Precision Forecasts image image
Dec 05, 2019
Wind Turbines are Neither Clean nor Green and Provide Zero Global Energy

By Matt Ridley

image

The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.

You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades - nay centuries - of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.

Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.

Matt Ridley and climate change campaigner Leo Murray debate the future of wind power:

Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.

Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority - three quarters - is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’ sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.

Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and[a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low-density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.

As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines - killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands - is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal-mining output.

Forgive me if you have heard this before, but I have a commercial interest in coal. Now it appears that the black stuff also gives me a commercial interest in ‘clean’, green wind power.

The point of running through these numbers is to demonstrate that it is utterly futile, on a priori grounds, even to think that wind power can make any significant contribution to world energy supply, let alone to emissions reductions, without ruining the planet. As the late David MacKay pointed out years back, the arithmetic is against such unreliable renewables.

The truth is, if you want to power civilisation with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, then you should focus on shifting power generation, heat and transport to natural gas, the economically recoverable reserves of which - thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing - are much more abundant than we dreamed they ever could be. It is also the lowest-emitting of the fossil fuels, so the emissions intensity of our wealth creation can actually fall while our wealth continues to increase. Good.

And let’s put some of that burgeoning wealth in nuclear, fission and fusion, so that it can take over from gas in the second half of this century. That is an engineerable, clean future. Everything else is a political displacement activity, one that is actually counterproductive as a climate policy and, worst of all, shamefully robs the poor to make the rich even richer.

Spectator.co.uk/podcast
Matt Ridley discusses wind power

Nov 18, 2019
Growing Season Challenges from Start to Finish, Now Snow Season Kicks In

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow, Co-chief Meteorologist Weatherbell.com

Preliminary Weather Year in Review - A year of Extremes , Now Winter Snow Season Kicks in here. Complete Alarmist Claim Rebuttals (fact-checking the top 12 alarmist claims) here.

On average, it has been a cold year in the prime central growing areas

image

Growing degree days ran well behind normal.

image

The last 30 days were very cold with many record lows.

image

We have had 4,700 record lows the last 30 days, 17,190 this year-to-date, 17,870 the last 365 days (NOAA NCEI Record)

image

It was a very wet year in the central areas.

image
NWS Year-to-Date Precipitation Anomalies (inches)

See the departures in rainfall (inches) since April 1 when normally farmers are in the fields to prepare for planting or actually putting seed into the ground.

image

The average maximum temperatures in the primary corn and bean belt were below normal Note the century trend is flat.
image

As expected, corn yield forecasts are down, the first year below the trend line in 6 years.

image

Corn production is down and may fall further.

image

Soybean production was down below trend line and production was down more than corn.

image

image

There is still grain in the field. As of November 10, sixty-six percent of the 2019 acreage was harvested by week’s end, 17 percentage points behind last year and 19 points behind the 5-year average pace. Harvest progress was behind the average pace by 13 percentage points or more in ten of the 18 estimating states. Soybean harvest across the nation was 85 percent complete, 2 percentage points behind last year and 7 points behind the 5-year average.

Early snowcover slowed or stopped harvest.

image

A window has opened with warming after the killer cold for harvest in the central where there is something worth harvesting.

The next 5 days are warmer than normal.

image

It begins cooling days 5 to 10 and more so days 10 to 15.

image

image

It is wetter and snow will return across the northern states.

image

image
Flooded fields Illinois

image
Snow in Southern Canada on small grains (similar story into the
northern Plains on grains and field crops)

Nov 09, 2019
Climate alarmists use junk science to promote their agenda

Dr. Ed Berry

image

Gretta snarls at you for using fossil fuels. Bill Gates, George Soros, and others pay to manage and promote Gretta because she inspires the brainwashed younger generation to accept junk science. She is reminiscent of the Joe Camel advertising that caused a large increase in youth smoking.

“Trump pulls out of the UN Paris Climate Agreement” vs “More than 11,000 scientists from around the world declare a ‘climate emergency’”

In a moment, I will to show you a simple proof that President Trump is a better climate scientist than all 11,000 climate science imposters who claim we have a “climate emergency.”

Those 11,000 so-called “scientists” don’t know a freaking thing about climate science. If they were MD’s, they would be to using leaches to suck your blood. Today, they are opportunists who suck your money and your freedom. They are guilty of climate malpractice. There are not 11,000 real climate scientists on the planet.

So, who are these people?

The public believes “climate change protesters” are climate experts. They believe those who “care about the environment” are climate experts. They believe Gretta is a climate expert.

Universities train students to be ecologists, environmentalists, climate activists, and socialists. These students graduate thinking they are climate experts. Governors appoint them to climate expert panels. The government gives them money. Congress, state legislatures, lawyers, and the media think these graduates are climate experts. Thus, they get the headlines. But they are not climate experts.

Climate change is a subject of physics. Without physics, there is no climate science. But who wants to study physics? It’s much easier to be a climate alarmist. Besides, that’s where the money is.

Here’s some basic science truth to help you decide who to believe about climate change.

First, no one can prove a theory is true. Climate alarmists have a theory. Their theory is that human carbon emissions cause global warming, global warming causes climate change, and climate change causes bad stuff to happen.

Then they claim the bad stuff PROVES human carbon causes climate change. Isn’t that what you read in the news every day?

In logic, their argument is called the “argument of ignorance” or “affirming the consequent.”

Aristotle explained their false illogic 2300 years ago. Here is a parallel version of this illogic that you will readily understand:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.

Bill Gates is rich. So, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The point is events do not prove their cause. Claims that bad stuff happens does not prove we caused it. Get it?

So, how does science work?

Glad you asked.

Science works by proving theories false. Having 11,000 claims that a theory is true is meaningless. One scientist who gives you valid evidence that their theory is not true, wins the science debate.

Scientific truth is not decided by votes. No amount of evidence can prove a theory is true.

Yet, the promotion of that logical fallacy is at the basis of the claims that we are causing climate change and all the bad stuff that it makes happen.

Did you learn that in school?

I just finished writing another scientific paper. It proves human emissions do not cause climate change. All 11,000 who claim otherwise are wrong.

My focus on this paper kept me from writing to you every week as I like to do. Now, my preprint is finished, and I am free again to write to you again.

Why should you believe me versus all those who tell you we are causing climate change?

In high school, I scored a perfect 800 on the SAT exam while finishing in half the allotted time. I was accepted by Caltech, MIT, and Reed. I choose Caltech. Linus Pauling was among the fantastic teachers who taught me science and logic. After graduating from Caltech, Dartmouth College gave me a teaching fellowship in physics. Then, the University of Nevada in Reno gave me a research fellowship in physics. My PhD mentors included William T. Scott and Friedwart Winterberg. Winterberg was known as the best student of Heisenberg, who was a Nobel Laureate in physics. Thirty years later, Winterberg said I was his best student. My theoretical PhD thesis was a significant breakthrough in climate physics that still gets many citations every year. Other scientists have explained my thesis work in their textbooks.

There was more to Caltech than science and engineering. It was the honor system. That meant we had to be honest. No one stole anything at Caltech. No one cheated on exams. All without policing. I bring that system to you. I will tell you the truth about climate science.

Climate science today

Until about the 1980’s, climate science was science. Now, climate “science” is climate politics and feelings. Most people don’t know the difference between real science and fake science. The climate alarmists have a political agenda, a ton of money, and an absence of science.

Climate politics wants you to believe the climate lie that our carbon emissions cause climate change. If you believe the lie, you will vote for a socialist government. Climate politics rejects climate truth because truth stops them from achieving their political agenda.

The climate activists want power. They want to control you. They want America to decline in power. They want a socialist world government to run the world and America.

I don’t want that to happen. But it will take a lot more people than me to stop it.

If you don’t want that to happen, then you must help bring climate truth to your country.

Therefore, I am planning to organize a climate action group composed of people who wish to help bring climate truth to America. We need to get major media attention. We need to bring our message to President Trump and the Republican Party because they are the only people who will support climate truth.

I will tell you more about this in my next letter.

A simple way to know the climate alarmists are lying.

I know, their lips are moving. But here is something much more specific. Here is the UN IPCC Figure 6.1 that claims to represent the carbon cycle.

image
UN IPCC Figure 6.1. Natural and human carbon cycles data. This figure proves all climate alarmist claims are invalid.Enlarged

This figure extracts the IPCC data for the human carbon cycle from Figure 6.1.

image
Enlarged

This figure shows the IPCC human carbon cycle is fake science. Because it is fake, all IPCC’s claims that human carbon emissions cause climate change are invalid.

Let’s see if I can explain this to you.

This figure represents the four carbon reservoirs: Land, Atmosphere, Surface Ocean, and Deep Ocean.

All human carbon begins in the atmosphere. Then human carbon flows to the other reservoirs. You can think of these four reservoirs as water buckets of different sizes with tubes connecting them. You fill only the atmosphere bucket and let the water flow to the other buckets.

Here are 3 blatant scientific errors in IPCC’s human carbon cycle:

Problem 1: The Surface Ocean level is zero, but the Deep Ocean level is 155. Carbon can’t get to the Deep Ocean without first adding carbon to the Surface Ocean, and it can’t get there when the flow is zero.

Problem 2: The land level is negative at -30. That is impossible. That is like having a glass filled with negative water.

Problem 3: IPCC’s natural carbon cycle (shown only in IPCC Fig. 6.1) has the atmosphere level at 1.5%. But IPCC’s human carbon (shown here) has the atmosphere level at 65.7%.

This difference proves IPCC treats human carbon differently than it treats natural carbon. This violates physics because nature will treat human and natural carbon the same.

IPCC has stacked the deck in its invalid attempt to prove human carbon emissions cause climate change. But we have now caught them with their diapers down.

In summary, these 3 errors alone bring down the whole IPCC argument that human carbon emissions cause climate change.

The 11,000 so-called “scientists” and all climate alarmists - who claim we have a “climate emergency” - promote junk science.

Nov 23, 2019
​​​​​​Who Is Winning The Climate Wars?

November 22, 2019/ Francis Menton

If you get most of your news passively by just reading what comes up in some kind of Facebook or Google feed or equivalent, you probably have the impression that the Climate Wars are over and the Climate Campaigners have swept the field of battle.

In my case, I certainly don’t rely on those kinds of toxic sources of information, but I do regularly monitor many of the media sources in the “mainstream” category - the New York Times, the Washington Post, Bloomberg, the Economist, Politico, and several of the television networks like CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN.  All of those (and plenty more) have clearly put an absolute ban on any news or information that would cast even the slightest negative light on the proposition that there is an imminent “climate crisis” that must be solved by government transformation of the world economy.

I’ll give a couple of examples of the lengths to which this has gone.  Back in September, mentally unstable Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, whose only qualification was her ignorant passion for climate extremism, got the platform of the UN “Climate Action Summit” for a big speech.  Excerpt:

You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

You would think that sane people would want to stay as far from Greta as possible lest they get accused of child abuse.  But instead, Greta is feted as a heroine.  In October something called the Nordic Council awarded young Greta its 2019 Environmental Award.  (It seems that she has rejected the award, thus claiming for herself an even higher level of holiness among true believers.)

Meanwhile, over in Germany, a German think tank called the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE in the German acronym) planned to hold a climate conference this past weekend at a hotel called the NH in Munich.  From NoTricksZone November 19:

According to EIKE spokesman, Prof. Horst-Joachim Ludecke, “a left-green mob” pressured the hotel management of the NH Congress Center in Munich (Aschheim) “to illegally cancel the accommodation contract”.

Apparently, the unforgivable sin of EIKE was allowing some scientists from the skeptic camp to appear and speak at their conference.  EIKE went to court to try to get an injunction against the last-minute cancelation of their contract, but the German court upheld the cancelation on the ground that “security” concerns trumped free speech.  NTZ indicates in an update that the conference was able to find an alternative location at the last minute and to proceed; but of course, the last-minute change of venue and secret location were huge negatives in trying to get any publicity for the conference.

So the very last vestiges of dissent are in the process of getting stamped out.  Surely then, the transformation of the world economy and of its use of energy cannot be stopped.

Actually, out there in the world, reality continues to trump hysteria.  Do you remember reports from a couple of years ago that China was ceasing to develop fossil fuel power and was becoming a “climate leader” by going all in for trendy renewables wind and solar?  Well, that was to fool the dopes.  Just this month, something called Global Energy Monitor is out with a new report on what’s going on on the ground in China.  Bottom line: 148 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity under active construction or with construction being resumed after suspension.  The Global Energy Monitor people (who seem to be associated with the End Coal campaign) could not be more horrified: 

[A] permitting spree [from 2014 to 2016] brought a cohort of 245 GW of new projects nearly equivalent to the U.S. coal fleet (254 GW) into the developmental pipeline, inflating what was already an overbuilt coal power fleet, with the average running hours for China’s coal plants hovering around 50% since 2015. Today, 147.7 GW of coal plants are either under active construction or under suspension and likely to be revived - an amount nearly equal to the existing coal power capacity of the European Union (150 GW)… Coal and power industry groups are proposing the central government increase total coal power capacity by 20 to 40% to between 1,200 and 1,400 GW as part of China’s 2035 infrastructure plan.

At 1400 GW of coal power capacity, China would be closing in on 6 times U.S. coal power capacity.  Why again are we bothering with this whole decarbonization thing?  (H/t Global Warming Policy Foundation)

And over in Germany, the fantasy that wind power can be competitive with fossil fuel power also keeps running into the wall of the real world.  Der Spiegel reported on November 19 that the end of certain subsidies, along with opposition from local environmentalists who don’t want forests of ugly wind turbines in their localities, has put the German (and European) wind industry in “free fall”.

The manufacturers of turbines and solar panels are dropping like flies, as subsidies are rolled back across Europe.  So-called ‘green’ jobs are a case of easy come, easy go. The wind and solar ‘industries’ that gave birth to those jobs simply can’t survive without massive and endless subsidies, which means their days are numbered.  With the axe being taken to subsidies across the globe, their ultimate demise is a matter of when, not if.  The wind back in subsidies across Europe has all but destroyed the wind industry: in Germany this year a trifling 35 onshore wind turbines have been erected, so far.  Twelve countries in the European Union (EU) failed to install “a single wind turbine” last year.

Meanwhile, fracking in the U.S. continues to keep supplies of oil and gas plentiful, and prices reasonable.  Petrostates like Russia, Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia are on the run.  So who is really winning the climate wars?

----------------------

Nobody Will Stop Africa From Developing Its Fossil Fuel Resources

November 09, 2019/ Francis Menton

In prior posts where I have addressed the futility of jurisdictions in the U.S. trying to “save the planet” by reducing their use of fossil fuels, my focus has generally been on China and India.  Those countries have huge populations (about 1.4 billion each) and still-poorly-developed energy infrastructure.  Of course they are going to continue to build power plants until everybody has access to reliable electricity.  And of course they are going to make use of coal, oil and natural gas, because those fossil fuels provide the cheapest and most reliable energy.  The ongoing increase in emissions from China and India as they build out their electricity systems and as their people acquire automobiles regularly swamps any minor emissions reductions that any jurisdictions in the U.S. can achieve.

But let us also not overlook Africa.  Africa’s population is currently about 1.3 billion, but growing much faster than that of China or India.  The UN projects a population for Africa of 2.5 billion for 2050, and 4 billion for 2100.  Meanwhile, close to half of the current 1.3 billion Africans lack access to electricity; and that number will only grow rapidly in the absence of rapid buildout of an electrical grid throughout the continent.

You may have seen predictions in certain quarters that Africa is going to “go green” as it gains access to energy.  But what is the reality on the ground?  We can get a good indication by looking at what happened last week at the Africa Oil Week convention, held this year in Cape Town, South Africa.  Reuters had a report on the event, with the headline “No apologies: Africans say their need for oil cash outweighs climate concerns.”

It seems that the Africa Oil Week convention was attended by representatives of some 75 countries, including 23 energy ministers.  According to Reuters, unlike the scene at similar confabs held in Europe, at this one pretty much no one gave a hoot about the issue of “climate change”.

The tension keenly felt at oil conferences in Europe was largely absent over the three-day event in Cape Town; there was little focus on climate change…

One after another, delegates interviewed by Reuters stated that they were not going to let non-Africans buffalo them into not developing their fossil fuel resources.  Examples:

From Gabriel Obiang Lima, energy minister of Equatorial Guinea:  “Under no circumstances are we going to be apologizing [for developing our fossil fuel resources]… Anybody out of the continent saying we should not develop those [oil] fields, that is criminal.”

From Gwede Mantashe, energy minister of South Africa:  “Energy is the catalyst for growth… [Environmentalists] even want to tell us to switch off all the coal-generated power stations,” he said. “Until you tell them, ‘you know we can do that, but you’ll breathe fresh air in the darkness’.”

From Noel Mboumba, hydrocarbons minister of Gabon:  “Oil is a major driver of development.  We will do all in our power to develop it.”

Meanwhile, Africa News has a roundup from the same convention of various countries announcing plans to move forward on fossil fuel development and investment projects:

Senegal’s Oil and Energy Minister Mahamadou Makhtar Cisse used the platform to launch… a licensing round of three blocks of sediment basin.

Angola’s newly formed national oil, gas and biofuels agency, ANGP, announced that the country has formed a consortium with five international oil companies, including Eni and Chevron, to develop liquefied natural gas (LNG)…

Uganda is highlighting the ongoing second licensing round for oil exploration, which covers five highly prospective blocks with relatively good seismic and other data, Minister [Irene] Muloni said…

Ghana told AOW delegates that plans, revising its laws on oil and gas licenses, sent to parliament last week, are an effort to spur production…

Chairman of Mozambique’s upstream regulator, INP, Carlos Zacarias announced that the country’s long-awaited sixth licensing round is due to be launched early next year.

Somalian Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Abdirashid Mohamed Ahmed said his country was embarked on a path to transform Somalia’s petroleum industry and attract the attention of new investors…

Even as the Oil Week convention proceeded, outside the hotel, a small group of protesters from Extinction Rebellion did their thing, labeling the event a “Climate Criminals Conference.” Here is a photograph from Reuters:

image

Notice that all of the protesters are white.  Their objective is to keep the poor poor.  Somehow they have convinced themselves that they have the moral high ground. 

Nov 09, 2019
Green deals could cost families $10,000/year more for energy and lost jobs

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Many energy companies, auto and other corporations are increasing their support of the decarbonization programs and policies (including taxes, mandated reduction of our use of fossil fuels, pushing not ready for prime time alternatives). This has proved to be a disaster in all countries that followed this unwise radical enviro track.

See how a 2014 senate report showed there is a left wing billionaires club which has used environmentalism to control the economy and subvert democracy here. We are working to educate the increasingly compliant organizations and key politicians at all levels. We get no help from the media which refuses to cover any alternative views on this critical issue. All our efforts (posts, editorials, LTEs, videos, talks (science teachers, taxpayers association, state legislators, Rotary Clubs, institutes), peer reviewed reports like this) have been done pro-bono. Attacks on us have always included claims we were funded by big oil and the Koch Brothers. I wish.  If you can, please support our efforts with a donation (secure PAYPAL button on the left).

-------------------------
CO2 - THE GAS OF LIFE

CO2 is a beneficial trace gas (0.04% of our atmosphere). With every breath we emit out 100 times more CO2 than we breathe in so it is not harmful. The increase in CO2 has caused a significant greening of the earth, with increased crop yields feeding more people at lower cost.

Dr. Craig Idso of CO2 Science noted recently “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and it is most certainly not causing dangerous global warming. Rather, its increase in the atmosphere is invigorating the biosphere, producing a multitude of benefits for humanity and the natural world, notwithstanding the prognostications of the uninformed.” Dr. Will Happer, Princeton Physicist says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.

It’s not the first time we were told we faced an existential threat due to climate change. In 1970, Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich warned that because of population growth, climate stress (then cold) and dwindling energy that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off” which was too late to stop.  Even as each subsequent dire forecast failed (see how the alarmist/media record is perfect (100% wrong) in the 50 major claims made since 1950 here), the alarms continued, each pushing the date forward - 2000, 2020, and now 2030.  This summer at Glacier National Park signs “Warning: glaciers will be gone by 2020” were quietly removed as ice and snow increased.

A team of scientific experts evaluated the 12 most commonly reported claims and found them all unfounded - see .

The climate models used to predict the future have all failed miserably.

image

Heat records have declined since the 1930s, which holds 23 of the 50 state hottest ever temperature records.  This was the second quietest decade for landfalling hurricanes and major hurricanes since 1850. This was the quietest decade for tornadoes since tracking began in the 1950s. Sea level rises have slowed to 4 inches/century globally. Arctic ice has tracked with the 60-year ocean cycles and is similar to where it was in the 1920s to 1950s. NOAA could find no evidence of increased frequency of floods and droughts (this spring had the smallest % of US in drought on record). Snow which the university scientists here predicted would disappear, actually has set new records (fall and winter) for the hemisphere and North America, and both Boston and NYC have had more snow in the 10 years ending 2018 than any other 10 year period back to the late 1880s. Wildfires cause havoc but were far more prevalent before the forest management, fire suppression and grazing of the 1900s.  They are problems now because more have left the failing cities to move out of state or to the beauty of the foothills. The power lines to service them can spark new fires when the cold air rushes through the mountain passes this time of years downing trees onto the power lines.

image

In the U.S., with low cost energy, lowered taxes and elimination of unnecessary regulations, we now have the lowest unemployment for the nation in decades or history and for the first time in a long time significant wage increases! Here in NH, we have the lowest unemployment in the nation. The U.S. is energy independent, a long time thought unachievable goal. Our air and water is cleanest in our lifetimes well below the tough standards we put in place decades ago.

The real existential threat comes would come from radical environmentalism and the prescribed remedies. The scare is politically driven, all about big government and control over every aspect of our lives. AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti in May admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing” - nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy. He was echoing what the climate change head of the UN climate chief and the UN IPCC Lead Author said - that is was our best chance to change the economic system (to centralized control) and redistribute wealth (socialism).

The economy in every country that has moved down an extreme green path have seen skyrocketing energy costs - 3 times our levels.

Renewables are unreliable as the wind doesn’t always blow nor the sun shine. And don’t believe the claims millions of green jobs would result. In Spain, every green job created cost Spain $774,000 in subsidies and resulted in a loss of 2.2 real jobs. Only 1 in 10 green jobs were permanent.  Industry left and in Spain unemployment rose to 27.5%.

Many households in the countries that have gone green are said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). The elderly are said in winter to be forced to “choose between heating and eating”. Extreme cold already kills 20 times more than heat according to a study of 74 million deaths in 13 countries.

Politicians in the northeast states are bragging that they stopped the natural gas pipeline, shut down nuclear and coal plants and blocked the northern Pass which would have delivered low cost hydropower from Canada. In Concord, they are now scurrying to try and explain why electricity prices are 50 to 60% higher than the national average here and are speculating they have not moved fast enough with wind and solar.  Several states have even established zero carbon emissions. This will lead to soaring energy prices and life-threatening blackouts. For a family of 4 in a modest house with 3 cars, the energy costs could increase over $10,000/year (based on a sample of households and their energy costs multiplied by 3 as has occurred in countries with a onerous green agenda). And by the way like in Europe where this plan was enacted, many will lose their jobs. They are being told what (if) they can drive and what they can eat.

Prosperity always delivers a better life AND environment than poverty.

“If you don’t know where you are going, you might end up somewhere else.”Yogi Berra

Thank you for supporting ICECAP. We present the opinions of many real scientists which are not driven by profit motive but the truth. We are all sincerely worried about the policies that are based on political motivations and not science that could not only destroy prosperity so many have worked hard to achieve but also prevent the have-nots from becoming self sufficient and live more productive and fulfilling lives. You see elitists and politicians recognize if people are self sufficient, they lose their power and control. Along the same lines, we worry about our failing education system. Instead of taxing hard working taxpayers to help our young people pay off college loan debt for useless degrees, perhaps we need to employ class action suits to go after universities and administrators, overpaid faculty and their bloated endowments.

Nov 03, 2019
Cold October (and now November) in perspective

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Starting in January 2019, unusual and at times record cold has been locked in over the north central states.

image
Enlarged

Though there was heat in late summer in the southeast and eastern Gulf to the Mid-Atlantic, the cold held in the north central. After a very cold spring with late snows, which significantly delayed or prevented grain planting, a cool summer followed and gave way to a very early cold shot in late September that brought early deep freezes and even record snows in the north central leading to significant crop losses.

There have been 90 all-time record lows versus just 44 all-time record highs this year. That included the all time state record low of -38F in Mount Carroll in Illinois on January 31st.

The cold central deepened in October and pushed to the east bringing very early snow into the Midwest. October saw 3680 record daily lows, 32 all time record lows for the month and no all time record monthly highs (NOAA NCEI).

image
Enlarged

After bringing heavy snows to the Rockies and high plains the cold rolled south with temperatures 30 to 50 degrees below normal.

image
Enlarged

Temperatures dropped to a record of -35F at Logan County Sink in Utah and -46F in Peter’s sink, record coldest for the U.S. for the month of October.

The temperatures the first 9 months have tracked the last 120 years well with multidecadal cycles in the ocean.

image
Enlarged

The cold also follows the solar activity. We are currently in a century or more quiet sun.  In the period in and following the last 11 year cycle low (2007-2011), we had brutal cold and snow here in the U.S. and Europe.

December in 2010, the Central England Temperature (longest continuous record going back to 1659), was the second coldest December.  Snow, which was forecast to be a thing of the past, instead buried the UK for long periods reminiscent of the Dalton solar Minimum of the early 1800s as evidenced by Dicken’s novels.

image
Enlarged

In the US, record cold and snow in the Snowmageddon Mid-Atlantic winter of 2009/10, was eclipsed with the record winters of 2013/14 and 2014/15. Which brought the coldest and snowiest winter and modern day peaks of Great Lake ice.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

The snow in the hemisphere is increasing very rapidly and is above normal, which should expand and enhance the cold. Note how the fall record for snow extent was at record levels last fall.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Given the projection by Russian scientists and many in the west including some at NASA, we could be heading into a deep and long solar minimum like the Maunder Minimum with a major cooling. Whether it is a several decade Dalton like period or a Maunder, this is no time to abandon cheap, available energy.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Even in the warmer interlude we have enjoyed, cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.

image
Link

Nov 24, 2019
Allan MacRae’s Summary of Recent Posts

By Allan MacRae

The current climate hysteria is a well-funded global political campaign, conducted by the wolves to stampede the sheep. Why now? Because the global warming scam will soon come tumbling down, where even the most devoted warmist acolytes will realize they have been duped. How will this happen?

The failed catastrophic very-scary catastrophic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis, which ASSUMES climate is driven primarily by increasing atmospheric CO2 caused by fossil fuel combustion, will be clearly disproved because fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase, CO2 albeit at a slower rate, while global temperatures cool significantly. This global cooling scenario has already happened from ~1940 to 1977, a period when fossil fuel combustion rapidly accelerated and atmospheric temperature cooled - that observation was sufficient to disprove the global warming fraud many decades ago.

Contrary to global warming propaganda, CO2 is clearly NOT the primary driver of century-scale global climate, the Sun is - the evidence is conclusive and we’ve known this for decades.

--------------

In June 2015 Dr. Nir Shaviv gave an excellent talk in Calgary - his slides are posted here.
Slides 24-29 show the strong relationship between solar activity and global temperature.

Here is Shaviv’s 22 minute talk from 2019 summarizing his views on global warming: Science Bits, Aug 4, 2019

At 2:48 in his talk, Shaviv says:
“In all cores where you have a high-enough resolution, you see that the CO2 follows the temperature and not vice-versa. Namely, we know that the CO2 is affected by the temperature, but it doesn’t tell you anything about the opposite relation. In fact, there is no time scale whatsoever where you see CO2 variations cause a large temperature variation.

At 5:30 Shaviv shows a diagram that shows the close correlation of a proxy of solar activity with a proxy for Earth’s climate. More similar close solar-climate relationships follow.

Shaviv concludes that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is 1.0C to 1.5C/(doubling of CO2), much lower than the assumptions used in the computer climate models cited by the IPCC, which greatly exaggerate future global warming.

At this low level of climate sensitivity, there is NO dangerous human-made global warming or climate change crisis.

------------

Willie Soon’s 2019 video reaches similar conclusions - that the Sun is the primary driver of global climate, and not atmospheric CO2.

Willie Soon’s best points start at 54:51, where he shows the Sun-Climate relationship and provides his conclusions.

There is a strong correlation between the Daily High Temperatures and the Solar Total Irradiance (54:51 of the video):
... in the USA (55:02), Canada (55:16), and Mexico (55:20).

---------------

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/offset:-1360/scale:1

Solar Total Irradiance is now close to 1360 W/m2, close to the estimated lows of the very-cold Dalton and Maunder Minimums. Atmospheric temperatures should be cooling in the near future -maybe they already are.

We know that the Sun is at the end Solar Cycle 24 (SC24), the weakest since the Dalton Minimum (circa 1800), and SC25 is also expected to be weak. We also know that both the Dalton Minimum and the Maunder Minimum (circa 1650-1700) were very cold periods that caused great human suffering.

I wrote in an article published 1Sept2002 in the Calgary Herald that stated:

“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

That prediction was based of the end of the Gleissberg Cycle of ~80-90 years, dated from 1940, the beginning of the previous global cooling period from ~1940 to 1977.

Since about 2013, I have published that global cooling will start by 2020 or earlier. Cooling will start sporadically, in different locations.

Planting of grains in the Great Plains of North America was one month late in both 2018 and 2019. Summer was warm in 2018 and the grain crop was successful.  However spring was late and wet in 2019, and much of the huge USA corn crop was never planted due to wet ground; then the summer was cool and winter snow came early, resulting in huge crop failures.

Thousands of record cold temperatures were experienced in North America in October 2019, and temperatures in Britain and parts of northern Europe were also extremely cold.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Recent analysis of the 2019 harvest failure is here:

THE REAL CLIMATE CRISIS IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS COOLING, AND IT MAY HAVE ALREADY STARTED

By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 27, 2019

and here.

GROWING SEASON CHALLENGES FROM START TO FINISH

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow, Co--‐chief Meteorologist at Weatherbell.com, Nov 18, 2019

Bundle up - it’s getting colder out there.

Nov 23, 2019
Redundancies, Bankruptcies, Unrealistic Power Contracts: The Wind Industry Crisis Deepens


John Constable, GWPF

Redundancies at Enercon, the ongoing saga of the Senvion bankruptcy, and growing unease within the wind industry itself at the extremely low power prices being contracted, suggest that in desperate efforts to maintain a lucrative market position the sector has put itself in danger.

Presumptious Maid! with looks intent
Again she stretched, again she bent,
Nor knew the gulf between.
(Malignant Fate sat by, and smiled.)
The slippery verge her feet beguiled
She tumbled headlong in.

(Thomas Gray, “On a Favourite Cat, Drowned in a Tub of Gold Fishes")

Eddie O’Connor, the founder of Airtricity and Mainstream Renewable Power, is one of the most notable entrepreneurs in the wind industry and is consequently regarded with awe. His personal success speaks for itself, and if he chances to add anything further, obiter dicta, people pay attention. Speaking at the Reuters Offshore and Floating Wind Europe 2019, which was held in London on the 11th and 12th of November this year, Mr O’Connor seems to have dropped a bombshell. Reports claim that he shocked his audience by describing the wind sector as “on its knees” and in a state of “failure”, because “cut-throat” competition has driven contracted power prices to levels so low that wind is no longer “profitable”.

No objective observer will disagree that the wind industry overall appears to be struggling. Enercon, the Mercedes Benz of turbine makers, has just announced 3,000 redundancies in its home town of Magdeburg, and admitted to a $220m loss in 2018, with worse to come in 2019 ("Thousands to lose jobs as German wind crisis hits Enercon” 11.11.2019).

Indeed, in a measure quite incredible for a flagship German firm, Enercon has explained that it can no longer afford to make wind turbine blades in Germany, and will perforce attempt to preserve its viability by manufacturing overseas, presumably in locations where lower energy costs mean that labour is much cheaper.

Senvion, another troubled German manufacturer of wind turbines, entered into self-administered bankruptcy/liquidation in April, but has subsequently struggled to deliver reassuring news to the markets. On the 1st of November, and in the light of the fact that Senvion had not provided financial reports since beginning of the year, Moodys withdrew all its ratings from both Senvion S.A. and its subsidiary Senvion Holding GmbH, adding that it “continues to expect a meaningful loss to the current noteholders”.

It is clear that the problems summarised in an earlier Energy Comment post for this blog, “Is the Long Renewables Honeymoon Over” (11.05.19), are very far from diminishing and indeed seem to be growing still more serious.

Cutting through this miscellany of industry difficulties Mr O’Connor went straight to the heart of the matter, profitability, with his emphasis on contracted power prices. As is notorious, there has been a strong tendency in recent years for the wind sector in general to justify earlier generous subsidies on the grounds that costs had, as a result now fallen. Offshore wind projects, for example, are claiming dramatic (and implausible) capital cost reductions, backing up such claims by signing contracts to supply electricity at surprisingly low prices, even at so-called Zero-Subsidy levels. In the UK the latest instance of this is the Round 3 Allocation of Contracts for Difference, which announced strike prices of 40 pounds/MWh for about 4.5 GW of capacity at five gigantic projects. This appears to be below the likely wholesale price, let alone below the fundamental price needed to deliver a return on investment for the wind farms themselves.

Mr O’Connor clearly has a point, and though he did not add that Hughes, Aris, and Constable were right in their study for GWPF in 2017, Offshore Wind Strike Prices: Behind the Headlines, his remarks are consistent with the view that those authors took, namely that the CfDs issued in that year were at unrealistically low levels and could only be understood either as mistakes, which seems unlikely, or more probably as complicated options and high risk gambling, a view that Professor Hughes has developed in a subsequent paper for GWPF (Who’s the Patsy? Offshore wind’s high-stakes poker game).

Nevertheless, the logic of the wind industry’s public relations agenda forces it to maintain its position and indeed to go beyond it. Bizarre though it may seem, analysts close to the industry such as DNV GL are now suggesting that future contract bids will be negative, in other words that wind power developers will actually be willing to pay for contracts in order to secure the option for development (When Will European Offshore Wind See Negative Bids?).

But such tactics are clearly hazardous. Andrei Utkin of IHS Markit is quoted in the same source as sounding a warning note:

In a way, when we compare the French and U.K. winning bid levels with forward prices, we already see negative bids: forward baseload prices for year-ahead delivery are above those levels. [...] More and more renewables coming onto the grid will result in more curtailment and lower wholesale power prices. (...) As a result, the price that renewables will be able to capture in the market will decrease as well, going below their levelized cost of energy and potentially triggering the need for government support.”

Quite. But can the industry survive the transition period to renewed subsidy and will that subsidy actually be forthcoming? Mr O’Connor’s instincts, and he must have excellent instincts for such things, are that the industry’s position is perilous. Wind power may well be in desperate need, on its knees in fact, but sympathy is likely to be in short supply:

Eight times emerging from the flood
She mewed to every watery god,
Some speedy aid to send
No Dolphin came, no Nereid stirred;
Nor cruel Tom, nor Susan heard.
A Favourite has no friend!

Dr John Constable: GWPF Energy Editor.

Nov 15, 2019
Climate Science Proves Scams Don’t Die of Exposure

Icecap Note; 10 years ago, CLIMATEGATE exposed the scandalous behavior of the world’s scientists with respect to the global warming eco-fantasy. Like with so many other political driven issues it was largely ignored by the media with the hope the public would not rise up against it. Marc Morano in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change summarized all the emails and the scientists. Here is the Chapter 10 excerpt on Climategate. Below is a great post by Tony Thomas.

By Tony Thomas, Quadrant

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.

For the three years before Climategate, the climate crowd was ascendant with its pseudo-narrative of “settled science”. Al Gore’s error-riddled propaganda movie Inconvenient Truth of 2006 had swept the Western world and its readily-traduced schoolkids. In 2007 Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shared the Nobel Peace Prize. In late 2008 Barack Obama won the White House, proclaiming in his modest way, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

The Climategate emails hit the blogosphere just a month before the Copenhagen summit was scheduled to lock Western countries into Kyoto Mark 2, a legally-binding commitment to renewables from 2012. Climategate destroyed warmists’ moral high ground and reinforced the natural reluctance of most governments to up-end their economies with emission controls. The Copenhagen circus fell apart, resolving merely to “take note” of the exhortations to action by Obama and like-minded leaders.

The mainstream media strove to ignore and bury the Climategate revelations. The climate establishment ran half a dozen inquiries with limited briefs and ludicrous lack of rigour, all of which purported to clear the climate scientists of wrong-doing.[1] But even today, ten years after, scientists faithful to their calling and disciplines can only shudder at what Climategate revealed. Those who subverted the scientific method were not fringe players but at the pinnacle. They were doing the archetypal studies “proving” catastrophic human-caused catastrophic warming (CAGW) and shaping the content and messaging in the six-yearly reports of the IPCC.

The hacked (or otherwise revealed) email archive spanning the prior decade was stored by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit[2]. The CRU co-compiled the HadCRUT global temperature series, along with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre. This data set charting alleged global warming in fractions of a degree was a key input to the climate computer models forecasting doomladen heat for this century. (The model forecasts continue to exceed actual measured warming). Based on these dud modelled forecasts, the West is now spending $US 1.5 trillion a year in quest of zero CO2 emissions.

Today, anyone questioning this colossal enterprise is told to “respect the science”. Based on the Climategate emails released in 2009, 2013 and 2015, I’d rather respect the Mafia, who at least don’t claim to be saving the planet. For example, today we’re told that warming of 2 deg C above pre-industrial level is some sort of a tipping point of doom. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, emailed on September 6, 2007, that the supposed 2-degree limit was “plucked out of thin air”, a throwaway line in an early 1990s paper from the catastrophists at the Potsdam Climate Impacts Institute.

Now for the emails. We journos love a local angle, and here’s one - the CRU’s Ian “Harry” Harris worked for four years to de-bug and properly document a CRU data base “TS 2.1” of global stations recording monthly temperatures.

One input was from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, with its frequent adjustments that result in a greater warming trend (think Rutherglen and Darwin). Harry’s comments in a 200-page logging of notes:

What a bloody mess. Now looking at the dates..something bad has happened, hasn’t it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS [data from an Australian weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!… getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. So many new stations have been introduced, so many false references… so many changes that aren’t documented.. I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was...Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight...!

What else did Harry Harris mention? Perhaps science-respecting Dr Ross Garnaut (Q&Aon November 11) could get his head around this lot (emphasis added):

OH F**K THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases ....Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it ... This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!… So, uhhhh what in tarnation is going on? Just how off-beam are these datasets?!! ....Unbelievable - even here the conventions have not been followed. It’s botch after botch after botch...Where is the documentation to explain all this?! ... It’s halfway through April and I’m still working on it. This surely is the worst project I’ve ever attempted. Eeeek...Oh bugger. What the HELL is going on?!… Oh GOD if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite!! ... Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!! ... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage…

Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally. It’s the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately - meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it’s restricted to Russia!! ...What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have ... [My attempted corrections] will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ‘em, and it’s the main reason the project is nearly a year late.”

That was then. How’s things today?

In 2015 Prime Minister Tony Abbott set in train an audit of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology’s temperature adjustments that increased Australia’s apparent warming, but one of the first moves of his successor, Malcolm Turnbull, was to scuttle that audit. Of equal significance is that late last year, Melbourne scientist Dr John McLean published the first-ever audit of Britain’s HADCRUT4 temperature data set and commented,

It’s very careless and amateur. About the standard of a first-year university student...Governments have had 25 years to check the data on which they’ve been spending billions of dollars. And they haven’t done so once.

For example, he found that for two years the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were derived from just one site in Indonesia, and on two occasions the average December temperature at an airport on tropical St Kitts in the Caribbean was reported at zero degrees. The inaccuracies in the data record are so bad, McLean believes, that it is impossible to know how much global temperatures have really risen - probably about 0.4 deg C in 70 years, not the 0.6 deg C claimed.

Subverting peer review

Climategate showed how warmist scientists gamed the peer review process to ensure a monopoly for their views. When two papers contrary to their ‘consensus’ were published, CRU director Phil Jones and his circle pulled out all stops to get the editor sacked and prevent such papers being considered by the IPCC. Jones, 8 July 2004:

...I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, leading climate scientist] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

US colleague Dr Michael Mann (author of the influential-but-wrong Hockey Stick graph of the past 1000 years’ temperature), July 3, 2003:

It seems clear we have to go above [the sceptic author Chris de Freitas] ... I think that the community should, as Mike H [warmist scientist] has previously suggested in this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels - reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute.

(De Freitas at the University of Auckland served as deputy dean of science, head of science and technology, and for four years as pro vice-chancellor. He also served as vice-president of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand)

Concerning another sceptic scientist, Steve McIntyre (who used his superior statistical skills to refute Mann’s work), Mann wrote, in August 2007,

I have been talking [with] folks in the States about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose [him].

Restricting and adjusting data

CRU director Jones destroyed emails subject to Freedom of Information requests and urged colleagues to do the same. Some of the emails could have exposed improper manipulation of IPCC processes. In 2004 Jones refused a sceptic;s request for his source data:

...We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it?

He had good reason to conceal his data. Perhaps here’s why:

# Jones, April 15, 2009: For much of the SH [Southern Hemisphere] between 40 and 60 [degrees] S[outh] the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.

# Jones, November 10, 2009: For the 1940-1960 period if the SSTs [sea surface temperatures] were adjusted they would look much better

# Scientist Dr Tom Wigley, then with the US Government, to Jones September 28, 2008, urging more adjusting: ...If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip. So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean- but we’d still have to explain the land blip....It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with ‘why the blip’.

# From Jones’ CRU colleague Dr Tim Osborn, December 20, 2006: Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were…

# Jones in November 2007 mentioned research malpractice allegations against some climate people in the US and Europe...I reckon only a few in the climate field know the full extent of what is going on behind the scenes in climate science. The Nobel Peace prize will certainly help, but some skeptics are redoubling their efforts.

# Jones’s University of East Anglia colleague Anthony Footitt, June 25, 2009: I do hope all these emails are just staying within UEA because it really makes us - UEA as a whole ‘ look like a bunch of amateurs.

Hiding the decline

On November 16, 1999, Jones welcomed and had re-used professionally a “trick” in a Nature article involving secret switching from tree-ring proxy temperature data to actual data. This covered up that tree-rings ceased to suggest rising temperature after 1960. That would have invalidated Mann’s tree-ring-based temperature chronologies for earlier centuries.

Jones: I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa] to hide the decline.

Scientist Tom Wigley points out flaws in Mann’s own research:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive ... there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.

UK climate researcher Douglas Maraun:

How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think that ‘our’ reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.

The IPCC exposed

UK Met Bureau’s Peter Thorne, concerning work on the IPCC’s 2007 fourth report:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Jones admits the political bias in the IPCC’s all-important Summary for Policy Makers (SPM):

He says he’ll read the IPCC Chapters! He hadn’t as he said he thought they were politically biased. I assured him they were not. The SPM [Summary for Policy Makers] may be, but not the chapters.

IPCC coordinating lead author Jonathan Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out [of IPCC reports].

Need it be said that leaving out inconvenient stuff is anathema to real, genuine, principled science?

Warmist Mike Hulme agrees that

“the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment ... There are not that many ‘facts about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal”

From climate scientist Giorgi Filippo, who contributed to all five IPCC Assessment Reports:

I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also un- reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions)...I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes

Email 5286 from scientist Hans von Storch:

“We should explain why we don’t think the information robust yet. Climate research has become a postnormal science, with the intrusion of political demands and significant influence by activists driven by ideological (well meant) concerns.”

Also from von Storch:

The concealment of dissent and uncertainty in favor of a politically good cause takes its toll on credibility, for the public is more intelligent than is usually assumed

Scientist Richard Somerville, 2004:

We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.

Warmist Kevin Trenberth:

We are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter

Michael Mann, 2006:

We certainly don’t know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well, and nobody has ever claimed we do.

Jones’ CRU was meant to provide part of the gold-standard science in the IPCC reports. Sadly, it lost or destroyed massive raw data from global temperature stations, admitting on its website in 2011, “We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

Warmist Keith Briffa:

It seems we got the balance between realism and hype about right

In light of all the above admissions of lost data, mangled data, twisted data and the stated intentions of the Climategate correspondents to produce work that confirmed warmist preconceptions, there is a delicious irony to the lament of Phil Jones in 2008

Why can’t people just accept that the IPCC is right!!

Miscellaneous mayhem

# University of East Anglia’s Mike Hulme: I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies - including some of those I am involved in.

# Michael Mann: It would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘Medieval Warming Period’. His Hockey Stick did just that. The medieval warming remains an embarrassment to climate scientists, since it is natural rather than CO2-related.

# Milind Kandlikar, 2004: Tuning [of models] may be a way to fudge the physics.

In November 2007: UN secretary-general Ban Ki Moon, perhaps actually believing what he was saying on the strength of the guff being fed to him, suggested CO2 might cause sea levels to rise six meters in 10 years - that is, by 2017!

Needless to say, universities have showered climate guys with honors. IPCC author Ben Santer agreed with honors for Jones and Wigley: “Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of our field” and the pair “deserve medals as big as soup plates”, he wrote, October 8, 2009.

After Climategate

Climategate’s influence on the public debate was fleeting. But now groups like Tim Flannery’s Climate Council persuade many citizens that any weather drama or fire is proof of global warming.[3] A steady stream of younger scientists, fuelled by propaganda from their earliest years in high school and locked onto their career rewards at “woke” universities for adhering to the warmist party line, is continuing the tradition of shoddy climate scholarship. Meanwhile, non-conformers like reef expert Peter Ridd get sacked.

Call me an optimist, but I see warming extremists alienating voters with a panoply of far-left “social justice” issues attached to their climate narrative - causes that make Greenpeace seem traditionalist.

The debate about the many interpretations of the science has become esoteric compared with close-to-home arguments about fossil-fuel power versus renewables. While Climategate exposed dud science, ten years later the hot topic is the exposure of unfeasible electricity makeovers.

Tony Thomas’s hilarious history, The West: An insider’s tale - A romping reporter in Perth’s innocent ‘60s is available from Boffins Books, Perth, the Royal WA Historical Society (Nedlands) and online here

[1] “The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.”

[2] The still-unidentified Climategate “hacker” said his motive was to help divert useless trillions for renewables towards doing genuine good for the world’s poor.

[3] Warmist scientist Steve Schneider perceptively said: “A mega heat wave this summer is worth 3 orders of magnitude more in the PR wars - too bad we have to wait for random events since evidence doesn’t seem to cut it anymore with the MSM [mainstream media].”

Nov 09, 2019
Who are these ‘11,000 Concerned Scientists’?

By Casey Plunkett

See how Facebook is doing fake Fact-Checking on papers that are not published on cabal controlled journals here.

Academics and scientists are yet again issuing “consensus” statements on climate change.  In 2017, we were warned by 16,000 scientists across 184 countries that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.” This past week, BioScience, an academic, peer-reviewed journal from Oxford University Press, found 11,224 scientists, from 153 countries, who signed off on the latest climate change drivel.  Citing a “moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is,” they’ve published the paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” In dystopian tone, they’ve issued a demand for Earth’s population to “be stabilized - and, ideally, gradually reduced - within a framework that ensures social integrity.”

With the disclaimer that I’m just a layman who resides in “flyover country,” who are these “11,000 Scientists,” and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter?  Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields - their expertise isn’t inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science.  For example, a physicist won’t teach a graduate-level course in biology, a podiatrist won’t perform open heart surgery, and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing.  How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology, or atmospheric science?  Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link - so I looked.

In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists.  As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports that there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S.  Conversely, this list contains plenty of “experts” who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN, and linguistics.  Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could not care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change - let alone allow him to tell me how to live my life.

This raises the question: “Why did so few meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric scientists sign off on this latest paper?” Perhaps they know that this is faux science?  The climate is a complex dynamic that science don’t fully understand, let alone predict.  Nonetheless, radical, statist elements of society continue to advocate economy-destroying actions - taking lemmings over the cliff with them.

At family gatherings in the upcoming holiday season, when annoying in-laws cite “scientific consensus” on man’s effects on climate change, expose their ignorance and the irrelevance of these doomsday papers with an analogy.  Advise them to seek out the consensus opinion of a group of chemists, linguists, and data scientists if they believe they tore a rotator cuff or have concerns with an asymmetrical mole they’ve discovered.

Nov 02, 2019
Expensive Climate Policies Sparked Chile Riots, Just Like France’s Yellow Vest Protests

By James Taylor

Climate activists and the United Nations are suffering a major black eye this week as protests and riots resulting from high energy prices have erupted in Santiago, Chile.

Chile, which will host a major U.N. climate conference in December (NOW CANCELLED), earned praise from climate activists for recently imposing a carbon dioxide tax on conventional energy sources and switching the Santiago Metro system to renewable power. Now, the people of Chile are rising up and firing a shot across the bow of other nations considering similar energy taxes and expensive renewable energy programs.

On Oct. 25, protestors took to the streets throughout Santiago in response to Metro fare hikes. The protests soon spread to other cities and led to rioting and at least five reported deaths. The Chilean government and the legacy media blamed the fare hikes on rising oil prices. But that isn’t true.

Oil prices aren’t rising. Global oil prices are currently 25 percent lower than they were a year ago and 37 percent lower than they were five years ago.

In Chile, gasoline prices reflect the lower oil prices. Chilean gasoline prices were $1.12 per liter in August (the most recent month for which data are available), compared to $1.28 a year ago. Five years ago, gasoline sold at $1.50.

Santiago Metro fares are rising, amid falling oil and gasoline prices, because government officials in 2018 traded out most of the Metro’s energy sources to wind and solar power from conventional sources. The Chilean government also hit the portion of conventional power that remains with new carbon dioxide taxes.

As a result, Chileans are now burdened by higher Metro fares reflecting unnecessary energy price increases. As Chileans protest, climate activists and their media allies want people to believe oil is to blame, rather than government climate programs that raise energy prices and impoverish people.

Unlike speculative climate change woes that never seem to materialize, carbon dioxide taxes and renewable energy mandates immediately and measurably raise living costs and reduce living standards. In the United States, people may have some concern about climate change, but polling shows most Americans aren’t willing to pay $2 per month to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

In Chile, where per-capita income is merely one-quarter of U.S. per-capita income, people are understandably even less willing to pay for carbon dioxide reduction. Moreover, Chile’s per-capita income is higher than that of most other Latin American countries, so people in other Latin American countries would be even more likely to rise up and protest economically destructive climate change programs like the ones imposed in Chile.

For United Nations officials planning the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) climate conference, scheduled for the first two weeks of December in Santiago, the protests are especially embarrassing. Last year’s U.N. conference took place in Poland, where government officials and the prominent Solidarity labor union have criticized costly U.N. climate programs. Solidarity even held a press conference at the U.N. event and issued a joint statement criticizing U.N. climate activism.

The December U.N. conference was originally scheduled for Brazil, but the Brazilian government strongly criticized U.N. climate activism and told the United Nations it no longer desired to serve as host.

The Chilean government offered to host in Brazil’s place, touting its carbon dioxide taxes, renewable-powered metro, and other activist climate programs. Yet, the world is seeing the Chilean population rioting in the streets as a result of those taxes and climate programs. This is the third major black eye for the U.N. Conference of the Parties in less than a year.

The Chilean protests, like the Yellow Vest protests that erupted in France a year ago, highlight how out of touch the international climate class is with the people they seek to govern and control. Faced with a choice between suffering certain lower living standards today or dealing with speculative climate change in the distant future, people wisely choose the latter.

That will continue to be the case until predicted climate harms actually materialize and negatively affect people, or until wind and solar power can economically compete with conventional energy. So far, neither has been the case.

James Taylor (JTaylor@heartland.org) is the director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

Apr 09, 2019
New England Curtails amid World Natural Gas Boom

By Steve Goreham—April 9, 2019

Buffalo News (11/16/19) reports: “Ever notice how many of the wind turbines on the old Bethlehem Steel property along Lake Erie don’t rotate, even on windy days? Now we know why. The company that manufactured parts for the turbines went bankrupt, and the owner of the turbines in Lackawanna and Hamburg can’t get replacement parts. Now the company that owns them, Erie Wind, a subsidiary of TerraForm Power, plans to spend $21.46 million to fix them - with bigger blades designed to be safer for birds. The original investment in the turbines was $65 million to $70 million. “They have replaced these windmills two-and-a-half times over, and they’re still not functioning” said Sean Doyle, executive director of the Hamburg Industrial Development Agency. The turbines were built in two phases, and they were hailed as the first urban wind farm in the country, a symbol of the future of renewable energy and a model for repurposing brownfields.”

----------

By Steve Goreham

“Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont now pursue decarbonization targets to reduce emissions 75-85 percent by 2050. These states’ “strategic electrification” policy calls for eliminating natural gas and propane from home and water heating applications by substituting electric appliances and heat pumps that can use wind and solar systems.”

“Because of insufficient gas pipeline capacity, New England now faces critical shortages. In January, utility Con Edison announced a moratorium on new natural gas customers in Westchester County, New York. That same month, Holyoke Gas & Electric of Massachusetts also announced that it can no longer accept new natural gas service requests due to a lack of supply.”

Global usage of natural gas continues to grow rapidly. Methane and propane are essential low-cost, non-polluting fuels for heating, cooking, industrial use, and generation of electrical power. But states in New England, New York, and some nations seek to curtail the use of natural gas.

From 1965 to 2017, world natural gas consumption increased almost six-fold, from 631 billion cubic meters to 3.7 trillion cubic meters per year. Gas use in North America doubled, increased in Europe by a factor of 14, and skyrocketed in Asia Pacific by a factor of more than 100. Gas became the primary fuel for heating and cooking in developed nations and a major fuel for industry and electricity generation across the world.

image
Figure 1. World Natural Gas Consumption

In 2017, natural gas delivered 23 percent of the world’s energy, up from about 15 percent in 1965. Today gas provides nine times as much global energy as wind and solar combined.

Natural gas, or methane, is a clean-burning fuel, free of nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, soot, and other pollutants. Water vapor is the largest waste product from methane combustion. But New England states have decided to curtail the use of gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont now pursue decarbonization targets to reduce emissions 75-85 percent by 2050. These states’ “strategic electrification” policy calls for eliminating natural gas and propane from home and water heating applications by substituting electric appliances and heat pumps that can use wind and solar systems.

A 2015 survey by the US Department of Energy found that 58 million US residences use natural gas as the primary heating fuel. An additional 11 million homes use propane, fuel oil, or kerosene. Natural gas and other hydrocarbon fuels heat about 58 percent of US homes. Gas use is even higher in New England, with hydrocarbons the primary fuel for over 80 percent of one to four family homes.

Elimination of natural gas and propane for heating will be costly for New England residents. A 2017 study by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority found that only four percent of the state’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning load could cost-effectively switch to heat pumps.

To force a transition away from natural gas, New England policymakers have blocked construction of new gas pipelines. The Constitution Pipeline, a project to bring gas from the shale fields in Pennsylvania to the pipeline network in Schoharie County, NY, is one of many examples. This pipeline continues to be stalled after receiving a construction permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2014.

In opposing the Constitution Pipeline, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office stated, “...we will not relent in our fight to protect our environment and ensure a cleaner, healthier future...New York is stepping up for the future of our planet, our economy, and our children.”

Because of insufficient gas pipeline capacity, New England now faces critical shortages. In January, utility Con Edison announced a moratorium on new natural gas customers in Westchester County, New York. That same month, Holyoke Gas & Electric of Massachusetts also announced that it can no longer accept new natural gas service requests due to a lack of supply.

New England residents pay high prices for heating and electricity, particularly in winter months. Shortages during weeks of severe cold push residential gas prices up by as much as 400 percent. Power plants are forced to use expensive oil fuel, with gas reserved for home heating. Oil provided almost one-quarter of New England’s electricity during the severe cold at the end of December, 2017.

New England policies contrast sharply with those of most of the country. US natural gas main and service distribution pipelines grew 80 percent from 1984 to 2016 and continue to expand in most states.

In an extreme case, in 2017 the government of Netherlands called for elimination of all natural gas usage by 2050. Despite the fact that 90 percent of Dutch homes are heated by natural gas, the government proposed that 170,000 gas lines would be disconnected every year, to be replaced by geothermal and heat pump systems. Last year Amsterdam announced a phase-out of natural gas in favor of more “sustainable” sources of energy.

In contrast to efforts to curtail gas use in New England and Netherlands, global shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG) are exploding to help satisfy growing demand. World LNG trade increased 12 percent in 2017, 10 percent last year, and is projected to increase by another 11 percent in 2019.

image

There is no evidence that restrictions on New England usage will have a measurable effect on world demand for natural gas, or the slightest effect on global temperatures. But misguided government energy policies will raise prices for New England residents.

Japan and South Korea remain the world’s largest importers of liquefied natural gas, with LNG demand growing fastest in China, South Korea, and Pakistan. LNG supply growth is dominated by shipments from Australia and the fracking fields of the United States.

Steve Goreham is a popular speaker on the environment, business, and public policy. He is author of the influential primer, Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development, and other books on energy and the environment.

Nov 10, 2019
Are they willing to go to these lengths?

James Visentine

"After our daughter of fifteen years of age was moved to tears by the speech of Greta Thunberg at the UN recently, she became angry with our generation “who had been doing nothing for thirty years”. So, we decided to help her prevent what the girl on TV announced of “massive eradication and the disappearance of entire ecosystems”.  We are now committed to give our daughter a future again, by doing our part to help cool the planet four degrees.

From now on she will go to school on a bicycle, because driving her by car costs fuel, and fuel puts emissions into the atmosphere. Of course it will be winter soon and then she will want to go by bus, but only as long as it is a diesel bus.  Somehow, that does not seem to be conducive to ‘helping the Climate’.

Of course, she is now asking for an electric bicycle, but we have shown her the devastation caused to the areas of the planet as a result of mining for the extraction of Lithium and other minerals used to make batteries for electric bicycles, so she will be pedaling, or walking. Which will not harm her, or the planet. We used to cycle and walk to school too.

Since the girl on TV demanded “we need to get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels” and our daughter agreed with her, we have disconnected the heat vent in her room. The temperature is now dropping to twelve degrees in the evening, and will drop below freezing in the winter, we have promised to buy her an extra sweater, hat, tights, gloves and a blanket.

For the same reason we have decided that from now on she only takes a cold shower. She will wash her clothes by hand, with a wooden washboard, because the washing machine is simply a power consumer and since the dryer uses natural gas, she will hang her clothes on the clothesline to dry.

Speaking of clothes, the ones that she currently has are all synthetic, so made from petroleum. Therefore on Monday, we will bring all her designer clothing to the secondhand shop.

We have found an eco store where the only clothing they sell is made from undyed and unbleached linen, wool and jute.  It shouldn’t matter that it looks good on her, or that she is going to be laughed at, dressing in colorless, bland clothes and without a wireless bra, but that is the price she has to pay for the benefit of The Climate.  Cotton is out of the question, as it comes from distant lands and pesticides are used for it. Very bad for the environment.

We just saw on her Instagram that she’s pretty angry with us. This was not our intention.

From now on, at 7 p.m. we will turn off the Wi-Fi and we will only switch it on again the next day after dinner for two hours. In this way we will save on electricity, so she is not bothered by electro-stress and will be totally isolated from the outside world. This way, she can concentrate solely on her homework. At eleven o’clock in the evening we will pull the breaker to shut the power off to her room, so she knows that dark is really dark. That will save a lot of CO2.

She will no longer be participating in winter sports to ski lodges and resorts, nor will she be going on any more vacations with us, because our vacation destinations are practically inaccessible by bicycle.

Since our daughter fully agrees with the girl on TV that the CO2 emissions and footprints of her great-grandparents are to blame for ‘killing our planet’, what all this simply means, is that she also has to live like her great-grandparents and they never had a holiday, a car or even a bicycle.

We haven’t talked about the carbon footprint of food yet.  Zero CO2 footprint means no meat, no fish and no poultry, but also no meat substitutes that are based on soy (after all, that grows in farmers fields, that use machinery to harvest the beans, trucks to transport to the processing plants, where more energy is used, then trucked to the packaging/canning plants, and trucked once again to the stores) and also no imported food, because that has a negative ecological effect. And absolutely no chocolate from Africa, no coffee from South America and no tea from Asia.

Only homegrown potatoes, vegetables and fruit that have been grown in local cold soil, because greenhouses run on boilers, piped in CO2 and artificial light. Apparently, these things are also bad for The Climate. We will teach her how to grow her own food.

Bread is still possible, but butter, milk, cheese and yogurt, cottage cheese and cream come from cows and they emit CO2. No more margarine and no oils will be used for the frying pan, because that fat is palm oil from plantations in Borneo where rain forests first grew.

No ice cream in the summer. No soft drinks and no energy drinks, as the bubbles are CO2. She wanted to lose some pounds, well; this will help her achieve that goal too.

We will also ban all plastic, because it comes from chemical factories. Everything made of steel and aluminum must also be removed. Have you ever seen the amount of energy a blast furnace consumes or an aluminum smelter? Uber bad for the climate!

We will replace her 9600 coil, memory foam pillow top mattress, with a jute bag filled with straw, with a horsehair pillow.

And finally, she will no longer be using makeup, soap, shampoo, cream, lotion, conditioner, toothpaste and medication. Her sanitary napkins will be replaced with pads made of linen, that she can wash by hand, with her wooden washboard, just like her female ancestors did before climate change made her angry at us for destroying her future.

In this way we will help her to do her part to prevent mass extinction, water levels rising and the disappearance of entire ecosystems.  If she truly believes she wants to walk the talk of the girl on TV, she will gladly accept and happily embrace her “new way of life.

May your troubles be less, may your blessings be more, and may nothing but happiness come through your door! When we choose not to focus on what is missing from our lives but are grateful for the abundance that is present we experience heaven on earth.

Jun 28, 2019
Do any of these “climate change"eggheads realize how stupid they sound?

Mr. Erickson Rules

Before this great post, please watch this excellent CO2 coalition response to the unscientific democratic committee meeting on Climate Change and agriculture. They demonstrate we need more not less CO2.

----------

Do any of these “climate change"eggheads realize how stupid they sound?

“The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”

“Climate change!  Global warming!  The ice is melting!  The oceans are rising!

image

Although this is a recurring occurrence for these alarmist propagandists, most recently, I’m referring to a couple of articles that I came across.

The first article is by Christopher Carbone of Fox News, and the headline states, “Mysterious freshwater reservoir found hidden beneath the ocean!”

My first thought is, “okay, this sounds pretty interesting,” but the more I think about it, the less surprised I am by the discovery.

But they’ve peaked my interest..., so let’s proceed.

My next thought is, “Aren’t most things in life and our planet “mysterious?”

I would think the word “mysterious” would be a word that scientists would not be too fond of, however, as it seems to imply something not very scientific, but more supernatural, more beyond our understanding.

The truth is that there is a heck of a lot more that scientists don’t understand than they do understand.

Carbone continues, “Scientists discover world’s largest freshwater aquifer underneath the ocean floor.”

“Surveying the sub-seafloor off the eastern coast of the United States, researchers at Columbia University uncovered what appears to be the world’s largest freshwater aquifer. Believed to hold at least 670 cubic miles of fresh water, the discovery could usher in similar discoveries for other regions throughout the world.”

image

“The surprising discovery, from a new survey of the sub-seafloor off the northeast U.S. coast by researchers from Columbia University, appears to be the largest formation of this type anywhere in the world - stretching from Massachusetts to New Jersey and extending continuously out about 50 miles to the edge of the continental shelf.”

“Researchers said that if it was discovered on the surface it would create a lake covering some 15,000 square miles.”

That would be about half the size of Lake Superior, or about two-thirds the size of Lake Michigan.

“We knew there was fresh water down there in isolated places, but we did not know the extent or geometry,” lead author Chloe Gustafson, a PhD. candidate at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in a press statement.”

Okay..., this is all very well and good..., but I would have to question whether “we” knew this “fresh water” was down there, or if “we” only suspected it.  I don’t ever recall hearing anything about this type of thing before.

But here’s the kicker that justifies the use of the term “egghead.”

“Scientists also said that if the water was to ever be processed for consumption, it would need to be desalinated.”

Wait..., what?

Desalinated?

You “scientists” do understand that if the water would need to be “desalinated,” THEN IT’S NOT FRESH WATER!  IT’S SALT WATER!

I’m sorry, but am I missing something?

“The study was [original] published in the journal ‘Scientific Reports.’”

And none of the other “scientists” felt it necessary to point out that referring to salt water as fresh water kind of changes the whole concept of the report?

Brilliant.

image

Next we have an article by Karl Mathiesen for “The Guardian” website that asks, “Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming?”

Good question!

How dare this ice act in a way that contradicts all of our “climate change” claims!

“While Arctic sea ice continues to decline, Antarctic levels are confounding the world’s most trusted climate models with record highs for the third year running.”

image

So the Earth is “confounding” “the world’s most trusted climate models” with its ice growth? And for the third year in a row?

This sure doesn’t jive with the “climate change propaganda” I’ve been hearing over the past couple of years.

How about you?

And doesn’t it make sense that while the Arctic ice levels are in decline, the Antarctic ice levels are increasing?

You know..., I bet if you looked back in history, at times when the Antarctic ice levels were in decline, the Arctic ice levels were on the rise.

Just a guess.

Nothing scientific, but..., hey..., at least their claims and my claims would have that in common!

Mine would just make more sense, that’s all!

image

“Antarctic ice floes extended further than ever recorded this southern winter, confounding the world’s most-trusted climate models.”

“Ice floes extended further than EVER recorded!”

“Ever” is a long time.

‘“It’s not expected,’ says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. ‘The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.’”

Like Gomer used to say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise.”

If those are your “50 best models,” and they are all pathetically wrong, what are you basing your claims on and why should anyone listen to anything you have to say?

Just sayin’.

“But Dr. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, says increasing Antarctic ice does not contradict the general warming trend, ‘Not every location on the Earth is having the same responses to climate changes. The fact that ice in one part of the world is doing one thing and in another part ice is doing another is not surprising. The Earth is large and as the climate changes it is normal to see different things going on,’ says Parkinson.”

Wow.  You are wise Dr. Claire.  I’m pretty sure that most 5th graders could have made those deductions.

And basically what you’re saying is that no matter what happens with the Earth’s climate, we can twist it around to support our claims of global warming.

The “climate” changes all of the time, and we’ll give you that.  It’s been changing since the beginning of time, and all by itself, with no help from humans.

“In a video made by Eco Audit reader and journalist Fraser Johnston, Dr. Guy Williams, a sea ice scientist at the Tasmanian Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, says that even though it had fooled climate models the increasing sea ice was well understood by scientists.”

‘“In some ways it’s a bit counterintuitive for people trying to understand how global warming is affecting our polar regions, but in fact it’s actually completely in line with how climate scientists expect Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to respond. Particularly in respect to increased winds and increased melt water,’ said Williams.”

Okay..., so these ice occurrences are “well understood” and “completely in line with how climate scientists expect Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to respond,” yet earlier, Professor John Turner was quoted as saying these results were “not expected”.

So what is it?  Was this ice situation expected by you “scientists” or not?

It kind of sucks when reality doesn’t line up with your propaganda, doesn’t it, docs?

I get the feeling that the next “climate change” study that we get to read about will being with the words, “Once upon a time...”

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

image

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Apr 29, 2019
Fake climate science and scientists

Paul Driessen

For years we’ve been subjected to what can only be described as fake science on climate change, brought to us by folks that can best be described as fake climate scientists.

They engage in practices that real scientists would never follow, and willfully ignore everything the scientific method prescribes as guidelines for honest, replicable, beneficial research. Even worse, these fake/alarmist scientists demand that their suspect work be used to justify energy policies that would upend and devastate modern industrial economies - for no climate benefit… with millions of acres blanketed by wind turbines and solar panels ...and with billions of impoverished people being trapped in energy poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death.

My article this week tackles this problem head-on. Thank you for posting it, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,

Paul

Fake climate science and scientists

Alarmists game the system to enrich and empower themselves, and hurt everyone else

Paul Driessen

The multi-colored placard in front of a $2-million home in North Center Chicago proudly proclaimed, “In this house we believe: No human is illegal” - and “Science is real” (plus a few other liberal mantras).

I knew right away where the owners stood on climate change, and other hot-button political issues. They would likely tolerate no dissension or debate on “settled” climate science or any of the other topics.

But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief - or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited - it’s pseudo-science, at best.

Real science - and real scientists - seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and experimental data. If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature - at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.

Real science does not involve simply declaring that you “believe” something, It’s not immutable doctrine. It doesn’t claim “science is real” - or demand that a particular scientific explanation be carved in stone. Earth-centric concepts gave way to a sun-centered solar system. Miasma disease beliefs surrendered to the germ theory. The certainty that continents are locked in place was replaced by plate tectonics (and the realization that you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate change).

Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate.

They don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t hide their data and computer algorithms (AlGoreRythms?), restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who dares to ask inconvenient questions or find fault with their claims and models. They don’t concoct hockey stick temperature graphs that can be replicated by plugging in random numbers.

In the realm contemplated by the Chicago yard sign, we ought to be doing all we can to understand Earth’s highly complex, largely chaotic, frequently changing climate system - all we can to figure out how the sun and other powerful forces interact with each other. Only in that way can we accurately predict future climate changes, prepare for them, and not waste money and resources chasing goblins.

But instead, we have people in white lab coats masquerading as real scientists. They’re doing what I just explained true scientists don’t do. They also ignore fluctuations in solar energy output and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth’s history. They look only (or 97% of the time) at carbon dioxide as the principle or sole driving force behind current and future climate changes - and blame every weather event, fire and walrus death on manmade CO2.

Even worse, they let their biases drive their research and use their pseudo-science to justify demands that we eliminate all fossil fuel use, and all carbon dioxide and methane emissions, by little more than a decade from now. Otherwise, they claim, we will bring unprecedented cataclysms to people and planet.

Not surprisingly, their bad behavior is applauded, funded and employed by politicians, environmentalists, journalists, celebrities, corporate executives, billionaires and others who have their own axes to grind, their own egos to inflate - and their intense desire to profit from climate alarmism and pseudo-science.

Worst of all, while they get rich and famous, their immoral actions impoverish billions and kill millions, by depriving them of the affordable, reliable fossil fuel energy that powers modern societies.

And still these slippery characters endlessly repeat the tired trope that they “believe in science” - and anyone who doesn’t agree to “keep fossil fuels in the ground” to stop climate change is a “science denier.”

When these folks and the yard sign crowd brandish the term “science,” political analyst Robert Tracinski suggests, it is primarily to “provide a badge of tribal identity” - while ironically demonstrating that they have no real understanding of or interest in “the guiding principles of actual science.”

Genuine climate scientist (and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Judith Curry echoes Tracinski. Politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren use “science” as a way of “declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand… The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal - and one political party ticket,” she explains.

The ultimate purpose of all this, of course, is to silence the dissenting voices of evidence- and reality-based climate science, block creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science, and ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use ...and upend modern economies.

The last thing fake/alarmist climate scientists want is a full-throated debate with real climate scientists - a debate that forces them to defend their doomsday assertions, methodologies, data manipulation ... and claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less that 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%).

Thankfully, there are many reasons for hope. For recognizing that we do not face a climate crisis, much less threats to our very existence. For realizing there is no need to subject ourselves to punitive carbon taxes or the misery, poverty, deprivation, disease and death that banning fossil fuels would cause.

Between the peak of the great global cooling scare in 1975 until around 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise in rough conjunction. But then temperatures mostly flat-lined, while CO2 levels kept climbing. Now actual average global temperatures are already 1 degree F below the Garbage In-Garbage Out computer model predictions. Other alarmist forecasts are also out of touch with reality.

Instead of fearing rising CO2, we should thank it for making crop, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, benefitting nature and humanity - especially in conjunction with slightly warmer temperatures that extend growing seasons, expand arable land and increase crop production.

The rate of sea level rise has not changed for over a century - and much of what alarmists attribute to climate change and rising seas is actually due to land subsidence and other factors.

Weather is not becoming more extreme. In fact, Harvey was the first Category 3-5 hurricane to make US landfall in a record 12 years - and the number of violent F3 to F5 tornadoes has fallen from an average of 56 per year from 1950 to 1985 to only 34 per year since then.

Human ingenuity and adaptability have enabled humans to survive and thrive in all sorts of climates, even during our far more primitive past. Allowed to use our brains, fossil fuels and technologies, we will deal just fine with whatever climate changes might confront us in the future. (Of course, another nature-driven Pleistocene-style glacier pulling 400 feet of water out of our oceans and crushing Northern Hemisphere forests and cities under mile-high walls of ice truly would be an existential threat to life as we know it.)

So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs - in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” - let them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. The rest of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.

Apr 06, 2016
“…climate change is UN hoax to create new world order”

Trump gives hope to derailment of the establishment’s plans (both parties) for a New World Order - which would cede our rights and control over our lives including a redistribution of any wealth to the UN.

Update: see the whole story behind the story in their own words in Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters by C3 Headlines.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” And, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

We start with Mencken’s quotes because they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religious; the studious; the famous; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping “the populace alarmed” to further their own personal, selfish goals.

The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previous paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose an ‘Agenda’ based on their elite values and self-importance. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

See the quotes here.

---------

Australia PM’s adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order

Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, says UN is using debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule.

The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order - provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.

Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Australia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production.

Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Australia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders’ summit in Brisbane last year.

Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.

“The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN....

“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

Figueres used an address in Melbourne to urge Australia to move away from coal, the country’s second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming.

“Economic diversification will be a challenge that Australia faces,” she said.

Abbott has described coal as “good for humanity” and the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future.

Figueres also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott’s track record.

At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth.

At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was “crap”, repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.

Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: “No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables.”

Abbott’s office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Sep 23, 2015
In regards to the false 97% “consensus”

Derek Alker

Updated: Public and many to most real scientists are unconvinced.

From: Malcolm Roberts [mailto:malcolmr@conscious.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 12:07 PM
To: UQ VC OFFICE
Cc: John Cook; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; FORBES VIV; Carter Bob; Plimer Ian; Jennifer Marohasy
Subject: D15/7927: Complaint of serious corruption of science by UQ’s John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

Dear Professor Hoj:

As an honours engineering graduate from the University of Queensland I am inquiring of you as to the reasons our university supports the work of John Cook who serially misrepresents climate and science? Specifically, why is our university wasting valuable funds to mislead the public through a free course and by producing associated international video material?  Course

Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here.

It details John Cook’s fabrication of an unscientific ‘consensus’. Science is not decided by claims of consensus. Resorting to claims of consensus is unscientific and contradicts the scientific process.

Fabricating false claims of scientific consensus is not honest.

Science is decided by empirical scientific evidence. John Cook has repeatedly failed to provide any such evidence that use of hydrocarbon fuels is causing the entirely natural climate variability we experience.

A succinct summary of John Cook’s fabrication of a consensus, and of the corruption of science upon which his claims rely and that is furthered by his claims, and of the empirical scientific evidence he blatantly contradicts, are discussed in pages 6-18 of my report to federal MPs Senator Simon Birmingham and Bob Baldwin. It is available at this link

My seven years of independent investigation have proven that there is no such empirical scientific evidence anywhere in the world. Climate alarm is unfounded and is a purely political construct pushing a political agenda. Please refer to Appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7 and 8 at this link.

John Cook’s core public climate claims are false and blatantly contradict empirical scientific evidence. Please refer to appendix 4 at the same link.

image

Further, John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists and I’m wondering if that would make his work a serious offense.

As you likely know, John Cook works closely with the university’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who reportedly has many serious conflicts of financial interest surrounding his false climate claims. These are discussed on pages 54-59 of Appendix 9 at this link and briefly on pages 16 and 17 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin MP.

I draw your attention to my formal complain dated Wednesday 10 November 2010 to the university senate about the work of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg misrepresenting climate and science. That was not independently investigated by then Vice Chancellor Paul Greenberg who was subsequently dismissed over another event, reportedly for a breach of ethics. My formal complaint is discussed on pages 57 and 58 of Appendix 9 at this link.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s responses to my request for empirical scientific evidence of human causation of climate variability have repeatedly and always failed to provide such evidence.

This email is openly copied to both Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook and to reputable Australian scientists and academics expert on climate and to Viv Forbes an honours graduate in geology from our university. Viv Forbes understands the key facts on climate and on the corruption of climate science by beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm perpetrated falsely by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook.

Please stop John Cook’s misrepresentations and restore scientific integrity to our university. I please request a meeting with you to discuss our university’s role in deceiving the public and to discuss restoring scientific integrity. I would be pleased for that meeting to be in the company of John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if that suits you.

Pages 19-26 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin discuss the serious damage to our nation and to humanity and our natural environment worldwide as a result of unfounded climate alarm spread by our university’s staff. I hope that you will fulfill your responsibility for investigating and ending such corruption. To neglect to do so will mean that you condone such damage and dishonesty. I seek confidence that you will restore the university’s scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

------------

The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

image

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science

In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2.

See faulty methodology of Cook study.

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science. See the list here.

----------------------

See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”

----------

See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.

-----------

From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge

--------

Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.

NOTE:

See all the talks at the latest ICCC9 Conference in Las Vegas in 2014 here.

Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV.  If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.

----------------------

See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.

-----------------------

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.

The left loves to reference desmogblog.com when any skeptic produce an analysis or paper challenging CAGW - see the real story about this looney left green PR firm here.

---------------

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.

“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”

The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.

See still more annotated here.

--------------

Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.

The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.

---------------

See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.

Go to and become a member of WeatherBell Analytics here.

Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here. It’s latest report (2013) details information from almost 4,000 papers.

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)