaches". Why? Because we've also been told that global warming will cause more rainfall, thus increasing freshwater stream outflow and freshwater ground recharge. Plus that, the study data gathering looks to be flawed from the start as they say: "The team analyzed nearly 400 sediment samples collected during the sequential phases of a complete tidal cycle, from day to night, on seven discontinuous days." Seven days? One beach? That's not enough to say anything useful about trends, nor to extrapolate to local, regional, or global climate. They say "These elevated levels can only be caused by evaporation...". Well sure, It's called weather.
1500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility. More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproducibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Climate Change Prediction Fail? The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on June 10 and 11, 1986, to consider the problems of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect, and climate change. [...] At the time, the Associated Press reported that [NASA's leading climate modeler James] Hansen "predicted that global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years" and "said the average U.S. temperature has risen from 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020." These increases would occur due to "an expected doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2040." UPI reported that Hansen had said "temperatures in the United States in the next decade will range from 0.5 degrees Celsius to 2 degrees higher than they were in 1958." Citing the AP report, one skeptical analyst reckoned that Hansen's predictions were off by a factor of 10. Major Setback for the Climatistas. I've lost count of the number of recent papers in peer-reviewed science journals that conclude that climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions is overstated. There are three new studies bearing on the issue that even Science magazine, which reported them this week, can't help but note cast doubt on the high-end alarmist predictions. Documentary "Climate Hustle" Exposes Global-warming Con Job. [Marc] Morano allows alarmists to speak for themselves throughout the documentary. Climate Hustle is packed with clips and interviews of alarmist politicians, "experts," celebrities, and scientists bloviating about alleged man-made global cooling, warming, the supposed urgency of doing something about it, and more. Hilariously, some of the supposed effects of alleged man-made global warming — everything from weather events and increased prostitution to rape, car theft, airplane turbulence, barroom brawls, and even the extinction of coffee — are highlighted, too. The humor throughout the film is absolutely fantastic, making it perfect to watch with others of all political persuasions. Morano also catches some climate alarmists involved in blatant, demonstrable deception. Weather Channel founder SLAMS Bill Nye for criticizing skeptical film 'Climate Hustle'. Weather Channel founder John Coleman has attacked Bill Nye 'the science guy' for raining on his parade ahead of the release of new climate-change denying film 'Climate Hustle.' Coleman, a meteorologist of 60 years who will introduce the film on its one-night-only screening on May 2, objected to Nye's remark that the film is 'very much not in our national interest and the world's interest.' A New Study Shows How Climate Science Could Be All Wrong. Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of being "anti-science" because they tend to be skeptical about claims made by climate scientists — whether it's about how much man has contributed to global warming, how much warming has actually taken place, or scary predictions of future environmental catastrophes. There's a scientific consensus, we're told, and anyone who doesn't toe the line is "denier." Yet even as deniers get chastised, evidence continues to emerge that pokes holes in some of the basic tenets of climate change. Evidence such as the fact that actual temperature trends don't match what climate change computer models say should have happened since the industrial age. Or that satellite measurements haven't shown warming for two decades. Or that past predictions of more extreme weather have failed to come true. Reassessing the Climate Role of Carbon Dioxide. The authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "consensus" that the increase of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change, and climate disruption. They conclude that the data do not support that supposition. Most of the currently accepted scientific interpretations are examined and the given impression that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase the earth's surface and/or air temperature is questioned. New insight is offered drawing a conclusion that no additional warming is possible due to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Testimony of John R. Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville. No one knows the climate impact of the proposed carbon emission reductions agreed to in Paris. The main reason for this is that there is considerable latitude for countries to do as little or as much as they desire. Examining the history of global carbon emissions, it is clear that countries, especially developing countries, will continue to seek to expand energy use through carbon combustion because of their affordability in providing considerable positive benefits to their citizens. In any case, impact on global temperature for current and proposed reductions in greenhouse gases will be tiny at best. Nobel Winner to Obama on Global Warming: 'Mr. President, You're Wrong'. President Obama's statements on global warming are "dead wrong," said Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever, who rejected the president's claims that man-made global warming is causing climate change. "I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet," Giaever said in a speech entitled Global Warming Revisited he gave on July 1 to scientists from 90 countries attending the 65th annual Nobel Laureate Meeting in Lindau, Germany. Giaever, who was born in Norway and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1964, was one of three recipients of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973. Although he endorsed Obama in 2008 along with more than 70 other Nobel-winning scientists, Giaever is now criticizing the president's statements on climate change — particularly his 2015 State of the Union remark that "no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change."
It's Not About Warming: Here's Why The U.N. Holds Climate Summits. The U.N.'s many climate meetings and its interest in climate through the years have nothing to do with warming, climate, weather or the environment. The goal has always been to wreck capitalism, punish prosperous economies that became rich through free markets, reward poorer nations that are impoverished by policies that starve markets, and reshape the world in the image of left-wing thought. 100 reasons why climate change is natural. [#1] There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity. [#2] Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. [#3] Warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. [#4] After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. [#5] Throughout the Earth's history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher — more than ten times as high. Global Warming Is a Myth. During the 20th century, the earth warmed 0.6 degree Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit), but that warming has been wiped out in a single year with a drop of 0.63 degree C. (1.13deg;F.) in 2007. A single year does not constitute a trend reversal, but the magnitude of that temperature drop — equal to 100 years of warming — is noteworthy. Of course, it can also be argued that a mere 0.6 degree warming in a century is so tiny it should never have been considered a cause for alarm in the first place. But then how could the idea of global warming be sold to the public? In any case, global cooling has been evident for more than a single year. Global temperature has declined since 1998. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide has gone in the other direction, increasing 15-20%. This divergence casts doubt on the validity of the greenhouse hypothesis, but that hasn't discouraged the global warming advocates. They have long been ignoring far greater evidence that the basic assumption of greenhouse warming from increases in carbon dioxide is false. Obama's Climate Change Agenda: 'Pure Astrology and Witchcraft'. The producer of a new film debunking the notion that humans can control the Earth's climate system called President Obama's climate change agenda "pure astrology and witchcraft". "We have the White House senior staff saying we need these EPA climate regulations because of the increase in storminess," Marc Morano, publisher of ClimateDepot.com, said in a recent interview with MRC-TV. "Well, the White House is directly implying that regulations that won't even affect global CO2 level, let alone temperature, let alone storminess — even if you buy their scientific claims — would, somehow, reduce storminess. "That is pure astrology and witchcraft." Cruz blasts 'alarmists' at climate change hearing. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a presidential hopeful, used a Senate hearing Tuesday to castigate environmentalists, Democrats and other "alarmists" on climate change. Cruz, one of the most ardent deniers of climate change among the field of presidential candidates, repeatedly said that his opponents have been wrong over and over again in their predictions about climate change. "I am the son of two mathematicians," Cruz said in his opening statements. "I believe that public policy should follow the actual science and the actual data and evidence, and not political and partisan claims that run contrary to the science and data and analysis." Scientists Expose Climate Shysterism and Flim-Flammery. [Book review:] A Disgrace to the Profession shows numerous serious scientists are outraged by the deception Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann has perpetrated on climatology. Mann sued author and talk show host Mark Steyn for describing Mann as a fraud in 2012. The suit alleges Steyn is guilty of defamation for attacking Mann's questionable and infamous scientific findings. Steyn is enjoying defending himself with the truth, and in this book he has assembled more than 100 scientists to support his position. The book, perfectly titled, is a wonderfully easy read. Steyn separates the scientists' comments into a dozen sections based on the focus of their critiques, such as tree rings, history, fraud, etc., and he opens each section with an essay of his own. 'Nonsense': Top Scientists Demolish Alarmism Behind UN Climate Summit. A panel of prominent scientists debunked one of the most popular global warming arguments ahead of a major United Nations climate summit to take place in Paris later this month. The scientists slammed policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as "nonsense," and they criticized politicians and activists for claiming the world was on the path for catastrophic global warming. "The most important thing to keep in mind is — when you ask 'is it warming, is it cooling', etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point," Dr. Richard Lindzen, a veteran climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. French Mathematical Calculation Society: Global Warming Crusade is absurd and pointless. All public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming. The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling. The crusade has invaded every area of activity and everyone's thinking: the battle against CO2 has become a national priority. How have we reached this point, in a country that claims to be rational? How a liberal vegan environmentalist made the switch from climate proponent to climate skeptic. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it. Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. Democrat Warmist Sees Real Data With Open Mind And... Can you guess what happened next? I must say, this is similar to what happened with me. I was exposed to other data and facts, for one thing. I noticed that those who pushed this the hardest were total hypocrites. And, this all involves something that makes me angry: Warmists undercutting real environmentalism with their insanity, making real environmental issues secondary, very secondary, to Hotcoldwetdry (anthropogenic climate change). The Question Sierra Club's President Didn't Want to Answer. Sen. Ted Cruz's questioning of Sierra Club President Aaron Mair turned contentious Tuesday [10/6/2015], then went viral when the Texas Republican posted the nearly 10-minute exchange. Cruz repeatedly pressed Mair to address satellite data that found an 18-year pause in global warming, countering the Sierra Club's claim of a warming trend. He asked the green group to retract its assertion that the "planet is cooking" in light of scientific evidence suggesting the opposite. Mair stonewalled the question each time, answering only that his group supports the "97 percent of scientists that say the exact opposite." The 97 Percent Standard Response from Big Climate. [Scroll down] One other subject we addressed, with reference to my new book, was Ted Cruz's devastating questioning of the know-nothing who heads the Sierra Club, one Aaron Mair. [...] It's weird. The "denier" is in command of the facts, whereas the president of an organization specifically devoted to the subject appears to know nothing about it, but instead keeps drooling over and over about "the 97 percent consensus". By the way, that "97 percent" nonsense is taken apart on page 295 of my book. It means 75 out of 77 more or less hand-picked scientists. Ted Cruz Destroys Sierra Club President's Global Warming Claims in Senate Hearing. Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is showing Sierra Club President Aaron Mair to be an ideological hack and global warming alarmist. At a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Cruz subjected him to a withering cross examination. Mair was reduced to stammering and frequent awkward pauses which he used to receive whispered advice from staff. He repeatedly referred to the discredited "97 percent of scientists concur" claim, and was unwilling to acknowledge valid scientific data that disproves the claim. Planet Still Standing 500 Days After French Foreign Minister Warned of 'Climate Chaos'. In May 2014, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos." Late last week, time ran out. The ironies of Pope Francis's climate-change cure. First, climate change is the focus of only 2 percent of the encyclical. Second, in the rest of the encyclical Pope Francis cites an average of 1.4 sources per section. But in the four sections on climate change — the subject on which Francis's life and office leave him most in need of them — there are none. These two facts suggest two things: First, regardless of the enormous public focus on it (many news headlines refer to the document as the "climate encyclical"), Pope Francis actually considers climate change at most a minor issue. Second, these sections arise not out of Pope Francis's own knowledge but from unsourced claims passed on by his advisors. And that explains their weakness. Climate Insanity on steroids! [Scroll down] The alarmist assertions are absurd. "Climate change is already disrupting our agriculture and ecosystems, our water and food supplies," Obama recently inveighed. "If we do nothing, Alaskan temperatures are projected to rise between six and twelve degrees by the end of the century." Projected by whom? Who concocts these fables? Nature-driven climate change has disrupted lives throughout human history. Seas have risen 400 feet since the last mile-thick glaciers melted off the northern half of Asia, Europe and North America. How did "imperiled" Pacific islands survive that? Some Alaskan glaciers have been retreating for decades, but Hubbard is growing and Glacier Bay's ice retreat began around 1750. Arctic sea ice has increased some 26% (400,000 square miles) since 2012, in a cycle that's continued for millennia. Movie review: A Real Climate Scientist Demolishes Bill Nye's Global Warming Alarmism. Global warming alarmist talking heads like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Al Gore are constantly paraded around as experts on climate, often claiming that global warming is making weather more extreme and bashing those who "deny" that humans are the main culprit behind this. So, Fox Business host John Stossel brought in an actual climate scientist to see just how truthful Nye, Tyson and Gore are being when they go on television to sound the alarm on global warming and advocate for phasing out fossil fuels. Obama Applauds Pope's Environmental Encyclical; Climate Realists Disagree. The encyclical on the environment released by Pope Francis on June 18 has drawn both praise and criticism from leaders around the world, with defenders of the theory that the planet is doomed because of "global warming" caused by "carbon pollution" praising it. Those who recognize that there is no provable connection between human activity and the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles are wary of the encyclical, however, and regard it as dangerous ammunition that global warming alarmists may use to advance the UN's environmental programs that threaten both the world's economy and national sovereignty. Nobel Prize-winning scientist says Obama is 'dead wrong' on global warming. In 2008, Dr. Ivar Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Barack Obama for president, but seven years later the Nobel Prize winner now stands against the president on global warming. "I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem," Giaever, who won the Nobel for physics in 1973, told an audience at the Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting earlier this month. Giaever ridiculed Obama for stating that "no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change." The physicist called it a "ridiculous statement" and that Obama "gets bad advice" when it comes to global warming. 10 Reasons that Skepticism Is the Reasonable Attitude Toward Global Warming. There is a mook (that's right, I said a mook and I meant it) over at the Chronicle of Higher Education who laments that the unwillingness of members of the public to blindly and unquestioningly accept the "scientific consensus" that CO2 from SUV's and jet travel is causing earthquakes and every bad thing that ever happens ever. Because, of course, nothing says "science denier" like a demand for evidence and empirical truth. There are, in fact, myriad reasons to have skepticism about whether human activity is leading to catastrophic global warming, such that we must all sacrifice our standard of living to prevent the prophesied Global Warming Apocalypse. Former UN Lead Author: Global Warming Caused By 'Natural Variations' In Climate. Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author. Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century. What Lloyd found was that the standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years was about 0.98 degrees Celsius — higher than the 0.85 degrees climate scientists say the world has warmed over the last century. New Claims 'Murky' Global Warming Statistics Are 'Guessed At'. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), chaired by former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson, has recently launched an inquiry into the reliability of global surface temperature records, with a group of international "eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians" set to probe current data. With different sets of results appearing to conflict each other, the GWPF say they have received questions and concerns about which records are accurate and why some adjustments in temperatures are made over the years. But now their inquiry is underway, Dr Benny Peiser, director of the GWPF, has said he hopes the findings will address the lack of clarity and transparency he claims surrounds temperature records — while admitting his "growing concern" about the gathering of global warming statistics. Climate Science Doubts: Not Because of Payment, But Because the Science is Bad. Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society's positions on climate. Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society's positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Ted Cruz Schools Journalist on Climate Change. Ted Cruz completely schooled a journalist who asked him about Climate Change in his Texas Tribune interview, a journalist who was clearly sympathetic to the cause. It was awesome to see. [Video clip] Are You a Global Warming Skeptic? For years, various international organizations have floated schemes to reduce the world's production of CO2 in order, supposedly, to prevent or reverse global warming. Such efforts have consistently failed, going back to the Kyoto Protocol, but alarmists and professional Greens haven't given up, and the Obama administration wants to commit the United States to a significant reduction in CO2 output at this year's Paris meeting. (The entire global warming enterprise would founder if meetings were required to be held in, say, Akron, Ohio.) Latest Warmist Freakout: Hotcoldwetdry Slowing Gulf Stream. This is the Cult of Climastrology at its best: fear mongering with anything but real data. Computer models, proxies, invented data, etc are the be all say all. If the thermometer says 65 and their models say 72, they'll go with 72. This is all about politics, particularly the politics of fear. "Science" is a means to that fear. And it very much begs the question that should be on everyone's minds, including CoC members: why do they lie to us like this? Founder of Greenpeace: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic. I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told "the debate is over" and "the science is settled." My skepticism begins with the believers' certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures. Florida lawmaker skeptical carbon dioxide causes global warming. As Gov. Rick Scott's administration is making national news after reports he banned usage of the term "climate change," one lawmaker on Thursday [3/12/2015] questioned the science regarding carbon dioxide's role in air pollution and global warming. Members of the House Energy and Utilities Subcommittee were considering legislation requiring lawmakers to sign off on Florida's plan to comply with President Barack Obama's goal of cutting carbon emissions from power plants. For Florida, the federal goal is a 38 percent cut in carbon by 2030.
Weather Channel Founder John Coleman: There is no significant man-made global warming at this time. There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant "greenhouse" gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years. William Happer, Ph.D., Princeton University, Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard Smithsonian Observatory, John Christy, Ph.D., University of Alabama and 9,000 other Ph.D. scientists all agree with my opening two sentences. Former Weather Channel CEO Goes off on CNN: 'Hello, Everybody! There's No Global Warming!'. [John] Coleman was defiant on CNN's Reliable Sources Sunday morning [11/2/2014], telling (or rather talking over) host Brian Stelter that his former network had become politicized. "I resent you calling me a denier, that is a word meant to put me down," Coleman said. "I'm a skeptic about climate change, not a denier." "CNN has taken a very strong position on global warming that it is a consensus. Well there is no consensus in science. Science isn't a vote. Science is about facts. ... It has been become a big political point of the Democratic Party and part of their platform, but the science is on my side." Co-Founder of The Weather Channel: Global Warming Is a Complete Hoax. John Coleman, meteorologist and co-founder of The Weather Channel, told Megyn Kelly tonight that he doesn't believe global warming is real and laughed out loud at anyone who buys into what Al Gore is selling. Coleman recently wrote an open letter arguing, "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future." He told Kelly it's tough to get a media platform these days when you're a climate skeptic "ever since Al Gore made it a plank of the Democratic Party." He blamed the media for hyping up the supposed threat of global warming and said there are plenty of scientists who have data completely refuting all of the conventional wisdom. Man-made climate change has been proven to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist. John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible. Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system. In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "The ocean is not rising significantly. "The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. "Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). "I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid." New doubts over climate change as study reveals overestimated forecasts. They said the impact of rising CO2 levels on plant growth has been underestimated by 16 percent. And as plants absorb CO2, this has led to overestimates of how much of the greenhouse gas is left in the atmosphere. Climate sceptics said the study by American scientists is yet more proof that the science of climate change is not settled and is instead much more complicated than previously thought. And one leading climate scientist said the paper suggests that cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases may not need to be as deep to keep global warming below what is seen as the critical increase of 2[°]C. Vanishing evidence for climate change. In the runup to the Sept. 23 UN Climate Summit in New York, Leonardo DiCaprio is releasing a series of films about the "climate crisis." The first is "Carbon," which tells us the world is threatened by a "carbon monster." Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are causing dangerous climate change and must be turned off as soon as possible, DiCaprio says. But he has identified the wrong monster. It is the climate scare itself that is the real threat to civilization. DiCaprio is an actor, not a scientist; it's no real surprise that his film is sensationalistic and error-riddled. Other climate-change fantasists, who do have a scientific background, have far less excuse. Gov't Scientists: Higher West Coast Temps Due to Natural Causes, not 'Climate Change'. A study conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington has concluded that warmer sea and land temperatures along the Pacific coast in North America over the past 100 years are due to weak winds — and not due to human activities or "climate change." The Real Problem with Climate Change: Experts who Aren't Experts. I was struck by a similar lack of intellectual curiosity and professional competence in the journalists who'd come to cover the Heartland Institute's 9th International Climate Change Conference in Las Vegas. The vast majority were what you might term "trolls". They'd come to Heartland, basically, to write it up as a freak show: "Look at all these crazy deniers." I asked one of them whether he'd even tried listening to any of the erudite, informed panels by experts in their field: the polar experts who said the poles weren't about to disappear; the marine experts who pointed out that thermohaline circulation — arguably the most significant driver of climate change — works on 1000 year cycles; the solar experts who thinks it has much more to do with — duh — the sun. Hadn't his curiosity been piqued just a little? And his response? "You don't read peer-reviewed papers." The moment I became a climate skeptic. [Scroll down] One item got my attention. It said: "Projections based on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios suggest warming over the 21st Century at a more rapid rate than that experienced for at least the last 10,000 years." I called the professor, one of the authors of the report, for a clarification (he remains nameless because we were off the record). "If global warming is caused by man-made emissions," I asked, "what accounts for the world warming to this same level 10,000 years ago?" There was a long silence. Then the professor said, "Are you serious?" I admitted that I was. The professor loudly informed me that my question was stupid. The panel's conclusion was indisputable science, arrived at after years of research by a conclave of the world's leading climate scholars. Who was I to dispute it? Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the 'Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science. Climate alarmism is "the biggest fraud in the field of science" and the 97% consensus claim is nonsensical, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham tells MRCTV in a preview of his presentation at the upcoming Heartland Institute climate conference, July 7-9. "Since about 2000, I looked farther and farther into it," Col. Cunningham (USMC, Ret.) tells MRCTV in an exclusive interview. "I found that not one of the claims that the alarmists were making out there had any bearings, whatsoever. And, so, it was kind of a no-brainer to come to the conclusion." The Week That Was. [I]n its questionable finding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and welfare, the EPA claimed its findings are supported by science and cited three lines of evidence. [#1] EPA claims a distinct human fingerprint — a hot spot in the atmosphere centered over the tropics at about 10 kilometers (33,000 feet). This hot spot may not exist. Satellites and weather balloons have failed to find it. [#2] EPA claims late 20th century surface global warming was unprecedented and dangerous. It was not. A similar warming occurred in the early 20th century, which was not associated with carbon dioxide. The late 20th century surface warming stopped over 16 years ago. [#3] EPA claims climate models are reliable. Climate models failed to predict that global warming would stop and greatly exaggerate the warming over the past 30 plus years. CO2 Good; Climate Change Bunk; Greens are Raging Extremists, says Greenpeace Co-Founder. "Climate change" is a theory for which there is "no scientific proof at all" says the co-founder of Greenpeace. And the green movement has become a "combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one." Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method. Houston, We Have No Idea What We're Talking About. Seriously: is there anyone in the United States of America foolish enough to think that an 86% variation in snow pack in a single year is due to global warming, rather than natural variation? Well, maybe. Barack Obama at least pretended to believe it. Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense. A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity. Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people. Earth to Lovejoy: 0.9°C in a century is not 'huge'. Pseudo-science by press release has become the norm among the Forces of Darkness. With as much fanfare as McGill University could muster, the recent paper by Professor Lovejoy was promoted via a typically head-banging instance of the genre. The gushingly flatulent halation of the university PR-wallahs is typical of the verbal diarrhea habitual among practitioners of the Dark Arts. The ipsissima verba of Lovejoy himself in the press release are of particular interest. Santelli: On Obamacare, Climate Change, Media Too Quick to Accept Facts are 'Settled'. CNBC contributor Rick Santelli ranted against the media's tendency to accept certain things as settled fact. According to Santelli, the media, "whether press, TV or whatever it is," aren't focusing enough on presenting hard data. Santelli argued that this was due to the media accepting data from third party sources as settled science. "Seven million, it's settled. Climate change, it's settled. It's all settled." He also expressed doubt about whether or not anyone was even capable of doing anything about climate change. American Physical Society Sees The Light. The American Physical Society (APS) has signalled a dramatic turnabout in its position on "climate change" by appointing three notorious climate skeptics to its panel on public affairs (POPA). As Anthony Watts has noted, this is news guaranteed to make a Warmist's head explode. The reason it's so significant is that it comes only three years after one of the APS's most distinguished members — Professor Hal Lewis — resigned in disgust at its endorsement of what he called "the global warming scam." Earth is Safe From 'Global Warming' Say the Men Who Put Man on the Moon. The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world's recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 degrees C. So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers — the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon — in a new report. Warren Buffett: Supposed Increase in Extreme Weather 'Hasn't Been True So Far'. Any climate alarmist will tell you that climate change is increasing extreme weather events, but liberal billionaire Warren Buffett easily destroyed that argument. Buffett told CNBC March 3, that extreme weather events haven't increased due to climate change, saying that weather events are consistent with how they were 30-50 years ago. Buffett, who is heavily invested in various insurance markets, said that climate change alarmism has simply made hurricane insurance more profitable, driving up premiums without increasing risk. Obama's science czar: Opposing climate views outside the 'mainstream scientific opinion'. White House science czar Dr. John Holdren wasn't in the mood to be contradicted on whether global warming was causing "extreme weather." Holdren described climate scientists whose work contradicts the White House's global warming claims as outside the "scientific mainstream." Holdren was asked by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions to cite scientific data that supported claims that droughts and other weather events were being made worse by global warming. Sessions then cited contradicting evidence from climate scientists, including former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer and University of Colorado climate scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. Greenpeace Founder: No Scientific Proof for Global Warming. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore told a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years." Moreover, the Canadian ecologist, who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, admitted that Greenpeace intentionally used faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet. More told the Senate committee that he decided to leave Greenpeace because it was more concerned with politics than it was with the environment. Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming. There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday [2/25/2014]. Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing. GE Will No Longer Design Projects to Please Climate Change Advocates. In a watershed moment and a huge victory over environmentalists, General Electric has agreed to stop projects that are designed solely for the purpose of carbon dioxide reductions to please those who lobby for climate change concessions. The National Center for Public Policy Research, a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank which has been fighting GE for years because of GE's liberal bias under CEO Jeffrey Immelt, scored a huge victory after receiving the commitment from General Electric. Fallacies about Global Warming. The first question to be answered is whether the Earth is warming at all. [...] But even were warming to be demonstrated, and assuming a reasonable correlation between an increase in carbon dioxide and an increase in temperature, that does not mean that the former has driven the latter. Good evidence exists from thousands of years ago that carbon dioxide levels rose only after the temperature increased, so why should we assume that the order is somehow reversed today? IPCC's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by the United Nations in 1988 and has been trying very hard to demonstrate the threat of a dangerous human influence on climate due to the emission of greenhouse gases. [...] It is interesting that IPCC "evidence" was based on peer-reviewed publications — but (reluctantly) abandoned only after protracted critiques from outside scientists. E-mails among members of the IPCC team, revealed in the 2009 'Climategate' leak, describe their strenuous efforts to silence such critiques, often using unethical methods. IPCC's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming. I will show here that the first three IPCC assessment reports contain erroneous scientific arguments, which have never been retracted or formally corrected, but at least have now been abandoned by the IPCC — while the last two reports, AR4 and AR5, use an argument that seems to be circular and does not support their conclusion. "Stadium Wave" Phenomenon Defeats Climate-changers' Claims. The climate-changers have been scrambling lately to explain away the fact that global temperatures haven't changed since 1998. Fallacies about Global Warming. It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is "settled". This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial, and that scientists are now just mopping up unimportant details. The allegation is profoundly untrue. [...] This paper explains the eight most common fallacies that underpin public discussion of the hypothesis that dangerous global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. Proved: There is No Climate Crisis. Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007. Decision-Based Evidence-Making: More Disgrace From UN Panel on Climate Change. Most science teachers undergo the unpleasant experience of catching students fudging experimental data so as to yield desired results. If the data is not easily faked, students may simply run the experiment repeatedly until the "right" data are collected. They then discard the contradictory data. Some such cheaters make it right through the education system; perhaps some become politicians, willing to direct staff to find evidence supporting decisions they have already made for political reasons. So it goes with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which deserves to be disbanded following the release of their latest report. Here Comes the Sun: Global Warming and the Perversion of Science. In denial, warmists continue to hawk recently discredited tenets: mankind's (read: America's) profligate use of fossil fuels pumps enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere; naturally, Earth's temperature rises, exacerbating the so-called "greenhouse effect"; in time, our planet becomes a most inhospitable place. "Settled science." Until it wasn't. These postulates were meant to frighten the naive and misinformed into supporting a radical correction that would (surprise!) hit the U.S. hardest. Now that the warmists' case has come undone, we can see it for what it is: a perversion of science and the scientific method. The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it's time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy. IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused [the IPCC] of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence." Nigel Lawson has called it "not science but mumbo jumbo". The Global Warming Policy Foundation's Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC's panel as "evasive and inaccurate" in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated — or both; [...] New Report Undercuts Global Warming Alarmists. Events have failed to fulfill the prophecy. Preachers have suddenly been struck dumb by uncertainty. Believers are understandably nervous and some, under their breath, are abandoning the dogma. [...] But the subject here is not Millerism, but another kind of religious faith: the faith of the global warming alarmists. And while it's not likely to have the impact of the Millerites' Great Disappointment, we could be seeing the beginning of something similar on Sept. 27, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues its fifth assessment report in Stockholm. Warming Up for Another Climate-Change Report. When the IPCC issues a report, it assures the world that the organization bases its conclusions on reputable, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and that its members are comprised of the world's top experts and best scientists. Yet when IPCC personnel answered a 2010 questionnaire sponsored by the InterAcademy Council (a network of national science academies), there were repeated complaints about unqualified individual members. For example, one individual (the responses to the questionnaire were anonymized) said there are "far too many politically correct appointments" involving people with "insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful." 95 per cent of intelligent people know the new IPCC report is utter drivel. The irony is, of course, that the third, fourth and fifth assessment reports were all produced in a period of rising CO2 levels in which there has been no "global warming" whatsoever. You'd imagine that, had the scientific method been more highly valued by the IPCC, this rather glaring flaw in AGW theory might have been afforded more prominence. But this is not the IPCC Assessment Reports' job. As Christopher Booker and others have often noted, the IPCC's reports are essentially political artefacts rather than scientific ones. New Climate Study Blows Away Anthropogenic Causation. Ahead of the soon to be released UN IPCC report, much of which has been leaked and destroyed already, and of which Nature stated that were "out of date by the time they hit the street", a new peer-reviewed report has been released that thrashes the Warmists and their Blamestorming of Mankind for releasing GHGs. The report is strong enough that Warmists immediately trotted out their "anti-science" meme without reading it. Summary of NIPCC's Findings.
· Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases. Global warming report could backfire on environmentalists. Talk about bad timing. Last month, environmental activists launched a well-funded new attack on Republican "climate change deniers" in hopes of making global warming a big issue in 2014. But as the campaign gets underway, a new report from the world's leading climate scientists could leave environmentalists on the defensive, and the "deniers" more confident and assertive. A science-based rebuttal to global warming alarmism. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small. Fifteen years of flat temperatures show that the climate models are in error. Each year the world spends over $250 billion to try to decarbonize industries and national economies, while other serious needs are underfunded. Suppose we take a step back and "reconsider" our commitment to fighting climate change? Study: 114 Out Of 117 Global Warming Predictions Wrong. The Left is habitually on the wrong side of any issue. I've maintained that if these people were blindly flipping a coin to decide their policy positions, over the long term they'd be right half the time. Clearly they deliberately choose positions that are carefully calculated to cause harm. [...] They been to the drawing board and they have conspired to promote a lie calculated to cause maximum harm to industrialized nations to fulfill a political agenda. Beating the IPCC with Their Own Numbers. Many parts of the MSM are monolithic in their endorsement of any and every scheme to 'combat climate change' and our pseudo-intellectual elite would make Pavlov proud as they battle to be the most vocal to decry those who "deny" the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. But what we don't see much of are cold hard numbers. Oh we see lots of numbers of the rubbery or nebulous variety, the plucked almost from thin air variety, but very little in the way of actual hard sensible numbers that were arrived at in an actually sensible way. Science Says So, Suckers! Just because climate science involves physics doesn't mean its conclusions are as certain as gravity. Michael Mann Redefines Science. When I was going to school to earn my degree in chemistry, we were taught that science was indeed all about absolute truths and proofs at the end of the day. "Credible theories" is how you got to those truths, not an alternative to them. The UN Climate Panel's 'Hot Spot' is Missing in Action. The Second Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN's climate-science panel (IPCC-AR2, 1996), invented the Hot-Spot in the tropical atmosphere about 10 km above the earth's surface and assumed, mistakenly, it was proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). But the hotspot has never been demonstrated observationally. The Fifth IPCC Report (AR5, to be released on Sept 27, 2013) conveniently ignores this inconvenient fact. If you still believe in 'climate change' read this. No one has ever doubted that climate changes. Pretty much everyone — probably more than 97 percent, even — agrees that there is a degree of anthropogenic input, even it's just the barely measurable contribution of beef cattle farts or the heat produced by cities. But the dangerous bit? No one has come even close to demonstrating it, there is no reliable evidence for it, and very few scientists — certainly far, far fewer than 97 percent of them — would ever stake their reputations on such a tendentious claim. Al Gore's Global Warming Desperation. First, there's the recently revealed empirical evidence that the "global warming" movement's claim that climate change is causing increased extreme weather events isn't true. Second, there's a new summary of historical research which blows up the movement's infamous core "hockey stick" chart forecasting unprecedented, accelerating warming. Finally, there's a new report due to arrive in a month from an increasingly desperate United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Boxer's Own Experts Contradict Obama on Climate Change. During the July 18 Senate Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by California Democrat Boxer, "Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama's statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?" For several seconds, nobody said a word. After the period of deafening silence, Weather Channel meteorologist and global warming activist Heidi Cullen attempted to change the subject, saying our focus should be on longer time periods rather than the 10-year period mentioned by Obama. When pressed, however, she contradicted Obama's central assertion and said warming has slowed, not accelerated. Global Warming Alarmism Memorably Debunked. Author Joe Fone of Christchurch, New Zealand has spent many years researching current and historical data on climate change, with the help of the finest scientists down under. His new book, Climate Change: Natural or Manmade? gives a clear, unbiased view of what is reasonably true and what is clearly incorrect. The book shows his strong intellect and unrestricted effort to find the truth wherever it lay. [...] Fone accurately calls global warming today's cause célèbre, "promoted by an army of enthusiasts from scientists and politicians to environmentalists, celebrities and now even theologians, all of whom declare it to be the most pressing issue facing us since the last such scare — the 1970s ice age panic promoted by a similar army." Our Climate-Change Cathedral. To [Rupert] Darwall, "the science [of global warming] is weak, but the idea is strong." He duly discusses some of the scientific controversies that have arisen, but the underlying objection to today's scientific consensus on AGW set out in his book is more fundamental. [...] But even those convinced of the reality of AGW — and the danger it could pose — should find Darwall's book a fascinating, if uncomfortable, history of climate change as a political and intellectual phenomenon. Senator Barbara Boxer's Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming. Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser less than a month before directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to impose costly new restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, Obama said, "we also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago." "I don't have much patience for people who deny climate change," Obama added. However, climate scientists including United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Hans von Storch report temperatures have remained essentially flat for the past 10 years, and indeed for the past 15 years. Critical Thinking about Climate Change. As a life-long atmospheric and environmental scientist and long-time college-science educator, I am constantly bombarded with material from a variety of sources, including many environmental groups. Take, for instance, what can be labeled "sales" literature that I recently received from the Environmental Defense Fund. A dangerously deluded energy policy. Without question, it must have been one of the dottiest public utterances ever delivered by a British Cabinet minister. This was the extraordinary speech made on Monday — at an event staged by the Met Office — by Ed Davey, our Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. What inevitably attracted attention was Mr Davey's attack on those 'sections of the Press' who dare question any aspect of the way his energy policy for Britain has become wholly skewed and dominated by the belief that the world is in the grip of global warming. The timing of his outburst against 'destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism' in the Press was not accidental: it was to preface yesterday's Commons debate on the mammoth Energy Bill by which he plans to 'decarbonise' our electricity industry. Mr. Moniz is exactly the sort of person who should read this web page: Climate Change: we really don't need to waste all this money . There's so much rubbish out there on the internet produced by lavishly funded Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF activists, junk scientists, rent-seeking corporatists and EU- and UN-funded environmental bodies. Time we hit back with the thing these eco-loons hate most: cold hard facts. Who are the real climate deniers? We know, via proxies like ice core samples, fossil remains, marine specimens, temperature-dependent remanence measurements, as well as historical documents, etc., that there were periods in history when the earth was significantly warmer than it is today, though human beings were not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere — CO2 levels during the Ordovician Age 440 million years ago were ten times higher than they are at present and happened to coincide with an ice age; closer to home, during the Medieval Warm Period the Scandinavians farmed Greenland and in the Roman Warm Period olive groves flourished in Germany. We know that the Northwest Passage was open during the early part of the 20th century and that the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen, as recounted in his The North West Passage, navigated the strait between 1903 and 1906. "A Sensitive Matter" — Flat Temperatures Flummox Climate Scientists. [Scroll down] For its part, The Australian observed, "Debate about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from skeptical fringe to the mainstream." It continued, "But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted." Even the Global Warming Policy Foundation acknowledges the emerging evidence. Its spokesman David Whitehouse lamented, "If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change." Numeracy in Climate Discussions — how long will it take to get a 6 deg. C rise in temperature? In articles like [the one] by Sarah Kent in the Wall Street Journal on April 18, 2013, we see a graph with a 6 C temperature rise by 2050 — if we don't reduce "carbon intensity." Indeed, a 6 C temperature rise may well be cause for concern. But anyone with a little background in mathematics and physics should be able to understand how ridiculous a number like 6 C is. The New Climate Deniers? When the liberals hang onto the neck of a cause, they don't let go. They have ignored murders, rapes, wars, nuclear proliferation, and everything wrong with the world to focus in on their little area — the horror of carbon emissions. You'd think liberals would have learned from their earlier panic about overpopulation. Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All? I want warmer weather here in the Big City. But I've grown old waiting for the promised global warming. I was 35 when predictions of a looming ice age were supplanted by warmmongering. Now I'm 68, and there's still no sign of warmer weather. It's enough to make one doubt the "settled science" of the government-funded doom-sayers. How the Hockey Stick Crumbled: A Post Mortem. [Scroll down] But when real scientists — that is, those who apply a skeptical, scientific approach rather than a religious attitude of fervor — studied the Marcott paper, it quickly fell apart. We wrote about the Marcott fiasco here and here. It turned out that Marcott and his colleagues had created the 20th century warming spike — which was, in reality, the sole purpose of their exercise — by changing the dates on some of the samples they used as proxies. Eco taxes are nonsense if the earth isn't warming. Mysteriously, anything can be produced as evidence of global warming — hot weather, cold weather, wet weather and dry. Climate change has become a religion and any diversion from the orthodox view is pounced on as evidence of heretical wickedness. Those who beg to differ about the global warming creed are held up as wicked rather than merely sceptical. But now new data from the Met Office is at odds with the doomy computer predictions from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The new data show that the pace of climate change has been wildly overestimated. Let's lose the dodgy climate advice — and save £165,000. Last week, as Britain and much of Europe were struggling through the coldest spring in decades, Sir John Beddington marked his retirement from his £165,000-a-year post as the Government's chief scientific adviser by touring the television and radio studios to terrify us all once more with his all-too-familiar message of how we are threatened by runaway global warming. [...] In fact, it is far from clear why Sir John, as an expert in population biology, should be regarded as having any authority to pronounce on such matters. Climate train wreck. There are now two kinds of people with some understanding of climate science, sceptics and liars. The climate change scam is turning into a train wreck and everyone keeping the score knows it. The most delightful thing about the climate train wreck is that it is happening so slowly. Global temperatures have not risen for about fifteen years which is not quite as predicted. Even worse, people are losing interest as the wild-eyed threats lose their potency. The Engineer Behind the Climate Change Train Wreck: The individual is known in global warming skeptic circles as "Mr. FOIA" (aka. Freedom of Information Act), and he has been busy again. He just issued a password along with instructions to a select group that provides access to a new and much larger communications file: These files are ones that many of those researchers and their sponsoring organizations have worked very hard to suppress from legal FOIA requests. Worse is better. [Scroll down] Energy is a case in point. I think [Christopher] Booker is absolutely right to describe the crazy quest for CO2 reduction at all costs as "arguably the greatest act of political irresponsibility in our history." There is no logic to it. It's insanity. And I think everybody in the country — barring the spivs in the renewables industry, the green activists and the bubble-enclosed political class — is fully aware of this. Which, really, makes it only scarier still because if so many of us know it's wrong, how come this ugly business is able to carry on regardless? Global Warming is [nonsense]. Recall when Michael Mann published the first hockey stick graph-we were all shocked. Al Gore made a movie and won an Oscar. Then, actual statisticians looked at the formula and realized no matter what data you put into it, the same graph was spit out. It was junk science dressed up as a serious theory. In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their "Science". President Obama has put salvation from dreaded climate catastrophes on his action agenda hot list. During his inaugural address he said: "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations." He went on to shame anyone who disagrees with this assessment, saying, "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms." This sort of scary presidential prognostication isn't new. No, David Attenborough: Africa hasn't warmed by 3.5 degrees C in two decades. 3.5 degrees C in two decades? That would indeed be a remarkable temperature rise in anybody's money. (Remember, since 1850 global mean temperatures have risen by about 0.8 degrees C — and we're supposed to find that worrying and significant). Which is why, you might have thought, the BBC would have spotted so obvious an error and removed it before the programme went out. To his credit, this troubled Leo Hickman, too. Global Warming: One NASA Scientist Vs. More Than 20. The most famous NASA scientist is James Hansen, the political activist and expert on the Venusian atmosphere who sounded the man-made global warming alarm at a 1988 congressional hearing. He's just one man, but the media and the political left have made him out to be an infallible voice on climate change. We live in a society where dissent from the left-wing narrative is not tolerated. So it's no surprise that more than 20 retired NASA scientists and engineers are not getting the same media treatment that a single doomsayer whose quarter-of-a-century-old prediction has not come to pass. Lawmaker wants Obama to prove climate change. Rep. Thomas Massie challenged President Obama to roll out the proof that humans have played a hand in climate change. Mr. Massie, Kentucky Republican, said he was "disappointed" that the president in his second inaugural address blamed droughts on "human activity" and accused some of "denying the evidence of scientists." Global Warming Alarmists Pick and Choose Data to Support Theory. The "think globally" people become very parochial when the global warming story isn't as scary sounding as the local one. Climate change activists took the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) recent report showing 2012 to be the warmest on record for the continental United States, did a little geographic sleight of hand, and spun it into a Chicken Little story on global warming. The Met Office — defending the indefensible, as per usual. The issue is with the Met Office's medium-range forecasts, which for years have persistently erred on the side of predicting non-existent warmth because they have been corrupted by exactly the same dodgy computer models which tell us that as CO2 rises so inexorably will "global warming." 2012 probably not the hottest on record, after all. Last summer's headlines blared, "Hottest July in the history of the United States." [...] Climate activists are linking this to man-made global warming, ignoring the fact that the area covered in the NCDC reports, the contiguous United States (excluding Alaska), comprises only 2 percent of the Earth's surface. Trends that may manifest in the United States in no way indicate global phenomena. In fact, the United Kingdom's Meteorological Office has said that there has been no global warming for 16 years and this week announced that temperatures are expected to stay relatively stable for another five years. Regardless, all NCDC temperature proclamations must be taken with a large grain of salt. Climate Science vs Politics: The Road Ahead. There is good news and bad news about climate. The good news is that science evidence has made it quite clear that the human contribution to a possible global warming is minor; in fact it cannot even be identified in the data record. The bad news is that the media and politicians pay no attention whatsoever to the science and are marching ahead full-speed with efforts to control CO2 emissions — thereby hurting the economy, destroying jobs, and stunting economic growth. Global Warming? Not a snowball's chance. By "global warming", I mean, of course the kind of runaway, unprecedented, catastrophic warming which George Monbiot et al have been bleating on about for the last two or three decades. Climate Change Draft Undermines U.N.'s Claims. [Scroll down] While the IPCC works overtime to spin the Rawls leak, another headache has emerged for the group. Figure 1.4 from the draft shows that the models used to predict warming have projected temperatures higher than the observed temperatures we've seen. The chart also shows that observed temperatures, rather than climbing ever upward, are where they were 15 years ago. Skeptic Anthony Watts calls the chart a bombshell. The media have yawned. Man-made global warming: Even the IPCC admits the jig is up. [A] leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede. New Report: Man-made Global Warming Is a Farce. The report is actually a massive compilation of scientific studies and news articles from both public and private sources, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Together they indicate claims of "global warming," "climate change" and "climate disruption" are nothing but a ruse to usher in massive carbon taxes and crippling regulations. Like Pavlov's dog, politicians are conditioned to react to any harsh weather event by drooling for higher taxes, notes the study. Naturally, delegates at the UN conference were not interested in the conclusions of the CFACT study. An assessment of current alarmist propaganda: It's been obvious for some time, that the science behind the most alarming claims about the effects of any putative global warming, is not only unsustainable but indefensible. We still of course get the occasional paper, trying to resurrect an old scare, which has already been demolished, but as happened with both the Shakun and Gergis papers, the climate skeptics simply tear them to pieces. Not only hasn't the paper succeeded in clawing back any ground, but because it gets eviscerated in public, it actually becomes a propaganda liability. This is the reason we're seeing fewer of such alarmist papers.1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm. This is a gold mine of information that would take weeks to explore. A global warming skeptic who's a lot smarter than Al Gore. Ever since the 1980s one of my favorite authors in the realm of science has been Freeman Dyson. The Princeton physicist has written books on a wide range of topic, from the potential perils of nuclear weapons to discoveries in the human genome. At the moment, I'm reading a book about him by his son George titled "Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship." It's impossible to delve into Dyson's career without concluding he is several orders of magnitude smarter than the Al Gores of the world. The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria. Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly "alarmist" about climate change. The implications were extraordinary. Global Warming's Killer: Critical Thinking. We're told that skeptic scientists lie about all of the "death by a thousand cuts" evidence. We're told that they work for big coal and oil — much like so-called expert shills were paid by tobacco industries to "manufacture doubt" about the hazards of smoking. Yet no reporter pushing that narrative bothers to show which peer-reviewed science journal-published paper written by a skeptic is an outright fabrication written in exchange for fossil fuel industry money. No reporter bothers to show how myriad examples of critical thinking reveal pre-existing — not manufactured — doubt about claims of evidence for global warming. One of Germany's earliest green energy investors, is not convinced that humanity is causing catastrophic global warming. Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist. For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. Lord of the Skeptics. [Scroll down] In the community of global warming skeptics, Lord Monckton is legendary. With his background in the newspaper industry and exceptional communications skills, the former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is often targeted as a prominent "heretic" of the man-made climate change movement. New paper shows Wyoming was warmer 6,000 years ago than the present. A paper published today [5/31/2012] in The Holocene finds that the elevation of the treeline in the Rocky Mountains of Wyoming was higher than the present from ~9000 to 6000 years ago, indicating the climate was warmer during that period as compared to present temperatures. The paper adds to thousands of others indicating that the current warming period is not unprecedented nor unusual compared to natural warming in the past. It turns out the 'thought criminals' were right. The global warming scare has not continued to unfold as projected by those bent computer models on which it rested. Temperatures have not risen as predicted, the ice caps aren't melting, nor sea levels rising, nor hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves intensifying as we were assured they would. Environmentalist Icon Says He Overstated Climate Change. Not many years ago, a celebrated scientist predicted a global warming disaster awaited humanity. Today, that same scientist admits his warning was too "alarmist." It's time Al Gore turned his limousine around, too. 'I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock. Environmental scientist James Lovelock, renowned for his terrifying predictions of climate change's deadly impact on the planet, has gone back on his previous claims, admitting they were 'alarmist'. The 92-year-old Briton, who also developed the Gaia theory of the Earth as a single organism, has said climate change is still happening — just not as quickly as he once warned. More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming "consensus" — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. NASA rocked by global warming rebellion. Fifty top astronauts, scientists and engineers at NASA have signed a letter asking the agency to cease its global warming buffoonery. The global warming emperor has no clothes, and people are finally saying so out loud and in public. Notrickzone brings us the entire letter, noting that the signers have a combined 1000 years of professional experience. Astronauts condemn NASA's global warming endorsement. In an unprecedented slap at NASA's endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists — including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center — claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world's top space agency. Challenging statements from NASA that man is causing climate change, the former NASA executives demanded in a letter to Administrator Charles Bolden that he and the agency "refrain from including unproven remarks" supporting global warming in the media. Former Astronauts Protest NASA's Global Warming Activism. With proponents of the theory that human activity is the cause of global warming becoming increasingly defensive of their flawed theory, the joint letter signed by NASA veterans — including several heroes of the space program — is one more blow to a theory which has been losing ground in the realm of public opinion. And the letter is particularly critical of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, where both director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been particularly vocal proponents of the theory of manmade climate change. 'Fakegate': Climate Change Fanatics Wage War on Dissenters. The rise of environmentalism, however, has generated a war on science, first by distorting it, and then by propagandizing the 'findings', studies' and resulting claims based on them." The Heartland Institute, as a leading voice, led the effort to debunk the hoax through its sponsorship of six international conferences featuring scientists and others who presented papers demonstrating "that 0.038 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere had little or no "greenhouse" effect on the Earth's climate or weather events." Heartland's six International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCC) attracted scientists worldwide, who employed science rather than pseudo-science in their presentations. Queensland turns the tide of environmental lunacy. No administration was "greener" than the one run by departing Queensland premier Anna Bligh. She believed in environmentalism with such a passion she entrusted her beloved husband — Greg Withers: head of Queensland's Office For Climate Change — with the task of turning Queensland into the solar powered, low-carbon, eco-paradise it very nearly is today. I say "very nearly" because incoming premier Campbell Newman has put a stop to all that. One of Newman's first priorities — which is why, of course, Queenslanders voted him in — has been to cancel most of Bligh's green boondoggle programmes. Monckton's Schenectady showdown. Traveling with Lord Monckton on the East Coast leg of his current whistle-stop tour of the US and Canada, I was looking forward to documenting the Schenectady showdown. I have had the pleasure of listening to His Lordship at previous campus events. He is at his best when confronted by a hostile audience. The angrier and more indignant they are, the more he seems to like it. Inhofe warns EPA moving to regulate carbon. If President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency proceeds with plans to bypass Congress and restrict carbon emissions through regulation, it will be even more costly to Americans than "cap and trade" legislation, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. predicted in an interview with the Washington Examiner this week. Back in 2003, Inhofe stirred controversy when he declared, "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it." Ever since, he's been one of the most recognizable and dedicated skeptics of global warming. British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax. James Delingpole of The Telegraph reports that the British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax from MIT's Richard Lindzen who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. Is catastrophic global warming a mistake ... just like the Millennium Bug? At a public meeting in British House of Commons, the climate scientist Professor Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology has made a number of declarations that unsettle the claim that global warming is backed by "settled science". ... He gave us a slide with a series of familiar alarms — melting ice caps, disappearing icebergs, receding glaciers, rising sea levels. It was published by the US Weather Bureau in 1922. And one further element of the consensus: there's been no increase in temperature for 15 years. Germany's Top Environmentalist Turns Climate Sceptic. Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of Germany's environmental movement, no longer trusts the forecasts of the IPCC. Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. "I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy. I couldn't take it any more. I had to write this book." Germany's top environmentalist turns skeptic. "The CO2 Lies ... pure fear-mongering ... should we blindly trust the experts?" That's what Germany's leading daily Bild (see photo) wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book — one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure. Global Warming? No Natural Predictable Change. An extensively peer-reviewed study published last December in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics indicates that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth's solar system with little or no help from us. 'Germany's George Monbiot' turns climate sceptic. According to the Global Warming Policy Foundation's Benny Peiser, himself a former member of the German green movement, [Dr. Fritz] Vahrenholt's U-turn represents a huge blow to the climate alarmist camp. 'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'. Will reduced solar activity counteract global warming in the coming decades? That is what outgoing German electric utility executive Fritz Vahrenholt claims in a new book. In an interview with SPIEGEL, he argues that the official United Nations forecasts on the severity of climate change are overstated and supported by weak science. U.Va. professor throws cold water on global warming. Earth might be slightly warmer, and sea levels might be slightly higher, but the changes are natural and should not be blamed on fossil-fuel emissions, a panel of scientists and skeptics said at a public forum Tuesday [1/24/2012]. "Human influence on the climate is very, very small — barely detectable," S. Fred Singer, a critic of global warming and professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, told an audience at the Meyera Oberndorf Central Library. Two more scientist change sides in the AGW debate. Evidence is building toward the robust climate theory, which would mean that while there may be more CO2 being emitted, it has little to no effect on the overall climate. That, of course, is contrary to the AGW crowd's theory. Children just aren't going to know what sun is. So, to recap: a scientist from arguably Britain's most discredited university department — the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA — made a fool of himself and his employer by feeding to a newspaper wrongheaded disaster scenarios based on woefully inaccurate computer projections, thus lending spurious credibility to a massive media scaremongering campaign which has led to the squandering of billions of pounds on an entirely unnecessary scheme to "decarbonise" the UK economy. His reward for this was to be granted a taxpayer-funded salary to go round the world spreading more abject nonsense about a mostly non-existent threat called "climate change." [Dr David] Viner is not the exception: he is the rule. We have a right, I think, to start getting very angry indeed. There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy. No Need to Panic About Global Warming. A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. Signing Global Warming's Death Certificate. The combined credentials of these men represent some of the best minds on planet Earth in their respective fields. What brought them together? On the surface it was just another of the countless articles that have been published over the years as scientists of real merit and courage took on the juggernaut of those for whom global warming had become a vast flow of government and foundation funding. The effort was to "prove" that carbon dioxide (CO2) was building up in the atmosphere and would soon incinerate Earth by trapping the heat from the sun. It had not done that in the 5.4 billion years of the Earth's existence, but the "warmists" claims came day after day and year after year. They permeated every aspect of society and you can go into any school in America and find textbooks still selling this garbage. The Coup de Grace for Global Warming Catastrophe? It is a typically dense article filled with all of the usual qualifiers, but several things make this a bombshell and a blow to the catastrophist narrative. First, this study was conducted by the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis of Environment Canada, which is Canada's EPA, so the climate campaigners can't use their favorite talking point that this comes from a private, fossil-fuel funded skeptic outfit. Second, there is no disguising that the finding of this model, along with recent similar studies, that global warming is overestimated by roughly a factor of two in the usual models the IPCC uses. Climate Change Doubts Heat Up the Classroom. Teachers reportedly are getting push-back on middle and high school curricula that fuel the speculation that man is warming the planet. Their frustration is almost worthy of a celebration. Heretics in the classroom. In the last few years school boards and state legislatures in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have introduced a requirement that science teachers acknowledge in their classroom instruction that the theory of AGW isn't "settled" science and that climate skepticism is a valid scientific position. Los Angeles Times reporter Neela Banerjee, who like so many MSM reporters starts with the assumption that AGW is an incontrovertible fact, and that skeptics are self-evidently wrong, opens her news report by begging the question with a false equivalence. Progressives Crave Energy Scarcities. An all-purpose rationale for rationing in its many permutations has been the progressives' preferred apocalypse, the fear of climate change. But environmentalism as the thin end of an enormous wedge of regulation and redistribution is a spent force. How many Americans noticed that the latest United Nations climate change confabulation occurred in December in Durban, South Africa? The futility of this nullity signaled the end — probably for decades, if not forever — of a trivial pursuit that began 14 years ago with the Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. Senate would not even bring to a vote. Gingrich Kills Chapter on Climate Change in Upcoming Book. Newt Gingrich says he has killed a chapter on climate change in a post-election book of essays about the environment. But the intended author of the chapter, who supports the scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change, says that's news to her. Modern-day climate change witch hunt. [Scroll down] Perhaps the reason the public's cynicism towards environmentalism goes up a notch whenever it snows is because for the past 10 years, before the recent big freezes set in, environmentalists told us we'd never see snow again. "Snow is starting to disappear from our lives", declared the Independent in March 2000, quoting an expert from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — a major producer of climate-change info — saying that "children just aren't going to know what snow is". Mark Lynas, one of Britain's chief climate-change alarmists, told us in 2004 to prepare for life on a "hotter planet" in which "the traditional British winter [is] probably gone for good". Tent Collapsing on Climate Change Circus. [Scroll down] The US "has" abundant energy supplies; the EU "has not." The EU has to depend on schemes like carbon trading, about which Rob Elsworth of the climate-campaign group Sandbag in London said: "is a pretty important revenue stream for most member states." He asks, "If you take away this green-economy narrative, what's really left of Europe?" The EU's economic crisis provides the US with living proof that we do not want to play in the global-government game where the "haves" are expected to carry the "have nots." The Contrarians Have Better Data. Prof. Michael E. Mann writes ("Climate Contrarians Ignore Overwhelming Evidence," Letters, Dec. 5) that his 1999 "hockey stick" graph "showed that average temperatures today are higher than they have been for at least the past 1,000 years." But Mr. Mann's paper only covered the northern hemisphere. It included the questionable use of annual bristlecone-pine tree rings for temperature reconstruction. Even then, it replaced some tree-ring data with estimates. Tree-ring series that showed a 20th-century uptick were given 390 times the weighting of other series, according to a 2005 study by Ross McKitrick, an environmental economist at the University of Guelph. Climate talks, then climate tax. [Scroll down] Meanwhile, back in America, the warmist arguments increasingly are facing challenge. Today's temperature changes are indistinguishable from historic climate cycles, and the public is beginning to notice that renewable-energy schemes are unaffordable luxuries. Don't pretend we know what causes climate change. Not only is the Kyoto Protocol technically flawed, the so-called science behind it is utter twaddle. Never mind complicated things like non-linear mathematics or, indeed, mathematics of any sort. The alarmists can't possibly know how to predict the future of Earth's climate because they can't explain its past. The Great Global Warming Fizzle. First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the "hide the decline" emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place. But the real reason they mattered is that they introduced a note of caution into an enterprise whose motivating appeal resided in its increasingly frantic forecasts of catastrophe. Papers were withdrawn; source material re-examined. The Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren't going to melt in 30 years. Nobody can say for sure how high the seas are likely to rise — if much at all. Greenland isn't turning green. Florida isn't going anywhere. America's Energy Policy: Green or Red? Global Warming Alarmism today drives energy policy with politicized science. Consider this: What if there is no Global Warming? What if the number of drowned Polar Bears this year is fewer than the number of drowned Polar bears 1000 years ago, icecaps are not melting, there are no biblical floods, and "climate change" is simply "weather"? What if disinformation, misinformation, and politicized science are tricking us into killing jobs and destroying prosperity? Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague. It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all — the research that, in the words of its director, 'proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer'. ... It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America. The Washington Post said the BEST study had 'settled the climate change debate' and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a 'cynical fraud'. But today [10/30/2011] The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller's team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST's research shows global warming has stopped. How many eco-frauds can dance on a pin? Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America's prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller's claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a 'huge mistake', with no scientific basis. Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project's four research papers. Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. Time for Another Climate Science Scandal. [Scroll down] Note well that BEST's data was drawn exclusively from land-based temperature readings, since AGW alarmists were concerned that the inclusion of cooler ocean-based readings might understate the severity of the warming "crisis." And yet, the apparent warming trend still stalled, even within this cherry-picked data. Scientific case for man-made global warming fears is dead. Recent scientific data and developments reveal that Mother Nature is playing a cruel joke on the promoters of man-made climate fears. The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim, the scientific case for man-made climate fears has collapsed. The only thing "worse than we thought" is the shoddy journalism of the mainstream media, which parrots global warming activists' baseless talking points. New Evidence That Man-Made CO2 Does Not Cause Global Warming. Al Gore and the global warming alarmists have long contended that man-made "greenhouse gases" are causing global warming so severe that it endangers our way of life. They claim the main culprits are the coal fired electric generating plants, airplanes, and automobiles that use hydrocarbons for fuel. And that the most damaging gas being emitted into the atmosphere is carbon dioxide (CO2). The "global warmers" were making great progress at selling the American people on the dangers of man-made global warming and that we should greatly reduce, and in time eliminate completely, the use of our enormous reserves of coal, oil and natural gas. Nobel Physicist Calls Earth's Temperature "Amazingly Stable". If the American Physical Society's numbers on global warming are accurate, the earth's temperature has been "amazingly stable" and "human health and happiness have improved" during a century and a half of minor climate change, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever said in a message to the APS, explaining why he is resigning from the society. Giaever cited a 2007 statement by the organization calling the evidence of global warming "incontrovertible." Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming. The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide. [Dr. Ivar] Giaever does not agree — and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change. "I resign from APS," Giaever wrote. A Successful Fraud. Global warm-mongers say they can't name a single scientist who doesn't agree with them. Well, here's one: Nobel laureate Ivan Giaever, who just left a scientific society because he believes the debate isn't over. The Slow, Certain Death of the Global Warming Theory. MIT Professor, Dr. Richard Lindzen, an internationally recognized authority on atmospheric science, said, "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age." Nobel Laureate Resigns Over Global Warming Dogma. Sorry to break it to you, distinguished ladies and gentlemen of letters, but the scientific genius you supported for President flushed hundreds of billions of dollars into slush funds and "green energy" rat holes, with absolutely no satisfaction of "the nation's and the world's most urgent needs," or enhancements to American "competitiveness." Obscure editor resigns from minor journal: why you should care. A man named Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of a science journal called Remote Sensing decided to resign because he'd read on the internet that one of the papers he'd published — by climate sceptic Roy Spencer, et al — possibly had some flaws in it. Bizarre, eh? Physicist Resigns in Opposition to Claims of Manmade Climate Change. On September 13, physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, announced his resignation from the American Physical Society, disgusted by the company's officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring." The American Physical Society officially supports the theory that man's actions have led to global warming through increased emissions of carbon dioxide, an assertion with which Dr. Giaever wholly disagrees. Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents!. Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent titled "I resign from APS" to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation. Perry and Global Warming. Last week Rick Perry questioned the prevailing orthodoxy on global warming. There was, as is easy to imagine, no shortage of warmists waiting to pounce. ... What is troubling, however, is that some of the other candidates for the Republican nomination still accept the theory of man-made warming. Worse, they are apparently prepared to act on their beliefs if elected president. On Being Governed By Scientific Frauds. Global warming racketeers end up doing science by press release. Their models are rigged, and any time they turn out wrong, they change the model. Then they send out more press releases to equally corrupt jourNOlists, who phone in more scary headlines to the New York Times. Millions of suckered voters end up believing that the sky is falling, and they vote for socialist politicians like Obama to Save the Planet. Irene is Obama's punishment. The past few years have seen significant body blows to the global warming theory, including major revelations of altered, misused or just plain fraudulent data, undue financial interests and appearances of impropriety among climate scientists, and contrived "carbon markets" closely tied to global warming alarmists who stood to make millions of dollars from government-mandated regulations like the now defunct "cap-and-trade" scheme. The Earth stopped warming 10 years ago. Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman and the AP on Global Warming. What Perry said was correct. The realists are winning the global warming debate hands-down, and their ranks are growing steadily. The anthropogenic global warming theory is not only unproven, it is contradicted by a vast body of empirical data, and has been shown to rest, to a considerable degree, on fraud. Junk Science Unravels. The global warming fraud is coming apart faster than the alarmists can repackage and rebrand their fairy tale. Their elaborately constructed yarn can't hold together much longer. There are just too many loose ends. New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism. NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. The Global Warming Hoax: How Soon We Forget. While Americans are rightfully focused on the unemployment situation and the debt limit negotiations, we've pretty much forgotten about global warming as an issue ever since Obama failed to pass his Cap & Trade bill. As a result, we're becoming complacent once again about the huge threat we face from the progressives' attempts to control the world's energy industry based on the greatest scientific hoax in human history. In reality, however, nothing's changed, as Obama is still imposing his will on us through the EPA's regulation of CO2. This hoax still threatens our economy, while advancing the UN's "Agenda 21" in more ways than one. It's also the foundation of Obama's "green jobs" approach to the unemployment issue, since the very concept of "green jobs" is just as bogus as the idea of a "carbon footprint." You're paying for the hysteria of our politicians. [Scroll down] Whatever happens now, whether it is hot or cold, whether we get heatwaves or record snowfalls, floods or droughts, sooner or later we hear those familiar little voices piping up to tell us that the blame for all these 'extreme weather events' still lies on 'disruption' to the climate caused by the sinful activities of mankind. Supreme skeptics. The justices of the United States Supreme Court this week became the world's most august global warming sceptics. Not by virtue of their legal reasoning — the global warming case they decided turned on a technical legal issue — but in their surprising commentary. Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was. Supremes retreat from climate panic. The Supreme Court dealt Al Gore, the Environmental Protection Agency and other believers in alarmist climate science a surprising and severe blow this week. In its June 20 decision on American Electric Power v. Connecticut et al., the court ruled that the mere existence of EPA regulatory authority over greenhouse-gas regulations pre-empted lawsuits against coal-burning utilities on the grounds that the emissions constitute a public nuisance. Lots of Hot Air After Activists Lose Climate Suit. This week, climate change activists suffered a major loss at the Supreme Court, which unanimously threw out their highly publicized lawsuit against power companies. Although — or perhaps because — the Court's opinion was clear and direct, the losing activists have sought desperately to spin a loss into a win. And the press's lackluster coverage of the decision only has helped obfuscate the Court's decision. Why 'vote blue, go green' doesn't sound quite so clever any more. At this midsummer season, it is becoming traditional for me to draw attention to a striking prediction made by the Prince of Wales in March 2009. Speaking in Brazil, he said that the world had "only 100 months to avert irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse". It would be all over by July 2017, unless the right climate change policies were put in place. Since then, the world has certainly not made the changes for which the Prince was calling. That means that there are now just over six years left. One wonders why he bothers to prepare for the throne... Climate Change Scientists Face Inconvenient Truths. Two different climate change scientists at opposite ends of the political spectrum have backtracked on their positions in the last couple of days, indicating that Al Gore's method of simultaneously scaring and inspiring everybody with graphs, while effective, might not be sustainable. Warmists: 'We can't win the game, so let's change the rules'. The theory linking man-made CO2 with dangerous global warming is dead. It has been falsified. It has run smack bang into a "null hypothesis." It has met its Waterloo. It has bought the farm. It has gone for a Burton. It has cashed in its chips, fallen off its perch, gone south, gone west, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible. Man-made Global Warming has ceased to exist. Still Hiding The Decline? Alarmist academics are being forced to show their work and they don't like it. Do they fear that a web of deception will unravel if their data are made public? Was 2010 the Hottest Year Ever? According to the world's best-known climate change mouthpiece, 2010 was the hottest year on record. Wrong. It's yet another example of a political activist with a Ph.D. donning a magician's cape to try pull one over on the audience. ... In fact, according to the National Climatic Data Center, the warmest decade on record was the 1930s, with twenty-two of the now 50 states recording their highest temperature ever during those years. Thirty-eight states recorded their all-time highs before 1960. Likewise the hottest year on record was 1934. Even Jim Hansen's NASA unit has been forced to acknowledge this. Regulation takes over when legislation is defeated. Yes, cap-and-trade is back again. ... The latest vehicle for delivering this immortal tyranny is the Clean Air Act, which has been mutated by ten year's worth of lawsuits into an open-ended warrant for the Environmental Protection Agency to give itself any powers it thinks it needs, any time it sees a problem it wants to address. Environmental activists persuaded it to declare "greenhouse gasses" a public health threat that required regulation. (You could hear the bureaucrats howling in pain as their arms were twisted, all the way from the lobby of the EPA offices.) 'Why will no one listen to us any more?' wails AGW propagandist. People, what is your problem? Didn't you know that this is the third hottest year in the entire history of the universe? Don't you care any more that it's all totally our fault? Are you really so sick and selfish that you don't agree any more that our landscape should be carpeted with wind farms and our economy bombed back into the Dark Ages so as to bring global CO2 levels down to the correct, UN-mandated level? UN subterfuge: The global warming hoax. Today, Americans perceive global warming as a low priority item, and have turned their attention to our economic and security concerns. But big government agencies (UN and US) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) continue to quietly expand UN influence, by teaching their insidious Marxist policies to the bureaucratic, naive, and idiotic. 17,000 People Who Don't Exist. Apostles of the Global Warming religion claim their "science" is "settled" and that there is no disagreement in the scientific community on man-made global warming. Well, there are over 17,000 verified signatures by PhD scientists who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. It's call the Oregon Petition. Cancunhagen. [Roy] Spencer is not skeptical about the fact that burning fossil fuels is increasing the carbon dioxide in atmosphere; that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; or that, all other things being equal, increased carbon dioxide will produce more warming. Although some activists have called him and his colleagues "denialists," Spencer concurs that there is no scientific disagreement over the fact that the Earth has been warming. "What we deny is that we have any certainty about how much of the recent warming is due to man," said Spencer. "We deny that it's mostly man-made." The EPA Versus the USA. First, there was no "global warming"; only the normal and natural warming that had been in effect since around 1850 when a 500-year "little ice age" ended in the northern hemisphere. Second, the Earth is now in a normal and natural cooling cycle, though with the added concern that it is also at the end of an 11,500 year interglacial cycle between the last major ice age and the next. Third, the data put forth by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been almost entirely discredited, based as it was on rigged research by corrupted university centers and governmental agencies. Turn out the lights, the party's over. Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do, nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun. The global-warming caravan has moved on, bound for a destination in oblivion. Phony Claims Infest Cancun Climate Conference. At the United Nations climate confab in Cancun, Mexico, this week, the usual set of phony claims were once again trotted out to try to scare the world into submission. Claim One: A four-degree rise in global temperature is likely to occur during the 21st Century. ... Let's mow down the first claim first. I drive this point home in my book, Climategate, and the global whiners loath it: Since 1850 — the beginning of the Industrial Revolution — the Earth's average surface temperature has risen only .7° Celsius (just a bit more than one degree Fahrenheit). Point-seven degrees Celsius in 160 years — that's all. And this minuscule temperature increase coincided with the proliferation of the train, car, truck and even the lawnmower and leaf blower. Oh, and the bulk of this warming occurred before 1940. More about the Cancun climate conference. New Retreat from Global Warming Data by Australian Gov Bureau. Global warmers is in full retreat as Aussie experts admit growing doubts about their own methods as a new study shows one third of temperatures are not reliable. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) admits it was wrong about urban heating effects as a professional statistical analysis by Andrew Barnham exposes a BOM claim that "since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7°C"; the BOM assertion has no empirical scientific basis. Can environmentalism be saved from itself? Mercifully, nobody will pay attention to the climate conference at Cancun next week, where a much-reduced group of delegates will go through the motions. The delusional dream of global action to combat climate change is dead. Barack Obama's cap-and-trade scheme is dead. Chicago's carbon-trading market is dead. The European Union's supposed reduction in carbon emissions has been exposed as a giant fraud. Public interest in climate change has plunged, and the media have radically reduced their climate coverage. The Green Bubble is about to Burst. There is a revolution coming that is likely to burst the green global warming bubble: the temperature trend used by the IPCC (the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to support their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is likely to turn out to be fake. The situation will become clear once Virginia's attorney general, Kenneth Cuccinelli, obtains information now buried in e-mails at the University of Virginia. Or Hearings on Climategate by the U.S. Congress may uncover the "smoking gun" that demonstrates that the warming trend used by the IPCC does not really exist. It has become increasingly clear that any observed warming during the past century is of natural origin and that the human contribution is insignificant. It is doubtful that any significant warming is attributable to greenhouse gases at all. Climate change 'fraud' letter: a Martin Luther moment in science history. Five centuries ago, a German priest challenged the reigning theological "consensus" about the clerical sale of indulgences, unraveling one of the great religious scams in history and inspiring the Protestant Reformation. This month, a senior American physicist challenged the reigning scientific "consensus" about global warming. His action may prove to be the unraveling one of the great scientific mistakes in history and the beginning of a greatly needed reformation of the scientific community. Voters Punish Supporters of Global Warming Restrictions. Senator Russ Feingold (D) thrust global warming front and center into the U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin, calling Ron Johnson's global warming views "bizarre" and "extreme" after the Republican challenger said he believes global warming is due primarily to natural forces, with solar variability the most likely factor. Feingold, who polls suggested was in a dead heat with Johnson prior to making global warming a central issue, saw his polling numbers quickly deteriorate, and he ultimately lost the election by 5 percentage points. Motive Force Behind All Climate Change. There never was a compelling case for human caused global warming. The CO2 climate change hypothesis is not science, it is sorcery driven to hysteria by political opportunists. It is time to restore science to its rightful place. Sustainable Oil Production? [Scroll down] As researchers dig deeper into sources of climate change, we must seriously consider the concept of a molten Earth core fed by nuclear waste from a georeactor at its center emitting heat as well as the elements to form hydrocarbons creating petroleum. With great heat (including an abundance of CO2) escaping the crust by mechanisms such as hydrothermal vents in the ocean floor triggering major events such as El Niño ocean warming, we may be getting closer to climate change truth than the mythology of "man-made climate disruption." Shattering the Greenhouse Effect. A recommended essay by Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring offers a high school through advanced level debunking of the so-called 'greenhouse effect.' Dr. Jelbring finds that basic scientific principles demonstrate that global temperatures are not controlled by human emissions of 'greenhouse gases' and the 'greenhouse effect' is explainable using only the physics of pressure, gravity, volume, and the adiabatic lapse rate. CO2 as a radiation valve contravenes the laws of thermodynamics. "Heat-trapping gases," you hear, and "Radiation goes in but can't get out." Well then, what is every explanation of the greenhouse effect pointing at but a radiation valve? Since heat rays are prevented from exiting to space, it is claimed, they have nowhere else to go but back to the earth which, by absorbing them, becomes warmer. ... Simple as it is, though, no scientist in the world is able to construct a model that exhibits any radiative gain because the theory's tenets (called "the basic science") are not valid. On a theoretical basis alone, conservation of energy (the First Law) forbids a model like this from working. Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste. To prop up claims of the mythical abilities of atmospheric carbon dioxide to determine climate conditions, the warmists fashioned a radiant energy balance sheet. To avoid long term heating or cooling the energy inflows must match the outflows. Just one problem, one heat source is completely ignored. The AGW balance sheet shows ONLY solar input. The 259 trillion cubic miles of molten rock that forms our planet is not melted, or maintained at present temperature by solar electromagnetic radiation. This planet is internally warmed by fission of the 700,000 cubic miles of fissionable material burning in our mantle. A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon? We've been told that the earth's surface is quite a bit warmer than calculations predict. Theory has it that heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" account for a 33° Celsius disparity. But it turns out that our airless moon is also quite a bit warmer than predicted. Might something be wrong with the prediction method itself, then? "It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life" US physics professor resigns from APS. Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society. My Resignation From The American Physical Society. [Scroll down] It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. An important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science. What I would really like to see though, is this public resignation letter given the same editorial space as Michael Mann in today's Washington Post. Climategate and the American Physical Society. Professor Hal Lewis's resignation from the American Physical Society challenges the scientific — as opposed to the merely politically expedient — basis of the "consensus" on global warming. Greenism. In Canada Free Press I give many examples, in a variety of articles, of the myriad falsities inherent in the green movement. Sometimes, falsity can be accepted as a side-effect of stupidity, but not in this case. The green movement is the province of intelligent middle classes. So, why is it that these people come out with such nonsense? It's because their intellect doesn't match their intelligence, making them accept emotionalism rather than truth. In other words, they are prejudiced against reality. More on Greenism. No sooner had I sent off my article on 'Greenism' to Canada Free Press, than I received notification that the leading scientific institution, the Royal Society, has backed down on its strident global warming claims! To put it frankly, that is one in the eye for the silly young geology graduate who decided to back the green horse in the MENSA journal. Texas Sues to Block Bizarre "Global Warming" EPA Rules. The state of Texas today [9/16/2010] sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a federal appeals court in Washington DC, claiming four new regulations imposed by the EPA are based on the 'thoroughly discredited' findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are 'factually flawed,' [WOAI] reports. WH Science Czar 'Global Warming' is 'Dangerous Misnomer'. John Holdren, our official fraudulent "Science Czar" for our equally mendacious President, has dumped "global warming" as a "dangerous misnomer." Ah, yes, that would be it then. It's not the facts but the words that are wrong, says America's official Doctor Science. In scientific terms this means John Holdren has run up the white flag and is begging for mercy. Global warming? It doesn't exist, says Ryanair boss O'Leary. In an interview with The Independent littered with expletives, the chief executive of Europe's largest airline branded the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is heating up the planet with potentially grave consequences for the future of humanity as "h········t". He agreed the climate was changing but denied it was caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, such as those from his planes. "Nobody can argue that there isn't climate change. The climate's been changing since time immemorial," he said. Royal Society Reexamines Global Warming Position. The Royal Society of Great Britain, generally considered the nation's most prestigious scientific society, has announced it will conduct a review of a previous public statement supporting the claims of global warming alarmists. That statement had declared the "debate on climate change is over" and the planet is becoming disastrously warmer due to human emissions of carbon dioxide. The Royal Society is reexamining its position after a growing number of member scientists expressed disagreement with the position of its leadership. Climate Change Lies Are Exposed. The world's leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices. A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was "little evidence" for its claims about global warming. It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made "substantive findings" based on little proof. Al Gore's global-warming crusade shrinks. The fortunes of Mr. Gore's global-warming crusade certainly are in decline: A recent Rasmussen poll found that just 34 percent of respondents "feel human activity is the main contributor" to global warming and that the percentage of those who consider global warming a "serious issue" has "trended down slightly since last November." Mr. Gore himself is to blame for at least some of the public backlash against global-warming orthodoxy: Using bad science to justify bad policy will inevitably rub people the wrong way. Reflected Sunlight Shines On IPCC Deceptions And Gross Inadequacies. Moonlight is not light generated by the moon, but reflected sunlight. First astronauts on the moon were amazed by the brightness of Earth when it appeared over the lunar horizon. What they saw was Earthlight, which is also reflected sunlight. It's sunlight that does little to heat the Earth because it goes directly back out to space. The amount reflected varies with changes to the surface and atmosphere. These changes are significant yet poorly measured or understood and pushed aside by the fanatic focus on CO2. Global Warming, R.I.P. In a remarkable monograph, Roy W. Spencer presents hard evidence that 75% of the observed warming since the start of the 20th century is due to natural processes. He offers a detailed model describing how one of these processes, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), operates in the real world. Most importantly, he demonstrates that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a minor contributor to a global climate largely insensitive to man-made CO2. Thanks to this highly skilled climatologist and his [new book], we can now taunt the often corrupt and overtly political planetary high priests with this: PDO means AGW is DOA. Global Warming: Our Mistake, Never Mind. In a remarkable monograph, Roy W. Spencer presents hard evidence that 75% of the observed warming since the start of the 20th century is due to natural processes. He offers a detailed model describing how one of these processes, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), operates in the real world. Most importantly, he demonstrates that anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a minor contributor to a global climate largely insensitive to man-made CO2. Journalist's Guide to Global Warming Experts. Jim Martin, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, recently told a reporter, "You could have a convention of all the scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth." (Denver Post, February 12, 2008) I suppose it depends on what is meant by "dispute climate change." My organization, The Heartland Institute, has been studying and commenting on climate change since 1995, making contact with hundreds of scientists, economists, and policy experts whose views on climate change certainly dispute the notion that "global warming is a crisis." Catastrophism collapses. [Scroll down] Support for global-warming programs is also in tatters in the U.S., where polls show — as in Europe — that the great majority rejects global-warming catastrophism. The public resents repeated attempts to pass cap and trade legislation over their objections, contributing to the fall in popularity of President Barack Obama and Congress. Public opinion surveys now predict that this November's elections will see sweeping change in the United States, with legislators who have signed on to the global-warming hypothesis being replaced by those who don't buy it. Harry Reid's high-stakes climate bill gamble. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is planning a high-risk, high-stakes strategy for bringing climate and energy legislation to the floor ahead of the August recess. The gamble: yoking a bipartisan, fast-track measure to overhaul offshore drilling rules with a broad, contentious bill capping greenhouse gas emissions that otherwise would have almost no chance of passage on its own. Democrats May Abandon Cap-And-Trade. The Senate is due to outline a new energy bill next week when it returns from its July 4th recess. Cap-and-trade likely will be a minor part — if it is in there at all. Instead the bill will focus on cleaning up after the Gulf Oil spill and promoting green energy. It may include cap-and-trade for utilities, but even that is doubtful. Carbon dioxide NOT causing a climate crisis, say scientists. [Scroll down] "Contrary to the common assumption that only 'outliers' and unqualified researchers disagree with the theory of carbon dioxide-induced climate disaster, The Register demonstrates that many leading experts contest this hypothesis", said Register endorser Dr. Tim Patterson, ICSC Chair and Professor of Earth Sciences at Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada). "Many in the Earth Sciences community in particular have trouble with the concept that today's climate change is in any way unusual or driven by human activity. Climate has always changed, at times far faster than we are witnessing today, and it will continue to change no matter what we do." From Climate Wars to Congress? As has been reported here regularly, global warming alarmists have been losing to their opponents on the facts, on their credibility, in the public's eyes. Now there's the possibility they could actually lose a Congressional seat to a climate realist, and that really scares them. 'Climate Climbdown'. The Royal Society of Britain is rewriting its official position on global warming. We'd say the consensus that man is causing the planet to heat is cracking, but there never was a consensus in the first place. Climate alarmists on the run. Former Vice President Al Gore was at his peak when the film "An Inconvenient Truth" made its initial Hollywood splash. Faith in man-made global warming had never been more widespread, with liberal academics and media subjecting to ridicule any who dared question the "settled science." Only a fool could deny that elevated carbon-dioxide levels had melted ice caps and stranded polar bears on rapidly diminishing ice floes. How the tables have turned in a short time. Are Climate Alarmists losing the Mainstream Media? In the past week, two mainstream media giants have apparently recognized that the debate over manmade global warming is far from over. On Monday [5/24/2010], the NY Times broke with years of blatant warmist bias in reporting that Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons. ... Now Newsweek has joined the newly aware, but with a dash more honesty. 30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Can't Be Wrong. Nature Magazine, the academic journal that introduced the world to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently the human genome, is set to publish a paper in June that shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for only 5-10% of observed warming on Earth. As explained by the paper's author Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, "The climate is warming, yes, but not because of greenhouse gases." For the preeminent scientific journal in the world to publish Kauppinen's work shows conclusively that Al Gore's much touted "scientific consensus" supporting human-caused global warming is a myth. It's the Sun, stupid. Four years ago, when I first started profiling scientists who were global warming skeptics, I soon learned two things: Solar scientists were overwhelmingly skeptical that humans caused climate change and, overwhelmingly, they were reluctant to go public with their views. Often, they refused to be quoted at all, saying they feared for their funding, or they feared other recriminations from climate scientists in the doomsayer camp. When the skeptics agreed to be quoted at all, they often hedged their statements, to give themselves wiggle room if accused of being a global warming denier. Scant few were outspoken about their skepticism. No longer. Fearlessly Independent: An Interview with Ian Plimer. The idea that global warming is caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide is always taken for granted as the default assumption, and if you don't agree with it, you have to explain yourself. Let's reverse that presumption and put the burden of proof where it belongs: is there, or has there ever been, any evidence that CO2 drives the climate? Is this a theory that should ever have gotten off the ground? Only morons, cheats and liars still believe in Man-Made Global Warming. [Scroll down] Except we shouldn't use that word "sceptic" any more. Richard Lindzen — Godfather of Climate Realism — told us so in one of the keynote addresses. "Scepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition," he said. "Current global warming alarmism hardly represents a plausible proposition." Not least, he pointed out, because the various activist scientists, greenies and government institutions pushing AGW theory have failed to "improve their case over 20 years." So paper thin are the AGW movement's arguments that pretty much the only defences left to them are desperate techniques like the appeal to authority ("the Royal Society believes in AGW and the Royal Society is, like, really old and distinguished, so AGW must be true") and cheap slurs. It looks like we're all global warming skeptics now. My American Enterprise Institute colleagues Kenneth Green and Steven Hayward provide a pithy summary of this long article in Germany's Der Spiegel entitled "A Superstorm for Global Warming Research." Germans Say 'Alles Is Kaput' on Global Warming. Far from parroting the "settled science" canard, Der Spiegel points to many "open questions" of the science, and says "anyone who speaks with leading climatologists today will discover how many questions remain open. The media, politicians and even scientists often talk about changes to the weather with a certainty that does not in fact exist." Inconvenient questions: With the fourth global Earth Hour put to bed last night, today let's ask some inconvenient questions of the global warmists. First, does the real-world failure of virtually all of your ideas ever give you a moment's pause? From the fiasco in Copenhagen, to the collapse of the UN's Kyoto accord, with its absurd, unrealistic, centrally-mandated, carbon dioxide-reduction diktats, mindful of the old Soviet Union? Does it never occur to you you've barked up the wrong tree rings? What about the humiliation of Climategate? This Man Wants to Convince You Global Warming Is a Hoax. Marc Morano broke the Swift Boat story and effectively stalled John Kerry's presidential run. Now he is working against an even bigger enemy: belief in climate change. The British press just can't believe that we can't believe it. Climate change sceptics on your TV. Winning over hearts and minds in the fight against climate change has run into a cold front: America's television weather forecasters. An academic survey of more than 500 US television meteorologists found that one in four of them say there is no global warming, and 27% agree with the statement "global warming is a scam". Climate change 'exaggerated' in government adverts. Two government press adverts which used nursery rhymes to raise awareness of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). It said the advertisements went beyond mainstream scientific consensus in asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought. A total of 939 people complained to the ASA about the "Act on CO2" campaign. Time to Turn Up the Heat on the Warmists. At one time some would call them "deniers." The more generous called them "skeptics." But now, increasingly, it appears that they can be called something else: sane. Yes, the climate has certainly changed. Even in the mainstream media, the less liberal organs are waking up. Southern Company pulls out of carbon capture project at Barry Steam Plant. Southern Company is dropping out of a high-profile project at Barry Steam Plant intended to test the possibility of storing large amounts of carbon dioxide underground, a spokesman said Monday [2/22/2010]. Time to get angry. With honorable exceptions — such as UKIP and, on the environment at least, the BNP — our political class seem to have absolutely no understanding of the grotesque injustices being inflicted on their electorate in the name of the non-existent threat of "Climate Change." What will it take, I wonder, for these imbeciles to wake up and smell the coffee? Will a hung Parliament do? Or will it have to be bloody revolution? Nearly half of Americans believe climate change threat is exaggerated. Public belief in climate science has seen a precipitous slide in the US, according to new polling that suggests fewer Americans are concerned about the threat posed by global warming. Arizona Quits Climate Pact. The Grand Canyon State avoids a big economic hole by suspending its participation in a multistate initiative to fight climate change. As climate fraud is exposed, economic reality sets in. Will California follow? Accuweather's Bastardi Takes on Bill Nye & Global Warming on FNC. On Monday's [2/22/2010] The O'Reilly Factor, FNC's Bill O'Reilly hosted a debate between global warming skeptic Joe Bastardi of Accuweather, and Bill Nye of PBS's Bill Nye the Science Guy, known for recently declaring that it was "unpatriotic" to dispute global warming. Bastardi argued that recent winter weather patterns are connected to El Niño, not global warming. He also linked sunspot activity to warming and cooling trends. Climategate: Inhofe Raises the Temperature. [Senator James] Inhofe, a long-time critic of the evidence for anthropogenic global warming and of the "cap and trade" carbon exchange schemes, used his floor speech to point out to the Senate that the IPCC report included the infamous "2035" date for the disappearance of glaciers from the Himalayas — which the IPCC has now been forced to retract. They're finally admitting the science isn't settled. When was the last time you recall an alarmist such as Phil Jones admitting there was any doubt at all about warming in the last decade and a half? Haven't we had it drummed into us ceaselessly that the past decade has been the warmest ever recorded? Prof. Jones's admission to the BBC then is very significant. Viscount Monckton Takes a Victory Lap. For several months, the "Monthly CO2 Reports," compiled by me at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org, have been pointing out that there has been no statistically significant "global warming" for 15 years. Regular attacks on my calculations and graphs have appeared on blogs by the usual suspects — Gavin Schmidt of NASA being, as usual, the most venomously ad hominem and the least scientifically plausible. ConocoPhillips bails out of climate coalition. ConocoPhillips announced Tuesday [2/16/2010] that it is abandoning the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a major coalition of corporations and environmental groups that's pushing Congress to approve cap-and-trade legislation. BP will leave USCAP too. BP America is also leaving the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. A spokesman said the oil company, like ConocoPhillips, will not renew its membership in the coalition of corporations and environmental groups pushing Congress to approve cap-and-trade legislation. Conoco, BP, Caterpillar Drop Out Of Cap-And-Trade Alliance. Here's another sign of the shifting political winds on global warming: ConocoPhillips, BP and Caterpillar have decided not to renew their membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad alliance of corporations and environmentalists supporting cap-and-trade legislation. Xerox, Marsh Also Out Of USCAP Climate Alliance. Looks like there's a stampede to exit the United States Climate Action Partnership. Copier king Xerox and insurance broker Marsh apparently are no longer in the business-green alliance supporting cap-and-trade legislation, or so says Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project. On Tuesday, energy giants BP and ConocoPhillips, along with heavy equipment maker Caterpillar, said they were leaving the group. Global warming advocates ignore the boulders. Last week, BP America, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar, three early members of the 31-member U.S. Climate Action Partnership ... withdrew from USCAP. It is a coalition of corporations and global warming alarm groups that was formed in 2007 when carbon rationing legislation seemed inevitable and collaboration with the rationers seemed prudent. A spokesman for Conoco said: "We need to spend time addressing the issues that impact our shareholders and consumers." What a concept. World may not be warming, say scientists. The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution. In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was "unequivocal". It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7°C and that there could be 5°C-6°C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all. Many meteorologists break with science of global warming. After considerable persuasion last week, the Fox affiliate WDAF reluctantly allowed its chief meteorologist, Mike Thompson, to explain in an e-mail to The Kansas City Star why he breaks from the scholarly worldview of the causes of climate change. "It has become completely political — it's not about science at all," he wrote in an e-mail. "If science were the objective, then we would be seeing an entirely different debate. But there are agendas at play, and it has undermined the credibility of climate science." Others in his profession share that view. The Shame of the American Meteorological Society. Bill Gray, a professor emeritus at Colorado State, has been a member of the American Meteorological Society for more than 50 years. In a lengthy post at Watts Up With That, he expresses his dismay at the manner in which AMS has sold out science in the interest of politics. Meteorologists Reject U.N.'s Global Warming Claims. Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations' claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports. The survey results contradict the oftrepeated assertion that a consensus of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis. Utah Legislature: House formally questions global warming. With most Democrats voting no, the Utah House approved a resolution Tuesday [2/9/2010] that questions global warming while asking the federal government not to proceed with "cap-and-trade" legislation or CO2 regulation. Enviro-Marxists discover the real scourge of the planet: human beings. "Climate change," the scam formerly known as "global warming," has been exposed as the crypto-Marxist hoax many of us suspected for years that it was. In Copenhagen, at the ridiculous charade of a "summit" on the dangers of carbon emissions producing record carbon emissions, the lofty rhetoric about saving the planet and the long-suffering polar bears has been ripped down like a sheet covering an unfinished masterpiece. After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate. I'm trying to write a Climategate book but the way things are going by the time I'm finished there won't be anything left to say: the battle will already have been won and the only people left who still believe in Man Made Global Warming will be the eco-loon equivalents of those wartime Japanese soldiers left abandoned and forgotten on remote Pacific atolls. Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri. No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007. Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as "the world's top climate scientist"), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all. A Climatology Conspiracy? The CRU e-mails have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised by a team of global warming scientists, with the willing cooperation of the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), Glenn McGregor. The team spent nearly a year preparing and publishing a paper that attempted to rebut a previously published paper in IJC by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer (DCPS). The DCPS paper, reviewed and accepted in the traditional manner, had shown that the IPCC models that predicted significant "global warming" in fact largely disagreed with the observational data. Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review. As the science scandal known as ClimateGate grows, the largest U.S. physicists' association is finding itself roiled by internal dissent and allegations of conflict of interest over a forthcoming review of its position statement on man-made global warming. When Will Climateers Give Up? While climateers grandly assert that all skeptics are mentally unbalanced, and they try their best to dismiss claims of fraud, reality has a way of coming to the fore. It is now about time those who cling to the Copenhagen Summit realised the ship is sinking. Here Comes The Sun. Drip by drip, like a glacier melting in the sun, the claim that man is changing the climate is dissolving into irrelevance. The recent findings of Swiss researchers expose another hole. Former Vice President Al Gore has for years warned that man-made global warming is melting the world's glaciers — a tactic commonly used by alarmists who want to whip up hysteria. Swiss researchers, however, have presented evidence that weakens the argument. Hide the Decline. Public confidence continues to fall on the global warming alarmism front. But if the evidence of coming tragedy is as incontrovertible as we're told, taxpayers certainly should not have to beg those they pay to hand it over. Chestnuts Roasting on a Copenhagen Fire. Despite Rep. Ron Paul's call for members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of more than 32,000 U.S. scientists — including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s — who believe humans likely have little or no part in the creation of "global warming," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs justified the White House's position and waved away opposition by tritely retorting that most people believe in global warming. A recent survey, however, found Americans' belief in global warming has declined and is at a 12-year low. Republicans Plan to Form Counter-Delegation at Climate Conference. A GOP counter-delegation is forming to undermine the Obama administration's work on an international climate change agreement in Copenhagen, warning that the president is poised to make commitments he can't keep and drawing heightened attention to controversial leaked e-mails. Did someone mention ClimateGate? Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation'. Global warming is caused by radiation from the sun, according to a leading scientist speaking out at an alternative "sceptics' conference" in Copenhagen. Did someone mention Copenhagen? Climategate: Beyond the Sleazy Science, Rotten Economics. The United Nations "climate" summit is upon us ... And here's the beauty of this grand scam. Not only is it based on unsound "findings" with the UN claiming a "consensus" that never was, based on "science" that was something other than scientific. Beyond that, if anyone cares to venture further, lie boundless vistas of bad economics. Climategate and the Hamster Effect. Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists scampering hither and thither in the face of predatory evidence that they and their pet theories may be doomed, I'm put in mind of the behavior of hamsters who suddenly find themselves trapped in a cage with a hungry snake. Climate change skeptics. The scientific evidence for human-driven climate change may be widely accepted. But those who gathered in the tiny parlor offered a variety of alternative explanations. One presentation contended that volcanoes emitted far more carbon dioxide than human activities like the burning of fossil fuels. Another presentation disputed data suggesting that sea levels were rising. Still another asserted that solar activity caused climate shifts. Speaking of the case made by scientists for global warming, S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, said: "They have no evidence. None." Untrustworthy Data. The U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization released Tuesday [12/8/2009] a preliminary report that claims the 10-year period from 2000 to 2009 is the warmest since records began in 1850. We find the claim to be, well, a bit silly. How, for instance, can serious scientists compare data from record keeping in 1850 to modern record-keeping? The report says the data are culled "from networks of land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites." It might be rude to challenge the leaders of the faith, but we have to ask: How many satellites, ships and buoys were used in 1850? The Editor says... First of all, it's not necessarily a bad thing if we're living in a climate that is one degree warmer than the world of 1850. Even if such claims are true, people have been around much longer than thermometers. There have been warmer and colder centuries, as well as lower or higher sea levels, and people have always adapted and survived. The same is true of polar bears and whooping cranes and spotted owls. The inconvenient truths Mr Gore and his fanatical friends DIDN'T tell you. [Scroll down] What you will find out is this. That much of what passes for accepted truth is not. Facts have been ruthlessly twisted, suppressed or invented. Scientists are greatly divided on the subject. Many people — and bodies — presented as experts actually have little or no knowledge of the science involved. Gullible politicians and gullible media men and women have repeatedly fallen for it. Hucksters, profiteers, world-government fanatics and, of course, the EU (always searching for an excuse to increase its power) have latched on to it. Huge public subsidies, including the carbon-trading racket and the tragicomic building of hideous, worse-than-useless windfarms, now depend upon it. China, India Cancel Out Copenhagen. With less than two months to go before the big Copenhagen Conference on global warming, two major nations have said "no thanks" to the no-growth agenda. For that reason alone, so should we. The Puck Stops Here. Unlike Al Gore, pulling numbers from wherever he's stuck his char-broiled thermometer, Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit likes to look 'em over first. ... "The science is settled" means: The politics is settled. So the science has to follow. The climate-change travesty. With 20,000 delegates, advocates and journalists jetting to Copenhagen for planet Earth's last chance, the carbon footprint of the global warming summit will be the only impressive consequence of the climate-change meeting. Its organizers had hoped that it would produce binding caps on emissions, global taxation to redistribute trillions of dollars, and micromanagement of everyone's choices. Australians lead climate sceptic charge. The leading role Australian climate sceptics are taking at Copenhagen comes as the opposition takes a more cautious line on global warming, ruling out support for an ETS [emissions trading scheme]. Climate sceptics worldwide have been buoyed by the release of leaked emails from an English university which appear to show some climate data had been massaged to remove indications the world was not warming. Asian Cold Water On Global Warming. If there's good news from Saturday's APEC summit, it's Asia's ninja blow to a global climate pact in Copenhagen. The dynamic region recognized the economy-killer for what it was and refused to commit suicide. Where's the skepticism? [Bjorn] Lomborg deserves his reputation as The Skeptical Environmentalist — his books poke holes in many dogmas society holds dear, often through the use of statistics. But I find he's not skeptical enough. The Greatest Scam in History. According to the perpetrators of the global warming scam, there is supposed to be a total consensus that what they call "global warming" is a major threat to earth's future. [John] Coleman is one of many meteorlogists who disagree with some or all of their claims. S. Fred Singer is another who questions such claims. The two of them together have over 100 years of experience studying weather. Coleman founded the Weather Channel. Singer was the first head of the National Weather Satellite Service. The end is near. The great global warming scare is over — it is well past its peak, very much a spent force, sputtering in fits and starts to a whimpering end. You may not know this yet. Or rather, you may know it but don't want to acknowledge it until every one else does, and that won't happen until the press, much of which also knows it, formally acknowledges it. New Scientific Study Could Destroy Global Warming Theory. A newly released scientific study published by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has the potential of destroying one of the fundamental underpinnings of global warming theorists. The study collected 15-years of long wave radiation measurements from a satellite orbiting the earth. The study correlates the change in the earth's surface temperature with the change in outgoing long wave radiation. Lindzen's study shows that as the earth warms, the amount of radiation being bounced-back into outer space actually increases. Climate Sensitivity Estimates: Heading Down, Way Down? MIT climate scientists Richard Lindzen and collaborator Yong-Sang Choi soon-to-be published paper (Geophysical Research Letters, American Geophysical Union) pegs the earth's "climate sensitivity" — the degree the earth's temperature responds to various forces of change — at a value that is about six times less than the "best estimate" put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The smaller the climate sensitivity, the less the impact that rising carbon dioxide levels will have on the earth's climate. The less the impact that CO2 emissions will have on the earth's climate, the less the "problem" and ability to reverse the "problem." Global warming hooey. [Scroll down] There are, however, an increasing number of peer-reviewed and intensely credible scientific minds who believe conventional thinking on global warming is nonsense. One such being Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and a world-renowned scholar. The Heretics: Lord Christopher Monckton. Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount of Brenchley, is a legend within the global warming skeptic community. The erudite Englishman was an advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher when climate change theories were in their infancy. In recent years, he has been one of the most eloquent and vocal critics of Al Gore and those who echo Gore's alarmist cries. When Being Green Is Just Plain Yellow. There are three types of environmentalists: the good, the bad and the stupid. I've met the good and the very good. The bad can only be described as bordering on evil. As for the stupid, some of my critics would put me in that category whenever I voice my skepticism about global warming being due to mankind. I'll admit ignorance on the issue of climatology but I do know how to recognize truth versus deceit on the subject. Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels. "I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week. The Branch Carbonian Cult. [Scroll down slowly] All that is needed to begin the collapse of this house-of-cards scam is yet another list of certifiable facts and truths — one which will disprove much of the Cult's mission, tactics and alleged "solutions" — namely, (a) the fact that while Arctic ice may (or may not, of late) be receding, Antarctic ice has been increasing for about 40 years, (b) the fact that global temperatures have been on a slightly decreasing trend since 1998, (c) the fact that Mars (which features no man-made factor at all) is experiencing "global warming," as well, (d) the fact that Antarctic "ice shelves" which occasionally break off, float away and melt at sea, do not raise ocean levels at all, (e) the fact that several of the "hottest years" on record were in the 1930s and 1940s, when CO2 levels were much lower than today's, (f) the fact that ever more scientists assert convincingly that atmospheric CO2 is a lagging consequence, rather than a triggering cause, of alleged global warming... Global warming debunked by New Zealand Meteorologist. Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton (New Zealand) this week. Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained. "We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said. A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it. "It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said. Global Warming Blues: A red flag in the global warming debate is the left-right split. Generally people on the left tend to believe in global warming and those on the right tend to be skeptics. The New York Times thinks global warming is settled science while the Wall Street Journal thinks it is greatly exaggerated. If global warming is a science question, why should this be so? The answer is that both the right and the left recognize that global warming has political consequences. The left recognizes that global warming presents an opportunity to increase government revenue via carbon taxes and to justify the taxes as sin taxes. The right recognizes the same thing. Spiking the road to Copenhagen. Three cheers for Jairam Ramesh! India at last has an environment minister who is willing and able to denounce the hypocrisy and immorality of the West in twisting the arms of India and China to curb their carbon emissions. He is right to make it clear that India has no intention of signing the new 'climate change' treaty in Copenhagen in December, which would put curbs on the carbon emissions of the Third World. Anthropogenic Global Warming? Not So Fast. Skepticism about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has engulfed the leadership of key scientific societies including the American Chemical Society (ACS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the American Physical Society (APS). Growing numbers of members of these prestigious organizations are clamoring for a reassessment of their societies' positions on climate change. What we are up against, and what to do. Most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority. For much of the public, authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with science. For a basically political movement, as the global warming issue most certainly is, an important task is to coopt the sources of authority. This, the global warming movement has done with great success. ... The American Association for the Advancement of Science has been headed by James McCarthy and John Holdren in recent years, and these have been public advocates for global warming alarm. Holdren is now President Obama's nominee for science advisor. There are numerous further examples. Politicians shun facts, blow hot air on climate change. Federal legislators are now poised to move forward with punitive anti-emissions schemes such as cap-and-trade that ignore important and highly relevant new studies. These studies indicate that astronomical influences, not man-made emissions, may be largely to blame for any warming or cooling trends on Earth. Moreover, the whole idea of "global warming" is now in serious doubt. Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash., is among the many scientists who now think the planet has entered into a cooling cycle that could persist for decades. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con. Imagine how wonderful the world would be if man-made global warming were just a figment of Al Gore's imagination. No more ugly wind farms to darken our sunlit uplands. No more whopping electricity bills, artificially inflated by EU-imposed carbon taxes. No longer any need to treat each warm, sunny day as though it were some terrible harbinger of ecological doom. And definitely no need for the $7.4 trillion cap and trade (carbon-trading) bill — the largest tax in American history — which President Obama and his cohorts are so assiduously trying to impose on the US economy. Imagine no more... Palin got it right. Waxman-Markey artificially creates competition between cheap, abundant energy and unreliable, expensive renewable forms, compelling utilities to use heavily subsidized, politically correct "renewable energy" while thousands who work producing traditional energy lose their jobs. All the while, American industry will flee to other countries where they can power their assembly lines with cheaper energy. All sides need voices in global warming debate. I'm not funded by those evil oil companies and, sadly, I'm not the recipient of any of those multibillion dollar federal grants that pay people to find more reasons to alarm us. What I am is a reasonable person who is growing more concerned daily about the simple liberties in life that I fear are being taken away by Washington politicians who seek greater control of my life and my wallet through larger taxes to pay for the initiatives that they claim to promote on my behalf. Tropical rains dampen alarmist agenda. The Obama carbon taxes will cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and may permanently cripple our economy. They're meant to "save the planet" from excess greenhouse gases — but new evidence from tropical rain patterns seems to further refute the claims that recent global warming has been man-made. Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites. Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him. Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic. Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" — man-made climate change to you and me — and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed. Major Science Group 'Startled' By Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming "the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established." The Climate Change Climate Change. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming. ... It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S. ... New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program. Climate Change Conference Rebuts Alarmism . The growing number of global warming skeptics around the world scored a major victory during the second International Conference on Climate Change, which confronted the issue, "Global warming: Was it every really a crisis?" The answer, delivered over 2½ days to an audience of 700 attendees — the largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics — was a resounding "No." Talking Climate Change with Anthony Watts. Anyone who regularly tunes into WattsUpWithThat.com, the popular climate-science blog operated by Anthony Watts, will never make fun of TV weathermen again. Watts — who was a TV meteorologist for 25 years — provides a steady diet of smart, always interesting and sometimes deeply complex scientific information and opinion about global climate change. The Next Ice Age: Is the Earth warming? Any professor who wants tenure will say, "Yes!" now. Any bureaucrat who values his job will genuflect to this tenuous theory. But we do not know if the planet is gradually warming or, if it is warming, why it is warming. More fundamentally, we do not know the direction of any climate change: is our planet growing warmer or growing cooler? A Cooling Trend Toward Global Warming. For two decades there has been an incessant drumbeat of propaganda attributing every weather-related event to an increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels. With the election of a president who is solidly in the global-warming-alarmist camp — and with many high-level appointees who are bona fide climate change alarmists — coupled with a Democratic legislature anxious to please their environmentalist and media benefactors, the passage of legislation causing some form of economy-crippling energy taxation seemed to be a foregone conclusion. But then came the unexpected. ICCC Three Brings Climate Reality To Washington DC. While both public opinion and the planet's climate have cooled these past three months, the Left's green fever has taken a desperate turn in the opposite direction. In April, EPA chief Lisa Jackson made good on her promise to pursue endangerment status and subsequent pollutant regulation of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases, an act likely crafted to coerce accelerated legislative action.  'Global warming is baloney' signs put the heat on Burger King. A row between the fast food giant Burger King and one of its major franchise owners has erupted over roadside signs proclaiming "global warming is baloney". The franchisee, a Memphis-based company called the Mirabile Investment Corporation (MIC) that owns more than 40 Burger Kings across Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi, has described Burger King as acting "kinda like cockroaches" over the controversy. MIC says it does not believe Burger King has the authority to make it take the signs down. Obamamotive. Today, "legitimate" (i.e. academic) science is to a large extent controlled by governments, either national or world governments like the UN. You see, academic scientists (to keep from getting a real job) compete for grants and these grants largely come from governments. These governments are not interested in scientific facts; they want conclusions that buttress their political positions. Call global warming "political" science. New Report Details Over-Looked Scientific Evidence Against Simplistic Climate Alarmism. A 110-page report by an international team of climate experts published today by the independent Fraser Institute examines critically-important scientific evidence that has been overlooked or omitted in government reports that blame climate change on carbon dioxide emissions. Here is the report mentioned above: Critical Topics in Global Warming. The issue of global warming is the subject of two parallel debates: one scientific, focused on the analyses of complex and conflicting data; the other political, addressing what is the proper response of government to a hypothetical risk. Proponents of an immediate and sweeping regulatory response insist that the scientific debate has long been settled. But a fair reading of the science, as presented in the Fraser Institute's Independent Summary for Policymakers (ISPM), proves otherwise. Planet doomsayers need a cold shower. As a University of Adelaide geologist, Dr Ian Plimer, writes in his new book, Heaven And Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, scientists are usually "anarchic, bow to no authority and construct conclusions based on evidence ... Science is not dogmatic and the science of any phenomenon is never settled." His dense book, crammed with 2311 footnotes, is a comprehensive scientific refutation of the beliefs underpinning the idea of human-caused climate change. "It is meant to be an overwhelming demolition job," said Plimer... The climate sure is changing when doubt gets an airing. Australia's pre-eminent academic geologist, Prof Ian Plimer, published Heaven and Earth, challenging the gospel that the world is warming dangerously and that human-caused gases are to blame. In fact, says Plimer, what warming we saw until a decade ago was not unusual, not dangerous and most likely caused mainly by solar activity. What's more, temperatures now seem to be falling. Sceptic spells doom for alarmists. I expect that when the history of global warming as a mass delusion comes to be written, Australia's leading geologist [Ian Plimer] will be recognised as a member of the international sceptical pantheon. As far as the progress of what passes for national debate is concerned, in all likelihood 2009 will be seen as the turning point and divided into the pre and post-Plimer eras. Mind you, I think this year would have been a turning point in any event because global recessions have a way of forcing the great powers to behave pragmatically. Global Warming Doom and Gloom Haven't Occurred. For more than 20 years, we have been hearing doomsday predictions about global warming's effects on Kansas and across the world. Locally, during the hot Kansas summer of 2006, forecasts were issued and media articles written tying that hot, dry weather to global warming, and forecasting more extreme heat in the future. According to one scientist with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global warming in 2006 was already "kicking the heat up a notch." But the weather has refused to cooperate with those forecasts. With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. President Obama says that "few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." In fact, many scientists disagree with the "facts," their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Full text of the newspaper ad [PDF]. The sceptic's shadow of doubt. Professor Ian Plimer isn't short on confidence. Two weeks ago, Plimer, an award-winning geologist from the University of Adelaide, published Heaven + Earth, a 500-page argument against the idea that humans can dramatically affect climate. "Very few people know that the planet changes all the time — that we have these massive cycles driven by forces far greater than human forces — and in many ways it is my job as an educator to say 'look at the big canvas'," he tells The Age. Filmmaker vs. Hysterics: The economic consequences of Al Gore. Irish documentary filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney have stirred up trouble before by debunking smug liberal hypocrisy. Their latest film, "Not Evil, Just Wrong" takes on the hysteria over global warming and warns that rushing to judgment in combating climate change would threaten the world's poor. The film reminds us that environmentalists have been wrong in the past, as when they convinced the world to ban the pesticide DDT, costing the lives of countless malaria victims. An inconvenient film: Al Gore is about to feature in a new movie, but he's not going to like it very much. Titled "Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria," the film presents a devastating account of the shaky foundations and hefty price of Mr. Gore's brand of self-interested and hypocritical alarmism. Created by the Irish film making duo of Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney — who made another excellent documentary about the "dark side of environmentalism" called "Mine Your Own Business" — "Not Evil" provides the perfect rebuttal to Mr. Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." New Documentary Challenges Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' on Global Warming. Buoyed by [a British court] ruling, two Irish journalists — Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney — released a documentary in which they gather evidence outlining the damage of global warming hysteria. In "Not Evil Just Wrong," they challenge the claims made in Gore's film and conclude that the film is not worth screening in schools because it is shown there as "an article of science, not faith." Watch the trailer for Not Evil, Just Wrong. Cool to the warming idea. Willie Soon, a physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and David Legates, an associate professor of climatology at the University of Delaware, don't buy into the prevailing hypothesis that all the carbon dioxide we're adding to the atmosphere will in just a few decades warm the earth and cause drastic changes in the weather. For the first 14 of his 19 years in science, Soon said he conducted research on the sun without thinking about the role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, quietly publishing scientific papers that opposed mainstream thought on global warming. In the last five years, he said, his conscience drove him to start speaking out. CORE Leader Blasts Global-warming Alarmists. While most civil rights organizations are marching in lock-step with the leftist climate catastrophe alarmists, Roy Innis, leader of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) for 35 years, has broken ranks and is urging the poor and black communities to rebel against purveyors of global-warming gloom and doom and other radical environmentalists. Messing with Mother Nature: I'm not even sure what the term "climate change" means. The climate is changing all the time. Most of us out here in Flyover Land call it "the weather." I have often posed the follow question to my global warming alarmist friends. Let's just say for a minute that you are right and that the slight increase in the average temperature worldwide is caused by man and not a natural variation as seen throughout geological time. Why is this bad? Keep the lights on! While I am all in favour of preserving the environment, the Eco-movement, with its religious fervour, no longer deserves to be taken seriously. Assertions about imminent catastrophic global climate change are being questioned by thousands of reputable scientists, proving that the climate hysterics' claims of a "scientific consensus" are laughable. What's more, for every assertion of pending ecological catastrophe there is a voice of reason that offers a counterview and debunks much of the "science" used to promote the hysteria. The Myth Of Global Warming: When Al Gore screams out in Senate testimony: "The Earth Has A Fever" he is not so much developing a scientific theory as he is seeking to use fear to drive a political agenda. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued four reports and in each one they have become more convinced that man is the chief cause of global warming, and that this warming is and will be seriously destructive to life as we know it. We are told that "the science is settled" and that there is "a consensus" of scientists who believe we are headed for disaster if we do not stop burning fossil fuels. Yet, there is a growing number of scientists who disagree. Over 32,000 scientists have signed "The Petition Project" over 9,000 of them with PhDs proclaiming that man is not the chief cause of warming and that this warming will not be disastrous. That Famous Consensus: Yet another example of the 'research' masquerading as science that is used to reinforce the man-made global warming fraud. One of the difficulties the green zealots have had is that Antarctica has been not warming but cooling, with the extent of its ice reaching record levels. The Age of Anti-Carbonism: Anti-carbonism rests on three foundational assumptions, all essentially in the realm of science: First, warming is the result of man-made CO2. Second, such warming is harmful, even catastrophic. Third, a program of policies and actions can prevent these harms. So far, despite more than $9 billion in research by the U.S. alone, none of these assumptions have been proven. Yet more mind-boggling figures on global warming. Last October the House of Commons passed, by 463 votes to three, the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament. The only MP to question the cost of the Climate Change Act, requiring Britain to cut its CO2 emissions by 80 percent within 40 years, was Peter Lilley. It was also Mr Lilley who, just before the MPs voted to stop runaway global warming, drew the House's attention to the fact that, outside, London was experiencing its first October snow for 74 years. Scientist: Global Warming Evidence, Claims Exaggerated. Claims about the allegedly dire effects of global warming may be exaggerated, Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said during a Thursday lecture at the Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. Michaels, who is also a state climatologist and professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, discussed the research published in his new book, "Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know." Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made. Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission. Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside. One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased. 'Consensus' on global warming collapsing. Prominent Japanese scientists have made a "dramatic break" with the IPCC findings. Politics in the Guise of Pure Science. Why, since President Obama promised to "restore science to its rightful place" in Washington, do some things feel not quite right? First there was Steven Chu, the physicist and new energy secretary, warning The Los Angeles Times that climate change could make water so scarce by century's end that "there's no more agriculture in California" and no way to keep the state's cities going, either. Then there was the hearing in the Senate to confirm another physicist, John Holdren, to be the president's science adviser. Dr. Holdren was asked about some of his gloomy neo-Malthusian warnings in the past, like his calculation in the 1980s that famines due to climate change could leave a billion people dead by 2020. California Legislator Wants to Halt Global Warming Act. Citing devastating economic consequences and a lack of real-world environmental impact, California Assemblyman Dan Logue has introduced legislation to suspend AB 32, the state's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board to impose numerous economic restrictions on the state with a goal of reducing California's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. The general public is becoming more skeptical Study: Climate Change Hysteria Doesn't Convert Anyone. A report released Monday by USC's Understanding America Study (UAS) suggests the use of hyperbolic terms to describe global warming has no effect on people's perceptions of the urgency of climate change. The study notes that climate crusaders like the UK's Guardian newspaper have officially opted for expressions like "climate crisis" and "climate emergency" in an attempt to raise concern and convey urgency, yet it would seem that such efforts are in vain. The 'Climate Crisis' Fades Out. The 2015 Paris Agreement aspired to "reduce the risks and impacts of climate change" by eliminating greenhouse-gas emissions in the latter half of this century. The centerpiece of the strategy was a global transition to low-emission energy systems. After nearly a decade, it's timely to ask how that energy transition is progressing and how it might fare in the future. A useful framework for that assessment is the "issue attention cycle" described in 1972 by Brookings Institution economist Anthony Downs. The five phases of that cycle mark the rise, peak, and decline in public salience of major environmental (and other) problems. It's spooky to see how closely the energy transition has so far followed Downs's description. [Paywall - no thanks.] Will the Democrats Survive this Year's Election? Americans and the western world in general are losing their enthusiasm for government-centered solutions to the various problems that we are facing. [...] Then there are the economically disastrous edicts being handed down in order to modify the weather — such as banning devices that run on gasoline, diesel, or natural gas, let alone coal. This is typically being done in advance of necessary, though not yet available, state-of-the-art technology. Too bad that the weather is pretty much the same as it ever was, despite media-generated hysteria over normal, though dramatic, events — you know, like tornadoes during (ahem) tornado season and along Tornado Alley. Climate Panic May Finally Be Post-Peak. Have you noticed that climate change fanatics have become even more strident lately, blaming rising temperatures for everything from fewer fish to drought to earthquakes to higher insurance premiums? We believe Americans are on to the over-the-top climate hysteria and polls show it. Take the new Monmouth University poll, which has been surveying Americans for a decade on climate. While over 70 percent of Americans say they accept the existence of climate change, the number who see this as a very serious problem has fallen to 46 percent of respondents. That's down from 56 percent in 2021. The drop in the perceived importance and urgency of climate change has been most pronounced among younger adults. Are 'green' agendas carrying governors to political cliffs? Calling climate change "a socialist lie," self-described libertarian Javier Milei surprised some Argentinians by beating the incumbent president substantially, "fueling concerns that South America's second-largest economy will backtrack on climate promises." However, Argentinians' concerns about raging inflation and economic stagnation trumped climate change. In the Netherlands, the Party for Freedom won parliamentary elections, replacing a government that sought to kill off large segments of Dutch agriculture to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The winning party's manifesto declares, "We have been made to fear climate change for decades. ... We must stop being afraid." In addition to political fallout, economic troubles in green energy abound. Ford and General Motors have cut investments into poorly selling electric vehicles. Meanwhile, Siemens Energy, a wind turbine manufacturer, reports multibillion dollar losses. Green projects are regularly falling by the wayside. Only a Tiny Fraction of Voters in Swing States Care About Climate Change. Joe Biden has talked about climate change endlessly since taking office, but a new survey shows that most voters in swing states do not care about the issue at all. This would only be surprising to the left, but most people are not thinking about supposed climate change when they're struggling to pay for basic items like food, heating energy and gas for their cars. Besides the economy, people across the country are also deeply concerned about issues like crime and the mess Biden has made at the southern border. Junk Climate Science. Global warming religion originates in well-financed scientific organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The scientific basis of the catastrophe theory is junk science made to seem authoritative by dressing it up with lengthy reports based on dubious computer models. [...] As exhaustively documented by the websites realclimatescience.com and wattsupwiththat.com there is nothing new about climate doomsday predictions. What's worse the official climate records of the government are both unreliable and tampered with. Global warming orthodoxy emphasizes CO2 as the main driver of climate. But other well-known factors such as solar cycles, cosmic rays, and the overturning circulation of the oceans are capable of influencing climate. The Danish scientist Hendrik Svensmark has built a convincing climate theory based on changes in the sun's magnetic field that influence cosmic ray bombardment of the Earth and subsequently the formation of clouds. Svensmark is attacked or ignored by the establishment faith. Why Is Everything So Stupid? [Scroll down] When I was working on this, Jamie said to me, "no one believes in climate change anymore, the whole thing is dying." It is true that most people are sheering away from swallowing the whole climate boiling scenario, but our media is still selling it hard. And in point of fact, the scared scenario is built into every government ministry, state, national, regional and local, into all planning permissions, into every building that is built, every enterprise that is begun, into all taxes one way or another. The Climate Scam is ruthless in its penetration of every human activity. It is the reason why people are using food banks, why our housing is scarce and expensive, why community life is divisive, why people are losing trust in everything any authority figure says. The lies of the Climate Change lobby have polluted every aspect of our lives. [...] The climate is not changing in dramatic ways. Human activity is probably NOT the chief driver. And nobody is agreeing on anything. The Left Is an Existential Threat. [Scroll down] It would have been more convincing if Fortune had painstakingly authenticated global warming, documenting just how much and when the Earth's climate has warmed, if it has, and showing the source of that warming. It would also be more convincing if that analysis had stretched back over a reasonable period of geologic time — say 40,000 years — to demonstrate that current warming, if it exists, is not just a blip in Earth's history, but a significant departure, which it is not. It was warmer than now, for example, in the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 A.D.). As the illustrious historian Norman Cantor has shown, that period coincided with great advances in human civilization in Europe — advances made possible by increased wealth and population resulting from warmer temperatures. The Medieval Warm Period is estimated to have been one degree Celsius warmer than current temperatures, yet there was no "existential threat." Far from it: 900 to 1300 A.D. was the period in which Europe's monumental cathedrals were built; its population expanded rapidly; and humans settled Iceland, Greenland, and, for a short time, North America. Climate Stalinism. Today's working and middle classes are skeptical about policies that undermine their livelihoods in the promise of distant policy goals. Even now, after a decade-long barrage of fear-mongering, a majority of Americans, Australians, and even Europeans doubt that climate change will affect their lives substantially. Climate Politics Abroad are Turning Decidedly Skeptical. From Alberta to Australia, from Finland to France and beyond, voters are increasingly showing their displeasure with expensive energy policies imposed by politicians in an inane effort to fight purported human-caused climate change. Skepticism about whether humans are causing dangerous climate change has always been higher in the United States than in most industrialized countries. As a result, governments in Europe, Canada, and in other developed countries are much farther along the energy-rationing path that cutting carbon dioxide emissions requires than the United States is. Residents in these countries have begun to revolt against the higher energy costs they suffer under as a result of ever-increasing taxes on fossil fuels and government mandates to use expensive renewable energy. Enviros Worry Election Shows Climate Movement Could Be Waning. Environmentalists believe the climate change movement is losing political muscle and getting clobbered during elections by "a well-funded denial machine." "We have regressed to a bar so low that it's practically touching the ground," climate activist Chloe Maxmin wrote Monday in The Nation. And part of the reason for the low bar, according to Maxmin, is that Republicans and climate skeptics are making headway in their attempts to sway public opinion on global warming. She chalked up the climate movement's pitfalls to a lack of organization and the inability to deal with ridicule [of] global warming. Study: Pope's message on climate change backfires. Pope Francis's landmark message on climate change failed to convince conservative members of the Catholic faith that taking action against global warming is a moral imperative, according to a study issued Monday [10/24/2016]. The pope's thoughts instead may have pushed more people away from his message than increased their acceptance of it, the study from the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center concluded. Warmists Rather Upset That Farmers Aren't Buying Their World Ending Prognostications. People who find the weather very important pretty much every day for their income are smarter than the Progressive rubes pushing the 'climate change' narrative[.] Pew: Most Americans Don't Believe in 'Scientific Consensus' on Climate Change. Nearly three-quarters of Americans don't trust that there is a large "scientific consensus" amongst climate scientists on human behavior being the cause of climate change, according to an in-depth survey on "the politics of climate" released Tuesday [10/4/2016] by Pew Research Center. According to the survey, only 27 percent of Americans agree that "almost all" climate scientists say that human behavior is mostly responsible for climate change, while 35 percent say that "more than half" of climate scientists agree on this. An additional 35 percent of those surveyed say that fewer than half (20%) or almost no (15%) climate scientists believe that human behavior is the main contributing factor in climate change. Passion for climate change cools. Climate change is becoming a hard sell. When the computer models get the next day's forecast wrong, it's hard to persuade anyone to pay attention to their predictions of what the Earth's climate will be a half-century from now. Saving the world from imaginative calamity and catastrophe is never easy, and President Obama came away from a global-warming sales pitch in India with an echo of what salesmen dread to hear, a slammed door. UN Poll Reveals: Global Population Not Convinced by Climate Change Scaremongering. A global poll of more than 6.5million people has placed climate change at the very bottom of a long list of priorities, with the finding being consistent across both genders, almost all age ranges, all education levels and in most regions of the world. (h/t Watts Up With That). Conversely, every single demographic placed "a good education" at the top. The poll is being conducted by the United Nations as part of a program to find out what people across the world want to see action on. U.S. Mid-Terms, Tom Steyer and the Death of 'Climate Change' As a Serious Political Issue. [T]his is what is so good about the US mid-term results. Not only did they personally cost Steyer many millions of dollars in wasted campaign expenditure — nearly $75 million of the funding for his Nextgen Climate superPAC came out of his own pocket [...] — but they represented the US electorate's comprehensive repudiation of the notion that "climate change" is the most pressing political issue of our age. Climate change supporters suffer losses. Despite millions spent to make climate change a wedge issue during the midterms, environmentally friendly candidates didn't fare well on Election Day. Green groups funneled an unprecedented amount of money into top Senate races that determined control of the upper chamber but fell short. Voters threw cold water on 'the global warming' crowd. We've been focused on the major angles and rhymes of Tuesday's election, from a new GOP governor in Illinois to Governor-Elect Abbott winning 44% of the Hispanic vote in Texas. However, there was another interesting angle to the election. It was a bad night for "global warming," "climate change," "environmentalists," or whatever you want to call them these days. According to The Hill, there weren't a lot of "environmentalists" giving victory speeches last night. Less than Half of Americans Say Humans Causing Global Warming. A newly released poll by the Pew Research Center reveals a majority of Americans believe either there is no solid evidence of recent global warming or recent global warming is caused by nature rather than human activity. According to the poll, merely 40 percent of Americans believe there is solid evidence of recent global warming and such warming is caused primarily by humans. 'Where's the global warming?' Expert says public are growing sceptical of climate change. This week saw the 18th anniversary since the Earth's temperature last rose — something that Dr Benny Peiser, from the Global Warming Policy Forum, says experts are struggling to understand. He explains that we are now in the midst of a "crisis of credibility" because the global warming — and accompanied 'Doomsday' effects — that we were once warned about has not happened. Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) once predicted a temperature rise of 0.2 degrees per decade — but are now baffled by the fact our planet's temperature has not increased for almost two decades. Less than Half of Americans Say Humans Causing Global Warming. A newly released poll by the Pew Research Center reveals a majority of Americans believe either there is no solid evidence of recent global warming or recent global warming is caused by nature rather than human activity. More Americans believe in God than man-made global warming. More Americans believe in God than in man-made global warming, claims a new survey. Some will seize on this as proof that Americans are credulous and anti-scientific, but I'd draw the opposite conclusion. The survey — insofar as it can be taken seriously: only just over 1000 people were consulted — suggests how remarkably resilient Americans are in the face of relentless environmental brainwashing. Warming Plateau? Climatologists Face Inconvenient Truth. For a quarter of a century now, environmental activists have been issuing predictions in the vein of the Catholic Church, warning people of the coming greenhouse effect armageddon. Environmentalists bleakly predict global warming will usher in plagues of biblical dimensions — perpetual droughts, deluge-like floods and hurricanes of unprecedented force. The number of people who believe in such a coming apocalypse, however, has considerably decreased. An Inconvenient' Untruth. In a New York Times op-ed today, physicist Adam Frank bemoans what he sees, not implausibly, as a decline in public respect for science. One of his observations is worthy of Fox Butterfield: "In 1989, when 'climate change' had just entered the public lexicon, 63 percent of Americans understood it was a problem. Almost 25 years later, that proportion is actually a bit lower, at 58 percent." After a quarter-century of wildly alarmist predictions that have failed to pan out — often with specific dates now in the past — we'd say the five-point decline [physicist Adam] Frank cites is dismayingly low. And while Al Gore isn't a scientist, the Climategate scandal showed that some scientists are no more scrupulous than he is. The Climate Circus Leaves Town. If you had told environmentalists on Election Day 2008 that four years later there'd be no successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, that a Democratic Congress would not have enacted any meaningful climate legislation, that domestic oil production would be soaring even after a catastrophic offshore oil spill, and that the environmental community would be having a lively internal debate about whether it should support reviving nuclear power, most might have marched into the ocean to drown themselves. Green fatigue sets in: the world cools on global warming. Fewer people now consider issues such as CO2 emissions, air and water pollution, animal species loss, and water shortages to be "very serious" than at any time in the last two decades, according to the poll of 22,812 people in 22 countries including Britain and the US. Despite years of studies showing the impact of global warming on the planet, only 49 percent of people now consider climate change a very serious issue — far fewer than at the beginning of the worldwide financial crisis in 2009. Most people no longer consider global warming a serious issue in a recession. Concerns about the environment have reached a two-decade low since the start of the financial crisis, a global survey has revealed. Fewer people now consider pollution, species loss and fresh water shortages to be 'very serious' problems than at any time since tracking began 20 years ago. Fears over global warming are far lower than they were between 20003 and 2008, with less than one person in two regarding it as 'very serious'. Voters Abandon Global Warming Fears. The [Obama] administration has become famous for the billions wasted on so-called green jobs, green energy, and controlling greenhouse gases. It is essential to understand that CO2 has never caused any of the warming cycles the Earth has been through over 4.5 billion years. It shows up after climate cycle change occurs. Moreover, the oceans that cover 71% of the Earth surface both stores and releases CO2. Prior to Earth Day in 2011, a Gallup poll revealed just how Americans felt about various environmental issues. Asked about a variety of concerns, the respondents rated global warming dead last with 48% saying they were either not much or not at all concerned about it.Al Gore Goes on a Tirade. According to a Harris poll in July, only 44 percent of us now believe carbon dioxide emissions are warming the Earth, down from 51 percent in 2009 and 71 percent in 2007. Global temperatures peaked in 1998. People have noticed winters are getting colder. When evidence emerged in 2009 that scientists affiliated with the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain were "hiding the decline" by fudging data, few journalists paid much attention. But a lot of Americans did, apparently. Climate talks, then climate tax. [Scroll down] Meanwhile, back in America, the warmist arguments increasingly are facing challenge. Today's temperature changes are indistinguishable from historic climate cycles, and the public is beginning to notice that renewable-energy schemes are unaffordable luxuries. Global warming runs out of gas. Perhaps Climategate gave a too-souring glimpse into the mixture of science and advocacy that has, to some extent, corrupted both. Perhaps, finally, the unctuousness, sanctimony and sputtering righteousness of the high profile environmentalists signal to most observers that they aren't really as certain of all this "science" as they pretend to be. Either way this long green game has lost its fundamental energies. The celebrities will find another wristband; the politicians will find a new vague distraction. Perry says he doesn't believe in global warming. GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry told New Hampshire voters Wednesday that he does not believe in manmade global warming, calling it a scientific theory that has not been proven. 69% Say It's Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research. The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs. Cooling on global warming. The fight against climate change has fizzled, with much of the public not believing or not caring. That's why Obama tries to change the subject to jobs when he talk about energy policy. A Flood of Bad Analysis. Notably missing — so far — from the media coverage of the Mississippi River flooding is the usual hand-wringing about how this is surely another sign of global warming. Oh, it's out there, you just have to look for it in some of the obscure green news sites and blogs. I've been predicting for a while now that the mainstream media would grow tired of the climate issue, and it looks as though that time may have arrived. Global Warming Alarmism Continues To Backfire. A new Gallup poll is delivering bad news to global warming alarmists, showing Americans are becoming more and more skeptical of hysterical global warming claims. ... The Gallup poll shows only 32% of Americans believe global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetimes. Moreover, only 50% — the smallest number since Gallup began polling on the question in 2003 — believe increases in the earth's temperature over the last century are due more to human activities than to natural causes. Global Warming Alarmism's Long March through State and Local Institutions: It's tempting to be complacent about the progress made against global warming alarmism. Climate legislation seems to be stalled in the U.S. Congress. A recent Gallup poll shows that concern about global warming among the American public is at historic lows; a mere 32% of Americans believe that global warming will affect them during their lifetimes. We must keep in mind however that true believers don't give up simply because theirs is a minority opinion. They just try in other ways. Poll: Global warming fears cooling. In a Gallup Poll released Monday [3/14/2011], 51 percent of respondents said they "worry a great deal or fair amount" about global warming, down from 66 percent in 2008. Forty-one percent of respondents also said that the seriousness of global warming is "exaggerated" — the highest amount of skepticism in the survey since it was first conducted in 1997. The UN has Become a Clear Danger to Our Energy Future and National Sovereignty. [Christiana] Figueres is not blind to the fact that at least in the western world people are becoming more skeptical of the threat posed by global warming. The vast majority of people do not understand the science that disputes and crushes man-made global warming theory but they can tell when they're being hoodwinked. In 2006 a Gallup poll showed 30 percent of Americans thought that global warming in the news was "generally exaggerated." Today that number has increased significantly to 48 percent and shows signs of continuing an upward trend. To combat this kind of thinking the UN and particularly Ms. Figueres are making more and more alarming statements about how global warming is destroying the world now, and not some time in the distant future. Global warming skeptic flattens Big Green's insulting Jim Oberstar. Political novice Chip Cravaack came out of nowhere and beat one of the most powerful Democrats in the congressional Big Green machine: Minnesota's longest serving, 18-term Rep. Jim Oberstar, chairman of an important committee and an influential global warming believer. Dems ready for big push on global warming. Democratic leaders are pushing legislation aimed at fighting global warming, despite significant opposition in both parties to any proposal that puts a price or a cap on carbon emissions. Opponents of California global warming law turn in signatures for November measure. Setting up what is expected to be a multimillion-dollar political battle between oil companies and Silicon Valley tech leaders, opponents of California's landmark global warming law turned in about 800,000 signatures Monday [5/3/2010] for a November ballot measure to suspend the law. You Don't Need to Be a Weatherman but It May Help. The [New York] Times reports that a study released this week by George Mason University and the University of Texas reveals that "only about half of the 571 television weathercasters surveyed believed that global warming was occurring and fewer than a third believed that climate change was caused mostly by human activities." This is very bad news for environmental extremists, since the public seems to trust the weather guys more than Al Gore. Liberals think you're stupid. Congressman Says Climate Science Should Be Simplified to 'Sixth Grade Level'. Americans are growing skeptical about the threat of global warming because "they don't get" the complex information that scientists deliver, according to Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.). Unless scientists can simplify their arguments to the level of newspapers that "print at the sixth grade level," Cleaver said, the public is "going to get a headache and bail out." Global warming challenge: The possibility of suspending California's Global Warming Solutions Act, a law unlikely to change temperatures but certain to wreak economic havoc, appears to have increased dramatically. Two large Texas-based refineries have pledged as much as $2 million to pay for signature-gathering to place an initiative on the November ballot that would suspend the global warming law if passed by voters, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing Sacramento sources. Why Newsweek is the Punch Line. [Scroll down] This eco-alarmism from Newsweek is truly fascinating, considering the fact that as of October 26, 2009, according to statistics from the Pew Research Center, more Americans believe in haunted houses than believe in manmade global warming. Understanding the Global Warming Delusion. During the past year, the theory of man-made global warming took some serious hits. More than a few people are now saying the whole thing was a lie or an elaborate hoax, and that someday we'll be laughing at how foolish we were to "fall for it." ... Despite wall-to-wall promotion of global warming alarmism by the media and businesses seeking to cash in on public concerns, only 36 percent of Americans believe global warming is man-made, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in October. That's down from 47 percent the year before. Public Opinion About Global Warming: Americans Growing Increasingly Skeptical. Polling data reveals Americans are growing increasingly skeptical about man-made global warming fears and claims. Voters are rejecting so-called "solutions" like cap-and-trade as well. ... [A] Gallup survey found global warming ranked dead last in the U.S. among environmental issues — 8th out of 8 environmental issues — March 2009. Poll finds nearly 2 in 3 Americans are Manmade Global Warming 'Deniers'. According to a Pew Research Poll released today, the number of Americans believing there to be "solid evidence that the earth is warming" has dropped 14% since last year. And the biggest drop — 22% — was among those identifying themselves as independents. Bad climate for global worriers. Although the political and media drumbeat of alarm is incessant, a Pew poll shows that only 57 percent of Americans think there is solid evidence of global warming, down 20 points in three years. Gallup shows that only 1 percent of Americans rank the environment as their biggest worry. Polls Show Americans Growing Increasingly Skeptical. Polling data reveals Americans are growing increasingly skeptical about man-made global warming fears and claims Voters are rejecting so-called "solutions" like cap-and-trade as well. Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming. There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem — 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008. It's Alternative Media That's Cooling Global Warming Hysteria. The latest Rasmussen poll reports that the lowest number of voters ever polled —one-in-three —believe that global warming is caused by human activity. That's an astonishing figure, especially considering the all-out green propaganda assault the mainstream media (MSM) exposes the public to on a daily basis. ... So despite a MSM that spoon feeds its audience the latest alarmist [nonsense] about how manmade CO2 kills polar bears, threatens coastal cities and islands, incubates all manner of pestilence and so on and so on, the number of people actually buying into their still-unsubstantiated carbo-chondria continues to shrink. Just another myth used to steal your taxes. The reality is that folks are catching on to the fact that man-made global warming is a hoax, an inconvenient truth attested to by more and more scientists. Like any good con man, Obama wants to hurry the shakedown before his mark figures out his game. Democrats actually said that "if we do not act now, the climate will soon be out of our control." This, of course, raises the question: Just when was the climate ever under our control? Study Finds Even Climate 'Alarmed' Americans Don't Want Cap-and-Trade. According to an MIT study, Waxman-Markey "could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year." A similar Heritage Foundation study predicted "cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of at least $1.7 trillion that could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars)." Others predict between 3 million and 7 million manufacturing jobs either driven overseas or lost entirely. And I'd certainly be remiss were I to neglect to add my usual reminder that it's all for naught as warming stopped in 1998 and there's absolutely no proof whatsoever that any actions of mankind might influence global temperatures 1°C — in either direction. Green nonsense. An unusually cold winter (it snowed in Saudi Arabia and Iraq; temperatures fell to minus 80 degrees in Siberia) has been followed by an unusually cool spring (it snowed in North Dakota in June for the first time in 60 years). This may be why only 42 percent of respondents in a June Rasmussen poll published think human activity is causing global warming, and many who do don't see it as a serious problem. In a Gallup poll in March, warming ranked last among eight environmental concerns. The hot one from the Democrats. You can't blame the Democrats for hurrying to enact their hot-air legislation. The public is finally paying attention, recognizing the global warming crisis for what it is, a giant scam that will cost every American plenty. The globe isn't warming — it's actually cooling, in fact — and there's no crisis. Sins Of Emission. The public has grown skeptical of the global warming threat. Polls show a growing number of Americans think the risks are inflated and consider many other issues to be in greater need of attention. Pew Research found that the public ranks global warming dead last out of 20 concerns facing the country. Increased Number Think Global Warming Is "Exaggerated". Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject. Rasmussen: Only 41 Percent of Americans Believe in Man-Made Global Warming. John Kerry is pushing for a costly global emissions treaty and Hillary Clinton testified at her confirmation hearing that "climate change" an "unambiguous security threat." But it appears a majority of Americans don't buy the theory of anthropogenic global warming. 59% Don't Believe Man Is Warming the Planet. The number of people who believe that long-term planetary trends are responsible for the relatively small increase in temperatures in recent decades rose ten percent since last April while those viewing it as a man-made problem has decreased by six percent. Talk about your inconvenient truths! Warm At The Bottom. Global warmongers have been hectoring the public for years about the dangers of Earth overheating due to man's emissions of carbon dioxide. Through it all, the public has evaluated the warnings — and found them wanting. Global Warming is So Yesterday. The brilliant stroke claiming that any weather at all is evidence that something is very wrong works on idiots, ideologues, and children too young to remember every year it gets hot in the summer and cold in the winter. But evidence is accumulating that most normal people are fed up with being lectured about the need to conserve energy by people who fly in private jets and own multiple mansions. Fifty-six percent of the British public, for instance, believes that global warming fears are "exaggerated." What Green Means. The environmental left is conceding that its effort to "fight" global warming is in trouble because the public has tuned out the message. So the plan is to obscure the agenda even more. Sorry, Al Gore, but Public Cares About the Economy, Not Global Warming. He admits that it's counterintuitive, but Gallup Poll Editor Frank Newport says he sees no evidence that Al Gore's campaign against global warming is winning. "It's just not caught on," says Newport. "They have failed." Or, more bluntly: "Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore's losing at the moment. The public is just not that concerned." What the public is worried about: the economy. Newport says the economy trumps the environment right now, a strong indicator that President Obama's bid to put a cap-and-trade pollution regime into operation isn't likely to be politically popular. On Guns and Climate, the Elites Are Out of Touch. Over the past decade, the Gallup organization has been asking Americans whether the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated or generally correct. From 1998 to 2007, except for the run-up to the 2004 election, they said it was generally serious by roughly a 2-1 margin — 66 to 30 percent in 2006, for example. But in March 2009, that margin slipped to only 57 to 41 percent, with two-thirds of Republicans and nearly half of independents saying concern is exaggerated. Don't waste time cutting emissions. We are often told that tackling global warming should be the defining task of our age — that we must cut emissions immediately and drastically. But people are not buying the idea that, unless we act, the planet is doomed. Several recent polls have revealed Americans' growing skepticism. Uncertain climate. A person needn't be a buffoon or political hack to be skeptical of global warming. That would be news to The Washington Post's news desk, however. A Post article on May 19 falsely reported that there is a "consensus" among scientists and a growing portion of the American public that human carbon emissions are causing a dangerous, long-term increase in worldwide temperatures. The facts, overwhelmingly, show no such consensus. Global Warming Consensus Melts. Although mainstream reporting continues to exaggerate the consensus among the scientific community, the tide is indeed turning. In a recent Gallup Poll, a record high 41% say that the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated. That is a 6% increase from the 2008 poll. Report on Conference on Climate Change. Recent Gallup polling indicates that 41% of Americans now believe global warming is overhyped (a record high) and other polling by Rasmussen reveals that a majority of voters believe mankind is not the principle cause of any climate change. Science Museum's climate change poll backfires. The museum's Prove It! website, which is designed to influence politicians at the Copenhagen climate summit in December, allows members of the public to pledge their support, or lack of it, to the environmentalist cause. ... By Saturday [10/24/2009], 2,385 people who took the poll said "count me out" compared to just 415 who said "count me in", after being asked whether they agreed with the statement: "I've seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they're serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen." Poll: Just 37% Call Global Warming High Priority. With world leaders debating how to address climate change in Copenhagen and the U.S. Senate poised to take up a climate bill in the coming months, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds that just 37 percent of Americans believe the issue should be a priority for government leaders. That's a significant drop from April of 2007, when 52 percent of those surveyed said the issue should be a high priority. Climate scepticism 'on the rise', BBC poll shows. There has been an increase in the number of British people who are sceptical about climate change, a poll commissioned by BBC News has suggested. It showed that 25% of those questioned did not think global warming was happening, an increase of 10% since a similar poll was conducted in November. Effort underway to suspend California's global-warming law. Republican politicians and conservative activists are launching a ballot campaign to suspend California's landmark global-warming law, in what they hope will serve as a showcase for a national backlash against climate regulations. Supporters say they have "solid commitments" of nearly $600,000 to pay signature gatherers for a November initiative aimed at delaying curbs on the greenhouse gas emissions of power plants and factories until the state's unemployment rate drops. It's Getting Harder to Scare the American People. The climate alarmists dominate the media and run the government. But the American people still aren't buying the alarmist propaganda. Report says claims of livestock causing global warming are false. [Scroll down slowly] Week by week the AGW collapse intensifies. Himalayan glaciers, polar bears, Arctic ice, Amazon rainforests, all discredited. Now it turns out the great cow-burp scare is bovine excrement too. The global warming scam is, to the majority of people, an object of derision. The scientific community has also at last wakened up. They are smelling the coffee in more and more institutions these days. NYT: 56% Trust Weathercasters More Than Gore On Global Warming. "A study released this year by researchers at Yale and George Mason found that 56 percent of Americans trusted weathercasters to tell them about global warming far more than they trusted other news media or public figures like former Vice President Al Gore." So wrote the New York Times's Leslie Kaufman in a rather surprising piece published Tuesday [3/30/2010]. Americans Not Inclined To Pay More To Fight Global Warming. Democratic Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman declared yesterday [6/15/2010] that a new EPA study shows their new global warming legislation won't cost Americans much after all. But so far most Americans don't show an inclination to pay anything for such legislation. Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death. The climate alarmists were already doing poorly in the United States before the Copenhagen failure. An October 2009 Pew poll showed that only 36 percent of Americans even believed in man-made global warming. The issue consistently ranked last among public priorities. Commentators referred to the movement as a "cult," and critics ridiculed the theories and dangerous "solutions" all over the Internet. And that was before the proverbial hitting of the fan late last year. In November 2009, a scandal now known as Climategate changed everything. Changing The Climate In California. An initiative to suspend California's draconian climate law has qualified for the November ballot. The people can now choose between jobs and junk science and fight hot air at the ballot box. The International Conference on Climate Change Heartland is keeping the lights on. I'm heading to New York tomorrow (at my own expense) for a conference organized by the Heartland Institute and billed as "The world's largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics." ... This second such annual event will feature dozens of presentations by a class of people claimed not to exist by environmental extremists: top scientists and other researchers who question the conclusions of the United Nations' highly-politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Natural Global Warmings Have Become More Moderate. This week, at the 2nd international conference of man-made warming skeptics sponsored by the Heartland Institute in New York, I'll predict the earth's warming/cooling trends for the 21st century. I will be among splendid company such as John Coleman, founder of the weather channel, Ross McKitrick, who debunked the "hockey stick" study, physicist Willie Soon, and many other presenters with brilliant credentials. A thousand scientists, economists, and skeptics from every walk of life will meet to discuss the current climate indicators. Bucking the media trend on global warming 'crisis'. Speakers at a conference on climate change are making the case that the alarmism behind the global-warming bandwagon is politically motivated, has nothing to do with science, and could affect the sovereignty of the U.S. The Orwellian Presidential Bully Pulpit. The president brazenly sermonizes against scientifically challenged conservatives while triggering federal funding of research that is scientifically controversial and preparing to impose cap and trade penalties on corporate America in deference to global warming junk science. While you won't hear much about this in the mainstream media, there is a meeting currently taking place in New York City that serves as an ironic backdrop for Obama's embryonic stem cell order. Voters should ask politicians one simple question: 'Why do you want to raise my energy prices?' The crumbling case for global warming. The conference — titled "Global Warming: Was it ever really a crisis?" — attracted close to 700 participants. Most of those I met displayed almost joy at being among people who dared to stand up to the mindless climate "consensus" and the refusal to debate, or even look at, the facts ... President Obama is considering a cap-and-trade system with which Canada would be forced to co-ordinate its own policies. The conference made clear how damaging and pointless such a policy would be. 2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #2. Former Vice President Al Gore, the most prominent proponent of global warming alarmism, was the target of biting humor and ridicule Monday at the second International Conference on Climate Change. U.S. Congressman Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and scientist Arthur Robinson, who has assembled a list of more than 31,000 U.S. scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism, in separate speeches ripped what they saw as Gore's hypocrisy in urging energy conservation while expanding his own carbon footprint and with inconsistencies in Gore's popular movie "An Inconvenient Truth." 2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #3. Willie Soon, a Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist with scores of peer-reviewed papers and books to his credit, said he is "embarrassed and puzzled" by the shallow science in papers that undergird the proposition that the Earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming. Soon told the second International Conference on Climate Change here, "We have a system (of peer reviewing scientific literature) that is truly, truly appalling." Green Child Abuse: Has it occurred to you that constantly telling children and teens that "global warming" is real and that the Earth is in deadly peril constitutes child abuse? That thought came to me as I enjoyed some of the excellent seminars and speeches during the March 8-10 second annual Conference on Climate Change. Here were some of the nation's leading climatologists and others spelling out in detail precisely why there is no global warming and, indeed, why the Earth is now into a decade-old cooling trend. The experts believe that the Earth will stay in this trend for easily another decade or two, maybe three. NYT Writer Deceitfully Claims Climate Conference Disharmony. You'd expect a gathering of over 700 reputable scientists, economists, and policy makers tackling an issue as topical and media-hyped as global warming to be big news. And you know it would be, had the goal of their discussions and presentations been to parrot and propagate the conclusions of the alarmist mainstream. But instead, attendees of the International Conference on Climate Change arrived on Sunday prepared to put anthropogenic warming claims to the test, and for their sins the publicity they received ranged from none to insulting. Nobody listens to the real climate change experts. [Scroll down] What a striking contrast this was to the second conference, which I attended with 700 others in New York, organised by the Heartland Institute under the title Global Warming: Was It Ever Really A Crisis?. In Britain this received no coverage at all, apart from a sneering mention by the Guardian, although it was addressed by dozens of expert scientists, not a few of world rank, who for professional standing put those in Copenhagen in the shade. Led off with stirring speeches from the Czech President Vaclav Klaus, the acting head of the European Union, and Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the most distinguished climatologist in the world, the message of this gathering was that the scare over global warming has been deliberately stoked up for political reasons and has long since parted company with proper scientific evidence. The Clear and Cohesive Message of the International Conference on Climate Change. They came to talk a wide range of subjects, from climatology to energy policy, from computer climate models to cap-and-trade, from greenhouse gas (GHG) effects to solar irradiation. But most of all they came to help spread the word that the answer to the question posed by this year's theme — Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis? — is a resounding NO. Sunday's keynote speakers wasted no time making that point. You've Got to Have Heartland. All scientists, both the alarmist warm-mongers and the pacifist cooler heads, agree that this temperature pattern would result if man were causing global warming, reflecting the pattern of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that would prevail in the atmosphere. Warming due to solar variations or other natural causes would not leave such a fingerprint pattern. Higher quality temperature data from weather balloons and satellites now enable us to settle the man-made global warming debate definitively. The observed result is just the opposite of the modeled global warming fingerprint pattern. The data from weather balloons shows no increasing warming with altitude, but rather a slight cooling, with no hotspot. The satellite data confirms this result, no increasing temperature with altitude, no hotspot, no fingerprint. Physicist counters climate-change models. 'The global warming hypothesis is dead, scientifically' Ed Berry is making some noise about climate change, and he's singing a different tune than former Vice President Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth." Berry, 73, an accomplished atmospheric physicist who recently moved to the Flathead Valley from Sacramento, Calif., was among about 700 scientists who attended the International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 7-10. Global Warming Skeptics Gather in NYC. One of the presenters, Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington, said before the conference, "The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling." Based on data he was scheduled to present in New York, Easterbrook said a switch in Pacific Ocean currents "assures about three decades of global cooling. New solar data showing unusual absence of sun spots and changes in the sun's magnetic field suggest ... the present episode of global cooling may be more severe than the cooling of 1945 to 1977." Global warming? Not so fast, skeptics say at meeting. U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (sic) was in a froth, and his audience loved it. The California Republican was talking about global warming and could barely contain his disgust. "Al Gore has been wrong all along!" Rohrabacher yelled into the microphone. "This is outrageous! All of this is wrong! The people who have stifled this debate have an agenda that is just frightening!" Welcome to the third annual International Conference on Climate Change, a daylong session of speeches and scientific presentations that took place Tuesday just blocks from the U.S. Capitol. Almost no media covered the event. The Editor says... Congreeman Rohrbacher was in a froth? The article above exhibits a few telltale signs of bias and ignorance, like misspelling the Congressman's name, but it is worth including here anyway. This is an original compilation, Copyright © 2024 by Andrew K. Dart The Doomsday Bias: In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama took a dig at his backward predecessor by promising to "restore science to its rightful place" in America. So why, days before he was sworn in, did Obama choose a failed prophet of the apocalypse to become his most influential scientist? ... [Dr. John P.] Holdren's particular brand of science is infected by what we can only call a doomsday bias. Over the past 40 years, he has warned of population-growth induced "ecocide," "global cooling," global warming due to heat dissipation from power plants, nuclear Armageddon, and — this week — "climate disruption" caused by increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Just the Facts on Global Warming Alarmism. [Columnist George Will recently] took a stroll down memory lane, through the debris of 1970s predictions about the near certainty of calamitous global cooling. Concerning those predictions, The New York Times was — as it is today in a contrary crusade — a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported that "a major cooling of the climate" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950." Now the Times, a trumpet that never sounds retreat in today's war against warming, has afforded this column an opportunity to revisit another facet of this subject — meretricious journalism in the service of dubious certitudes. George Will Q&A on his recent column. Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review decided to ask George Will a few questions about his recent column. ... Will was recently villified for his column and for his printing of his interpretation on arctic sea ice in particular. Physicist Compares Global Warming Craze to Aztec Human Sacrifices. A leading "climate skeptic" met with the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment on February 25th. Dr. William Happer holds an endowed chair in physics at Princeton, served as the senior scientist at the Department of Energy — and was reportedly fired by then-Vice President Al Gore for disagreeing with Gore's belief in man-made global warming. Clear Thinking on Global Warming: [Professor William] Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. He was also the Director of Energy Research at DOE from 1990-93, where he supervised all of DOE's work on climate change. He says this: "The climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn't this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models." 'Apocalyptic climate predictions' mislead the public, say experts. In an article published on the Guardian website, Dr Vicky Pope ... writes: "Having to rein in extraordinary claims that the latest extreme [event] is all due to climate change is at best hugely frustrating and at worse enormously distracting Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening." Former astronaut speaks out on global warming. Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn't believe that humans are causing global warming. "I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York. Former astronaut scoffs at global warming. Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, one of the last men to walk on the moon and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico, doesn't buy the idea that humans are causing global warming. "I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," he said. ... Scientists who disagree with this scenario "are being intimidated," Schmitt said. "They've seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven't gone along with the so-called political consensus that we're in a human-caused global warming." The Incurious Case of the Carbon Alarmists. Question global warming theory by commenting on an alarmist-based site and a reply will likely direct you to the writings of blogger Coby Beck. A self-described software developer specializing in "artificial intelligence," Mr. Beck is the author of "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" — a series of phenomenally popular blog posts seen as unassailable dogma among his fellow believers. Had it been his intent, Beck could not possibly have forwarded more solid grounds for delegitimizing his movement. "Climate Skeptic" is a mash of remarkably cursory, blinkered responses, leaving unanswered questions readily apparent to the cold, scientific observer. Cold Hard Facts and the 'Big-Boned Climate' Theory. I'm curious to see how the alarmists try to spin this. They are beginning to sound like little children caught with their hands in the cookie jar, desperate to find a better explanation than that they were stealing cookies. We're Not Going to Melt. Don't invest your life's savings in windmills and solar-powered air conditioners just yet. While the earth does seem to have warmed slightly over the past century, the causes and implications are anything but clear. Moreover, the last ten years have seen a global plateau in temperature change. Those who claim that we're racing towards a fiery apocalypse are simply not basing their views on science. In fact, some scientists are now hypothesizing that we'll see a cooling period in the near future, as we saw from 1940 to 1975. 'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary. Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' — backed by eminent scientists — is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans. The programme ... will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world's poor. Obama Drops Warming Hype for News Conference. Last night, Barack Obama promised the nation that the so-called "stimulus package" would "create or protect" 4 million jobs that "America desperately needs," and offered a few examples. But there was a curious omission on his part when so-called "green jobs" were incorporated. In promoting the building of wind turbines, solar panels, and fuel-efficient cars, the only benefit he attributed was lowering "our dependence on foreign oil." Not a single word about "global warming" or its intellectually dishonest surrogate, "climate change." ... Perchance he and his advisors have finally grasped the significance of 59% of Americans who don't believe that warmists have met their burden of proof that manmade emissions are cooking the planet? Facts Leave Global Warming Proponents Out In The Cold. When dealing with the latest hysterical claims about global warming, it's essential to keep in mind a fundamental principle of science: Theories must be testable. A scientific theory describes a predicted outcome and one or more means by which the theory can be tested. Far from supporting a sound scientific theory that humans are creating a global warming crisis, last week's assertion by prominent global warming alarmists that Antarctica is getting warmer illustrates the unscientific, flip-flopping nature of global warming predictions. Even the left is now laughing at Global Warming. So-called "global warming" has shrunk from problem to punch line. And now, Leftists are laughing, too. It's hard not to chuckle at the idea of Earth boiling in a carbon cauldron when the news won't cooperate. California Board Approves Anti-Global Warming Plan. The plan was preceded by an 18-month-long public process with scores of workshops and public meetings and hundreds of people testifying before the board. ... Almost every participant — from business to community leaders — had something critical to say. Perhaps most interesting is the unanimous condemnation of the board's economic analysis by its own selected peer reviewers. All six economists selected by CARB to peer review the analysis found it deeply flawed. War Over The Climate Heats Up Even As Climate Itself Cools Down. [Scroll down] Even Al Gore no longer claims that there are only one or two climate skeptics. Their number has been growing steadily. Last year, 100 prominent climate scientists signed a letter to the U.N. secretary general, warning against accepting the IPCC results. So far, 650 climate scientists have expressed their skepticism about anthropogenic global warming. And 31,000 scientists, about one-third of them with Ph.D degrees, have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol. The End Is Not Nigh. Asked [in February 2006] if the world had seven years to implement measures on climate change before the problem reached a "tipping point," [Prime Minister Tony] Blair answered: "Yes." This is the most recent and perhaps most dramatic in a long series [of] statements by prominent politicians about the putative threat of man-made global warming. On what did Tony Blair base his alarming view? New scientific insights? Or on an unshakable secular faith, which seems to fill the vacuum left by the demise of traditional religion? I surmise the latter. Because in the field of science there seems to be some shift towards a more sober look at the climate issue, witness the numerous studies which appear in peer-reviewed journals, which are either explicitly critical of, or implicitly inconsistent with the man-made global warming hypothesis. Despite the hot air, the Antarctic is not warming up. The measures being proposed to meet what President Obama last week called the need to "roll back the spectre of a warming planet" threaten to land us with the most colossal bill mankind has ever faced. It might therefore seem peculiarly important that we can trust the science on which all the alarm over global warming is based, But nothing has been more disconcerting in this respect than the methods used by promoters of the warming cause over the years to plug some of the glaring holes in their scientific argument. The Real Climate Deniers. What you should do, Messrs. Obama, Gore and McCain, is realize the debate is over — there is no global warming. Yes, between 1970 and 1998 there was a minor warming of a mere .34°F, as verified by the NASA satellite records. However, there has been no notable increase in the global temperature since 1998, (humiliatingly confirmed even by the United Nations). Furthermore, your designer greenhouse gas — carbon dioxide — is neither a pollutant nor a problem. Cooling global warming hysteria just one story of 2008. This is an ethical or political problem, not a problem in climate science. The crux of it is that major research grants and, in this country, prestigious Canada Research Chairs, have been awarded on the assumption something must be done to stop CO2 from destroying the world. Those scientists who are the current beneficiaries of a moral panic they help sustain are squirming not because of their ethical transgressions but because of scientific facts. Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm "Mistaken". Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore's scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears "mistaken." "I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken," Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008. Climate Crisis = Logic Crisis. The debate over "climate change" is no longer a matter of science. In the past forty years, the proponents of "climate change" have written and rewritten their hypotheses to fit the empirical facts. In logic this is sometimes called "The fallacy of saving the hypothesis." There is no honest discussion when the topic of a debate is constantly controlled, and occasionally altered, by the proponents of one side of the argument. Climate change proponents have been doing this for years. The ETS: Completely unnecessary. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics, and a combination of broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming. The signature of ozone depletion consists just of the second feature. ... The radiosonde measurements for 1979-1999 show broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming, but they show no tropical hotspot. Not even a small one. Empirically, we therefore know that an increased greenhouse effect was not a significant cause of the recent global warming. Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. Why we are told otherwise? Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were wrong. They told us the late 20th century was the warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us, using the infamous "hockey stick" graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. They were wrong. They told us global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased. They were wrong. They told us Arctic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong. They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record. They were wrong. New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears. An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming "bites the dust" and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be "falling apart." Fanaticism vs. science. I don't recall a single analyst who predicted that the price for a barrel of crude oil would triple within two years, then drop back to previous levels in less than two months. ... At the least, the inability to predict the price of gas two months from now or who will play in this year's Super Bowl should make us somewhat leery of predictions regarding the end of civilization as we know it in a century or so due to global warming. Truth, Economics, and Politics. As global warming pathologists insist that increasing carbon dioxide drives planetary meltdown, scientists who actually watch the climate trends — as well as all the forces that affect it — see something different. They observe unchanging (if not declining) temperatures over the last dozen years despite increased global CO2 emissions during the same time period. They see Antarctic ice swells despite a greater media emphasis on Arctic ice loss. They see a current warming bias across temperature monitoring stations; a cooling pattern since 1997; and a valid theory that solar cycles affect climate change more than any other phenomena. The Climate-Change Reformation. Al Gore — outdone only by L. Ron Hubbard in his ability to weave science fiction into a religion — is reforming the climate change faith, and turning it toward the discussion of energy independence and American financial viability. The truth, alas, has proved too inconvenient to ignore. Among non-partisan researchers, there is now little doubt that human-generated carbon dioxide makes only an insignificant contribution to climate change. Dangerous human-caused warming can neither be demonstrated nor measured. There is no evidence, neither empirical nor theoretical, that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial and other human activities can have any effect on global climate. In addition, the claims so often made that there is a consensus among climate scientists that global warming is the result of increased man-made emissions of CO2, has no basis in fact. The results of accurate measurements of global temperatures continue to be analysed by the international laboratories, now with 30 years experience in this process while a large number of scientists continue to perform high quality research. The results of these activities clearly demonstrate a wide range of errors in the IPCC projections. Illusions of Climate Science. How have we come to a situation where, as some polls suggest, most Australians are so concerned about dangerous climate change that they will put aside the very tools and technologies that have sustained clean air, clean water, nutritious food and long life? More importantly, is the perceived danger real and will the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions avert the perceived danger? Although there are many uncertainties to be resolved, it is clear that the community has been the subject of more than two decades of heavily biased propaganda. The Nonsense of Global Warming: The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels — the essence of the Greens' theory of global warming — has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules. Those who buy in to global warming wish to drastically curb human economic and industrial activities, regardless of the consequences for people, especially the poor. Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored. [Professor Richard] Lindzen believes another problem with climate science is that in America and Europe it is heavily colonised by environmental activists. Here are just two examples that indicate the scale of the problem: the spokesman for the American Meteorological Society is a former staffer for Al Gore, and realclimate.org, probably the world's most authoritative alarmist web site, was started by a public relations firm serving environmental causes. None of this is necessarily sinister, but the next time you hear a scientist or scientific organisation warning of climate doom, you might want to follow the money trail. So much for 'settled science'. You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take break for a decade or more. There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later. … There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity. If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus. Scientists urge caution on global warming. Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation. A Change in Climate for Climate Change Policy. Come what dramatic political and economic changes may occur, a refrain persists within the media, industry, and the U.S. Congress that onerous federal mandates to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) are inevitable. I don't think so. In less than a year, many unanticipated developments have complicated the political dynamics of "ending the era of fossil fuels" through the enactment of carbon reduction mandates. Carbon tax is just tilting at windmills. The one certainty of climate change (anthropogenic or not) is that it is unstoppable. Government advertisements suggest worst-case scenarios but they do not concede that these are no less likely should Australia cut its carbon dioxide output. Whether or not you believe in man-made climate change, it's out of our control. More significantly, it is out of the control of every political leader. ... At some point ... the electorate will realise they are being asked to pay for something they cannot have: a guarantee against climate change. A Spotless Sun. There's a wonderful irony in the fact that, back in the 1970s, the Greens were issuing warnings and even writing books about the coming Ice Age. They would abandon this issue, based in well-known and accepted solar science, in favor of a vast international hoax alleging man-made global warming. As the global warming hoax begins to lose its power to influence public opinion and policy, the Greens are not likely to be heeded for a long time to come because they were right about an Ice Age and lying through their teeth about global warming. Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason. It has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US. First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march. It was actually 1934. Then it turned out the world's oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003. Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades, after Al Gore warned us that we were about to see the end of winter as we know it. N.J. Legislator Says Global-Warming Regs Blown Away by New Scientific Data. New Jersey Assemblyman Michael Doherty today [8/15/2008] said new scientific data justify repealing the state's wide-ranging list of regulations aimed at reducing global warming. The Republican urged Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine to hold off on proposing any new regulations associated with New Jersey's Global Warming Response Act as skepticism grows among scientists about the cause and severity of global warming. He specifically called for the legislature to repeal the law when it returns to business after Labor Day. A warming theory that has melted away. I was clearly wrong when I said that [oLIVER] Tickell's claim for 70-80 metres of sea level rise had maxed out campaigners' scare potential because that means all ice is melted. Showing an amazing ability to raise the stakes none the less, Tickell now talks about sea level going 100m higher. Wilson row over green 'alarmists'. The Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has angered green campaigners by describing their view on climate change as a "hysterical psuedo-religion". In an article in the News Letter, Mr Wilson said he believed it occurred naturally and was not man-made. Garnaut scenario 'simply wrong'. Climate change sceptics have attacked the Garnaut orthodoxy that without immediate action to slash greenhouse gas emissions, Australia will suffer "diabolical" consequences. Rejecting predictions that the Great Barrier Reef would be destroyed and rainfall patterns radically altered without immediate moves to cut carbon emissions, climatologist Stewart Franks said scenarios set out by Ross Garnaut were simply wrong. Second Global Warming Skeptics Conference Announced. The organizers of a March 2008 conference that brought together more than 500 scientists, economists, and other experts on global warming today unveiled plans to hold a second conference on March 8-10, 2009, once again in New York City. The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change will serve as a platform for scientists and policy analysts from around the world who question the theory of man-made climate change. Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming. More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming. The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment. The petition was created in 1998 by an American physicist, the late Frederick Seitz, in response to the Kyoto Protocol a year earlier. Global Warming Follies: Ranking Minority Member Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the Lieberman-Warner bill doesn't, in any way, stay out of American's pocketbooks. … Yet, while Congress waits to pass or veto acts such as Lieberman-Warner, which many believe will affect the lives of Americans negatively, a study released by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) in 2007 concludes after its 12 pages of charts and calculations that there is no such thing as global warming. Inhofe on 'enemies' list. In a cover story on global warming titled "You Idiots!" Rolling Stone named U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe as one of the "planet's worst enemies." The Oklahoma Republican took issue. "My first response was I should have been No. 1, not No. 7," said Inhofe, perhaps the most vocal global-warming skeptic in Congress. "I am serious about that. I have spent now literally years on this thing, and it has been a long, involved thing." Let the data speak for itself. Have you noticed how environmental campaigners almost inevitably say that not only is global warming happening and bad, but also that what we are seeing is even worse than expected? This is odd, because any reasonable understanding of how science proceeds would expect that, as we refine our knowledge, we find that things are sometimes worse and sometimes better than we expected, and that the most likely distribution would be about 50-50. Environmental campaigners, however, almost invariably see it as 100-0. John Coleman vs Al Gore: Regular readers of this website are well aware of the Global Warming scam. Poking holes in the AGW theory is becoming child's play. But we have to keep at it because the general public and major presidential candidates are not so well informed. A large percentage of the public still get their news from the mainstream media. And of course the MSM is in the tank with Al Gore and the global warming believers. Climate realist declaration tops 1,100 endorsers. "The hundreds of well qualified endorsers to the Manhattan Declaration should end, once and for all, the highly flawed notion that only a tiny number of so-called 'skeptics' dispute the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol", said Carleton University Earth Sciences Professor and ICSC Chairman, Dr. Tim Patterson. "Millions of Canadians are coming to understand that the only constant about climate IS change — it changes continually. Gore getting desperate proof public cooling on GW hoax. Comments and reports about global warming are getting silly and even ridiculous. Al Gore says we have ten years left. We're told cooling is due to warming. More rain and flooding and less rain and drought are both due to warming. More hurricanes are predicted while fewer occur. Global temperatures declined as much in the first few months of 2008 as they increased in the previous 100 plus years due to warming. The Big Chill: Does the world's climate change from time to time? Of course it does. Sometimes it warms, and sometimes it cools. Is it rapidly warming now, threatening our way of life? No. It is neither warming nor cooling. The average of four recent climate temperature studies show that over the past 10 years, the planet has warmed only 0.047 degree Celsius, less than 1/20th of a degree. Recent studies suggest there will be no significant warming until after 2020. Feelgood fades. Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that Rudd's climate change policies were a welter of half-truths and platitudes dipped in soaring rhetoric to make them saleable. But now that the glossy pre-election promises are being analysed, probed and costed, the Rudd Government's carefully constructed appeal to environmental morality is unravelling. We now know, for example, that the mandatory renewable energy target of 20 percent of power generation is very likely to be an expensive waste of time and money. Scientists doubt climate change. More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says. … "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit," said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Scientists Doubt Climate Change. A new Senate minority report, issued by the office of Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, notes more than 400 scientists have challenged claims of catastrophic man-made global warming. Global Warming Heresy: Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. ... The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk. How to get to the bottom of the global warming debate. Physicist and meteorologist Craig Bohren, distinguished professor emeritus at the Pennsylvania State University … has no horse in the climate change debate: As a retired professor, he is not worried about losing or gaining funding based on his opinions. Partial List of Skeptical Scientists: Names of some scientists who are questioning the global warming hysteria. Global warming skeptics score a few points. The first was scored by a Canadian. Timothy Patterson, director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre at Carleton University in Ottawa, published an article conclusively demonstrating climate change is a permanent condition, that the Earth's climate has never been stable. What the sun does, rather than what man does with his carbon dioxide emissions, is what chiefly causes climate change, said Patterson. Hot Air Study Melts Global Warming Theory. Global warming alarmists may want to expedite their efforts to hamstring the global economy with greenhouse gas regulation. A new study touted as showing that we're not sufficiently panicky about manmade carbon dioxide emissions actually supports the exact opposite conclusion. Cooler assessment of climate obsession. Over the past half-century we have become used to planetary scares of one kind or another. But the latest such scare — global warming — has engaged the political and opinion-forming classes to a greater extent than anything since, a little over 200 years ago, Malthus warned that, unless radical measures were taken to limit population growth, the world would run up against the limits of subsistence, leading inevitably to war, pestilence and famine. Going Green = $4 per Gallon. [Scroll down] Global warming is quickly proving to be little more than a natural phenomenon, having virtually nothing to do with man. Science has now shown that human caused CO2 emissions amounts to no more than .017% — virtually insignificant. More and more scientists — by the thousands — are now expressing their skepticism about the whole global warming theory. But that hasn't stopped the "go green" mindset in Congress. Again, that's because the real goal is a reorder of society and the economy — not the environment. Why the Sky is Not Falling. Holly Fretwell, an economist by training, has done her best to bring some needed critical thinking to the global-warming debate by writing "The Sky's Not Falling! — Why It's OK to Chill About Global Warming." Aimed at 8- to 12-year-olds and their parents, it is a good, reasoned, 115-page antidote to the Chicken Little hysteria and propaganda found in the mainstream media and in places like Laurie David's kids book "The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming." Warming theories not carved in stone. Global warming has occurred in past periods when human activity involving industrial type CO2 emissions did not occur and temperature levels were almost certainly higher. Experts, including scientists, have a history of unrealised doom and gloom predictions. Since the last IPCC report, new authoritative research shows about half the temperature increase since 1980 reflects normal heating effects from urban areas. Also, the absence of any increase since 2001, and the fall of 0.6°C. between January 2007 and January 2008, raises further doubts about the claimed correlation between increases in temperatures and CO2 emissions. Global Warming Delusions: Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life — ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary. Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears. A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. … Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists. The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists. Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet. Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said. Chill Out. [Bjorn Lomborg] believes that global warming is happening, that man has caused it, and that national governments need to act. Yet he also believes that Al Gore is bordering on hysteria, that some global-warming science has been distorted and hyped, and that the Kyoto Protocol and other carbon-reduction schemes are a terrible waste of money. The Pope condemns the climate change prophets. Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology. NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming. NASA administrator Michael Griffin is drawing the ire of his agency's preeminent climate scientists after apparently downplaying the need to combat global warming. The Collapsing Scientific Cornerstones of Global Warming Theory. While the theory of global warming still may be correct, new evidence chipping away at its cornerstones should preclude precipitous, costly and perhaps unnecessary government actions. Global warming? The words "global warming" provoke a sharp retort from Colorado State University meteorology professor emeritus William Gray: "It's a big scam." And the name of climate researcher Kevin Trenberth elicits a sputtered "opportunist." At the National Center for Atmospheric Research, where Trenberth works, Gray's name prompts dismay. "Bill Gray is completely unreasonable," Trenberth says. "He has a mind block on this." Only 55 miles separate NCAR's headquarters, nestled in the Front Range foothills, from CSU in Fort Collins. But when it comes to climate change, the gap is as big as any in the scientific community. Panelist Who Dissents on Climate Change Quits. A scientist who has long disagreed with the dominant view that global warming stems mainly from human activity has resigned from a panel that is completing a report for the Bush administration on temperature trends in the atmosphere. "Global warming," also known as "enhanced greenhouse" will not cause catastrophe. In this document we find climate models and long-term climate data unhelpful in determining the planet's thermal response to elevated greenhouse gas levels. Annual temperature change and a modern and well-documented event provide evidence against greenhouse "feedback mechanisms" leading to uncontrolled and catastrophic warming, indicating Earth is not at a critical temperature threshold. Alarmist "consensus" does not exist. Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming. A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate. 
Michael
Crichton Is Right! Michael Crichton's new book, State of Fear, is
a surprising book. Tucked inside a lively and entertaining tale of a philanthropist,
a scientist, a lawyer, and two remarkable women who travel around the world trying to foil
the plots of evil-doers is a detailed exposé of the flawed science and exaggerations
at the base of the global warming scare. It is also a devastating critique of
mainstream environmentalism today and an eloquent call for change.
Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth. There is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment. GOP disputes global-warming cause: "This research begs an obvious question: If the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages than the age of coal-fired power plants and SUVs, what role do man-made emissions play in influencing climate?" asked Chairman James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma. Global Warming Speculation vs. Science: Just Ask the Experts: On the facts of human-made global warming, should one believe television or the experts? Hot Air. A study purporting to show man-made global warming affecting atmospheric circulation is dubious. Czech President Vaclav Klaus Warm and Fuzzy Global Regulation: Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, told a Competitive Enterprise Institute audience last week that he believes climate change is the ideal political issue because its dogma cannot be disproven. "Now I am afraid it will take centuries to come up with a convincing proof that the planet has not been destroyed, or does not find itself on the brink of destruction and that's the trick of the current environmentalism," Klaus said at the Competitive Enterprise Institute annual dinner. "The ambitious politicians who try to mastermind the world and their fellow citizens have been dreaming for decades to to find such a marvelous, from reality immunized doctrine," he said. Czech President Klaus ready to debate Gore on climate change. Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday [5/27/2008] he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he presented the English version of his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. … Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles — What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?, before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday. Blue Planet in Green Shackles: I do not … live in the past and do not see the future threats to free society coming from the old and old-fashioned communist ideology. … I see the current danger in environmentalism and especially in its strongest version, climate alarmism. Feeling very strongly about it and trying to oppose it was the main reason for putting my book together, originally in Czech language, in the spring of 2007. Climate concern ripped as 'religion'. Environmentalism, says Czech President Vaclav Klaus, is the new communism, a system of elite command-and-control that kills prosperity and should similarly be condemned to the ash heap of history. The provocative Mr. Klaus, an economist by training and former prime minister, said in an interview that today's global warming activists are the direct descendants of the old Marxists who trampled on individual freedoms and undermined free markets in pursuit of a greater good. The Carbon Curtain: Having lived much of his life in a nation once ruled by communists, Klaus recognizes a tyrannical ideology where elites trample on individual freedoms for the greater good when he sees one. Speaking Tuesday [5/27/2008] at the National Press Club to introduce the English version of his book, "Blue Planet, Green Shackles," Klaus said that global warming is being used as a means to erode our freedoms. Klaus called alarms about man-made climate change a "quasi-noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of something above him" and that it is being exploited by a new elite "certain they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea a reality." The New Communism: Like former President Ronald Reagan, who developed his understanding of the communist menace by fighting the communists in Hollywood, [Vaclav] Klaus suffered under them during the communist era in Czechoslovakia. … His book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, charges that the movement to "save" the environment has been taken over by ideologues who favor total government control over our lives. Klaus Against the Greens. [Scroll down] "I am frustrated by the fact that many people, including some leading politicians who privately express similar views to my own, are publicly silent," [Vaclav] Klaus began. He believes the global warming issue "is not being debated in a rational way, but is being thrust into the public consciousness as one-sided propaganda." He invokes the term "silent majority" to describe rationally thinking people who do not speak out against global warming propagandists. 'Santa' Klaus Takes on Global Warming. [Good King] Wenceslas — Saint Vaclav in the original Czech — was a legendary Santa Claus figure, a holy bringer of hope and cheer in the darkness of the European winter. Well, we have our own Vaclav to cheer us up this holiday season; but this one is Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, and a dangerous skeptic on the crusading faith of global warming. We Cannot Worship Nature and Remain Free. [Vaclav] Klaus knows firsthand that dictators, progressives, and "socialists have been very effectively destroying human freedom under humane and compassionate slogans, such as caring for man, ensuring social equality, and fostering social welfare." And all such slogans are an outgrowth of the attempted upheaval of Christianity through the systematic implementation of the worship of nature. Ultimately, Klaus says this environmental approach "is utopian and [will] lead to results completely different from the intended ones. EU's most outspoken global warming doubter. Czech President Vaclav Klaus, one of the most prominent climate change doubters, is about to get a new platform: the European Union presidency. Klaus has called man-made global warming a myth and questioned sanity of Al Gore, the former US vice president who received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for turning a spotlight on climate change. Beware the church of climate alarm. As the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, an economist, anti-totalitarian and climate change sceptic, prepares to take up the rotating presidency of the European Union next year, climate alarmists are doing their best to traduce him. Vaclav Klaus, Straight-Up. Klaus said, "I am a 'denier,' even if I dislike that term. I don't think there is any global warming. I don't see the statistical data for that." (Klaus, incidentally, is a professional economist and statistician.) "I don't believe in the results of the IPCC" (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Czech president attacks Al Gore's climate campaign. Czech President Vaclav Klaus took aim at climate change campaigner Al Gore on Saturday in Davos in a frontal attack on the science of global warming. "I don't think that there is any global warming," said the 67-year-old liberal, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. "I don't see the statistical data for that." Referring to the former US vice president, who attended Davos this year, he added: "I'm very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them. Czech, please! &c. What is it about the Czech Republic and straight talk? The country's president, Václav Klaus, is pretty much the number-one straight-talker in the world (for example, on global warming, and on the financial crisis now engulfing us). But the Czech prime minister, Mirek Topolánek, isn't bad either. What consensus? Climate Lies: The myth of the "97% of Scientists Agree". On May 16th, 2013, Barack Obama famously tweeted that "97% of Scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Every word of this tweet was a lie. The 97% Consensus figure came from a May 15th, 2013 study by John Cook[,] which Obama linked to in his tweet. If 97% of scientists really thought "climate change is real, man-made and dangerous" that would be quite troubling. But nowhere in the study was anything said about global warming being dangerous. Additionally, while the 97% figure was widely quoted, the criteria by which Cook achieved his figure was totally lacking in scientific clarity — or honesty. To be counted as affirming the global warming consensus question, scientists only needed to agree that "carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent". That's it. If, as a scientist, you agreed that human activity had some portion — any portion — of responsibility for global warming you were included in the 97% consensus. We're shocked the figure wasn't 100% based on the actual questions. 'NO Climate Crisis' Says Coalition of 1,600 Actual Scientists. "There is 'NO Climate Crisis' says a coalition of 1,600 actual scientists" in a recent letter to the California Air Resources Board. In fact, the scientists find that "California is in no danger of unusual drought: The annual precipitation in California has fluctuated greatly over the last 150 years, with only a slight decrease." California also has record low levels of air pollution that are below the threshold of human health effects, James E. Enstrom, PhD, MPH has told us repeatedly for years. He's also one of the 1,600 scientists signed onto the letter to CARB. The scientists also insisted that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth. The CO2 Coalition's letter is particularly timely with Gov. Gavin Newsom taking his climate change road show to the Vatican later this week where he was invited to speak by Pope Francis at a Summit of mayors and governors. The Summit, which will be held from May 15th to May 17th, will cover "the impact of rising temperatures" in local communities, and "climate resilience." Good news: There is NO climate crisis in California. This claim was verified by the scientific data that were compiled by the CO2 Coalition, a nonprofit organization with the goal of determining and propagating the facts regarding carbon dioxide (CO2) and the climate (CO2 Coalition, 2024). The key findings provided below stand in contrast to the climate crisis claims made in the March 1, 2024, California Priority Climate Action Plan (Priority Climate Action Plan, 2024) and the California Climate Disclosure Rules (Senate Bills No. 253 and No. 261) (Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, 2024). [...] Europe's consensus on climate is crumbling. At stake in the European elections in June this year will be everything that defines the modern EU: a large volume of net zero legislation, a values-based foreign policy and ever more intrusive business regulation. Polls suggest the centrist majority that has supported these policies is growing slimmer. Ursula von der Leyen has been the quintessential representative of that majority. Born in Brussels, German by nationality, proposed by France, she was the perfect candidate for European Commission president in late 2019. Now she is seeking a second term. Whether she will succeed will depend to a large extent on whether the centrist four-party coalition that supported her in 2019 will hold. All over Europe, we are now seeing a backlash against the kind of policies the Von der Leyen Commission represents. Why Is Everything So Stupid? The Climate Scam is the Father of Lies. And John Kerry is its progenitor. Well acquainted with power, he has spent the last thirty years insinuating climate panic into every discipline, every sector, forcing every CEO to confess that what is unreal is real, that what is not a problem is a problem, and demands your sacrifice. The national security state was tasked with selling the climate scam, bullying every plutocrat feeding off government dollars — Bezos, Musk, Gates, whatever fascist fiend runs Google — to sell this idiocy, this madness. Everyone who protested was sidelined, which means anyone both intelligent and principled was sent to the sidelines. And with the departure of the principled, the unethical, or the go-along-to-get-along gang took power. And to keep power, they lied. [...] The climate is not changing in dramatic ways. Human activity is probably NOT the chief driver. And nobody is agreeing on anything. Media were bullied, universities were bullied, every institution was tasked with climate emissions draw-down. 97 Percent of Scientists Don't Agree on 'Climate Crisis'. While the mainstream media around the world leads people to believe that a climate crisis will soon engulf the whole world (if it hasn't already) — there are some people who've looked into the science and data, and... they're not convinced. According to Mr. James Taylor (the president of The Heartland Institute) when you examine the facts, and data — it puts the media's scares into proper perspective, and dispels much of the eco-anxiety that young people across the world experience. And so, while we were down in Texas, we were able to sit down and speak with James to discuss how consensus is being manufactured around this topic, and what the data truly shows. Consensus. Science is the evaluation of evidence, not a mere vote or show of hands. Throughout the course of human history, there have been many periods during which a majority of scientists have wrongly concluded all sorts of erroneous assertions about the natural world and human beings. It was the scientific method, not consensus, that has allowed our understanding of the universe to expand. Nevertheless, to the extent people claim a scientific consensus exists about climate change and its potential dangers, there has been only a single scientific organization whose full membership has been polled on climate change issues, the American Meteorological Society (AMS), and the evidence shows AMS members are not deeply concerned about the effects of climate change. Although surveys of AMS members show two-thirds believe humans are causing a majority of recent warming, the polling results reveal only about 30 percent are very worried about it. Left Angry: Scientist Admits Climate change 'Consensus' is Fake. We are repeatedly told that climate change is an existential crisis that will kill us all, and scientists agree with that in an overwhelming consensus... except there is no such consensus as one scientist is finally admitting. "It's a manufactured consensus," climate scientist Judith Curry told the New York Post. Curry added that many "consensus" claimers are only looking for widespread acclaim and more research cash, or as she put it, "fame and fortune." Climate change by flawed numbers. In 2015 I was one of the presenters of the BBC documentary Climate Change by Numbers. [...] The particular 'climate change number' that I was asked to explain was the number 95: specifically, relating to the assertion made in the IPCC 2013 Report report of "at least 95% degree of certainty that more than half the recent warming is man-made". The 'recent warming' related to the period 1950-2010. So, the assertion is about the probability of humans causing most of this warming. Before explaining the problem with this assertion we need to make clear that (although superficially similar) it is very different to another more widely known assertion (still promoted by NASA) that "97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change". That assertion was simply based on a flawed survey of authors of published papers and has been thoroughly debunked. The 95% degree of certainty is a more serious claim. But the case made for it in the IPCC report is also flawed. The myth that "97% of scientists agree" about a climate crisis. Myth: 97% of climate scientists agree that we face a climate crisis that requires the rapid elimination of fossil fuels. Truth: Most climate scientists agree that we have some climate impact. This does not at all justify the rapid elimination of fossil fuels. What If Science Isn't Very Scientific? Science is one of the "golden calves" of our day. Many people worship the scientific process, believing whatever scientists say is absolute truth (unless, of course, it contradicts one of the other golden calves, such as LGBTQ, abortion, etc.) — and those who are even so much as hesitant to jump on the latest bandwagon are "science deniers" standing in the way of progress. But what if science isn't always so scientific? A recent article is just one of many that are calling attention to a big problem in the scientific literature: fraud and corrupted research. Over 500 scientific papers to be withdrawn by publisher. There's good news that a major publisher of scientific journals is cleaning out the stable of papers whose review process appears corrupted, but the bad news is worse. Not only were these papers published in the first place, but the easily-corrupted system of peer review — which is supposed to be the quality assurance mechanism for the creation and dissemination of scientific knowledge — remains in place with no additional safeguards. One more go at the 97% consensus. The 97% consensus on catastrophic human-induced climate warming is one of the great PR coups of all time, demonstrating the effectiveness of The Big Lie for propaganda purposes. Cook's 2013 paper became a springboard, coming strategically before the Paris COP, for Barack Obama and John Kerry to achieve a face-saving but meaningless result at the event. It was the rejoinder to the leaked emails from East Anglia that sank the Copenhagan COP. It became the "go to" rejoinder and the killer argument in every private discussion and public debate — "I am just following the science." Commentators and public service advisors use it to intimidate politicians and the public although practically no one has read the all-important paper by John Cook and associates, or even knows someone who has. The Irrelevant Climate Change 'Consensus'. A new "peer-reviewed" paper has been released from Cornell University titled "Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature." The study is yet another attempt to convey the nebulous notion that widespread scientific consensus exists regarding the primary causal factor behind climate change. A previous study, spearheaded by climate blogger activist John Cook, concluded in 2013 there was "97 percent consensus." Despite near universal acclaim and its citation by leading policymakers such as the United Kingdom's energy minister, the study was inherently flawed. Dr. Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia explains, "The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it." Even the Guardian — typically a stalwart supporter of climate activism — ran a headline stating: "The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up." After a thorough analysis, more than 100 published articles shredded the study's faulty methodology and completely rejected its postulated consensus level of 97 percent. Clearing the Air on Climate Change. Of course, many will say we don't even need to discuss this because it is "case closed" — 97 percent of scientists believe global warming is a serious man-made problem, right? No, that's documented drivel. It is based on what John Cook surmised was the view of authors of papers his team chose to review. The papers (and authors) were not necessarily representative, nor did the majority of the papers in question actually make any such claim. In fact, when the details behind this "study" were revealed, many scientists who were lumped into the "97 percent" cried foul. If one is really interested in polls, an actual 2012 survey of members of the American Meteorological Society indicated only 52 percent agreed that global warming was mostly man-made, and little more than one-third believed that without significant action, warming will have "very harmful" consequences in the next 100 years. 11,000 Scientists? Just Kidding. Earlier this week, the world's news media reported breathlessly that 11,000 scientists had issued a report contending that the Earth faces a "climate emergency." NBC News, to cite just one example, described a "study" produced by an "international consortium of more than 11,000 scientists." [...] Actually, there was no study, there was just a press release. And it wasn't 11,000 scientists, it was 11,000 random people who put their names on a web page. But today's reporters are so biased and so incompetent that when it comes to "climate change," they will swallow anything. Who are these '11,000 Concerned Scientists'? [Scroll down] Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields — their expertise isn't inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science. For example, a physicist won't teach a graduate-level course in Biology; a podiatrist won't perform open heart surgery and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing. How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology or atmospheric science? Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link — so I looked. In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists. As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S. Conversely, this list contains plenty of "experts" who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as: infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN and linguistics. The Bogus "Consensus" Argument on Climate Change. Back in 2014, David Friedman worked through the original paper that kicked off the "97% consensus" talking point. What the original authors, Cook et al., actually found in their 2013 paper was that 97.1% of the relevant articles agreed that humans contribute to global warming. But notice that that is not at all the same thing as saying that humans are the main contributors to observed global warming (since the Industrial Revolution). This is a huge distinction. The Cynical Myth of a Global Warming "Consensus". An article of faith of the modern environmental movement is the scientific "consensus" behind man-made global warming. Global warming activists and even some serious scientific organizations claim that 97% of the world's scientists unreservedly accept this theory. It is often the first and most common argument used by climate activists, from Al Gore to the Greenpeace climate warriors protesting in front of the White House. [...] Is there a "scientific consensus" about man-made global warming? Can there be any such thing as a scientific "consensus" in the first place? Do 97% of scientists believe in global warming? The answer to all three questions is an unequivocal NO, and we will analyze each one in depth. The myth of the 97 percent global warming consensus. Nothing helps raise public awareness like a good meme, and at least on that score, the "97 percent of scientists agree" meme has been wildly successful in convincing people that the science of global warming is settled. But as we shall see, the statistic — even if it were true — tells us nothing particularly useful regarding the global warming debate. The 97 percent number comes from a 2013 paper that was published by John Cook in Environmental Research Letters and that claimed to review about 12,000 published scientific papers on global warming and climate change. Now, for those of us who work in climate change research, it is well known that "climate change" is widely assumed to be mostly human-caused, despite the fact that very few published studies have actually attempted to demonstrate this to be the case. Again, it is simply assumed. Group Asks NASA to Remove Dubious Climate Change Stat. A free-market think tank formally requested that NASA remove from its website the assertion that 97 percent of scientists endorse the theory that human activity is the main driver of global climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position," a NASA webpage states. Climate Junk Science and the Utter Nonsense of Twelve Years to Destruction. A science professor needs to attract major money grants. With those grants, he or she can offer fellowships to doctoral candidates to do research under his or her tutelage and sponsorship. A science professor who cannot bring federal and related grants to his or her university will not have great graduate students to mentor or the money to conduct great research that can be published in respected professional journals. To qualify for that money, the professor must submit grant applications that persuade funders of the value of the proposed research. So let us be brutally honest here: A professor who seeks serious funding for environmental-science research that questions or debunks aspects of the Theology of Global Warming/ Climate Change will not get funding. He or she will die professionally much sooner than twelve years hence. By contrast, a "scholar" who writes a grant proposal for research to advance the Theology of Global Warming/ Climate Change will get the funding. That is the reason that so many more "scientific" papers advocate the inevitability of it all ending in twelve years. Follow the money. Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed 'Consensus' on Climate Change. A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged "consensus" behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine. Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future. According to Richard's analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the "significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes," which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe. About That "Climate Consensus". The most tiresome cliché of the climatistas is that "97 percent of scientists 'believe' in human caused climate change," though I am always grateful for how they used the term "believe," since the whole matter has taken on the attributes of religious commitment, if not fanaticism in many cases. The backup for this refrain is exceedingly weak. One study purporting to establish the "97 percent" consensus figure, from John Cook of the University of Queensland in Australia, does no such thing, which is obvious from reading just the abstract. About that global warming settled science 'consensus'... Do you know where that 97% figure came from? It was a University of Illinois survey. This survey, which was done by mail, was sent to 10,000 scientists who had published articles in scientific journals. Seven hundred answered — possibly the most opinionated ones. Ninety-seven percent believed in man-caused warming. Three percent did not. So actually, the 97% figure comes from fewer than 700 scientists. Yet the public believes it because it is repeated so often. It's been discussed and repeated as fact, yet it's not fact. It's Said That '97% of Climate Scientists Agree' About Global Warming — But Do They? A variety of studies have purported to find an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists on global warming. However, the studies rarely specify what it is to which the scientists agree. Usually it is nothing more than that the earth has warmed since 1800 and that human activity has contributed significantly to the warming — something almost no skeptics would deny. No study — whether a survey of published articles or a survey directly of scientists — has found anything remotely near a 97 percent consensus not only that the earth has warmed and that human activity has contributed significantly but also that human activity has been the primary driver, that the warming caused by it is dangerous, and that attempting to prevent future warming by reducing CO2 emissions would do more good than harm — and those are the issues debated. In 2004 Science published the results of a study by historian Naomi Oreskes claiming that "without substantial disagreement, scientists find human activities are heating the earth's surface." But an attempt at replicating the study both found that she had made serious mistakes in handling data and, after re-examining the data, reached contrary conclusions. The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus. Many legislators are told they must enact climate change legislation because an alleged "scientific consensus" holds that man-made climate change requires urgent action. They are repeatedly told "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that human activities are causing dangerous climate change, and that the only way to prevent this disaster from occurring is to adopt government policies that raise the price of fossil fuels and subsidize or mandate the use of alternatives such as wind and solar energy. But what evidence is there for such unanimity? Confessions of a Climate Change 'Denier'. A few days ago I had a conversation with a very smart university professor of history and somehow the climate change subject came up. Almost instantly he responded to my thoughts by saying: "You must be one of those deniers who rejects the science consensus." This is the new form of intellectual bullying and it's intentionally designed is to stop the conversation not advance it. In the academies it is a technique to close off scientific inquiry. When the liberals talk of consensus, what consensus are they talking about? 300 Scientists Tell Trump to Leave UN Climate Agreement. Hundreds of scientists told President Trump on Thursday [2/23/2017] to leave a United Nations climate agreement, arguing that carbon dioxide was "environmentally helpful" and not a "pollutant." Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate researcher Dr. Mark Lindzen led the group of 300 scientists who sent the letter to Trump on Thursday. Leaving the United Nations Convention on Climate Change would hamper the United States' cooperation with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, according to The Washington Examiner. The scientists are arguing against the view that carbon dioxide polluted the atmosphere, saying it helps "crops and other plants that nourish all life." About the 97% of Climate Scientists. One of the most famous statistics in the world of politics is the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree with the idea that humans activity is boosting CO2 to dangerous levels. [...] What follows next is pure speculation, based on my years of experience in corporate America and my understanding of human nature. But it seems to me that 99% of the 97% are relying on the accuracy and honesty of the 1% who actually produce the temperature measurements. Sure, the other scientists read the papers, and see whatever "adjustments" were made by the authors. But that seems like opening the hood of the car, looking at the outside of the engine, and determining that it's all good on the inside. The Theory Of Gravity Is Wrong? What Does It Mean For The 'Climate Consensus'? The little green men who fancy themselves as moral environmentalists enjoy gloating about the 97% of scientists who say man is causing his planet to warm. It's their way of saying: The science is settled, the consensus is in and no further debate is allowed — now let us run the world so we can satisfy our authoritarian urges. But not only is their 97% claim bunk, science is never settled and even a 100% agreement on any "scientific fact" is subject to change. Consider the scientific understanding of gravity. 240 Papers Published in 2016 that show AGW "Consensus" is a Fantasy. It is apparently regarded as "consensus" science that more than half of the climate changes occurring since the mid-20th century have been caused by humans. [...] Interestingly, since January 2014, the last 2½ years, 770 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published in scholarly journals that call into question just how settled the "consensus" science is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing dominates weather and climate changes, or that non-anthropogenic factors play only a relatively minor and inconsequential role. Instead of supporting the "consensus" science, these 770 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties apparent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes. Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming. The global warming debate is one of the most consequential public policy debates taking place in the world today. Billions of dollars have been spent in the name of preventing global warming or mitigating the human impact on Earth's climate. Governments are negotiating treaties that would require trillions of dollars more to be spent in the years ahead. A frequent claim in the debate is that a "consensus" or even "overwhelming consensus" of scientists embrace the more alarming end of the spectrum of scientific projections of future climate change. Politicians including President Barack Obama and government agencies including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) claim "97 percent of scientists agree" that climate change is both man-made and dangerous. As the authors of this book explain, the claim of "scientific consensus" on the causes and consequences of climate change is without merit. There is no survey or study showing "consensus" on any of the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate. On the contrary, there is extensive evidence of scientific disagreement about many of the most important issues that must be resolved before the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming can be validated. Rebutting Climate Alarmism with Simple Facts. What's most amusing is that, truthfully, no one really knows how many scientists there are in the world. Or what they all think about global warming. Or how many of them work in relevant scientific disciplines. However, the "97% consensus" is a flawed statement. Only 32.6% of the papers examined in the infamous John Cook study actually stated a position endorsing anthropogenic global warming. However, 97% of those said that "recent warming is mostly man-made." And so what we have is a misleading statement that has become misrepresented and cited as fact. A comprehensive eBook on Global Warming. [Scroll down to page 48] The global warming/climate change debate is not taking place in scientific journals. The climate model-founded and politically motivated groupthink about the human impacts of global warming is so firmly fixed in place that it is nearly impossible to publish papers that challenge it. Scientists who question the dogma are likely to lose government funding and/or their jobs. Those who do write papers along those lines run into more roadblocks. [...] The vast majority of the global-warming debate takes place in blogs as a result. It may come as a surprise to you, but people are most interested in blogs that are skeptical of catastrophic global warming, with WattsUpWithThat the most-viewed website on global warming and climate change. 250 AGW-skeptical papers from 2015 alone ... show climate science is not settled The Current State of Climate Alarmism. When their less committed followers, including Democrat congresspersons, Senators, editors of major media outlets, liberal billionaires etc., suspect foul play, the alarmist core throws a fit and demands that they stop thinking, acting, and most of all listening to the "deniers." Amazingly, the followers obey, even though some of them are extremely smart and experienced. Apparently, these people do not notice that the so-called "climate scientists" have no scientific achievements outside of the insular "climate science," and that whatever honors they received were given either by their non-distinguished peers or by politicized bodies (Heinz Awards, MacArthur Foundation Awards, etc.). The "scientific consensus" is not an argument but passive-aggressive acknowledgement of a lack of arguments, and their allegations of a denial machine, secretly funded by "fossil fuels," are just conspiracy theories. The alleged 97% agreement is closer to election results in the former Soviet Union than to the opinions of actual scientists. The climate nonconsensus. The Obama administration and climate change activists repeatedly insist that "97 percent of scientists" agree man-made global warming is a crisis. Those endorsing this "settled science" theory warn of an environmental apocalypse if global warming is more than 2 degrees Celsius. They say the earth has warmed 0.85[°]C since the preindustrial age, and that if we don't stop spewing carbon that figure could reach 4[°]C or more. But James Taylor, senior fellow for environment and energy policy at the Heartland Institute, says researchers attempting to make the data fit their political ideology manufactured the 97 percent consensus idea. Taylor wrote for Forbes that researchers, in the study environmentalists use most often to prove there is a consensus, deliberately twisted responses to a meaningless survey question and misrepresented many scientific papers. More reliable research has found no consensus, he said. Our Superstitious President. Obama's view of science is reductionist. It relies on count-em-up numbers: if more university professors (not known to be an especially independent or courageous cohort) believe in dangerous man-caused climate change than doubt it or its seriousness, and if climate change fits a larger progressive agenda, then it becomes factual. Would we assume thereby that Newton, Galileo, and Darwin were all exemplars of groupthink, and worked through consensus and collegiality, especially with the support of status-quo institutions and universities, in advancing majority-held theories? [...] In short, Obama is the most anti-science, anti-factual president in modern memory. 10 reasons why we shouldn't worry about 'man-made' global warming. [Scroll down to #4] [A]nalysis of how these two studies were conducted have shown them as even more dodgy than the "Hockey Stick". The first was based on a survey by a student for a Master's degree. Of her original sample of 10,257 scientists, she eventually identified only 77 as bona-fide "climate scientists", all but two of whom had endorsed the "consensus" view on man-made climate change. Hence her "97 percent". But this represented only 0.007 percent of her original sample. When another academic, John Cook, attempted to produce a more convincing result, based on a sample of 4,011 academic papers, he claimed that "97 percent" of them endorsed the "consensus" that "humans are the primary cause of recent global warming". But closer examination showed that only 65 papers argued that man-made CO2 was responsible for more than half of the warming. Cook's true percentage should have been far, far smaller. Climate Change "Consensus of Scientists" Is Idiotic. [Scroll down] The truth is there is zero truth allowed in the climate change debate. Ask a question of a climate-change believer and they'll evade the question or repeat their mantras. Like this idiot of the Sierra Club when talking with Ted Cruz. Trigger warning: Cruz murders the man. Ted Cruz Delivers Best Performance Yet at Climate Change Hearing. There is something obscene about watching Ted Cruz debate dogmatic leftists that gives me the tingles and... well let's just say I get very comfortable. It's the same as with idiot celebrities or idiot-er college students who think because Cruz is a southern Christian, he can barely tie his own shoes. In their minds, if they simply confront him with something like a meme, that's all they need to make him look stupid. Then he fires back and it's just bodies all over the floor. [Video clip] The Editor says... Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation'. Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007-2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019-2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate 'misinformation' was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'. Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent." Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Crisis or Delusion? [Scroll down] So who are some of the scientists and other experts who do not believe global warming is a crisis? The Heartland Institute has produced a 16" x 22" poster with the faces, names, and titles of 58 such experts. They include current and former professors of climatology, geology, environmental science, physics, and economics at leading universities around the world. This poster presents clear and undeniable evidence that the debate is not over. Looking out from this poster are 58 real experts on the causes and consequences of climate change. Each of them refutes the existence of a "consensus of scientists" on the size of the human impact on climate, or whether it merits immediate action. Many of these experts say the threat is grossly exaggerated, often to advance a political agenda. More than 100 articles retracted by two scientific journals this year. Is fraud on the rise in peer reviewed scientific journals? PJ Media contributor Theodore Dalrymple points to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine that reveals some alarming facts about papers submitted to prestigious publications in the medical field. Top Physicist Bolts from Global Warming 'Consensus' And Says Obama Backed 'Wrong Side'. Freeman Dyson is a 91-year-old theoretical physicist who was a contemporary of Einstein at Princeton, has received multiple international awards for his scientific efforts, and has published numerous books and papers on a wide range of topics. Dyson is criticizing scientists who advance what he describes as an 'agenda-driven' perspective on global warming. Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process. Since it was first reported 3 years ago, when South Korean researcher Hyung-in Moon admitted to having invented e-mail addresses so that he could provide "peer reviews" of his own manuscripts, more than 250 articles have been retracted because of fake reviews — about 15% of the total number of retractions. How is it possible to fake peer review? Moon, who studies medicinal plants, had set up a simple procedure. He gave journals recommendations for peer reviewers for his manuscripts, providing them with names and e-mail addresses. But these addresses were ones he created, so the requests to review went directly to him or his colleagues. The 97 Percent Standard Response from Big Climate. [Scroll down] One other subject we addressed, with reference to my new book, was Ted Cruz's devastating questioning of the know-nothing who heads the Sierra Club, one Aaron Mair. [...] It's weird. The "denier" is in command of the facts, whereas the president of an organization specifically devoted to the subject appears to know nothing about it, but instead keeps drooling over and over about "the 97 percent consensus". By the way, that "97 percent" nonsense is taken apart on page 295 of my book. It means 75 out of 77 more or less hand-picked scientists. Many scientific studies can't be replicated. That's a problem. Maverick researchers have long argued that much of what gets published in elite scientific journals is fundamentally squishy — that the results tell a great story but can't be reproduced when the experiments are run a second time. Now a volunteer army of fact-checkers has published a new report that affirms that the skepticism was warranted. Over the course of four years, 270 researchers attempted to reproduce the results of 100 experiments that had been published in three prestigious psychology journals. It was awfully hard. They ultimately concluded that they'd succeeded just 39 times. The failure rate surprised even the leaders of the project, who had guessed that perhaps half the results wouldn't be reproduced. Peer Review Is Not What It's Cracked Up To Be. People often ask whether some work has undergone peer-review and are then ready to accept it — confident this makes it kosher. I wish this were really true. Its proper functioning depends on the integrity of the editor, who chooses two or more anonymous reviewers, at his discretion, and supposedly bases acceptance for publication on their disinterested advice. But this ideal system is easily misused. If the editor has a bias — as often happens in a controversial area like climate change — then all bets are off. The editor simply selects the reviewers who will give him the opinions he wants. Documentary Outguns the Opposition in the Global-warming War. Once a learned phobia takes root, convincing its believers of the truth is nearly impossible, but the producers of a new documentary may have found the key. Their well-researched and creatively presented video The Global Warming War defies dogmas of the most hardened climate-alarmist faithful. Testimonials by dozens of scientists, government advisors, and other climate experts, including exclusive interviews with the founders of The Weather Channel and the World Rainforest Movement, expose the myth of "consensus" and prove the strength of scientifically skeptical arguments. Mr. Obama, 97 percent of experts is a bogus number. Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. President Obama tweeted that, and it has been repeated by countless others. It is tempting for a politician to claim that 97 percent of experts agree with you. But do they? The 97 percent claim was taken from a study paper by Australian John Cook, Climate Communications Fellow for the Global change Institute at the University of Queensland, and his colleagues, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in May, 2013. [...] The paper is a treasure trove of how-not-to lessons for a graduate class on survey design and analysis: the sample was not representative, statistical tests were ignored, and the results were misinterpreted. Climate Change '97 Percent Consensus' Claim Debunked. In the nearly two years since John Cook and his colleagues published their '97 percent' paper claiming a scientific consensus on climate change, the term '97 percent' has become something of a mantra for global warming advocates. President Obama tweeted "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." The Guardian runs a regular column headed "Climate Consensus — the 97%" (regular contributors include co-authors of the original paper). What the mainstream media won't tell you about global warming. [#7] You are more likely to see the tooth fairy or a unicorn than a 97% consensus of scientists believing that there is man-made global warming. The number is a convenient fraud. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists' papers, according to the scientists that published them. A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook's team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook's alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%. How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had a definite opinion, 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind. And how did the Cook folks determine which scientists believed what? They didn't ask, they read papers written by these scientists and came up with their own opinion. Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart. "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Remember that statement, a while back, from some bloke on Twitter? What we now know with more than 97 percent certainty that this guy — or whoever is in charge of running his Twitter account — is either wilfully dishonest or woefully ill-informed. The "97 percent" claim is an utter nonsense. [A] report released today [9/8/2014] by the Global Warming Policy Foundation explains exactly why. Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% 'consensus' and its critics. Recent reports that 97% of published scientific papers support the so-called consensus on man-made global warming are based on a paper by John Cook et al. [...] Numerous critiques of the paper have been published, some by supporters of mainstream views on climate science. These have demonstrated substantial biases in the methodology. Cook has certainly misrepresented what his research shows. More importantly, one researcher has made an allegation of scientific fraud, at this point unrebutted by Cook and his colleagues. The Big Lie of the "Consensus View" on Global Warming. How often do you read or hear the claim that a "scientific consensus" exists that global warming is directly affected by mankind's actions? This influence is called "anthropogenic global warming," or AGW. Further, how often do you hear how people who fail to agree with this AGW consensus are "deniers," akin to someone who believes the Earth is flat. The informed critics of AGW deniers will cite a scholarly review of the climatology literature that reveals how 97% of the climate science community supports the AGW theory. But, if you read the paper for yourself (it is only six pages long, with some simple graphs), you will see that these critics are lying. What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do. The fiction that most scientists believe climate change is "man-made and dangerous" can be traced to a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been repeatedly debunked and contradicted by more reliable research. Yet the myth lives on in the minds of liberal activists. So let's settle this once and for all. Dr. Arthur Robinson Explodes Bogus Global Warming Consensus. In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson was one of the principal organizers of the Petition Project, an effort to demonstrate that the claimed "consensus" of science in favor of the belief that humans are causing catastrophic global warming does not exist. The event that precipitated the project was the United Nations-sponsored meeting in Kyoto, Japan, which produced the Kyoto Protocol, demanding global rationing of energy, ostensibly to save the world from the non-crisis of warming supposedly caused by burning hydrocarbon fuels. Presidential snow job on global warming. Dear Mr. President: [...] When one of your top EPA administrators came before the Science, Space and Technology Committee, I asked her about the much-heralded claim that "97 percent" of scientists form a global-warming "consensus" — consensus being historically antithetical to scientific inquiry itself. Her stammered answer would have made any U.C. Irvine student blush, as would any such feeble research. Did anyone ever ask 97 percent of the world's scientists? Seriously? It turns out, the sampling that led to this preposterous 97 percent claim was a questionnaire of scientists predisposed to agree. Tautologies are commonplace in politics, but this kind of methodology has no place in academia. And those charged with regulating us should be disqualified when they resort to them. Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the 'Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science. Climate alarmism is "the biggest fraud in the field of science" and the 97% consensus claim is nonsensical, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham tells MRCTV in a preview of his presentation at the upcoming Heartland Institute climate conference, July 7-9. "Since about 2000, I looked farther and farther into it," Col. Cunningham (USMC, Ret.) tells MRCTV in an exclusive interview. "I found that not one of the claims that the alarmists were making out there had any bearings, whatsoever. And, so, it was kind of a no-brainer to come to the conclusion." Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? The University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming. Since coming out with this figure last year, climate scientist John Cook of the University of Queensland's Global Change Institute has been under fire for the methodology he used. Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the 'Consensus'. One of the world's most eminent climate scientists — for several decades a warmist — has defected to the climate sceptic camp. Lennart Bengtsson — a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction — is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides. Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims. Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors' claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world's most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. Climate Consensus Con Game. At the outset, let's be quite clear: There is no consensus about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) — and there never was. There is not even a consensus on whether human activities, such as burning fossil fuels to produce useful energy, affect global climate significantly. So what's all this fuss about? Let's also be quite clear that science does not work by way of consensus. Science does not progress by appeal to authority; in fact, major scientific advances usually come from outside the consensus; one can cite many classic examples, from Galileo to Einstein. [Another way to phrase this issue: Scientific veracity does not depend on fashionable thinking.] In other words, the very notion of a scientific consensus is unscientific. Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming. The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 [to] 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view." The Latest Meteorologist Survey Destroys The Global Warming Climate 'Consensus'. Barely half of American Meteorological Society meteorologists believe global warming is occurring and humans are the primary cause, a newly released study reveals. The survey results comprise the latest in a long line of evidence indicating the often asserted global warming consensus does not exist. 'Consensus' on Climate Change just PR Campaign . [Scroll down] ["]Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus." These comments strongly suggest the project was not a scientific investigation to determine the extent of agreement on global warming but a public relations exercise. If that is what it was, then it was successful, but its headline-grabbing impact was possible only by drawing a veil over the precise methodology used. Climate Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97 Percent Consensus' Claims. Global warming alarmists have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97 percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors' claims of a 97 percent consensus relied on them misclassifying the papers of some of the world's most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question that allowed them to twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. Obama Launches New Global Warming Video as Phony "Consensus" Crumbles. President Obama's White House website recently unveiled a one-and-a-half-minute video, "Addressing the threat of Climate Change," in which he underscores his commitment to enact energy policies that he says will help stem the damage to the planet that, supposedly, is being caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other green house gases (GHGs). A big problem for the president and others in the global warming choir is that even many of the most faithful voices in that choir are dropping out and starting to sing another tune. Climate Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97 Percent Consensus' Claims. Global warming alarmists have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97 percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors' claims of a 97 percent consensus relied on them misclassifying the papers of some of the world's most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question that allowed them to twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. Climate consensus in free-fall. The trenches of anthropogenic global warming are now mostly left populated by green ideologues, a left-dominated media, and bureaucrats who are usually the last to grasp reality. Climate consensus in free-fall. [Scroll down] As it turns out, even what we have been sold as a climate science "consensus" per se is a myth. In truth, public-money-grubbing researchers, green social engineers, politicized UN bureaucrats and corrupt data fiddlers apart, it has always been thus. Just as the 28-Gate scandal eventually revealed the 28 'experts' that advised the BBC to pin its AGW colours to the alarmist mast was nothing but a green lobby group, so the alleged climate consensus looks increasingly, er... 'fracked'. Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like A Myth. Yes, many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the earth. Of course there are some who don't. But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth's climate to warm. Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked. A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis," according to James Taylor, writing at Forbes.com. As he points out, if there is a scientific consensus at all, it would have to be skepticism toward anthropogenic global warming. Settled Science? No Such Thing. Scientific knowledge is always in a state of flux; there is simply no such thing as "settled science", peer reviewed or otherwise.Man-made global warming: Even the IPCC admits the jig is up. [A] leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede. The Climate Humpty-Dumpty: All the King's Horses.... The so-called "climate consensus" continues to fall apart. Fritz Vahrenholt, a prominent German green energy investor and formerly full-throated climateer, has announced his defection. [...] The other notable defector is James Lovelock, the originator of the much-beloved (by the greens) "Gaia-hypothesis," which in general terms means the entire Earth should be conceived as one big closely interconnected ecosystem.Monckton's Schenectady showdown. [Scroll down] The Versailles consensus of 1918 imposed reparations on the defeated Germany, so that the conference that ended the First World War (15 million dead) sowed the seeds of the Second. The eugenics consensus of the 1920s that led directly to the dismal rail-yards of Oswiecim and Treblinka (6 million dead). The appeasement consensus of the 1930s that provoked Hitler to start World War II (60 million dead). The Lysenko consensus of the 1940s that wrecked 20 successive harvests in the then Soviet Union (20 million dead). The ban-DDT consensus of the 1960s that led to a fatal resurgence of malaria worldwide (40 million children dead and counting, 1.25 million of them last year alone). You could have heard a pin drop. For the first time, the largely hostile audience (for most of those who attended were environmentalists) realized that the mere fact of a consensus does not in any way inform us of whether the assertion about which there is said to be a consensus is true. The Global Warming Cult and the Death of Science. The journey from hypothesis to rock solid consensus is a long one, and it doesn't end just because Al Gore makes a documentary or a few ads show crying polar bears. Positions are argued, minds change and then a century later the graduate students have fun mocking the ignorance of both sides. That's science. Unfortunately, the Cult of Warm doesn't accept that there is a debate. As far as they are concerned, the debate never happened because it never needed to happen because they were always right. They can't intelligently address dissent, because their science is not based on discovering the evidence needed to lead to a consensus, but on insisting that there is a consensus and that accordingly there is no need to debate the evidence. The New Deniers. The recent publication of a report by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences prompted a number of editorial pieces that repeated this "consensus of scientists" argument. Typically, the pieces presented or summarized no data in support of the catastrophic predictions, nor did they even acknowledge alternative explanations for whatever warming the earth may be experiencing. New Global Warming Scandal: 'Consensus' on Sun is One Expert. A staggering new finding seems to mire the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in global warming scandal every bit as devastating as Climategate. The news broke June 24, 2010 on a Czech climate skeptic blog, Klimaskeptik.cz, that calls the latest global warming scandal, "Judithgate." IPCC "Consensus" on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper. Klimaskeptik.cz, a Czech climate skeptic blog, has posted today an interesting article "Judithgate: The IPCC was only one Solar Physicist". Her name is Judith Lean. On the basis of this "consensus of one" solar physicist, the IPCC proclaimed solar influences upon the climate to be minimal. Objection to this was raised by the Norwegian government as shown in the AR4 second draft comments... Leading experts rapidly endorsing 'Climate Scientists' Register'. By allowing their names to be added to the signatory list, these scientists are endorsing the following physical science statement: "We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming." Global Warming's New 'Consensus': The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine this week announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that "... There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..." Eminent theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson is among the many distinguished signatories. Calling out warmist bullies. [A Baltimore Sun] editorial claims that there is a consensus among scientists that man-made carbon dioxide is causing global climate change; however, consensus in science is an oxymoron. From Galileo to Einstein, one scientist with proof is more convincing than thousands of other scientists who believe something to be true. Financial meltdown defrocks deceit of man-made global warming. Frequently after a presentation someone will ask me the rhetorical question, "So, you are telling us the majority of scientists, the IPCC, and National Academies of Science are all wrong." It is more than the usual consensus argument, which says you must be wrong because the majority disagrees. It implies it is not credible to believe so many people are deceived. The consensus argument is counteracted by the point that consensus is not a scientific fact. Senate Report Debunks "Consensus". Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. … Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. The 'consensus' on climate change is a catastrophe in itself. The idea that the IPCC represents any kind of genuine scientific "consensus" is a complete fiction. Again and again there have been examples of how evidence has been manipulated to promote the official line, the most glaring instance being the notorious "hockey stick". Initially the advocates of global warming had one huge problem. Evidence from all over the world indicated that the earth was hotter 1,000 years ago than it is today. … This blew a mighty hole in the thesis that warming was caused only by recent man-made CO2. 'Consensus' On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008. Former Vice-President Al Gore came to Washington on July 17, 2008, to deliver yet another speech warning of the "climate crisis." "The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis," Gore stated. But the former Vice President, who has been warning of a 10-year "tipping point" for several years now, appears to be unaware that the United Nations already started the 10-year countdown — in 1989! Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate. The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible." Poll: Humans Don't Cause Global Warming. Fewer than half of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center believe humans are causing global warming, and a declining number even believe the Earth is experiencing a warming trend. The survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, finds "roughly half, or 47 percent, of Americans say the Earth is warming because of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels." Nearly as many, 45 percent of respondents, contend the higher Earth temperatures are due to "natural environment patterns," that no global warming exists, or that causes cannot be scientifically determined. A bad day for the red-hots. Al Gore picked a bad day to tout his global-warming scam. Just as he was telling an easily conned columnist for the Associated Press that Earthlings have just 10 years to get in line behind him to save the world from the frying pan, a consortium of 50,000 physicists conceded that maybe Al's evidence of man-made warming isn't so hot, after all. Science by intimidation: Truth may enter the world by many doors, but she is never escorted by force. I thought that was a lesson learned long ago, and learned by none more tellingly than scientists. Real scientists, actually, have learned it. A new amalgam has emerged however, the scientist-activist, and for that specimen it's a lesson passed by. Scientists question climate change consensus. Like so many other expensive green intiatives mooted here and elsewhere in the West, [green taxes] are firmly rooted in the single premise that man-made CO2 emissions are scientifically proven to be the root of all climate evil. And the most acceptable source of that scientific proof is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). No consensus, and no warming, either. The American Physical Society reports: "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." A scientific consensus has been reached about global warming? More than 400 scientists are challenging claims by Al gore and the United Nations about the threat from man-made global warming. A report by Republican James Inhofe of the Senate Environment Committee lists among the skeptics many current or former members of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chill out on global warming. Al Gore's cinematic sermons on inconvenient truths to the contrary notwithstanding, it is becoming clearer by the day that major cracks are appearing in the supposed consensus among scientists that global warming caused by carbon emissions is an urgent problem that government must address with drastic measures. Among the most significant cracks are these... Scientist Calls Global Warming Theories 'Bunk,' Cites Errors of Logic. Just as Galileo and Einstein transcended the "consensus" of their day, so too will a growing body of scientific evidence eventually vindicate non-alarmist views on global warming, predicts environmental scientist Fred Singer. The very notion of consensus on global warming is a "laughable" proposition, Singer said during a talk at the Heritage Foundation this week. Will Media Expose Global Warming Con Job? In the past several months, a new "crisis" has heated up the controversy over man-made global warming. A few major-media writers and TV personalities are actually reporting statements by credible scientists who are challenging the assumption that carbon dioxide is the primary force causing global warming. There's a real possibility that big-name journalists will break ranks and pursue their next Pulitzer Prize by exposing the lack of scientific consensus on CO2 as a planet-heating pollutant. Galileo Denied Consensus. Galileo was forced to recant and confess his error; he thereby escaped being burnt at the stake and was instead sentenced to house-arrest for the rest of his life. Science and history have of course proven him right. Ever since, the notion of enforced "consensus" has been anathema to scientists. Until now. The dawn of the 21st century sees relentless strident attempts to enforce consensus about global warming theory. Survey Shows Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory. [Scroll down] Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." Climate Scientist Survey Reveals Little Consensus. A new survey of American members of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that there is not firm scientific consensus on global warming, as proponents of swift action to curb carbon emissions have suggested. Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming — Now Skeptics. Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure, it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included [in this article] are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven "consensus" on man-made global warming. Experts question theory on global warming. Believe it or not. There are only about a dozen scientists working on 9,575 glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India. Is the available data enough to believe that the glaciers are retreating due to global warming? Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them. Global warming is a theory, not scientific fact. Talk of "consensus" in science is nonsense. Consensus is not truth, nor proof, it is compromise. In science, everything should be tested and becomes either true or false, or undecided. Whether Earth is round or flat is not a matter of "consensus." Ask Galileo. Consensus at Salem in 1692 was that witches took over childrens' bodies. Global Warming: Unfinished Business. Climate science is not "settled;" it is both uncertain and incomplete. The available observations do not support the mathematical models that predict a substantial global warming and form the basis for a control policy on greenhouse gas emissions. Scientific 'consensus' on global warming doesn't exist. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary, released Feb. 2, states that it is "very likely" that changes in climate are due to human influence. More recent comments in various media outlets have focused on a scientific consensus which supports the panel's conclusions. Those who question this consensus have been compared to Holocaust deniers, and some have been threatened with job dismissal. This is no longer science, but scientific socialism. I do not agree with all of the IPCC conclusions and know through peer discussions that the idea of a consensus in the meteorological community is false. The Sun Also Sets. Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun. The Global Warming Hypothesis. Despite claims of a "consensus" in the scientific community about the reality of global warming, climate scientists who deal with hard temperature data can find little evidence of rising temperatures, and almost no real evidence linking what people do with any alleged climate change. Despite these facts, the federal government has embarked on what could be an economically devastating path to severely restrict Americans' use of energy and fuel. The Scientist Trap: The National Academy of Sciences report does not provide a valid scientific basis for global warming, nor does it show a scientific consensus on the issue. Climate consensus and the end of science. It is now firmly established, repeated ad nauseam in the media and elsewhere, that the debate over global warming has been settled by scientific consensus. The subject is closed. ... Back when modern science was born, the battle between consensus and new science worked the other way around. That famous consensus: Yet another example of the ?research? masquerading as science that is used to reinforce the man-made global warming fraud. One of the difficulties the green zealots have had is that Antarctica has been not warming but cooling, with the extent of its ice reaching record levels. A few weeks ago, a study led by Professor Eric Steig caused some excitement by claiming that actually West Antarctica was warming so much that it more than made up for the cooling in East Antarctica. Warning bells should have sounded when Steig said, "What we did is interpolate carefully instead of just using the back of an envelope." "'Unequivocal' 'Consensus' on 'Global Warming'": Science is not, repeat not, done by "consensus", though politics is. The IPCC process, which aims at and then falsely claims "consensus", is an explicitly political process, and not a scientific one. ... The IPCC's conclusion that it is 90% likely that human activities caused most of the warming of the past century is not only unscientific, in that it is not possible to place a quantitative estimate on such a proposition, but is also by no means universally shared among the scientific community. Eight Fallacies about Global Warming: [#5] Funding for scientific research has moved towards being determined by consensus, because where public monies are concerned the issue ultimately comes back to an opinion as to whether the research is likely to be fruitful. Prior to the last 20 or 30 years, research was driven principally by scientific curiosity. That science research funding has now become results-oriented has had a dramatic, negative impact on the usefulness of many scientific results. For, ironically, pursuing science that is thought by politician to be "important" or "in the public interest" often results in science accomplishments that are conformist and fashionable rather than independent and truly useful. Scientific "Consensus". [Scroll down] It seems reasonable to ask, therefore, how can a seriously flawed — if not actually fraudulent — mathematical model linking production of the relatively minuscule amount of an atmospheric trace gas be used to blame mankind for major planetary climate change? The answer lies in the intense public relations campaign launched by environmentalists worldwide following publication of the 1997 IPCC report. The entire debate has been framed by presenting only one side to the maximum extent possible while demeaning any skeptics. The worldwide distribution in 2006 of the Al Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth added to the simplistic polarization and politicization of debate. One cannot ignore how the IPCC report initiated within the United Nations played into an anti-Capitalism agenda. When scientists behave like bullies. For years, I've read global warming activists cite the work of UC San Diego science historian Naomi Oreskes, who looked at 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed articles from 1993 and 2003 and found, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position" in favor of man-made global warming. No surprise, her unbelievable claim was wrong. What climategate really tells us. The hockey stick was one of the pillars of the mantra that there is a rocksolid consensus of leading scientists — even though numerous critics, ultimately including the US National Academy of Sciences, noted serious deficiencies in the hockey stick. One of the several scandalous revelations of the Climategate e-mails is that this claim of consensus is a lie. Never mind the skeptics: It turns out many of the scientists in the CRU inner circle had doubts and disagreements about their data, methodology and conclusions, and often bickered with one another about defects in their project. Consensus or Con? As we've written on various occasions, we didn't know enough about the substance of the underlying science to make a judgment about it. But we know enough about science itself to recognize that the popular rendition of global warmism — dogmatic, doctrinaire and scornful of skepticism — is not the least bit scientific. The revelations in the Climategate emails show that these attitudes were common among actual scientists, not just the popularizers of their work. Global Warming Debate Pits Facts Against Faith. Claims that there is a "scientific consensus" on the causes, extent, or consequences of climate change are simply false. While climate scientists may agree that the Earth's temperature is always changing, there is tremendous disagreement and debate over whether humans are responsible for those changes. Climatology is a new science and there is great uncertainty about fundamental scientific questions, preventing scientists from knowing for certain what is causing current climate trends and accurately predicting future climate conditions. 30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Can't Be Wrong. In the report U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg was quoted as saying "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." In the largest effort to date to document global warming dissent in the scientific community, 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science — including 9,029 PhD, 7,157 MS, 2,586 MD and DVM, and 12,714 BS or equivalent — have signed on with the Global Warming Petition Project to state "the humancaused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity." The Renewable Electricity Standard is a Hoax, a Fraud, and a Rip-Off. The U.S. Senate's proposed Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) would force electric utilities to generate a large and increasing percentage of their power from wind and solar — rising to 15% by 2021. ... The hoax part of the RES is that "clean electricity" is being advertised as a way to save the earth from the "dreadful fate" of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). To accept this outlandish proposition, one would have to believe that the carbon dioxide generated in the burning of fossil fuels has a noticeable influence on climate. The data argue against it. The constantly advertised "scientific consensus" is phony; it does not exist. Inaccurate measurements How Can We 'Trust The Science' When We Can't Trust The Data? Climate change is the challenge of our lifetimes," we in the energy-hungry West often hear when lectured by leftist government officials and their allies pushing the "Net-Zero" religion. But what happens if much of the vital data behind the climate-change threat are made up? Turns out, quite a lot of it is. At least that's what the Daily Sceptic, a British-based science watchdog, claims. It recently detailed the allegations made by an independent journalist showing that 103 of the 302 supposed "weather stations" that provide data for both the United Kingdom government's and academic scientists' climate change forecasts don't exist or produce actual data. That's right. Instead of data, the government manufactures "estimates," as journalist Ray Sanders found. If so, that means all of the science based on the falsified data is null and void. That includes the British government's frequent dire predictions of massive global heating that will soon make life on planet Earth unbearable. The Editor says... Urban Heat Island Effects Have Not Yet Been Removed from Official GHCN Warming Trends. Our paper (co-authored by John Christy and Danny Braswell) on computing the urban heat island (UHI) effect as a function of population density (PD) is now in the final stages of review after a 3rd round of edits, and I'm hopeful it will be accepted for publication soon. [...] The method allows us to compute UHI trends using global gridded PD datasets that extend back to the 1800s. These UHI trends can then be compared to GHCN station temperature trends. If I do this for all U.S. GHCN stations having at least 120 years of complete monthly (June, July, or August) data out of 129 potential years during 1895-2023, the following plot shows some interesting results. [...] [#1] The greater a station's population growth, the greater the observed warming trend. This is pretty convincing evidence that the raw GHCN data has substantial UHI effects impacting the computed trends (probably no surprise here). Note the UHI temperature trend averages 66% of the raw temperature trends. [#2] The regression line fit to the data intercepting zero shows that those stations with no population growth have, on average, no warming trend. While this might lead some to conclude there has been no net warming in the U.S. during 1895-2023, it must be remembered these are raw data, with no adjustments for time-of-observation (TOBS) changes or instrumentation type changes which might have biased most or all of the stations toward lower temperature trends. Pictures Emerge Showing Locations of Met Office "Extreme" Record Temperatures. These days the Met Office has rebadged its daily "high" temperatures as "extreme", all the better of course to ramp up fears of heat as part of the Net Zero education process. Last Wednesday's "extreme" of 20.4°C was recorded at Teddington Bushy Park. As the Google Earth photo below shows, the "extreme" temperature is helped on its way by an adjacent high wall reflecting heat onto the measuring device and a large housing development warming the nearby area. Teddington Bushy Park is a junk class 4 station with internationally-recognised "uncertainties" of 2°C. Joke class 4 station might be a more apt description. How anyone can think information taken at this site is suitable for scientific work that ultimately produces a global mean temperature is a mystery. Met Office Records Hottest Day of the Year at a Weather Station Next to a Massive Heat-Generating Electricity Sub-Station. Earlier this month the Met Office declared the hottest day of the year so far in the U.K. with the temperature reaching 34.8°C in Cambridge. The Met Office claimed it was only the eleventh time since 1961 that the temperature had reached that level, with six of these occasions having been recorded in the last 10 years. Needless to say, missing from the account was a note that the station in Cambridge's National Institute for Agricultural Botany (NIAB) is located just metres from a massive heat-generating electricity sub-station complex. Electricity sub-stations give off so much heat into the surrounding atmosphere there are even plans to trap it for commercial use. The Cambridge station at Histon has recently benefitted from a £5 million upgrade including the installation of a third heat-pumping transformer. It is difficult to think of a worse place to locate an instrument to accurately measure nearby uncorrupted air temperatures, other than favoured Met sites at international airports and solar farms. Climate change season is upon us! [Scroll down] As an aside, it has never been explained to us exactly how these left-leaning climatologists are collecting and collating their temperature data. In other words, they're not "showing us their math," nor are they explaining to us how they arrive at the conclusion that global temperatures are getting hotter. For instance, are they using a simple average of every temperature point on the planet? Every town, city, state, province, etc.? Or are they using a selective average of just a relative handful of temperature points to make their case? This of course assumes they aren't outright manipulating the data, as recent research suggests they are. But even if they're being honest, the question remains: how are they averaging global temperatures? To date, that question has never been answered. India Says Delhi's Record 52.9 Celsius Temperature Last Week Was Wrong by 3[°]C. A record temperature registered this week for the capital New Delhi of 52.9 degree Celsius (127.22 Fahrenheit) was too high by 3[°]C, the Indian government said on Saturday, blaming a weather sensor error. The Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) had investigated Wednesday's reading by the weather station at Mungeshpur, a densely packed corner of Delhi, "and found a 3°C sensor error", Earth Sciences Minister Kiren Rijiju said. "Corrective measures are now in place," the minister said, sharing the conclusion of a draft report about the all-time high reading on social media platform X. He did not give a corrected figure for Wednesday's temperature. The IMD said in a statement that the maximum temperature reported by the Mungeshpur weather station "is not correct due to malfunctioning of the sensor." Enormous Pile of Evidence That Humans Cause Global Warming is a Monstrous Hoax. Earth-surface temperature records are notoriously unreliable. On land, was the temperature recorded at the same solar time (not clock time) every day? Did the same person take the measurement? Was the instrument moved? Was the instrument replaced? In the 1950s, the United States Weather Service had more than 8,000 temperature measuring stations, mostly in rural areas. Now there are about 1,700, mostly in urban areas, and many of those in airports or parking lots. The "heat island" effect is well known, but almost never mentioned. On his many trans-Atlantic voyages, Benjamin Franklin discovered the Gulf Stream by taking daily temperature measurements. He noticed that there were systematic differences that depended upon the sampling depth, whether the water was brought on deck using a canvas or wooden bucket, and how long it sat on deck before he measured the temperature. Today, temperatures are measured on shipping lanes by thermometers in the engine cooling water intake. It's at a different point in every ship, and its depth depends on the ship's loading. Hidden Behind Climate Policies, Data From Nonexistent Temperature Stations. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicts July, August, and September will be hotter than usual. And for those who view warmer temperatures as problematic, that's a significant cause for concern. "Earth's issuing a distress call," said United Nations secretary-general António Guterres on March 19. "The latest State of the Global Climate report shows a planet on the brink. [...] When recalling past temperatures to make comparisons to the present, and, more importantly, inform future climate policy, officials such as Mr. Guterres and President Biden rely in part on temperature readings from the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). The network was established to provide an "accurate, unbiased, up-to-date historical climate record for the United States," NOAA states, and it has recorded more than 100 years of daily maximum and minimum temperatures from stations across the United States. The problem, say experts, is that an increasing number of USHCN's stations don't exist anymore. The Editor says... Met Office Uses Junk Temperature Measurements to Fill "World Treasure" 350-Year Temperature Record. In Climate: The Movie, William Happer, the former physics professor at Princeton, describes the Central England Temperature (CET) record as a "world treasure" since it provides continuous recordings from 1659 — over 350 years. It shows a rise just over 1°C from the depths of the Little Ice Age to the present day. These days, the CET is under the control of the politicised Met Office, keen to catastrophise weather and climate in the interest of promoting Net Zero. Recent revisions have retrospectively cooled the near past and boosted readings from the last 20 years. In addition, the Daily Sceptic can reveal that two of the three measuring stations currently used to add to this scientific treasure are taken from near-junk class 4 sites that come with official 'uncertainties' of up to 2°C. Trillions [are being] Spent on 'Climate Change' Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say. To preserve a "livable planet," the Earth can't warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the United Nations warns. Failure to maintain that level could lead to several catastrophes, including increased droughts and weather-related disasters, more heat-related illnesses and deaths, and less food and more poverty, according to NASA. To avert the looming tribulations and limit global temperature increases, 194 member states and the European Union in 2016 signed the U.N. Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty with a goal to "substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions." After the agreement, global spending on climate-related projects increased exponentially. In 2021 and 2022, the world's taxpayers spent, on average, $1.3 trillion on such projects each year, according to the nonprofit advisory group Climate Policy Initiative. Two Convicted in Plot to Tamper with NOAA Climate-Gauges Devices — Was This Fraudulent Data Used? Two southeastern Colorado farmers have demonstrated what shenanigans might unfold when money and climate mix — as they often do. According to a Feb. 29 news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Colorado, Patrick Esch and Ed Dean Jagers of Springfield, Colorado, pleaded guilty to criminal charges of tampering with rain gauges, some of which belonged to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In other words, due to the tampering on the NOAA devices, those federally owned gauges showed inaccurate rainfall totals. That, of course, would make actual climate conditions in the area impossible to measure. It wasn't clear if the fraudulent data was used for "climate change" record-keeping, but the case definitely raises the question. A Third of U.K. Met Office Temperature Stations May Be Wrong by Up to 5°C, FOI Reveals. Nearly one in three (29.2%) U.K. Met Office temperature measuring stations have an internationally-defined margin of error of up to 5°C. Another 48.7% of the total 380 stations could produce errors up to 2°C, meaning nearly eight out of ten stations (77.9%) are producing 'junk' or 'near junk' readings of surface air temperatures. Arguably, on no scientific basis should these figures be used for the Met Office's constant promotion of the collectivist Net Zero project. Nevertheless, the state-funded operation frequently uses them to report and often catastrophise rises in temperature of as little as 0.01°C. Under a freedom of information request, the Daily Sceptic has obtained a full list of the Met Office's U.K. weather stations, along with an individual class rating defined by the World Meteorological Office. These CIMO ratings range from pristine class 1 and near pristine class 2, to an 'anything goes' or 'junk' class 5. Urban Heat Island Studies — Do Pristine Weather Stations Even Exist? [Scroll down] It is difficult to derive reasons for step change adjustments of this magnitude, to near 1°C from equality for Tmax here. Automatic weather station apparatus (MMTS for some) using electronic thermocouples instead of Liquid-In-Glass thermometers, could explain some of the 1991-1993 event, but not why they change at different dates for Tmax and Tmin; the 2013 event coincides with the station move from central Melbourne to the more suburban Olympic Park. On the other hand, it is easy to concoct a narrative that the Melbourne Regional observations were becoming artificially too hot over the years, that something had to be done to cause a decline. Why not change the instruments and the location of the station? Trillions [are being] Spent on 'Climate Change' Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say. To preserve a "livable planet," the Earth can't warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the United Nations warns. Failure to maintain that level could lead to several catastrophes, including increased droughts and weather-related disasters, more heat-related illnesses and deaths, and less food and more poverty, according to NASA. To avert the looming tribulations and limit global temperature increases, 194 member states and the European Union in 2016 signed the U.N. Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty with a goal to "substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions." After the agreement, global spending on climate-related projects increased exponentially. In 2021 and 2022, the world's taxpayers spent, on average, $1.3 trillion on such projects each year, according to the nonprofit advisory group Climate Policy Initiative. That's more than double the spending rate in 2019 and 2020, which came in at $653 billion per year, and it's significantly up from the $364 billion per year in 2011 and 2012, the report found. The complete fantasy of climate science. The last two days have brought two new examples of the delusions and outright lies that drive the climate change narrative. On the delusion side, we have Axios's horror that the earth is within 1.5 degrees of the global warming limit set at the Paris Climate Accords, paired with its assurance that (and I'm quoting more accurately than Claudine Gay ever would), "The climate of 2023 was the hottest seen in at least 125,000 years..." There are a couple of obvious problems with that article. First, the Paris Climate Accords was a political agreement aimed at keeping the U.S. economy flat while other nations, which burn filthy coal, were unfettered. Let's just say that I don't take its "limits" seriously — although, of course, the climate changistas do. Second, and this is the more important one, it's nonsense to pretend we know to a "half-a-degree Celsius" how hot it was 125,000 years ago. Humans began keeping temperature records in the mid-19th century. Everything before that is guesswork. Some of it is scientifically detailed guesswork based upon ice core samples and tree rings, but it's still estimates without precision. Global Warming fears based on an imaginary temperature. Over the past year, we have heard a lot about skyrocketing "global temperature." The problem is — global temperature doesn't exist. [...] Of course, governments, the United Nations, and even some scientists also use the term often, hyping meaningless records in an imaginary parameter in order to frighten us about something that doesn't matter. Climate activists venture even further into the realm of unscientific fantasy chanting "1.5 to stay alive," meaning that we must prevent the "global temperature" from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial levels or we are all doomed. But the so-called "global temperature," at least the way the UN calculates this make-believe parameter, has already risen 1.2°C since pre-industrial times. Only a climate hypochondriac would think that a further 0.3°C rise would be noticeable, let alone catastrophic. Unknown to most of the public, and indeed many scientists who should know better, is the fact that "global temperature," or "global average temperature," or even "global temperature anomaly," is not real. It is merely a statistic that, outside of politics, has no meaning in the real world. Hottest
In 125,000 Years? Just about all of the media have been peddling the "Hottest
for 125,000 years" claim, which suggests a very concerted effort by the climate establishment
in the run up to COP28. The claim is self evident and baseless nonsense for a number of good reasons:
Junk Science Alert: Met Office Set to Ditch Actual Temperature Data in Favour of Model Predictions. The alternative climate reality that the U.K. Met Office seeks to occupy has moved a step nearer with news that a group of its top scientists has proposed adopting a radical new method of calculating climate change. The scientific method of calculating temperature trends over at least 30 years should be ditched, and replaced with 10 years of actual data merged with model projections for the next decade. The Met Office undoubtedly hopes that it can point to the passing of the 1.5°C 'guard-rail' in short order. This is junk science-on-stilts, and is undoubtedly driven by the desire to push the Net Zero collectivist agenda. Is the Planet Truly "Boiling", or Are We Measuring the Wrong Things? We are told that we live in an era of global boiling. Our planet is rapidly heating up, as calculated based on temperature readings from weather stations spread around the globe. [...] Due to understandable reasons of convenience, scientists placed weather stations near where they live, in or near urban areas. [...] It turned out to be problematic: instead of measuring the warming of the planet, we measured the warming of the cities. Where Is the Alleged Australian Warming? Australia's Bureau of Meteorology, BOM, released a big data product a decade ago. It showed the historic, daily, observed temperatures as maxima and minima in °C for about 1,650 weather stations. This is the foundational, raw data on which much climate research is based, for Australian temperatures. My graph uses a sub-set of these foundational temperatures. It is for the 6 State capital cities, plus Darwin and Alice Springs to get more coverage of the country. Melbourne 1855 is the oldest start date for the data. Perth, 1897 is the most recent start date. All data end in December 2006, because the finish date for the BOM compilers was April 2007. Global Warming and the Earth's Land Mass. The goal of scientific research should be to pursue the truth, not confirm a personal or institutional bias. But many analyses of the global warming hypothesis begin with the assumption that man has caused global warming and then proceed to try to prove the thesis, employing pseudoscience in the effort. [...] The principal means to measure the average temperature of the Earth's land mass is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). At present, NOAA employs a system of about 21,000 metropolitan surface area temperature stations (MSATS) worldwide to collect temperature data. The MSATS monitoring stations are located 2 meters above the ground, and volunteers collect the temperature data twice daily in an effort to obtain the maximum and minimum temperature readings for the day. [...] In legitimate scientific research, the data obtained by experimentation or observation are never adjusted; adjustments corrupt the data and invalidate the results. If the methodology used in an experiment or observation is faulty, one adjusts the methodology, not the data obtained from the investigation. 96% of U.S. Climate Data Is Corrupted. A new study, Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed, finds approximately 96 percent of U.S. temperature stations used to measure climate change fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be "acceptable" and uncorrupted placement by its own published standards. The report, published by The Heartland Institute, was compiled via satellite and in-person survey visits to NOAA weather stations that contribute to the "official" land temperature data in the United States. The research shows that 96% of these stations are corrupted by localized effects of urbanization — producing heat-bias because of their close proximity to asphalt, machinery, and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects. Placing temperature stations in such locations violates NOAA's own published standards, and strongly undermines the legitimacy and the magnitude of the official consensus on long-term climate warming trends in the United States. Why We Need An Independent Global Climate Temperature Database. Ever since the beginning of the global warming debate, now labeled "climate change," there has been one immutable yet little-known fact: All of the temperature data stations used to make determinations about the state of Earth's temperature are controlled by governments. In June 1988, when Dr. James Hansen, then-director of NASA's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, went before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to say that, "global warming has begun," he was using temperature data collected by governments worldwide from a weather station network that was never intended to detect a "global warming signal." In fact, Dr. Hansen had to develop novel statistical techniques to tease that global warming signal out of the data. The problem is, these weather station networks were never designed to detect such a signal in the first place. When did global warming become climate change? Since accurate measurements of the lower troposphere temperature began to be measured by NOAA satellites in 1979, the average temperature anomaly has increased by 0.13°C/decade, or 0.013°C/yr., well within the measurement margin of error. It should be noted that from 1979 to 1998, the temperature anomaly decreased every year — global cooling. Arguably, this value is within the measurement margin of error, and it certainly does not constitute a heat wave! Since 2000, NOAA's Argo Float Program has measured changes in the temperature of the world's oceans to be 0.02°C/decade or 0.002°C/yr. This value is well within the margin of error and is not statistically significant. Finally, NOAA records on the temperature of the land mass indicate an increase in average surface temperature of 2°F for the period 1880 [to] 2020. That is an increase of 0.014°F per year, well within the measurement margin of error during a time when temperature measurements were made with thermometers graduated in 1, 3, and 5°F increments. Clearly, the temperature database of the Earth's land, ocean, and atmosphere show no significant increase. 96% of NOAA Temperature Stations Are Corrupted per Heartland Institute Study. A couple of weeks ago I put up a post about the current heat wave hysteria, explaining how with tens of thousands of weather stations across the US and Europe, and only about 120 years of data, it is a statistical imperative that there will be thousands of "record daily high temperatures" recorded every year, including plenty of all "all time records." In that same piece I referenced how climatistas have no problem using data from obviously corrupted weather stations. I referenced one in Portugal that just recorded a record high temperature for that city. Coincidentally, it sits atop a rock wall and adjacent to a brick wall, both of which retain heat. Shortly after the post was published, I heard from the folks over at The Heartland Institute who informed me that they were about to release a major research report showing just how badly corrupted NOAA's weather stations are. Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed. This report examines the accuracy and reliability of U.S. temperature stations from which official temperature records are reported, following up from a March 2009 study, titled "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?" The original report found the ground-based system for measuring surface temperatures in the United States was biased by asphalt, machinery, and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects located near many official temperature stations and their sensory equipment. The new study reexamines these temperature stations and equipment to determine whether there remains flaws in the official U.S. surface temperature record. This report finds approximately 96 percent of U.S. temperature stations fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be "acceptable," uncorrupted placement. These findings strongly undermine the legitimacy and the magnitude of the official consensus on long-term climate warming trends. 96% of NOAA heat measurement stations are corruptly placed to support climate change hoax. It turns out that almost every temperature station operated by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is corruptly placed to make the country appear "warmer" than it actually is, effectively amplifying the "global warming" hoax. An astounding 96 percent of NOAA's temperature stations fail to the meet the agency's own "uncorrupted placement" standards, according to research compiled by the Heartland Institute. Most of them are located near objects that trap or produce heat, corrupting their readouts. Others are located in areas that, since the time of their placement, have become far more urbanized. This, too, is increasing the heat readouts and making it seem all across the board that "climate change" is real. "With a 96 percent warm-bias in U.S. temperature measurements, it is impossible to use any statistical methods to derive an accurate climate trend for the U.S.," says Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Anthony Watts, the study's director. Clearing the Air on Climate Change. And then there is the infamous history of Michael Mann and his previously mentioned "hockey stick" graph. Again, the most glaring problem with the theory that global temperatures are strongly correlated with human greenhouse gas emissions and that natural phenomena are incidental was the inconvenient truth of the Medieval warming period and subsequent cooling. These events obviously were not linked to human greenhouse gas emissions. In 1999, Mann and a couple other researchers came up with the "hockey stick" graph, which purported to show that the Medieval warming period and the little ice age were small blips. Temperatures supposedly varied little until widespread industrialization in the late 19th century. Upon closer scrutiny, this study had numerous problems, including cherry-picked data. Some researchers believed this analysis to have a structural bias, and for some reason Mann refused (and still refuses) to release details on parts of his methodology and his regression calculations, claiming they are his personal intellectual property. No U.S. Warming Since 2005. One of the problems in assessing global climate is that the surface temperature record is terrible. There are very few weather stations world-wide, and fewer all the time. Seventy per cent of the world is ocean, and therefore hard or impossible to measure accurately. Most temperatures that go into calculations of a global average are not even measured: they are interpolated, assumed temperatures based on records at other stations. Even when measured, temperature records are not very reliable. The U.S. is generally considered to have the best records, but surveys show that over half of our weather stations do not comply with written standards. Some are located in places that obviously will be warmer than surrounding air, e.g., next to airport runways. Many are in cities, where temperatures are artificially inflated by concentrations of people, motor vehicles, buildings, etc. And on top of all of that, the alarmists who curate weather records have systematically fiddled with them, lowering temperatures that were recorded decades ago and raising recent ones, to exaggerate the supposed phenomenon of global warming. Greenland's 'Record Temperature' denied — the data was wrong. Greenland's all-time record temperature wasn't a record at all, and it never got above freezing there. Question marks over new French record temperature. Just to update the so called record temperature of 45.9°C. in France at Gallargues. It turns out that the roadside site is no longer used. It was thought that a rooftop thermometer had replaced it, but this is an amateur station. The official one is near a cave. Will the Real Thermometer Please Stand Up. Here is a new video discussing the confusion and the best information I can find. 4
Reasons Why 'Climate Change' Is a Flat-Out Hoax. [#1] Rampant scientific fraud: Ordinary people like me
don't understand climate science, but we can spot cheating a mile away. Without the assistance of a complicit Western
media in burying multiple indisputable cases of outright scientific fraud, man-made global warming theory would have been
blown out of the water years ago. One of the most brazen instances of inexcusable scientific misconduct is documented
by photographic evidence gathered during a three-month investigation by a veteran meteorologist. As reported in this
PDF, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) placed hundreds of official global warming thermometers in
locations entirely unsuitable for gathering natural temperatures: Fake temperatures? The widely reported global average surface temperatures, which are the basis for the global warming scare, are not true. Contrary to popular belief these are not measurements. They are the output of complex statistical models. These statistical models are every bit as questionable as the climate models they feed into, actually more so. The global warming scare is based on the supposed rapid surface warming that occurred in the two decades between roughly 1978 and 1997. The climate models are tuned to this warming, using speculative human causes to explain it. They then project this surface warming to dangerous future levels and that is the scare. But the satellites show no such warming in the atmosphere over this period, where it should be if it were caused by greenhouse gases. The satellites show no warming at all over this crucial time. This zero warming strongly suggests that the surface statistical models are wrong. In Australia, faulty BoM temperature sensors contribute to "hottest year ever". For some time, weather enthusiasts have been noticing rapid temperature fluctuations at the 'latest observations' page at the Bureau's website. For example, Peter Cornish, a retired hydrologist, wrote to the Bureau on 17 December 2012 asking whether the 1.5 degrees Celsius drop in temperature in the space of one minute at Sydney's Observatory Hill, just the day before, could be a quirk of the new electronic temperature sensors. Ken Stewart, a retired school principal, requested temperature data for Hervey Bay after noticing a 2.1 degrees Celsius temperature change in the space of one minute on 22 February 2017. In both cases, the Bureau assured these 'amateurs' that they didn't understand what they were noticing. Systematic Error in Climate Measurements: The surface air temperature record. Those compiling the global averaged surface air temperature record have not only ignored systematic measurement error, but have even neglected the detection limits of the instruments themselves. Since at least 1860, thermometer accuracy has been magicked out of thin air. Also since then, and at the 95% confidence interval, the rate or magnitude of the global rise in surface air temperature is unknowable. Current arguments about air temperature and its unprecedentedness are speculative theology. How Not to Measure Temperature. Global warming alarmists purport to compute the average annual temperature over the entire surface of the Earth (most of which, of course, is ocean) to within one one-hundredth of a degree. That is, on its face, an unbelievable claim, but it becomes even more preposterous when you look at how temperatures are actually measured. Climate alarmists manipulate the data to make 2015 look like the hottest year on record. Government is a fraud — it manipulates data so to make situations worse and lies about climate change, by putting the thermometers near heated objects — to pretend it is hotter than it really is. This is a crime, because based on the fraud, we spend tens of billions, kill lots of American jobs, it is the remaking of our nation using fraud and corruption. In addition, where the ground-based stations are placed can have an impact on their temperature readings. The initial attempt was to place them away from human activity to avoid the urban heat island effect, where the heat from concrete, pavement, cars, etc., might create artificially high readings. As cities have expanded over the decades, they have increasingly encroached on, and in some cases swallowed up, many of the weather stations. I've seen pictures of them sitting in parking lots, on top of buildings, and in front of air conditioner exhaust fans. Why Skeptics are Losing the Climate Change Battle. [It is an] illusion that there is such a thing as a Global Temperature. There is no such entity and never has been. Furthermore there is no such thing as an average Global Temperature either. Peace be to Dr. Christy of the University of Alabama, for whom I have the greatest respect. He assures me that there is an average Global Temperature arrived at by inference from remote sensing from satellites. This is done by counting the number of joules, which as you all know I trust, are units of energy. But may I humbly beg to differ. It is manifestly impossible to put in all the data in order to arrive at an average. It is clear that an average such as NASA provides based upon some 3,486 weather stations situated at 5 ft above the ground is just nonsense. Why? Because in the whole of this sacred Planet of ours to determine the temperature based upon such a sparse amount is truly ridiculous. Moreover of the 3,486 stations 3,269 are situated in the relatively warm areas of Europe, America, and Africa. How many stations are there in the vast continent of Antarctica? Merely 8.
Climate Alarmists Invent New Excuse: The Satellites Are Lying. The video is well produced and cleverly constructed — designed to look measured and reasonable rather than yet another shoddy hit job in the ongoing climate wars. Sundry "experts", adopting a tone of "more in sorrow than anger" gently express their reservations about the reliability of the satellite data which, right up until the release of this video, has generally been accepted as the most accurate gauge of global temperatures. This accuracy was acknowledged 25 years ago by NASA, which said that "satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change." More recently, though, climate alarmists have grown increasingly resentful of the satellite temperature record because of its pesky refusal to show the warming trend they'd like it to show. 2015: The Climate Record that Wasn't. To hear the climate change hysteria at the end of 2015, the apocalypse is nigh upon us. We were told by climatologists and their cheerleaders in the mainstream news media that last year was "the warmest on record," a claim that those of us who endured the mammoth snowfalls and bitter cold of last winter in northeast North America were inclined to doubt. [...] Of course, the real climate record spans thousands of years and tells quite a different story from the less-than-40-year snapshot afforded by global climate satellite data. By all available evidence, much of the world's history has been much warmer than now, with the exception of occasional ice ages and lesser cooling events (the Little Ice Age, which lasted from roughly 1300 to 1850 being the most recent example). 2015 Was Not Even Close To Hottest Year On Record. Forget what global warming activists would lead you to believe — 2015 was not even close to the hottest year on record. Satellite temperature readings going back to 1979 show 1998 was by far the warmest year in the satellite era, followed by 2010. 2015 comes in third. And these results are only for the period since 1979. 2015 should have been warmer. This past year saw what is likely the most powerful El Nino during the satellite temperature record. With a record El Nino, we should have experienced record high temperatures. Yet we didn't. A record El Nino resulting in less-than-record temperatures is another sign that global warming is not all that activists crack it up to be. NASA and NOAA Claim Hottest Year Despite Evidence. The global-warming propaganda knows no bounds. NASA and NOAA have just announced that 2015 is "the hottest year on record," confirming a similar statement by the UN IPCC last fall — a spurious claim that CNN and other elements of the pro-environmentalist establishment media are only too happy to amplify. In other words: Two more government agencies, funded entirely by government money, have found still more evidence that more government will be needed to avert the alleged manmade catastrophe of global warming. The fact that the most ardent proponents of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming are all affiliated with either the UN or with the U.S. government should arouse suspicions about scientific objectivity. "Homogenized" US Warming Trend May Be Grossly Exaggerated. The way we measure global temperature is once again facing scrutiny for over-estimating the planet's warming trends. Our government homogenizes weather data so that all nearby weather stations are all singing the same tune. It's done to weed out bad stations or failing weather equipment. We discovered such a thing earlier this year when we found that perhaps the nation's most politically iconic weather station — Washington DC's Reagan National Airport — was reading temperatures that were far too hot to be plausible. Now it turns out that the homogenization itself is suspect and also producing way too much warming. What's Really Going On With the Earth's Climate. The most accurate record we have of modern temperatures comes from satellites. Their readings are, in fact, the only transparent, uncorrupted temperature records in existence. Surface temperature records are unreliable because of siting issues, poor coverage of the oceans, failure to recognize the urban heat island effect, and deliberate falsification by alarmist climate scientists, who constantly revise temperatures recorded decades ago to make the past look cooler. The problem with satellite temperature data, of course, is that it only goes back to 1978. That said, we now have 37 years of satellite data. What trends to those records reveal? NOAA's 'Compromised' Thermometers Inflate U.S. Warming Trend. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data. "The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts," Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday [12/17/2015]. Corrupted Australian Surface Temperature Records. Out of over 20,000 Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) weather stations on record, 112 have had their data "corrected" under a process known as homogenisation, (the acronym for it in full is ACORN-SAT). Oddly though, eight of these high quality sites, are admitted to, quote: ["]...have some urban influence during part or all of their record, hence are excluded from the annual temperature analyses.["] Thus only the resultant 104 ACORN site records are used to establish temperature trends and it is these that are partly reviewed herewith. Some ACORN stations are known under a single site name but are actually several different locations combined, (typically moving from in-town to the airport), and their homogenisation is partly achieved by including data trends from surrounding stations of lesser status. The change from Fahrenheit to centigrade units in 1972 is a further complication involving the reading and rounding of 5/9 ratio smaller Fahrenheit units. Also of difficulty are significant issues in time of day in the readings. Government Agencies Proclaim Bogus Temperature Record. If global warming ideology is based in reality, and leftists are the ones who believe in science, why is it that again and again the government dissembles about temperature data to prop up this moribund hoax? Lies Progressives Tell Us: Climate Change. The earth encompasses 96,000,000 square miles, yet the temperatures used in climate change research come from only 6,000 weather stations, thousands of them located in urban heat islands. That leaves 80% of the planet unmeasured. Worse yet, as Paul Homewood discovered by examining raw data from weather stations in Paraguay, the data showing an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius between 1950 and 2014 had been altered from the raw data, which showed a decline of 1 degree. The same change from decline to increase was discovered in two other stations. As Christopher Booker has written of this long tradition of fiddling with the data, ["]Assiduous researchers have ... unearthed countless similar examples across the world, from the US and Russia to Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, an 80-year cooling of 1 degree per century was turned into a warming trend of 2.3 degrees. [..."] Swiss Weekly Calls Temperature Rise A "Propaganda Trick" (Not A Trend). At the print edition of Swiss news weekly "Weltwoche", science journalist Markus Schär writes that not only has the global temperature trend suspiciously been tampered with, but so have the datasets of the Swiss Meteorological Service: [...] According to Schär at Weltwoche, also Swiss temperature data have been adjusted to show stronger warming, calling the work a "propaganda trick, and not a valid trend". Hottest Year Ever Claims Are Propaganda, Not Science. NOAA and NASA will both announce this month that 2014 was the hottest year ever. These claims are absurd, and based on intentional deception. The biggest problem is that they are ignoring the most accurate data sets, which come from satellites and show that 2014 was nowhere near as warm as several other years. Green scientists caught tampering with the historical record. Again. Where Stalin used to airbrush his enemies out of history, the alarmists have gone one better by greenbrushing their opponents in such a way as to make it look as if they were allies all along. Report: Temperature Data Being Faked to Show Global Warming. A British journalist is questioning the method used to by scientists to calculate the earth's climate change, calling it "one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time." Christopher Booker writes for Britain's The Telegraph that climate data from stations in South America have been adjusted since the 1950s to give the impression that the earth's temperature is rising more than the original data showed. Inside the Global Warming Scandal. These warmists have systematically altered historic temperature records, so that the temperatures they report today for past eras are not the same as what were measured, say, 70 or 80 years ago. The effect of these adjustments is strikingly consistent: they almost always make the past look cooler than it was measured at the time, so that the present looks warmer by comparison. The opposite — an adjustment that results in reporting a historic temperature higher than what was published contemporaneously — never, or almost never, happens. These adjustments may or may not be explained; sometimes, they are kept quiet until someone stumbles across the original data and points out a discrepancy. The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever. When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records — on which the entire panic ultimately rested — were systematically "adjusted" to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified. Forget Climategate: This 'Global Warming' Scandal is Much Bigger. How can we believe in 'global warming' when the temperature records providing the 'evidence' for that warming cannot be trusted? It's a big question — and one which many people, even on the sceptical side of the argument, are reluctant to ask. Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming. Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was "the hottest year on record", I saw the headline on a climate blog: "Massive tampering with temperatures in South America". [...] Puzzled by those "2014 hottest ever" claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records — Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) — Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay. Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists. At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century. At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century. United States Undergoing Decade-Long Cooling. Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available. According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all, at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. NASA's Arctic Fudge Factory: "More Than Half" Of Claimed Arctic Warming Stems From "Data Adjustments". [Scroll down] Again, these are just the "adjustments" or "corrections" that GISS has applied in the last three years and nine months to the 19 Arctic stations. I have no way of knowing what they did before August of 2010. Global Warming Claims Are Primarily And Deliberately A Product Of Bureaucratic Political Activity. Environment Canada has failed to implement a strategic plan to improve its internal scientific research in areas ranging from managing air and water pollution to toxic chemicals. Billions are spent on useless computers and climate change while not dealing with real problems. They're not alone, it's happening in national weather agencies round the world. To cover these wastes EC took money from other programs that now make chances of any science virtually impossible. There are fewer weather stations in Canada now than in 1960, and many were replaced with unreliable Automatic Weather Observing Stations (AWOS). Important activities and data collection practices were abandoned. Was 2012 the Hottest Year On Record In the US? The historical data sets published by NCDC and NOAA lack integrity. How Bad Data Contribute to Global Warming Hysteria: Have you ever wondered, when you see an assertion along the lines of "The Earth has warmed by 1.62 degrees over the last 100 years," how anyone could know that? The literature of global warming alarmism is littered with faux precision; the truth, as you might imagine, is that it is very difficult to get reliable data for the whole Earth over a period of decades if not centuries. Climate realists are generally willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that the Earth has warmed somewhat in recent decades. In fact, though, it is not obvious that even this modest claim is true. Satellite data show no net warming for as long as such data have been collected, i.e., back to 1979. Ocean measurements show no net warming over that period, either; the evidence for warming is based on land measurements.Global Warming? Yeah, right. [The chart in this article] tells you pretty much all you need to know about the much-anticipated scoop by Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? What it means, in a nutshell, is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — the US government body in charge of America's temperature record, has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th century global warming. In fact, it has doubled it. U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments. [Scroll down] Using Leroy 2010 methods, the Watts et al 2012 paper, which studies several aspects of USHCN siting issues and data adjustments, concludes that: ["]These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 - 2008.["] New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization. From the told ya so department, comes this recently presented paper at the European Geosciences Union meeting. Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42 C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8 C]. The debunking of global warming continues. The Cult of Global Warming still has a huge amount of money and political influence, so no landmark on the steady unraveling of their con job should go unremarked. A big one arrived in the form of a study conducted by Anthony Watts and an army of volunteer assistants: the data assembled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commonly cited for years in support of the global warming scare, is wildly inaccurate. It literally doubled the amount of actual warming that took place over the past half-century. Here's the real warming blockbuster. If new techniques endorsed by the World Meteorological Organisation are applied to official figures, over half of the global warming reported by US land-based thermometers between 1979 and 2008 simply disappears, researchers have found. The new study used the same raw temperature measurements as US government federal scientific agencies, but the team deployed a revised metric that was better at taking into account the quality of the weather stations that housed the thermometers. Study Shows Half Of US Warming Is Fake. Anthony Watts, Evan Jones, Steve McIntyre, and Dr. John Christy have a new study up that highlights what most who are interested in science thought: that the temperature record for the United States is artificially inflated, releasing it for crowd sourcing the day before the supposed BEST study was supposed to be released. Half the trend is due to badly placed thermometers and erroneous adjustments. We always knew thermometers were never meant to be stuck next to air-conditioners. Now we know they shouldn't be recording global warming near airports either. [...] This is one of those blockbuster moments when the pieces come together. For Anthony it's five years work, and overturns so many studies all at once. Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake! What the BEST result shows is that surface thermometers from the land area of the globe (about 29% of the earth's surface) show a warming trend. But this is not global warming. And BEST director Professor Rich Muller explicitly disclaims that his trend results indicate a human cause. He also correctly points out that many of the weather stations used are badly distributed, mostly in the U.S. and western Europe, and possibly subject to local heating effects, such as urban heat islands. He cautions that a third of his monitoring stations show a cooling, not a warming. Green Energy Skepticism. Did you know that the number of global weather tracking stations has been reduced, and disproportionately, the eliminated stations are in colder regions? Global warming alarmists have continued to report data showing global temperatures rising despite the fact that colder locations have been taken out of the data set, and they haven't bothered to divulge that fact. If you take cold readings out of the data set, average temperatures rise, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the climate. Surface Stations: Adjustments have been made to account for measurable and predictable data biases, such as Time of Observation and station moves, but the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Flight (GISS) who are the main collectors, analyzers, and modelers of climatic data have not done a site by site hands on photographic survey to account for microsite influences near the thermometer. To date all such studies conducted have been data analysis and data manipulations used to spot and/or minimize data inconsistencies. Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception? Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant "global warming" in the 20th century. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit signs of urban heat pollution and post measurement adjustments that render them unreliable for determining accurate long-term temperature trends. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally. Global terrestrial temperature data are compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once reported are no longer being used in data trend analyses. Five Reasons the Planet May Not Be Its Hottest Ever. On Thursday [1/20/2011] the U.N.'s weather agency announced that 2010 was a milestone, the warmest year on record, in a three-way tie with 2005 and 1998. "The 2010 data confirm the Earth's significant long-term warming trend," said Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organization's top official. He added that the ten warmest years after records began in 1854 have all occurred since 1998. But how reliable is the data? ... [Anthony] Watts recently graded 61% of the stations used to measure temperature with a D — for being located less than 10 meters from an artificial heating source. Thermometer Magic. Most temperatures readings made prior to 1950 have been lowered ex post facto, and most years after 1950 have been raised successively higher. In fact, all temperature readings taken after 1990 have more than 0.5 degrees F added on to what was actually measured by the thermometers! Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU. These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming. Three of the Four Temperature Datasets Now Irrevocably Tainted. The warmist response to Climategate — the discovery of the thoroughly corrupt practices of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) — was that the tainted CRU dataset was just one of four independent data sets. You know. So really there's no big deal. Thanks to a FOIA request, the document production of which I am presently plowing through ... we know that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) passed no one's test for credibility. Not even NASA's. More errors in temperature data: As the frigid winter days pass and the scandals mount, it becomes clear that claims of man-made global warming aren't based on scientific methods at all. The hysteria is based on fraud. Data Control. Science must have accurate and adequate data. It's the basis for producing or testing theories; without it results are meaningless. Inadequate data seriously limits climate research, but scientists and governments who manipulate it for political goals make it impossible. This occurs because most government weather and climate agencies work to create and confirm results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). What's Wrong with this Picture? [Scroll down] But in another graphic in the 2007 IPCC report Antarctica is missing. What happened to Antarctica? How clever to leave out the coldest place on Earth when trying to make the case for AGW. Temperature data from two other continents is problematic; the first regular temperature reports from the interior of Africa and South America do not begin until 1949 which is why those lines are dashed prior to 1949. The first regular temperature records from Antarctica do not even exist until 1957 when the international community agreed on the International Geophysical Year (IGY). The data from the other five continents is problematic as well prior to the IGY. Climatology: A Generalist Study In a Specialized World. [Scroll down] In a historical twist most people knew about meteorology before they knew about climatology. It's odd because meteorology is a specific part of climatology, the study of physics of the atmosphere. Momentum came from attempts to measure and understand the atmosphere and how the interactions that create weather. Meteorology continued ascendancy during World War I as pilots needed accurate forecasts. It's why most weather stations are at airports and now suffer from interference from growing urban centers. Weather Stations Giving Bad Global Warming Data — MSM MIA. A few months ago, the blogosphere and talk radio were abuzz with the story of how the nation's various weather stations and temperature reading devices have been improperly located or badly constructed and how the data received from these improper devices must be suspected as inaccurate. The MSM briefly mentioned this story but quickly dropped it like the proverbial hot rock. … Do the researchers who turn this inaccurate data into justifications for global warming theories really want to have proper data? A Primer on Global Warming. U.S. climate monitoring stations on the planet's surface show less cooling, but most of the 1,221 temperature stations are located near human sources of heat (exhaust fans, air conditioning units, hot rooftops, asphalt parking lots, and so forth). The land-based temperature record is unreliable. Surface Stations: This website was created in response to the realization that very little physical site survey data exists for the entire United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) and Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN) surface station records worldwide. ... There have been instances recorded of air conditioners being located directly adjacent to the thermometer, vehicles parked next to thermometers head-in, heat generating electronics and electrical components being placed in the thermometer shelters within inches of the sensor, and sensors being located in the middle of large areas of asphalt/concrete and directly attached to buildings all in violation of standard published NOAA practices for temperature measurement. None of these things witnessed by observers and captured by photography are known or accounted for by climate researchers. Climate scientists blow hot and cold. Just about every major outlet has jumped on the news: Antarctica is warming up. Most previous science had indicated that, despite a warming of global temperatures, readings from Antarctica were either staying the same or even going down. The problem with Antarctic temperature measurement is that all but three longstanding weather stations are on or very near the coast. Antarctica is a big place, about one-anda-half times the size of the US. Imagine trying to infer our national temperature only with stations along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, plus three others in the interior. Those Pesky Russkie UHIs. [Scroll down slowly] But the real fun ensued later as the bloggers at Climate Audit* and Watts Up With That* started taking a look at the Siberian stations in question with help from Google Earth. The little Siberian towns where the temperature stations are located all have district heating systems, where steam is distributed from a central power station to heat the buildings in the town. What about the urban heat island effect from all that? How not to measure temperature, part 74. Sometimes, words fail me in describing the absolute disregard of the placement of NOAA official climate monitoring sites. For example, this one in Clarinda, Iowa submitted by surfacestations volunteer Eric Gamberg. How not to measure temperature, part 75. Like tornados and trailer parks, USHCN temperature sensors and barbecues seem to have mutual attraction. This is the official NOAA USHCN climate station of record in Fairbury, Nebraska. [The temperature sensor is right beside a barbecue grill.] Meteorologist Documents Warming Bias in U.S. Temperature Stations. New research suggests the temperature stations used to calculate statistics on temperatures in the United States are wrong and show more warming than has actually occurred. … Unfortunately, the scientists who compute the nation's average annual temperature seem to have little interest in obtaining accurate information. 1997 Global Temperature Review: Sorry, No Global Warming. Surface temperature stations are not global; they are overwhelmingly in the northern hemisphere (United States and western Europe). Surface data are not only skewed by the urban heat island effect and by climate events like El Niño, but the myriad and often low-tech ways in which the data are collected — particularly sea surface data — give a result that can only be described as fruit salad. Weather Stations Giving Bad Global Warming Data, A Problem Ignored. A few months ago, the blogosphere and talk radio were abuzz with the story of how the nation's various weather stations and temperature reading devices have been improperly located or badly constructed and how the data received from these improper devices must be suspected as inaccurate. Since global warming research often uses this suspect data that is gotten from these failed stations, it must therefore call into question the accuracy of the entire theory as its conclusions are derived from likely false data. Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data. Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record. Urban weather stations give the wrong impression of actual temperature. At the end of September [2002], Arthur DeGaetano, a Cornell University climatologist, reported that Americans suffer ten more hot summer nights than they did 40 years ago, but only "if they live in or near a major city." In rural areas, the average increase has been only two or three more hot nights. Thermometers are doing the talking. Global warming alarmists bring us to the brink of world food shortage and economic collapse — using words and computer models, not higher temperatures. As a result, more wildlife species are threatened by palm oil plantations growing biodiesel than by climate change. Heavy sea ice just trapped a big Russian ice-breaker for seven days in the Arctic's Northwest Passage, which the alarmists told us last year would soon be open sailing. … The blue collar world sees no warming, but they surely see economic ruin staring them in the face. Finally, the workers of the world are crying, "Enough of this man-made warming hype without warming!" Wartime global temperature anomaly kicks the bucket. What happened in 1945 was that as Britain's Royal Navy returned to peacetime duties, they had more time to report sea temperatures! So suddenly there were *more* of their measurements in comparison to those taken by the US Navy. And why did that matter? Because the seawater that the Americans actually measured was drawn from engine cooling-system intakes, while the British dipped a bucket into the sea. One method reads high, the other low. Contaminated data: In a new article just published in the Journal of Geophysical Research — Atmospheres, a co-author and I have concluded that the manipulations for the steep post-1980 period are inadequate, and the [graph shown in this article] is an exaggeration. Along the way, I have also found that the United Nations agency promoting the global temperature graph has made false claims about the quality of its data. Chicago Temperature Station Riddled with Problems. An analysis of the official temperature station at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport illustrates many of the problems that lead to false indications of global warming. … According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) database, O'Hare's Automated Surface Observation Station (ASOS) is currently located at the Air National Guard Base there. But that database must be wrong because, according to the Illinois National Guard, they moved from O'Hare in 1993. This isn't surprising. The NOAA/ National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) database is riddled with such errors. Science Puts the Chill to California's Global Warming Hot Air. Lee Gerhard, senior scientist with the Kansas Geological Society, … dismisses the notion that human emissions of carbon dioxide are a significant driver of climate and refutes the idea that climate change rates and today's slight global warming are unprecedented. … "Depending on the period in earth's history that is chosen," he said, "the climate will either be warming or cooling. Choosing whether earth is warming or cooling is simply a matter of picking end points." Tree Ring Circus: Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures over the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings? We may finally learn the answer, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Joe Barton, R-Texas — who has had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at him by the global warming lobby in its fierce opposition to his recent inquiry. Treemometers: A new scientific scandal. At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a "reconstruction" of historical temperature anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the rings principally record CO2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors. Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. Confessions of an 'Exx-Con': There's a debate over whether recent global data is biased upward by the fact that many measuring stations are located in or near cities around the world that have grown rapidly over the past half-century. Anyone who's ever crossed the George Washington Bridge can understand the concept of the urban "heat island" effect. Documenting the Global Warming Fraud. The scientific fraud underlying global warming theory is starting to be exposed, as data manipulations have been discovered, and now, news of the placement of temperature measuring devices in locations designed to yield artificially high readings, such as next door to a crematorium. The excellent site Watts Up With That exposes the data-gathering scandal. The warmaholics' fantasy. The warmaholics are fond of using the phrase "official records going back to 1850", but the simple facts are that prior to the 1970s, surface-based temperatures from a few indiscriminate, mostly backyard locations in Europe and the US are fatally corrupted and not in any sense a real record. They are then further doctored by a secret algorithm to account for heat-island effects. Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor. A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California-size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said. The error, due to a problem called "sensor drift," began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That's when "puzzled readers" alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site. Less Fire, More Ice. The claim that man's activities are heating the planet was weakened when it was learned that a glitch caused satellites to undermeasure the volume of Arctic ice. Doom has been overdone.  Global Warming [Nonsense] Sprouting Up Everywhere. Fact: the global rise in temperature over the last 100 years has been less than a degree — if that. The truth is we cannot yet measure a global temperature to a degree yet, and we surely couldn't 100 years ago. Fact: temperatures have been dropping for the last decade eliminating much of the warming that occurred from 1940 through 2000, as shown [here]. World's airports continue to run warmer than ROW. As noted in the previous post, GISS has released their monthly global temperature summary for June, 2009. This month's whopping anomaly of 0.63°C is once again much higher than that of RSS, UAH, and even NOAA, which is the source of the GISS temperature data. Not only is the anomaly higher than the other metrics, but it is trending in the opposite direction. Temperature data from 1079 stations worldwide contributed to the analysis, 134 of them being located in the 50 US states. Data from essentially the same few stations have been used for the past twenty-four months. Many, many hundreds of stations that have historically been included in the record and still collect data today continue to be ignored by GISS in global temperature calculations. Nearly 90% of Temperature Stations Show Extreme Heat Bias, Study Says. Eighty-nine percent of official U.S. temperature measurement stations are corrupted by poor site selection that gives false warming signals, according to a new study by meteorologist Anthony Watts. According to the federal government's own siting criteria, the corrupting influences at those stations create a margin of error larger than the entire asserted warming of the twentieth century. None Dare Call It Fraud. Highly accurate satellite measurements show no significant global warming, whereas ground-based temperature stations show warming since 1978. However, half of the surface monitoring stations are located close to concrete and asphalt parking lots, window or industrial-size air conditioning exhausts, highways, airport tarmac and even jetliner engines — all of which skew the data upward. The White House, EPA, IPCC and Congress use the deceptive data anyway, to promote their agenda. What's the temperature, Kenneth? The story is that the world is heating up — fast. Prominent people at NASA warn us that unless we change our carbon producing ways, civilisation as we know it will come to an end. At the same time, there are new scientific studies showing that the earth is in a 20 year long cooling period. Which view is correct? Temperature data should be simple enough to record and analyze. We all know how to read a thermometer — it is not rocket science. U.S. Temperatures Inflated. In the U.S. nearly "9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited" according to a recently published study by KPAY-AM investigative weather journalist Anthony Watts. Watts and over 650 volunteers have been conducting an extensive examination of U.S. weather stations to determine if they produce reliable temperatures and posting the results of the examinations on his blog Watts Up With That.  The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero. [Scroll down slowly] What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They've just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right ... but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What's up with that? Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style ... they are indisputable evidence that the "homogenized" data has been changed to fit someone's preconceptions about whether the earth is warming. ClimateGate Just Got Much, Much Bigger. The long and the short of it is best summarized by the Telegraph's James Dellingpole: "What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock." ... Around the world temperature stations have been widely decommissioned in rural and higher elevations, and we see an over-emphasis on increasingly urbanized (and therefore warmer) stations in the curious selection process as to what temperatures should count, and how much. Global Warming as Climastrology. The Australians have caught on to the global scam and are in an uproar. In New Zealand they made the mistake of actually releasing their raw temperature records, and within days the blogosphere had nailed the fraud. This wasn't complicated. It was the audacity of dopes. They just padded the numbers with elementary arithmetic. Global Warming Update: During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their lost made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. What to say to a 'warmer': An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. ... The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years. UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings. Weather stations which produced data pointing towards man-made global warming may have been compromised by local conditions, a new report suggests. The findings are set to cast further doubt on evidence put forward by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which claims the science supporting rising temperatures is unequivocal. A Pending American Temperaturegate: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) informs us, based on their "Adjusted Data" for the period from the last decade of the 19th century to 2006, that the temperature for the contiguous U.S. has increased at a rate of 0.69°C/century. NCDC arrives at this conclusion by massaging raw data from a set of meteorological stations located in the contiguous U.S. which they selected on the basis of a 2.5-degree latitude- and 3.5-degree-longitude grid. ... The most-asked question, most recently by D'Aleo and Watts, is whether the NCDC's reported increase is correct. The Great Dying of Thermometers. It's like watching the lights go out over the West. Sinan Unur has mapped the surface stations into a beautiful animation. His is 4 minutes long and spans from 1701-2010. I've taken some of his snapshots and strung them into a 10 second animation. You can see as development spreads across the world that more and more places are reporting temperatures. It's obvious how well documented temperatures were (once) in the US. The decay of the system in the last 20 years is stark. NASA and NOAA have been cookin' the books!
The climate scaremongers: How the Met Office fiddles the temperature figures. THE Met Office's claim a few weeks ago that the UK had just had its hottest May on record was met with widespread derision at the time, and continues to be. Despite the fact that most people had shivered through much of the month, and even had to turn the heating back on, the establishment media obediently tried to persuade us that we really must trust the Met Office rather than the evidence of our own eyes. We were assured that it really had been the hottest May when averaged over the country as a whole, because apparently it was warmer than normal in the Scottish Highlands, where hardly anybody lives! This excuse was quickly shown to be nonsense when it emerged that the Met Office figures claimed it had been by far the hottest in England as well. Concerns Mount as Met Office Fiddles With Historic Temperature Record in Exact Way Planned in Leaked 'Climategate' Emails. Interest and concern continues to grow about the numerous retrospective adjustments that the U.K. Met Office has made to its global HadCRUT temperature database. Often the adjustments cool earlier periods going back to the 1930s and add warming in more recent times. The adjustments are of course most convenient in promoting the global warming narrative surrounding Net Zero fantasies. There is particular interest in the 0.15°C cooling inserted in the 1940s and the greater warming added in more recent decades. The scientific blog No Tricks Zone (NTZ) has recently returned to the story noting the state-controlled Met Office has "corrected" the data to "align with their narrative". In suggesting a narrative, NTZ traces the adjustments back to the 2009 leak of 'Climategate' emails from academic staff at the University of East Anglia working on the HadCRUT project. 'Global Warming' Morphs Into 'Global Boiling' as the Global Climate Hoax Turns Up the Heat. The lying appears ubiquitous among government agencies monitoring the weather. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has "disappeared" an internet page that demonstrated that, 90 years ago, we experienced a far greater wave of heat than we are experiencing today. For now, the NASA "Global Climate Change" website still displays an article by Ellen Gray, NASA's Earth Science News Team, that features a scientific study demonstrating that we experienced the worst drought of the last thousand years in 1934 during the "dust bowl" years of the Depression. How long it will remain there is unclear.
Climate Maps [have been] Manipulated to Mislead the Public. The US state science organization NOAA released in May very revealing climate maps that show the average temperature across the world in April compared to the climate normal. Not only do they markedly deviate from countless countries' official temperature data for April, showing the spring month was cooler than normal, but they also contradict each other even though they originate from exactly the same measurement data. The New Times here reveal how the figures are distorted and that there are two parallel maps, one for scientists and one grossly deceptive one shown to the public. HadCRUT Data Manipulation Makes 2000-2014 Warming Pause Vanish. The Met Office and the Climate Research Unit are at it again, making adjustments to the temperature records to increase the claimed rate of warming. From 2009 to 2019, there were 90 peer-reviewed scientific papers published on the global warming "pause" or "hiatus" observed over the first 15 years of the 21st century. The HadCRUT3 global temperature trend was recorded as 0.03°C per decade during the global warming hiatusyears of 2000-2014 (Scafetta, 2022). Climate Emergency? What A Crock, Part 2. Yet again, pieces of a puzzle a pre-schooler could put together in a couple of minutes are missing. One of those lost pieces is the surface temperature record that the climate alarmists tell us is evidence that man is overheating Earth. They treat the record as if it's irrefutable fact. But it's not quite that. The reality is the temperature record has "been substantially corrupted," according to a new study. "Approximately 96% of U.S. temperature stations fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be 'acceptable,' uncorrupted placement," says former broadcast meteorologist Anthony Watts in a Heartland Institute study. "These findings strongly undermine the legitimacy and the magnitude of the official consensus on long-term climate warming trends." On his own site, Watts calls the study a followup the the "widespread corruption and heat biases found at NOAA stations in 2009." The Bureau of Meteorology finds Australia is still getting colder a century later. Surprisingly, the World War I era temperatures are still changing. Mornings that seemed nippy at the time are now susceptible to frosts. Someone should warn the farmers — except they're all dead. Thanks to Chris Gillham for independently and laboriously going through the new unannounced changes in another cycle of BOM's hidden revamp of Australia's history. ACORN 2.2 is the latest version of the Australian Climate Observation Reference Network of "the best" 112 weather stations across Australia. [...] In the last five years the ACORN re-revisions by the BOM have discovered another quarter of a degree of warming that we didn't know about from the last hundred years. It's not clear why the BOM doesn't want to tell the world how good they are at correcting thermometer records from 1913. It seems like a remarkable skill. Extreme Fraud At NOAA. NOAA's Climate Extremes Index shows summer afternoon temperatures much above normal are affecting more and more of the US, with the past decade was highest on record. [Chart] They show an upwards trend beginning around fifty years ago. [Chart] But their thermometer data shows the exact opposite, as does the National Climate Assessment. There are 1,218 stations in the United States Historical Climatology Network. [Map] The percentage of stations reaching 95F sometime during the summer has declined sharply over the past ninety years. [Two charts] So has the frequency of hot days. [Many more graphs] Here is how they reversed the trend. [...] There has been a large decrease in the number of stations reporting data over the past 30 years. But in the final adjusted data set, they use temperatures for all 1,218 stations regardless of whether or not there is actually any thermometer data. In other words, they are simply making up data. More than 40% of the data in the final data set is now fabricated. Is Earth Actually Getting Hotter? [F]ew official agencies across the globe [...] are widely considered "leaders" or "authoritative" in disseminating climate data. Among them are the Met Office in the UK and top U.S. state agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). However, these agencies have used their near-invincible status to adjust climate data points as they please, often resulting in an exaggerated warming trend. NASA has been found to have adjusted past temperature data downward in order to make the present temperature levels look comparatively warmer. In July 2021, geologist Roger Higgs demonstrated how NASA lowered the 2016 data point for annual global mean temperature. NASA carried out the supposed downward shifting of data points so that the temperature levels for 2020 (which were about the same as 2016) would now appear more extreme. Higgs revealed the downward shifting on Researchgate. Why did NASA adjust the 2016 data point to make it appear that 2020 beat it by a larger margin than originally appeared? You decide. The EPA is in on it, too:
NASA GISS Surface Station Temperature Trends Based On Sheer Guess Work, Made-Up Data, Says Japanese Climate Expert. Whenever NASA GISS announces how recent global temperatures are much hotter than, for example, 100 years ago, just how statistically reliable are such statements? Most will agree, based mainly on sundry observations, that today is indeed warmer than it was when surface temperatures began to be recorded back in 1880. But we will never really know by how much. Four More Cases Where Climate Scientists Have 'Warmed' The Earth. The history of climate scientists adjusting data to try to make recent warming look greater than it really is goes back quite a long way — it's a regular topic at Paul Homewood's blog for example. But climate scientists continue to do it, giving the skeptics plenty of ammunition. Here are three recent blog posts discussing how climate scientists continue to adjust data to exaggerate warming. The 'Magic Wand of Fudging' Produces Global Warming. I have written many times about what I consider the worst scandal in the history of science: efforts by the curators of global temperature records to rewrite the past so as to produce an illusion of warming that is not reflected in the temperatures that have actually been recorded. NASA Uses The "Magic Wand Of Fudging", Produces Warming Where There Never Was. It's been long known that NASA GISS has been going through its historical temperature data archives and erasing old temperature measurements and replacing them with new, made up figures without any real legitimate reason. This practice has led to the formation of new datasets called "adjusted" data, with the old datasets being called "V3 unadjusted". The problem for global warming activists, however, was that when anyone looks at the old "V3 unadjusted" — i.e. untampered data — they often found a downward linear temperature trend. Such negative trends of course are an embarrassment for global warming alarmists, who have been claiming the planet is warming up rapidly. Do NASA's Latest Figures Confirm Global Warming? The new paper uses the AIRS remote sensing instrument on NASA's Aqua satellite. The study describes a 15-year dataset of global surface temperatures from that satellite sensor. The temperature trend value derived from that data is +0.24 degrees Centigrade per decade, coming out on top as the warmest of climate analyses. Oddly, the study didn't compare two other long-standing satellite datasets from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). That's an indication of the personal bias of co-author [Dr. Gavin] Schmidt, who in the past has repeatedly maligned the UAH dataset and its authors because their findings didn't agree with his own GISTEMP dataset.
The Greatest Scandal in the History of Science. I have written many times about the unwarranted "adjustments" to measured past temperatures by government agencies, which serve to inflate the modest warming that has occurred in recent decades. Organizations around the world (NOAA and NASA-GISS here in the U.S.) have done this over and over, usually surreptitiously. The Manhattan Contrarian shares my opinion that this misrepresentation of the historical record is the worst scandal in the history of science. The most recent instance comes from Australia: [...] 100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering. Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was "overwhelmingly hot" in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century. [...] The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Delingpole: NOAA 2.5 Degrees F Data Tampering — 'Science Doesn't Get Any Worse Than This'. The data tampering at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is even worse than we thought: over the last century it has exaggerated "global warming" in the U.S. by as much as 2.5 degrees F. In other words, pretty much the entirety of the 20th century warming in the U.S. "measured" by the world's primary temperature record gatekeeper may be fake. The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent. NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees. NOAA's US temperature record shows that US was warmest in the 1930's and has generally cooled as CO2 has increased. This wrecks greenhouse gas theory, so they "adjust" the data to make it look like the US is warming. Report: NOAA Caught Lying About Arctic Sea Ice. Yep: the Arctic sea ice is doing just fine. Yep: yet again, the NOAA is telling porkies. NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating 'global warming' by fiddling with the raw temperature data. This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.
NASA's Rubber Ruler: An Update. The NASA/GISS temperature record is not actually a record of recorded temperatures. It is simply the most recent version of NASA's adjustments to older adjustments. It is not thermometer readings. It is models all the way down. [...] Apparently, the Earth is getting warmer faster than it was five and a half years ago, but not because of actual recorded thermometer readings in those last five and a half years. It is getting warmer faster because NASA adjusted the data to show faster warming. NOAA Lets Politics Corrupt Its Science. Objective science once conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was coopted by the Obama administration to push anti-fossil energy policies under the guise of CO2 influences on climate change and ocean acidification. Just as they got caught by a whistleblower fudging ocean temperature records in advance of 2015 U.N. Paris Climate talks, they also actively played politics to garner media alarm attributing CO2 emissions to invalidated claims of impacts upon aquatic ecosystems. As I previously reported in my Feb. 13 Newsmax column titled "Whistleblower Links NOAA Study to Climate Treaty Agendas," former NOAA scientist Jim Bates charged that his boss Thomas Karl had "adjusted" sea surface temperature measurements between 1998 and 2012 in order to make recent global temperature changes appear to warm more than twice as much as the original records showed. On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and HADLEY CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data and the Validity of EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding. This paper shows the global temperature data used to estimate global average temperatures and thus make climate policy is flawed with politicized adjustments accounting for almost all the warming since the middle of the 20th century. Busted! All Recent U.S. Warming Found To Be FAKED By NOAA! Is global warming real? That question has been debated for well over a decade now, with some — mostly liberals — claiming that it is, and others saying it's not. And some new data has some arguing that it proves global warming is fake. Climate Unscience. [Scroll down] Back in high school Physics I first became familiar with the phrase "First draw your curve, then plot your reading." With high school and even college science classes being, essentially, deterministic and the foundational implanting of basics, we pretty much knew what to expect. Thus, a little fudging-in of errors, and Voila! we had our lab report with a cursory actual set of experiments. But we were amateurs. For masters of that technique, we need to look at NASA and NOAA among others. In Global Warming Hoax: German Scientist Finds Evidence That NASA Manipulated Climate Data (which I referenced above), we see one of the huge problems here: ["]When the publicly available data that was archived in 2010 is compared with the data supplied by NASA in 2012, there is a clear difference between the two. The GISS has been retroactively changing past data to make it appear that the planet is warming, especially after the year 1950. In reality, the original data shows that the planet has actually been getting colder throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Overall, 10 different statistical methods have been used to change the climate's trajectory from cooling to warming.["] It's easy to find a trend when you torture the data to put one in. Australian Bureau of Meteorology caught erasing cold temperatures. Amazing, the power of the media. Suddenly, the Bureau of Meteorology needs to replace equipment and answer questions and set up an internal inquiry. But they've had weeks of warning. Lance Pidgeon and Jennifer Marohasy have been watching the automatic weather stations record very cold temperatures, and then astonished when those same readings either got entered into our national raw database as warmer, or simply disappeared. The BOM apparently has a filter set so that super cold temperatures need to be manually checked. Yet the filter is set so high, in Thredbo's case, nearly five whole degrees warmer than temperatures already recorded. New report on global warming debunks government temp data. A new paper analyzing government temperature data says the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data published by NASA and NOAA are "not a valid representation of reality." In fact, the three respected scientists who published the paper hint strongly that the data may have been fudged. Global Warming Science — It's Settled — They Lied Again. [Scroll down] Now we skeptics, or dare I say deniers, have always contended that relying on surface temperature readings, rather than more accurate and widely available satellite data, would invariably lead to incorrect conclusions — either mistakenly or worse — purposely. In other words — garbage in — garbage out. Fear not. The "experts" that manage these surface temperature data sets are not concerned. Being that they are "experts," they are skilled at making adjustments to the raw data, "to account for biases in the data." However, the study shows that the data set managers at NASA, NOAA and the Met Office, have been doing much more than just tweaking the data. Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo, a study co-author has proven that, "Nearly all of the warming they are now showing is in the adjustments." Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For 'Nearly All Of The Warming' In Government Climate Data. A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years "are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data." "Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever — despite current claims of record setting warming," according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician. The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK's Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments. True Cause of Global Warming Discovered: Data Adjustments. CO2 is not only harmless, but an essential component of the atmosphere without which plants cannot grow. It is a byproduct of literally all human activity. In 2007, the Supreme Court laid the groundwork for tyranny by ruling that it is a pollutant based on liberal global warming dogma and therefore subject to regulation by the faceless fanatics who staff the EPA. This ruling must be reversed. Can we believe in science if we don't trust scientists? Last February, John Bates, formerly of the National Climatic Data Center, charged that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association had manipulated global warming data to advance a political agenda. So here's the question: if climate change poses as grave a danger as scientists say it does, why do they have to fudge the data to prove it? The arrogance of scientists is evident nowhere more than in their zealotry against religion. Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy. A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses "misleading" news releases about climate data to influence public opinion. Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama's administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion. "What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I'd say, misleading, sometimes just wrong," Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data. NOAA Whistleblower: NOAA Climate Warrior Rigged Data to "Debunk" Warming Pause That Began in 1998. As Krakotoa highlights, this charge of the NOAA rigging the data will be thoroughly, thoroughly investigated by the NOAA itself. [...] This is a job for an independent Inspector General, not these self-interested goons. Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges. A key Obama administration scientist brushed aside inconvenient data that showed a slowdown in global warming in compiling an alarming 2015 report that coincided with the White House participation in the Paris Climate Conference, a whistle blower is alleging. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a major 2013 report, concluded global temperatures had shown a smaller increase from 1998 to 2012 than any similar period over the past 30 to 60 years. But a blockbuster, June 2015 paper by a team of federal scientists led by Thomas Karl, published in the journal Science in June 2015 and later known as the "pausebuster" paper sought to discredit the notion of a slowdown in warming. A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science. A former top scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has stepped forward to expose the malfeasance behind a key climate report issued just before the United Nations' Climate Change Conference in 2015. The whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, led NOAA's climate-data records program for ten years and reveals stunning allegations in a lengthy Daily Mail exposé posted February 4. His main charge is that the federal government's top agency in charge of climate science published a flawed but widely accepted study that was meant to disprove the hiatus in global warming. Bates accuses the study's lead author, NOAA official Tom Karl, of using unverified data sets, ignoring mandatory agency procedures, and failing to archive evidence — all in a "blatant attempt to intensify the impact" of the paper in advance of the conference. Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming 'pause'. The climate change debate went nuclear Sunday over a whistleblower's explosive allegation that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association manipulated data to advance a political agenda by hiding the global warming "pause." In an article on the Climate Etc. blog, John Bates, who retired last year as principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center, accused the lead author of the 2015 NOAA "pausebuster" report of trying to "discredit" the hiatus through "flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards." In addition, Mr. Bates told the Daily [U.K.] Mail that the report's author, former NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information director Thomas Karl, did so by "insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation." Climate "Science" Rocked By Another Scandal. A just-retired scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has blown the whistle on a scandal of epic proportions involving fake news ginned up by climate "scientists." [...] The Earth's surface temperature record has been so hopelessly corrupted by "adjustments" made for political purposes by NOAA and other agencies that it likely can never be accurately reconstructed. This is a great loss to science. NOAA September Temperature Fraud. NOAA claimed record heat in numerous locations is September, like these ones in Africa and the Middle East. [...] This is a remarkable feat, given that they don't have any actual thermometers in those regions. In fact, NOAA doesn't have any thermometers on about half of the land surface. Is NOAA adjusting data to make droughts look worse than they are? In the Spring of 2016, I was updating a North Dakota water resource presentation, which contained a Palmer Hydrological Drought Index (PHDI) chart from April of 2013. I was replacing an older NOAA PHDI chart (May 2005 to October 2013) with an updated NOAA PHDI chart (May 2005 to March 2016). These charts are simple screen captures from the NOAA web site. Then, something caught my eye. I noticed that the summer of 2011 was wetter in the 2016 dataset than in the 2013 dataset, and the summer of 2013 was drier in the 2016 dataset than in the 2013 dataset. Scientific Integrity Incident Closes USGS Laboratory. [Scroll down to page 5] The recent scientific integrity incident has had numerous real and potential adverse impacts on customers, products, and the organizational integrity of USGS, as these pertain to coal and water quality research and assessments. We noted, among those impacts, that one research paper that was ready for publishing had to be retracted; certain scientists stopped preparation of scientific papers; the lab's data manipulation issues negatively impacted the reputation of numerous researchers; and the loss of scientific integrity potentially may damage the stature of USGS, both nationally and internationally. The results of USGS' internal inquiry are consistent with our own findings. Federal Lab Ignored Environmental Data Manipulation For YEARS. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) officials knew about environmental data manipulation for years before they stopped the manipulation or notified scientists who may have used phony information, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation has found. A USGS analyst resigned while under investigation for data manipulation from 1996 to 2008, but another analyst continued that distortion until 2014. But agency officials learned data was manipulated as early as 2004 when scientists found "test results did not make sense" and "were not accurate," according to a Department of the Interior inspector general (IG) audit published 11 years later. Rebutting Climate Alarmism with Simple Facts. There is legitimate concern as to the accuracy and reliability of recent temperature measurements being reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA.) Last year, NOAA reported adjustments to global temperature records that suddenly "erased" the pause. I.e. Earlier decades were revised to be "cooler," while recent years were suddenly marked as "warmer" by factoring in measurements that included seawater temperature readings from the engine manifolds of ocean-going vessels. Various academic papers have debunked NOAA's "new" temperature findings, but NOAA's revised measurements continue to be used to make claims such as "warmest year ever." The questionable methods utilized by NOAA to assemble its "pause buster" study are now the subject of a Congressional investigation. Somewhat related: Federal Lab Forced To Close After 'Disturbing' Data Manipulation. Nearly two decades and $108 million worth of "disturbing" data manipulation with "serious and far ranging" effects forced a federal lab to close, a congressman revealed Thursday [6/23/2016]. The inorganic section of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, Colo. manipulated data on a variety of topics — including many related to the environment — from 1996 to 2014. The manipulation was caught in 2008, but continued another six years.
Global Temperature Record is a Smoking Gun of Collusion and Fraud. NASA claims that the blade of the hockey stick is settled science, which four different independent agencies (NASA, NOAA, CRU and JMA) agree upon very closely. The agreement is claimed to be within a few hundredths of a degree. [But] NASA temperature data doesn't even agree with NASA temperature data from 15 years ago. NASA has altered their own data by 0.5[°]C since 2001, yet claims that everyone agrees within about 0.05[°]C. The Japan Meteorological Agency has altered their own data by a similar amount. In 1975 they showed no net warming in the Northern Hemisphere from 1900 to 1970. No Global Warming For 58 Years: What The Government Is Hiding. NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration seemed eager in January to declare that 2015 was the hottest year on record. But they left out data that tell a somewhat different story. When comparing temperatures, it would seem instructive to include a lengthy timeline. That's not what happened, though, when NASA and NOAA came together to scare the public with their announcement, according to a skeptical website. "In their 'hottest year ever' press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58-year-long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph," says Real Science. Yet Another Hottest Year on Record? NASA constantly makes press releases saying that this year or that year is the hottest on record. Their record goes back only to 1880, but it is quite certain, according to temperature proxies such as ice cores, that there are times in the last 10,000 years when the globe was hotter than today. There has been a general global warming trend since before 1880. The warming trend predates increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Given the long-term warming trend, it is not surprising that the hottest year in the last 20 years will also be the hottest year since 1880. NASA uses the less reliable and highly "adjusted" surface temperature data to support its hottest year propaganda. NASA also uses the unscientific calendar year rather than a running one-year average. The lack of warming for nearly 20 years is powerful evidence that something is wrong with the CO2 theory of global warming. Climate alarmists manipulate the data to make 2015 look like the hottest year on record. What meteorologists and climate scientists Anthony Watts, Evan Jones, John Nielsen-Gammon, and John R. Christy did in a paper prepared for the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union was to look at the 1,218 U.S. ground-based weather stations to try to find those with the fewest outside ("unperturbed") influences that could affect the temperature readings. They identified 410 of them and then looked at those sites' temperatures recorded over 30 years. They discovered: ["]The United States temperature trends estimated from the relatively few stations in the classes with minimal artificial impact are found to be collectively about 2/3 as large as US trends estimated in the classes with greater expected artificial impact.["] 300 Scientists Tell Chairman of the House Science Committee: 'we want NOAA to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act'. This is an issue of international relevance because of the weight given to U.S. Government assessments during international negotiations such as the IPCC. The Data Quality Act required government-wide guidelines to "ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information," that was disseminated to the public. Individual agencies, such as the EPA, NOAA and many others were required to issue corresponding guidelines and set up mechanisms to allow affected parties to seek to correct information considered erroneous. Did the NOAA Cook the Books to Show Warming During Hiatus? One of the least reliable sources for data on climate change is the U.S. federal government. Now, a group of 300 scientists and academics want Congress to investigate the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for cooking the books on climate data in order to erase the pause in the rise in temperature cited by, among other sources, the IPCC. Incredibly, the NOAA accumulated data by measuring the water temperature from the engine intake valves of oceangoing cargo ships. The scientists want Congress to investigate whether the agency violated the Data Quality Act, which seeks to ensure the accurate dissemination of scientific information to the public. Are the Global Warmistas Simply Juicing Up the Latest Years' Temperatures With "Adjustments"? Sure seems that way — and people have noticed this tendency in their ever-changing adjustments to the temperature record. But now they may have gone too far — in order to declare 2015 the "hottest on record," they apparently had to revise and "adjust" the previously declared all-time "hottest on record," 1997. Because 1997 was more than three and half degrees warmer than 2015 — going by NOAA's published data. NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA), by now, the sweat should be pouring down your face because 2015 was the warmest year ever recorded. But, if you are feeling cool, calm and collected, perhaps it's because the "record" temperature numbers presented by NOAA were either wrong or someone messed up, somehow. Because, using NOAA's own numbers, 1997 was almost four degrees Fahrenheit hotter than 2015. To explain where NOAA messed up, we have to start with 1997. The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever. When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records — on which the entire panic ultimately rested — were systematically "adjusted" to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified. Two weeks ago, under the headline "How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming", I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming. This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world — one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record. The Real Climate Crisis that the Global Warming Scammers are Ignoring. The real reason to impose carbon taxes and similar nonsense is to disadvantage the west and our modern society for the purpose of control while giving huge sums of money to favored people to redistribute under the guise of "leadership." What it really amounts to is theft at gunpoint used for "global welfare payments." Nothing more or less. [...] The data has been and continues to be manipulated and lied about; original data is not kept, "massaged" data is claimed to be original, records that don't comport with what someone wants to show are either ignored, buried, modified or even erased and those who challenge the "narrative" are drummed out of their positions or are even threatened with prosecution and lawsuits. Scientists don't act this way. Thugs, racketeers, thieves and tyrants, on the other hand, regularly do — and that's what all of this so-called "movement" has turned into. Did Two Federal Agencies Fraudulently Cook Global Warming Data? The global warming community and its allies are accusing Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, of conducting a witch hunt. Several scientific organizations joined forces and told Smith in a letter Tuesday [11/24/2015] that they have a "grave concern regarding the committee's inquiry into a scientific paper prepared by" National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) researchers. They fear Smith's actions will establish "a practice of inquests." The committee's ranking member, Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, got in her shots last week. She complained in a letter to Smith that he was conducting "hyperaggressive oversight," going on a "fishing expedition" and an "ideological crusade." Ted Cruz Is Exactly Right on Climate Change. [Scroll down] Official record-keepers such as NASA GISS and NOAA simply cannot be trusted. Their unexplained adjustments to the raw temperature data have turned cooling trends into warming ones. This isn't science. This is fraud. NOAA's climate change science fiction. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the nation's leading collector of climate data. Every day, NOAA analyzes vast amounts of data to predict changes to our climate, weather, oceans and coasts. The agency also publishes monthly temperature averages across the nation and compares those numbers to historical temperature records. As the nation's self-proclaimed authority on "environmental intelligence," NOAA should be held to the highest scientific standards. This means their conclusions should be objective, independent of political consideration and based on all available sources of information. German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On 'Unbelievable' Scale. A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented "global warming" by tampering with the raw temperature data records. Alterations To Climate Data. Animated graphics speak for themselves.
The Editor says... Whistleblowers Claim NOAA Climate Report Was "Rushed To Publication". I hope these whistleblowers are hiding deep, because they will be in big trouble from the CoC when found, laws [notwithstanding]. Some Warmists are already calling for the whistleblowers to be named and forced to testify publicly, in contradiction of federal law. [...] What is it with this Administration and stonewalling? If they aren't releasing the requested material, they're hiding something. If there was nothing there, you can bet the communications and emails would have been released. At this point, we must ask what NOAA is hiding. Is the government tinkering with global warming data? Heated words began circulating last summer, when a team of government scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), led by Thomas Karl, published a paper in Science titled "Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus." The press release from NOAA included this statement from Karl, who is head of the National Centers for Environmental Information: "Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends." Media headlines quickly touted the Karl conclusion that science now shows the hiatus in warming never existed. NOAA Says There Is No "Pause" But Refuses to Turn Over Their Evidence. Temperature has long been a problem for Climate science. We have weather stations all over the country to measure temperature, but when volunteers looked into the siting of the stations, it was found that many were situated next to air-conditioning outlets or vast expanses of concrete that are heat collectors. Tree-rings are fallible, but we now have a satellite record that is the gold standard. The RSS satellite record shows clearly the inconvenient truth that there has been no global warming since January 1997. The U.S government's main climate research agency has refused to release to Congress the key documents that support their conclusion that there has been no pause in global warming. What could they be trying to hide? The Next Climate Scandal? With their latest subpoena to the Obama administration, House Republicans risk descending into a rabbit hole, albeit a useful one. Lamar Smith, the Texas GOPer who runs the House science and technology committee, has been seeking, voluntarily and then not so voluntarily, emails and other internal communications related to a study released earlier this year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The study, by adjusting upward temperature readings from certain ocean buoys to match shipboard measurements, eliminated the "pause" in global warming seen in most temperature studies over the past 15 years. Climate science frauds try to hide data from Congress. Earlier this summer, a group of "scientists" led by a couple of US government employees, published an utterly fraudulent paper which, in effect, erased the decline in global surface temperatures. They did this by the rather elegant method of simply changing the recorded temperatures to something else. NOAA Won't Release Global Warming Data to GOP. Congress is finally investigating some of the global warming claims made by the Obama Administration, particularly a study that refuted the 15-plus-years pause in warming that other studies have reported. But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is refusing to fully comply with a subpoena issued by the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith. Did Federal Agency Commit Climate Fraud? Sure Looks Like It. Earlier this year, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists took part in a study that found — no surprise — that the "pause" in global warming from 1998 to 2013 didn't exist. Their change didn't come from actual temperature readings. It came from extensive data manipulation and tinkering. Instead of a pause, they found a surge. What's strange is that major temperature revisions by NOAA and others in recent years have always been up — never down — a clear sign of possible bias. Earlier this year, for instance, it was revealed that nearly half of all supposed global warming in recent NASA data came from the agency's own highly suspicious statistical changes, not from actual temperature readings. Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered. We have written many times about the fact that the temperature data used in the alarmists' global warming models are not original data as measured by thermometers. Rather, they are "adjusted" numbers, consistently changed to make the past look cooler and the present warmer, so that more billions of dollars will flow from the world's governments to the climate alarmists who serve government's cause. This is, in my opinion, the greatest scandal in the history of science. Massive tampering of temperature data underway by global warming cultists. Even as you read this history is being scrubbed and data being created out of whole cloth to cook the books. Ground zero of this criminal enterprise is in the US government: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). For a while NOAA has been involved in "updating" data. By "updating", I mean they simply change previously recorded temperatures to higher ones. The current enemy is the "pause" on our inevitable path the to scorching future imagined by the warmists after a couple of martinis (or lines of blow). This "pause", generated by actual observations, shows the earth's temperature to have stabilized. Stability is a bad thing if your livelihood depends on fear-mongering. Steve Goddard has documented how temperatures have been updated in 2015 to show a warming trend that did not exist in 2014. NOAA Refuse To Publish Methodology For Temperature Adjustments. Kent Clibze has been trying to get hold of documents that record the 'rationale, methodology and discussions' relating to temperature adjustments carried out by NOAA. NOAA in turn has informed the FOI requester it needs money to comply with the request: [...] Deceptive temperature record claims. The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn't matter. NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree. The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — Part VI. Numerous examples of NOAA's pervasive and unexplained adjustments have been published on websites including ICECAP, RealScience, NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat, WattsUpWithThat and others. And numerous independent researchers have done a lot to thwart NOAA's data deletion efforts by archiving earlier versions of the data. You can't follow this issue at all without knowing that there are very credible and thoroughly demonstrated instances of pervasive data tampering by NOAA. You also can't follow this issue at all without knowing that there are several other independent data sets, most notably the two satellite data sets of UAH and RSS covering the period 1979 to present, that do not show the warming that the NOAA data shows. And yet, with this background, NOAA keeps putting out press releases, more or less monthly, trumpeting alleged new high temperature records, and supposed "news" outlets pick up the releases and put out stories with one scary headline after another, never mentioning that other data sets do not show the same records or warming, and never mentioning that serious and thoroughly-proved allegations of data tampering have been made against NOAA and never refuted. Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA. Dr. James Hansen of NASA, has been the world's leading promoter of the idea that the world is headed towards "climate disaster." There is little evidence to back this up. [...] The animated image [in this article] shows the changes which Dr. Hansen made to the historical US temperature record after the year 1999. He cooled the 1930s, and warmed the 1980s and 1990s. The year 1998 went from being more than half a degree cooler than 1934, to warmer than 1934. Hansen's recent temperature data tampering is not limited to the US. He has done the same thing all over the planet. Below is one recent example in Iceland, where he dramatically cooled the first half of the century, and warmed the present. He appears to be trying to erase evidence that there was a very warm period in much of the Arctic around 1940. Accurate measurements and record keeping are of little value if they can be altered years later. Climate scientists criticize government paper that erases 'pause' in warming. Until last week, government data on climate change indicated that the Earth has warmed over the last century, but that the warming slowed dramatically and even stopped at points over the last 17 years. But a paper released May 28 by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has readjusted the data in a way that makes the reduction in warming disappear, indicating a steady increase in temperature instead. But the study's readjusted data conflict with many other climate measurements, including data taken by satellites, and some climate scientists aren't buying the new claim. Global Warming: The Theory that Predicts Nothing and Explains Everything. A lot of us having been pointing out one of the big problems with the global warming theory: a long plateau in global temperatures since about 1998. Most significantly, this leveling off was not predicted by the theory, and observed temperatures have been below the lowest end of the range predicted by all of the computerized climate models. So what to do if your theory doesn't fit the data? Why, change the data, of course! Hence a blockbuster new report: a new analysis of temperature data since 1998 "adjusts" the numbers and magically finds that there was no plateau after all. The warming just continued. NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming 'Hiatus'. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year "pause" in global warming: They "adjusted" the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record. New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years. NOAA Caught Rewriting US Temperature History (Again). We have written a number of times about how government agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration here in the U.S., have systematically adjusted temperature history to make the past look colder. They apparently do this, usually surreptitiously and without explanation, in order to stoke global warming hysteria. [...] Now Mike Brakey, an engineering physicist and heat transfer specialist, has caught NOAA revising historic temperature data for Maine — as always, to make the past look cooler and the present warmer by comparison. Government global warming data FAKED. "We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward," says NaturalNews.com. "The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend. "Because the actual historical temperature record doesn't fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using "computer models" and then published as fact. 'Breathtaking' adjustments to Arctic temperature record. Is there any 'global warming' we can trust? Here's a video that you absolutely must see. Not, I hasten to warn you, because it's exciting, well-produced or informative; rather, because of the fascinating light it sheds on the debate about global warming in general and also, in particular, on the ongoing controversy about whether organisations like NASA and NOAA are playing fast and loose with the world's temperature data sets. NASA Bureaucrats Caught Doctoring Data to Make Warming Seem More Rapid. NASA's Goddard Institute, run by prominent global warming alarmist James Hansen, secretly doctored the historical temperature record again, reports Randall Hoven in the American Thinker. The new changes continue an ongoing pattern of government bureaucrats making post-hoc alterations to the historical temperature record to make recent warming seem more rapid than the raw temperature data reflect.NASA's Rubber Ruler Scandal. It turns out that there is no way to reliably compare current global temperatures to historical data using NASA's database. It is a scientific scandal. I wrote recently about NASA changing its entire temperature record database, just from July to September. That is, in 2012, NASA changed temperatures going back to 1880. And it did that without telling anyone or explaining it. The net effect was to make the 130-year warming trend steeper, by lowering older (pre-1963) temperatures and slightly raising recent ones. CEI Files Brief, Seeking NASA Records. Last night [11/3/2010], the Competitive Enterprise Institute — through its outside counsel Gibson Dunn — filed its brief arguing against NASA's rather scattershot and contradictory effort to dismiss our lawsuit requesting certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). ... Despite NASA stonewalling, CEI has already learned, for example, that NASA does not, contrary to widespread media and pressure group claims, have an independent temperature data set. Pop Went the Climate Bubble. [Scroll down] The still ongoing NASA-gate involves the systematic distortion of global temperature readings by the U.S. government. As revealed by a team of skeptics riding the Climategate wave, NASA researchers were exposed as improperly manipulating temperature data to produce claims such as "2005 was the warmest year on record." The researchers showed how NASA had been gradually trimming the number of temperature stations (from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,000 now) and then averaging temperature data in such a way as to produce synthetically warmer temperatures. The 2005-warmest-temperature-claim was, in fact, based on a temperature "data base" that had no original temperature data. Senators Demand Explanation of NASA's Flawed Climate Data. Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have written a letter to NASA chief Charles Bolden demanding answers to questions surrounding newly uncovered irregularities in the space agency's climate data. GISS Caught Doctoring More Data. Nobody outside of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies knows for sure why the organization so often reports warming trends not reflected in the actual temperature measurements. That's because the organization's director, astronomer James Hansen, refuses to disclose how and why he makes his temperature adjustments. Hansen is one of the world's most prominent and vocal advocates of an impending global warming crisis, going so far as to call for putting global warming skeptics through Nuremburg-style trials for crimes against humanity. Warm-mongers and cheeseburger imperialists. Something rather odd happened the other day. If you go to NASA's Web site and look at the "U.S. surface air temperature" rankings for the lower 48 states, you might notice that something has changed. Then again, you might not. They're not issuing any press releases about it. But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for U.S. temperatures. The "hottest year on record" is no longer 1998, but 1934. Spaced out view of controversy. Besides sending up rickety 1970s-era space shuttles and doing damage control for drunk astronauts, NASA's focus these days is promoting global warming hype. It's smart politics — a media-savvy attempt by a bureaucratic dinosaur to stay fashionable. But NASA made an inconvenient admission last week: It has been publishing inaccurate data about the Earth's temperature. The world is not as hot as NASA has been saying it is. James Hansen's Hacks: In retrospect, you knew there would be trouble when you put the people responsible for the Space Shuttle program in charge of tracking U.S. temperatures. So perhaps it shouldn't have come as a big surprise when it was revealed that NASA committed a bit of an oopsie regarding data constantly used by the mainstream media and other global warming proponents. NASA's Backtrack on Warmest Year Is Being Ignored, Critic Says. NASA scientists this month corrected an error that resulted in 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest year on record in the U.S., thus challenging some key global warming arguments, but the correction is being ignored, a conservative climate expert charged Wednesday [8/15/2007]. Yet at the same time, announcements that support global warming are considered "front-page news," said H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis. Global warming? Look at the numbers. In his enviro-propaganda flick, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore claims nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade. That's been a common refrain for environmentalists, too, and one of the centrepieces of global warming hysteria: It's been really hot lately — abnormally hot — so we all need to be afraid, very afraid. The trouble is, it's no longer true. Global Warming Bureaucrat Hansen Lashes Out at Critics. Will the global warming game be over if the scrutiny goes too deep? Last week, Hansen, NASA's lead scientist on global warming, penned a rather strange ad hominem attack against critics that questioned the validity of his work in the wake of corrections prompted by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit. The Warmist Shamans. Shaman James Hansen has proclaimed that we only have four years left before the world falls into climate catastrophy. The oceans will rise, species will die, the gates of hell will open, and general wailing and gnashing of teeth will prevail over mankind. Dr. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is the world's leading witch doctor crusading against manmade global warming. He has taken this title away from Bigfoot Al, who is increasingly reticent in discussing his own giant carbon footprint in public. James Hansen's former boss, on James Hansen. James Hansen of NASA's GISS has been the single-most influential scientist in the world in promoting the view that global warming represents a catastrophic risk to the planet. His former supervisor at NASA, Dr. John S. Theon, now publicly disagrees with Hansen's work. James Hansen's Former Boss Takes Him To Task Over Climahysteria. Via Watts Up With That?, a press release from Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, who calls himself a skeptic now. NASA's Chief Climate Scientist Stirs Controversy With Call for Civil Disobedience. NASA's chief climate scientist is in hot water with colleagues and at least one lawmaker after calling on citizens to engage in civil disobedience at what is being billed as the largest public protest of global warming ever in the United States. In a video on capitolclimateaction.org, Dr. James Hansen is seen urging Americans to "take a stand on global warming" during the March 2 protest at the Capitol Power Plant in Southeast Washington, D.C. The High Price of Climate Lies. The global warming hoax didn't happen over night. It is generally dated from an appearance before Congress by Dr. James E. Hansen in 1988 predicting a dramatic rise in the Earth's temperature based on the increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. At that time, Dr. Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warned that steps had to be taken quickly to reduce CO2 emissions. Ever since then, Hansen has been active in his effort to convince everyone that he's right and condemning anyone an opposing point of view. NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming. "Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change." NASA Blocked Climate Change Blogger from Data. Despite the fact that NASA tried to block him from accessing U.S. temperature data, persistent efforts by a climate change blogger forced the government to amend U.S. temperature data. Because of the blogger's efforts, NASA now recognizes 1934 as the hottest year in U.S. history, not 1998. Global climate models fail yet another reality check. Once again, computer-driven climate simulations have fallen short when measured against real-world scientific observations. That's right — the very same climate models, on which warming "experts" the likes of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and NASA's GISS base their catastrophic projections, have proven utterly unreliable once more. Cloudy outlook for climate models. [Scroll down] On their analysis, does the uncertainty in the observations overlap with the results of the models? If yes, then the models are supported by the observations of the last 30 years, and they could be useful predictors of future temperature and climate trends. Unfortunately, the answer according to the study is no. A tale of two thermometers: A paper published in scientific journal Nature this week has reignited the debate about Global Warming, by predicting that the earth won't be getting any warmer until 2015. Researchers at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences have factored in cyclical oceanic into their climate model, and produced a different forecast to the "consensus" models which don't. But how will we know whether the earth is warming or cooling? Today, it all depends on the data source. Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer. Prominent people at NASA warn us that unless we change our carbon producing ways, civilisation as we know it will come to an end. At the same time, there are new scientific studies showing that the earth is in a 20 year long cooling period. Which view is correct? Temperature data should be simple enough to record and analyze. We all know how to read a thermometer — it is not rocket science. Maximum Temperature Trends: Faulty HO-83 thermometers installed in U.S. weather stations in the 1990s make recent climate history appear warmer. Remove their errors and — surprise! Our Climate Numbers Are a Big Old Mess. [Scroll down] Another check for quality control in 2005 created further warming, doubling the initial overall rate. Then it was discovered that our orbiting satellites have a few faults. The sensors don't last very long and are continually being supplanted by replacement orbiters. The instruments are calibrated against each other, so if one is off, so is the whole record. Why Would Anyone Trust NASA's Climate Data Now? Last week's disclosure of a critical temperature data revision by NASA climate experts under cover-of-darkness poses as many questions as it answers. With worried alarmists scurrying to either dismiss the restatement's relevance or ignore it altogether, and NASA itself descending to CYOA tactics, the paramount issue remains that of credibility — both the agency's and the big green scare machine's. The Editor says... It is my opinion that NASA should be scrapped. It is nothing more than a huge pork barrel project that accomplishes nothing. 'Warmest October' Claim Was Wrong, NASA Admits. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies — known as GISS — was forced to admit it committed an egregious error when it publicly claimed October 2008 was the warmest October in history. It turns out October 2008 was nowhere near a record. Global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere by NASA satellite instruments show it was fairly typical compared to temperatures over the past 30 years and significantly cooler than average temperatures over the past seven years. Dissing Hansen: In November 2008, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Dr James Hansen, and one of the four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that October 2008 was the "hottest on record". Which must have come as something of a shock to the countless millions who trudged through the heavy snow and ice in what they had been told was an unseasonally cold October. But then Hansen should know. He is, after all, climate alarmism's 'Mr Big'. But then this is far from the first time Hansen has been caught 'fiddling' the climate figures. On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society: I am appalled at the selection of James Hansen as this year's recipient of the AMS's highest award — the Rossby Research Medal. James Hansen has not been trained as a meteorologist. His formal education has been in astronomy. His long records of faulty global climate predictions and alarmist public pronouncements have become increasingly hollow and at odds with reality. Hansen has exploited the general public's lack of knowledge of how the globe's climate system functions for his own benefit. His global warming predictions, going back to 1988 are not being verified. Why have we allowed him go on for all these years with his faulty and alarmist prognostications? And why would the AMS give him its highest award? An example of irrational fear-mongering — James Hansen in his own words: Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them. Coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet. The climate is nearing tipping points. Changes are beginning to appear and there is a potential for explosive changes, effects that would be irreversible, if we do not rapidly slow fossil-fuel emissions over the next few decades. As Arctic sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more sunlight and speeds melting. Has NASA's Hansen Finally Lost His Mind? Even the realization of Al Gore's dream of "capping" carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants wouldn't satisfy NASA's James Hansen. He wants to shut them all down, despite the untold human misery such hysterical action would inevitably bring. And toward that preposterously unattainable end he is now pushing panic buttons with the alacrity of a man truly possessed. James Hansen's Political Science: NASA's James Hansen leads a protest against a District of Columbia power plant in the middle of a snowstorm. Meanwhile, a scientist fired by Al Gore says we need to emit more carbon dioxide, not less. Outside The Law: James Hansen, the NASA scientist primarily responsible for the global warming scare, has grown weary of trying to change the world through the legislative order outlined in our Constitution. "The democratic process doesn't quite seem to be working," Hansen told the British Guardian newspaper Wednesday. "I think that peaceful demonstration is not out of order, because we're running out of time." The Man Who Cried Doom. It's been more than 20 years since James Hansen first warned America of impending doom. On a hot summer day in June 1988, Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, came to Washington to announce before a Senate committee that "the greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now." The greenhouse effect would have looked obvious enough to anyone watching on television. The senators conducting the hearing, including Al Gore, had turned the committee room into an oven. That day it was a balmy 98 degrees, and as former Colorado senator Timothy Wirth later revealed, the committee members "went in the night before and opened all the windows. And so when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and [high ratings], but it was really hot." Hansen has been a star ever since. Global warming controversy hits NASA climate data. The fight over climate science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding the release of the same kind of information that landed a leading British center in hot water over charges that it skewed its data. NASA-Gate. For two years, our space agency has refused Freedom of Information requests on why it has repeatedly corrected its climate figures. A leading researcher threatens to sue to find more inconvenient truths. What's become known as "Climate-Gate" may be about to explode on this side of the pond as well. A U.S. ClimateGate? Climate researchers and the Weather Channel's founder accuse NASA of the same data manipulation as Britain's Climate Research Unit. Were weather stations cherry-picked to hide the temperature drop? Distortion of Temperature Data. Both the satellite results and the proxy data tell us that the claimed rise of surface temperature between 1979 and 1997, shown by IPCC, is probably much smaller or even non-existent. NOAA and NASA Complicit in Data Manipulation. We don't dispute the fact that there has been some cyclical warming in recent decades — most notably from 1979 to 1998 — but cooling took place from the 1940s to the late 1970s, again after 1998, and especially after 2001, all while CO2 rose. This fact alone questions the primary role in climate change attributed to CO2 by the IPCC, environmental groups, and others. A Remarkable Lie, from Your Taxpayer-Funded NOAA. NOAA's network for measuring temperature in the United States has become corrupted by artificial heat sources and other issues. These problems introduce warm biases into the temperature measurements that are then used by the government and others to support manmade global warming. So as a reaction to criticism about these problems ... NOAA now claims that the accuracy of the measured temperature no longer matters! Do You Believe In Magic Numbers? How much credence can we give any claim that average global temperatures have risen or fallen X degrees over a certain period, or that this year or decade is "the warmest ever," or "since record-keeping began" — especially when the alleged difference is measured in tenths or hundredths of a degree? The answer: Not much. The truth is, we cannot trust the hype and numbers that routinely come out of the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, CRU, White House and other branches of the climate crisis industry. It's 'the hottest year on record', as long as you don't take its temperature. We have lately heard much of the claim that 2010 will turn out to have been "the hottest year on record". No one has done more to promote this belief than Dr James Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), responsible for one of the four main official global temperature records. As reported by the US blogs Real Science and Watts Up With That, in a post headed "GISS temperatures out of line with the rest of the world", the GISS record has in recent months been diverging wildly from the others. The Tom Friedman of Climatology. One of the striking features of our political era is that increasing numbers of liberals are coming out of the closet as enemies of the Constitution and of democracy. The latest is James Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hansen is, to be blunt, an awful human being and one of the worst of the global warming fraudsters. Under his guidance, NASA's data have become so unreliable as to be an embarrassment to any scientists who may still be in the picture. Why Is NASA Hiding James Hansen's Ethics Records? The climate change fanatic has plenty of outside income. Did he obtain the proper waivers from NASA as he must according to the law? NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data — AGAIN! The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 20 feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet). But Mother Nature was never good at computer science. Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What's even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006. Did climate scientist James Hansen personally benefit from public office? The American Tradition Institute's (ATI) Environmental Law Center filed a lawsuit Tuesday [6/21/2011] to force the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to make public ethics records for global warming activist and chief climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies James Hansen — to ensure that he did not use his public position for personal gain. According to ATI, over the past four years Hansen has earned an estimated $1.2 million from outside opportunities. NASA Scientist Accused of Using Celeb Status to Enrich Himself. The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated. Climate Scientist, Political Advocate. Dr. Hansen has been an employee of the federal government for 30 years, at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, where he is now director, making $180,000 per year (plus lavish benefits) courtesy of the US taxpayer. One of his projects is to have the CEOs of large fossil fuel companies put on trial "for high crimes against humanity and nature." Is this a great system or what, where public "servants" get paid, handsomely, to advocate for political policies? NASA Activists Caught Claiming Fictitious Warming. Government employees overseeing "official" temperature datasets are adding nonexistent warming to recent temperature records, Steven Goddard documents on his Real Science website. The revelation is not new. Goddard and others have for many years documented how global warming activists at NASA's Goddard Institute and elsewhere consistently adjust the raw temperature data reported by actual thermometers to lower past temperatures and inflate recent temperature data to create a fictitious pronounced warming trend. The adjustments are so substantial that NASA's Goddard Institute reports a very large 0.5 degree Celsius warming of the United States since the 1930s even though the actual thermometer data show approximately 0.5 degrees of cooling. Record Keepers Cooked Global Temp Books. [Scroll down] It seems that official surface temperature records upon which this panic has rested have been systematically cooked to indicate that Earth has recently been overheating just as alarmists, including some at NASA, wish us to believe. This will come as no surprise, however, to scientists familiar with data recorded from satellite and high altitude balloon instruments. That data shows that global mean temperatures have been statistically flat over the past 18 years. Flawed computer models Queen Canute. This fraud started in the 1960s as a scam devised by Syukuro Manabe's group at the U.S. Weather Bureau. They decided to "double dip" the funding and work on both weather and climate prediction. The early climate models created warming as a mathematical artifact in the temperature calculation by using oversimplified assumptions about climate energy transfer. In 1967, Manabe and colleague Richard Wetherald claimed that a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase the surface temperature of the earth by 2.9 °C. Manabe's group soon became trapped in a web of lies of their own making. When funding was reduced for NASA as the moon landings ended in 1972, there was mission creep. The planetary atmospheres group was told to switch to earth studies. To start, they simply copied the fraudulent 1967 Weather Bureau model and created warming artifacts for other greenhouse gases such as methane. Later, a slab ocean algorithm was added to the model. This created a simplified flat ocean without wind or waves. In 1981, the NASA/Hansen model was "tuned" to match a global mean temperature record by adjusting the CO2 concentration, solar intensity, and volcanic aerosols. This provided the foundation for the pseudoscience of radiative forcings, feedbacks, and climate sensitivity still used in the climate models today. [...] The software code that was created by Manabe's group has become the religious creed of the Imperial Cult. New Study: CO2's Atmospheric Residence Time 4 Years; Natural Sources Drive CO2 Concentration Changes. Per a new study, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) utilizes "inappropriate assumption and speculation," as well as non-real-world models of "imaginary data," to claim CO2 emissions derived from fossil fuel burning function "weirdly," far differently in the atmosphere than CO2 molecules derived from natural emissions (e.g., plant respiration, ocean outgassing) do. "The ambiguity is accompanied by inappropriate assumptions and speculations, the weirdest of which is that the behavior of the CO2 in the atmosphere depends on its origin and that CO2 emitted by anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion has higher residence time than when naturally emitted." While the IPCC acknowledges emissions from natural sources have an atmospheric residence time of only 4 years, they have simultaneously constructed model outputs that assert CO2 molecules derived from fossil fuel emissions remain in the atmosphere for hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, even several one hundred thousands of years. A Nobel Prize for Climate Model Errors. When the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded part of the 2021 Nobel Prize for Physics to Syukuro Manabe they failed to recognize that the climate models used to justify the award were invalid. When the CO2 concentration was increased in the 1967 model developed by Manabe and Wetherald it created warming as a mathematical artifact of the simplistic steady state energy transfer assumptions that they used. The initial temperature increase was then amplified by a second artifact, the assumption of a fixed relative humidity distribution that created a water vapor feedback. When the CO2 concentration was doubled from 300 to 600 parts per million (ppm), the 1967 model predicted an increase in equilibrium surface temperature of 2.9°C for clear sky conditions. The equilibrium temperature increase produced by a CO2 doubling later became known as the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). The algorithms used in the 1967 model were incorporated into their 1975 global circulation model (GCM). This also had an ECS of 2.9°C. The steady state assumption provided the foundation for the concept of radiative forcing. The water vapor feedback became part of a set of feedbacks that were used to adjust the radiative forcings. The Cost of Being a Green "Leader". New York seems determined to challenge California for the title of green energy "leader," regardless of what doing so costs residents. The state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is reportedly "considering" (read: almost certainly will adopt) rules that will be used to justify more forced electrification and higher energy costs for New Yorkers. The DEC intends to accomplish this using new estimates of the "social cost of carbon" (SCC). The SCC is a made-up number, calculated using simplistic models that assume a one-to-one relationship between carbon emissions and global temperature. After estimating how much carbon dioxide will get released into the atmosphere and the resulting temperature increases, the models project the resulting environmental doom and its costs: rising seas that will flood coastal cities and sink island nations, the expansion of virulent tropical diseases into colder climates, and megadroughts leading to crop losses. Official Temperature Data Aren't 'Data' and Shouldn't Be Used to Restrict Freedom. It is becoming increasingly clear that the temperature data the U.S. government and many other governments use to predict catastrophic climate change, the data from surface temperature stations, aren't accurate. To paraphrase Elizabeth Barrett Browning's Sonnet 43: How bad is the surface station record? Let me count the flaws. Even its climate alarmist defenders acknowledge that surface station data runs too hot. To make matters worse for the alarmist cause, the overheated surface station data are still lower than what climate models say the temperatures should be based on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This fact strongly suggests the assumed climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide of pre-industrial levels built into models is also way too high. Further evidence that the surface station data are flawed stems from the fact that the surface station readings do not match the temperatures recorded by global satellites and weather balloons, two alternative temperature sources whose data sets closely track each other. How do you find "Global Warming" when there's no actual warming? You change the data. The world's oldest continuous temperature database is the Central England Temperature record which dates to 1659(!). The CET has been recently updated to version 2. And along the way, something really interesting happened: [Chart] This is the year-by-year change that was introduced in V2. You can see kind of random up/down adjustments for hundreds of years right up until 1970. Then you see massive adjustments. The upward warming trend from 1970 to the present day is not due to the data as read, but rather to the (made up) adjustments to the data. Conclusion: Man-made Global Warming is confirmed! But it's not observable in real life, but only in computer print outs[.] New Study: Climate Models Get Water Vapor Wildly Wrong. A new study published in PNAS has demonstrated, once again, that climate models fail to simulate what happens in the real world with regard to fundamental climate change variables like water vapor. This is a devastating finding, as water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas due to its alleged "feedback" capacity, accelerating warming well beyond what CO2 is said to be capable of alone. The authors do not understate the significance of this climate modeling failure. "This represents a major gap in our understanding and in climate model fidelity that must be understood and fixed as soon as possible in order to provide reliable hydroclimate projections for arid/semi-arid regions in the coming decades." Per state-of-the-art climate models, specific humidity (SH) should increase as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show no increasing SH trend over arid/semi-arid regions. Per state-of-the-art climate models, relative humidity (RH) should decline slightly as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show not a slight declining trend, but a declining trend that is "about an order of magnitude more than the models on average." In other words, the climate models are wrong by a factor of 10. The Hockey Stick Trial: Science Dies in a DC Courtroom. Excerpt: "Science," wrote the philosopher Karl Popper, "is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticised and fairly often, in time, corrected." The sub-title of Popper's 1963 book Conjectures and Refutations, in which he argued that science progresses through inspired conjectures checked by attempts to refute them through criticism, is "The Growth of Scientific Knowledge." Now, a six-person jury in Washington, DC has refuted Popper's formulation of the uniqueness of science, finding in favor of climate scientist Michael Mann in the defamation suit he brought against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn dating back to 2012. Central to Mann's case was his attempt to reconstruct global temperature over the previous millennium — the iconic "hockey stick" graph. The graph shows global temperatures purportedly falling for centuries and suddenly shooting upwards with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Mann's hockey stick representation was derived principally from selected tree ring data based on the assumption that tree rings constitute accurate proxies for temperature and are not contaminated by confounding factors such as rainfall, seasonal variability, and levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The results that Mann produced are also sensitive to decisions on and application of statistical techniques. Climate Models Exaggerate Effects of Global Warming. Policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to minimize the effects of climate change should be guided by the best available science. A new research paper from The Heritage Foundation provides compelling evidence — as indicated in the chart below — that warming in the past 50 years or so has been overestimated by most computer models when compared to temperature observations by thermometer. The Heritage Foundation's Backgrounder paper, written by the first author of this commentary, is titled "Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models." A vocal minority of scientists often criticizes work such as this paper because their careers depend upon continued climate alarmism. For example, NASA's Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician by training who now oversees a subset of the climate models at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, took issue with a few of the Heritage paper's arguments, to which the author responded in detail [elsew]here. The Climate Models Are Wrong. Dr. Roy Spencer, a top scientist specializing in climate, wrote a report for Heritage which he summarized on his own web site. Spencer compared observed warming in the U.S. corn belt during the summer, between 1973 and 2022 — a 50-year period — with the warming that was predicted by the major climate models. He found that all of the models yielded more warming than actually occurred, most to an absurd degree. [Chart] It should not need to be said that a model is not evidence of anything. A model is a hypothesis. Like any scientific hypothesis, it is confirmed or refuted by observation. A model that is refuted by observation is worthless. And yet, these models, which have repeatedly been shown to be wrong, are the basis for enormously destructive policies that have been adopted across much of the western world. An Environmentalist Drifts Right. The bedrock of current day environmentalism is climate change — the belief that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels will lead to an environmental and economic collapse. Climate change is the latest in a long string of pending catastrophes that last until everyone is bored and a new pending catastrophe must be wheeled in. [...] [Michael] Shellenberger clings to the idea that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a reliable source of scientific estimations of the effect of CO2 on climate. The IPCC doesn't make predictions but projections. Projections are what the IPCC gets out of its computer models that typically use sketchy data as input to the models. The various models used by the IPCC disagree seriously with each other and with the Earth's climate. Extremely important climate influencing agents are ignored or poorly handled by the models. It's highly irresponsible to promote this science as foretelling an approaching cataclysm. It is also highly rewarding for the many stakeholders in climate alarmism. Global warming might not happen quite as fast as we thought — here's why. Plants will absorb 20 percent more carbon dioxide than predicted by the end of the century, a new study has found, suggesting climate models are overestimating how fast the planet will warm. Trinity College Dublin said its research painted an "uncharacteristically upbeat picture for the planet" after finding models had failed to take into account all the elements of photosynthesis. During photosynthesis, green plants use light energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide, water and minerals into the sugars they need for growth. Scientists thought climate change could weaken the process, but the new research suggests plants can adjust to the temperatures, efficiently absorbing carbon dioxide, producing extra nutrients, and continuing to thrive. They found that on a global scale, the amount of carbon converted during photosynthesis could be up to 68 percent greater by the end of the century compared to the start of the century, and 20 percent more than some current models suggest. 1.5 Degrees Of Climate Fabrication. Ghoulish scold John Kerry, the White House's climate hobgoblin, has repeatedly warned that the world is not on track to contain a 1.5-degree Celsius increase in global temperature above the pre-industrial level, and this means disaster is looming. Others have made the same point, and the media just goes along for the ride. Their predictions are worthless, though. We know this because the United Nations told us so. The rock-solid, undeniable fact is that it's impossible to make long-term climate predictions, because our climate is ever changing and volatile. It says so in the Third Assessment Report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." And it has said this since 2001, when that report was put together. The Blunt Truth about Global Warming Models. I may be one of the first scientists in the country to know that predicting long-term temperatures is not possible. Almost 50 years ago, while in grad school, I had a contract from an Army research lab to use a state-of-the-art models to predict long-term temperatures. I quickly realized that the goal of the project, to forecast accurately the temperature long-term, was impossible because small errors in data inputs could result in huge forecasts errors. Equally important was that errors compounded so quickly that it caused the error ranges to explode. The results were junk. As an example, what good is a temperature forecast with an error range of plus or minus one hundred degrees? I give university speeches to scientists and tell them: if you ever see some data or forecasts, your first question has to be "what's the error range?" If you don't know the error range, the data are almost useless. It's not coincidental that the Climate Mafia don't highlight this problem[.] The Problem with Modelling. The book, The Plague of Models: How Computer Modeling Corrupted Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulations by Kenneth Green, is banned by Amazon. I don't think Amazon bans many books. They don't have time to read them all. The book is available at Barnes and Noble. The Plague of Models is a wide-ranging attack on a broad spectrum of government regulation and policy, including alleged cancer-causing substances, air pollution, and doomsday predictions like global warming, acid rain, and the ozone hole. It is also an attack on the scientists who use computer models incorrectly to generate scientific results, better known as the computer slogan "Garbage In Garbage Out ' (GIGO). Scientists want to generate important-sounding, even sensational results. They want to be famous and enjoy the benefits of higher social status. That desire leads to stretching or breaking the rules. For example, hunting through data for a supported hypothesis, or data dredging, is a temptation that breaks the statistics. There are many other temptations. All UN climate models vastly over-estimate warming in the U.S.. According to a direct comparison between actual data and the three-dozen climate models used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the models all overestimate the warming that has happened, sometimes by ridiculous amounts. [...] This story isn't new, and in fact to me has become somewhat boring because the results are always the same. The computer models that global warming climate scientists have pushed at us for decades have been consistently wrong. They routinely have over-predicted the amount of warming. Since such models are expressly designed to provide us reliable predictions, and these models are not reliable or correct, I find it absurd to pay any attention to them. NOAA Throws Cold Water On Media Hysteria Over Earth's 'Three Hottest Days On Record'. Numerous corporate media outlets drove the narrative that July 3-5 was the hottest 72-hour stretch ever on record, citing a computer model from the University of Maine which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has warned is not as dependable as traditional observational data. The New York Times, Fortune, Axios and CBS News each cited the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer computer model in various Thursday reports asserting that this week's global temperatures broke the previous record for hottest three-day stretch. [...] "The situation we are witnessing now is the demonstration that climate change is out of control," United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said of the heat, according to The Guardian. The Editor says... IPCC Climate Models Grossly Exaggerate 'Global Warming'. In November 2022, meteorologist Roy Spencer, Ph.D., a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, published a ground-breaking study demonstrating that 36 climate models used to guide national policy may have exaggerated "global warming" over the last 50 years by as much as 50 percent. Specifically, Dr. Spencer utilized "a relatively new global dataset of urbanization changes over the previous 40-year period, 1975-2014, based on Landsat data to determine the average effect urbanization has had on surface temperatures." Spencer devised a methodology "to compute the magnitude of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect on temperatures using the example of summertime early morning 09 UTC (early morning) Integrated Surface Database (ISD) hourly data (mostly from airports) over the period 1973-2022." 50-Year U.S. Summer Temperature Trends: ALL 36 Climate Models Are Too Warm. As seen in the accompanying plot, 50-year (1973-2022) summer (June/July/August) temperature trends for the contiguous 48 U.S. states from 36 CMIP-6 climate model experiments average nearly twice the warming rate as observed by the NOAA climate division dataset. [Chart] The 36 models are those cataloged at the KNMI Climate Explorer website, using Tas (surface air temperature), one member per model, for the ssp245 radiative forcing scenario. (The website says there are 40 models, but I found that four of the models have double entries). The surface temperature observations come from NOAA/NCEI. The official NOAA observations produce a 50-year summer temperature trend of +0.26[°]C/decade for the U.S., while the model trends range from +0.28 to +0.71[°]C/decade. The Dirty Secrets inside the Black Box Climate Models. Global extinction due to global warming has been predicted more times than climate activist, Leo DiCaprio, has traveled by private jet. But where do these predictions come from? If you thought it was just calculated from the simple, well known relationship between CO2 and solar energy spectrum absorption, you would only expect to see about 0.5°C increase from pre-industrial temperatures as a result of CO2 doubling, due to the logarithmic nature of the relationship. The runaway 3-6°C and higher temperature increase model predictions depend on coupled feedbacks from many other factors, including water vapour (the most important greenhouse gas), albedo (the proportion of energy reflected from the surface — e.g. more/less ice or clouds, more/less reflection) and aerosols, just to mention a few, which theoretically may amplify the small incremental CO2 heating effect. Because of the complexity of these interrelationships, the only way to make predictions is with climate models because they can't be directly calculated. Satellite Temperature Data Show Almost All Climate Model Forecasts Over the Last 40 Years Were Wrong. A major survey into the accuracy of climate models has found that almost all the past temperature forecasts between 1980-2021 were excessive compared with accurate satellite measurements. The findings were recently published by Professor Nicola Scafetta, a physicist from the University of Naples. He attributes the inaccuracies to a limited understanding of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), the number of degrees centigrade the Earth's temperature will rise with a doubling of carbon dioxide. Scientists have spent decades trying to find an accurate ECS number, to no avail. Current estimates range from 0.5°C to around 6-7°C. Without knowing this vital figure, the so-called 'settled' science narrative around human-caused climate change remains a largely political invention, not a credible scientific proposition. Professor Scafetta has conducted extensive work into climate models and is a long-time critic of their results and forecasts. In a previous work, he said many of the climate models should be "dismissed and not used by policymakers". Along with around 250 professors, he is a signatory to the World Climate Declaration which states there is no climate emergency and also notes climate models are "not remotely plausible as global tools". Emperor Penguins Join Polar Bears on ESA List of Threatened Species Based on Flawed Climate Models. Yesterday [10/25/2022], the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced it will classify the Emperor penguin as 'threatened' with extinction under its Endangered Species Act (ESA) based on what are known to be flawed climate models, to take effect next month. This is despite the fact that Emperor penguin numbers increased between 2009 and 2019, an IUCN Red List reassessment in 2019 did not reverse its 2018 decision (still listing it as 'near-threatened', not 'vulnerable'), and member-nations refused earlier this year to enact an Antarctic Treaty to protect the birds. Conservation activists of all stripes are filled with glee at this bettter-than-nothing decision for a species nowhere near extinction because it means more money for them. Bottom line: An article by the US National Public Radio (25 October 2022) admits the real reason for this listing: ["]Though emperor penguins are not found naturally in the U.S., the endangered species protections will help increase funding for conservation efforts.["] The Warmists Cop a Plea. The global warming doom theory is more science fiction than science, but a fiction that is very good for the professors who invented the theory. Climate science was an obscure corner of academia until the professors got the idea that by burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide mankind will trigger a catastrophic change in the climate. Global warming made the professors important. Instead of toiling away at dusty desks in the basements of tawdry academic buildings, they are flying first class to important meetings wearing thousand-dollar suits. The evidence for global warming is provided by complicated computer models. Computer models are the lazy scientist's friend. It is a lot easier to write a paper or promote a theory using a computer model as compared to, for example, taking samples from a cave in Mongolia. Critics can't get traction against computer models because it takes entirely too much work to understand the details buried in thousands of lines of code. Here's the Latest Climate Change Projection That Was Totally Wrong. The latest doomsday scenario to be proven incorrect is related to this past summer's temperature, which was 1.5 degrees warmer than the 50-year average. Yet, it was way off the 5.4-degree projection cast by Professor James Hansen, one of the godfathers of the global warming hysteria. Hansen is known for his series of congressional testimonies in the 1980s that created public awareness. Steve Milloy used The Washington Post's tool regarding temperature changes this past summer to expose the shoddy projection. [Tweet] It's a pattern that cannot be ignored. The climate change prognosticators said in 2007 that the Artic Ice Cap would melt by 2013. In 2013, the ice cap was intact and had grown by 538,000 square miles. That same year, it was the calmest hurricane season in almost 20 years. It was also the quietest tornado season that year in nearly 60 years. To flashforward to the present, the 2022 hurricane season is now the most undisturbed in almost three decades.
The Global Warming Golden Goose. Climate science groups have been spending billions of dollars developing computer models of the Earth's atmosphere in an attempt to support the global warming narrative. The computer models are obedient to their authors. The scientists can manipulate the models to show whatever result that supports the desired conclusion — global warming or global cooling. Kevin Trenberth, no denier and one time head of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), may have clarified the situation when he said: "None of the models... correspond even remotely to the current observed climate." The beauty of a black box computer program with hundreds of thousands of lines of code is that it is difficult to know if it is an amazing work or a futile exercise. Questions the Climate Police Won't Answer. How can scientists say sea level rise is getting worse when tide gauges show no rise in rates where the land is not sinking, and sinking land accounts for the supposed rise in in the Tidewater area of Virginia and the Mississippi Delta region? I will make a prediction. The climate industry will soon fake the data from tide gauges like they did with satellite surface temperature data. Satellite data weren't showing a warming earth, so they were changed to fit the narrative, changed from actual temperatures to what they should have been as predicted by bogus computer models. You can expect these same dishonest liars to attempt to pass off modeled tide gauge data as actual data in the near future. While we're talking about data, why has global warming paused for the last 20 years when carbon emissions are 'worse than ever'? Why can't the climate police explain the pause? Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Climate Models. [#9] Everyone knows that climate models are failing, but no-one will say. The inadequacies of climate models are well-recognised within the field. But as Leonard Smith, a prominent (mainstream) researcher noted, their output is nevertheless being sold to policymakers as if it were adequate to support decision-making, with the contents expressed in terms that allow for 'plausible deniability'.14 Moreover, according to Smith, a joint statement of support for climate models by a group of learned societies was cancelled once those involved in its drafting learned of how systematic errors were being hidden by the presentation of the results as anomalies. In the famous words of the statistician George Box, all models are wrong, but some are useful. This saying, frequently repeated by climatologists, is undoubtedly true, but does rather beg the question of what precisely they are useful for. Climatologists have no choice except to use computer models to try to understand the way the Earth works, so for this purpose they are not only useful, but in fact essential. Their relevance to the policy arena however is far from clear. Policymakers are often misled into thinking that climate models are providing robust predictions about the future. The less reputable scientists, often in positions of responsibility, point to the match between twentieth century temperatures and the climate models to emphasise their case. Green Energy Chickens Coming Home to Roost. What makes these common "green energy" policies so astonishing is the lack of "settled science" to justify them. Anthropogenic, Catastrophic Global Warming adherents claim that additional atmospheric CO2 caused by humans will, in a few decades, have effects devastating enough to destroy civilization. This conclusion is buttressed by little more than computer models that disagree with each other, and depend on data inputs that are either fabricated or rife with confirmation bias. But the problem is even worse than that. Even if what "greens" predict is true, outside the West few countries trying to develop their economies are going to give up cheap, abundant coal to generate electricity. China, India, and Russia, the first, third, and fourth largest emitters of CO2, continue to burn coal to generate energy, paying only lip-service to the West's climate virtue-signaling and efforts to reduce emissions by switching to "renewable" energy. This mean that even if the West eliminates all its emissions, it will not be enough to stave off the predicted warming apocalypse. But it will be sufficient for weakening, if not destroying, Western economies. Clouds Haven't Behaved the Way the IPCC Or the Models Say. I have been working for quite a while on cloud data, and have now had a paper published on the behaviour of clouds, which challenges the way clouds are interpreted by the IPCC and in the climate models. The IPCC indicate that clouds (1) provide a positive feedback to (CO2-driven) climate change, and (2) have reacted to aerosols with an increasing cooling effect. The IPCC logic is essentially that man-made CO2 helped by #1 has been so powerful that it has more than overcome #2. My paper argues that clouds behaved largely independently of CO2 and had as much of a warming effect as CO2, maybe much more. As far as I can tell from searching the scientific literature, this analysis has not been presented before. Somewhat related: Roaring And Screaming. [Scroll down] The press release about the study is "Researchers demonstrate new link between greenhouse gases and sea-level rise". Inter alia, it says: ["]A new study provides the first evidence that rising greenhouse gases have a long-term warming effect on the Amundsen Sea in West Antarctica. Scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) say that while others have proposed this link, no one has been able to demonstrate it.["] Well ... in a word, no. The study doesn't provide any evidence at all, not one scrap. What it provides instead are the results of computer models using another computer model as input. The Profound Junk Science of Climate. Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric research, [none of the] "models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate" [of the Earth]. The models can't properly model the Earth's climate, but we are supposed to believe that if carbon dioxide has a certain effect in the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth. The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one's critical facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be changed to tune a model to give a "good" result. Technically, a good result would be that the climate model output can match past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate catastrophe. That sort of "good" result has elevated the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere. [The] Nobel Prize in Physics [has been] awarded for making [a] 'guess' about [the] climate. This past week, Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselmann, and Giorgio Parisi were awarded the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics for research that led to early computer models of the Earth's climate. On the face of it, some people might think this is a grand achievement. In reality, unlike many Nobel-worthy accomplishments that are based on hard data or newly known processes, this one was simply a guess. Incredibly, we still don't have an answer, more than 60 years later. [...] Glowing reviews, crude early calculations, and wild claims of a "planetary emergency" aside, the bottom line is climate models then and now still don't provide a certain answer as to how much warming will occur, because scientists still haven't been able to nail down the single most important variable known as "climate sensitivity." The 'Science' of Climate Change. Why do politicians want to hype a nonexistent climate crisis? In a word: power. By claiming that there is an urgent climate crisis the politicians can spend billions to fight the imaginary foe. [...] Richard Lindzen, one of the most accomplished climate scientists in the world by virtue of his discoveries, does not have to kowtow to the global warming mob. In an essay he pointed out that scientific data that challenges the global warming hypothesis are simply changed. He cites examples of how environmental extremists have infiltrated scientific organizations. Tony Heller, an engineer and geologist, operates a long-running website, Real Climate Science. He specializes in exposing the changed data mentioned by Richard Lindzen. The promoters of climate change cherry pick data when they are not changing it. Heller exposes the lie in the National Climate Assessment that heat waves are becoming more common. He exposes "adjustments" to the U.S. temperature record to bring it into line with climate change predictions. The difference between climate and weather, and why models fail. "Weather" describes atmospheric conditions at any location — temperature, humidity, clouds, precipitation, and winds. Every place has its own weather, which depends on the time of day, the season, the latitude, local topography, and the nearness and surface temperature of the ocean. [...] "Climate" is defined as the thirty-year average of weather at that spot. To determine climate trends thus requires centuries of reliable weather records. This is why geologists feature so prominently in determining past climates by mapping Earth's crust and collecting deep core samples in ice sheets, ocean and lake sediments, and crustal rocks. (And it explains why climate alarmists alter past temperature records to create spurious warming trends.) [...] "Models" provide the comedy act in the climate circus. Using taxpayer funds and massive computers, they build super-complex models designed to prove that global temperature will rise dangerously because of human production of carbon dioxide. These models supposedly prove that the world faces an unprecedented episode of imminent and irreversible global heating. Arctic climate change may not be making winter jet stream weird after all. An influential, highly publicized theory — that a warming Arctic is causing more intense winter outbreaks of cold and snow in midlatitudes — is hitting resistance from an ongoing sequence of studies, including the most comprehensive polar modeling to date. The idea, first put forth in a 2012 paper by Jennifer Francis, now at the Woodwell Climate Research Center, and Stephen Vavrus, at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, is that two well-established trends — Arctic amplification (intensified global warming at higher latitudes) and depleted sea ice — can force the polar jet stream to dip farther south, thus causing more intense bouts of winter weather than might have otherwise occurred. Analysis of the article above: U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming. Next month, after a yearlong delay because of the pandemic, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will begin to release its first major assessment of human-caused global warming since 2013. The report, the first part of which will appear on 9 August, will drop on a world that has starkly changed in 8 years, warming by more than 0.3°C to nearly 1.3°C above preindustrial levels. Climate scientists realize models yield "implausibly hot forecasts of future warming". These have to be the funniest, most internally self-contradicted two sentences ever written in the English language: ["]Many of the world's leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers. "It's become clear over the last year or so that we can't avoid this," says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.["] Apart from being wronger than past models, the new models "are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors" and the modelers "can't avoid this." Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, And Why It Matters. [Scroll down] [Dr. Steven] Koonin's indictment of The Science starts with its reliance on unreliable computer models. Usefully describing the earth's climate, writes Koonin, is "one of the most challenging scientific simulation problems." Models divide the atmosphere into pancake-shaped boxes of around 100 km wide and one kilometer deep. But the upward flow of energy from tropical thunder clouds, which is more than thirty times larger than that from human influences, occurs over smaller scales than the programmed boxes. This forces climate modellers to make assumptions about what happens inside those boxes. As one modeller confesses, "it's a real challenge to model what we don't understand." Inevitably, this leaves considerable scope for modelers' subjective views and preferences. Scientists don't have a clue what will happen to clouds as the planet warms. What is a cloud? At the smallest scale, it's simple: just moisture condensed onto a tiny particle — a speck of dust, a grain of pollen, salt spray from the ocean, or a mote of soot. But as soon as more than one of these cloud droplets get together, things get chaotic, quickly. Scientists describe clouds as an emergent phenomenon, where smaller constituent parts give rise to sophisticated, self-organized patterns, like a school of fish swimming together or a murmuration of starlings. This chaos is why clouds are so difficult to predict. But the consequences of this inability to see through clouds go beyond sunshine and shade; it's also obscuring our understanding of climate change. Study: The temperature — CO2 climate connection. The epistemological weakness of current simulations originates from the fact that they do not rely on any independent evidence for the influence of greenhouse gases on climate over long enough periods of time. The validity of models will, in particular, not be demonstrated as long as at least the most important features of climate changes, namely the glacial-interglacial transitions and the differing durations of interglacial periods, remain unaccounted for.
Hansen's 1988 global-warming prediction was 3X observation. [Scroll down] However, the assumption underlying Scenario C is that everyone would be so scared following Hansen's Senate testimony that what is now called "net-zero" would be achieved by 2000. Well, it wasn't. And it won't be, even by 2050. The chief reason is discernible in the Texas electricity grid collapse. The Lone Star State, which ought to have had more common sense, decided that once it had carpeted the state with windmills (14th-century technology to fail to solve a 21st-century non-problem) and solar panels (produced by slave labor in China) it could reduce its dispatchable thermal grid capacity. However, as any grid manager will tell you, you can't do that. Not the least of the reasons why unreliables are so cripplingly expensive is that it is necessary to maintain the entire pre-existing grid regardless of how many unreliables are bolted on to it. Media Reports of +40% Adjustment in Ocean Warming Were Greatly Exaggerated. The recently reported upward adjustment in the 1971-2010 Ocean Heat Content (OHC) increase compared to the last official estimate from the IPCC is actually 11%, not 40%. The 40% increase turns out to be relative to the average of various OHC estimates the IPCC addressed in their 2013 report, most of which were rejected. Curiously, the new estimate is almost identical to the average of 33 CMIP climate models, yet the models themselves range over a factor of 8 in their rates of ocean warming. Also curious is the warmth-enhancing nature of temperature adjustments over the years from surface thermometers, radiosondes, satellites, and now ocean heat content, with virtually all data adjustments leading to more warming rather than less. Faulty Forecasts and False Climate Narrative Hold Nations Hostage. The IPCC uses forecast data processed by a large set of computer climate models to arrive at the policy recommendations in its assessment reports. Among them are forecasts from the Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project (CMIP). CMIP consists of 100 distinct climate models, run by leading modelling groups across the world. Their predictions drive the IPCC's reports. In 2013, the IPCC fifth assessment report (AR5) featured climate models from CMIP5 (fifth generation). But the forecasts from these models proved wrong. They exaggerated the temperature trend and differed markedly from temperature data derived from ground-based thermmeters; sensors on weather balloons aircraft, ships, and buoys; satellite remote sensing; and "reanalyses" — the latter integrating the input of many different data sources. Yet, political appointees in charge of determining climate and energy policy around the world used these forecasts to justify international climate agreements like the Paris agreement. And they do no[t] stop with that. CMIP6 Climate Models Producing 50% More Surface Warming than Observations since 1979. Those who defend climate model predictions often produce plots of observed surface temperature compared to the models which show very good agreement. Setting aside the debate over the continuing adjustments to the surface temperature record which produce ever-increasing warming trends, let's look at how the most recent (CMIP6) models are doing compared to the latest version of the observations (however good those are). COVID and Climate Models Will Not Save Us. [Scroll down] Climate models also consistently overstate global warming by man (anthropogenic). But why? Easier to scare the world over warming or viral death than deal with 1.4 billion Chinese who are an existential threat to the current global order led by the U.S. in place since World War II. Consider global warming/climate change (GWCC): the Earth's climate is "rising at a microscopically slow pace." NASA's global temperature readings go back to only 1880. Since that time frame, the Earth's temperature went up 1.14 degrees Celsius. That averages out to an increase of 0.008 [degrees] Celsius per year — minuscule when prior geological periods were hotter, or cooler, and carbon dioxide was much higher. Then climate models are clearly being shown to "project too much warming," and climate modelers "have a vested self-interest in convincing people that climate modeling is accurate and worthy of continued funding." If taxpayer monies dried up, would climate-modelers even care about GWCC? The Coronavirus Crisis Exposes Faulty Climate Models. During the Coronavirus crisis, human CO2 emissions have dropped sharply, and, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global emissions will drop by 8% in 2020. However, so far, there is no sign of slowing growth of CO2 in the atmosphere. The crisis may, therefore, falsify one of the basic assumptions of the climate models, namely that our carbon emissions are what is causing the CO2 level in the atmosphere to rise. Greenies panicking over the discrediting of computer models predicting disaster. We have learned the hard way that the scientists who produce mathematical models predicting disaster are not to be granted the presumption of infallibility. Nor are their demands that we impoverish ourselves in order to avert a disaster a matter of "settled science." The coronavirus doom that the Cassandras of prestigious scientific organs predicted is nowhere to be found, and it turns out that models are based on assumptions and can be spectacularly wrong. Americans have sacrificed trillions of dollars and turned our lives upside-down based on predictions of millions of deaths if we didn't follow radically change our way of life, based on the pandemic predictions of modelers in the U.K. and USA. How embarrassing for the modelers that tell us we have to make even deeper sacrifices for a global warming disaster that is decades away, if it ever develops. You can smell their panic in this planned propaganda blitz from the Olympian heights of the media establishment. Ch Updated Analysis Shows Climate Models Continue to Predict Too Much Warming. A newly published paper, titled "Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections," mistakenly claims climate models have been remarkably accurate predicting future temperatures. [...] The paper examines predictions made by 17 climate models dating back to 1970. The paper asserts 14 of the 17 were remarkably accurate, with only three having predicted too much warming. One of the paper's key assertions is that global emissions have risen more slowly than commonly forecast, which the authors claim explains why temperatures are running colder than the models predicted. The authors compensate for this by adjusting the predicted model temperatures downward to reflect fewer-than-expected emissions. Yet fewer-than-expected greenhouse gas emissions undercut the climate crisis narrative. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already reduced its initial projection of 0.3 degrees Celsius of warming per decade to merely 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. Keeping in mind that skeptics have typically predicted approximately 0.1 degree Celsius of warming per decade, the United Nations has conceded skeptics have been at least as close to the truth with their projections as the United Nations. Moreover, global temperatures are likely only rising at a pace of 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade, which is even closer to skeptic predictions. There is no global climate crisis. Dr. Patrick Micheals, holder of a doctorate degree in ecological climatology, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, holder of another degree in plant biology, a member of a UN panel on climate which won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 — and the list goes on. He is without a doubt one of the few genuine experts in the world on climate. He stated there are 31 computer models used to predict climate and weather change. However, he also said they are all "fudged" or "parameterized" and misleading. Ironically, the only accurate model is the Russian one. It most closely shows what has happened with climate. The truth is planet temperature has risen only nine-tenths of 1 degree in the past 100 years. The earth is nowhere near as warm as some scientists and too many non-science experts would have us believe. New climate models — even more wrong. By a remarkable coincidence, two new papers have just appeared, from independent teams, giving very similar results and published on the same day in the same journal. One is UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model, with a long list of authors, mostly from the Met Office, also announced as a "New flagship climate model" on the Met Office website. The other is Structure and Performance of GFDL's CM4.0 Climate Model, by a team from GFDL and Princeton. Both papers are open-access. Now you might think that the new models would be better than the old ones. This is mathematical modelling 101: if a model doesn't fit well with the data, you improve the model to make it fit better. But such elementary logic doesn't apply in the field of climate science. If Climate Scenarios Are Wrong For 2020, Can They Get 2100 Right? How we think and talk about climate policy is profoundly shaped by 31 different computer models which produce a wide range of scenarios of the future, starting from a base year of 2005. With 2020 right around the corner, we now have enough experience to ask how well these models are doing. Based on my preliminary analysis reported below, the answer appears to be not so well. Canada's global warming models threw out actual historical data and substituted models of what the temperature should have been. Environment Canada, led by Justin Trudeau-appointed Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, is all-in on the hypothesis that manmade global warming is an existential threat to humanity. It is so important to hand control of energy use to the government that mere actual, historical data that might raise doubt about the extent of purported warming over time must be thrown out and replaced by "models" of what the "scientists" think the historical temperature record must have been. In other words, the computer models Canada uses to measure and project "global warming" are themselves based on other computer models. The expression "Garbage in / garbage out" refers to the vulnerability of all computer models to poor quality data used as the basis of their calculations. The raises the awkward question of the quality of the models used in place of actual historical data. And it raises the question of why this scrapping of actual data and substituting of guesses (aka, models) was not made clear from the outset. The best computers in the world cannot predict the path of a hurricane. The Editor says... The great failure of the climate models. Computer models of the climate are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap, reliable energy that powers our thriving economy and promotes healthier, longer lives. For decades, these models have projected dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences. Yet, the real-world data aren't cooperating. They show only slight warming, mostly at night and in winter. According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. Great Lakes Reveal a Fatal Flaw in Climate Change 'Science'. Climate scientists can blame anything they want on global warming. The climate models are imprecise enough that no matter what is happening they can point to it as proof that man-made climate change is happening. Too much rain, too little rain, bitterly cold winters, mild winters, more snow, less snow, rising water levels, falling water levels — they can attribute "climate change" as a cause of it all. Conservatives Must Stand Up to Climate Change Bullying. Concerns about dangerous human-caused global warming are based on only one thing: computer model forecasts of the future. But these models simply do not work, having predicted three times the warming that has actually occurred between 1979 and 2017. Contrary to Graham's assertion that "the science is sound," our understanding of the science is so poor that we do not even know what mathematical equations to program into the models. Global Warming and Bad Data. As programmers say, garbage in, garbage out. That's how members of the Cult of Global Warming are able to use bad data to get their climate models to produce whatever results help advance their agenda. [Video clip] Climate-Modeling Illusions [are] Not Based on Reality. [T]he man-caused global warming or climate change panic may well be the best hobgoblin ever conceived. It has half the world clamoring to be led to safety from climate change without a shred of physical evidence. Every single statement issued to support these fearmongering claims presented in a new 1,500-page report from 13 separate agencies of the federal government by 300 Obama-appointed scientists, has no basis in physical measurements or observations. What they do have are mathematical equations considered to be models of the Earth's climate. However, they have only a handful of the hundreds of variables that impact climate and the numbers inserted for the arbitrarily selected variables are little more than guesses. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has financed more than one hundred efforts to model our climate for the better part of three decades, with none coming close to actual results. Widely Reported Alarming Ocean Warming Study Is Wrong. A major error in an alarming study published in Nature on October 31 suggesting that "ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates, with implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases and the thermal component of sea-level rise." [...] Dire headlines warning that catastrophic global warming was more likely than previously thought ensued. However, British climate researcher and statistician Nicholas Lewis re-crunched the numbers in the study and found that Resplandy and her team had made significant errors in their calculations. [...] Now co-author Scripps Institution of Oceanography climate scientist Ralph Keeling has acknowledged that Lewis is at least partially right and the reseachers are preparing a correction to their original article (apparently not yet published). The Oceans Are Boiling! Oh, Wait — Never Mind. About ten days back Nature magazine generated a lot of media attention for a study it published that purported to prove that the oceans were warming considerably faster than previously thought — up to 60 percent more. Naturally this set off the climatistas ("The study drew considerable media attention, including from The Post," as the Washington Post laconically put it), as though they need additional confirmation of their eschatology. There's just one problem — one big problem. The study is riddled with errors. In a long blog post at Judith Curry's website, Nic Lewis blew big holes in the paper. Global Warming: Another Doomsday Climate Model Flunks A Math Test. Everyone makes mistakes, but some mistakes are bigger than others. That's the case with a recent study based on a climate model that claimed the oceans had retained 60% more warming than previously thought. It made headlines around the world with its alarming conclusion. The study itself, by no fewer than ten authors, made sweeping claims. The authors wrote that the study held "implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases and the thermal component of sea-level rise." In other words, this study is a game-changer that policy makers ignored at their own — and our — peril. Media around the world seized upon the report as yet another indicator of climate-change doom and runaway global warming. No surprise, since most of the media faithfully adhere to the Holy Church of Global Warming. Major Math Error Puts Widely-Cited Global Warming Study On Ice. An widely-circulated study which concluded that global warming is far worse than previously thought has been called into question by a math error, reports the Daily Caller's Michael Bastasch. Princeton scientist Laure Resplandy and researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography concluded in October that the Earth's oceans have retained 60% more heat than previously thought over the last 25 years, suggesting global warming was much worse than previously believed. The report was covered or referenced by MSM outlets worldwide, including the Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, Reuters and others. 4 Reasons Why 'Climate Change' Is a Flat-Out Hoax. [#3] A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions: As reported by Fox News, a 2015 report published in the journal Nature Climate Change compared 117 computer model projections during the 1990s with the amount of actual warming that occurred. Of the 117, only three were roughly accurate, while 114 over-estimated the recorded warming. (The lopsided results suggest that those doing the modeling may have been guilty of using an unscientific technique known as garbage in, garbage out.) On average, the computer models predicted twice as much warming as that which actually occurred. The wildly inaccurate predictions reported by Nature Climate Change were not alone. In a terrifying May 11, 1982 prediction trumpeted in the Western media, Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) decreed that an environmental "tipping point" was closing in: "Earth faces environmental disaster as final as nuclear war by the end of this century unless governments act now." That bone-chilling assessment was seconded seven years later, in July 1989, by another senior U.N. climate official, Noel Brown, who warned: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by 2000." Climate models that can't predict climate. Last week we learned that the greenhouse effect is a diminishing effect. Why, then, do we hear all these catastrophic predictions? These claims of CO2 leading to runaway warming and catastrophic climate change are based on speculative climate models that include additional drivers of warming to the greenhouse effect. It's important to keep in mind that these models often contradict each other, both in their assumptions about key elements of climate like cloud formation and the role of aerosols, and in their predictions. Even more important, though, is that the models that include these speculative drivers of warming have a terrible track record when it comes to predicting actual climate trends. Is 100 Percent Renewable Energy Possible? Since 1997, the warming of the Earth has been too low, by a factor of eight, compared to the warming expected according to the claims of the believers in global warming as published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. All the claims that global warming is advancing according to predictions are simply lies. The measured temperature data, according to the most accurate method of measuring the Earth's temperature, provide no support for global warming theory. The strong global warming from 1910 to 1940, when CO2 was not an issue, cannot be explained by the computer models, casting further doubt on the theory. But global warming is a huge bonanza for the scientists promoting the idea. There Is No Unprecedented Global Modern Warming. There are two kinds of climate science that we are dealing with. One is based on satellite measurements and thermometer readings and recorded history. The other is based on computer programs, based, I believe on computer programs that were designed to forecast what the financial markets were going to do. They took what they knew about the climate, and put that in, and they put in thermometer readings from weather stations all over our country and from around the world. There were problems with that because a lot of them were placed where concrete paving and buildings reflected heat, and some were next to air-conditioning outlets, others next to trash burners, so the readings weren't all that useful. Then there are lots of things that they don't understand completely, like the extent to which the warming from the sun is affected by clouds. Model falsifiability and climate slow modes. The most advanced climate models are actually modified meteorological models attempting to capture climate in meteorological terms. This seems a straightforward matter of raw computing power applied to large enough sources of current data. Some believe that models have succeeded in capturing climate in this manner. But have they? This paper outlines difficulties with this picture that derive from the finite representation of our computers, and the fundamental unavailability of future data instead. It suggests that alternative windows onto the multi-decadal timescales are necessary in order to overcome the issues raised for practical problems of prediction. Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare. [Scroll down] There is indeed an elementary error of physics right at the heart of the models' calculations of equilibrium sensitivity. After correcting that error, and on the generous assumption that official climatology has made no error other than that which we have exposed, global warming will not be 3.3 ± 1.2 K: it will be only 1.2 ± 0.15 K. We say we can prove it. Climate model GIGO. The media continually runs alarming reports about the climate. The little known fact is that what is being reported is based on computer simulations derived from the most extreme projections of other computer simulations; none of this grounded in observational reality. CFACT contributor David Wojick worked with climatologist Patrick Michaels to survey the use of computer models in science. They uncovered a stunning fact. "Less than 4% of the science, the climate change part, is doing about 55% of the modeling done in the whole of science." Global Warming: Who Are The Deniers Now? A new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience purports to support action by global governments to reduce carbon dioxide output in order to lower potential global warming over the next 100 years or so. But what it really does is undercut virtually every modern argument for taking radical action against warming. Why? The study admits that the 12 major university and government models that have been used to predict climate warming are faulty. "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models," said Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford and one of the authors of the study. "We haven't seen that in the observations." Another Major Study Confirms The IPCC's Climate Models Were Wrong. Another group of prominent climate scientists have published research claiming humanity may have a couple extra decades before pushing the world past what the U.N. calls "dangerous" levels of global warming. However, the importance of the study isn't in future projections — which always have high amounts of uncertainty — but rather in its endorsement of the new "consensus" on global warming. The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, provides more confirmation the climate models are running too hot and could not predict the 15-year "hiatus" in global warming. Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests. Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output. An unexpected "revolution" in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook. Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Editor says... Hurricanes, Climate Models, and Wild Guesses. Weather and climate are incredibly complex, and as a result, not easily predictable. You can predict tomorrow's weather by saying it will be the same as today's weather and be correct much of the time. Hurricanes in the next few days or climate in a century are not as easy to forecast. Which is why Al Gore and others have failed spectacularly in their doomsday prognostications. Melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels flooding cities, superstorms, and droughts. All based on what? Some computer model that has no track record of correctly predicting future events? The reality is that weather and climate cannot be predicted with accuracy, at least given our current knowledge. Climate Models Over-Estimated Warming. Climate models were wrong and being updated to better reflect the results of satellite temperature measurements that confirmed a slowdown in temperature rises over the past two decades, a group of leading climate scientists has said. Agenda Behind Global Warming Alarmism. There is plenty of other evidence that CO2 is trivial to climate change. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, providing 96 to 98% of any greenhouse effect. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere — and 97% of CO2 is produced by nature, not mankind. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, even insects and bacteria produce CO2 as well as methane, another greenhouse gas. Termites alone emit far more CO2 than all the factories and automobiles in the world (See Science Nov. 5, 1982.) Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. If we could eliminate not only all human use of fossil fuels but all natural sources of greenhouse gases as well, 96% of any greenhouse effect would still remain, because of water vapor. Carbon dioxide produces only tiny changes in atmospheric temperature; however, all computer models projecting "runaway" global warming are based on the small warming from CO2 being amplified by water vapor. But such an amplification has never occurred even with much higher levels of CO2. At the time of the dinosaurs, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was 3 to 5 times what it is today, but there was no runaway global warming. Questioning the Greenhouse Effect: The New Consensus: The Global Warming Hiatus Was Real. Many Warmists did actually say there was a Pause, then would provide all sorts of excuses as to why it occurred and why this totally doesn't mean that we're not all doomed in the future. Usually, their excuses would involve things like it being caused by nature, which brings to mind a significant question: "if the Pause was caused by natural variation, why can't most of the warming be due to natural variation?" What is notable here is that they are admitting that the models are, in a simple word, [faulty]. 95% of them were wrong. Trump's EPA Chief Backs Approach to Science That Could Upend the Global Warming 'Consensus'. "My own analysis concerning 102 climate model runs is as clear as it can be — the theory has failed the simplest of scientific tests," [John] Christy said. "None of the august scientific societies crunched through the huge volumes of model output and observational data to perform such tests." Earth Day: Celebrating pseudo-science. Science is based on skepticism, and a respect for the limits of our knowledge. Global temperatures have increased slightly over the past century, and there is solid evidence that human activity has contributed to that warming. But there is no consensus on how much. The models used to predict future warming have already been proven to be wildly inaccurate. Yet those who want government to impose massive, costly regulations on how we generate energy will use tomorrow's Earth Day festivities to hold a March for Science. They would have us believe that political questions should be settled by scientists. How Leonardo DiCaprio Can Persuade Me on Climate Change. Climate scientists tell us that there are hundreds of climate models, all somewhat different. I assume that most of them do a good job predicting the past (hindcasting) because otherwise they would not be models at all. Hindcasting is one minimum requirement for being a model in this field, I would assume. Then science ignores the models that are too far off from observed temperatures as we proceed into the future and check the predictions against reality. Sometimes scientists also "tune" the models to hindcast better, meaning tweaking assumptions. As a non-scientists, I can't judge whether or not the tuning and tweaking are valid from a scientific perspective. But I can judge that this pattern is identical to known scams. I described the known scams in [another] post. And to my skeptical mind, it sounds fishy that there are dozens or more different climate models that are getting tuned to match observations. That doesn't sound credible, even if it is logically and scientifically sound. Democrats' Real Global Warming Fraud Revealed. Fortunately, high-tech research has finally sorted out the "mystery factor" in our recent climate changes — and it's mostly not CO2. Even redoubling carbon dioxide, by itself, would raise earth's temperature only 1.1 degree. That's significant, but not dangerous. CERN, the world's top particle physics laboratory, just found that our big, abrupt climate changes are produced by variations in the sun's activity. That's the same sun the modelers had dismissed as "unchanging." When Is a Fact Not a Fact? Some zealots insist that they can foresee the future and that their knowledge of the climate's future is "settled science." Yet, we have it on the highest philosophical authority that predictions cannot be facts. Ludwig Wittgenstein famously said that, while today's weather is a fact, tomorrow's weather is a hypothesis — to be verified or falsified by empirical data. Similarly, today's climate is a fact. Tomorrow's climate is a hypothesis. The next century's climate is, frankly speaking, a prophecy. All of the world's computer simulations cannot make it into a fact. Why else would they call them "simulations?" Columbia University's Climate: A Visit to an Alternate Universe. The subway stop at 116th Street in Manhattan is for Columbia University. Is this subway stop a wormhole to an alternate universe, where people look like everyone else but are possessed by strange ideas and incomprehensible ways of thinking? My journey to 116th Street was to attend a lecture titled "What Would it Mean to Understand Climate Change?" [...] The first speaker, Isaac Held, was the only scientist. Held is deeply involved with the computer climate models that are the foundation for the predictions of climate doom. Apparently, nearly everyone at Columbia University, judging from the speakers and the audience, has accepted the message from the computers as absolute truth. Held's talk was meandering and difficult to understand. His thesis is that there are a hierarchy of stories explaining climate change. At the most complicated level are the computer climate models.
New York Times Is Looking For A Climate Change Editor. That's Me! Please accept my application for the position of Climate Change Editor, the details of which I saw on line. [...] [J]ust as you want, I'm "obsessed with finding new ways to connect with readers and new ways to tell this vital story." For instance, here's an angle you haven't so far considered. We could show readers that global warming models have failed at higher rates than Larry King's marriages. Budget forecasts by President Obama are more accurate than the temperatures predicted by global climate models (GCMs). A smart man would trust a GCM as much as he would a politician's campaign promise. Five'll get you twenty, your readers don't know how lousy the models are. Climate science appears to be obsessively focused on modeling. There are roughly 900,000 peer reviewed journal articles that use at least one of the words model, modeled or modeling. This shows that there is indeed a widespread use of models in science. No surprise in this. However, when we filter these results to only include items that also use the term climate change, something strange happens. The number of articles is only reduced to roughly 55% of the total. In other words it looks like climate change science accounts for fully 55% of the modeling done in all of science. This is a tremendous concentration, because climate change science is just a tiny fraction of the whole of science. In the U.S. Federal research budget climate science is just 4% of the whole and not all climate science is about climate change. The Truth Warming Alarmists Don't Want You To Know About The Climate Models. Computer models have an important place in science. They are useful in helping us understand our world, but models themselves aren't science. Encyclopaedia Britannica says "scientific models at best are approximations of the objects and systems that they represent," but "they are not exact replicas." In the case of climate models, they are not even close to being approximate replicas. "There can be too much of a good thing," scholars Patrick J. Michaels and David E. Wojick wrote last week in a Cato At Liberty blog post about climate models. And in climate science, the "good thing" has become the dominant thing. Does an Accurate Climate Model Exist? Global warming alarmism is predicated not on observation and empiricism, but on models and religious faith. The problem is that the models have now been around long enough to be either confirmed or falsified, and they are refuted by observation. The alarmists have tried to blur this fact by surreptitiously changing land temperature records to make the past look cooler and the present warmer, but this is at best a holding action. Our one accurate, transparent and un-tampered with set of data — satellite temperature measurements — is now 37 years old. That is enough time to test the alarmists' models, which rely on fanciful positive feedback effects to magnify the small and almost certainly beneficial consequences of increased atmospheric CO2 into a nightmare scenario. Climate Crisis and Political Power. Sound science produces predictions that come true. The science behind climate change does not. Indeed, the experts have been proven wrong time and time again. Around the time of the first Earth Day, scientists were predicting a coming ice age. Then, as global average temperatures rose in the 1980's, global warming became the big threat. Al Gore in 2005 predicted that the polar ice caps would be gone by 2015, leading to a catastrophic rise in sea levels. But in 2015, the polar ice caps were not gone. They were, in fact, above the average for the period since 1979. The computer climate models predict steady warming. But the warming stopped in 1998. If the computer models cannot accurately predict what is now the past, why should we rely on them to predict the future? That's exactly why the threat of "global warming" suddenly became the threat of "climate change," a much more generalized — indeed, fuzzy — term. Study: Climate Forecasts May Be Flawed. Predictions of unprecedented rainfall extremes in the 20th century driven by global warming turned out wrong, a study said Wednesday, casting doubt on methods used to project future trends. A massive trawl of Northern Hemisphere rainfall data for the last 1,200 years revealed there had been more dramatic wet-dry weather extremes in earlier, cooler centuries before humans set off fossil fuel-driven global warming. The Model Atmosphere and Global Warming. The three basic components of the scientific method — observation, hypothesis, and testing — still hold, but in many cases the testing portion has been abetted, if not in some cases usurped, by models. As many challengers of the manmade disastrous global warming hypothesis can attest, the "evidence" for a worldwide climate catastrophe is founded upon the results of atmospheric models. Yet, can such results be trusted enough to direct trillions of dollars in the years ahead to shift the energy sector and redistribute financial resources? After all, as University of Pittsburgh virologist John Mellors asserted in a recent article about HIV treatment in Science ("Researchers claim to find HIV sanctuaries," January 29, 2016), "You can use a model to support anything you want, but you can prove nothing... You can model that the sun orbits the Earth." Atmospheric models have tremendous difficulty simulating key elements of the hydrologic cycle like cloud cover and precipitation patterns. Such components are obviously important to decades-hence projections heavily relied upon for drastic global public policy decisions. Climate forecasts may be flawed, says study. Predictions of unprecedented rainfall extremes in the 20th century driven by global warming turned out wrong, a study said Wednesday, casting doubt on methods used to project future trends. A massive trawl of Northern Hemisphere rainfall data for the last 1,200 years revealed there had been more dramatic wet-dry weather extremes in earlier, cooler centuries before humans set off fossil fuel-driven global warming. Climate data since Vikings cast doubt on more wet, dry extremes. Climate records back to Viking times show the 20th century was unexceptional for rainfall and droughts despite assumptions that global warming would trigger more wet and dry extremes, a study showed on Wednesday [4/6/2016]. Climate-change models wrong on predicting rain, drought extremes: study. A newly released international study debunks climate models on global warming that forecast extreme rainfall and drought tied to temperature swings, casting doubt on disaster scenarios promoted by the climate-change movement. The study in the journal Nature published Thursday [4/7/2016] examining Northern Hemisphere rainfall data going back 1,200 years found that today's climate models were frequently wrong on predicting extreme rain and drought. In the 20th century, for example, higher-than-average temperatures failed to produce wet-dry extremes, which contradicts the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's consensus that global warming will make dry areas drier and wet areas wetter. Climate-change models wrong on predicting rain, drought extremes: study. A newly released international study debunks climate models on global warming that forecast extreme rainfall and drought tied to temperature swings, casting doubt on disaster scenarios promoted by the climate-change movement. The study in the journal Nature published Thursday [4/7/2016] examining Northern Hemisphere rainfall data going back 1,200 years found that today's climate models were frequently wrong on predicting extreme rain and drought. Global Warming "Science": New Study Reveals Large Temperature Fabrication By Cherry-Pick. Recently, RSS satellite scientists decided they needed to proactively adjust atmospheric temperatures in order to rid the world of the widely reported global warming hiatus. It's a pause of insignificant warming that has existed since the major El Niño of 1998 that the 2015 El Niño recently stopped. Thus, they produced a new study refuting their previous reported satellite temperature measurements for the mid-troposphere going back to 1979. For the period from 1979 to 1997, these scientists saw little need for major adjustments to their earlier RSS dataset. Yet for the global warming pause period stretching from 1998 to 2014, significant adjustments apparently had to be made, stat. How fast will future warming be? Climatologists currently rely on large-scale general circulation models to project temperature trends over the coming years and decades. Economists used to rely on large-scale macroeconomic models for forecasting, but in the 1970s an increasing divergence between models and reality led practitioners to move away from such macro modelling in favour of relatively simple statistical time-series forecasting tools, which were proving to be more accurate. In a possible parallel, recent years have seen growing interest in the application of statistical and econometric methods to climatology. This report provides an explanation of the fundamental building blocks of so-called 'ARIMA' models, which are widely used for forecasting economic and financial time series. It then shows how they, and various extensions, can be applied to climatological data. Scientists Finally Admit Climate Models Are Failing To Predict Global Warming. A group of scientists recently put out a new study confirming the 15-year "hiatus" in global warming. That study made headlines, but what went largely unnoticed was a major admission made by the paper's authors: the climate models were wrong. "There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing," John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. "We can't ignore it." This Discovery will Change the Climate Debate. The basic climate model, used to calculate the Earth's sensitivity to carbon dioxide, dates back to 1896. It is the cornerstone of the carbon dioxide theory of global warming. Predating computer simulations, it applies "basic physics" to the climate. The idea that "it's the physics" makes the carbon dioxide theory impregnable in the minds of the establishment. Two serious architectural errors were discovered in the basic climate model. Fixing the architecture but keeping the basic physics, future warming due to carbon dioxide was found to be a fifth to a tenth of official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since the 1970s was due to increasing carbon dioxide. The conventional climate models decrease the heat emitted to space by water vapor when the carbon dioxide concentration increases, which amplifies the surface warming and is responsible for more than half of the officially projected warming. The improved model finds instead that the heat trapped by extra carbon dioxide just reroutes to space from water vapor instead, and there is little surface warming. The empirical evidence on what has been happening with water vapor for the last few decades supports the improved model and contradicts the conventional climate models. Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time. In 1990 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was predicting that if emissions rose in a "business as usual" way, which they have done, then global average temperature would rise at the rate of about 0.3 degree Celsius per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 degree C per decade). In the 25 years since, temperature has risen at about 0.1 to 0.2 degree C per decade, depending on whether surface or satellite data is used. The IPCC, in its most recent assessment report, lowered its near-term forecast for the global mean surface temperature over the period 2016 to 2035 to just 0.3 to 0.7 degree C above the 1986-2005 level. That is a warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degree C per decade, in all scenarios, including the high-emissions ones. At the same time, new studies of climate sensitivity — the amount of warming expected for a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from 0.03 to 0.06 percent in the atmosphere — have suggested that most models are too sensitive. Climate Fraud Implodes as Slight Order-of-Magnitude-Sized Math Error Discovered. A mathematical discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month. A former climate modeller for the Government's Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science. He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly. He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought. The pope, the globe and the facts. Pope Francis accepts as a matter of scientific doctrine that the Earth is warming and that humans are responsible for it. Yet near the end of the encyclical, he confesses that "the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics." Which is it? [...] Is it worth radically altering our economies and lifestyles and giving government even more power over us for a climate change faith that has not been fully debated and is problematic at best and wrong at worst? Before rushing ahead with legal mandates, it would be useful to consider "scientific" predictions from the past that have proven wrong. [...] The UN claimed in 1982 and 1989 we had reached environmental tipping points. Most of these Chicken Little fantasies are based on computer models, not actual temperature readings. New York Times Op-Ed: It Was a Mistake to Believe the Hockey Stick. Richard Muller, a professor of physics at Berkeley said it, not us. His point is that the warming pause wouldn't be considered a big deal if it weren't for the hockey stick.
Global Warming Not Proceeding As Planned. Global warming isn't cooperating with their plans to scare the rest of the world into submission. Their complicated models on global warming and how it will affect climate change are being shown as flawed. That's the polite way of describing them. I believe they would be more aptly described as a pack of lies, designed to enrich those who are manipulating the data to get the desired results. How else can you describe Al Gore and his untold wealth, gleaned from his rantings on global warming? Global
Warming has Temporarily 'Paused' due to Climate Fluctuations and Weaker Solar Irradiance. Global
warming has been temporarily 'paused' according to a group of scientists, who attribute this interlude to climate
fluctuations and a more restrained sun. Researchers at ETH Zurich have explained the two reasons behind the
warming hiatus in their study published in the latest issue of the journal Nature Geoscience. The first is
that global temperatures, which rose significantly in the 1990s, have only risen very slightly since 1998 —
which has been used by sceptics to question climate change and the models used to measure it. However,
climate fluctuations such as El Niওo and its counter-phenomenon La Niওa have been shown
to have caused the high in 1998 and following cooler years respectively. Climate models cannot predict
when exactly these fluctuations will happen. Confessions of a Computer Modeler. The climate debate is heating up again as business leaders, politicians and academics bombard us with the results of computer models that predict costly and dramatic changes in the years ahead. I can offer some insight into the use of computer models for public-policy debates, and a recommendation for the general public. German Geologist: IPCC Models A Failure, Sees Possible 0.2°C Of Cooling By 2020. [Geologist Dr. Sebastian] Lüning says that there is clearly a solar signal in climate over the millenniums, and therefore says the IPCC models have no chance of ever successfully modeling the climate. He says that the IPCC models have gotten worse, and not better. The EPA is Putting Environmental Politics Before Policy. The Obama administration placed its crosshairs right on the coal industry by mandating a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions at fossil fuel-burning power plants by 2030. [...] The Administration's position on the ever-changing climate is based only on un-validated, man-made computer models that have yet to produce climate forecasts that are accurate for periods as short as a decade. The scientific test of the man-made climate change hypothesis cannot be done with un-validated, constantly failing computer models but only by comparing the hypothesis to real, empirical observations of current and past CO2 and temperature relationships. This time-honored test indicates that "CO2 is the major cause of climate change" is false. Why Global Warming Alarmism Isn't Science. Science is not a set of dogmas, and it is not a pronouncement by a committee. It is a method. [...] The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is based entirely on models, which are programmed by their creators to predict disaster. But we know for a fact that the models are wrong, because they disagree with reality. When the facts collide with a theory, the facts win. Climate Change Is Real. Too Bad Accurate Climate Models Aren't. Unfortunately, climate models — ones that can accurately and consistently predict global temperatures in the not-so-distant future — simply don't exist in the present. Indeed, for a group that so nakedly appeals to the authority of "consensus," the faith-based global warming alarmist movement is shockingly impervious to the consensus of actual data. Common Sense and Climate Change. We see the power of Earth with every hurricane, tsunami, tornado, earthquake, and volcano. Man has yet to defeat any of these singular events. Our batting average is .000. Earth is pitching a perfect game against us. This is a commonsense analysis of climate change. It is based on the history of Earth's climate, not on a computer model trying to predict the future. Climate-predicting computer models are man-made, and their outcomes are self-serving for the men who designed them, while actual changes to the climate are the result of natural, cyclical forces, far beyond the control of man. Sad Track Record of Alarmist Climate Models Becoming Evident. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses 117 mathematical models to predict man's future impact on Earth's climate. The models do not agree with one another to any reasonable extent, and real-world temperatures continue to run lower than the models' predictions. That being the case, there is certainly no sound basis for using the climate models as a justification for economy-destroying restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. If a single climate model could accurately predict the future climate with a high confidence level, the United Nations would need only one such model. The U.N.'s reliance on 117 self-contradictory models clearly disputes the assertion "the science is settled." How Leftists (Badly) Explain Climate Stability. Much of the controversy about the question of man-caused global warming really has to do with the black box emulations that climatologists have created. It is important to recognize that such computer models are tautologies. They tell us the consequences of the assumptions that are built into them — nothing more. If a model's prediction diverges from measured reality, we know that something is wrong with one, or more, of its assumptions. This divergence does not tell us which assumptions are wrong — simply that at least one of them is wrong. That is all one needs to know to judge climate models. As it happens, these models have failed to predict today's temperature hiatus. They also fail to account for past temperature oscillations in the climate. Obama's Executive Order on Climate. On the surface, it might seem to make sense for the President to want to "do something" about climate events such as hurricanes, but there have always been hurricanes and blaming them and everything from droughts to wildfires on "climate change" is not just absurd, it is a deliberate lie that blames a rise in the amount of carbon dioxide, a so-called but incorrectly named "greenhouse gas", as the cause of these natural events. The President has issued an Executive Order to ramp up efforts to address "climate change." At the heart of the global warming hoax has been this carbon dioxide lie, but there has been no warming for over 17 years and the many computer models that predicted it were wrong; many were deliberately false. Computer Games and Global Warming. [Scroll down] Not only do the models disagree with each other, but they disagree with the Earth. Top climate scientist Kevin Trenberth says that "the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models." An objective observer would conclude that climate models are interesting laboratory curiosities that need a lot more work. But these models are the basis of predictions of global warming doom. We are supposed to believe that the science is solid, and that practically every scientist agrees that unless we quickly switch to solar and wind energy, terrible things will happen. It's all pathetic nonsense. The scientists who believe in the computerized predictions of doom have suspended their critical facilities in favor of the thrill of participating in a crusade. Climate change theories based on 'computer error'... Lord Lawson orders Met Office review. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), chaired by former Chancellor Lord Lawson, published a report today which argues the UK's official climate projections, known as UKCP09, are incorrect. Using research conducted by independent climate scientist Nic Lewis, the GWPF argues a flaw in the Met Office's computer climate model means it is bound to predict fairly high warming in the UK whatever observational data is used. Man Made Climate Change Arguments Don't Survive Scrutiny. As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we're in now, would be the strongest in 300 years. The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years. They could not have been more wrong. Computer models from the 1990s predicted that global average surface temperature would continue to increase after the year 2000. They were wrong. There has been no measured temperature increase since 1998. It Was a Dark and Stormy Climate Study. The same people who have spent two decades lobbying for multi-trillion-dollar global efforts to combat climate change on the basis of these computer models have responded to the good-news story by tut-tutting that atmospheric trends may be too complicated to be fully captured in any computer simulation. Now they tell us. Rise In Violence Linked To Poor Statistics. Or Climate Change. Problem with computers is that they are irredeemably stupid. The computer doesn't know anything: it can only do what it is told. And if it is told to take this set of numbers and that set of numbers and to mix them in a certain way, it will do it, creating pretty pictures of the result. And as computers get better, it can do these blind operations faster and produce prettier pictures. That's where the trouble starts. Computer modelling. Computers allow us to optimise designs in ways that were unavailable in times past. Nevertheless, the very flexibility of a computer program, the ease with which a glib algorithm can be implemented with a few lines of code and the difficulty of fully understanding its implications can pave the path to Cloud Cuckoo Land. Another uncertainty: different results on different computers using the same code. New peer reviewed paper finds the same global forecast model produces different results when run on different computers. Killing Giggles. Computer models have long predicted nasty effects from our production of greenhouse gasses. But the nasty effects have not appeared. As far as hurricanes, more hit the United States in the 1880s than recently. Why do people believe that global warming has already created bigger storms? Because when "experts" repeatedly tell us that global warming will wreck the Earth, we start to fit each bad storm into the disaster narrative that's already in our heads. IPCC Lead Author Says Climate Models Are Failing. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Hans von Storch told Der Spiegel that climate models are having a difficult time replicating the lack of global warming during the past 15 years. "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break," said Storch. Storch said the models say the planet should be warming much more than it has. Global Warming: There's Nothing To Fight Against. The junkyard of failed green energy efforts is stacked high with the carcasses of Solyndra, A123 Systems Inc., Ener1, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt and AES subsidiary Eastern Energy, to name some of the many defeats. Making the losses sting even more is the fact there has been no reason to hurry the development of green energy. The feared warming predicted by models simply hasn't materialized. 12 Reasons Why The Met Office Is Alarmed. The Met Office's temperature forecasts issued in 12 out of the last 13 years have been too warm. None of the forecasts issued ended up too cold. That makes the errors systemic and significant. 12 good reasons to scrap the Met Office. Whenever it's criticised, the Met Office like nothing better than to have its extensive PR operation (funded with the help of the £200 million we pay the Met Office each year out of our taxes) go into extreme denial mode, knowing that its mendacious, straw-man-filled defence will be reported uncritically everywhere from the BBC and the Guardian to the New Statesman. Global-warming Computer Models Fail as Temps Remain Stable. "If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies," the environment editor for Australia's largest newspaper quipped March 30, "then climate sensitivity — the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels — would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded." The Australian for March 30 concluded that "the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted."
Bad Science and Bad Journalism are a Bad Combination. Predictions such as appeared in Science are utterly bogus. They are based on rigged computer models which have been constantly exposed for their lies. Both the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. government engage in this fraud. Climate seers as blind guides. The science of forecasting is complex. After 50 years spent studying the issue, I have found there is plenty of experimental evidence that in complex, uncertain situations, experts cannot forecast better than those with little expertise. Climate Change Models Got It Wrong, Say Researchers. The global warming models, as we have said repeatedly, are hopelessly flawed. Earth is not going to heat up as they have projected. Scientific research out of Norway confirms this. Leaked IPCC Graph Shows Models Predicting Too Much Warming. United Nations officials have repeatedly predicted more warming than has occurred in the real world, according to a leaked copy of a draft United Nations climate report. [...] IPCC officials "have way over-estimated the extent of Global Warming since the IPCC first started issuing Assessment Reports in 1990, and continuing through the fourth report issued in 2007," Ph.D. scientist Ira Glickstein wrote in a guest post on meteorologist Anthony Watt's Web site, Watts Up With That? Climate Computer Models Are Proven Wrong. Global warming hysteria is based on climate computer models that don't work. If outgoing radiation from the atmosphere is reduced to less than the incoming radiation from the Sun, heat energy will accumulate in the climate system causing rising temperatures. The models assume CO2 emissions will cause water vapour, the strongest greenhouse gas, to increase in the upper atmosphere, trapping the radiation. They also assume clouds will trap more radiation. But satellite and weather balloon data shows just the opposite of the climate model predictions. Climate Change Draft Undermines U.N.'s Claims. [Scroll down] While the IPCC works overtime to spin the Rawls leak, another headache has emerged for the group. Figure 1.4 from the draft shows that the models used to predict warming have projected temperatures higher than the observed temperatures we've seen. The chart also shows that observed temperatures, rather than climbing ever upward, are where they were 15 years ago. Skeptic Anthony Watts calls the chart a bombshell. The media have yawned. Earths Energy Balance measured — models are wrong. For all the data we can scrape out of rocks, shells and cylinders of ice, what we really need to know, in detail on a planetary scale, is how much energy comes in and how much goes out. That can only be measured (even roughly) with satellites. This paper rattles the whole table of key numbers, with empirical results. It puts core numbers into a new perspective, numbers like the 3.7 Watts per square meter that a doubling of CO2 is supposed to add to the surface budget. Govt Funded Climate Models Continue Abysmal Performance. Government bureaucrat-scientists and their expert "global warming" climate models, based on levels of atmospheric CO2, continue to prove an astounding incompetence — billions of taxpayer monies wasted on failed computer simulations that can't predict global temperatures. Models, Not Climate, Are Hypersensitive to Carbon Dioxide. The Kyoto Protocol is expiring this year, having accomplished what climate skeptics expected — nothing. Manmade greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric greenhouse are up while global temperature have gone nowhere, the latter a trend that started years before Kyoto went into effect. But before the international climate kleptocracy descends en masse to its next exotic location (Doha, Qatar in November 2012) to try breathing life into the Kyoto Protocol, someone should check under the hood to review what is trying to be achieved and why.Don't be mean to climate models — they're hypersensitive! We conclude Earth's fully equilibrated surface response to 2xCO2 is expected to be less than 0.4°C. A state of climate emergency from enhanced greenhouse does not exist. New paper finds clouds act as a negative feedback and cause significant cooling. A paper published today [7/5/2012] in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that a natural atmospheric oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, is correlated to significant increases in cloud cover resulting in "large scale" local cooling of approximately -2.5°C. All climate models falsely assume clouds result in net positive feedback and increased temperatures, however this new paper and several others show clouds instead result in net negative feedback and cooling. Plants flower faster than climate change models predict. Scientific models are failing to accurately predict the impact of global warming on plants, says a new report. Researchers found in long-term studies that some are flowering up to eight times faster than models anticipate. The authors say that poor study design and a lack of investment in experiments partly account for the difference. Global Warming Dogma and the New Iron Triangle. [Scroll down] The scientific approach to solving this problem has been to create computer models of the Earth's atmosphere. These computer models don't work very well. The twenty or so laboratories around the world that do climate models are not eager to be candid about the shortcomings of their models. If you have been receiving large government grants for ten or twenty years to create climate models, you would surely be inclined to paint a pretty picture of your work. If your computer model is still lousy after ten years, the government might terminate your grant. Omitted variable fraud. [Scroll down] So the 50% driver of global temperature according to mountains of temperature correlation data is assumed to have 1/40th the warming effect of something whose warming effect is not even discernable in the temperature record. This is on the input side of the GCM's. The models aren't using gigaflops of computing power to find that CO2 has that much larger a warming effect. The warming ratio is fixed at the outset. Garbage in, garbage out. 
Concerned Scientists Reply on Global
Warming. These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the
earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their
extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options.
Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant. From the graph it
appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by
about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the
20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.Climate Change Believers Agree — Their Models Don't. Much of the alarmism about alleged climate change is predicated on computer models purporting to demonstrate that global surface temperatures are rising at an alarming rate and are certain to cause all manner of disaster, from droughts and frigid winters to floods and scorching summers. But how reliable are these models and their forecasts? Climate Witchcraft and Post-Normal Science. There are more than 20 climate modeling groups around the world. These groups each spend millions on programmers and supercomputers, searching for the value of climate sensitivity. They all get different answers, differing by a ratio of more than two to one. This failure of consensus would normally be considered a sign that the approach is not working. ... The climate models make predictions that cannot be tested because you would have to wait 50 or 100 years to see if the predictions are correct. Breaking News: The Climate Actually Changes! Cyclical, abrupt and dramatic global and regional temperature fluctuations have occurred over millions of years, long before humans invented agriculture, industries, internal combustion engines or carbon-trading schemes. Many natural factors are known to contribute to these changes, although even the most sophisticated climate models and theories cannot even begin to predict the timing, scale (either up or down) or future impacts — much less the marginal contributions of various human influences. The Politics of Global Warming. In 1989/1990 the Global Climate Models were being run on computers very much less powerful than those now available. Models were relatively primitive. They had virtually no inclusion of ocean/atmospheric interactions. When the alarmists came to see Allan Bromley and me, I asked how they could believe results if they were modeling climate without including, in any effective way, the ocean/air heat and mass transfer. That shortcoming was required of the models because of time step limitations imposed by the model elements and characteristics. They tried to argue the ocean wasn't that significant because the culprit was airborne CO2. I pointed out that the top couple of meters of the ocean had a thermal capacity greater than the entire atmosphere, and that the top 100 meters of ocean were generally well mixed and that the heat and mass transfer coupling at the interface was truly significant. Climate Debate Rejects Science For Ideology. Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems — from ocean currents to cloud formation — that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative. Warmist 'hockey stick' smashed up. Willis Eschenbach of climateaudit.org did some statistical analysis of his own. He asked: which of the Mannian temperature proxies actually carry the "hockey-stick" signal? The answer was devastating. Out of the 95 data series in the latest Mann paper that covered the entire last 1,000 years, only 25 carried the "hockey stick" signal. Three of these series are lake sediments in Finland which are corrupted by recent urban development and the rest are from bristle-cone pine trees in the US Southwest that have been challenged by other researchers. How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie. Those of you who saw An Inconvenient Truth may remember, if you weren't asleep by that stage, the key scene where big green Al deploys his terrifying graph to show how totally screwed we all are by man-made global warming. This graph — known as the Hockey Stick Curve — purports to show rising global temperatures through the ages. In the part representing the late twentieth century it shoots up almost vertically. ... [But] the graph — devised in 1998 by a US climatologist called Dr Michael Mann — is based on a huge lie, as Sceptics have been saying for quite some time. Study of Gravity Exposes Weakness of Alarmist Global Warming Theories. The amazing history of our understanding of gravity, which still remains quite incomplete, cannot help but make one recognize the total absurdity of the flawed mathematical models claiming to understand all-but-unknowable relationships between various complex physical aspects of our planet and, at the same time, predict global temperatures decades away when we have not mastered local temperatures a week away. The inconvenient lies of the IPCC: World leaders consistently cite the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the basis for their policies on energy and environment. … which is unfortunate because the IPCC position is based on an unproven theory tested with a computer model designed to prove the theory, but which consistently produces results that don't match reality. Ironically, it is their definitive positions and statements that provide the evidence for their tangled web. Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior? When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature, they have traditionally assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way around. To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth's climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions. This seemingly simple mix-up between cause and effect is the basis of a new paper that will appear in the "Journal of Climate." Sacrifices to the Climate Gods: Since we now have the scientific method, we rely on computer models to predict these future catastrophes rather than on our fears and prejudices. While this gives the illusion of modern objective precision, the truth is that all we have done is enlisted one of our modern idols — the computer — to justify what we want to believe anyway. And that fundamental belief is that anything mankind does to nature is inherently evil. The New Math on Global Warming: The eco-movement and Al Gore have been repeating the mantra that "the earth has warmed 0.6°C. in the last century." They claim this has been due to more human-emitted CO2, and project Big Warming on that basis. When we plug in the 1,500-year cycle, however, we have to take away from the scary computer models the 0.5° of warming that occurred before 1940 — and thus before much human-emitted CO2. The earth has warmed only a net 0.2°C. of net warming since 1940. Human-emitted CO2 gets the blame for only half of that — or 0.1°C. of warming over 65 years! We've had no warming at all since 1998. Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory. Global warming theory is a prediction based on complex mathematical models developed to explain the dynamics of the atmosphere. These models must account for a myriad of factors, and the resultant equations are so complex they cannot be solved explicitly or "analytically" but rather their solutions must be approximated "numerically" with computers. Over 31,000 U.S. Scientists Deny Man-Made Global Warming. The forecasts of desperate temperature increases all come from computer climate models, notes [Dr. Arthur] Robinson. But the computer models keep forecasting more warming than we get. In fact, 70 percent of the earth's recent warming occurred before 1940, while virtually all of humanity's greenhouse gas emission has occurred since that date. The Earth's net warming since 1940 is a tiny 0.2°C. Global Warming Myths vs Facts: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption — that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time. The Real 'Global Warming' Cause. Some scientists believe more than one million variables influence global climate. Water vapor (97%) is typically ignored because the climate models can't include clouds, and only 2% of all greenhouse gases are from human activity. Global Warming. It is true that global temperatures have risen over the past century, and ice sheets have been melting at the poles. But correlating these events with a cataclysmic disaster unleashed by man is a far more difficult stretch. The scariest predictions are based on computer models or simulations of future climate trend. Real world data, however, do not corroborate these nightmare scenarios. Real temperature records from satellites and weather balloons show no increasing temperatures in recent years. In fact, most of the modest increase that has occurred took place before 1940 and before the increase in manmade emissions of carbon dioxide. Similarly, scientists are skeptical of linking melting ice shelves or increased disease to global warming. The National Academy of Dubious Science. "Highly sophisticated computer models" means a really complicated guess. The computer models are programmed with simplified assumptions about how the climate works, then asked to project results 100 years into the future. These models are notorious for leaving out important factors — like clouds — and failing to predict today's actual weather. The target of the global warming theory, "greenhouse gas emissions," means coal, oil, natural gas, and just about everything else that we use to generate power. Key Global Warming Study Found Flawed. One of the most influential scientific studies supporting the case for man-made global warming has just been publicly condemned for "poor data handling, selective use of sources, reliance on obsolete versions of source data and erroneous statistical calculations." The disputed study's authors, led by Dr. Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, claimed the historically documented Medieval Climate Warming and Little Ice Age never happened. NASA Scientist Declares Climate Prediction Impossible. Dr. James Hansen — the same scientist who alarmed Americans in 1988 with claims that global warming would bring catastrophic temperature increases — has declared before the scientific community in a prestigious journal of the National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperature with climate models is all but impossible. The end of the fake consensus on global warming: The IPCC claimed the hockey stick "proved" unique 20th century global warming. But it didn't. [Edward] Wegman, who drew on the initial skepticism of two Canadians who questioned [Michael] Mann's statistical handling, found that Mann's "hockey stick" was the result of a statistical error — the statistical model actually mined data to produce the hockey stick and excluded contrary data. The 'consensus' on climate change is a catastrophe in itself. [Scroll down slowly] But then two Canadian computer analysts, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, got to work on how [Michael] Mann had arrived at his graph. When, with great difficulty, they eventually persuaded Mann to hand over his data, it turned out he had built into his programme an algorithm which would produce a hockey stick shape whatever data were fed into it. Even numbers from the phonebook would come out looking like a hockey stick. Garbage In, Garbage Out: On July 25, at a hearing of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee (the same folks who grill corporate executives), the nation found out how little real science there is about global warming. The hearing was prompted by the discovery that federal scientists were using computer models that they knew could not replicate U.S. temperatures. They appeared in two landmark documents that have served as the basis for very expensive and intrusive energy legislation. Science slows global warming! According to credulous journalist extraordinaire Katharine Sanderson (who has no degree in climatology), we are supposed to believe that "sophisticated climate chemistry models have shown that the (Montreal) Protocol has done much more than rescue the planet from sunburn." For all you great unwashed, the Montreal Protocol prohibited CFC's, which used to keep our refrigerators cold. Now we find out that not only has Montreal saved the world's ozone layer, but it has even postponed the dreaded catastrophe of Global Warming! Climate case built on thin foundation. Perhaps the increase in the processing power of [the IPCC's] computers has increased their confidence in the software they have been nurturing for years. Imagine, though, the consequences were they to imply that the accuracy of the models had not improved despite the extra funding. These models are said to require a human component to reasonably match historical temperatures and the modellers claim that this proves a human influence on climate, but the human factor is an input so a corresponding output is no surprise. A more plausible reason for the mismatch without this influence is that the models are incomplete and contain errors, but of course chapter nine could never admit this. United Nations Deceptions. The British newspaper, The Observer, had an article about the views of Dr. Rajendra Patchauri, the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "UN says eat less meat to curb global warming" was the headline. Dr. Patchauri — surprise, surprise — is a vegetarian. He also heads a UN agency whose "science" has been completely discredited, based as it is on computer models that conveniently massage their data to arrive at predetermined conclusions. That same data in the hands of other scientists tends to produce the opposite conclusion. Climate Data Disagree with Climate Models. A key problem is to establish the extent of the human contribution to climate change, especially in the past 25 years. This task involves the careful comparison of observations of surface (from land and oceans) and troposphere (from radiosondes and satellites) temperatures with climate models that incorporate all relevant forcings, including those from rising levels of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, uncertainties are still very large. Human sacrifices to global warming god. [Scroll down] Here is the latest on President Obama's plan — it could cost industry almost $2 trillion over an eight-year period. That hefty sum to be paid out to a cap-and-trade carbon tax would snatch money from the pockets of consumers far more than rising oil prices did, hinder economic growth and in still other ways generate human misery, and all in the name of what? Computer models that can't get anything right, that's what. Bogeymen of the CO2 hoax losing ground. The entire claim of human caused CO2 global warming is based on computer models that simply can't work. It's not surprising [James] Hansen and [Andrew] Weaver are computer modelers; they have the most invested in these claims and the most to lose professionally and politically. I watched over the years as computer modelers took over and dominated climate science, particularly through the IPCC. But as Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton, said in the May 1999 issue of the American Physical Society and still valid today, "They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate." It's the Climate Warming Models, Stupid! Unfortunately, unlike many other forms of modeling, climate models have yet to prove their wanted accuracy. For the most part, the reasons for their ongoing failure have everything to do with climate complexity. The climate is such an extraordinarily difficult dynamic system to be approximated by mathematical equations. There are literally thousands of components, all interacting in ways that we don't fully understand. Global Warmists' Sly Polar Disorder. If there's one thing climate alarmists have become quite good at, it's retrofitting both their computer models and the climate phenomena those models predict whenever they fail to do so correctly. And whether projecting increases in temperature, sea levels or atmospheric carbon dioxide — that means often. But some of the most brazen intellectual corruption warmists have committed under fire concerns the sometimes polar opposite trends of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. Will the Pentagon Fight Global Warming? In the 1970s, for instance, CIA analysts warned about massive migration and starvation that would be caused by the impending ice age. Moreover, these "findings" are based entirely on the predictions of highly speculative computer models that aim to predict global weather patterns up to 100 years into the future. It is important to note that none of these models predicted the slight cooling the planet has experienced over the last decade. New 'hockey stick' graph on climate change under fire. US Congressional inquiries on 'hockey stick' graph claim it is fundamentally flawed, writes Christopher Booker. A number of readers wrote in to express surprise at the recent letter from the US scientist Dr Michael Mann claiming that his famous "hockey stick" graph, showing temperatures having suddenly soared at the end of the 20th century to unprecedented levels, had been endorsed by the US National Academy of Sciences. Neither of the two Congressional inquiries involving the NAS did anything of the kind. Both found that the computer model used to create Dr Mann's "hockey stick", completely rewriting climate history, was fundamentally flawed. Only in Climate Science Can You Play With a Broken Hockey Stick. Facts proving humans are not causing global warming are not enough to stop the political juggernaut. Perhaps exposure of collusion among a small group of self-proclaimed climate scientists who continue to play with a broken stick will stop the madness forcing destructive economic policies. Garbage In, Gospel Out. Today, computer models predict everything from the stock market to virus outbreaks. And the sole basis for calls to pass cap-and-trade legislation, to drastically curb greenhouse-gas emissions, and to fundamentally reorient the world's energy economy are projections from the computer models employed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Unlike the Club of Rome's calculations, which tried to divine the relatively near future (2000), today's considerably more complicated climate models purport to tell us how the world will look nearly a century out. Evaluating the IPCC Model. [Scroll down] As political hysteria over "man-made" or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) increased, other scientists began checking the mathematical analysis and measurements behind the hockey stick chart because it did not correlate with other known historical temperature data. In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects" — substantially affecting the temperature index. None Dare Call It Fraud. With virtually no actual evidence to link CO2 and global warming, the climate chaos community has to rely increasingly on computer models. However, the models do a poor job of portraying an incredibly complex global climate system that scientists are only beginning to understand; assume carbon dioxide is a principle driving force; inadequately handle cloud, solar, precipitation and other critical factors; and incorporate assumptions and data that many experts say are inadequate or falsified. The models crank out (worst-case) climate change scenarios that often conflict with one another. Not one correctly forecast the planetary cooling that began earlier this century, as CO2 levels continued to climb. Climategate's Perry Mason Moment. [Scroll down] First, by admitting that we "are nowhere close" to understanding atmospheric energy flows, the much-vaunted [Kevin] Trenberth has trashed all the climate models on which the gloom-and-doom IPCC forecasts are based. If energy flows in the climate system cannot be accounted for, then they cannot be modeled — and there can be no basis upon which to make predictions of future temperatures. That's case closed, right there. But there's more. The Mathematics of Global Warming. The forecasts of global warming are based on mathematical solutions for equations of weather models. But all of these solutions are inaccurate. Therefore, no valid scientific conclusions can be made concerning global warming. The false claim for the effectiveness of mathematics is an unreported scandal at least as important as the recent climate data fraud. Media Will Ignore Climategate Until They Hear "I Was Wrong". Consider the case of Roger Revelle, the "grandfather of global warming." He didn't say "I was wrong" during all the years he was heading up the Scripps Institute of Oceanography or the Center for Population Studies at Harvard. He waited until he was in a retirement job back at UC San Diego — a mere professor without any research or grant monies coming in — to admit he was wrong about CO2 being an important greenhouse gas. But to his credit, he did say it in his final years. Did someone mention ClimateGate? The Supporting Cast — Thought Police Anyone? The big change came when computer modelers took over climate science. I knew modeling global climate was impossible; apart from the inadequate surface and upper atmosphere database computer capacity was and is still inadequate. At conference after conference I watched modelers bully everybody. Models are the most corrupt part of the CRU and IPCC fiasco, an exposure yet to emerge. They produced the ridiculous 'predictions' of disaster used to promote control through fear. And Just Like That, the Warming's Gone. [Scroll down] There was indeed a global warming period from 1979 to 1998, thanks to the natural cycles of the oceans and sun — which had produced a similar warming from around 1920 to 1940, and a cooling from the 1940s to the late 1970s. In the adjustments made by all the data centers, they cooled off the 1930s and 1940s warm blip by adjusting land and ocean temperatures down, and elevated the late 20th century and this decade. Understanding the Global Warming Delusion. Computer models are practically the only "proof" that global warming alarmists have to support their theory and forecasts. How can scientists know that global warming is man-made and will be a crisis, while at the same time express deep skepticism towards the computer models that might support such beliefs? The answer is that they don't actually "know" global warming is man-made or will be a disaster; they "believe" this to be true. Climategate: The Perils of Global Warming Models. If a model has not been proven to fully reflect reality, then it has very limited use and should be treated like a horoscope. Warming Is Just Latest Misuse Of Science. Nothing is easier than coming up with computer models that prove almost anything. Back during the 1970s, there were computer models predicting mass starvation and global cooling. The utter failure of those predictions ought to make us at least skeptical of computer models, especially computer models based on data that advocates want to keep from public view or even "lose" when investigators start closing in. Global Cooling, Global Warming and Climate Change Weekly Report. [Scroll down] New Zealand's long time IPCC reviewer and critic, Vincent Gray issued a newsletter describing what he considers to be a significant weakness in the computer models predicting the warming of the planet Briefly, the models over simplify the planet, creating a flat earth that does not rotate. It is assumed that there is a balance of the input of energy and the output everywhere, including no difference between day and night. This leads to potentially significant errors in calculation that cannot be resolved. CSIRO corrupted by Carbonerra. It's time to de-politicise the Australian government science industry. The once great CSIRO has abandoned objective climate research in favour of global warming activism. This started with its selective promotion of extreme drought scenarios. With a portfolio of unproven climate models to choose from, CSIRO chose the extreme ones to support the alarmist Garnaut report. Global Warming Theory: False in Parts, False in Totality. There are so many variables ignored, underreported or simply not understood in climate science and especially in the computer models that purport to simulate global climate, that they destroy any pretence we know or understand weather and climate. ... Perhaps the most forgotten variable, yet critical to weather and climate, is wind speed. The Settled Climate Science is Unsettled — Again. In conversations with a physicist involved in studying the effect of nuclear explosions on the upper atmosphere I was amazed to learn he did not know the tropopause was at different altitudes between the poles and the equator. This is so fundamental that it is impossible to imagine him finding out anything meaningful about radiation distribution in the atmosphere. Some have a better understanding of the structure of the atmosphere, but it is still inadequate to draw any conclusions about what is happening to temperatures, gases, energy distributions or anything else fundamental to understanding climate change. It is also inadequate as the basis for building computer models used to predict future climate. National Weather Agencies Are The Trojan Horses. [Scroll down] Bureaucratic scientists immediately confronted any politician that challenged the science. It was easy to produce global threatening requests for internal funding stamped with the authority of the IPCC Reports. Besides, politicians were eager to don the cloak of green. As a result, almost all funding went to one side of a theory. Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Computer Models And Atmospheric Circulation: A Major Failure. We still don't understand how the atmosphere circulation works so it is incredible that the computer modelers imagined it could be simulated. ... The Greenhouse Effect compares the atmosphere to a greenhouse but they don't compare in a multitude of ways. The atmosphere is mostly heated by circulation that doesn't occur in a greenhouse. More important, transfer of most of the heat is by evaporation and wind. The Great 'Climate Change' Taxpayer Rip-Off of 2011. The entire global warming hoax was and is based on "climate modeling", all of which consistently found that the Earth was warming at an alarming rate. Except that the Earth is NOT warming. It has been cooling since 1998. And DOE intends to waste $627 million on more modeling. It is worth noting that the most sophisticated models of the National Weather Bureau still cannot predict with any confidence what the weather — not the climate — will be next week. Was 2010 the Hottest Year Ever? The current temperature data collection system is horribly rigged. Government temperature gurus are using significantly less data — or even estimating data — from cold places like Canada and Siberia. They're also relying on more temperatures from thermometers placed in highly urbanized (artificially warmer) locations, as well as taking more readings from the oceans. Thus, overall global temperatures are being skewed upward. That's exactly what NASA did again this year. If they relied solely on satellite data, which accurately covers the entire planet, 2010 would not top the list. Why NASA of all places, refuses to use space age technology to measure the global temperature is absurd. Are climate models lying about food too? Computer models at Stanford University have just "told" us that man-made global warming has already sapped some of the yield potential from our food crops. They say wheat yields would have been 5.5 percent higher since 1980 without the earthly warming; corn yields would have been 3.8 percent higher. Stanford's computers apparently didn't tell their programmers that U.S. corn yields have actually risen by more than 60 percent since 1980 — during a period when they were supposedly hampered by too much heat. On Being Governed By Scientific Frauds. Nothing is as toxic as a really bad idea. Hundreds of millions of dollars are still being spent in "scientific" pursuit of disaster scenarios about the earth, fiddling with infinitely variable computer models. This isn't science; the burden of proof has flipped to the skeptics, which does not happen in real science. ... As aeronautics engineer Burt Rutan has pointed out, so-called "climate modeling" is a computer game with too many unknowns. Real scientists keep discovering unexpected climate factors; but if you don't even know your biggest variables, how can you build a model at all? Media Claims Antarctic Ice Crisis, Yet Ice Continues to Grow. Reuters and other media outlets are publishing claims this morning that global warming is threatening Antarctic ice shelves. The rash of media stories perfectly illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of each side in the global warming debate. Computer models, programmed by global warming alarmists to assume that carbon dioxide causes substantial global warming, keep predicting rapidly warming Antarctic temperatures and melting ice sheets. In the real world, however, Antarctica is not warming at all and the Antarctic ice sheet is in a long-term expansion. Globull Warming Still Stalled. Warmists are attempting to spin: "We are investigating why the temperature rise at the surface has slowed in recent years, including how ocean heat content changes and the effects of aerosols from atmospheric pollution may have influenced global climate." In other words, they have no idea why Nature has decided to blow up the computer model prognostication. Trampling on People, Environment, Science & Ethics. The activist groups and government agencies certainly talk a good game. They've certainly got the "mainstream" media and a lot of legislators and regulators on their side, while many who question their claims and agendas lack the greens' money, influence, connections and firepower — or the courage. All that notwithstanding, these supposed "white hats" are often all hat and no cattle — or worse. In truth, the very foundation for many of their policies is built on sand, worthless computer models or outright deception. Mystery black-box method used to make *all new* Australian "hottest" ever records. This summer the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) invented a whole new metric to measure average national heat, which might be all very well except no one (other than the BOM) seems to know what it is. On January 7th the BOM claimed Australia set a new "average maximum daily temperature record". Now the headlines are about the "hottest" Australian summer. With both records, no one outside the BOM team has access to the methods or data. How the Hockey Stick Crumbled: A Post Mortem. [Scroll down] But when real scientists — that is, those who apply a skeptical, scientific approach rather than a religious attitude of fervor — studied the Marcott paper, it quickly fell apart. We wrote about the Marcott fiasco here and here. It turned out that Marcott and his colleagues had created the 20th century warming spike — which was, in reality, the sole purpose of their exercise — by changing the dates on some of the samples they used as proxies. Anti-information in climate models. A model can't do worse than explaining nothing, right? Not these models! The differences between their predictions and the observed temperatures were significantly greater (by a factor of two) than what one would get just applying random numbers. Climate Models Predict Heat That Hasn't Occurred. The [New York] Times reported Monday [6/10/2013] that "The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace." The reporter admits the break in temperature increases "highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system" and says the lack of warming "is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists." It shouldn't be. As many of us have known for some time, the models that have been forecasting doom are deeply flawed. Back to the Environmental Issues Page New page: Evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the facts about global warming. Back to the Global Warming Index Page Back to the Home page 
|
|
Document location https://akdart.com/warming17.html Updated November 19, 2024. ©2024 by Andrew K. Dart |