We've just picked up on this video which recounts the text of a letter from Canadian climate skeptic Dr Ross McKitrick in which he talks about what happens to people who openly challenge the current wave of propaganda alleging man-made climate change. Watch this video if you need help to stand up to the alarmists.(Thanks to Whaleoil Beef Hooked blog - link takes a few seconds to load).
Dr Roger Higgs, Geoclastica Ltd, posts at Electroverse: "We urgently need to expose the ‘CO2 = pollutant’ fallacy being forced upon your children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces by schools, universities, governments and mainstream media worldwide, and to denounce it in scrupulously truthful terms easily understood by the public, including those youngsters themselves. Here are 25 simple bullet points:
Professor Judith Curry, former head of the climatology department at Georgia Institute of Technology, gives the example of claims linking recent wildfires in the US to climate change. These are counterproductive, she says, because they deflect attention from the real causes of the problem, particularly management policies for state- and federal-owned forests. According to Professor Curry, these have been far more vulnerable to fires than privately-owned lands. Similarly, hurricane activity is frequently linked to global warming. However, with little evidence of any worsening trend and with large natural variability, Professor Curry says there are no sound climate-change-based arguments for effective policy responses.
We thank New Zealand's most-widely-read blog, "Whaleoil Beef Hooked" for having the courage to be the only news medium to publish this article by John Rofe, a specialist in fraud detection. His paper tells us: "The time has come for reality to displace the elaborate fiction created under the auspices of the United Nations directed climate change fraud. It has long been known that CO2 is colourless, odourless, non-toxic at atmospheric concentrations and essential for the survival of all life on earth. Further, more atmospheric CO2 means more plant food to help the greening of the planet. Less atmospheric CO2 means all plant life suffers because it is so essential to support photosynthesis. The charade of any political party that refers to itself as 'green' attempting to tax CO2 and thereby reduce its concentration is bizarre in the extreme". James Shaw should be ashamed of his role in this fraud." We recommend also the GSM video linked in the Rofe paper.
Contrary to the IPCC’s statement that it is “very likely” sea-level rise is accelerating, the highest quality coastal tide gauges from around the world show no evidence of acceleration since the 1920s. Local and regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability, unrelated to change...
Dr Judith Curry describes how valid conclusions often lay hidden within research reports, masked by plausible but unjustified conclusions reached in those reports. And how the IPCC institutionalizes such masking errors in climate science.
In a detailed review of science for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Dr Christy summarised with three main points:
"1. Theoretical climate modelling is deficient for describing past variations...They’ve failed hypothesis tests and that means they’re highly questionable.
"2. The weather we really care about isn’t changing, and Mother Nature has many ways on her own to cause her climate to experience considerable variations in cycles. "3. Carbon is the world’s dominant source of energy today, because it is affordable and directly leads to poverty eradication as well as the lengthening and quality enhancement of human life.
A post that goes so far, but not far enough, but is informative nevertheless: "The results are meagre from thirty years of debate about a public policy response to climate change. There is little support in America for action, the IPCC’s AR5 has disappeared from the news, much of the public no longer trust climate scientists, and debate has almost stopped. The weather will determine future policy, not our foresight."
The Cornwall Alliance posts an article from the Washington Times that tells us: "In short, a great deal of what the mainstream media report, and politicians tout, as the sure results of solid climate science are anything but. The best evidence continues to be that natural causes of climate change—whether warming or cooling, wetting or drying, blowing or calming—far outweigh human contribution through CO2 and other greenhouse gases. So, don’t be tricked into embracing climate-change/global-warming alarmism. There’s science, and then there’s sleight-of-hand masquerading as science."
In a break-through paper just accepted for publication by the International Journal of Atmospheric & Ocean Sciences, U.S. physicist, Dr Edwin Berry shows that natural and human CO2 do not “add” CO2 to the atmosphere. Both natural and human CO2 “flow through” the atmosphere. As CO2 flows through the atmosphere, it raises the level of atmospheric CO2 just enough so CO2 outflow equals CO2 inflow. Nature balances CO2 in the atmosphere when outflow equals inflow.
Dr Berry comments on the release of his break-through paper:
At his blog, The Rational Optimist, Viscount Matt Ridley explains why legislating for "zero carbon" by 2050, is akin to legislating to abolish sin.
Anyone in doubt about why Earth, its people and its plants, needs MORE rather than less Carbon Dioxide (CO2) must watch this YouTube conversation with Professor William Happer, of Princeton University, who has been recruited by US President Donald Trump to bring scientific sense to the debate about "man-made global warming" and the greenhouse effect.
Greg Williams posts at Quadrant: "I am a mathematics teacher in a well-to-do school. Next year will be my fiftieth year in the profession. I am well known around the school as someone who hasn’t fallen for the CO2 swindle, although I have no problem with the notion that the various climates around the earth are changing in various ways. Being a mathematics teacher, the notion the mainstream media runs, that the earth has 'a climate', appals me. How can we can 'average' the multitude of climates around the earth and come up with 'the climate'? It does not compute." Read on to see what he explains to his students.
"A movement has been growing for decades to replace hydrocarbons, which collectively supply 84% of the world’s energy. It began with the fear that we were running out of oil. That fear has since migrated to the belief that, because of climate change and other environmental concerns, society can no longer tolerate burning oil, natural gas, and coal—all of which have turned out to be abundant. So far, wind, solar, and batteries—the favored alternatives to hydrocarbons—provide about 2% of the world’s energy and 3% of America’s. Nonetheless, a bold new claim has gained popularity: that we’re on the cusp of a tech-driven energy revolution that not only can, but inevitably will, rapidly replace all hydrocarbons. ....This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a 'new energy economy.'
New Zealand blog Climate Conversation has just issued this media releaae: "Global warming fear is powered by the belief that we cause it, but the UN now tacitly admit they can’t prove it, after a group of prominent New Zealand sceptics asked the IPCC Secretariat for evidence of dangerous man-made warming and got nothing."
And here's further proof: DOWNLOAD ALLISON PDF
Bjorn Lomborg writes about energy solutions to "climate change" in The Australian: "This idea that we already have the needed technology is so pervasive that before we can establish what the solution to climate change really looks like, we first need to dismantle the faulty idea that we have the solution already. The reality is, today, solar and wind energy together deliver only about 1 per cent of global energy. The International Energy Agency estimates that even by 2040 these will cover a little more than 4 per cent of global energy."
Agrobiologist and scientific researcher Dr. Albrecht Glatzle, author of over 100 scientific papers and two textbooks, posts at WattsUpWithThat: “Our key conclusion is there is no need for anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and even less so for livestock-born emissions, to explain climate change. Climate has always been changing, and even the present warming is most likely driven by natural factors. The warming potential of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been exaggerated, and the beneficial impacts of manmade CO2 emissions for nature, agriculture, and global food security have been systematically suppressed, ignored, or at least downplayed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and other UN (United Nations) agencies."
But, this should be read with the Allison-Sheahen paper (see link below). The WUWT article argues that the amount of methane emitted by animals is greatly overstated by the IPCC, and there isn't very much methane.The Allison-Sheahen paper explains that no matter how many animals there are (or how much methane), the realities of the infrared spectrum and the way competing molecules (especially H2O) absorb photons makes CH4 (methane) completely irrelevant.
Australian geologist & farmer, Viv Forbes posts at BreakingViews.vco.nz: "The war on hydro-carbon fuels will have no measurable effect on global temperatures. Nor will carbon taxes, carbon offsets or subsidies for wind turbines or solar panels. There are climate controllers far bigger than human CO2...
Dr Jay Lehr and Tom Harris post at principia-scientific.org: "When we started our careers, it was considered an honor to be a member of professional societies that helped practitioners keep up with the latest developments in their fields through relevant meetings and publications. Senior author Dr....