Emeritus Professor Geoff Duffy writes: "The GHG concentration of the actual atmosphere is 1.028% of the total atmosphere, based on water vapour being 1% (200C, 75% Relative Humidity). The main gases from possible agricultural sources (methane and nitrous oxide) total only 0.02% of all the GHG, or 0.00021% of the total atmosphere......Hence, it can be concluded from all the available evidence that their contribution to any potential change in weather is miniscule".
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."
Courtesy of New Zealand's most widely-read blog, The BFD, this post by US CFact analyst, Peter Murphy says: "Some of the wealthiest people on the planet are driving and funding the climate change political agenda for more electric cars, wind turbines and solar panels, and eradication of nuclear energy and fossil fuels. Their message is clear: America and the world must reduce their reliance on traditional energy sources and adapt in order to save the planet. That means higher costs, less energy consumption and reduced living standards."
A recent Netflix ‘Our Planet’ program with David Attenborough delivering a disturbing message of doom about walruses falling off a cliff to their deaths because of climate change is contrived nonsense on par with the bogus National Geographic starving polar bear video of 2017. The walruses shown in this Netflix film were almost certainly driven over the cliff by polar bears during a well-publicized incident in 2017, not because they were “confused by a combination of shrinking ice cover and their own poor eyesight“.
UPDATE No 1: Andrew Montford asks if Netflix film crew helped to drive walruses off cliff? Link to Update No.1
UPDATE No. 2: Was Attenborough's Netflix porn the worst BBC climate programme ever? Link to Update No.2
UPDATE No. 3: WHAT DAVID ATTENBOROUGH GOT WRONG IN HIS NETFLIX PROGRAMME Link to Update No. 3
UPDATE No $: Attenborough and Green propagandists rely on Tragedy Porn Link to Update No 4
In a new paper, atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen summarizes the “implausible” claims today’s proponents of dangerous anthropogenic global warming espouse. Dr. Lindzen retired several years ago, and yet his immense contribution to the atmospheric sciences lives on. His research is still cited about 600 times per year.
Guest poster to the New Zealand blog, TheBDF, Max Sky, explains why the Marxist origins of climate change alarmism is a pagan cult.
"Few world leaders are lining up to deliver what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had in mind when he called them together for a New York conference to boost ambition. The New York meeting, scheduled for September 23, was conceived as a show of global defiance at US President Donald Trump’s decision to ditch the Paris Agreement. Rather than a competition for more robust action, as was intended, the New York agenda looks deflated.". Graham Lloyd writes in 'The Australian'.
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."
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
Dr Roy Spencer explains about the icy coldness now gripping parts iof Canada and US: "For as long as we have had weather records (extending back into the 1800s), lobes of cold air rotating generally from west to east around the polar vortex sometimes extend down into the U.S. causing wild winter weather and general unpleasantness.....We used to call this process 'weather'. Now it’s called 'climate change'”.
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.
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."
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.
S.Fred Singer, founder of the U.S. Weather Service, writes: "While most people still worry about global warming, I am more concerned about the next Ice Age. A glaciation would present a serious problem for survival of our present civilization, akin to a nuclear winter that many worried about 30 years ago. Nuclear winter is all fantasy, of course; but ice ages are for real." (To access click on Newsroom, then click on Commentary Articles in scroll down list)
The Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Petteri Taalas, says that the alarmist narrative on climate change has gone off the rails and criticised the news media for provoking unjustified anxiety. Speaking to Finland’s financial newspaper Talouselämä (“The Journal”) on 6 September 2019, Petteri Taalas called for cooler heads to prevail, saying that he does not accept arguments that the end of the world is at hand: "It is not going to be the end of the world. The world is just becoming more challenging. In parts of the globe living conditions are becoming worse, but people have survived in harsh conditions."
Dr Benny Peiser, GWPF says Taalas statement is "unprecedented":
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.
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.
Dr John Maunder at 'Sunlive' in Tauranga, New Zealand, posts: "The connection between solar activity and the earth's climate is an area of ongoing and sometimes controversial research.Time will tell whether the sun will once again go into another ‘Maunder Minimum' within the lifetime of the present...
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.