Professor Ross McKitrick explains why IPCC's climate modelling is grissly misleading anbd inaccurate when based on its RCP 8.5 emissions scenario: "Thus for at least 30 years, when the IPCC and others have issued emission scenario ranges, the bottom end has always been the most realistic path and the rest has been exaggerated, yet the upper end gets all the media and academic attention. RCP8.5 takes this distortion to new heights. The purpose of global climate policy is to get us from the dangerous upper end of the forecast range down to the safe bottom end. But what users of climate projections need to understand is that we are already there. In fact, we never left it. We don’t need to kill the global economy to get onto an emissions path we’ve always been on. If we want to avoid the RCP8.5 future scenario all we have to do is stop feeding it into climate models, because that’s the only place it exists."
This absolutely outstanding PDF, derived from a PowerPoint presentation by Australian geologist Dr Geoff Derrick is a compulsiory read for anyone who may still doubt that there is no foundation for the climate alarmism promoted by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the power-hungry politicians who still support this elaborate scam. Long, it takes some seconds to download, but is well worth the wait. For instance, it completely destroys the myths that the trace gas Carbon Dioxide (CO2) can or does cause significant warming, and the Mann "hockey stick", and goes on to show that Pacific Ocean atolls and other land aeas are not in danger from rising seas.
Emeritus Professor Michael J Kelly, of Cambridge University has a warning: "if one concludes that the 2050 Net-Zero Emissions Economy cannot be achieved on scientific, materials, engineering, planning and financial grounds, it would be appropriate to reset the target to one that can be achieved, even at a stretch. With a changing climate, there may come a day when we need to act, just as we needed a Thames Barrier to prevent London flooding. It will be no excuse then that all the money was invested on projects to mitigate climate change, when the very need to adapt will be proof that the mitigation actions have failed."
Two world renowned scientists in their field, Professors William Happer and W.A. van Wijngaarden write:"So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH and CO increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts."
Professor Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph, Canada, writes at WattsUpWithThat: "Climate and energy policy has fallen into the hands of a worldwide movement that openly declares its extremism. The would-be moderates on this issue have pretended for 20 years they could keep the status quo without having to fight for it. Those days are over."
In the annual Global Warming Policy Foundation lecture in London, expatriate New Zealander, Professor Michael J Kelly, of Cambridge University said, inter alia: "The global climate models seem to show heating at least twice as fast as the observed data over the last three decades. I am unconvinced that climate change represents a proximate catastrophe, and I suggest that a mega-volcano in Iceland that takes out European airspace for six months would eclipse the climate concerns in short order....Much of what is proposed by way of climate change mitigation is simply pie-in-the-sky.... The main message is that our present energy infrastructure is vast and has evolved over 200 years. So the chances of revolutionising it in short order on the scale envisaged by the net-zero target of Parliament is pretty close to zero; zero being exactly the chance of the meeting Extinction Rebellion’s demands."
Bob Tisdale posts at WattsUpWithThat: "This is a long post: 3500+ words and 22 illustrations. Regardless, heretics of the church of human-induced global warming who frequent this blog should enjoy it. Additionally, I’ve uncovered something about the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive that I hadn’t heard mentioned or seen presented before. It amazed even me, and I know how poorly these climate models perform. It’s yet another level of inconsistency between models, and it’s something very basic. It should help put to rest the laughable argument that climate models are based on well-documented physical processes."
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.
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 McLean, of Melbourne, Australia, an expert reviewer of the IPCC Report of 2013 has exploded no less than 17 myths about 'climate change'.
U.S. atmospherics physicist, Dr Ed Berry writes: "Get over it. You are not causing global warming. Those who tell you otherwise are lying to you. Here is new, powerful evidence that the climate alarmists are wrong. They flunk science. They have caused the greatest scam in human history. The United Nations IPCC is the “scientific” base for all climate alarmism."
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.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has sent a strongly-worded message to the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury: "In this message for the New Year, I invite both of you to make a new resolution: 'I will no longer curry favour with the global governing elite by spouting fashionably fatuous, scientifically spurious, preposterously pietistic platitudes about the imagined – and imaginary – threat of global warming. Instead I will do what the Lord of Life did. I will speak up for the 1.2 billion people worldwide who are poor, and who will be condemned to remain poor because they are denied access to electrical power. I will demand that coal-fired power stations be built at once, for coal is plentiful and provides the cheapest and most reliable energy supply.'
"World temperatures show no trend when they exclude stations with data contaminated by being in increasingly in built-up areas or close to the sea and without the "corrections: ingtrodiced by IPCC scientists," writes Alan Moran for Australia's Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).
On April 1, 2019, the American Journal of Climate Change rejected a paper by physicist Dr Ed Berry for the following reason: "The conclusion of this paper is completely opposite to the consensus of the academic community." Dr Berry comments: "Yes, it is. But the journal did not forward any evidence that there is an error in my paper and did not acknowledge that my paper proves the 'consensus' is wrong. So, if it is unacceptable to publish a paper that contradicts the 'consensus' how can there be progress in science?" Read the paper here, and judge for yourself:
U.S. meteorologist Chuck Wiese has immediately supported the accuracy of Dr Berry's paper: Download ChuckWiese.pdf
The Cornwall Alliance posts: "Have mathematical models replaced good old-fashioned scientific testing? An understanding of the big picture in a field of study helps to frame and give essential perspective to that field. Take the field of natural science for instance. A big-picture look at the overall operation of the natural science profession has traditionally been seen in the “scientific method,” which consists of observation, hypothesis and testing. Rigorous testing of a hypothesis eventually leads to a “theory.”... Of late, mathematical modeling, an essential investigative tool, appears to have taken over the world of natural science. And with the ascension of modeling, the focus in scientific endeavors — particularly in the practice of atmospheric science — may have shifted away from the rigour of testing to verify a hypothesis and toward constructing a model to represent a theory."
Who cares about pesky facts? The ABC has a hysterical narrative to peddle. "Climate change is the single biggest challenge ever faced by humanity. We have absolutely no time to lose." If you believe that, you’ll probably believe that the ABC’s “Fact Checking Unit” actually checks facts. This post, from New Zealand blog TheBFD, about the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) is an example of the biased alarmism practised by news media through the world, in spite of the complete absence of any convincing evidence that we are in a "climate emergency".
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."
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."