Interesting keynote address in Amsterdam by Nick Lewis, who graduated in mathematics and physics from Cambridge University, and after a successul mid-life career in finance, turrned his attention to climate science, as he explains in this video:
For slides in Nick's address:
Retired New Zealand agricultural research scientist offers sensible advice to children who marched on 15 March to draw attention to climate change.
UK academics draw attention of parents, children and teachers to dangers of brainwashing in schools (courtesy of Global Warming Policy Foundation).
Contributor Suze to New Zealand Whaleoil blog adds this constructive contribution to the debate
In this outstanding example of scientific scholarship, ground-breaking Danish physicist, Dr Henrik Svensmark dicusses the influence of the sun on Earth's climate and summarises: "the impact of solar activity on climate is much larger than the official consensus suggests. This is therefore an important scientific question that needs to be addressed by the scientific community."
Henrik Svensmark (born 1958) is a physicist and a senior researcher in the Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics Division of the National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Lyngby, Denmark.
This new volume by the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), "Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels", assesses the costs and benefits of the use of fossil fuels with a special focus on concerns related to anthropogenic climate change. The NIPCC authors conclude, “The global war on energy freedom, which commenced in earnest in the 1980s and reached a fever pitch in the second decade of the twenty-first century, was never founded on sound science or economics. The world’s policymakers ought to acknowledge this truth and end that war.”
Dr David Legates writes at Cornwall Alliance: "Generally, I conclude most of my climate change presentations with the phrase, 'It’s not about the climate; it never was.' Here, I would like to start with that statement. In this brief article, I will discuss why carbon dioxide isn’t the dangerous gas it is made out to be, why climate change is not an ‘existential’ threat to the planet, and why the Green New Deal is not a solution to climate change."
The '2018 State of the Polar Bear' report, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, confirms that polar bears are continuing to thrive, despite recent reductions in sea ice levels. This finding contradicts claims by environmentalists and some scientists that falls in sea ice would wipe out bear populations. The report’s author, zoologist Dr Susan Crockford, says that there is now very little evidence to support the idea that the polar bear is threatened with extinction by climate change.
Dr Tim Ball and Tom Harris post at communalnews.com: "Why are the public generally unaware of the important research that connects variations in the output of the Sun with climate change? They should know about it, since the Sun is responsible for far more climate change than anything we cause. The reason for this ignorance is that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ..."
Bjorn Lomborg posts at Project Syndicate: "Because honest and deep emissions cuts are staggeringly hard to make, achieving carbon neutrality anytime soon is an empty ambition for almost everywhere. But countries continue to make big promises and massage their emissions numbers to give a false sense of progress on combating global warming."
Professor Larry Bell writes at Newsmax how his numerous scientific friends wonder why major print and broadcast reports fail to note that, other than two El Niños (which have nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouse gases), no statistically significant global warming has occurred since the time most of today’s college sophomore students were born.
Dr Jay Lehr and Tom Harris post at Americaoutloud.com why the rewriting of Earth's climate history is "the most pervasive and damaging example of scientific fraud in the history of mankind".
The “Green New Deal” proposed by congressional Democrats is a “recipe for mass suicide” and the “most ridiculous scenario I ever heard,” Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore warned in an exclusive interview with The New American. In fact, Dr. Moore warned that if the “completely preposterous” prescriptions in the scheme were actually implemented, Americans could be forced to turn to cannibalism to avoid starvation — and they still would not survive.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) is misleading humanity about climate change and sea levels, a leading expert on sea levels who served on the UN IPCC told The New American. In fact, it is more likely that sea levels will decline, not rise, explained Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University.
Coupla weeks ago, due to a slip-up- by our administrator, we lost irretrievably some important recent posts that hadn't been backed up. We are re-posting some of them here:
First: A video in which Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, Dr Richard Lindzen, explains why he and so many other scientists is a skeptic. It's a short but convincing piece.
Second: Originally a co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore explains in this video why he quit the organisation and now opposes current Greenpeace propaganda, especially on climate change
Third: Dr Patrick Moore again in greater detail about why we need more carbon dioxide (CO2) to sustain life on Earth, and why it's important that we continue to extract oil and gas from beneath our oceans
Fourth: Dr Judith Curry rebuts alarmist propaganda about alleged recent rises in sea levels LINK
Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball posts at Technocracy News and Trends: "This is an update of an earlier effort to counter the propaganda war that is going on to promote the falsehoods about the environment and climate. An update is required because skills improved with practice and as they lose the war, desperation demands greater deceptions. Technocrats are at the center of this development."
Dr Jay Lehr and Tom Harris write at Heartland.org: "Claims of unprecedented carbon-dioxide levels ignore most of Earth’s 4.6-billion-year history. Relative to Earth’s entire record, carbon-dioxide levels are at historically low levels; they only appear high when compared to the dangerously low levels of carbon dioxide that occurred in Earth’s very recent history."
Robert Lyman is an economist with 35 years’ experience as an analyst, policy advisor and manager in the Canadian federal government, primarily in the areas of energy, transportation and environmental policy. In this paper, titled "Transition to Reality" for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, he explains why prospects for rapid decarbonisation face 'perhaps insurmountable obstacles'.
Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London has been looking at how nature has reacted to forecasts of global warming, and shows that the rise in CO2 levels has not been accompanied by the claimed increases in temperature.
Chris Morrison writes in The Conservative Woman: "It has been an encouraging start to the contest for the year’s loopiest climate story. It has been an encouraging start to the contest for the year’s loopiest climate story."
U.S. climate analyst Dr David Wojick posts at CFact: "The brutal cold wave that just struck America provides a stark example of why 100% renewables cannot possibly work. Once the massive high pressure system was in place there was almost no wind, so no significant wind power. And the coldest temperatures by far were at night or early morning, when there was no solar power either."
Two Greek scientists report in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestial Physics: "The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface; the intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere; the results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence." Heavy scientific reading, but highly convincing.