Dr David Legates writes at Cornwall Alliance: "Generally, I conclude most of my climate change presentations with the phrase, 'It’s not about the climate; it never was.' Here, I would like to start with that statement. In this brief article, I will discuss why carbon dioxide isn’t the dangerous gas it is made out to be, why climate change is not an ‘existential’ threat to the planet, and why the Green New Deal is not a solution to climate change."
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.
Distinguished U.S. analyst Dr David Wojick posts at CFact: "Few people appreciate this amazing fact, that CO2 in the air is the global food supply. Our meat, fruit and veggies, also our candy and ice cream, milk and wine, are built almost entirely from carbon dioxide and water. Everything we eat and drink.There is also a bit of nitrogen, to make protein, plus a bunch of trace minerals and vitamins, but you and I are basically composed of processed H2O and CO2."
Bjorn Lomborg posts at Project Syndicate: "Because honest and deep emissions cuts are staggeringly hard to make, achieving carbon neutrality anytime soon is an empty ambition for almost everywhere. But countries continue to make big promises and massage their emissions numbers to give a false sense of progress on combating global warming."
Pat Frank posts at WattsUpWithThat: "In short, climate models cannot predict future global air temperatures; not for one year and not for 100 years. Climate model air temperature projections are physically meaningless. They say nothing at all about the impact of CO₂ emissions, if any, on global air temperatures."
Ron Clutz writes at "Science Matters": " TTLs (lower troposphere temperatures) include mixing above the oceans and probably some influence from nearby more volatile land temps, They started their recent cooling later that SSTs from HadSST3 but are now showing the same pattern. It seems obvious that despite the three El Ninos, their warming has not persisted, and without them it would probably have cooled since 1995. Of source, the future has not yet been written."
In this video interview, Viscount Christopher Monckton tells Texans that the real aim of the climate alarmist establishment is totalitarian control of the world, through a "world government".
Former climate activist Michael Shellenberger has condemned alarmists for “terrorising school children” with false claims that the world is about to end... Adolescents these days have a lot to worry about, anxiety and depression are rising among everyone really, certainly adolescents, and I thought it was not right to be terrorising school children and giving them false information.” Shellenberger - who has been invited to be an expert reviewer to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - maintains that climate change is occurring but says it is not a “catastrophic threat”.
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...
"Yes, sunshine and wind are obviously clean but the turning either of those into electricity is anything but a clean, harmless process. The Greens, here, stomp on any suggestion of mineral extraction, but their brave new world requires massive increases in mining of metals and rare-earth minerals. This comes with ecological and social consequences. Based upon a 2017 World Bank report, to get to the zero-carbon nirvana would require building enough solar and wind plants to generate 14 TW of electricity by 2050." Columnist posts at New Zealand BFD blog
We thank New Zealand's most-widely-read blog, "Whaleoil Beef Hooked" for having the courage to be the only news medium to publish this article by John Rofe, a specialist in fraud detection. His paper tells us: "The time has come for reality to displace the elaborate fiction created under the auspices of the United Nations directed climate change fraud. It has long been known that CO2 is colourless, odourless, non-toxic at atmospheric concentrations and essential for the survival of all life on earth. Further, more atmospheric CO2 means more plant food to help the greening of the planet. Less atmospheric CO2 means all plant life suffers because it is so essential to support photosynthesis. The charade of any political party that refers to itself as 'green' attempting to tax CO2 and thereby reduce its concentration is bizarre in the extreme". James Shaw should be ashamed of his role in this fraud." We recommend also the GSM video linked in the Rofe paper.
John Rofe is a New Zealand fraud investigator. In this paper he sets out these conclusions: "For the period since satellite records began, the global atmospheric temperature increase to the end of March 2019 is now down to only 0.34 degrees Celsius. (That is the only tamper-proof temperature data now available.) That doesn’t support the notion of runaway global warming. This year it is claimed the global warming industry will be worth USD1.5 trillion and its total worth is climbing rapidly. It is simply a USD1.5 trillion fraud that will continue to get bigger."
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.
Professor Larry Bell writes at Newsmax how his numerous scientific friends wonder why major print and broadcast reports fail to note that, other than two El Niños (which have nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouse gases), no statistically significant global warming has occurred since the time most of today’s college sophomore students were born.
"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.'
"The IPCC well knows that halving CO2 emissions in 12 years is politically impossible, economically unaffordable and climatically unnecessary." Guest essay on WattsUpWithThat by Barry Brill, chair of New Zeakabd Climate Science Coalition.
Emeritus Professor Clifford Ollier writes at QUAESTIONES GEOGRAPHICAE: "The oceans are not acid, never have been in geological history, and cannot become acid in the future. Changes in atmospheric CO2 cannot produce an acid ocean. Marine life depends on CO2, and some plants and animals fix it as limestone. Over geological time enormous amounts of CO2 have been sequestered by living things, and today there is far more CO2 in limestones than in the atmosphere or ocean. Carbon dioxide in seawater does not dissolve coral reefs, but is essential to their survival."
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."
One of our American members, Dr Thomas P Sheahen has reviewed at "WattsUpWithThat" the latest book by Danish analyst Professor Bjorn Lomborg. Tom concludes: "Lomborg has a compelling case, and he makes it quite clearly with common-sense reasoning, a grasp of numerical values, and a comfortable writing style. It contains no equations, only graphs. Everyone who is concerned about pursuing the best approach to climate change will find merit in reading this book. "
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.