Precision Forecasts image image image
Apr 03, 2020
Throwing cold water on hot climate models

By David Wojick

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?”

My previous article - ”CLINTEL Manifesto blasts climate scaremongering” - includes the all important graphic showing a dramatic divergence of the IPCC climate model predictions from the satellite temperature readings. The models are all running much hotter than reality.

image

There is however one major model that agrees with the satellites, that being the Russian model. The reason is simple, yet profound. CLINTEL President professor Guus Berkhout explains it this way: “I have studied Russia’s climate model INM. Unlike IPCC’s models, the Russian INM model predictions fit the measurements remarkably well. A plausible explanation is that it uses a negative cloud feedback: -0.13 W/m2/degree C, while the IPCC models use a large positive cloud feedback: up to + 0.80 W/m2/degree C. This large positive cloud feedback is responsible for the catastrophic IPCC predictions.”

The physics behind this explanation is pretty simple. Warming leads to more water vapor on the air, which causes increased cloudiness. Clouds can then either increase the warming (positive feedback) or decrease it (negative feedback). The scientific question is which occurs? The Russians are finding that it is a negative feedback. Measurements support them.

CLINTEL is an international climate science advisor so it makes sense that they look closely at these findings. Their vision is: “Progress requires Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Scientific Inquiry.” In fact Professor Berkhout has been officially invited by the Russian Academy of Sciences to learn more about the INM model and to share the climate vision of CLINTEL.

Unlike the U.S. and European modelers, the Russian modeling community has not been captured by the alarmists. This has given them the freedom to explore the negative feedback option, which the alarmists have refused to do, at least so far.

Yet even within the alarmist community we see a promising development, as a big fight is shaping up over cloud feedbacks. The IPCC is in the process of writing the latest of its big Assessment Reports, which it does every five years or so, this being the sixth report (AR6). Most of the major alarmist climate models are run to feed into this report.

This time we see that in AR6 about half of these models are running much hotter than they did for the fifth report (AR5). Although the review process is not yet finished, it appears that the AR6 modelers have juiced up the positive cloud feedback. We are not aware of any big new science to support this exaggeration. Has it been done to support the political push for radical zero-carbon laws? The hotter the model the worse the catastrophe it predicts from fossil fuel use, justifying a higher level of panic.

A lot of people within the climate community are questioning this increased global warming in the AR6 model outputs. For one thing it suggests that at least half of the models are wrong, either the half that haven’t become hotter (predicting the same level of panic as in AR5) or the half that have (predicting a higher level of panic as in AR679). In the process the alarmist consensus is coming apart. How the IPCC will handle this schism remains to be seen.

A higher positive cloud feedback may not solve all inconsistencies, but for sure we may state that it is a most unlikely assumption on the modeler’s part. No science compels this choice and measurements strongly advise against it. This opens the door for the empirically confirmed Russian findings, which call into question the entire catastrophe narrative of AR5 and even more AR6.

Professor Berkhout puts it succinctly: “If the Russians are right, the carbon budget - being the amount of carbon mankind may emit before we reach the 1.5 and 2 degree C warming thresholds in The Paris Accord - is very, very large. In other words, there is no problem with continuing CO2 emissions until we have a technologically reliable and economically affordable alternative. Zero emission in 2050 is totally foolish. Looking at the the current health emergency it is a crime against humanity.”

It is ironic, yet fitting, that the “blue sky” fantasy of climate alarmism may be brought back down to earth by clouds. Negative feedback is a truly positive message.

Stay tuned to CFACT to see how this drama unfolds.

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see Available for confidential research and consulting.

Feb 28, 2020
The Academic Blacklist Climate Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know About

I was pleased to see this effort in IBD’s new Issues and Insights effort highlighted below. It is a very much needed addition and we strongly suggest you share and bookmark the story and the site. And financially support their noble and critically important effort.

Let me say something first as an introduction.

Although, I chaired one of the largest departments of meteorology in 6 years in Academia and taught courses at two other colleges and have had 50 years of operational experience with researching and forecasting weather and climate, was Fellow of the AMS, Chair of Weather Analysis and Forecasting committee for the AMS, and elected as a Councilor, I was told by local colleges I was not qualified to teach science. I could tell you many other examples of real scientists being forced out or forced to teach courses like Geography if tenured. Look at GMU for example. Ed Wegman helped expose the climategate saga. He was replaced by environmental radicals and liars. The indoctrination continues. The climate CABAL in government and professional societies and universities controls the message with empty suits as Lead Authors.

Then there is Wikipedia which has used special editors (like Kim Dabelstein Petersen and and William Connolley here) who edit wiki sites that challenge the alarmists position. They change the entries to attack the author or make major changes. They have recently stopped maintaining a list of skeptics.  They are hurting as most people get information through search engines that is reducing Wiki coverage. They are begging for donations. Instead please support our site of other sites providing honest science.

The attraction for many is $$$ and plenty of it. Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009,” says the GAO. Not a penny goes to anyone who believes it is mostly natural. All our efforts to expose the truth are volunteer (pro-bono). Help us with a donation if you can (left column). If you have an idea how to fund the good scientists being blocked contact me at jdaleo6113@aol.com. Thanks for the help you gave us in 2019 to cover our costs for maintenance for the first time in a few years.

If you count my contributions at Weatherbell.com, I work on 5 web sites:

Icecap.us

Alarmist Claim Research with rebuttals to the dozen alarmist claims in the news and assessments.

Tropical Hot Spot Research started to show our independent peer-reviewed research showing how natural factors can explain the changes we have observed in 14 different data sets.

and one my college roommate wanted me to start Redneckusa with a look at technology - good and bad ideas. See the latest post here on how Ozone Hole Shenanigans were the warm-up act for Global Warming.

Let me know what you think, suggest new stories and submit your own.

--------------

The Academic Blacklist Climate Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know About

February 28, 2020

16 comments

image

I&I Editorial

The global warming faithful are always quick with the talking points about a “scientific consensus” that doesn’t exist, and the tale that 97% of scientists say man is causing the planet to overheat. But we’ll never hear them discuss publicly how researchers who don’t agree with the narrative have been blacklisted.

What are they afraid of?

Of course the climate alarmists will never admit such a list even exists. But Roger Pielke Jr., who teaches science, environment, and technology policy at the University of Colorado, says it does.

“A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled ‘climate misinformers,” Pielke recently wrote in Forbes. “The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist.”

Pielke says we know this through a Skeptical Science blogger “named Dana Nuccitelli.” According to Pielke, Nuccitelli believes that Judith Curry should be “unhirable in academia” based on her statements about global warming.

Nuccitelli tweeted that “Curry’s words, as documented… are what make her ‘unhirable.’” Both the blog and Nuccitelli of course deny there’s a blacklist.

The “unhirable” Curry is no crank. She is the former chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and is a fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. She stepped down from her position at Georgia Tech at the insistence of an administrator, she told Pielke. The Earth and Atmospheric Sciences dean had heard from “several activist climate scientists who had a very direct pipeline to the dean’s office, and had expressed their “extreme displeasure” over Curry’s presence at the school, she said.

Curry looked into positions at other universities, interviewed for two, but was never hired. According to her headhunter, “the show stopper” was my public profile in the climate debate.

But there’s no blacklist - nothing to see here, so let’s move on… to Pielke’s father, Roger Pielke Sr. The atmospheric scientist “is also listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist.” The younger Pielke says some statements from the Skeptical Science site that had been obtained through hacking included: “We are HUNTING Pielke,” “We are trying to bring him down,” and “My vote is to take the bastard down!”

What has happened to Curry and Pielke Sr. are not isolated incidents: READ MORE EXAMPLES here.
...

The system is clearly rigged. But the public is not supposed to know this. Only by keeping voters in the dark can the charade continue.

--- Written by J. Frank Bullitt

Issues & Insights is a new site formed by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. We’re just getting started, and we’ll be adding new features as time permits. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide.

Feb 20, 2020
A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans

Tony Thomas

Update: See also how a German Professors says NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale here.

-------------

image

There’s a top-level oceanographer and meteorologist who is prepared to cry “Nonsense!” on the “global warming crisis” evident to climate modellers but not in the real world. He’s as well or better qualified than the modellers he criticises - the ones whose Year 2100 forebodings of 4 degC warming have set the world to spending $US1.5 trillion a year to combat CO2 emissions.

The iconoclast is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. In June he put out a small book in Japanese on “the sorry state of climate science”. It’s titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, and he is very much qualified to take a stand. From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He’s published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.

Today’s vast panoply of “global warming science” is like an upside down pyramid built on the work of a few score of serious climate modellers. They claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recent global warming and project that warming forward. Every orthodox climate researcher takes such output from the modellers’ black boxes as a given.

A fine example is from the Australian Academy of Science’s explanatory booklet of 2015. It claims, absurdly, that the models’ outputs are “compelling evidence” for human-caused warming.[ii] Specifically, it refers to model runs with and without human emissions and finds the “with” variety better matches the 150-year temperature record (which itself is a highly dubious construct). Thus satisfied, the Academy then propagates to the public and politicians the models’ forecasts for disastrous warming this century.

Now for Dr Nakamura’s expert demolition of the modelling. There was no English edition of his book in June and only a few bits were translated and circulated. But Dr Nakamura last week offered via a free Kindle version his own version in English. It’s not a translation but a fresh essay leading back to his original conclusions.

The temperature forecasting models trying to deal with the intractable complexities of the climate are no better than “toys” or “Mickey Mouse mockeries” of the real world, he says. This is not actually a radical idea. The IPCC in its third report (2001) conceded (emphasis added),

In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2. )]

Somehow that official warning was deep-sixed by the alarmists. Now Nakamura has found it again, further accusing the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public,” he writes.

The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he says. However, “the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.” The reason:

These models completely lack some critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction.

I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process.

Nakamura and colleagues even tried to patch up some of the models’ crudeness

...so I know the workings of these models very well… For better or worse I have more or less lost interest in the climate science and am not thrilled to spend so much of my time and energy in this kind of writing beyond the point that satisfies my own sense of obligation to the US and Japanese taxpayers who financially supported my higher education and spontaneous and free research activity. So please expect this to be the only writing of this sort coming from me.

I am confident that some honest and courageous, true climate scientists will continue to publicly point out the fraudulent claims made by the mainstream climate science community in English. I regret to say this but I am also confident that docile and/or incompetent Japanese climate researchers will remain silent until the ‘mainstream climate science community’ changes its tone, if ever.

He projects warming from CO2 doubling, “according to the true experts”, to be only 0.5degC. He says he doesn’t dispute the possibility of either catastrophic warming or severe glaciation since the climate system’s myriad non-linear processes swamp “the toys” used for climate predictions. Climate forecasting is simply impossible, if only because future changes in solar energy output are unknowable.  As to the impacts of human-caused CO2, they can’t be judged “with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.”

Other gross model simplifications include

# Ignorance about large and small-scale ocean dynamics

# A complete lack of meaningful representations of aerosol changes that generate clouds.

# Lack of understanding of drivers of ice-albedo (reflectivity) feedbacks: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet.”

# Inability to deal with water vapor elements

# Arbitrary “tunings” (fudges) of key parameters that are not understood

Concerning CO2 changes he says,

I want to point out a simple fact that it is impossible to correctly predict even the sense or direction of a change of a system when the prediction tool lacks and/or grossly distorts important non-linear processes, feedbacks in particular, that are present in the actual system…

...The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. I understand geophysical fluid dynamics just a little, but enough to realize that the dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.

Solar input, absurdly, is modelled as a “never changing quantity”. He says, “It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square metre. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”

Good modelling of oceans is crucial, as the slow ocean currents are transporting vast amounts of heat around the globe, making the minor atmospheric heat storage changes almost irrelevant. For example, the Gulf Stream has kept western Eurasia warm for centuries. On time scales of more than a few years, it plays a far more important role on climate than atmospheric changes. “It is absolutely vital for any meaningful climate prediction to be made with a reasonably accurate representation of the state and actions of the oceans.” In real oceans rather than modelled ones, just like in the atmosphere, the smaller-scale flows often tend to counteract the effects of the larger-scale flows. Nakamura spent hundreds of hours vainly trying to remedy the flaws he observed, concluding that the models “result in a grotesque distortion of the mixing and transport of momentum, heat and salt, thereby making the behaviour of the climate simulation models utterly unrealistic...”

Proper ocean modelling would require a tenfold improvement in spatial resolution and a vast increase in computing power, probably requiring quantum computers. If or when quantum computers can reproduce the small-scale interactions, the researchers will remain out of their depth because of their traditional simplifying of conditions.

Key model elements are replete with “tunings” i.e. fudges. Nakamura explains how that trick works

The models are ‘tuned’ by tinkering around with values of various parameters until the best compromise is obtained. I used to do it myself. It is a necessary and unavoidable procedure and not a problem so long as the user is aware of its ramifications and is honest about it. But it is a serious and fatal flaw if it is used for climate forecasting/prediction purposes.

One set of fudges involves clouds.

Ad hoc representation of clouds may be the greatest source of uncertainty in climate prediction. A profound fact is that only a very small change, so small that it cannot be measured accurately...in the global cloud characteristics can completely offset the warming effect of the doubled atmospheric CO2.

Two such characteristics are an increase in cloud area and a decrease in the average size of cloud particles.

Accurate simulation of cloud is simply impossible in climate models since it requires calculations of processes at scales smaller than 1mm. Instead, the modellers put in their own cloud parameters. Anyone studying real cloud formation and then the treatment in climate models would be “flabbergasted” by the perfunctory treatment of clouds in the models.

Nakamura describes as “moronic” the claims that “tuned” ocean models are good enough for climate predictions. That’s because, in tuning some parameters, other aspects of the model have to become extremely distorted. He says a large part of the forecast global warming is attributed to water vapor changes, not CO2 changes. “But the fact is this: all climate simulation models perform poorly in reproducing the atmospheric water vapor and its radiative forcing observed in the current climate… They have only a few parameters that can be used to ‘tune’ the performance of the models and (are) utterly unrealistic.” Positive water vapor feedbacks from CO2 increases are artificially enforced by the modelers. They neglect other reverse feedbacks in the real world, and hence they exaggerate forecast warming.

The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 percent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. “We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.” This makes meaningless the Paris targets of 1.5degC or 2degC above pre-industrial levels.

image
Enlarged

He is contemptuous of claims about models being “validated”, saying the modellers are merely “trying to construct narratives that justify the use of these models for climate predictions.” And he concludes,

The take-home message is (that) all climate simulation models, even those with the best parametric representation scheme for convective motions and clouds, suffer from a very large degree of arbitrariness in the representation of processes that determine the atmospheric water vapor and cloud fields. Since the climate models are tuned arbitrarily ...there is no reason to trust their predictions/forecasts.

With values of parameters that are supposed to represent many complex processes being held constant, many nonlinear processes in the real climate system are absent or grossly distorted in the models. It is a delusion to believe that simulation models that lack important nonlinear processes in the real climate system can predict (even) the sense or direction of the climate change correctly.

I was distracted from his message because the mix of Japanese and English scripts in the book kept crashing my Kindle software. Still, I persevered. I recommend you do too. There’s at least $US30 trillion ($US30,000, 000,000,000) hanging on this bunfight.


Tony Thomas’s new book, The West: An insider’s tale - A romping reporter in Perth’s innocent ‘60s is available from Boffins Books, Perth, the Royal WA Historical Society (Nedlands) and online here

They include (to give you the flavor)

# “Destabilisation of thermohaline circulation by atmospheric eddy transports”

#"Effects of the ice-albedo [reflectivity] and runoff feedbacks on the thermohaline circulation”

# “Diagnoses of an eddy-resolving Atlantic Ocean model simulation in the vicinity of the Gulf Stream”

# “A simulation study of the 2003 heat wave in Europe”

# “Impacts of SST [sea surface temperature] anomalies in the Agulhas Current System on the climate variations in the southern Africa and its vicinity.”

# “Greenland sea surface temperature changes and accompanying changes in the north hemispheric climate.”

[ii] “Climate models allow us 
to understand the causes of past climate changes, and to project climate change into the future. Together with physical principles and knowledge of past variations, models provide compelling evidence that recent changes are due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere ... Using climate models, it is possible to separate the effects of the natural and human-induced influences on climate. Models can successfully reproduce the observed warming over the last 150 years when both natural and human influences are included, but not when natural influences act alone.: A footnote directs to a study by 15 modellers cited in the 2015 IPCC report.

Mar 17, 2020
Climate change accused of being deadlier than Covid 19 - Fact check

By Joe Bastardi |March 17th, 2020|Climate|6 Comments

This is a classic example of what I am trying to show, that this “climate change” issue is more than meets the eye, It is about using any tactic possible to push an agenda that is regressive and seeks to LIMIT what man can do, rather than expand.  This article tries to scare the daylights out of people who are already scared, with an implication not supported by any facts today, We are all anxious about the unknown with this virus, so here we go, the predictable use of climate to scare people even more.  But the facts are clear on climate over the last 100 years, the results on mankind are EXACTLY OPPOSITE. Which is even more remarkable given the growth of human life

I guess if the Covid-19 completely fizzles out, which is also a possibility, then anything that happens in the weather globally over the next 20 years that is blamed for deaths, means perhaps it would outstrip it, But the facts reveal that man’s adaptation via freedom, competition, and capitalism, which is leading the way, is saying the EXACT OPPOSITE is happening!

And that journalist that are writing things like this choose to ignore the facts, or have not researched it enough to see another side, speaks volumes as to the amount of trust one should put into any agenda that involves narrow-minded one-sidedness

Instead of writing thousands of words I will use a few choice charts, What I want to know, is why the people that write this stuff do not have the intellectual curiosity or the journalistic integrity to do what journalists are supposed to do: Question and show both sides of the issue.  It is because of the lack of those qualities, we are reading what we are reading

So here we go, In direct defiance of what is implied in the above article, Climate deaths are plummeting.

image
image.gif

Now why, if you knew this, would you write what you did?  Why did you not look at least for the countering argument?

Now watch this. Personal GDP globally and Life expectancy globally:

image

This means MORE PEOPLE ARE LIVING LONGER AND PROSEPERING MORE!  When did this hockey stick like skyrocket start? At the start of the fossil fuel era.

Now consider this, and do not think this is minimizing the COVID 19 threat, The median age of deaths is in the low 80s. But if this virus appeared in the pre fossil fuel era, it may have gone virtually unnoticed BECAUSE of LIFE EXPECTANCY IN PRE FOSSIL FUEL ERA was between 30 and 40.

From this article, the chart below:
image

The ramping up to the current levels can be linked if not directly, then indirectly to the advancement of mankind in the fossil fuel era.

When one reads anything, including what I write, one needs to look at both sides, The fact is that the vast majority of articles written on this matter do not bring up countering points, and use the assumption that there is no counter, or someone is a science denier.  Yet charts like this show that people saying that are denying facts that any 5th grader ( I use 5th grade since that population age group and around is getting the wits scared out of them with climate change) can see.  What is being done today though in articles like the one that spawned this counter, is to make statements that run contrary to what has been going on, with no thinking beyond a set agenda? When you are narrow-minded, your field of vision is extremely limited and what is being revealed in a lot of things has to do with this subject is the narrow mindedness and intolerant views of people who should be doing the opposite, if they are indeed journalists.

In this case, not only do the facts about climate deaths and the advancement of mankind run contrary to what is being implied but the fact that IF NOT FOR THE INCREASE IN LIFE EXPECTANCY brought about with the help of the fossil fuel era, then this viruses impact, if the median age of death is in the low 80s, may not have even been noticed in the late 19th century since life expectancy was about half of what it is today.

As always, I ask the rational reader to consider the other side of the issue.  And remind people, as per the previous piece I wrote, to be on guard against any event being blamed on “climate change” for “climate change” is actually a vehicle for another result.  At the very least, consider the actual data presented here. And all you journalists that are using all the great tools we have today try to look at both sides of the issue, You might come to realize that where you stand today was built yesterday and the fossil fuel era and the freedoms we enjoy, is in a large part responsible for the foundation we have built to give you the chance.  Don’t take that for granted, Question in all you do. Facts like what I have shown above, indicate that there is a reason to look at both sides of an issue. Be open-minded and tolerant, and don’t accuse those that bring up ideas you may not have seen, of being someone they are not (example Climate Denier). But writing scare articles using what is admittedly a scary virus, and then saying, “climate change” is something worse, without even showing people where we are today on the matter and the actual data, is not being open-minded nor tolerant of contrary ideas.

Author

Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore - and Others” which you can purchase at the CFACT bookstore.

Feb 04, 2020
On the fatal flaw of climate alarmism

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Introduction

NOAA and NASA can be counted on virtually every month or year end to religiously and confidently proclaim that the latest global average surface temperature (GAST) is among the warmest on record. Back in the 1970s when an assessment of a global temperature was first attempted, the scientists recognized that even land-only surface temperature data was a significant challenge given that most of the reliable data was limited to populated areas of the U.S, Europe and eastern China with just spotty often intermittent data from vast land areas elsewhere.

image
Enlarged

There were just 26 stations in 1880, only 4 in the southern hemisphere. Even in 1900, the 664 global stations was on 2.8% of the number in 2000.

Temperatures over oceans, which covered 71% of the globe, were measured along shipping routes mainly in the Northern Hemisphere erratically and with varying measurement methods.  Despite these shortcomings and the fact that absolutely no credible grid level temperature data existed over the period from 1880 to 2000 in the Southern Hemisphere’s oceans (covering 80.9% of the Southern Hemisphere), global average surface temperature data estimation and publication by NOAA and NASA began in the early 1990s.

To illustrate the problem, on January 16, 2020, the WSJ published a lead article by Robert Lee Hotz stating: “NASA, NOAA ranked 2019 as the second-hottest year in tracking data to 1880. The world experienced near-record global temperatures in 2019, federal climate scientists said. ---.” This claim was made despite the fact that absolutely no credible temperature data exists over this period for more than 40% of the planet (0.5*0.809 =0.4+).

After 2000, there were diving buoys. But when the best technology designed specifically for the purpose, the ARGO buoys, disappointed by showing no upward trend, the data from the buoys was “adjusted.” John Bates, data quality officer with NOAA admitted “They had good data from buoys...and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did - so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.” He retired after that change was made.

image

That was just the latest example of data manipulation. Initially, this global data had a cyclical pattern similar to previously reported Northern Hemisphere data (high in the 1930s and 40s, low in the 70s).  Then, as time progressed, the previous officially reported GAST data history was modified, removing the cycle and creating a more and more strongly upward sloping linear trend in each freshly reported historical data set. 

--------------

Peer reviewed, published and readily reproducible research has shown that: “The conclusive findings were that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality.”

“In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, which removed their cyclical temperature patterns are completely inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, despite current assertions of record-setting warming, it is impossible to conclude from the NOAA and NASA data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever.”

Current climate policies - based on these unreliable temperature records - threaten our economic and national security interests. As the proposed climate policies grow more extreme, the consequences of allowing this record to remain unchallenged gravely threatens an onslaught of litigation based on the greenhouse gas endangerment finding. Importantly, this litigation imposes significant impediments to the mineral land leasing and pipeline infrastructure build out necessary to maintain and enhance energy independence and economic prosperity.

Furthermore, the US financial sector has already dramatically curtailed its support of conventional energy source development in large part due to the continued calls for regulatory destruction of the fossil fuel industry based substantially on NOAA and NASA’s now invalidated global surface temperature records. This situation is putting our Nation’s energy security at grave risk ‘ which means our economic and national security are also in great peril.

----------

ADDENDUM to the Research Report entitled: On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, Abridged Research Report, Dr. James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo ABD, Dr. Craig D. Idso, June 2017

The June 2017 Research Report provides ample evidence that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data was invalidated for use in climate modelling and for any other climate change policy analysis purpose.  However, there was one very critical science argument that this report did not make, which is made here.

This critical point involves whether or not it was even possible to compute a mathematically proper GAST data set over the period 1900-2000 in the first place.  Claims of record-setting GAST were made as one of the three Lines of Evidence of the 2009 GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding.  Another Line of Evidence purported that climate models, tuned to fit this GAST data, were adequate for policy analysis purposes.  The third Line of Evidence for validation required credible Surface Temperature data as well.  However, as stated in the aforementioned GAST Research Report:

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, 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. Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings” (1)

Thus, in this GAST report, ample evidence was provided that the current officially reported GAST data are simply not credible, therefore invalidating the 2009 Endangerment Finding. However, there is a proof that is far easier to understand. Over the period 1900-2000, there is virtually no credible surface temperature data available for at least 40% of the surface of the Earth. This follows from the fact that the Southern Hemisphere’s surface is over 80% ocean (.50*.80=40), and essentially no credible temperature data was captured for these vast oceans over this time period.  (2)

Hence, it never made any sense to even attempt to compute a GAST data set over this time period unless the purpose was to construct a temperature data set that could be made to have virtually any pattern over that time period that the institutions involved desired to portray as reality. In truth, with literally no credible temperature data available for well over 40% of the Earth’s surface, these institutions were only limited by what was credible to the outside world. (3) Thus far, not knowing these facts, all relevant parties, e.g., regulators, environmentalists, and government officials, have been far too accepting of the GAST record as a valid global temperature database. Since GAST data has now been separately proven to not be a valid representation of reality, it also means that the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding has been once again invalidated.

Footnotes

(1) GAST Data Research Report - see page 4.

(2) Southern Hemisphere “The South Atlantic, the South Pacific, the Indian Ocean and several seas, including the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand and the Weddell Sea next to Antarctica, constitute approximately 80.9 percent of the Southern Hemisphere. Land constitutes about 19.1 percent. In the Northern Hemisphere, on the other hand, most of the area is comprised of land masses.”

(3) “According to overseers of the long-term instrumental temperature data, the Southern Hemisphere record is “mostly made up”.  This is due to an extremely limited number of available measurements both historically and even presently from the south pole to the equatorial regions

In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen et al reported that “Problems in obtaining a global temperature history are due to the uneven station distribution (40), with the Southern Hemisphere and ocean areas poorly represented,” - - - - (Science, 28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511)

In 1978, the New York Times reported there was too little temperature data from the Southern Hemisphere to draw any reliable conclusions. The report, prepared by German, Japanese and American specialists, appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of Nature, the British journal and stated that “Data from the Southern Hemisphere, particularly south of latitude 30 south, are so meager that reliable conclusions are not possible,” the report says. 
“Ships travel on well-established routes so that vast areas of ocean, are simply not traversed by ships at all, and even those that do, may not return weather data on route. Attempting to compile a ‘global mean temperature’ for 70% of the earth from such fragmentary, disorganized, error-ridden and geographically unbalanced data is more guesswork than science.

As to sea surface temperatures (SST), this data is even more fragmentary than the air temperature readings. Prior to around 1940, SST was collected by throwing buckets over the side of a ship, hoisting it on deck and dipping a thermometer in it. Bucket data is only useful for immediate weather prediction purposes, not for long-term statistical climatic analysis. Any other data collected in such bizarre ways would be laughed out of any other scientific forum.”

“Since the 1980s and 1990s we have satellites to measure SST [22] using infra-red sensors (not to be confused with the MSU instruments which measure the atmosphere). Unfortunately, satellites sensing SSTs in the infra-red can only see the immediate water surface, not the water even a few centimetres deeper. This is because infra-red radiation at these wavebands (around 10 microns) cannot penetrate water at all, and so the satellite can only ‘see’ that top millimetre. This can result in both warm and cool errors. On hot still days, the top centimetre of the ocean surface can be much warmer than waters a few centimetres deeper, similar to the same phenomenon which can be observed in any undisturbed outdoor swimming pool. On windy days, there is no such difference due to wave mixing. There is also an intermittent ’thermal skin effect where the top millimetre of water on calm seas can be up to 0.3C cooler than the water just beneath the ‘skin’ due to evaporation taking place on the surface. For these reasons, SSTs taken from satellites are only accurate to within a few tenths of a degree, adequate for immediate meteorological purposes or detecting an El Nino, but not suited to measuring subtle global climatic changes of a few tenths of a degree.” John Daly

========

See the Superbowl of Data Tampering by Tony Heller:

--------------

All our efforts are volunteer (pro-bono). Help us with a donation if you can (left column).

Jan 21, 2020
Renewable Energy Is a Hoax; Alarmist Claim Fact-Checks

Lest we forget -

Progressive Eco-Group Admits It: Renewable Energy Is a Hoax that Benefits its Greenie Elmer Gantries like Al Gore
By John Eidson

Independent physicist John Droz, Jr. alerted me to the website of Deep Green Resistance (DGR), an international environmental organization that calls for the total destruction of what it refers to as the “global industrial economy,” AKA capitalism.  Given the group’s hard-left credentials, its call for dismantling capitalism throughout the world is not surprising.

What is surprising is that in an unusual show of progressive candor, Deep Green Resistance openly acknowledges what skeptical scientists have been saying for more than two decades: that renewable energy is a government-backed hoax that enriches big corporations - and green energy investors like Al Gore - at the expense of taxpayers and the environment.  If you find that admission hard to believe, please keep reading.  The questions and answers below are verbatim from the FAQ page on the organization’s website.

Will green technology save the planet?

No. Wind turbines, solar PV panels, and the grid itself are all manufactured using cheap energy from fossil fuels. When fossil fuel costs begin to rise such highly manufactured items will simply cease to be feasible.

Solar panels and wind turbines aren’t made out of nothing.  They are made out of metals, plastics, and chemicals. These products have been mined out of the ground, transported, processed, manufactured.  Each stage leaves behind a trail of devastation: habitat destruction, water contamination, colonization, toxic waste, slave labor, greenhouse gas emissions, wars, and corporate profits.

The basic ingredients for renewables are the same materials that are ubiquitous in industrial products, like cement and aluminum. No one is going to make cement in any quantity without using the energy of fossil fuels. And aluminum? The mining itself is a destructive and toxic nightmare from which riparian communities will not awaken in anything but geologic time.

From beginning to end, so called “renewable energy” and other “green technologies” lead to the destruction of the planet. These technologies are rooted in the same industrial extraction and production processes that have rampaged across the world for the last 150 years.

We are not concerned with slightly reducing the harm caused by industrial civilization; we are interested in stopping that harm completely. Doing so will require dismantling the global industrial economy, which will render impossible the creation of these technologies.

Will renewable energy save the economy?

Renewable energy technologies rely heavily on government subsidies, taken from taxpayers and given directly to large corporations like General Electric, BP, Samsung, and Mitsubishi.  While the scheme pads their bottom lines, it doesn’t help the rest of us.

Further, this is the wrong question to ask.  The industrial capitalist economy is dispossessing and impoverishing billions of humans and killing the living world.  Renewable energy depends on centralized capital and power imbalance.  We don’t benefit from saving that system.

Instead of advocating for more industrial technology, we need to move to local economies based on community decision-making and what our local landbases can provide sustainably.  And we need to stop the global economy on which renewable energy depends.

“Stopping the global economy” means destroying the capitalist system that created here in America the most widespread prosperity the world has ever known.  That a progressive eco-group would admit that the true agenda behind the push for renewable energy has nothing to do with “saving the planet” and everything to do with destroying capitalism is quite remarkable.  To reinforce its position that renewable energy is a hoax, DGR’s website has a cartoon that shows dollar bills being sucked from a wind turbine directly into the pocket of a fat cat investor in subsidized green energy projects. 

The Elmer Gantry of renewable energy

Few insiders have profited more from taxpayer-backed renewable energy projects than Al Gore.  When he left the vice presidency in 2001, his net worth was estimated at $1 million to $2 million.  Since then, his wealth has skyrocketed to $300 million, and if the climate change legislation he advocates is enacted, the former vice president stands to become a billionaire.  Much of his enviable fortune has come from being an inside investor in government-backed renewable energy projects, many of which went belly up after the insiders made off with millions, leaving hardworking U.S. taxpayers stuck with the bill.

Like all wealthy eco-preachers, the Elmer Gantry of renewable energy uses his immense wealth to indulge in lavish living.  When asked by Rep. Marsha Blackburn during his 2009 testimony before Congress whether he personally profits from his advocacy of global warming, Pastor Al professed a vow of poverty, and if you’ve never seen video of the tense encounter, you don’t want to miss it: “Every penny I have made I have put into a non-profit deal, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.  And Congresswoman, if you believe the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is out of greed, you do not know me.

Turned out Rep. Blackburn knows him quite well.  As the greedy owner of a gargantuan green energy fortune, Pastor Al looked her squarely in the eye and denied making even a penny of profit.  If every penny he makes goes into a non-profit deal, how did he end up with $300 million?  The same way his alter ego pilfered money from the Lord: by concealing his true stripes.

As the social Utopians at Deep Green Resistance openly acknowledge, the push for a “green economy” is a scam that enriches big corporations and fat-cat investors like Al Gore.  Shortly after teen climate activist Greta Thunberg gave an emotion-charged speech at the U.N. last September, I wrote about the renewable energy hoax in “The Cynical Plot behind Global Warming Hysteria.” If not for a totally corrupt Western media, two things would have happened years ago: man-made global warming theory would have been blown out of the water, and Pastor Al would have been called out as the self-righteous hypocrite he is.

An electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech and now retired, John Eidson is a freelance writer in Atlanta.

------------

Alarmist Claim Rebuttals

Below are a series of rebuttals of the 11 most common climate alarmists’ claims such as those made in the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment Report.[2] The authors of these rebuttals are all recognized experts in the relevant

For each alarmist claim, a summary of the relevant rebuttal is provided below along with a link to the full text of the rebuttal, which includes the names and the credentials of the authors of each rebuttal.

Heat Waves - have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally Link Check for yourself at the data from the WMO here.

Hurricanes - this decade just ended as the second quietest for landfalling hurricanes and landfalling major hurricanes in the U.S since the 1850s. Link

Tornadoes - the number of strong tornadoes have declined over the last half century. Link

Droughts and Floods - no statistically significant trends. Link

Wildfires - decreasing since the very active 1800s. The increase in damage in recent years is due to population growth in vulnerable areas and poor forest management. Link NASA Earth Observatory shows here that globally fire acreage has declined 25% since 2003

Snowfall - increasing in the fall and winter in the Northern Hemisphere and North America with many records being set. Link

Sea level - the rate of global sea level rise on average has fallen by 40% the last century. Where it is increasing - local factors such as land subsidence are to blame. Link

Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland Ice - the polar ice varies with multidecadal cycles in ocean temperatures. Current levels are comparable to or above historical low levels. Link Link2

Alaska July 2019 heat records - this resulted from a warm North Pacific and reduced ice in the Bering Sea late winter due to strong storms. Record ice extent occurred with record cold in 2012. Link One of the coldest winters on record has followed with increased ice cover has followed.

Ocean Acidification - when life is considered, ocean acidification is often found to be a non-problem, or even a benefit. Link

Carbon Pollution as a health hazard - carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless invisible trace gas that is plant food and it is essential to life on the planet. It is not a pollutant..Link

Climate change is endangering food supply - the vitality of global vegetation in both managed and unmanaged ecosystems is better off now than it was a hundred years ago, 50 years ago, or even a mere two-to-three decades ago thanks in part to CO2. Link Video

See the full rebuttal and links to the details here.

See how The Green New Deal Would Be An Environmental Disaster here

Mar 24, 2020
Solid Reasons To Push Back On The Dangerous Globalist Radical Environmental Plans

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Government agencies, energy companies, auto and major corporations are increasing their support of decarbonization programs and policies (including taxes, mandated reduction of our use of fossil fuels, pushing not ready for prime time alternatives). This has proved to be a disaster where this unwise radical agenda has been imposed.

CO2 - NOT A POLLUTANT BUT THE GAS OF LIFE

CO2 is a beneficial trace gas (0.04% of our atmosphere). With every breath we emit out 100 times more CO2 than we breathe in so it is not harmful. The increase in CO2 has caused a significant greening of the earth, with increased crop yields feeding more people at lower cost.

image
Enlarged

Dr. Craig Idso of CO2 Science noted recently “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and it is most certainly not causing dangerous global warming. Rather, its increase in the atmosphere is invigorating the biosphere, producing a multitude of benefits for humanity and the natural world, notwithstanding the prognostications of the uninformed.”

Dr. Will Happer, Princeton Physicist talks about the great benefits of CO2 to the biosphere and to all of humanity.says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.

Dr Patrick Moore, ecologit and co-founder of Greenpeace says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.

It’s not the first time we were told we faced an existential threat due to ‘climate change’. In 1970, Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich warned that because of population growth, climate stress (then cold) and dwindling energy that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off” which was too late to stop.  Even as each subsequent dire forecast failed (see how the alarmist/media record is perfect (100% wrong) in the 50 major claims made since 1950 here), the alarms continued, each pushing the date forward - 2000, 2020, and now 2030.  Last summer, at Glacier National Park signs “Warning: glaciers will be gone by 2020” were quietly removed as ice and snow has increased.

The greenhouse climate models used to predict the future have all failed miserably.

image
Enlarged

That is because they have used failed assumptions and models tuned to manipulated (fraudulent) data.  Dr. Mototaka here exposes that:"The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.”

See detailed peer reviewed studies on this here.

I have spent 50 years focusing on attribution science - starting with my Master’s thesis on what caused bomb east coast snowstorms in winter. I have spent the decades doing correlations of weather patterns and extremes with natural factors.  The last few years, I worked with a team of scientific experts evaluated today today’s 12 most commonly reported claims and found them all either unfounded and explainable by natural factors - see here.

Heat records have declined since the 1930s, which holds 22 of the 50 state hottest ever temperature records.  The 2010’s was the second quietest decade for landfalling hurricanes and major hurricanes since 1850. It was the quietest decade for tornadoes since tracking began in the 1950s. Sea level rises have slowed to 4 inches/century globally. Arctic ice has tracked with the 60-year ocean cycles and is similar to where it was in the 1920s to 1950s. NOAA could find no evidence of increased frequency of floods and droughts (last spring had the smallest % of US in drought on record).

Snow which the university scientists here predicted would disappear, actually has set new records (fall and winter) for the hemisphere and North America, and both Boston and NYC have had more snow in the 10 years ending 2018 than any other 10 year period back to the late 1800s.

Wildfires cause havoc but were far more prevalent before the forest management, fire suppression and grazing of the 1900s.  They are problems now because more have left the failing cities to move out of state or to the beauty of the foothills. The power lines to service them can spark new fires when the cold air rushes through the mountain passes this time of years downing trees onto the power lines.

In the U.S., with low cost energy, low taxes and elimination of stifling regulations, we had the lowest unemployment for the nation in decades or history and for the first time in a long time significant wage increases! Here in NH, we had the lowest unemployment in the nation. The U.S. is energy independent, a long time thought unachievable goal. Our air and water is cleanest in our lifetimes well below the tough standards we put in place decades ago.

The real existential threat comes would come from radical environmentalism and their prescribed remedies. The climate scare is politically driven, all about big government and control over every aspect of our lives. AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti in May admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing” - nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy. He was echoing what the climate change head of the UN climate chief and the UN IPCC Lead Author said - that is was our best chance to change the economic system (to centralized control) and redistribute wealth (socialism).

The economy in every country that has moved down an extreme green path have seen skyrocketing energy costs - some 3 times our levels.

Renewables are unreliable as the wind doesn’t always blow nor the sun shine. And don’t believe the claims millions of green jobs would result. In Spain, every green job created cost Spain $774,000 in subsidies and resulted in a loss of 2.2 real jobs. Only 1 in 10 green jobs were permanent.  Industry left and in Spain unemployment rose to 27.5%.

Many households in the countries that have gone green are said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). The elderly are said in winter to be forced to “choose between heating and eating”. Extreme cold already kills 20 times more than heat according to a study of 74 million deaths in 13 countries.

Politicians in the northeast states are bragging that they stopped the natural gas pipeline, shut down nuclear and coal plants and blocked the northern Pass which would have delivered low cost hydropower from Canada. In Concord, they are now scurrying to try and explain why electricity prices are 50 to 60% higher than the national average here and are speculating they have not moved fast enough with wind and solar.  Several states have even established zero carbon emissions. This will lead to soaring energy prices and life-threatening blackouts. For a family of 4 in a modest house with 3 cars, the energy costs could increase over $10,000/year (based on a sample of households and their energy costs multiplied by 3 as has occurred in countries with a onerous green agenda). And by the way like in Europe where this plan was enacted or planned, many will lose their jobs. They are being told what (if) they can drive and what they can eat. Prosperity always delivers a better life AND environment than poverty.

REALITY CHECKS LARGELY GETTING NO MEDIA ATTENTION

There are a few recent important reports that show what the impact of these plans are likely to be.  The radical environmentalists and globalists believe that people are stupid and can be counted on to believe what government leaders, progressive think tanks and the well paid scientific cabal say.  There are a few recent reports that show what the real impact of some of these plans now on the drawing board are likely to be and they are very scary.

U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE’S GLOBAL ENERGY INSTITUTE’S ENERGY ACCOUNTABILITY SERIES 2020

Candidates for elected office have pledged to ban the very technology that has enabled the boom (and the never thought possible energy independence) - fracking. This raises an important question: what would happen to American jobs and the economy if fracturing was banned? In this report, the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute has undertaken the modeling and analysis to answer that question.

Simply put, a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for our economy.

Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025 it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $7.1 trillion. Job losses in major energy producing states would be immediate and severe; in Texas alone, more than three million jobs would be lost. Tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels would decline by nearly a combined $1.9 trillion, as the ban cuts off a critical source of funding for schools, first responders, infrastructure, and other critical public services.

Energy prices would also skyrocket under a fracking ban. Natural gas prices would leap by 324 percent, causing household energy bills to more than quadruple. By 2025, motorists would pay twice as much at the pump ($5/gallon +)

THE NORTHEAST PETRI-DISH - MASSACHUSETTS CASE STUDY

Massachusetts lawmakers have been aggressive in enacting policies they believe to combat climate change. Policymakers passed the Global Warming Solutions Act and joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative intending to reduce the state’s GHG emissions. As a result you can see Massachusetts tops all the other lower 48 states in the cost of electricity according to the EIA (173.1% of the average of the lower 48 states). Right up there with Massachusetts are all the other northeast RGGI states and not surprisingly California.

image
Enlarged

For Massachusetts this is before the introduction of the Transportation Climate Initiative or TCI, the next big over the cliff proposed effort to kill fossil fuels

The Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research produced a very detailed report Transportation Climate Initiative: Its Economic Impacts on Massachusetts

They write “The Transportation and Climate Initiative of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States (TCI) describes itself as “a regional collaboration of 12 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia that seeks to improve transportation, develop the clean energy economy and reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector.” Massachusetts is a participating state.

The founding document for the TCI is a “Declaration of Intent,” issued in 2010 and signed by transportation and environmental officials in 11 states. The declaration states that the purpose of the TCI is “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, minimize our transportation system’s reliance on high-carbon fuels, promote sustainable growth, address the challenges of vehicle-miles traveled and help build the green energy economy.”

The Initiative is “facilitated” by the Georgetown Climate Center, which worked closely with the Obama administration in its to design and implement climate change (fossil fuel elimination) policies.

BHI examined three scenarios - plans for 20%, 22% and 25% reductions of CO2 emissions from gasoline and diesel vehicles.

The midpoint TCI analysis for the period 2022-2026 for a 22% reduction of gasoline and diesel emissions would lead to a total loss of 36,533 jobs with increased energy cost per household of $3,037 in Massachusetts.

The Green New Deal presented the ideal radical left desires to change life as we know it.  It is more likely change will continue to be incremental. And these studies show, the actions are not supported by real data and honest science, and the pain will be significant.

“If you don’t know where you are going, you might end up somewhere else.” Yogi Berra

Right now COVID-19 has taken up all the country’s (world’s) attention and coverage. After the country goes back to work and before the election we need to work hard to increase awareness of the fraud behind the scare and the extreme damage that could result from the ideologically driven policies. It is an uphill battle for those of us fighting it and one with little or no support.

Mar 09, 2020
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Methane - a more scientific view

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, Dr. James P. Wallace III & ABD. Joseph S. D’Aleo

The greenhouse effect makes this planet more hospitable. Greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere keep the planet warmer than it would otherwise be by re-radiating some of the energy back toward the earth - in a process called back radiation. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas. Much of the discussion of the greenhouse effect has been rooted in an incorrect picture of the atmosphere: nearly all climate models begin by assuming “dry air” as the gas. As shown in Figure 1, that assumption yields this picture of the atmosphere:

image
Enlarged

Mentioning H2O (Water vapor) in an asterisk is definitely not the right way to go about it. Dry air does not exist in nature, but must be created in the laboratory with specialized equipment. Therefore, the above picture seriously misrepresents the reality of air and the reality of the greenhouse effect. In reality, the greenhouse gases (GHGs) comprise a small finite fraction of the atmosphere, and H2O is by far the most important of them. In the pie-chart shown in Figure 2 below, we illustrate better how the greenhouse effect is “divvied up” in the real world, unlike the imaginary world of dry air.

image
Figure 2: Breakdown of the “natural” greenhouse effect by contributing gas. IPCC ReportAR-1. 1992. (Because halocarbons are industrial gases they are not represented here).

However, to draw even this graph, it was necessary to choose some specific amount of water vapor in a representative atmospheric model. That’s not a very reliable way to guess (given the forecast reliability of climate models), but it’s far better than guessing zero, which is the case with “dry air.” In Figure 2, 28% of the greenhouse effect is attributed to “other gases” which are almost entirely CO2. That percentage is very likely way too high. The magnitude of CO2’s influence is now being challenged worldwide See 1, 2 . However, the point we wish to make herein is about methane (CH4) and its actual greenhouse impact, not that of CO2.

In the U.S., regulation of methane emissions from numerous sources is currently being debated. Currently, this debate is not at all about the scientific basis for regulation, but rather totally about the costs involved with regulating various sources. However, contrary to the common assertions, the GHG temperature impact of methane is negligible 3. Thus, water vapor and clouds are primarily responsible for the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect. Climate modelers have tried to model this highly complex thermodynamic process by starting with dry air and then introducing H2O as a “feedback” effect. That clearly doesn’t work as shown below.

There is a huge difference between methane as a confined gas inside laboratory equipment and methane as it is found in normal air. In the real world of real air, the very few possible absorption-lines of CH4 are utterly swamped by the prominent absorption-lines of H2O at the very same wavelengths. Any photon that might be captured by CH4 has long since been captured by H2O. Add to that the fact that there is very little energy in the CH4 region of the infrared spectrum (7.65 microns), because the radiation emanating from earth is centered around 15 microns and spread from about 9 microns to 30 microns. Also, add to that the fact that CH4 concentration is about 1.8 parts per million, while H2O is about 15,000 parts per million. As it turns out, H2O’s impacts, including its phase-change-related impacts, overwhelm everything else in the entire “greenhouse” game.

The entire furor over methane (and the “cow farts” which are good for some giggles) is simply a result of imagining an atmosphere having an idealized chemical-laboratory setting instead of thinking of the earth’s actual atmosphere, made up of real air, which contains H20 - lots of it, not to mention the enormous oceans always ready to evaporate more H2O upon warming.

The mechanism by which methane goes away is this: being far lighter than air (atomic weight 16), CH4 drifts from the surface (where its origin is termites, wetlands, rice paddies and a little from human and animal activities, etc.) up through the troposphere into the stratosphere. There it is soon oxidized to H2O and CO2 . That happens in the daytime, aided by solar photons. (CH4 and O2 molecules don’t just automatically combine when nearby, and infrared photons are too weak to energize the reaction.) The amount of H2O in the stratosphere is about 4 or 5 ppm. Why not zero? H2O was supposed to have all frozen out and turned into clouds in the upper troposphere, was it not? It seems very likely that virtually all the H2O molecules in the stratosphere are what is produced via the oxidation of CH4. But these H2O molecules are of such low density that the H2O-to-H2O collisions (required to begin a snowflake) would occur very infrequently. People guess that the lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere might be around 5 years. That’s a guess because it hasn’t been measured well. The many different emission sources of CH4 are ‘ubiquitous”, i.e. “all over the place” and there’s no current way to track atmospheric CH4 concentration. Moreover, there is more being originated every day. But, once again, since CH4 is lighter than air, it gradually heads for the stratosphere anyway where the above mentioned chemical reaction dispenses with it!  Hence the hand-waving guess of 5 years still stands. But, nobody cares, because CH4 goes away on its own with negligible impact on the Earth’s temperature. There is no place akin to Mauna Loa where CH4 atmospheric concentration has been measured over a large fraction of the past century; thus, unlike for CO2, any claim that a century ago CH4 concentration was half its value
today is specious.

Rather the entire fear of CH4 is based entirely on the IPCC “Global Warming Potential” number being a “factor of 28 stronger” than CO2. But that concept is rooted in thinking about “dry air” in the laboratory, not about “real air” in nature.

SUMMARY

Water vapor and clouds totally dominate the greenhouse gas impact on the Earth’s temperature. Methane emissions have negligible impact and there is no need whatsoever for their regulation. In fact, the cost/benefit ratio associated with any attempt at regulation to reduce methane emissions would be infinite, since the “global cooling benefit” would be zero - not to mention the costs being huge!

1 See Data Research Report
2 See: EF DATA Comment on Christy et al Paper Press Release V5
3 See: GREENHOUSE GASES - A MORE REALISTIC VIEW at this LINK , pg. 7-9 & Methane and Climate, By W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, CO2 Coalition, 2020 (Link)

Mar 08, 2020
Attribution - right and wrong

Joseph S. D’Aleo

I have been involved in my entire career in attribution analysis in weather and climate. It started in grad school when I did my thesis on the conditions that lead to explosive development in east coast winter storms (now called bomb cyclones). In the early 1970s, my doctoral work was on atmospheric chemistry. At the time the concern was on the effects of particulates that man produced and the threat of global cooling as well as greenhouse gases like water vapor and to a smaller degree trace gases like CO2. In most presentations over the years I have pointed out that CO2 has been much higher in the past than today, that it is at coming off plant growth limiting low levels as Dr Patrick Moore and Princeton Physicist Will Happer have discussed and presented. We breathe out 100 times the CO2 than we breathe in. We pump CO2 into greenhouses at 3 to 4 times ambient levels.

image

After one such presentation, the modeller who presented, responded to me that a drop or two of arsenic in a drink could kill someone. I told him put the two drops in a lake and not even a single minnow dies. I reminded him:

The solution to pollution is dilution

At the same time as I was doing grad work, i worked 7-day a week as weather producer for the CBS broadcasts in NYC, I had to deal with the urban versus rural, sea coast versus hilly interior temperature variances in one of the biggest and important and diverse viewing regions.

In the mid-1970s, as a professor at a budding new program at LSC in VT. My courses were on weather, climatology, microclimatology, analysis and forecasting. While there, my students and I were fortunate to meet and learn from the guest giants in the field including Jerome Namias on the roles ocean warm and cold pools have on seasonal weather and how these change longer term. We learned also from MIT’s Hurd Willett also some ways solar cycles have an effect on climate on the short term, decadal and longer periods. And from the great David Ludlum on extremes of the past.

In the 1980s as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel, I brought in more experts for the staff and we together pioneered in medium range forecasting, in seasonal forecasting and educational features on what conditions affect hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts and snow. We did stories on El Nino before it became a household name.

Late in the 1980s, research showed how El Ninos and La Ninas had global impacts and that the Pacific Ocean went through decadal changes that influenced global temperatures and extremes. In the 1990s, I found the Pacific Decadal phases influenced the frequency of El Ninos and the resulting conditions in North America. Research in this time period also showed solar effects were modulated by the high level tropical winds which we added to our toolbox.

TEMPERATURE DATA

In the late 1980s, NCDC and Tom Karl issued the first version of US historical data back to 1895. It was adjusted for urbanization. We correlated these features with this high quality US data and found the oceans and sun could explain all the changes we saw in our climate back to the late 1800s (link). I published peer-reviewed papers and made frequent presentations on this finding and showed the ability to use them to predict upcoming seasons, developing a statistical model to predict global seasonal changes. I found some of these same factors play a key role on the risk of extremes, which we use to advise regions at risk.

This U.S. data set was widely thought to be the best data in the world - for stability of the stations and coverage. But it showed no warming. NASA who relied on NOAA for US data and NOAA both had to explain why the temperatures in the record for the US were cyclical with no upward bias in the entire record like the first operational global NOAA data set global land data released in 1992. They had to say the U.S. only covered 1.6% of the land areas and was not representative of the true trend.

This ‘bothersome 1940 warm blip’ like the Medieval Warm Period were the true “Inconvenient Truths” of the past 20 years.

image

While we were getting smarter about the real drivers, politics was driving climate science in another direction. The scientific method was abandoned and unprecedented funding incented scientists, laboratories, universities and government agencies to show that CO2 was the main driver for the warming cycle and all extremes of weather.  The sinister goal was to control our energy sources, manufacturing and ultimately with all their progressive agenda programs all aspects of our life. They believe as people felt the pain they would turn to government to save them.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help. Ronald Reagan

The now debunked hockey stick and a new US data version w/o UHI adjustments took care of the inconvenient data, They played whack a mole with the data to eliminate the earlier warm periods so they could make a case this was unique and must be our fault.

image

image
Initially, this global data had a cyclical pattern similar to previously reported Northern Hemisphere data (high in the 1930s and 40s, low in the 70s).  Then, as time progressed, the previous officially reported GAST data history was modified, removing the cycle and creating a more and more strongly upward sloping linear trend in each freshly reported historical data set.  Peer reviewed, published and readily reproducible research has shown that: "The conclusive findings were that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality."

In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, which removed their cyclical temperature patterns are completely inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, despite current assertions of record-setting warming, it is impossible to conclude from the NOAA and NASA data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever.

Models had become the principal tool to create data to fill in the large gaps that existed in the historical data as well as adjust the data. By mixing data with models you can more easily manipulate trends to better agree with theories. Professional societies and their journals became an important part of the climate cabal, controlling what gets published. With help from the compliant media every event is proclaimed to be our fault and made a reason to abandon low cost and reliable energy.

The journals claim they now have a strong case for attribution for extreme weather given CO2 changes to temperature. This is patently false.

They claim record highs are increasing but in actual fact, heat records have decline since the 1930s and for US long-term stations. Record high and low data has not been modified because they are in widespread use unlike the longer-term data. The top ten years for 90F temperatures were all before 1956. Global temperatures for the continents all peaked long ago, but a few new records have been found the last two years as they have been aggressively looking to make that other inconvenient fact go away. Hurricane and major hurricane landfall this past decade were both the lowest since 1850. This last decade had the fewest major tornadoes. Droughts and floods show not clear trends and earlier in 2019, we had the smallest areal extent of drought in the U.S. in the record, Snow has increased in the U.S. and globally with fall snowcover at record levels and winter rising. Snow in spring and summer is down but as NOAA advised in 2000 they made a change to automated sensing which affects areal extent in the warm season and data pre and post 2000 comparisons were not advised. Arctic ice decline relates to cycles of warm and cold in both the Atlantic and Pacific. Current levels are comparable to the 1920s to 1950s. This cycle is seen in Greenland as well. Antarctic ice set a modern record high a few years ago. Sea level rise has slowed globally. An adjustment was made up to satellite measurements of sea level when they could not detect sea level rises. See much more detail on the big WEATHER IS MORE EXTREME lie here.

Their control over the data and the models and of the publications turned climate change into a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Anyone who disagrees is declared an enemy of the people.

THE REAL DANGER

Current climate policies- based on these unreliable temperature records - threaten our economic and national security interests. As the proposed climate policies grow more extreme, the consequences of allowing this record to remain unchallenged gravely threatens an onslaught of litigation based on the greenhouse gas endangerment finding. Importantly, this litigation imposes significant impediments to the mineral land leasing and pipeline infrastructure build out necessary to maintain and enhance energy independence and economic prosperity.

Furthermore, the US financial sector has already dramatically curtailed its support of conventional energy source development in large part due to the continued calls for regulatory destruction of the fossil fuel industry based substantially on NOAA and NASA’s now invalidated global surface temperature records. This situation is putting our Nation’s energy security at grave risk - which means our economic and national security are also in great peril.

Some Published reviews and press releases our team have produced.

URL FOR 2011 KISS Paper

URL for 2017 Research Report and Press Release.

URL for GAST RR Press Release: June 2017

URL for 2017 GAST Report GAST RR: June 2017

URL for the EF DATA Comment on Christy Paper Third RR:

URL for the EF DATA Comment on Christy et al Paper Final 042818V4

URL for Alarmist Claim Rebuttals AC Rebuttals:

See the Heartland’s Climate at a Glance here.

Cartoon Dilbert: On Sun, Mar 10, 2019

URL FOR THE 031519 NSPS COMMENT FILING - FINAL

All our efforts are volunteer (pro-bono). Help us with a donation if you can (left column).

Jan 24, 2020
Climate Alarmists = Chicken Little

By Frank Lassee

Climate alarmist are telling you a false story line

It’s really about spending huge sums of taxpayer money on a non-existent problem and vastly expanding government control over our lives

Greenland’s name wasn’t just a clever marketing ploy by the Icelandic Vikings to get suckers to move there

There is so much good news because of our gently warming world that you gotta wear shades - more food and less poverty

Be aware of the climate alarmist Trojan Horse

--------

On Tuesday evening, I appeared on the PBS program Chicago Tonight, with Alderman Matt Martin for a discussion about Chicago’s so-called “climate emergency.”

During the segment, we debated the merits of his resolution, “Declaring a Climate Emergency and Emergency Mobilization Effort to Restore a Safe Climate.” As you may know, several cities throughout America have passed similar measures, which are more about virtue-signaling than pragmatic solutions.

In essence, these misguided resolutions are all about spending huge sums of money on a non-existent problem and vastly expanding government control to boot. Just think about a city saving the earth. Oh, the hubris! Coincidence? I think not. These resolutions - including the Green New Deal - are not intended to avoid a climate cataclysm. They are really about increasing the power of politicians, so they can exert maximum control over our lives while reaching even deeper into our wallets and purses.

It isn’t about the climate, because we are not, nor have been, on the brink of a climate apocalypse. The manufacturing of the “climate crisis” is a stealth maneuver to increase the size and scope of government under the guise of global warming - don’t ever forget it.

In reality, we are threatened more by the Climate Delusion than we are by a worldwide climate catastrophe. In fact, over the past 170 years, our world (thankfully) is warming at a very gentle rate. This is natural, as all planets tend to undergo periodic cycles of warming and cooling. I don’t think it is a coincidence that without the presence of mankind, Mars is also experiencing a gentle warming cycle.

This warming/cooling phenomenon has been occurring for millennia, well before humans discovered and put petroleum to use for our benefit. For instance, there once was a time when humans actually walked from Asia to North America - not because they could walk on water, but because ocean levels were much lower, exposing a land bridge between present-day Russia and Alaska. Believe it or not, our planet has experienced several cooling and warming periods.

Greenland is called Greenland because from 900 to 1300, humans could actually grow crops in the then-warmer soil and climate of Greenland - it wasn’t just a clever marketing ploy by the Icelandic Vikings to get suckers to move there. This Medieval Warm Period was preceded by the cold and dark Middle Ages. Which was preceded by the Roman Warm Period from 700 BC to the time of Christ.

The Romans wore togas and shorts for a reason, it was warm way back then. When it is warm, it is better for plants, animals, and people. CO2 is plant food, worldwide crop harvests are up, up, up. Fortunately, we are in the midst of a natural warm and wet period, which is a good thing. In fact, more people die from exposure to cold than heat every year. I could go on and on, with mountains of facts, but I digress.

I know you are fed a steady diet of lies by the radical, legacy media. Unfortunately, like Alderman Martin, they are telling you a false story line. Taking this into account, I understand if you are skeptical in regards to The Heartland Institute’s perspective of climate realism. We at Heartland have done a deep dive into this topic and offer you a truthful, fact-based, realist perspective.

Martin’s resolution claims “WHEREAS, the death and destruction already wrought by current average global warming of 1 degree C [this is America for goodness sake, why isn’t this expressed in Fahrenheit?] demonstrates that the Earth is already too hot for safety and justice, [whatever that means] as attested by increased and intensifying wildfires, floods and rising seas, diseases, droughts and extreme weather.”

This alarmist rhetoric is quite alarming, and should immediately trigger your skeptical side. This type of doom and gloom propaganda is precisely why I call those who have joined the climate change movement (to some it has become a religion) climate alarmists, aka the green extreme. This is a classic case of the Chicken Little folk tale in action. Even worse, it is a world-wide false alarm, the sky is not falling and it isn’t burning up either.

At present, the world is experiencing less hurricanes that are less severe than in the past.

There are also less tornadoes in the United State than in many times in the past.

Australia, the desert continent, is getting wetter.

NOAA temperature data points to no heat increase in the U.S. over the past two (actually even 9) decades.

The oceans have risen 4 inches a century for the past 170 years, and are holding steady.

I have witnessed Lake Michigan at very high and very low levels. In my life, global warming and now climate change were blamed for both the highs and the lows. Wow, you can’t make this stuff up.

For decades, climate alarmists, like children (and Chicken Little) have simply made stuff up. And their highly unqualified predictions have been proven false time and time again. Over and over, they parrot the same dire projections and yet they carry on as if nothing has happened as these predictions fail to materialize, again and again and again.

Here is a primer on their poor predictions. Polar bears are going to die! There are more than ever. We will all be dead in a few years! We are not. Everyone will starve! Meanwhile, more people are well-fed and global poverty is at its lowest rate ever!

Being from Wisconsin, I ask: why would Wisconsinites not welcome a North Carolina-like climate? Why would people who live in northern Alberta, Canada not welcome Wisconsin-esque weather? Land values are up in northern Alberta, because the land is able to be used for more productive purposes. Put another way, humans can grow more crops when it is warm. There is so much good news because of our gently warming world - not in spite of it. We are being fed a steady diet of lies by the prophets of doom for the benefit of themselves and their wealthy well-connected friends; not for the benefit of ordinary, hard-working Americans - like you.

Be aware!

Sincerely,
Frank Lassee

---------

Surveys show the public largely does not prioritize climate change policies.

image
Enlarged

Nov 09, 2019
Who are these ‘11,000 Concerned Scientists’?

By Casey Plunkett

See how Facebook is doing fake Fact-Checking on papers that are not published on cabal controlled journals here.

Academics and scientists are yet again issuing “consensus” statements on climate change.  In 2017, we were warned by 16,000 scientists across 184 countries that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.” This past week, BioScience, an academic, peer-reviewed journal from Oxford University Press, found 11,224 scientists, from 153 countries, who signed off on the latest climate change drivel.  Citing a “moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is,” they’ve published the paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” In dystopian tone, they’ve issued a demand for Earth’s population to “be stabilized - and, ideally, gradually reduced - within a framework that ensures social integrity.”

With the disclaimer that I’m just a layman who resides in “flyover country,” who are these “11,000 Scientists,” and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter?  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 that 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.  Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could not care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change - let alone allow him to tell me how to live my life.

This raises the question: “Why did so few meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric scientists sign off on this latest paper?” Perhaps they know that this is faux science?  The climate is a complex dynamic that science don’t fully understand, let alone predict.  Nonetheless, radical, statist elements of society continue to advocate economy-destroying actions - taking lemmings over the cliff with them.

At family gatherings in the upcoming holiday season, when annoying in-laws cite “scientific consensus” on man’s effects on climate change, expose their ignorance and the irrelevance of these doomsday papers with an analogy.  Advise them to seek out the consensus opinion of a group of chemists, linguists, and data scientists if they believe they tore a rotator cuff or have concerns with an asymmetrical mole they’ve discovered.

Nov 02, 2019
Expensive Climate Policies Sparked Chile Riots, Just Like France’s Yellow Vest Protests

By James Taylor

Climate activists and the United Nations are suffering a major black eye this week as protests and riots resulting from high energy prices have erupted in Santiago, Chile.

Chile, which will host a major U.N. climate conference in December (NOW CANCELLED), earned praise from climate activists for recently imposing a carbon dioxide tax on conventional energy sources and switching the Santiago Metro system to renewable power. Now, the people of Chile are rising up and firing a shot across the bow of other nations considering similar energy taxes and expensive renewable energy programs.

On Oct. 25, protestors took to the streets throughout Santiago in response to Metro fare hikes. The protests soon spread to other cities and led to rioting and at least five reported deaths. The Chilean government and the legacy media blamed the fare hikes on rising oil prices. But that isn’t true.

Oil prices aren’t rising. Global oil prices are currently 25 percent lower than they were a year ago and 37 percent lower than they were five years ago.

In Chile, gasoline prices reflect the lower oil prices. Chilean gasoline prices were $1.12 per liter in August (the most recent month for which data are available), compared to $1.28 a year ago. Five years ago, gasoline sold at $1.50.

Santiago Metro fares are rising, amid falling oil and gasoline prices, because government officials in 2018 traded out most of the Metro’s energy sources to wind and solar power from conventional sources. The Chilean government also hit the portion of conventional power that remains with new carbon dioxide taxes.

As a result, Chileans are now burdened by higher Metro fares reflecting unnecessary energy price increases. As Chileans protest, climate activists and their media allies want people to believe oil is to blame, rather than government climate programs that raise energy prices and impoverish people.

Unlike speculative climate change woes that never seem to materialize, carbon dioxide taxes and renewable energy mandates immediately and measurably raise living costs and reduce living standards. In the United States, people may have some concern about climate change, but polling shows most Americans aren’t willing to pay $2 per month to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

In Chile, where per-capita income is merely one-quarter of U.S. per-capita income, people are understandably even less willing to pay for carbon dioxide reduction. Moreover, Chile’s per-capita income is higher than that of most other Latin American countries, so people in other Latin American countries would be even more likely to rise up and protest economically destructive climate change programs like the ones imposed in Chile.

For United Nations officials planning the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) climate conference, scheduled for the first two weeks of December in Santiago, the protests are especially embarrassing. Last year’s U.N. conference took place in Poland, where government officials and the prominent Solidarity labor union have criticized costly U.N. climate programs. Solidarity even held a press conference at the U.N. event and issued a joint statement criticizing U.N. climate activism.

The December U.N. conference was originally scheduled for Brazil, but the Brazilian government strongly criticized U.N. climate activism and told the United Nations it no longer desired to serve as host.

The Chilean government offered to host in Brazil’s place, touting its carbon dioxide taxes, renewable-powered metro, and other activist climate programs. Yet, the world is seeing the Chilean population rioting in the streets as a result of those taxes and climate programs. This is the third major black eye for the U.N. Conference of the Parties in less than a year.

The Chilean protests, like the Yellow Vest protests that erupted in France a year ago, highlight how out of touch the international climate class is with the people they seek to govern and control. Faced with a choice between suffering certain lower living standards today or dealing with speculative climate change in the distant future, people wisely choose the latter.

That will continue to be the case until predicted climate harms actually materialize and negatively affect people, or until wind and solar power can economically compete with conventional energy. So far, neither has been the case.

James Taylor (JTaylor@heartland.org) is the director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

Nov 10, 2019
Are they willing to go to these lengths?

James Visentine

"After our daughter of fifteen years of age was moved to tears by the speech of Greta Thunberg at the UN recently, she became angry with our generation “who had been doing nothing for thirty years”. So, we decided to help her prevent what the girl on TV announced of “massive eradication and the disappearance of entire ecosystems”.  We are now committed to give our daughter a future again, by doing our part to help cool the planet four degrees.

From now on she will go to school on a bicycle, because driving her by car costs fuel, and fuel puts emissions into the atmosphere. Of course it will be winter soon and then she will want to go by bus, but only as long as it is a diesel bus.  Somehow, that does not seem to be conducive to ‘helping the Climate’.

Of course, she is now asking for an electric bicycle, but we have shown her the devastation caused to the areas of the planet as a result of mining for the extraction of Lithium and other minerals used to make batteries for electric bicycles, so she will be pedaling, or walking. Which will not harm her, or the planet. We used to cycle and walk to school too.

Since the girl on TV demanded “we need to get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels” and our daughter agreed with her, we have disconnected the heat vent in her room. The temperature is now dropping to twelve degrees in the evening, and will drop below freezing in the winter, we have promised to buy her an extra sweater, hat, tights, gloves and a blanket.

For the same reason we have decided that from now on she only takes a cold shower. She will wash her clothes by hand, with a wooden washboard, because the washing machine is simply a power consumer and since the dryer uses natural gas, she will hang her clothes on the clothesline to dry.

Speaking of clothes, the ones that she currently has are all synthetic, so made from petroleum. Therefore on Monday, we will bring all her designer clothing to the secondhand shop.

We have found an eco store where the only clothing they sell is made from undyed and unbleached linen, wool and jute.  It shouldn’t matter that it looks good on her, or that she is going to be laughed at, dressing in colorless, bland clothes and without a wireless bra, but that is the price she has to pay for the benefit of The Climate.  Cotton is out of the question, as it comes from distant lands and pesticides are used for it. Very bad for the environment.

We just saw on her Instagram that she’s pretty angry with us. This was not our intention.

From now on, at 7 p.m. we will turn off the Wi-Fi and we will only switch it on again the next day after dinner for two hours. In this way we will save on electricity, so she is not bothered by electro-stress and will be totally isolated from the outside world. This way, she can concentrate solely on her homework. At eleven o’clock in the evening we will pull the breaker to shut the power off to her room, so she knows that dark is really dark. That will save a lot of CO2.

She will no longer be participating in winter sports to ski lodges and resorts, nor will she be going on any more vacations with us, because our vacation destinations are practically inaccessible by bicycle.

Since our daughter fully agrees with the girl on TV that the CO2 emissions and footprints of her great-grandparents are to blame for ‘killing our planet’, what all this simply means, is that she also has to live like her great-grandparents and they never had a holiday, a car or even a bicycle.

We haven’t talked about the carbon footprint of food yet.  Zero CO2 footprint means no meat, no fish and no poultry, but also no meat substitutes that are based on soy (after all, that grows in farmers fields, that use machinery to harvest the beans, trucks to transport to the processing plants, where more energy is used, then trucked to the packaging/canning plants, and trucked once again to the stores) and also no imported food, because that has a negative ecological effect. And absolutely no chocolate from Africa, no coffee from South America and no tea from Asia.

Only homegrown potatoes, vegetables and fruit that have been grown in local cold soil, because greenhouses run on boilers, piped in CO2 and artificial light. Apparently, these things are also bad for The Climate. We will teach her how to grow her own food.

Bread is still possible, but butter, milk, cheese and yogurt, cottage cheese and cream come from cows and they emit CO2. No more margarine and no oils will be used for the frying pan, because that fat is palm oil from plantations in Borneo where rain forests first grew.

No ice cream in the summer. No soft drinks and no energy drinks, as the bubbles are CO2. She wanted to lose some pounds, well; this will help her achieve that goal too.

We will also ban all plastic, because it comes from chemical factories. Everything made of steel and aluminum must also be removed. Have you ever seen the amount of energy a blast furnace consumes or an aluminum smelter? Uber bad for the climate!

We will replace her 9600 coil, memory foam pillow top mattress, with a jute bag filled with straw, with a horsehair pillow.

And finally, she will no longer be using makeup, soap, shampoo, cream, lotion, conditioner, toothpaste and medication. Her sanitary napkins will be replaced with pads made of linen, that she can wash by hand, with her wooden washboard, just like her female ancestors did before climate change made her angry at us for destroying her future.

In this way we will help her to do her part to prevent mass extinction, water levels rising and the disappearance of entire ecosystems.  If she truly believes she wants to walk the talk of the girl on TV, she will gladly accept and happily embrace her “new way of life.

May your troubles be less, may your blessings be more, and may nothing but happiness come through your door! When we choose not to focus on what is missing from our lives but are grateful for the abundance that is present we experience heaven on earth.

Apr 29, 2019
Fake climate science and scientists

Paul Driessen

For years we’ve been subjected to what can only be described as fake science on climate change, brought to us by folks that can best be described as fake climate scientists.

They engage in practices that real scientists would never follow, and willfully ignore everything the scientific method prescribes as guidelines for honest, replicable, beneficial research. Even worse, these fake/alarmist scientists demand that their suspect work be used to justify energy policies that would upend and devastate modern industrial economies - for no climate benefit… with millions of acres blanketed by wind turbines and solar panels ...and with billions of impoverished people being trapped in energy poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death.

My article this week tackles this problem head-on. Thank you for posting it, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,

Paul

Fake climate science and scientists

Alarmists game the system to enrich and empower themselves, and hurt everyone else

Paul Driessen

The multi-colored placard in front of a $2-million home in North Center Chicago proudly proclaimed, “In this house we believe: No human is illegal” - and “Science is real” (plus a few other liberal mantras).

I knew right away where the owners stood on climate change, and other hot-button political issues. They would likely tolerate no dissension or debate on “settled” climate science or any of the other topics.

But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief - or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited - it’s pseudo-science, at best.

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. If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature - at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.

Real science does not involve simply declaring that you “believe” something, It’s not immutable doctrine. It doesn’t claim “science is real” - or demand that a particular scientific explanation be carved in stone. Earth-centric concepts gave way to a sun-centered solar system. Miasma disease beliefs surrendered to the germ theory. The certainty that continents are locked in place was replaced by plate tectonics (and the realization that you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate change).

Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate.

They don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t hide their data and computer algorithms (AlGoreRythms?), restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who dares to ask inconvenient questions or find fault with their claims and models. They don’t concoct hockey stick temperature graphs that can be replicated by plugging in random numbers.

In the realm contemplated by the Chicago yard sign, we ought to be doing all we can to understand Earth’s highly complex, largely chaotic, frequently changing climate system - all we can to figure out how the sun and other powerful forces interact with each other. Only in that way can we accurately predict future climate changes, prepare for them, and not waste money and resources chasing goblins.

But instead, we have people in white lab coats masquerading as real scientists. They’re doing what I just explained true scientists don’t do. They also ignore fluctuations in solar energy output and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth’s history. They look only (or 97% of the time) at carbon dioxide as the principle or sole driving force behind current and future climate changes - and blame every weather event, fire and walrus death on manmade CO2.

Even worse, they let their biases drive their research and use their pseudo-science to justify demands that we eliminate all fossil fuel use, and all carbon dioxide and methane emissions, by little more than a decade from now. Otherwise, they claim, we will bring unprecedented cataclysms to people and planet.

Not surprisingly, their bad behavior is applauded, funded and employed by politicians, environmentalists, journalists, celebrities, corporate executives, billionaires and others who have their own axes to grind, their own egos to inflate - and their intense desire to profit from climate alarmism and pseudo-science.

Worst of all, while they get rich and famous, their immoral actions impoverish billions and kill millions, by depriving them of the affordable, reliable fossil fuel energy that powers modern societies.

And still these slippery characters endlessly repeat the tired trope that they “believe in science” - and anyone who doesn’t agree to “keep fossil fuels in the ground” to stop climate change is a “science denier.”

When these folks and the yard sign crowd brandish the term “science,” political analyst Robert Tracinski suggests, it is primarily to “provide a badge of tribal identity” - while ironically demonstrating that they have no real understanding of or interest in “the guiding principles of actual science.”

Genuine climate scientist (and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Judith Curry echoes Tracinski. Politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren use “science” as a way of “declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand… The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal - and one political party ticket,” she explains.

The ultimate purpose of all this, of course, is to silence the dissenting voices of evidence- and reality-based climate science, block creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science, and ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use ...and upend modern economies.

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%).

Thankfully, there are many reasons for hope. For recognizing that we do not face a climate crisis, much less threats to our very existence. For realizing there is no need to subject ourselves to punitive carbon taxes or the misery, poverty, deprivation, disease and death that banning fossil fuels would cause.

Between the peak of the great global cooling scare in 1975 until around 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise in rough conjunction. But then temperatures mostly flat-lined, while CO2 levels kept climbing. Now actual average global temperatures are already 1 degree F below the Garbage In-Garbage Out computer model predictions. Other alarmist forecasts are also out of touch with reality.

Instead of fearing rising CO2, we should thank it for making crop, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, benefitting nature and humanity - especially in conjunction with slightly warmer temperatures that extend growing seasons, expand arable land and increase crop production.

The rate of sea level rise has not changed for over a century - and much of what alarmists attribute to climate change and rising seas is actually due to land subsidence and other factors.

Weather is not becoming more extreme. In fact, Harvey was the first Category 3-5 hurricane to make US landfall in a record 12 years - and the number of violent F3 to F5 tornadoes has fallen from an average of 56 per year from 1950 to 1985 to only 34 per year since then.

Human ingenuity and adaptability have enabled humans to survive and thrive in all sorts of climates, even during our far more primitive past. Allowed to use our brains, fossil fuels and technologies, we will deal just fine with whatever climate changes might confront us in the future. (Of course, another nature-driven Pleistocene-style glacier pulling 400 feet of water out of our oceans and crushing Northern Hemisphere forests and cities under mile-high walls of ice truly would be an existential threat to life as we know it.)

So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs - in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” - let them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. The rest of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.

Apr 19, 2019
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

IBD

Global Warming: 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.

What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated “adjustments” to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.

Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing - lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.

This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.

But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

That is, until the NOAA’s statisticians “adjust” the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That’s clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

That’s not what NOAA does.

According to the NOAA, the errors aren’t random. They’re systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they’re very fuzzy about why this should be.

Far from legitimately “adjusting” anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government’s underlying policies for the better part of two decades.

What NOAA does aren’t niggling little changes, either.

As Tony Heller at the Real Climate Science web site notes, “Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895.”

So the global warming scare is basically a hoax.

This winter, for instance, as measured by temperature in city after city and by snow-storm severity, has been one of the coldest on record in the Northeast.

But after the NOAA’s wizards finished with the data, it was merely about average.

Climate analyst Paul Homewood notes for instance that in New York state, measured temperatures this year were 2.7 degrees or more colder than in 1943. Not to NOAA. Its data show temperatures this year as 0.9 degrees cooler than the actual data in 1943.

Erasing Winter

By the way, a similar result occurred after the brutally cold 2013-2014 winter in New York. It was simply adjusted away. Do this year after year, and with the goal of radically altering the temperature record to fit the global warming narrative, and you have what amounts to climate fraud.

“Clearly NOAA’s highly homogenized and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data,” writes Homewood. ‘And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the U.S. is any better?”

That’s the big question. And for those who think that government officials don’t have political, cultural or other agendas, that’s naivete of the highest sort. They do.

Since the official government mantra for all of the bureaucracies at least since the Clinton era is that CO2 production is an evil that inevitably leads to runaway global warming, those who toil in the bureaucracies’ statistical sweat shops know that their careers and future funding depend on having the politically correct answers - not the scientifically correct ones.

“The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary,” wrote James Delingpole recently in Breitbart’s Big Government. “Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data.”

There are at least some signs of progress, however. In the case of the Environmental Protection Agency, future reports and studies will include the data and the underlying scientific assumptions for public scrutiny.

That’s one way to bring greater honesty to government - and to keep climate charlatans from bankrupting our nation with spurious demands for carbon taxes and deindustrialization of our economy to prevent global warming. The only real result won’t be a cooler planet, but rather mass poverty and lower standards of living for all.

Apr 06, 2016
“…climate change is UN hoax to create new world order”

Trump gives hope to derailment of the establishment’s plans (both parties) for a New World Order - which would cede our rights and control over our lives including a redistribution of any wealth to the UN.

Update: see the whole story behind the story in their own words in Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters by C3 Headlines.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” And, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

We start with Mencken’s quotes because they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religious; the studious; the famous; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping “the populace alarmed” to further their own personal, selfish goals.

The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previous paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose an ‘Agenda’ based on their elite values and self-importance. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

See the quotes here.

---------

Australia PM’s adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order

Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, says UN is using debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule.

The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order - provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.

Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Australia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production.

Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Australia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders’ summit in Brisbane last year.

Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.

“The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN....

“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

Figueres used an address in Melbourne to urge Australia to move away from coal, the country’s second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming.

“Economic diversification will be a challenge that Australia faces,” she said.

Abbott has described coal as “good for humanity” and the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future.

Figueres also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott’s track record.

At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth.

At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was “crap”, repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.

Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: “No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables.”

Abbott’s office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Sep 23, 2015
In regards to the false 97% “consensus”

Derek Alker

Updated: Public and many to most real scientists are unconvinced.

From: Malcolm Roberts [mailto:malcolmr@conscious.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 12:07 PM
To: UQ VC OFFICE
Cc: John Cook; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; FORBES VIV; Carter Bob; Plimer Ian; Jennifer Marohasy
Subject: D15/7927: Complaint of serious corruption of science by UQ’s John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

Dear Professor Hoj:

As an honours engineering graduate from the University of Queensland I am inquiring of you as to the reasons our university supports the work of John Cook who serially misrepresents climate and science? Specifically, why is our university wasting valuable funds to mislead the public through a free course and by producing associated international video material?  Course

Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here.

It details John Cook’s fabrication of an unscientific ‘consensus’. Science is not decided by claims of consensus. Resorting to claims of consensus is unscientific and contradicts the scientific process.

Fabricating false claims of scientific consensus is not honest.

Science is decided by empirical scientific evidence. John Cook has repeatedly failed to provide any such evidence that use of hydrocarbon fuels is causing the entirely natural climate variability we experience.

A succinct summary of John Cook’s fabrication of a consensus, and of the corruption of science upon which his claims rely and that is furthered by his claims, and of the empirical scientific evidence he blatantly contradicts, are discussed in pages 6-18 of my report to federal MPs Senator Simon Birmingham and Bob Baldwin. It is available at this link

My seven years of independent investigation have proven that there is no such empirical scientific evidence anywhere in the world. Climate alarm is unfounded and is a purely political construct pushing a political agenda. Please refer to Appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7 and 8 at this link.

John Cook’s core public climate claims are false and blatantly contradict empirical scientific evidence. Please refer to appendix 4 at the same link.

image

Further, John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists and I’m wondering if that would make his work a serious offense.

As you likely know, John Cook works closely with the university’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who reportedly has many serious conflicts of financial interest surrounding his false climate claims. These are discussed on pages 54-59 of Appendix 9 at this link and briefly on pages 16 and 17 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin MP.

I draw your attention to my formal complain dated Wednesday 10 November 2010 to the university senate about the work of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg misrepresenting climate and science. That was not independently investigated by then Vice Chancellor Paul Greenberg who was subsequently dismissed over another event, reportedly for a breach of ethics. My formal complaint is discussed on pages 57 and 58 of Appendix 9 at this link.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s responses to my request for empirical scientific evidence of human causation of climate variability have repeatedly and always failed to provide such evidence.

This email is openly copied to both Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook and to reputable Australian scientists and academics expert on climate and to Viv Forbes an honours graduate in geology from our university. Viv Forbes understands the key facts on climate and on the corruption of climate science by beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm perpetrated falsely by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook.

Please stop John Cook’s misrepresentations and restore scientific integrity to our university. I please request a meeting with you to discuss our university’s role in deceiving the public and to discuss restoring scientific integrity. I would be pleased for that meeting to be in the company of John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if that suits you.

Pages 19-26 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin discuss the serious damage to our nation and to humanity and our natural environment worldwide as a result of unfounded climate alarm spread by our university’s staff. I hope that you will fulfill your responsibility for investigating and ending such corruption. To neglect to do so will mean that you condone such damage and dishonesty. I seek confidence that you will restore the university’s scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

------------

The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

image

“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.”

Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science

In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2.

See faulty methodology of Cook study.

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science. See the list here.

----------------------

See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”

----------

See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.

-----------

From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge

--------

Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.

NOTE:

See all the talks at the latest ICCC9 Conference in Las Vegas in 2014 here.

Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV.  If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.

----------------------

See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.

-----------------------

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.

The left loves to reference desmogblog.com when any skeptic produce an analysis or paper challenging CAGW - see the real story about this looney left green PR firm here.

---------------

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.

“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”

The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.

See still more annotated here.

--------------

Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.

The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.

---------------

See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.

Go to and become a member of WeatherBell Analytics here.

Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here. It’s latest report (2013) details information from almost 4,000 papers.

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)