This is a long paper by James Matkin, a former Minister in the Government of British Columbia, but it is valuabe for traversing rebuttals of all of the main falsities of climate alarmists.
Jill Stirling, of the Friends of Science Society in Canada reads and discusses a letter from Dr Ross McKitrick to a Canadian MP vilified by climate alarmists, in which Dr McKitrick presents convincing rebuttals of the alarmists'claims.
"If everyone planted a tree, how much land would that require? Let's say they’re planted in a square grid, 5 meters apart, so that each tree takes up an area of 25 square meters. With 7.5 billion trees, that requires 1.8 x 1011 square meters of land, or 72,000 square miles. That's roughly the size o...
Professor Larry Bell posts at 'Newsmax': "As one researcher prudently observed, 'It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.'"
“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Dr Mototaka Nakamura of MIT: “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”
A group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, has sent a registered letter to the Secretary-General of the UN, António Guterres. They warn the Secretary-General that “current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.” They add: “We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.”
Tyler Durden posts at ZeroHedge: "Climate activist Greta Thunberg’s recent speech to the United Nations seemed to reveal a deeply troubled individual. She said her childhood was taken away from her by the looming threat of climate change, and she blamed world leaders for letting it happen. She has every reason to be upset, but she is directing her anger at the wrong people. The real culprit is the green catastrophe industry that manufactures crises out of nothing".
Dr John Maunder at 'Sunlive' in Tauranga, New Zealand, posts: "The connection between solar activity and the earth's climate is an area of ongoing and sometimes controversial research.Time will tell whether the sun will once again go into another ‘Maunder Minimum' within the lifetime of the present...
Professor Larry Bell writes at 'Newsmax': All of us nice people enthusiastically support educating and encouraging children about the importance of environmental stewardship. It's quite a different matter, however, to fill their precious minds with fearful fantasies that global survival depends upon solving a mythical climate crisis with magical energy solutions."
Australian analyst Tony Thomas posts at 'Quadrant': 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 4degC warming have set the world to spending $US1.5 trillion a year to combat CO2 emissions. The iconoclast is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura."
Lomborg writes in 'The Australian': "Enough is enough. We must confront climate change, but hyperbole and bluster do the planet no favours. This is the time we should be having a sensible discussion on cost-effective ways to reduce the worst of climate change’s damages...Alternative energy has increased so little because green energy remains incapable of meeting all of our needs met by fossil fuels. Replacing cheap and reliable fossil fuel energy with more expensive and less reliable energy alternatives weighs down the economy, leading to slightly lower growth. This means the Paris treaty is likely to cost between $US1 trillion and $2 trillion ($1.5 trillion and $2.9 trillion) a year, making it the costliest treaty in history. Not surprisingly, research shows that it will increase poverty. Its effects are not evenly felt; increasing electricity prices hurts the poor the most."
Australian author Tony Thomas posts at Quadrant: "Adult climate catastrophists have flipped to censorship, abuse and hysteria to back tomorrow’s climate-truant kids and the latest UN gabfest in New York on Monday. The ‘progressive’ media has dropped its mask of objectivity, with more than 170 global...
"Few world leaders are lining up to deliver what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had in mind when he called them together for a New York conference to boost ambition. The New York meeting, scheduled for September 23, was conceived as a show of global defiance at US President Donald Trump’s decision to ditch the Paris Agreement. Rather than a competition for more robust action, as was intended, the New York agenda looks deflated.". Graham Lloyd writes in 'The Australian'.
Alexander C. R. Hammond posts at humanprogress.org: "The world’s richest regions, such as North America and Europe, are not only increasing their forest area. They have more forests than they did prior to industrialization. The United Kingdom, for example, has more than tripled its forest area since 1919. The UK will soon reach forest levels equal to those registered in the Domesday Book, almost a thousand years ago."
Posted 18 February 2009
"The hysteria surrounding the concept of 'global warming' will fade over the years. People will see that the apocalyptic forecasts are not coming true. Today there is no fingerprint attesting that carbon dioxide emission causes a rise in temperature. A Grad missile that falls in Sderot should be more cause for concern." Professor Nir Shaviv, Hebrew University, Israel.
This lengthy but well-researched thesis by New Zealand researcher Barbara McKenzie recounts in detail how the origin of what is today's faux climate hysteria was hatched by a small, rich cabal, who wanted to rule the world and restrict human population.
Pat Frank posts at WattsUpWithThat: "In short, climate models cannot predict future global air temperatures; not for one year and not for 100 years. Climate model air temperature projections are physically meaningless. They say nothing at all about the impact of CO₂ emissions, if any, on global air temperatures."
The Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Petteri Taalas, says that the alarmist narrative on climate change has gone off the rails and criticised the news media for provoking unjustified anxiety. Speaking to Finland’s financial newspaper Talouselämä (“The Journal”) on 6 September 2019, Petteri Taalas called for cooler heads to prevail, saying that he does not accept arguments that the end of the world is at hand: "It is not going to be the end of the world. The world is just becoming more challenging. In parts of the globe living conditions are becoming worse, but people have survived in harsh conditions."
Dr Benny Peiser, GWPF says Taalas statement is "unprecedented":
"Yes, sunshine and wind are obviously clean but the turning either of those into electricity is anything but a clean, harmless process. The Greens, here, stomp on any suggestion of mineral extraction, but their brave new world requires massive increases in mining of metals and rare-earth minerals. This comes with ecological and social consequences. Based upon a 2017 World Bank report, to get to the zero-carbon nirvana would require building enough solar and wind plants to generate 14 TW of electricity by 2050." Columnist posts at New Zealand BFD blog
"Large but previously unrecognized uncertainties must therefore exist in all the past and present air temperature projections and hindcasts of even advanced climate models. The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables." Patrick Frank posts at Frontiers in Science.