Precision Forecasts image image
Feb 20, 2020
A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans

Tony Thomas

Update: See also how a German Professors says NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale here.

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

image

There’s a top-level oceanographer and meteorologist who is prepared to cry “Nonsense!” on the “global warming crisis” evident to climate modellers but not in the real world. He’s as well or better qualified than the modellers he criticises - the ones whose Year 2100 forebodings of 4 degC warming have set the world to spending $US1.5 trillion a year to combat CO2 emissions.

The iconoclast is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. In June he put out a small book in Japanese on “the sorry state of climate science”. It’s titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, and he is very much qualified to take a stand. From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He’s published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.

Today’s vast panoply of “global warming science” is like an upside down pyramid built on the work of a few score of serious climate modellers. They claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recent global warming and project that warming forward. Every orthodox climate researcher takes such output from the modellers’ black boxes as a given.

A fine example is from the Australian Academy of Science’s explanatory booklet of 2015. It claims, absurdly, that the models’ outputs are “compelling evidence” for human-caused warming.[ii] Specifically, it refers to model runs with and without human emissions and finds the “with” variety better matches the 150-year temperature record (which itself is a highly dubious construct). Thus satisfied, the Academy then propagates to the public and politicians the models’ forecasts for disastrous warming this century.

Now for Dr Nakamura’s expert demolition of the modelling. There was no English edition of his book in June and only a few bits were translated and circulated. But Dr Nakamura last week offered via a free Kindle version his own version in English. It’s not a translation but a fresh essay leading back to his original conclusions.

The temperature forecasting models trying to deal with the intractable complexities of the climate are no better than “toys” or “Mickey Mouse mockeries” of the real world, he says. This is not actually a radical idea. The IPCC in its third report (2001) conceded (emphasis added),

In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2. )]

Somehow that official warning was deep-sixed by the alarmists. Now Nakamura has found it again, further accusing the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public,” he writes.

The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he says. However, “the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.” The reason:

These models completely lack some critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction.

I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process.

Nakamura and colleagues even tried to patch up some of the models’ crudeness

...so I know the workings of these models very well… For better or worse I have more or less lost interest in the climate science and am not thrilled to spend so much of my time and energy in this kind of writing beyond the point that satisfies my own sense of obligation to the US and Japanese taxpayers who financially supported my higher education and spontaneous and free research activity. So please expect this to be the only writing of this sort coming from me.

I am confident that some honest and courageous, true climate scientists will continue to publicly point out the fraudulent claims made by the mainstream climate science community in English. I regret to say this but I am also confident that docile and/or incompetent Japanese climate researchers will remain silent until the ‘mainstream climate science community’ changes its tone, if ever.

He projects warming from CO2 doubling, “according to the true experts”, to be only 0.5degC. He says he doesn’t dispute the possibility of either catastrophic warming or severe glaciation since the climate system’s myriad non-linear processes swamp “the toys” used for climate predictions. Climate forecasting is simply impossible, if only because future changes in solar energy output are unknowable.  As to the impacts of human-caused CO2, they can’t be judged “with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.”

Other gross model simplifications include

# Ignorance about large and small-scale ocean dynamics

# A complete lack of meaningful representations of aerosol changes that generate clouds.

# Lack of understanding of drivers of ice-albedo (reflectivity) feedbacks: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet.”

# Inability to deal with water vapor elements

# Arbitrary “tunings” (fudges) of key parameters that are not understood

Concerning CO2 changes he says,

I want to point out a simple fact that it is impossible to correctly predict even the sense or direction of a change of a system when the prediction tool lacks and/or grossly distorts important non-linear processes, feedbacks in particular, that are present in the actual system…

...The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. I understand geophysical fluid dynamics just a little, but enough to realize that the dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.

Solar input, absurdly, is modelled as a “never changing quantity”. He says, “It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square metre. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”

Good modelling of oceans is crucial, as the slow ocean currents are transporting vast amounts of heat around the globe, making the minor atmospheric heat storage changes almost irrelevant. For example, the Gulf Stream has kept western Eurasia warm for centuries. On time scales of more than a few years, it plays a far more important role on climate than atmospheric changes. “It is absolutely vital for any meaningful climate prediction to be made with a reasonably accurate representation of the state and actions of the oceans.” In real oceans rather than modelled ones, just like in the atmosphere, the smaller-scale flows often tend to counteract the effects of the larger-scale flows. Nakamura spent hundreds of hours vainly trying to remedy the flaws he observed, concluding that the models “result in a grotesque distortion of the mixing and transport of momentum, heat and salt, thereby making the behaviour of the climate simulation models utterly unrealistic...”

Proper ocean modelling would require a tenfold improvement in spatial resolution and a vast increase in computing power, probably requiring quantum computers. If or when quantum computers can reproduce the small-scale interactions, the researchers will remain out of their depth because of their traditional simplifying of conditions.

Key model elements are replete with “tunings” i.e. fudges. Nakamura explains how that trick works

The models are ‘tuned’ by tinkering around with values of various parameters until the best compromise is obtained. I used to do it myself. It is a necessary and unavoidable procedure and not a problem so long as the user is aware of its ramifications and is honest about it. But it is a serious and fatal flaw if it is used for climate forecasting/prediction purposes.

One set of fudges involves clouds.

Ad hoc representation of clouds may be the greatest source of uncertainty in climate prediction. A profound fact is that only a very small change, so small that it cannot be measured accurately...in the global cloud characteristics can completely offset the warming effect of the doubled atmospheric CO2.

Two such characteristics are an increase in cloud area and a decrease in the average size of cloud particles.

Accurate simulation of cloud is simply impossible in climate models since it requires calculations of processes at scales smaller than 1mm. Instead, the modellers put in their own cloud parameters. Anyone studying real cloud formation and then the treatment in climate models would be “flabbergasted” by the perfunctory treatment of clouds in the models.

Nakamura describes as “moronic” the claims that “tuned” ocean models are good enough for climate predictions. That’s because, in tuning some parameters, other aspects of the model have to become extremely distorted. He says a large part of the forecast global warming is attributed to water vapor changes, not CO2 changes. “But the fact is this: all climate simulation models perform poorly in reproducing the atmospheric water vapor and its radiative forcing observed in the current climate… They have only a few parameters that can be used to ‘tune’ the performance of the models and (are) utterly unrealistic.” Positive water vapor feedbacks from CO2 increases are artificially enforced by the modelers. They neglect other reverse feedbacks in the real world, and hence they exaggerate forecast warming.

The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 percent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. “We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.” This makes meaningless the Paris targets of 1.5degC or 2degC above pre-industrial levels.

He is contemptuous of claims about models being “validated”, saying the modellers are merely “trying to construct narratives that justify the use of these models for climate predictions.” And he concludes,

The take-home message is (that) all climate simulation models, even those with the best parametric representation scheme for convective motions and clouds, suffer from a very large degree of arbitrariness in the representation of processes that determine the atmospheric water vapor and cloud fields. Since the climate models are tuned arbitrarily ...there is no reason to trust their predictions/forecasts.

With values of parameters that are supposed to represent many complex processes being held constant, many nonlinear processes in the real climate system are absent or grossly distorted in the models. It is a delusion to believe that simulation models that lack important nonlinear processes in the real climate system can predict (even) the sense or direction of the climate change correctly.

I was distracted from his message because the mix of Japanese and English scripts in the book kept crashing my Kindle software. Still, I persevered. I recommend you do too. There’s at least $US30 trillion ($US30,000, 000,000,000) hanging on this bunfight.


Tony Thomas’s new book, 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

They include (to give you the flavor)

# “Destabilisation of thermohaline circulation by atmospheric eddy transports”

#"Effects of the ice-albedo [reflectivity] and runoff feedbacks on the thermohaline circulation”

# “Diagnoses of an eddy-resolving Atlantic Ocean model simulation in the vicinity of the Gulf Stream”

# “A simulation study of the 2003 heat wave in Europe”

# “Impacts of SST [sea surface temperature] anomalies in the Agulhas Current System on the climate variations in the southern Africa and its vicinity.”

# “Greenland sea surface temperature changes and accompanying changes in the north hemispheric climate.”

[ii] “Climate models allow us 
to understand the causes of past climate changes, and to project climate change into the future. Together with physical principles and knowledge of past variations, models provide compelling evidence that recent changes are due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere ... Using climate models, it is possible to separate the effects of the natural and human-induced influences on climate. Models can successfully reproduce the observed warming over the last 150 years when both natural and human influences are included, but not when natural influences act alone.: A footnote directs to a study by 15 modellers cited in the 2015 IPCC report.

Feb 17, 2020
Global Average Surface Temperature Measurement Uncertainties make NOAA/NASA Claims Absurd

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

By Joseph D’Aleo

The most significant uncertainties that must be dealt with to properly analyze temperature trends are detailed below. We touch on alarmist claims that are seen in greater detail in the sections of this document summarized in the January 21st blog post under Joe’s Blog.

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

NOAA and NASA can be counted on virtually every month or year’s end to religiously and confidently proclaim that the latest global average surface temperature (GAST) is among the warmest on record. Back in the 1970s when an assessment of a global temperature was first attempted, the scientists recognized that even land-only surface temperature data was a significant challenge given that most of the reliable data was limited to populated areas of the U.S, Europe and eastern China with just spotty often intermittent data from vast land areas elsewhere.

Temperatures over oceans, which covered 71% of the globe, were measured along shipping routes mainly in the Northern Hemisphere erratically and with varying measurement methods.  Despite these shortcomings and the fact that absolutely no credible grid level temperature data existed over the period from 1880 to 2000 in the Southern Hemisphere’s oceans (covering 80.9% of the Southern Hemisphere), global average surface temperature data estimation and publication by NOAA and NASA began in the early 1990s.

In this era of ever-improving technology and data systems, one would assume that measurements would be constantly improving. This is not the case with the global observing network. The world’s surface observing network had reached its golden era in the 1960s to 1980s, with more than 6,000 stations providing valuable climate information. 

DATA DROPOUT

The number of weather stations providing data to GHCN plunged in 1990 and again in 2005 (as stations in the oversampled lower 48 states were thinned out). The sample size has fallen by over 75% from its peak in the early 1970s, and is now smaller than at any time since 1919. The collapse in sample size has increased the relative fraction of data coming from airports to 49 percent (up from about 30 percent in the 1970s). It has also reduced the average latitude of source data and removed relatively more high-altitude monitoring sites (McKitrick 2010).

image
Enlarged

We could show many regional or country examples but here is one, Canada. NOAA GHCN used only 35 of the 600 Canadian stations in 2009. Verity Jones plotted the stations from the full network rural, semi-rural and urban for Canada and the northern United States both in 1975 and again in 2009. She also marked with diamonds the stations used in the given year. Notice the good coverage in 1975 and very poor, virtually all in the south in 2009. Notice the lack of station coverage in the higher latitude Canadian region and arctic in 2009.

image
Enlarged
Canadian stations used in annual analyses in 1975 and 2009 (source: Verity Jones from GHCN).

Just one thermometer remains in the database for Canada for everything north of the 65th parallel. That station is Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” thanks to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic.

Environment Canada reported in the National Post, that there are 1,400 stations in Canada with 100 north of the Arctic Circle, where GHCN includes just one.

MISSING MONTHLY DATA

After the 1980s, the network suffered not only from a loss of stations but an increase in missing monthly data. To fill in these large holes, data were extrapolated from greater distances away.

Forty percent of GHCN v2 stations have at least one missing month, It reached 90% in Africa and South America.

image
Analysis and graph: Verity Jones Enlarged

BAD SITING

According to the World Meteorological Organization’s own criteria, followed by the NOAA’s National Weather Service, temperature sensors should be located on the instrument tower at 1.5 m (5 feet) above the surface of the ground. The tower should be on flat, horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface, over grass or low vegetation kept less than 4 inches high. The tower should be at least 100 m (110 yards) from tall trees, or artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots.

Very few stations meet these criteria. The modernization of weather stations in the United States replaced many human observers with instruments that initially had warm biases (HO-83) and later cold biases (MMTS) or were designed for aviation and were not suitable for precise climate trend detection [Automates Surface Observing Systems (ASOS) and the Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS). Note the specifications required a RMSE of 0.8F and max error of 1.9F. ASOS was designed to supply key information for aviation such as ceiling visibility, wind, indications of thunder and icing. They were not designed for assessing climate.

image
Enlarged

Also, the new instrumentation was increasingly installed on unsuitable sites that did not meet the WMO’s criteria. During recent decades there has been a migration away from old instruments read by trained observers. These instruments were generally in shelters that were properly located over grassy surfaces and away from obstacles to ventilation and heat sources.

Today we have many more automated sensors (The MMTS) located on poles cabled to the electronic display in the observer’s home or office or at airports near the runway where the primary mission is aviation safety.

The installers of the MMTS instruments were often equipped with nothing more than a shovel. They were on a tight schedule and with little budget. They often encountered paved driveways or roads between the old sites and the buildings. They were in many cases forced to settle for installing the instruments close to the buildings, violating the government specifications in this or other ways.

Pielke and Davey (2005) found a majority of stations, including climate stations in eastern Colorado, did not meet WMO requirements for proper siting. They extensively documented poor siting and land-use change issues in numerous peer-reviewed papers, many summarized in the landmark paper “Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends (2007).

In a volunteer survey project, Anthony Watts and his more than 650 volunteers at www.surfacestations.org found that over 900 of the first 1,067 stations surveyed in the 1,221 station U.S. climate network did not come close to the Climate Reference Network (CRN) criteria. 90% were sited in ways that result in errors exceeding 1C according to the CRN handbook.

Only about 3% met the ideal specification for siting. They found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. They found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas. In fact, they found that 90% of the stations fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 m (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or reflecting source.

The average warm bias for inappropriately-sited stations exceeded 1C using the National Weather Service’s own criteria, with which the vast majority of stations did not comply.

image
Enlarged

In 2008, Joe D’Aleo asked NOAA’s Tom Karl about the problems with siting and about the plans for a higher quality Climate Reference Network (CRN at that time called NERON). Karl said he had presented a case for a more complete CRN network to NOAA but NOAA said it was unnecessary because they had invested in the more accurate satellite monitoring. The Climate Reference Network was capped at 114 stations and did not provide meaningful trend assessment for about 10 years. Here is the latest monthly time series - now 15 years.

image
Enlarged

BTW, in monthly press releases no satellite measurements are ever mentioned, although NOAA claimed that was the future of observations.

URBANIZATION/LAND USE CHANGES

The biggest issue though to accurate measurement is urbanization. Bad siting usually enhances the warming effect. Weather data from cities as collected by meteorological stations are indisputably contaminated by urban heat-island bias and land-use changes. This contamination has to be removed or adjusted for in order to accurately identify true background climatic changes or trends.

In cities, vertical walls, steel and concrete absorb the sun’s heat and are slow to cool at night. In surrounding suburban areas (often where airports are located), commercialization and increased population densities increase the temperatures at night relative to the surrounding rural areas. More and more of the world is urbanized (population increased from 1.5 B in 1900 to over 7.1 billion today.

image
Enlarged

The EPA depicts the typical temperature distribution from city center to rural, similar to the observed minimum temperature analysis surrounding London in mid May (about a 10F difference is shown).

image
Enlarged

Oke (1973) found a village with a population of 10 has a warm bias of 0.73C, a village with 100 has a warm bias of 1.46 C, a town with a population of 1000 people has a warm bias of 2.2 C, and a large city with a million people has a warm bias of 4.4C.

Zhou et al (2005) have shown global data bases (for China) not properly adjusted for urbanization. Block (2004) showed the same problem exists in central Europe. Hinkel et al (2003) showed even the village of Barrow, Alaska with a population of 4600 has shown a warming of 3.4F in winter over surrounding rural areas, These are but a handful of the dozens of studies documenting the UHI contamination.

Most confirm the warming is predominantly at night. During the day when the atmosphere is well mixed, the urban and rural areas are much the same. This analysis by in Critchfield (1983) for urban Vienna and suburban Hohe Warte shows the temperature traces for February and July.

image
Enlarged

Tom Karl whose paper in 1988 defined the UHI adjustment for the first version of USHCN (which was removed in version 2) wrote with Kukla and Gavin in a 1986 paper on Urban Warming:

“MeteoSecular trends of surface air temperature computed predominantly from urban station data are likely to have a serious warm bias… The average difference between trends (urban siting vs. rural) amounts to an annual warming rate of 0.34C/decade… The reason why the warming rate is considerably higher [may be] that the rate may have increased after the 1950s, commensurate with the large recent growth in and around airports.... Our results and those of others show that the urban growth inhomogeneity is serious and must be taken into account when assessing the reliability of temperature records.”

Inexplicably, the UHI adjustment Karl argued for was removed in USHCNv2.

This concerned some

image
Enlarged

Doug Hoyt, once chief scientist at Raytheon wrote: “It is not out of the realm of possibility that most of the twentieth century warming was urban heat islands.’

It continues to show up in the data. The nighttime temperatures the last 17 years (NASA AIRS) have warmed in the United States while daytime changes, the best measure of any warming have been very small.

image

As an example of before and after, the average annual temperatures for the state of Maine downloaded in 2010 before the change (-0.01F/decade) and after the change in 2012 (+0.23F/decade) says it all. We could provide literally hundreds of other examples. Bloggers in many other countries have shown startling examples of fraud.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

ADJUSTMENTS MADE

INFILLING

This is needed when a station is missing data for a month or months. It is accomplished using anomalies. For areas where there are adequate close-by surrounding stations, the assumptions that despite the local temperature differences, most sites will have a similar anomaly (departure from normal) is a reasonable one. But for infilling they can go as far as 1200 km (750miles) away to find data. At longer ranges this become problematic. Take for example northern Canada or the arctic where they must extrapolate over vast distances.

HOMOGENIZATION

This adjustment that blends data for all stations was designed to detect previously undisclosed inhomogeneities (station moves or siting changes) and adjust for urbanization. It may help detect siting discontinuities but is not an adequate substitute for UHI adjustment. The rural stations if properly sited and the Climate Reference network of stations should be reference to adjust the urban stations.

Instead through homogenization the rural areas are contaminated by urban stations, Dr. Edward Long from NASA examined a set of rural and urban stations in the lower 48 states both raw and adjusted. After adjustment, the rural warming rates increased 5 fold while urban warming rates were only slightly reduced. This augmented not eliminated UHI contamination.

image
Enlarged

OCEAN DATA

The other data set that presents a challenge for a precise assessment of global average surface temperature (GAST) is world’s oceans, which cover 71% of the globe.

image
Enlarged

Major questions persist about how much and when to adjust for changing coverage and measurement techniques from buckets to ship intake, to moored and drifting buoys, satellite skin temperature measurements and now ARGO diving buoys.

ARGO network of 3341 diving buoys and floats introduced in 2003 (now 4000) were designed to improve the assessment going forward.

image
Enlarged

But despite the fact this technology was designed specifically for the purpose, the early ARGO buoys, disappointed by showing no confirmation of an upward trend. So the data from the buoys was “adjusted.” John Bates, data quality officer with NOAA admitted “They had good data from buoys...and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did - so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

That was just the latest example of data manipulation. Initially, this global data had a cyclical pattern similar to previously reported Northern Hemisphere data (high in the 1930s and 40s, low in the 70s).  Then, as time progressed, the previous officially reported GAST data history was modified, removing the cycle and creating a more and more strongly upward sloping linear trend in each freshly reported historical data set.  Peer reviewed, published and readily reproducible research has shown that: “The conclusive findings were that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality.”

In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, which removed their cyclical temperature patterns are completely inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, despite current assertions of record-setting warming, it is impossible to conclude from the NOAA and NASA data sets that recent years have been the “warmest ever.”

For more see here and here.

See detailed Research Report here.

All our efforts are volunteer (pro-bono). Help us with a donation if you can (left column).

Jan 31, 2020
Alaska had a brutally cold January - Fairbanks, it ranked as 15th coldest (records began in 1904)

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Alaska had a brutally cold January.

image

In Fairbanks, it ranked as 15th coldest (records began in 1904) with an average of -21.4F in Fairbanks (13.4F below average)

image
Enlarged

In McGrath, it was the 4th coldest - coldest was January of 2012.

image
Enlarged

The lowest temperature in january was -51F.

That was despite warm water in the Gulf of Alaska. The water cooled from the fall levels.

image
Enlarged

Note that 2012 ranked as 5th coldest in Fairbanks and coldest in McGrath. It had very cold water off the coast then and modern day record Bering Sea ice resulted.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Early departure of Bering Sea ice in 2019 due to strong NPAC storms lead to early ocean warming and record early summer high temperatures.

When NCEI has the monthly data, we will repost with graph of Januarys statewide.

Often cold Alaska retards cold in the lower 48.???

See earlier story when heat followed early Bering Sea ice loss in last years’ warmer winter here.

Meanwhile in Saudi Arabia, record cold and snow.

And at Kazakh, capital of Kazakhstan, snow brought deep cold. The cold developed over the deep snowcover, the +NAO had Atlantic flow into Europe and Russia, deflecting the cold air south into Kazakhstan and the Middle East.

image

image

With the cold continuing in the arctic and Alaska, ice has increased for the second year in a row.

image Enlarged

See how warm the arctic was 1920s to 1950s.
image

See the IARC and UAF showed this relates to Atlantic ocean temperatures (the AM0)

image

Feb 04, 2020
On the fatal flaw of climate alarmism

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Introduction

NOAA and NASA can be counted on virtually every month or year end to religiously and confidently proclaim that the latest global average surface temperature (GAST) is among the warmest on record. Back in the 1970s when an assessment of a global temperature was first attempted, the scientists recognized that even land-only surface temperature data was a significant challenge given that most of the reliable data was limited to populated areas of the U.S, Europe and eastern China with just spotty often intermittent data from vast land areas elsewhere.

Temperatures over oceans, which covered 71% of the globe, were measured along shipping routes mainly in the Northern Hemisphere erratically and with varying measurement methods.  Despite these shortcomings and the fact that absolutely no credible grid level temperature data existed over the period from 1880 to 2000 in the Southern Hemisphere’s oceans (covering 80.9% of the Southern Hemisphere), global average surface temperature data estimation and publication by NOAA and NASA began in the early 1990s.

To illustrate the problem, on January 16, 2020, the WSJ published a lead article by Robert Lee Hotz stating: “NASA, NOAA ranked 2019 as the second-hottest year in tracking data to 1880. The world experienced near-record global temperatures in 2019, federal climate scientists said. ---.” This claim was made despite the fact that absolutely no credible temperature data exists over this period for more than 40% of the planet (0.5*0.809 =0.4+).

After 2000, there were diving buoys. But when the best technology designed specifically for the purpose, the ARGO buoys, disappointed by showing no upward trend, the data from the buoys was “adjusted.” John Bates, data quality officer with NOAA admitted “They had good data from buoys...and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did - so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.” He retired after that change was made.

image

That was just the latest example of data manipulation. Initially, this global data had a cyclical pattern similar to previously reported Northern Hemisphere data (high in the 1930s and 40s, low in the 70s).  Then, as time progressed, the previous officially reported GAST data history was modified, removing the cycle and creating a more and more strongly upward sloping linear trend in each freshly reported historical data set. 

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

Peer reviewed, published and readily reproducible research has shown that: “The conclusive findings were that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality.”

“In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, which removed their cyclical temperature patterns are completely inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, despite current assertions of record-setting warming, it is impossible to conclude from the NOAA and NASA data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever.”

Current climate policies - based on these unreliable temperature records - threaten our economic and national security interests. As the proposed climate policies grow more extreme, the consequences of allowing this record to remain unchallenged gravely threatens an onslaught of litigation based on the greenhouse gas endangerment finding. Importantly, this litigation imposes significant impediments to the mineral land leasing and pipeline infrastructure build out necessary to maintain and enhance energy independence and economic prosperity.

Furthermore, the US financial sector has already dramatically curtailed its support of conventional energy source development in large part due to the continued calls for regulatory destruction of the fossil fuel industry based substantially on NOAA and NASA’s now invalidated global surface temperature records. This situation is putting our Nation’s energy security at grave risk ‘ which means our economic and national security are also in great peril.

----------

ADDENDUM to the Research Report entitled: On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, Abridged Research Report, Dr. James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo ABD, Dr. Craig D. Idso, June 2017

The June 2017 Research Report provides ample evidence that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data was invalidated for use in climate modelling and for any other climate change policy analysis purpose.  However, there was one very critical science argument that this report did not make, which is made here.

This critical point involves whether or not it was even possible to compute a mathematically proper GAST data set over the period 1900-2000 in the first place.  Claims of record-setting GAST were made as one of the three Lines of Evidence of the 2009 GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding.  Another Line of Evidence purported that climate models, tuned to fit this GAST data, were adequate for policy analysis purposes.  The third Line of Evidence for validation required credible Surface Temperature data as well.  However, as stated in the aforementioned GAST Research Report:

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever - despite current claims of record setting warming. Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings” (1)

Thus, in this GAST report, ample evidence was provided that the current officially reported GAST data are simply not credible, therefore invalidating the 2009 Endangerment Finding. However, there is a proof that is far easier to understand. Over the period 1900-2000, there is virtually no credible surface temperature data available for at least 40% of the surface of the Earth. This follows from the fact that the Southern Hemisphere’s surface is over 80% ocean (.50*.80=40), and essentially no credible temperature data was captured for these vast oceans over this time period.  (2)

Hence, it never made any sense to even attempt to compute a GAST data set over this time period unless the purpose was to construct a temperature data set that could be made to have virtually any pattern over that time period that the institutions involved desired to portray as reality. In truth, with literally no credible temperature data available for well over 40% of the Earth’s surface, these institutions were only limited by what was credible to the outside world. (3) Thus far, not knowing these facts, all relevant parties, e.g., regulators, environmentalists, and government officials, have been far too accepting of the GAST record as a valid global temperature database. Since GAST data has now been separately proven to not be a valid representation of reality, it also means that the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding has been once again invalidated.

Footnotes

(1) GAST Data Research Report - see page 4.

(2) Southern Hemisphere “The South Atlantic, the South Pacific, the Indian Ocean and several seas, including the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand and the Weddell Sea next to Antarctica, constitute approximately 80.9 percent of the Southern Hemisphere. Land constitutes about 19.1 percent. In the Northern Hemisphere, on the other hand, most of the area is comprised of land masses.”

(3) “According to overseers of the long-term instrumental temperature data, the Southern Hemisphere record is “mostly made up”.  This is due to an extremely limited number of available measurements both historically and even presently from the south pole to the equatorial regions

In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen et al reported that “Problems in obtaining a global temperature history are due to the uneven station distribution (40), with the Southern Hemisphere and ocean areas poorly represented,” - - - - (Science, 28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511)

In 1978, the New York Times reported there was too little temperature data from the Southern Hemisphere to draw any reliable conclusions. The report, prepared by German, Japanese and American specialists, appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of Nature, the British journal and stated that “Data from the Southern Hemisphere, particularly south of latitude 30 south, are so meager that reliable conclusions are not possible,” the report says. 
“Ships travel on well-established routes so that vast areas of ocean, are simply not traversed by ships at all, and even those that do, may not return weather data on route. Attempting to compile a ‘global mean temperature’ for 70% of the earth from such fragmentary, disorganized, error-ridden and geographically unbalanced data is more guesswork than science.

As to sea surface temperatures (SST), this data is even more fragmentary than the air temperature readings. Prior to around 1940, SST was collected by throwing buckets over the side of a ship, hoisting it on deck and dipping a thermometer in it. Bucket data is only useful for immediate weather prediction purposes, not for long-term statistical climatic analysis. Any other data collected in such bizarre ways would be laughed out of any other scientific forum.”

“Since the 1980s and 1990s we have satellites to measure SST [22] using infra-red sensors (not to be confused with the MSU instruments which measure the atmosphere). Unfortunately, satellites sensing SSTs in the infra-red can only see the immediate water surface, not the water even a few centimetres deeper. This is because infra-red radiation at these wavebands (around 10 microns) cannot penetrate water at all, and so the satellite can only ‘see’ that top millimetre. This can result in both warm and cool errors. On hot still days, the top centimetre of the ocean surface can be much warmer than waters a few centimetres deeper, similar to the same phenomenon which can be observed in any undisturbed outdoor swimming pool. On windy days, there is no such difference due to wave mixing. There is also an intermittent ’thermal skin effect where the top millimetre of water on calm seas can be up to 0.3C cooler than the water just beneath the ‘skin’ due to evaporation taking place on the surface. For these reasons, SSTs taken from satellites are only accurate to within a few tenths of a degree, adequate for immediate meteorological purposes or detecting an El Nino, but not suited to measuring subtle global climatic changes of a few tenths of a degree.” John Daly

========

See the Superbowl of Data Tampering by Tony Heller:

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

Jan 21, 2020
Renewable Energy Is a Hoax; Alarmist Claim Fact-Checks

Lest we forget -

Progressive Eco-Group Admits It: Renewable Energy Is a Hoax that Benefits its Greenie Elmer Gantries like Al Gore
By John Eidson

Independent physicist John Droz, Jr. alerted me to the website of Deep Green Resistance (DGR), an international environmental organization that calls for the total destruction of what it refers to as the “global industrial economy,” AKA capitalism.  Given the group’s hard-left credentials, its call for dismantling capitalism throughout the world is not surprising.

What is surprising is that in an unusual show of progressive candor, Deep Green Resistance openly acknowledges what skeptical scientists have been saying for more than two decades: that renewable energy is a government-backed hoax that enriches big corporations - and green energy investors like Al Gore - at the expense of taxpayers and the environment.  If you find that admission hard to believe, please keep reading.  The questions and answers below are verbatim from the FAQ page on the organization’s website.

Will green technology save the planet?

No. Wind turbines, solar PV panels, and the grid itself are all manufactured using cheap energy from fossil fuels. When fossil fuel costs begin to rise such highly manufactured items will simply cease to be feasible.

Solar panels and wind turbines aren’t made out of nothing.  They are made out of metals, plastics, and chemicals. These products have been mined out of the ground, transported, processed, manufactured.  Each stage leaves behind a trail of devastation: habitat destruction, water contamination, colonization, toxic waste, slave labor, greenhouse gas emissions, wars, and corporate profits.

The basic ingredients for renewables are the same materials that are ubiquitous in industrial products, like cement and aluminum. No one is going to make cement in any quantity without using the energy of fossil fuels. And aluminum? The mining itself is a destructive and toxic nightmare from which riparian communities will not awaken in anything but geologic time.

From beginning to end, so called “renewable energy” and other “green technologies” lead to the destruction of the planet. These technologies are rooted in the same industrial extraction and production processes that have rampaged across the world for the last 150 years.

We are not concerned with slightly reducing the harm caused by industrial civilization; we are interested in stopping that harm completely. Doing so will require dismantling the global industrial economy, which will render impossible the creation of these technologies.

Will renewable energy save the economy?

Renewable energy technologies rely heavily on government subsidies, taken from taxpayers and given directly to large corporations like General Electric, BP, Samsung, and Mitsubishi.  While the scheme pads their bottom lines, it doesn’t help the rest of us.

Further, this is the wrong question to ask.  The industrial capitalist economy is dispossessing and impoverishing billions of humans and killing the living world.  Renewable energy depends on centralized capital and power imbalance.  We don’t benefit from saving that system.

Instead of advocating for more industrial technology, we need to move to local economies based on community decision-making and what our local landbases can provide sustainably.  And we need to stop the global economy on which renewable energy depends.

“Stopping the global economy” means destroying the capitalist system that created here in America the most widespread prosperity the world has ever known.  That a progressive eco-group would admit that the true agenda behind the push for renewable energy has nothing to do with “saving the planet” and everything to do with destroying capitalism is quite remarkable.  To reinforce its position that renewable energy is a hoax, DGR’s website has a cartoon that shows dollar bills being sucked from a wind turbine directly into the pocket of a fat cat investor in subsidized green energy projects. 

The Elmer Gantry of renewable energy

Few insiders have profited more from taxpayer-backed renewable energy projects than Al Gore.  When he left the vice presidency in 2001, his net worth was estimated at $1 million to $2 million.  Since then, his wealth has skyrocketed to $300 million, and if the climate change legislation he advocates is enacted, the former vice president stands to become a billionaire.  Much of his enviable fortune has come from being an inside investor in government-backed renewable energy projects, many of which went belly up after the insiders made off with millions, leaving hardworking U.S. taxpayers stuck with the bill.

Like all wealthy eco-preachers, the Elmer Gantry of renewable energy uses his immense wealth to indulge in lavish living.  When asked by Rep. Marsha Blackburn during his 2009 testimony before Congress whether he personally profits from his advocacy of global warming, Pastor Al professed a vow of poverty, and if you’ve never seen video of the tense encounter, you don’t want to miss it: “Every penny I have made I have put into a non-profit deal, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.  And Congresswoman, if you believe the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is out of greed, you do not know me.

Turned out Rep. Blackburn knows him quite well.  As the greedy owner of a gargantuan green energy fortune, Pastor Al looked her squarely in the eye and denied making even a penny of profit.  If every penny he makes goes into a non-profit deal, how did he end up with $300 million?  The same way his alter ego pilfered money from the Lord: by concealing his true stripes.

As the social Utopians at Deep Green Resistance openly acknowledge, the push for a “green economy” is a scam that enriches big corporations and fat-cat investors like Al Gore.  Shortly after teen climate activist Greta Thunberg gave an emotion-charged speech at the U.N. last September, I wrote about the renewable energy hoax in “The Cynical Plot behind Global Warming Hysteria.” If not for a totally corrupt Western media, two things would have happened years ago: man-made global warming theory would have been blown out of the water, and Pastor Al would have been called out as the self-righteous hypocrite he is.

An electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech and now retired, John Eidson is a freelance writer in Atlanta.

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

Alarmist Claim Rebuttals

Below are a series of rebuttals of the 11 most common climate alarmists’ claims such as those made in the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment Report.[2] The authors of these rebuttals are all recognized experts in the relevant

For each alarmist claim, a summary of the relevant rebuttal is provided below along with a link to the full text of the rebuttal, which includes the names and the credentials of the authors of each rebuttal.

Heat Waves - have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally Link Check for yourself at the data from the WMO here.

Hurricanes - this decade just ended as the second quietest for landfalling hurricanes and landfalling major hurricanes in the U.S since the 1850s. Link

Tornadoes - the number of strong tornadoes have declined over the last half century. Link

Droughts and Floods - no statistically significant trends. Link

Wildfires - decreasing since the very active 1800s. The increase in damage in recent years is due to population growth in vulnerable areas and poor forest management. Link NASA Earth Observatory shows here that globally fire acreage has declined 25% since 2003

Snowfall - increasing in the fall and winter in the Northern Hemisphere and North America with many records being set. Link

Sea level - the rate of global sea level rise on average has fallen by 40% the last century. Where it is increasing - local factors such as land subsidence are to blame. Link

Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland Ice - the polar ice varies with multidecadal cycles in ocean temperatures. Current levels are comparable to or above historical low levels. Link Link2

Alaska July 2019 heat records - this resulted from a warm North Pacific and reduced ice in the Bering Sea late winter due to strong storms. Record ice extent occurred with record cold in 2012. Link One of the coldest winters on record has followed with increased ice cover has followed.

Ocean Acidification - when life is considered, ocean acidification is often found to be a non-problem, or even a benefit. Link

Carbon Pollution as a health hazard - carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless invisible trace gas that is plant food and it is essential to life on the planet. It is not a pollutant..Link

Climate change is endangering food supply - the vitality of global vegetation in both managed and unmanaged ecosystems is better off now than it was a hundred years ago, 50 years ago, or even a mere two-to-three decades ago thanks in part to CO2. Link Video

See the full rebuttal and links to the details here.

See how The Green New Deal Would Be An Environmental Disaster here

Jan 10, 2020
Global climate may improve, but academic gloom seems here to stay

Exposing the lies continues and has now breached the walls of the journal Nature.

Ocean acidification does not impair the behaviour of coral reef fishes (link).

Also

CO2 Emissions, Fossil Fuel Use and Human Longevity (Uploaded 9 January 2020)
by Dr. Craig Idso, CO2 Science

This video segment discusses the fundamental link between CO2 emissions and global life expectancy. It is patently false and borderline fraudulent to claim rising CO2 is enhancing human mortality rates, as many often do, when the data clearly demonstrate there are more people on earth today who are living longer and better lives because of rising CO2 and fossil fuel use…

Read a transcript of this video.

-----------

Anthony Sadar, Meteorologist

College campus climate change crusade

Predictions of climate gloom and doom have gotten more confident and dire with each passing year. But the passing years have not been kind to the certainty of their fruition.

As a new academic semester gets underway at the beginning of this new decade, the college campus is where catastrophic climate change has actually happened over the most recent decades. Like the inception of a violent storm, the destructive change had small beginnings.

The field of climatology in the 1970s, when I was a student of meteorology at Penn State, was rather cloistered, engaged in the tedious work of compiling facts and figures from decades of weather. The science was focused on collecting, analyzing and disseminating data from local, regional and global observations. Weather trends at the time indicated the potential return of ice-age conditions.

In the early 1980s, when the popular notion of an ice age from the 1970s was changing to machinations of the enhanced “greenhouse effect,” some of my university meteorology professors had their serious doubts about the new fervent forecast.

However, their challenges to the envisioned hothouse Earth faded as the fresh disaster paradigm quickly took hold. A new air of superiority was advancing. And with the atmospheric-science spotlight focused on climatology, climate scientists gained popular attention, including those in schools of higher learning, where groupthink can thrive and nurture intolerant stalks of “knowledge”.

Bad vibes from the hollow halls of academia result from perhaps the largest echo chamber on the planet. Still, without the financial fertilization from the deep pockets of Uncle Sam via opportunistic politicians - who can help grow a rudimentary prognostication into an absolute certainty - the runaway greenhouse effect hypothesis would not have gotten too far beyond the parochial greenhouse.

The college campus can be fertile ground for the production of biased views devoid of helpful added nutrients. Researchers whose entire knowledge tree is grown from grade school to grad school to professorship without leaving the schoolyard overlook the perspective found in real world working conditions. They seem to develop a mistrust of, even an adversarial attitude toward, work-a-day scientists who are off school property.

A significant departure from the qualms over out-of-school contributions can be found in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s triennial air quality modeling conferences that are required by the federal Clean Air Act.

The 12th modeling conference held last October in Research Triangle Park in North Carolina showed an example for cooperation. I along with dozens of other air quality modelers from government, consulting and academia all had the opportunity to offer input to the federal government’s efforts to identify the best techniques to represent simulated relationships among pollution sources, dispersion conditions and receptors.

And, yes, scientists who represented industry concerns were treated with the dignity and respect so often signaled, but not practiced, in collegiate circles.

Elsewhere, in private meteorological consulting, Joe Bastardi, an extraordinary weather forecaster and historian that I have known since our student days at Penn State, has demonstrated that so called extreme weather events - events that are promoted as exceptional - can be predicted in advance based on their natural occurrence in history. Joe has shown how understanding of such inclement weather from the distant past (i.e., historic analogs) can lead to more accurate forecasts of the imminent future.

And, if these events can be predicted from their previous occurrence, doesn’t that call into question the claim that these events are somehow unusual and now based on human excesses?

Nonetheless, the promotion of “extreme weather” is a brilliant strategy by those pushing disastrous climate change. After all, everyone experiences such weather.

Weather extremes can become personal proof of disastrous climate change, especially to children who have a limited history of such events. No wonder kids skip class to air their angst in protest and even become passionate enough to be awarded “Person of the Year” recognition.

Fanning the flames of future futility are arrogant academicians along with science gurus, politicians, the media, Hollywood and all sorts of pious personages (holier-than-thou virtue signalers and sanctimonious scolds).

Regardless of the brand of climate crusaders or source of any current turmoil in the troposphere, imagined or real, the actual global climate is likely to change for the better long before the climate brightens on college campuses.

Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail” (Stairway Press, 2016).

Feb 17, 2020
Attribution - right and wrong

Joseph S. D’Aleo

I have been involved in my entire career in attribution analysis in weather and climate. It started in grad school when I did my thesis on the conditions that lead to explosive development in east coast winter storms (now called bomb cyclones). In the early 1970s, my doctoral work was on atmospheric chemistry. At the time the concern was on the effects of particulates that man produced and the threat of global cooling as well as greenhouse gases like water vapor and to a smaller degree trace gases like CO2. In most presentations over the years I have pointed out that CO2 has been much higher in the past than today, that it is at coming off plant growth limiting low levels as Dr Patrick Moore and Princeton Physicist Will Happer have discussed and presented. We breathe out 100 times the CO2 than we breathe in. We pump CO2 into greenhouses at 3 to 4 times ambient levels.

image

After one such presentation, the modeller who presented, responded to me that a drop or two of arsenic in a drink could kill someone. I told him put the two drops in a lake and not even a single minnow dies. I reminded him:

The solution to pollution is dilution

At the same time as I was doing grad work, i worked 7-day a week as weather producer for the CBS broadcasts in NYC, I had to deal with the urban versus rural, sea coast versus hilly interior temperature variances in one of the biggest and important and diverse viewing regions.

In the mid-1970s, as a professor at a budding new program at LSC in VT. My courses were on weather, climatology, microclimatology, analysis and forecasting. While there, my students and I were fortunate to meet and learn from the guest giants in the field including Jerome Namias on the roles ocean warm and cold pools have on seasonal weather and how these change longer term. We learned also from MIT’s Hurd Willett also some ways solar cycles have an effect on climate on the short term, decadal and longer periods. And from the great David Ludlum on extremes of the past.

In the 1980s as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel, I brought in more experts for the staff and we together pioneered in medium range forecasting, in seasonal forecasting and educational features on what conditions affect hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts and snow. We did stories on El Nino before it became a household name.

Late in the 1980s, research showed how El Ninos and La Ninas had global impacts and that the Pacific Ocean went through decadal changes that influenced global temperatures and extremes. In the 1990s, I found the Pacific Decadal phases influenced the frequency of El Ninos and the resulting conditions in North America. Research in this time period also showed solar effects were modulated by the high level tropical winds which we added to our toolbox.

TEMPERATURE DATA

In the late 1980s, NCDC and Tom Karl issued the first version of US historical data back to 1895. It was adjusted for urbanization. We correlated these features with this high quality US data and found the oceans and sun could explain all the changes we saw in our climate back to the late 1800s (link). I published peer-reviewed papers and made frequent presentations on this finding and showed the ability to use them to predict upcoming seasons, developing a statistical model to predict global seasonal changes. I found some of these same factors play a key role on the risk of extremes, which we use to advise regions at risk.

This U.S. data set was widely thought to be the best data in the world - for stability of the stations and coverage. But it showed no warming. NASA who relied on NOAA for US data and NOAA both had to explain why the temperatures in the record for the US were cyclical with no upward bias in the entire record like the first operational global NOAA data set global land data released in 1992. They had to say the U.S. only covered 1.6% of the land areas and was not representative of the true trend.

This ‘bothersome 1940 warm blip’ like the Medieval Warm Period were the true “Inconvenient Truths” of the past 20 years.

image

While we were getting smarter about the real drivers, politics was driving climate science in another direction. The scientific method was abandoned and unprecedented funding incented scientists, laboratories, universities and government agencies to show that CO2 was the main driver for the warming cycle and all extremes of weather.  The sinister goal was to control our energy sources, manufacturing and ultimately with all their progressive agenda programs all aspects of our life. They believe as people felt the pain they would turn to government to save them.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help. Ronald Reagan

The now debunked hockey stick and a new US data version w/o UHI adjustments took care of the inconvenient data, They played whack a mole with the data to eliminate the earlier warm periods so they could make a case this was unique and must be our fault.

image

image
Initially, this global data had a cyclical pattern similar to previously reported Northern Hemisphere data (high in the 1930s and 40s, low in the 70s).  Then, as time progressed, the previous officially reported GAST data history was modified, removing the cycle and creating a more and more strongly upward sloping linear trend in each freshly reported historical data set.  Peer reviewed, published and readily reproducible research has shown that: "The conclusive findings were that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality."

In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, which removed their cyclical temperature patterns are completely inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, despite current assertions of record-setting warming, it is impossible to conclude from the NOAA and NASA data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever.

Models had become the principal tool to create data to fill in the large gaps that existed in the historical data as well as adjust the data. By mixing data with models you can more easily manipulate trends to better agree with theories. Professional societies and their journals became an important part of the climate cabal, controlling what gets published. With help from the compliant media every event is proclaimed to be our fault and made a reason to abandon low cost and reliable energy.

The journals claim they now have a strong case for attribution for extreme weather given CO2 changes to temperature. This is patently false.

They claim record highs are increasing but in actual fact, heat records have decline since the 1930s and for US long-term stations. Record high and low data has not been modified because they are in widespread use unlike the longer-term data. The top ten years for 90F temperatures were all before 1956. Global temperatures for the continents all peaked long ago, but a few new records have been found the last two years as they have been aggressively looking to make that other inconvenient fact go away. Hurricane and major hurricane landfall this past decade were both the lowest since 1850. This last decade had the fewest major tornadoes. Droughts and floods show not clear trends and earlier in 2019, we had the smallest areal extent of drought in the U.S. in the record, Snow has increased in the U.S. and globally with fall snowcover at record levels and winter rising. Snow in spring and summer is down but as NOAA advised in 2000 they made a change to automated sensing which affects areal extent in the warm season and data pre and post 2000 comparisons were not advised. Arctic ice decline relates to cycles of warm and cold in both the Atlantic and Pacific. Current levels are comparable to the 1920s to 1950s. This cycle is seen in Greenland as well. Antarctic ice set a modern record high a few years ago. Sea level rise has slowed globally. An adjustment was made up to satellite measurements of sea level when they could not detect sea level rises. See much more detail on the big WEATHER IS MORE EXTREME lie here.

Their control over the data and the models and of the publications turned climate change into a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Anyone who disagrees is declared an enemy of the people.

THE REAL DANGER

Current climate policies- based on these unreliable temperature records - threaten our economic and national security interests. As the proposed climate policies grow more extreme, the consequences of allowing this record to remain unchallenged gravely threatens an onslaught of litigation based on the greenhouse gas endangerment finding. Importantly, this litigation imposes significant impediments to the mineral land leasing and pipeline infrastructure build out necessary to maintain and enhance energy independence and economic prosperity.

Furthermore, the US financial sector has already dramatically curtailed its support of conventional energy source development in large part due to the continued calls for regulatory destruction of the fossil fuel industry based substantially on NOAA and NASA’s now invalidated global surface temperature records. This situation is putting our Nation’s energy security at grave risk - which means our economic and national security are also in great peril.

Some Published reviews and press releases our team have produced.

URL FOR 2011 KISS Paper

URL for 2017 Research Report and Press Release.

URL for GAST RR Press Release: June 2017

URL for 2017 GAST Report GAST RR: June 2017

URL for the EF DATA Comment on Christy Paper Third RR:

URL for the EF DATA Comment on Christy et al Paper Final 042818V4

URL for Alarmist Claim Rebuttals AC Rebuttals:

Cartoon Dilbert: On Sun, Mar 10, 2019

URL FOR THE 031519 NSPS COMMENT FILING - FINAL

All our efforts are volunteer (pro-bono). Help us with a donation if you can (left column).

Feb 13, 2020
What if Hydraulic Fracking was Banned?

IBD Global Accountability Series 2010

The recent growth in U.S. oil and natural gas production has been a boon to both our economy and the environment. From new jobs and higher tax revenues to lower energy costs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, there is no question the shale energy renaissance has greatly improved America’s energy outlook.

Recently, however, some candidates for elected office have pledged to ban the very technology that has enabled this boom - hydraulic fracturing (HF), or fracking. This raises an important question: what would happen to American jobs and the economy if hydraulic fracturing was banned? In this report, the Global Energy Institute has undertaken the modeling and analysis to answer that question.
Simply put, a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for our economy.

Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025 it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $7.1 trillion. Job losses in major energy producing states would be immediate and severe; in Texas alone, more than three million jobs would be lost. Tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels would decline by nearly a combined $1.9 trillion, as the ban cuts off a critical source of funding for schools, first responders, infrastructure, and other critical public services.

Energy prices would also skyrocket under a fracking ban. Natural gas prices would leap by 324 percent, causing household energy bills to more than quadruple. By 2025, motorists would pay twice as much at the pump for gasoline as oil prices spike to $130 per barrel. The report also details the impacts that a ban would have on seven states, including five that are major energy producers - Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Not surprisingly, the results would devastate each of those energy states’ economies. But a fracking ban’s impacts would be felt well beyond energy producing regions, so the report also examines the impacts of a ban on the economies of Michigan and Wisconsin, which are large manufacturing states. There, too, the results are significant. For example, cost-of-living impacts to residential consumers in Wisconsin and
Michigan would grow by approximately $4,700 and $5,100 respectively between 2021 and 2025.

Under a fracking ban, less domestic energy production also means less energy security, as the United States once again returns to a heavy dependence on imported oil and natural gas. This would quickly reverse America’s rise as a major oil and natural gas exporter, an achievement that has reduced our trade deficit while helping our allies and trading partners enhance their energy security, reduce emissions, and ensure the energy they purchase is produced under one of the most stringent environmental regulatory regimes in the world.

Additionally, increased prices for natural gas would undermine the progress we have made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2005, the increased use of natural gas has helped reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by more than 2.8 billion metric tons1 roughly the equivalent of annual emissions from Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom combined.

In short, America’s energy revolution is delivering enormous rewards for jobs, the economy, and the environment. We must recognize these achievements and expand the benefits of U.S. shale to even more American families, while ensuring that progress achieved to date is not suddenly reversed by an ill-advised ban on hydraulic fracturing.

19 MILLION JOBS LOST
Starting in 2021, a ban would cost the economy 4 million jobs in 2021 alone, and 19 million jobs by 2025.

GASOLINE PRICES DOUBLE
Consumers would pay 37 percent more for petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel in 2021, with prices continuing to rise through 2025, when they would be roughly double what they are today. This is largely driven by skyrocketing oil prices that will exceed $130 per barrel in 2025.

NATURAL GAS PRICES INCREASE 324 PERCENT
The price for U.S. natural gas - currently the largest source of power generation in the country - would surge, increasing costs for American families, businesses, and power generators. Our analysis finds that natural gas prices would be $12.30 per million British thermal unit (MMBtu) in 2025, an increase of 324 percent over the baseline or the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario.

HOUSEHOLD POWER PRICES QUADRUPLE
U.S. households would pay over four times more for their electricity in 2025, driven in large part by rising natural gas prices.

HIGHER OVERALL COST OF LIVING
Through 2025, consumers would pay $5,661 more per capita in higher prices for energy and other goods and services. Over the same period, nationwide household incomes would fall by $3.7 trillion, leaving consumers to pay higher bills with less income.

NEARLY $1.9 TRILLION IN LOST TAX REVENUE
Local, state and Federal tax revenues would decline by nearly $1.9 trillion through 2025.

$7.1 TRILLION LOSS OF GDP
GDP would immediately decline by $523 billion in 2021 relative to a world where the shale revolution is allowed to continue. This decline in GDP escalates to $2.3 trillion in lost GDP in 2025 - a loss of 11 percent of our 2018 GDP ($20.5 trillion). Through 2025, GDP would decline by $7.1 trillion.

ENERGY AND MANUFACTURING DEVASTATED
In this report, we take a closer look at five states with large energy economies, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico, and two other states with significant manufacturing sectors, Michigan and Wisconsin. Below is a snapshot that a ban on hydraulic fracturing would have on these states in 2025 due to higher prices for petroleum products, natural gas, and electricity.

INCREASED IMPORTS AND REDUCED ENERGY SECURITY
A ban on hydraulic fracturing would be a geopolitical setback for the United States, which would return to reliance on international suppliers of oil and natural gas, including Russia and members of OPEC, giving these countries greater clout in international energy markets. Higher global prices because of reduced U.S. production would benefit our economic and geopolitical competitors and cede valuable market share to countries like Venezuela, all at a time when demand for oil and natural gas is set to grow considerably around the world, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

---------

This analysis is supported by these studies:  here and here.

Feb 05, 2020
Allan MacRae’s Summary of Recent Posts

Link

“To embrace the possibilities of tomorrow we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the Apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune tellers, and they want to see us do badly but we won’t let that happen. They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the 70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives.”

- US President Donald Trump, World Economic Forum, Davos, 21 January 2020

I believe this quote will define the Trump Presidency, in much the same way that Franklin Roosevelt trumpeted “A day of infamy: and Winston Churchill extolled “Our finest hour”.

Because we are at war, as surely as Britain was in 1939 and the USA was in 1941. And this war is for our democracies and our freedoms. It is abundantly clear that the global warming/climate change scam was never about the climate - it was always a smokescreen, a false front for a Marxist takeover of our democracies - the end of freedom.

- Allan M.R. MacRae

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

See Alan’s latest post entitled: The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) and the Humanmade Climate Change Crises are Proved False

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

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).

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

Link

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.

Jan 24, 2020
Climate Alarmists = Chicken Little

By Frank Lassee

Climate alarmist are telling you a false story line

It’s really about spending huge sums of taxpayer money on a non-existent problem and vastly expanding government control over our lives

Greenland’s name wasn’t just a clever marketing ploy by the Icelandic Vikings to get suckers to move there

There is so much good news because of our gently warming world that you gotta wear shades - more food and less poverty

Be aware of the climate alarmist Trojan Horse

--------

On Tuesday evening, I appeared on the PBS program Chicago Tonight, with Alderman Matt Martin for a discussion about Chicago’s so-called “climate emergency.”

During the segment, we debated the merits of his resolution, “Declaring a Climate Emergency and Emergency Mobilization Effort to Restore a Safe Climate.” As you may know, several cities throughout America have passed similar measures, which are more about virtue-signaling than pragmatic solutions.

In essence, these misguided resolutions are all about spending huge sums of money on a non-existent problem and vastly expanding government control to boot. Just think about a city saving the earth. Oh, the hubris! Coincidence? I think not. These resolutions - including the Green New Deal - are not intended to avoid a climate cataclysm. They are really about increasing the power of politicians, so they can exert maximum control over our lives while reaching even deeper into our wallets and purses.

It isn’t about the climate, because we are not, nor have been, on the brink of a climate apocalypse. The manufacturing of the “climate crisis” is a stealth maneuver to increase the size and scope of government under the guise of global warming - don’t ever forget it.

In reality, we are threatened more by the Climate Delusion than we are by a worldwide climate catastrophe. In fact, over the past 170 years, our world (thankfully) is warming at a very gentle rate. This is natural, as all planets tend to undergo periodic cycles of warming and cooling. I don’t think it is a coincidence that without the presence of mankind, Mars is also experiencing a gentle warming cycle.

This warming/cooling phenomenon has been occurring for millennia, well before humans discovered and put petroleum to use for our benefit. For instance, there once was a time when humans actually walked from Asia to North America - not because they could walk on water, but because ocean levels were much lower, exposing a land bridge between present-day Russia and Alaska. Believe it or not, our planet has experienced several cooling and warming periods.

Greenland is called Greenland because from 900 to 1300, humans could actually grow crops in the then-warmer soil and climate of Greenland - it wasn’t just a clever marketing ploy by the Icelandic Vikings to get suckers to move there. This Medieval Warm Period was preceded by the cold and dark Middle Ages. Which was preceded by the Roman Warm Period from 700 BC to the time of Christ.

The Romans wore togas and shorts for a reason, it was warm way back then. When it is warm, it is better for plants, animals, and people. CO2 is plant food, worldwide crop harvests are up, up, up. Fortunately, we are in the midst of a natural warm and wet period, which is a good thing. In fact, more people die from exposure to cold than heat every year. I could go on and on, with mountains of facts, but I digress.

I know you are fed a steady diet of lies by the radical, legacy media. Unfortunately, like Alderman Martin, they are telling you a false story line. Taking this into account, I understand if you are skeptical in regards to The Heartland Institute’s perspective of climate realism. We at Heartland have done a deep dive into this topic and offer you a truthful, fact-based, realist perspective.

Martin’s resolution claims “WHEREAS, the death and destruction already wrought by current average global warming of 1 degree C [this is America for goodness sake, why isn’t this expressed in Fahrenheit?] demonstrates that the Earth is already too hot for safety and justice, [whatever that means] as attested by increased and intensifying wildfires, floods and rising seas, diseases, droughts and extreme weather.”

This alarmist rhetoric is quite alarming, and should immediately trigger your skeptical side. This type of doom and gloom propaganda is precisely why I call those who have joined the climate change movement (to some it has become a religion) climate alarmists, aka the green extreme. This is a classic case of the Chicken Little folk tale in action. Even worse, it is a world-wide false alarm, the sky is not falling and it isn’t burning up either.

At present, the world is experiencing less hurricanes that are less severe than in the past.

There are also less tornadoes in the United State than in many times in the past.

Australia, the desert continent, is getting wetter.

NOAA temperature data points to no heat increase in the U.S. over the past two (actually even 9) decades.

The oceans have risen 4 inches a century for the past 170 years, and are holding steady.

I have witnessed Lake Michigan at very high and very low levels. In my life, global warming and now climate change were blamed for both the highs and the lows. Wow, you can’t make this stuff up.

For decades, climate alarmists, like children (and Chicken Little) have simply made stuff up. And their highly unqualified predictions have been proven false time and time again. Over and over, they parrot the same dire projections and yet they carry on as if nothing has happened as these predictions fail to materialize, again and again and again.

Here is a primer on their poor predictions. Polar bears are going to die! There are more than ever. We will all be dead in a few years! We are not. Everyone will starve! Meanwhile, more people are well-fed and global poverty is at its lowest rate ever!

Being from Wisconsin, I ask: why would Wisconsinites not welcome a North Carolina-like climate? Why would people who live in northern Alberta, Canada not welcome Wisconsin-esque weather? Land values are up in northern Alberta, because the land is able to be used for more productive purposes. Put another way, humans can grow more crops when it is warm. There is so much good news because of our gently warming world - not in spite of it. We are being fed a steady diet of lies by the prophets of doom for the benefit of themselves and their wealthy well-connected friends; not for the benefit of ordinary, hard-working Americans - like you.

Be aware!

Sincerely,
Frank Lassee

---------

Surveys show the public largely does not prioritize climate change policies.

image
Enlarged

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.

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.

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 19, 2019
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

IBD

Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.

What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated “adjustments” to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.

Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing - lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.

This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.

But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

That is, until the NOAA’s statisticians “adjust” the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That’s clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

That’s not what NOAA does.

According to the NOAA, the errors aren’t random. They’re systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they’re very fuzzy about why this should be.

Far from legitimately “adjusting” anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government’s underlying policies for the better part of two decades.

What NOAA does aren’t niggling little changes, either.

As Tony Heller at the Real Climate Science web site notes, “Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895.”

So the global warming scare is basically a hoax.

This winter, for instance, as measured by temperature in city after city and by snow-storm severity, has been one of the coldest on record in the Northeast.

But after the NOAA’s wizards finished with the data, it was merely about average.

Climate analyst Paul Homewood notes for instance that in New York state, measured temperatures this year were 2.7 degrees or more colder than in 1943. Not to NOAA. Its data show temperatures this year as 0.9 degrees cooler than the actual data in 1943.

Erasing Winter

By the way, a similar result occurred after the brutally cold 2013-2014 winter in New York. It was simply adjusted away. Do this year after year, and with the goal of radically altering the temperature record to fit the global warming narrative, and you have what amounts to climate fraud.

“Clearly NOAA’s highly homogenized and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data,” writes Homewood. ‘And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the U.S. is any better?”

That’s the big question. And for those who think that government officials don’t have political, cultural or other agendas, that’s naivete of the highest sort. They do.

Since the official government mantra for all of the bureaucracies at least since the Clinton era is that CO2 production is an evil that inevitably leads to runaway global warming, those who toil in the bureaucracies’ statistical sweat shops know that their careers and future funding depend on having the politically correct answers - not the scientifically correct ones.

“The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary,” wrote James Delingpole recently in Breitbart’s Big Government. “Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data.”

There are at least some signs of progress, however. In the case of the Environmental Protection Agency, future reports and studies will include the data and the underlying scientific assumptions for public scrutiny.

That’s one way to bring greater honesty to government - and to keep climate charlatans from bankrupting our nation with spurious demands for carbon taxes and deindustrialization of our economy to prevent global warming. The only real result won’t be a cooler planet, but rather mass poverty and lower standards of living for all.

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)