U.S. analyst Dr Ed Berry writes: "We have already won the science debate, but few people understand this. The alarmists have no scientific case. Now we must win the political debate....Our task is great. We must show the public why human CO2 does not change the climate. Our goal is to get climate change out of politics and back into science. The idea that we have a 'climate emergency' is a product of a crippled mind."
Bjorn Lomborg wites in "The Australian" newspeper: "Climate campaigners want to convince us that not only should we maintain these staggering costs, but that we should spend a fortune more on climate change, since our very survival is allegedly at stake. But they are mostly wrong, and we’re likely to end up wasting trillions during the coming decades. I will outline how we could spend less, do a better job addressing climate change, and help far more effectively with many of the world’s other ills."
Apologies to readers for not picking this up the time (2015), but this address to the Institute of Mechnical Engineers in London by the co-founder and former president of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore is even more applicable today than it was at the time of its delivery.
A new paper by Dr Geoff Duffy, FRSNZ, Professor Emeritus - Chemical Engineering, University of Auckland, New Zealand, states: "It is widely claimed that the MAIN CAUSE of CLIMATE CHANGE is due to ‘GREENHOUSE GASES- RADIATION’. HERE IT IS SHOWN OTHERWISE!!"
U.S. commentator, H. Sterling Burnett posts at WattsUpWith That: "As respect for journalists and their trustworthiness declines, mainstream media outlets, both print and television, are losing readers, subscribers, and viewers. By any measure, journalists aren’t trusted. In public opinion polls, the only professions consistently falling below journalists on their trustworthiness or ethical standards are politicians and used-car salespeople. This doesn’t surprise me. For more than 20 years I’ve watched supposedly respected media outlets, with investigative journalists on staff, fail to accurately portray the debate surrounding claims human fossil fuel use is causing catastrophic climate change."
In the New Zealand Parliament, the Green Party has introduced a Bill known as the "Zero Carbon" Bill. It has passed its First Reading and been referred to the Environment Select Committee for public comment. Later this year, the Bill will have its Second Reading, at which stage the Opposition National Party is being urged to vote against it, thus putting the heat on Government Coalition partner, NZ First to decide whether the measure proceeds or goes no further. Our Climate Science Coalition chair, Hon Barry Brill has made a 5-part submission to the Select Committee urging it to recommend that the Bill is rejected:
The Irish Climate Science Forum offers a comprehensive 2019 overview of the observed science: "The latest research and observations indicate that while there is an anthropogenic Green‐House Gas (GHG) influence, it is considerably less than depicted by the IPCC. Much more is also now understood about solar and other natural influences, weather events and many physical observations. Objective analysis of the facts points to prudent mitigation action butdoes not indicate a looming climate crisis."
Also from towerofreason.blogspot.com (exellent site!) an American certified electromagnetic compliance engineer with more than 30 years practical experience in high power radio frequency and microwave applicationsapologies for this post being highly technical, but explains why his critique of the CO2 driven climate change theory is based on a practical understanding of the intersection between chemistry and electromagnetic theory.
Sorry not to have found this earlier but this post from Towerofreason.blogspot.com tells the full story about how the lie about 97% of scientists agree with man-made global warming was cooked up.
David Shelley, now retired, who was a long-serving member of staff of Geological Sciences at the University of Canterbury, and latterly Dean of Postgraduate Studies, writes in 'The Australian' newspaper: "Climate change is a defining issue of our time, especially for young people who are persuaded that we are doomed unless urgent action is taken on carbon emissions. Activists, with some success, are demanding climate emergencies be declared around the world, making those demands on the basis that temperatures are at record highs, glaciers and sea ice are melting at unprecedented rates, and sea levels rising dangerously. A cursory examination of the geological literature shows that the first two assertions are simply not true, and that rising sea levels are par for the course."
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).
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.
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:
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...
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.
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."