Chris Kenny in "The Australian" with the truth about bush fires in his country: "Like a struck match in the bush, global warming is the spark that triggers a destructive firestorm in public debate. Heated on emotion, fanned by sensationalist media and fuelled by ideology, it burns through common sense, reason and decency, showing no respect for facts or rational thought. Climate alarmists are using tragic deaths and community pain to push a political barrow."
In a detailed and fully-referenced paper, Wellington researcher/analyst Barbara McKenzie has published a withering rebuttal of the New Zeaand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's comments in a speech lauding ther passage in the NZ Parliament of the so-called Zero Carbon Bill.Ms McKenzie writes: "Jacinda Ardern calls [the bill] the 'nuclear moment for this generation." What she means, of course, is that Parliament is in effect nuking the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand environment on the back of what is frequently referred to as the greatest hoax in the history of science."Later in the paper, Ms McKenzie says any MP who claims to take an interest in the climate debate must know "Jacinda's speech was a pack of lies."
U.S. climate analyst Roger Pielke writes at Forbes magazine: "The bottom line of this analysis should be undeniable: There is simply no evidence that the world is, or is on the brink of, making 'rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society' that would be required for the deep decarbonization associated with a 1.5°C temperature target. Anyone advocating a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 is engaging in a form of climate theater, full of drama but not much suspense. But don’t just take it from me, do the math yourself."
This paper provides a brief overview of the latest Climate Science, compiled by the ICSF for the information of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Action and of the Draft National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP), 2021‐2030...The latest research and observations indicate that while there is an...
Chris Mitchell writes in 'The Australian': " Environment writers should accurately report what climate scientists say. But they should also report what economists and scientists in disciplines such as physics, astronomy and geology say. Climate science is a relatively new field and many in it know their computer modelling is far from perfect. The sun and the Earth’s core are the main sources of heat on our planet, so media sneering at reporting of the work of astronomers and geologists on climate is infantile."
In a long, detailed and convincing letter to Professor Juliet Gerrard, Cnief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Honorary CEO of the Environomics Trust (NZ) Inc, Peter J. Morgan B.E. (Mech.), Dip. Teaching, has strongly rebutted claims that carbon dioxide (CO2) can or does cause unnatural or significant increases in Earth's mean temperature. Mr Morgan also reminds Professor Gerrard that correlation is not evidence of causation.
Outspoken columnist of New Zealand blog, TheBFD, Lushington Brady posts: "Listening to the apocalyptic shrieking of the Klimate Kids and the Extinction Rebellion nutters, it is clear that they are not staggeringly ignorant of “the science” they fetishise, but completely and utterly divorced from anything approaching reality. Like old-fashioned fire-and-brimstone preachers, scowling teenagers rant about the fire, tribulation and wailing and teeth-gnashing which awaits us climate sinners. But the strictly empirical evidence to date is that the mild warming of the 20th century has been extremely beneficial. The world has greened, fires have declined dramatically, natural disasters like cyclones have decreased, droughts have remained stable or decreased, and food is ever-more abundant."
Interesting post by Australian Professor Bryon Sharp about the research that convinced him to change from being a believer in "catastrophic" climate change to now being more relaxed about its natural causes and progression.
This is a long paper by James Matkin, a former Minister in the Government of British Columbia, but it is valuabe for traversing rebuttals of all of the main falsities of climate alarmists.
Jill Stirling, of the Friends of Science Society in Canada reads and discusses a letter from Dr Ross McKitrick to a Canadian MP vilified by climate alarmists, in which Dr McKitrick presents convincing rebuttals of the alarmists'claims.
"If everyone planted a tree, how much land would that require? Let's say they’re planted in a square grid, 5 meters apart, so that each tree takes up an area of 25 square meters. With 7.5 billion trees, that requires 1.8 x 1011 square meters of land, or 72,000 square miles. That's roughly the size o...
Professor Larry Bell posts at 'Newsmax': "As one researcher prudently observed, 'It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.'"
“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Dr Mototaka Nakamura of MIT: “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”
A group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, has sent a registered letter to the Secretary-General of the UN, António Guterres. They warn the Secretary-General that “current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.” They add: “We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.”
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 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...
Professor Larry Bell writes at 'Newsmax': All of us nice people enthusiastically support educating and encouraging children about the importance of environmental stewardship. It's quite a different matter, however, to fill their precious minds with fearful fantasies that global survival depends upon solving a mythical climate crisis with magical energy solutions."
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."
Lomborg writes in 'The Australian': "Enough is enough. We must confront climate change, but hyperbole and bluster do the planet no favours. This is the time we should be having a sensible discussion on cost-effective ways to reduce the worst of climate change’s damages...Alternative energy has increased so little because green energy remains incapable of meeting all of our needs met by fossil fuels. Replacing cheap and reliable fossil fuel energy with more expensive and less reliable energy alternatives weighs down the economy, leading to slightly lower growth. This means the Paris treaty is likely to cost between $US1 trillion and $2 trillion ($1.5 trillion and $2.9 trillion) a year, making it the costliest treaty in history. Not surprisingly, research shows that it will increase poverty. Its effects are not evenly felt; increasing electricity prices hurts the poor the most."