Professor Judith Curry, former head of the climatology department at Georgia Institute of Technology, gives the example of claims linking recent wildfires in the US to climate change. These are counterproductive, she says, because they deflect attention from the real causes of the problem, particularly management policies for state- and federal-owned forests. According to Professor Curry, these have been far more vulnerable to fires than privately-owned lands. Similarly, hurricane activity is frequently linked to global warming. However, with little evidence of any worsening trend and with large natural variability, Professor Curry says there are no sound climate-change-based arguments for effective policy responses.
This paper by Mark P. Mills at the Manhattan Institute 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.”
Emeritus Professor Michael J Kelly, of Cambridge University has a warning: "if one concludes that the 2050 Net-Zero Emissions Economy cannot be achieved on scientific, materials, engineering, planning and financial grounds, it would be appropriate to reset the target to one that can be achieved, even at a stretch. With a changing climate, there may come a day when we need to act, just as we needed a Thames Barrier to prevent London flooding. It will be no excuse then that all the money was invested on projects to mitigate climate change, when the very need to adapt will be proof that the mitigation actions have failed."
Tony Thomas reminds us: "It’s the tenth anniversary next week of the 2009 Climategate email dump that exposed top climate scientists’ chicanery and subversion of science – and did so in their own words and out of their own mouths, or keyboards. I’ll list a few emails-of-infamy shortly, but first some background."
(The comments that follow Tony's article are equally enlightening).
U.S. analyst Dr Ed Berry writes: "We have already won the science debate, but few people understand this. The alarmists have no scientific case. Now we must win the political debate....Our task is great. We must show the public why human CO2 does not change the climate. Our goal is to get climate change out of politics and back into science. The idea that we have a 'climate emergency' is a product of a crippled mind."
This paper, "Climate Thinking - Broadening the Horizons"by Dutch climate scientist Professor Guus Berkhout, is probably the most layperson-friendly, and comprehensive explanation of the origins and the falsity of the 'global warming' hysteria we have even encountered. We are grateful to the UK's Global Warming Policy Foundation for permission to add it to our website.
Professor Ross McKitrick explains why IPCC's climate modelling is grissly misleading anbd inaccurate when based on its RCP 8.5 emissions scenario: "Thus for at least 30 years, when the IPCC and others have issued emission scenario ranges, the bottom end has always been the most realistic path and the rest has been exaggerated, yet the upper end gets all the media and academic attention. RCP8.5 takes this distortion to new heights. The purpose of global climate policy is to get us from the dangerous upper end of the forecast range down to the safe bottom end. But what users of climate projections need to understand is that we are already there. In fact, we never left it. We don’t need to kill the global economy to get onto an emissions path we’ve always been on. If we want to avoid the RCP8.5 future scenario all we have to do is stop feeding it into climate models, because that’s the only place it exists."
U.S. climate analyst Dr David Wojick posts at CFact: "The brutal cold wave that just struck America provides a stark example of why 100% renewables cannot possibly work. Once the massive high pressure system was in place there was almost no wind, so no significant wind power. And the coldest temperatures by far were at night or early morning, when there was no solar power either."
Professor Larry Bell posts at "Newsmax": "A petition being submitted by hundreds of independent climate scientists and professionals from numerous countries to heads of the European Council, Commission and Parliament declares 'There is No Climate Emergency.'....The petition concludes by recommending the recognition of clear difference in policies addressing the Earth’s environment through good stewardship versus Earth’s climate, the latter of which "is largely caused by a complex combination of natural phenomena we cannot control."
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....
On April 1, 2019, the American Journal of Climate Change rejected a paper by physicist Dr Ed Berry for the following reason: "The conclusion of this paper is completely opposite to the consensus of the academic community." Dr Berry comments: "Yes, it is. But the journal did not forward any evidence that there is an error in my paper and did not acknowledge that my paper proves the 'consensus' is wrong. So, if it is unacceptable to publish a paper that contradicts the 'consensus' how can there be progress in science?" Read the paper here, and judge for yourself:
U.S. meteorologist Chuck Wiese has immediately supported the accuracy of Dr Berry's paper: Download ChuckWiese.pdf
In a major paper explaining the science of climate, Professor Will Happer writes:" The Earth is in no danger from increasing levels of CO2. More CO2 will be a major benefit to the biosphere and to humanity.". Acknlowedged to be one of the world's leading scientific authorities on climate behaviour,...
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."
'HAS UNITED NATIONS MISLED THE WORLD ABOUT CLIMATE?'
Dr John McLean, prominent Australian climate analyst, and former expert reviewer of early IPCC reports, writes: “Climate activists would have us believe that man-made warming is a fact and it’s serious. After reading the various documentation of meetings leading up to the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and then from the IPCC itself, I conclude that it’s all been vastly exaggerated. There is no certainty that there’s any man-made warming (or man-made climate change) worth worrying about".
Short summary (2 pages): Summary_FINAL3.pdf
Full essay (40 pages): Download Full_document_FINAL.pdf
Dr Timothy Ball and Tom Harris post at 'America Outloud': " A small group fooled the world into believing that warming is bad and that today’s weather is warmer than ever before, all caused by the human addition of a relatively trivial amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. It is the biggest lie ever told, and that reason alone caused many to believe. The lie began with the assumption that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in temperature.
Francis Menton, in the US journal 'Manhattan Contrarian' explains why climate change seems to have faded by showing data from the easily-available UAH global lower troposphere record, derived from satellite sensors. That record exists from 1979 to present, shown in the latest chart from UAH going through the end of June 2018.
Our Coalition’s energy spokesman, Bryan Leyland, has a guest post today in New Zealand’s most widely read blog, "Whale Oil Beef Hooked" setting out issues with the Royal Society of New Zealand in relation to departures from its Code of Ethics.
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.”
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.
Retired nuclear engineer, Regis Nicoll, explains in Crisis Magazine why science is never settled. "Red flags should go up every time we hear, 'There is no longer any debate, the science is settled.' History is full of 'widows' who were wedded to the science of the age. Adherents to Ptolemaic geocentrism, Newtonian determinism, and spacetime absolutism come to mind.