Climate change global warming crisis “cult” misleads governments, terrorizes citizens, and wastes resources say Friends of Science. Carbon dioxide reduction and "damage aid‟ are more forms of “Kyoto Carbon Kleptomania” based on incomplete science and inaccurate computer models. The rush to renewable energy that is not market ready or reliable has forced millions into fuel poverty, hunger and nations into bankruptcy. In this post, Friends of Science present a detailed rebuttal of the alarmist propaganda. (It is a wonderfully masterly 32-page rebuttal of the climate alarmism that a wise commentator has now labelled as "truth decay").
For a 2-page pdf summary of the facts of the Doha Deception, link here:
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:
In this post to "WattsUpWithThat?", Canadian climate scientist Dr Tim Ball explains how and why ALL empirical records show that it is rises in Earth's temperature that cause increases in levels of carbon dioxide (CO2); not the other way round as climate alarmists would have you believe.
"Currently, sea-level rise does not seem to depend on ocean temperature, and certainly not on CO2. We can expect the sea to continue rising at about the present rate for the foreseeable future. By 2100 the seas will rise another 6 inches or so—a far cry from Al Gore’s alarming numbers. There is noth...
Dr Judith Curry's message to ExtInction Rebellion and other doomsters: "Not only do you know nothing about climate change, you also appear to know nothing of history. You are your own worst enemy — you are triggering a global backlash against doing anything sensible about protecting our environment or reducing our vulnerability to extreme weather. You are making young people miserable, who haven’t yet experienced enough of life to place this nonsense in context."
Eminent professor of geology, Ian Plimer, writes in 'The Austraian" newspaper: As soon as the words carbon footprint, emissions, pollution, and decarbonisation, climate emergency, extreme weather, unprecedented and extinction are used, I know I am being conned by ignorant activists, populist scaremongering, vote-chasing politicians and rent seekers. Pollution by plastics, sulphur and nitrogen gases, particulates and chemicals occurs in developing countries. That’s real pollution. The major pollution in advanced economies is the polluting of minds about the role of carbon dioxide. There are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims."
Ralph B Alexander posts at the UK Global Warming Policy Foundation: "This report discusses the lack of scientific evidence for the popular but mistaken belief that global warming causes weather extremes – a notion hyped by the mainstream media and believers in the narrative of human-caused climate change. If there is any trend at all in extreme weather, it’s downward rather than upward. Our most extreme weather, be it heat wave, drought, flood, hurricane or tornado, occurred many years ago, long before the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere began to climb at its present rate."
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".
"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).
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.
The climate change debate might be one of the worst cases of academic suppression in history. CLINTEL (the Climate Intelligence Foundation) has issued the Magna Carta Universitatum 2020. This short document is basically an aspirational code of conduct for freedom of inquiry and speech at universities. The first Magna Carta Universitatum was issued in 1988 and to date at least 889 universities have signed on to it. CLINTEL notes that it is building directly on this precedent, to fit “the special challenges of today”. For each of the five principles enunciated, CLINTEL cites a climate example.
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."
Two days ago, the New Zealand Herald published an op-ed by Professor Emeritus Geoff Duffy, of University of Auckland, NZ, rebutting claims about emissions of methane by livestock contained in a report to our Parliament by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Today in the Herald is a letter to the editor from one Paul Judge, of Hamilton, calling Prof Duffy a "climate denier", and challenging Geoff's statements about absence of warming. Read below, Geoff's article, and look at graphs that weren't in the Herald article. Then decide for yourself: who is the real denier?
And here are graphs to support Geoff's article: AUSTRALIA and USA temp graphs.pdf
A new paper published by researchers form the University of Turku in Finland suggests that even though observed changes in the climate are real, the effects of human activity on these changes are insignificant. The team suggests that the idea of man-made climate change is a mere miscalculation or skewing the formulas by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
From Dr Ed Berry in U.S.: "New calculations prove all human CO2 emitted since 1750 has added only 31 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 to the atmosphere, and natural CO2 has added 100 ppm. All human carbon has added only one percent to the carbon in Earth’s carbon cycle. Nature has added much more carbon to the carbon cycle than humans have added. The new calculations use data from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
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."
Professor Bruce Pardy writes in the 'Financial Post': "Paris is a climate fairy tale. It has always been more about money and politics than the environment. Last year, U.S. President Donald Trump wisely announced that America would withdraw. For developed nations who still believe Paris is a viable plan, the prospect of a massive transfer of wealth under the guise of carbon reductions must seem less attractive without the U.S. to help foot the bill."
92-year old botanist, Sir Richard Attenborough is the latest climate change propagandist to weigh in with hysterical alarmism promising a forthcoming catastrophe-ridden series on BBC. Before falling for this nonsense, look at this piece by Paul Homewood on "Not a Lot of People Know That" reminding us of observed and recorded truths, especially the telling graphs (and scroll through the comments that follow).
U.S. physicist, Dr Ed Berry at his website edberry.com writes: "The fact that IPCC’s human carbon cycle is significantly different from the true human carbon cycle – that corresponds to IPCC’s natural carbon cycle – proves IPCC’s human carbon cycle is invalid. IPCC treats human and natural carbon differently, which is unphysical."