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.
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.
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.
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.
At his blog, The Rational Optimist, Viscount Matt Ridley explains why legislating for "zero carbon" by 2050, is akin to legislating to abolish sin.
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....
Economist Bjorn Lomborg writes: "This British parliament declared the other day the planet was facing a 'climate emergency', making the UK the first country to do so after cities such as Los Angeles, London, Vancouver and Basel. It’s a move that sums up all that is wrong with climate policy: politicians are making grandiose, fearmongering declarations that are divorced from economic reality, as well as from what will fix the problem they claim to be addressing. Political rhetoric is cheap but drastic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions remain prohibitively expensive and technologically challenging."
A short video in which US meteorologist Mark Mathis explains why the term "greenhouse effect" does not represent the truth about effects of carbon dioxide on Earth's temperatures. After watching the video, scroll on for more interesting info in the comments that follow.
As the stretch of years with no statistically significant global warming lengthens, environmentalists scratch their heads and ask, 'Well, if we can’t scare people with global warming, what can we use?' And one of their stock answers has become, 'Ocean acidification!' At Cornwall Alliance, Dr E. Calvin Beisner explains why this is bunkum scientifically.
This not a joke. Anthony Watts reports on his blog WUWT: "According to her mother Malena Ernman (48), 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg can see CO2 with the naked eye. She writes that in the book ‘Scenes from the heart. Our life for the climate’, which she wrote with her family."
This edited transcript on EIIR of an interview with Professor Larry Bell about Rupert Darwall's book, "Green Tyranny" is chock full of facts and figures that rebut alarmist claims about 'climate'change' and "renewable' energy.
Matt Ridley rebuts biodiversity alarmism at Reaction.Life: "Driven perhaps by envy at the attention that climate change is getting, and ambition to set up a great new intergovernmental body that can fly scientists to mega-conferences, biologists have gone into overdrive on the subject of biodiversity this week.