From SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY and the “department of lost funding” comes this gloomy prediction.
Trump Action on Clean Power Plan threatens air quality, health, and economic benefits
The Trump Administration is expected to release signed an executive order on Tuesday March 28, 2017, directing the EPA to roll back the Clean Power Plan.
In response, Dr. Charles Driscoll, Distinguished Professor of Environmental Systems Engineering at Syracuse University & member of the National Academy of Engineering, made this statement:
“Our research shows that a power plant standard like the Clean Power Plan could save thousands of lives in communities across the United States every year. The health gains from a standard like the Clean Power Plan yield net economic benefits that would far outweigh the costs. The economic benefits tend to be greatest in highly populated areas near or downwind from coal-fired power plants that experience a shift to cleaner sources with the standards. If we overturn the Clean Power Plan we will forfeit important health benefits and undermine the longstanding American tradition of energy innovation and clean air progress, at a time when we need it most.”
Dr. Driscoll led a 2015 study on air quality and health benefits of carbon standards similar to the Clean Power Plan, published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Dr. Driscoll and colleagues showed that strong carbon standards provide widespread clean air and health benefits throughout the United States. They calculated state-by-state air quality and health outcomes, and determined the greatest health gains occur in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, and New York.
Dr. Driscoll is available to comment on the clean air, health, and ecosystem consequences of the anticipated Trump Administration executive order on rolling back the Clean Power Plan.
For more information:
Driscoll, CT, Buonocore, JB, Levy, JI, Lambert, KF, Burtraw B, Reid, SB, Fakhraei, H, Schwartz, J. 2015. US Power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits. Nature Climate Change. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2598.
Buonocore, JB, Lambert, KF, Burtraw, D, Sekar, S, Driscoll, CT. 2016. An Analysis of Costs and Health Co-benefits for a U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standard. Plos One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156308.
The claim: “Our research shows that a power plant standard like the Clean Power Plan could save thousands of lives in communities across the United States every year”.
Might be credible if there were some death certificates that said: died of lung failure/lung disease due to power plant emissions.
I challenge any of the paid ecochondriacs to show me just one.
Two of the comments from Nick Stokes:
“And, the wailing begins”
Some wailing here too, about the endangerment finding. From Politico today:
But Pruitt, with the backing of several White House aides, argued in closed-door meetings that the legal hurdles to overturning the finding were massive, and the administration would be setting itself up for a lengthy court battle.
A cadre of conservative climate skeptics are fuming about the decision - expressing their concern to Trump administration officials and arguing Pruitt is setting himself up to run for governor or the Senate. They hope the White House, perhaps senior adviser Stephen Bannon, will intervene and encourage the president to overturn the endangerment finding.
I see that David Schnare has stormed off in a huff.
“… here’s David Schnare, quoting from an email he wrote to E&E:
“The backstory to my resignation is extremely complex. I will be writing about it myself. It is a story not about me, but about a much more interesting set of events involving misuse of federal funds, failure to honor oaths of office, and a lack of loyalty to the President,” Schnare said.”
Doesn’t sound like just discovering the transition is over.
Here is Delingpole, in Breitbart:
Delingpole, who first reported that Pruitt advocated against reopening the endangerment finding, even suggested that the EPA administrator should resign.
“But what President Trump needs now more than ever are administrators with the political will to do the right thing - which is, after all, the reason so many Americans voted for him,” he wrote. “If Scott Pruitt is not up to that task, then maybe it’s about time he did the decent thing and handed over the reins to someone who is.”
See this overview executive summary and full analysis showing how the endangerment finding has been invalidated by analyzing the data and including the effects of natural factors.
A new scientific paper authored by seven scientists affiliated with the Russian Academy of Sciences was just published in the scientific journal Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics.
The scientists dismiss both “greenhouse gases” and variations in the Sun’s irradiance as significant climate drivers, and instead embrace cloud cover variations - modulated by cosmic ray flux - as a dominant contributor to climate change.
A concise summary: As cosmic ray flux increases, more clouds are formed on a global scale. More global-scale cloud cover means more solar radiation is correspondingly blocked from reaching the Earth’s surface (oceans). With an increase in global cloud cover projected for the coming decades (using trend analysis), a global cooling is predicted.
Stozhkov et al., 2017
Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’s Climate, Stozhkov, Y.I., Bazilevskaya, G.A., Makhmutov, V.S., Svirzhevsky, N.S., Svirzhevskaya, A.K., Logachev, V.I., Okhlopkov, V.P.
“One of the most important problems facing humanity is finding the physical mechanism responsible for global climate change, particularly global warming on the Earth.... Summation of these periodicities for the future (after 2015) allows us to forecast the next few decades. The solid heavy line in Fig. 1 shows that cooling (a drop in ΔT values) is expected in the next few decades.”
“Figure 2 shows the dependence between the annual average changes ΔT in the global temperature in the near-surface air layer and charged particle flux N in the interval of altitudes from 0.3 to 2.2 km. We can see there is a connection between values ΔТ [temperature] and N [charged particle flux]: with an increase in cosmic ray flux N, the values of changes of global temperature decrease. This link is expressed by the relation ΔT = -0.0838N + 4.307 (see the dashed line in Fig. 2), where the ΔT values are given in degrees C, and the N values (in particle/min units) are related to the charged particle flux measured at an altitude of 1.3 km. The correlation coefficient of the line with the experimental data is r = -0.62 +/- 0.08.”
“Our results could be connected with the mechanism of charged particle fluxes influencing the Earth’s climate; it includes, first of all, the effect charged particles have on the accelerated formation of centers of water vapor condensation, and thus on the increase in global cloud cover. The total cloud cover is directly connected with the global temperature of the near surface air layer.”
Another newly published scientific paper also projects cooling in the coming decades. Dr. Norman Page, geologist, attributes climate changes to natural (60-year and millennial-scale) cycles of solar activity (and cloud cover changes), and he notes that the rise in solar activity since the depths of the Little Ice Age has been the predominant climate driver. The millennial peak in solar activity occurred in about 1991, with the corresponding (lagged) temperature peak in 2004. Within the next few years the temperature is projected to drop significantly. Annotated graphs depicting the robust correlation between cloud cover changes and global temperature, as well as the forecasted global cooling, are included below.
The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers
“This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future, unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60 +/- year and, more importantly, 1000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver are discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak - inversion point - in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
“The global millennial temperature rising trend seen in Figure 11 from 1984 to the peak and trend inversion point in the Hadcrut3 data at 2003/4 is the inverse correlative of the Tropical Cloud Cover fall from 1984 to the Millennial trend change at 2002. The lags in these trends from the solar activity peak at 1991 (Figure 10) are 12 and 11 years, respectively. These correlations suggest possible teleconnections between the GCR flux, clouds, and global temperatures.”
“Unless the range and causes of natural variation, as seen in the natural temperature quasi-periodicities, are known within reasonably narrow limits, it is simply not possible to even begin to estimate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. Given the lack of any empirical CO2-climate connection reviewed earlier and the inverse relationship between CO2 and temperature [during the Holocene, when CO2 rose as temperatures declined] seen in Figure 2, and for the years 2003.6-2015.2 in Figure 4, during which CO2 rose 20 ppm, the simplest and most rational working hypothesis is that the solar ‘activity’ increase is the chief driver of the global temperature increase since the LIA.”
See this post on Weatherbell on the declining solar cycle.
Apparently, MIT which benefits greatly for climate change funding didn’t like its name being used in petition to Trump. Dr. Richard Lindzen responds to that letter.
March 9, 2017
President Donald Trump
The White House
Dear Mr. President:
On 2 March, 2017, members of the MIT Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate (PAOC) sent a public letter to the White House, contesting the Petition I circulated. The Petition, signed by over 330 scientists from around the world so far, called for governments to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Since MIT’s administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute, with PAOC playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis. But the PAOC letter shows very clearly the wisdom of James Madison’s admonition, in the Federalist, 10:
“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”
For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.
Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.
The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.
We note that:
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,
It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2.
Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed,
The modeling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments.
Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide,
Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.
Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills.
I hope these remarks help to explain why the over 300 original signers of the Petition (and additional scientists are joining them every day) have called for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.
Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences
Most of signers of the Petition, agree with my remarks above. In the limited time available to prepare the letter, it has been reviewed and approved by the following:
ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich: (Dr. sci., Phys. and Math. Sciences. ); Head of space research of the Sun sector at the Pulkovo observatory, head of the project The Lunar Observatory, St. Petersburg, (Russian Federation).
ALEXANDER, Ralph B.: (Ph.D. ,Physics, University of Oxford ); Former Associate Professor, Wayne State University, Detroit, author of Global Warming False Alarm (2012).
BRIGGS, William M.: (Ph.D., Statistics & Philosophy of Science); Author of Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics.
CLOUGH, Charles: (MS., Atmospheric Science); Founder and Retired Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Retired LtCol USAF (Res) Weather Officer.
D’ALEO, Joseph S.: (BS., MS. Meteorology Wisconsin, ABD., Air Resources, NYU, Honorary Ph.D. VSC ); AMS Fellow, CCM Chairman Department of Meteorology, Lyndon State College First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel Chief Meteorologist WSI, Co Chief Meteorologist WeatherBell Analytics
DOIRON, Harold H.: (Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston 1970 ); Retired VP Engineering, InDyne, Inc.; Senior Manager, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems; and former NASA Apollo, Skylab and Space Shuttle Engineer Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, composed of NASA manned space program retirees.
EASTERBROOK, Donald J.: (Ph.D.); Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University; former president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division of GSA, Associate Editor of the GSA Bulletin for 15 years, and many other professional activities. He published four books and eight professional papers in the past year.
FORBES, Vivian R.: (BSc., Applied Sciences); FAusIMM, FSIA, geologist, financial analyst and pasture manager, author of many articles on climate, pollution, economic development and hydrocarbons. (Australia).
HAPPER, William: (Ph.D., Physics); Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) Princeton University; Director of the Office of Energy Research, US Department of Energy, 1990-1993.
HAYDEN, Howard “Cork”: (PhD.); Professor Emeritus, University of Connecticut.
IDSO, Craig: (PhD, B.S., Geography, Arizona State University, M.S.,Agronomy, the University of Nebraska - Lincoln in 1996 ); Chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
LEGATES, David R.: (PhD, Climatology, University of Delaware); Certified Consulting Meteorologist.
LUPO, Anthony: (Ph.D., Atmospheric Science); Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri.
MARKO, Istvan E.: (PhD,Organic Chemistry, Catholic University of Louvain); professor and researcher of organic chemistry at the Catholic University of Louvain ( Belgium).
MOCKTON, Christopher: ; The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (United Kingdom).
MOORE, Patrick: (PhD., Ecology, University of British Columbia, Honorary Doctorate of Science, North Carolina State University); National Award for Nuclear Science and History (Einstein Society).
NICHOLS, Rodney W.: (AB Physics, Harvard); Science and Technology policy Executive Vice President emeritus Rockefeller University President and CEO emeritus, NY Academy of Sciences Co-Founder CO2 Coalition.
SINGER, Fred S.: (Ph.D., Physics, Princeton University, BA, Electrical Engineering, Ohio State University); professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia.
SOON, Willie: (PhD); Independent Scientist.
SPENCER, Roy W.: (Ph.D., Meteorology ‘81; M.S., Meteorology, ‘79; B.S., Atmospheric & Oceanic Science, ‘78); Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; co-developer of method for satellite monitoring of global temperature; author of numerous papers on climate and satellite meteorology.
STEWARD, H. Leighton: (MS., Geology); Environmentalist, No. 1 New York Times Best Selling Author, Recipient numerous national environmental awards or directorships including the EPA, Louisiana Nature Conservancy, Audubon Nature Institute, the National Petroleum Council and the API. Former energy industry executive and chosen to represent industry on Presidential Missions under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.
MOTL, Lubos: (PhD., Physics ); former high-energy theoretical physics junior faculty at Harvard University (Czech Republic).
WYSMULLER, Thomas H.: (BA, Meteorology ); Ogunquit, Maine, NASA (Ret.); Chair, Water Day 2013, UNESCO IHE Water Research Institute, Delft, The Netherlands; Chair, Oceanographic Section, 2016 World Congress of Ocean, Qingdao China; NASA TRCS charter member.
ZYBACH, Bob: (PhD., Environmental Sciences, Oregon State University); http://www.ORWW.org, author of more than 100 popular articles and editorials regarding forest history, wildfire mitigation, reforestation planning, and Indian burning practices.
Environmentalists truly believed and predicted during the first Earth Day in 1970 that the planet was doomed unless drastic actions were taken.
Humanity never quite got around to that drastic action, but environmentalists still recall the first Earth Day fondly and hold many of the predictions in high regard.
So this Earth Day, The Daily Caller News Foundation takes a look at predictions made by environmentalists around the original Earth Day in 1970 to see how they’ve held up.
Have any of these dire predictions come true? No, but that hasn’t stopped environmentalists from worrying.
From predicting the end of civilization to classic worries about peak oil, here are seven environmentalist predictions that were just flat out wrong.
1: “Civilization Will End Within 15 Or 30 Years”
Harvard biologist Dr. George Wald warned shortly before the first Earth Day in 1970 that civilization would soon end “unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Three years before his projection, Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.
Wald was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War and the nuclear arms race. He even flew to Moscow at one point to advise the leader of the Soviet Union on environmental policy.
Despite his assistance to a communist government, civilization still exists. The percentage of Americans who are concerned about environmental threats has fallen as civilization failed to end by environmental catastrophe.
2: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving To Death During The Next Ten Years”
Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich declared in April 1970 that mass starvation was imminent. His dire predictions failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The world’s Gross Domestic Product per person has immeasurably grown despite increases in population.
Ehrlich is largely responsible for this view, having co-published “The Population Bomb” with The Sierra Club in 1968. The book made a number of claims including that millions of humans would starve to death in the 1970s and 1980s, mass famines would sweep England leading to the country’s demise, and that ecological destruction would devastate the planet causing the collapse of civilization.
3: “Population Will Inevitably And Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases In Food Supplies We Make”
Paul Ehrlich also made the above claim in 1970, shortly before an agricultural revolution that caused the world’s food supply to rapidly increase.
Ehrlich has consistently failed to revise his predictions when confronted with the fact that they did not occur, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.”
4: “Demographers Agree Almost Unanimously ... Thirty Years From Now, The Entire World ... Will Be In Famine”
Environmentalists in 1970 truly believed in a scientific consensus predicting global famine due to population growth in the developing world, especially in India.
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions,” Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, said in a 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness."By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
India, where the famines were supposed to begin, recently became one of the world’s largest exporters of agricultural products and food supply per person in the country has drastically increased in recent years. In fact, the number of people in every country listed by Gunter has risen dramatically since 1970.
5: “In A Decade, Urban Dwellers Will Have To Wear Gas Masks To Survive Air Pollution”
Life magazine stated in January 1970 that scientist had “solid experimental and theoretical evidence” to believe that “in a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one half.”
Despite the prediction, air quality has been improving worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Air pollution has also sharply declined in industrialized countries. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas environmentalists are worried about today, is odorless, invisible and harmless to humans in normal amounts.
6: “Childbearing [Will Be] A Punishable Crime Against Society, Unless The Parents Hold A Government License”
David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club made the above claim and went on to say that “all potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” Brower was also essential in founding Friends of the Earth and the League Of Conservation Voters and much of the modern environmental movement.
Brower believed that most environmental problems were ultimately attributable to new technology that allowed humans to pass natural limits on population size. He famously stated before his death in 2000 that “all technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent” and repeatedly advocated for mandatory birth control.
Today, the only major government to ever get close to his vision has been China, which ended its one-child policy last October.
7: “By The Year 2000 ... There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil”
On Earth Day in 1970 ecologist Kenneth Watt famously predicted that the world would run out of oil saying, “You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
Do You Think Environmentalists Make Up Predictions Or They’re Genuinely Wrong?
Numerous academics like Watt predicted that American oil production peaked in 1970 and would gradually decline, likely causing a global economic meltdown. However, the successful application of massive hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, caused American oil production to come roaring back and there is currently too much oil on the market.
American oil and natural gas reserves are at their highest levels since 1972 and American oil production in 2014 was 80 percent higher than in 2008 thanks to fracking.
Furthermore, the U.S. now controls the world’s largest untapped oil reserve, the Green River Formation in Colorado. This formation alone contains up to 3 trillion barrels of untapped oil shale, half of which may be recoverable. That’s five and a half times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. This single geologic formation could contain more oil than the rest of the world’s proven reserves combined.
(H/T, Ronald Bailey at Reason and Mark Perry at the American Enterprise Institute).
Mar 16, 2017
Why are climate-change models so flawed? Because climate science is so incomplete!
“DO YOU believe,” CNBC’s Joe Kernen asked Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency’s new director, in an interview last Thursday, “that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate?”
Replied Pruitt: “No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no - I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
It was an accurate and judicious answer, so naturally it sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation. The Washington Post slammed Pruitt as a “denier” driven by “unreason.” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii called Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible” - proof of his unfitness to head the EPA. Gina McCarthy, who ran the agency under President Obama, bewailed the danger global warming poses “to all of us who call Earth home,” and said she couldn’t “imagine what additional information [Pruitt] might want from scientists” in order to understand that.
Yet for all the hyperventilating, Pruitt’s answer to the question he was asked - whether carbon dioxide is the climate’s “primary control knob"- was entirely sound. “We don’t know that yet,” he said. We don’t. CO2 is certainly a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, but hardly the primary one: Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. By contrast, carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere: about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent. Moreover, its warming impact decreases sharply after the first 20 or 30 ppm. Adding more CO2 molecules to the atmosphere is like painting over a red wall with white paint - the first coat does most of the work of concealing the red. A second coat of paint has much less of an effect, while adding a third or fourth coat has almost no impact at all.
There is a popular theory that atmospheric CO2 amplifies the creation of water vapor, thereby increasing warming through a “positive feedback loop.” But that theory so far is mostly speculative; climate projections using models based on it have consistently failed, nearly always predicting far more warming than has occurred. It should go without saying that if scientists cannot yet make accurate predictions about future climate change, then their understanding of climate science remains highly incomplete.
Earth’s climate system is unfathomably complex. It is affected by innumerable interacting variables, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one. The more variables there are in any system or train of events, the lower the probability of all of them coming to pass. Your odds of correctly guessing the outcome of a flipped coin are 1 in 2, but your odds of guessing correctly twice in a row are only 1 in 4 - i.e., 1/2 x 1/2 Extending your winning streak to a third guess is even less probable: just 1 in 8.
Apply that approach to climate change, and it becomes clear why the best response to the alarmists’ frantic predictions is a healthy skepticism.
The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Nino and La Nina ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) - and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision.
But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near-perfect accuracy of 95 percent. What are the odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable? Less than 50/50. (Multiplying .95 by itself 15 times yields 46.3 percent.) Is it any surprise that climate-change predictions in the real world - where the complexities are exponentially greater and the exactitude of knowledge much less - have such a poor track record?
Pruitt got it right: Measuring human impacts on climate is indeed “very challenging.” The science is far from settled. That is why calls to radically reduce carbon emissions are so irresponsible - and why dire warnings of what will happen if we don’t are little better than reckless fearmongering.
Mar 08, 2017
Vatican Socialist Official: ‘Global Warming Is the Main Cause of Biological Extinction’
The Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has blamed “biological extinction” on global warming, which results from ‘rich countries’ use of fossil fuels.”
The Chancellor, Argentinian bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo (pictured), told a press conference Thursday that poor countries have been “forced to sell their forests to survive and to use an agriculture that does not employ modern technologies.”
In presenting the conclusions of a Vatican workshop on biological extinction, Bishop Sanchez Sorondo said that solutions to the problem lie in “changing to the use of clean energy, new farming techniques and new urban configurations: small, smart cities.”
“For this to happen, poverty must be eradicated,” he said.”
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which boasts of being “multi-racial in composition and non-sectarian in its choice of members” released its conclusions Thursday. The declaration makes the astonishing claim that the “current rate of loss of species is approximately 1,000 times the historical rate,” while also warning that “perhaps a quarter of all species” are presently in danger of extinction and “as many as half of them may be gone by the end of the present century.”
Among its illustrious guests, the Pontifical Academy invited renowned population hoaxer Paul Ehrlich, who gained celebrity status through the publication of his 1968 doomsday bestseller, The Population Bomb.
The book ignited mass hysteria over the future of the world and the earth’s ability to sustain human life. Ehrlich launched a series of frightening predictions that turned out to be spectacularly wrong, creating the myth of unsustainable population growth.
Among his predictions, Ehrlich prophesied that hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 1970s, that already-overpopulated India was doomed, and that odds were fair that “England will not exist in the year 2000.”
To allow women to have as many children as they want, Ehrlich has said, is like letting people “throw as much of their garbage into their neighbor’s backyard as they want.”
In his book, Ehrlich concluded that “sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come,” meaning “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”
While falling into disrepute in serious academia, Ehrlich - who has defended mass sterilization, sex-selective abortion and infanticide - has found a new lease on life thanks to his invitation from the Vatican.
Noting that the world GDP has grown at five times the rate of the global population, the Vatican declaration also alleges that “millions of species” have been threatened with extinction by this “enormous increase in economic activity based on profit and on the use of fossil fuels.”
Such unprecedented economic growth is also “putting huge strains on the earth’s capacity to function sustainably,” the document proposes. “The most obvious associated signs include global climate change and the concomitant damages to the earth’s system that it brings in its wake.”
The declaration does not, of course, prove any causality between human activity and climate variability, but it does take for granted that such causality exists. “Just as human activities are responsible for these negative effects, today we need positive human action for the sustainable development of biodiversity,” the text reads.
Blame for such ecological variability does not fall equally on all of humanity, but predominantly belongs to the wealthy nations.
“The wealthy,” the text states, are “substantially responsible for the increase in global warming and, consequently, the decrease in biodiversity.”
“The poorest people,” the text observes, “do not enjoy the benefits of fossil fuels” and presumably should not be permitted to make us of them, lest they, too, be denounced as enemies of biodiversity.
Not all the news is bad, however.
The declaration states that it would cost only “about $175 billion” to eliminate extreme poverty in the world. One can only assume that the estimated price tag is based on the use of inexpensive fossil fuels in the process rather than wind and solar power.
Ending global poverty would have the added benefit of “protecting our global environment and saving as much biodiversity as possible for the future,” the text reads.
Fortunately for humanity, if the workshop’s predictions are as laughably far off the mark as Paul Ehrlich’s, vast biodiversity may well be with us for the foreseeable.
A daughter can make a man do almost anything. I know: I’ve got one and I am putty in her hands.
If she wants a pony and bats her eyelashes at me, I’ll be off in a trice to buy her a herd. Baby unicorn ponies, if that’s what she prefers. With jewels inlaid in their spiral horns and maybe some magical attachment that plays the collected works of Taylor Swift while she rides.
So I totally get where President Trump is coming from when I read reports that, under the influence of Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner, he has toned the phrasing of an Executive Order so that it no longer includes derogatory comments about the utterly useless and pointless climate deal signed in Paris in 2015 by Barack Obama.
Kushner and Ivanka “intervened to strike language about the climate deal from an earlier draft of the executive order,” sources familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal.
Ivanka and her husband “have been considered a moderating influence on the White House’s position on climate change and environmental issues,” WSJ reports. Now, the executive order will have no mention of the so-called Paris agreement.
If it’s just a case of casual daughter-pleasing, fine. But if he actually means it than we should all start to worry.
I’ve said it before but it’s worth saying again: if President Trump proves to be as radical on energy and climate as he promised to be on the campaign trail, then this, even if he achieves nothing else, will more than qualify him for a place next to the greats on Mt Rushmore.
He will go down in history as the hero who slew ManBearPig: the president who, unlike his pusillanimous, career-safe, Establishment predecessors from Clinton and the Bushes to the ultimate horror that was Obama, finally had the courage, integrity and honesty to point out that the Climate Emperor is wearing no clothes; the guy who brought to the end the greatest scientific scandal ever; who saved Western Industrial Civilisation from the Watermelons.
But it’s all very well having good instincts and good intentions. The hard part will be dealing with all the obstacles thrown in his way by the monstrously large group of special interests sometimes known as the Green Blob and sometimes as the Climate Industrial Complex.
Ivanka and Jared Kushner are part of that Green Blob. So is Hollywood. So is most of the mainstream media. So are most of the colleges, corporations, law firms, NGOs, local governments, schoolteachers, and even significant elements of the Republican party, like the GOP grandees currently agitating to introduce a Carbon Tax.
To get an idea of how big the problem is you should have been there at CPAC at the weekend, as I was, when Scott Pruitt - the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, was asked what he thought about man-made climate change.
He just didn’t dare say.
Here he was, in the seductive and friendly company of conservative interviewer Dr Gina Loudon, in front of a 100 per cent sympathetic audience of GOP faithful, and still he fudged the question with a waffling, awkward, embarrassed, fence-sitting, evasive, non-answer.
And Scott Pruitt is one of the good guys - as we know from the fact that one of the main things he was known for doing when he was Oklahoma attorney general was suing the Agency of which he is now the head. I’ve little doubt that he will do sterling work reining in the EPA’s excesses and unravelling the environmentalists’ anti-business, anti-property-rights, anti-liberty agenda. But judging on his public appearances in the fortnight since he was confirmed in the post, I’d say he’s sounding too much the cautious, career-safe politician and not enough the fearless and refreshing Trump-style radical.
His first speech as administrator was all about what a thorough and competent technocrat he’s going to be.
“Regulations ought to make things regular,” said Mr. Pruitt, repeating a line he used at his confirmation hearing in January. “Those that we regulate ought to know what they can expect from us.”
At CPAC, his main theme was the importance of restoring federalism and states’ rights.
All sensible stuff. But if this Administration is really serious about slaying the Green Blob it’s going to have to do better than merely hiding behind the Constitution and due process. It’s going to need make a convincing case as to why all this stuff needs doing. Otherwise, the Trump Administration’s best efforts are going to be swamped by green propaganda aimed at making it look uncaring and anti-environment and unscientific.
What’s so stupid is that making this case is really, really easy.
I know because I did it at my three speaker events at CPAC. And if I can do it, anyone can.
First, was this brilliant panel, expertly moderated by John Fund, in which blogger Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard) and lawyer, blogger and EPA scourge Steve Milloy dealt with the basics: the climate data has been rigged by a corrupt, untrustworthy scientific establishment; there has been little global warming and what there has been is entirely within natural boundaries; the reason that this global scam appeals to so many different interest groups - politicians, activists, (mostly second-rate) scientists, rent-seekers etc - is that it caters to such a variety of motivations (political; religious; follow-the-money).
Second was a talk on energy economics with the fascinating Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute who explained why renewables are such an inadequate and unnecessarily expensive response to the massively increasing global demand for energy; and why fossil fuels - especially shale gas and oil - are by far the most effective solution for at least the next few hundred years.
Third was an equally enlightening talk with Dr Craig Idso of the Energy & Environment Legal Institute on how increased atmospheric CO2 is greening the planet - thus more than counteracting all the disasters the greenies have been predicting as CO2 levels rise.
So to recap:
Man-made global warming is evidently and demonstrably not a problem.
The people who pretend otherwise are crooks, liars, idiots or shills.
CO2 does far more good than harm.
Fossil fuels aren’t running out - especially not now we’ve discovered the game-changing technology of hydraulic fracturing - and are the ideal solution to our energy needs.
Renewables are a waste of everyone’s time - and always will be.
There is copious evidence to support all these statements and it’s really about time those of us on the winning side of the argument stopped pussyfooting around and apologizing for being 100 per cent right. That should include everyone in the Trump administration.
No more cautious speeches equivocating as to whether carbon dioxide is a problem or not, and whether we ought to have more renewables in the mix.
This is a revolution; we’ve got truth and justice on our side; we owe the enemy nothing - and we really shouldn’t count our job done till we’ve crushed them, seen them driven before us and heard the lamentations of their women.
One shocking claim has dominated the nomination battles for Donald Trump’s Cabinet appointees, from Science magazine, Mother Jones, and mainstream media to constant invective from Democratic senators - the candidates are science deniers!
The idea that people will not accept the findings of science drives a certain class of self-described intellectuals crazy. Even those who can comprehend the Yale University Cultural Cognition Project research warning that scientific findings are screened by individuals through pre-existing cultural beliefs and are interpreted in ways to reinforce those beliefs still insist their own scientific beliefs are objective and settled.
That research finds progressives risk averse, biased toward control of their environment, while conservatives tolerate risk, partial toward greater freedom - the recognition of which does not overcome the progressive insistence that relativity explains all motion or that global warming is “settled science.” Conservative wise man Eric Voegelin traced the progressive predisposition to the positivist philosopher Auguste Comte, who invented the social sciences to replace religion with objective empirical research that would eventually allow humans to achieve perfection in this world rather than waiting for the next.
The fact that this hope has fallen a bit short over the following century has not diminished its appeal. For progressivism, it is just science, at least when it agrees with its own reductionist, materialistic predispositions by academic fields dominated by fellow progressives. While it might surprise that 43 percent of physicists believe that God or some higher spirit affected material development, it is even a majority belief among biological and chemistry scientists. On the other hand, few hold this belief in psychiatry and many other social sciences.
In fact, settled science is rather difficult to find, even the purely physical sciences. Columbia University physicist Brian Greene explained: “[G]eneral relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right” as currently formulated, even though they are “the two foundational pillars upon which modern physics rests.” The journal Physical Review Letters reported that a major study of the light sterile neutrino, widely expected by scientists to undermine Standard Model physics, found at a “99% certainty” level that neutrinos do not even exist.
An article in Current Biology questioned whether biologists’ long-held conception of the basic structure of the animal cell is in fact universal. Ninety-eight percent of human genome DNA had long been determined to be “junk” and only 2 percent meaningful - until the ENCODE project recently reported that in fact at least 80 percent of it was active. Scientists have known for years there are 83 distinct areas in the brain, but the journal Nature published a study last year more than doubling the number of brain regions to 180.
The one field where the science must be “settled,” of course, is global warming. Or is it “climate change,” when clearly no skeptic doubts climate changes? Why the alteration in terminology? Perhaps because, in 2007, the world’s leading experts at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported its “central forecast” for long-term warming to be 3 degrees C. Yet, since then its reports have not listed a single central estimate but did reduce its minimal expected warming down from a 1.5-degrees rise to only a 1.0-degree temperature increase.
The U.S.’s NASA-Goddard Institute did announce that 2016 was the “hottest year on record,” but while NASA had formerly warned against accepting “misleading” specific temperatures without considering the ranges of scores within the measurement margin of error, it did not repeat that warning in 2016. As the Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins showed, after taking into account error margins, 2015 and 2016, two El Nino years, were actually tied for being the warmest years recorded, and 1998, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 were all tied for second place, close behind.
As climatologist Judith Curry testified to Congress, IPCC models have forecast surface temperatures to increase 0.2 degrees C each 21st century decade. But during the first fifteen years, actual temperatures only increased 0.05, four times lower than predicted. And the models cannot explain why more than 40 percent of the temperature increases since 1900 took place between 1910 and 1945, which produced a mere 10 percent of the carbon emissions.
Actually applying science to human beings is even more complicated. Consider what has been called “the crown jewel of government-run medical research,” the National Institutes of Health. What happens within its walls takes place in quiet labs with an occasional announcement of scientific cures for cancer or the like that hold potential after further research. The veil is lifted occasionally by an employee. In early 2015, a pharmacist reported, not to her NIH boss but to the Food and Drug Administration, she had seen discoloration in a medicine vial that turned out to be a fungal contamination, which led to a second adulteration and the closing of the pharmacy.
The FDA made five additional inspections of NIH that month, finding further compromises of sterile environments. In September, the two pharmacy administrators were advised they might face dismissal, eventually only being reassigned. When NIH informed Congress, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., suggested an outside review that a year later in April 2016 revealed “a lack of compliance” not only in the pharmacies but overall. The entire “Clinical Center doesn’t meet the standards you need to have when dealing with human lives,” where patient safety became “subservient to research demands.” This resulted in reassignment of three senior hospital officials in May but still no dismissals. Top management at NIH then extended the review to all of its labs, and the pharmacy remains closed to this day.
That was meant to be the end of my story. But NIH announced just last month that a nurse discovered “environmental mold” in a mouth rinse solution as it was readied for a scientific experiment. Nine bottles were found to hold particles, three of which held mold. Fortunately, the experiment was stopped before the solution was administered. Since the pharmacy was closed, the mold was traced to the Microbiology Section of science’s crown jewel home.
What difference do exaggerated expectations from science make? President Donald Trump was partially elected on the claim that extreme views on climate science produced overly-stringent environmental regulations that reduced economic growth and cost too many Americans jobs. A world meeting of the International Union for Conservation of Nature met recently to announce advances in gene editing called “gene drive” technology. This is a stretch of DNA that is passed on to offspring more frequently than regular genes so that positive attributes can be inherited and negative ones avoided. While hopes were high, the members recognized great potential for dangers too and passed a resolution limiting such research until the risks of malformations or even destroying whole species could be evaluated.
Two decades ago, air bags were made mandatory for all autos sold in the U.S. Over the years, the National Highway Safety Administration began to recognize research that found that air-bags could either deploy when inappropriate - even taking lives, especially of children - or not deploy in accident situations. But it refuses to reconsider its mandate or even to allow the removal of faulty airbags firing at 200 miles per hour when a scientific Journal of Trauma study reported by NIH found that airbags provided little protection beyond ordinary seat belts. NIH has promoted safe sex since the 1980s, but the most obvious effect seems to be a 61 percent increase in male oral cancer over the past four years under the assumption it is safer than vaginal sex.
In 2015, NIH spent $24.5 billion on scientific research. A 2009 study published by the journal PLOS reported that two percent of scientists admitted they had fabricated, falsified, or modified data in their studies and 33 percent admitted using “questionable research practices.” With billions of dollars at stake, the oversight Office of Research Integrity makes only 10 to 15 findings of misconduct a year and has not made a plagiarism finding since 2013. To trace all those funds, there are only eight investigators. The former office director quit calling his bureaucratic superiors “profoundly dysfunctional.”
Even more disturbing to the science-knows-all myth, research published in scientific journals has been notoriously difficult to replicate. Stanford University Professor John Ioannidis was the first to question it publicly with an article in 2005 titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” He argued that scientists do not intentionally falsify but “fool themselves” in their search to find something new that can be published when most experiments merely confirm what is already known and cannot be published and lead to honors and promotions.
More systematic evidence was produced in 2011 and 2012, when two pharmaceutical companies attempted to replicate multiple academic studies on drug safety and efficacy but failed. In 2015, Ioannidis’ Center for Open Science tested 100 scientifically referred psychology studies but could replicate only 39. Last month, the center tried to replicate five cancer studies from leading scientific laboratories. Three of the five were inconclusive or actually failed to be replicated.
Contrary to the progressive hysteria, the fact that President Trump’s Cabinet nominees take a skeptical stance toward what science knows and how to apply it is probably the best reason to have some confidence in them.
Feb 08, 2017
Dear Climate Alarmists - We Will Never Forget nor Forgive.
It’s been a rough ten years as a so-called “climate denier”. Every year the climate data would show a complete refusal to follow the accepted and official line, and every year the faith of the climate change faithful only seemed to get stronger and stronger. And their abuse of heretics like myself only got stronger and stronger. I have lost friendships over my stance on this issue. I have been attacked publicly by those around me on numerous occasions. And I have endured the casual mockery at social gatherings where the accepted response has been to pat me on the head in a condescending manner - here he is; our own climate denier. Isn’t he precious?
I have watched landscapes I love destroyed by the looming figures of gigantic wind farms that stand in mute mockery of my continued resistance to this enormous scam. I have observed with silent loathing the hypocrites who swan around in their enormous SUVs while proudly parading their dubious green credentials, even as ordinary families struggle with the reality of paying their ever-increasing power bills. Only a few months ago, a piece I wrote on the climate change scam elicited concerned emails and calls from people I know who cautioned me with the treacherous path I was taking.
But money talks and bulls - walks, and the money is beginning to drop out of this con to end all cons.
The usual platitudes are being spoken, but actions speak louder than words. Courtesy of Maggies Farm, here are a couple of articles that caught my attention. The first is from the Manhattan Contrarian who observes that climate alarmism doesn’t seem to be working any more. Governments are beginning to invest mightily in coal-fired power stations, of all things. Who would have ever believed it? Meanwhile the dismal climate science is rocked by yet another scandal as employees and insiders, who previously refused to speak out for fear of the consequences, are now beginning to find their voices once again. They know which way the wind is blowing and the wind has begun to shift.
But here’s the thing. Once this all unravels, and it will unravel very quickly as soon as the money stops flowing, those of us on the side that is ludicrously described as being “deniers” are not going to forget. We are not going to let you bastards off the hook. We remember what has been said and written about us. We don’t even need to remember - the internet is forever. You’re not going to shrug off this one as just another Y2K. And you’re certainly not going to quietly move on to your next charade of choice that you’ll ram down our throats and wallets with your usual religious fervour.
Because the climate scam was too big. You pushed all of your chips into the centre of the table and said “all in” with a smug stare at us sitting on the other side of the felt. And you busted out. Not only have you busted out, but you don’t have any more chips to play. We’re not going to let you have any. From now on, every time you come up with some pathetic attempt to control populations through a fear-based con we will remind everyone of climate change. Every time governments attempt to hijack science to support a political agenda, we will bring up that old climate change bugbear. You are going to be shoved into the corner as the crazy bearded freak standing on the side of the road with his sign proclaiming the end of the world is nigh. We aren’t going to listen to you any more. You have proven yourselves too stupid or untrustworthy to participate in public discourse.
And that goes for those in my social circle as well. You know who you are. You’re the ones that have been parroting the climate change line like blind simpletons for the past ten years. A decade of listening to you idiots chant on and on about “the science!” when you wouldn’t know science if it slapped you across the face with a Bunsen burner. A decade of watching you drive around with a “no more oil” sticker on your car bumper. I mean, how much more clueless do you have to be?
A decade of you retarded monkeys claiming that plant food is a pollutant. Years of you driving electric cars that only exist due to the biggest taxpayer subsidy in history, while you are seemingly oblivious to the fact that they need to be plugged into an electric power grid. Decades of you opposing nuclear power, which if any of your bogus claims were true would be the immediate answer if mankind truly were in some kind of climate peril. Decades of you pontificating at how the sea levels are going to rise while you buy palatial beach-front homes, and you then have the gall to sue local councils for sea erosion after you participated in demonstrations to stop them building a sea wall.
Years of you advocating for corn to be turned into bio fuel while there are still people in the world with not enough food to eat. Morons who buy solar panels with taxpayer subsidies and then put them on the side of the roof facing the street which signals your virtuousness but fails to get any sunlight. Years of you actually believing that there is such a thing called renewable energy, and every time some country manages to get some above-average power from them due to a fortuitous combination of weather events, you scream it from the top of your lungs that this is incontrovertible proof that the entire world will soon be run on wave farms. Eleven years of you quoting total s--- from An Inconvenient Truth.
Years of governments investing huge amounts of taxpayer money in renewable scams so that they were forced to parrot the official line, otherwise their foolish investments would be at risk. Boy, that chicken is coming home to roost. Years of listening to cretins living on tiny island nations, who have completely mismanaged their delicate ecosystems but now want to blame it all on rich countries and guilt trip us into bailing them out. Years and years of a concerted attempt by the UN and other globalist organizations to subvert and destroy capitalism by using the climate scam as a proxy, while listening to people in your social circles whose entire lives and standard of living depend entirely on the capitalist model, go along with the scam like lemmings following each other off a cliff.
And you lot had the nerve to label the very few of us who stood up to this rubbish and tried to protect the very system which you so mindlessly enjoy as being climate deniers?
You can all go f--- yourselves. We will not forget. We will remind you for the rest of our lives. We will write the histories. You will never again be able to publicly hide from your cowardice, your avarice, your gullibility, your ignorance, and your sheer stupidity. But at least you’ll still have that free market capitalist model to enjoy which you so badly wanted to throw in the recycling bin.
Germany’s DWD national weather service just issued the preliminary results for the country’s January 2017 mean temperature.
According the DWD’s approximately 2000 stations scattered across the country, January’s mean temperature came in 2.7C colder than the 1981-2010 mean. Especially southern Germany was cold, as was its neighbor Austria, see below.
The lowest recorded temperature in Germany was measured in Reit im Winkl: -26.3C. Most of the precipitation this past January, which was 27% below normal, fell as snow.
The DWD attributed the colder temperatures to a wintry weather pattern.
The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) has analyzed the German data for the Erfurt-Weimar station and has found that there has been no warming in January over the past 45 years (since 1973):
Meanwhile Austria’s ZAMG national weather service reports that January 2017 in the country was “extraordinarily cold”, the second coldest in 30 years, with the preliminary mean coming in at 3.0C below the long term 1981-2010 mean.
The chart shows the temperature deviation from the mean.
Temperature January 2017: deviation from the 1981-2010 mean. Computed using SPARTACUS data through 29 January 2017. Source: ZAMG
President-Elect Trump has pierced the veils surrounding the holy of holies wherein reside the eco-dogmatists of the EPA and the U.N. and promises the rightful return of respect to the essence of scientific research...skepticism. In 1746, philosopher Denis Diderot penned, “Skepticism is the first step towards truth.” Billions of taxpayer monies have been spent by our progressively bent government and its crony supplicants to turn that concept on its head. Mass media acolytes wordsmithed “skeptic” into a dirty word. Emulating the harsh but masterful government propaganda machine of 1930s Germany, they successfully convinced much of the public and ruling class that the life-sustaining trace gas, carbon dioxide, is an earth-destroying pollutant. Federal agencies promoted the concept and dispensed billions of dollars in lavishly funding those scientists and commercial interests willing to pervert the term “climate change,” a constant feature of geohistory, into a man-made threat and a money-making commercial enterprise.
Classical scientific inquiry relies on axioms governing the formation of a tentative hypothesis, a nascent theory, and subsequent rigorous comparisons of predictions based on such a theory and real-world observations. Climate computer-derived forecasts have consistently failed to match long-term climate reality. Much of the error results from the dogmatic insistence by activist researchers that the model is reality, rather than a much simplified theoretical construct. A trusting public expects the tax monies and gifts showered on universities and researchers to result in scientific reports and validated findings based on an impartial process. What did it get?
It got Al Gore putting the carbon dioxide temperature change before the global temperature change horse. It got “ClimateGate.” It got a Supreme Court that ruled that the Earth’s greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. It got the “carbon dioxide endangerment finding” by the EPA administrator du jour that gave legal power to the federal bureaucracy to regulate greenhouse atmospheric concentrations because they “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” It got “ethanolized” gasoline, to the delight of corn farmers, but also a gas tank brew that gives lower mileage and more net pollution. It got wind and solar power advertised as “clean and free energy sources.” It got to see the resultant mountaintop destruction of natural habitats, and the conversion of farmland into automobile fuel stock. It got to see wind turbine slaughter of eagles become a federally countenanced collateral damage cost. It also thereby got needlessly more expensive and less reliable electric energy. It got higher tax bills as complicit state legislators mandated increasing use of highly subsidized renewables. It got “free solar” residential electricity subsidized by federal and state tax giveaways paid for on the backs of the poor. It got to see the oxymoron “crony capitalism” in action. It got to see scientifically illiterate Hollywood stars become climate and energy experts, forgetting that great actors become great by making the audience believe that what is not true seems true, and by mouthing words written by others. It got to see the dire computer-generated scare stories of coming climate catastrophes fail to materialize on schedule. It got to see a progressive waning of sunspot activity, and now a renewed concern about an approaching period of significant global cooling such as characterized the “Little Ice Age” of the 15th-18th century.
Echoing Ross Perot, the next great sucking sound should be that of the Washington, D.C. swamp being drained and taking away the accumulated detritus of pseudo-science coopted in the service of false dogma and political favoritism, with the subsequent restoration of “skepticism” to its place as a benchmark for the advancement of scientific knowledge.
Soon to be ex-president Obama is throwing as much sand as possible into the energy machinery on his way out the door. What can only be interpreted as a petulant and defiant act of sabotage, he is poisoning the well of energy and environmental reform promised by president-elect Trump.
Labor employment figures may take a hit for a bit, as the newly unemployed bureaucrats, non-tenured university researchers, renewable energy businesses shorn of governmental subsidies, commercial mega-farmers of corn-for-ethanol, and the supporting cast of radical environmentalists and NGOs look for gainful employment.
Charles G. Battig, M.S., M.D., Heartland Institute policy expert on environment; VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website is www.climateis.com.
As the end of the year approaches, perhaps it is time to make an accounting of 2016 from a climate viewpoint. The high points of the year included the stay by the Supreme Court on implementation of the EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP) on February 9. This stay remained in effect for the rest of the year despite the death on February 13 of the author of one of the five votes cast in favor of it. The second high point was the decision by one of the candidates for President to oppose climate alarmism and his subsequent election victory in November.
The low point of the year was the decision of the Democratic Party to advocate an end to the burning of fossil fuels by 2050. This could not have been achieved, of course, but the attempt to do so would have resulted in huge adverse economic and environmental effects. Since the Democratic presidential candidate lost, these policy goals are now presumably null and void. With one added vote from a Supreme Court candidate nominated by a Democratic president, the CPP would likely have gone into effect in 2017 or 2018. A number of other EPA regulations that directly or indirectly implement climate alarmism have gone into effect, however, and may or may not be withdrawn by the new Trump Administration.
So it can be said that although climate policy was not the major issue in the election, the outcome means that there is now considerable hope that the US will avoid major damage from climate alarmism. No similar statement can be made for blue states, particularly California, that have or may adopt the anti-economic, anti-science, and anti-environmental tenets of climate alarmism.
So despite a roller coaster ride all year and several very close calls, the US as a whole appears to have escaped the devastating impact from climate alarmism at least for the next four years and possibly for eight years. Although it is much too early to be sure, there may even be hope for the demise of climate alarmism in Western Europe and other developed countries, although after much more damage has been done.
How Trump’s Climate Skepticism Can Play a Crucial Role in Achieving His Larger Objectives Alan Carlin
It is all too clear that the Climate-industrial Complex (CIC) has not abandoned its support for climate alarmism despite the shock of Donald Trump’s election. Instead, the last few weeks have witnessed their first counterattack - to try to persuade Trump of the virtues of their cause. The first effort was launched by the New York Times in a meeting with Trump where they attempted to persuade him, among other things, that recent storms have been unusually strong because of alleged climate change and that there was connectivity between human activity and climate change. They did succeed in getting Trump to agree that some undefined connectivity exists and that he had an open mind on climate.
But the major effort was that by Albert Gore to meet with Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, which led to a meeting with Donald Trump. We do not know what was said during the meeting except that Gore tried to find common ground between the two of them on climate. The proposed appointment of Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator announced on December 7 underlines the ineffectiveness of both the NY Times’s and Gore’s efforts to persuade Trump.
In Understanding This It Is Important to Keep in Mind the Main Thrust of Trump’s Election Campaign
From a larger viewpoint, Trump has primarily set himself the task of reinvigorating the limping US economy and particularly the economic situation of those hurt by the Great Recession. He has even promised to revive the US coal industry. This last may be somewhat difficult since the advent of the widespread use of fracking has greatly lowered the price of natural gas by bringing huge new supplies to market. This has undercut the market for coal, although this has also been hurt by Obama’s regulatory “war on coal.”
It is far from clear whether Trump can do much more for coal than remove most or even all the climate-related regulations discouraging the use of coal, and this may not have a huge effect since to date the major adverse effects of the “war on coal” on raising electricity prices have not yet occurred because of the Supreme Court’s stay on the so-called Clean Power Plan. But he can do a great deal with regard to encouraging greater natural gas and particularly oil development. The most important of these actions would be to greatly ease the Federal regulations on and availability of oil and natural gas and to ease the regulatory oversight on the construction of additional pipelines to bring these products to market. If the resulting development were predominantly on Federal land or waters, it would result in a much greater increase in Federal revenue than if it were on state or private lands or waters.
Both would reduce the price of oil and natural gas and result in their more widespread availability for both domestic use and export. If these actions lowered prices sufficiently one could even conceive of making the US the new Saudi Arabia of oil, natural gas, and coal. If Trump can bring this about, this should provide a huge boost for the US economy and provide many jobs in the natural gas, oil, and pipeline industries.
It Is in Trump’s Interest to Support the Climate Skeptic Cause for Other Reasons
The logic of this approach should prevent Trump from any serious consideration of embracing even parts of the climate alarmist agenda and ideology. Presumably this does not bode well for the success of either the New York Times’s or Albert Gore’s attempts to do so. Unless Trump can show clear signs of an economic revival over the next few years, he is likely to be a one-term President. The easiest opportunity he has is probably rapid development of natural gas and oil and pipelines to carry them. It is hard to believe that Trump would give that up as a result of a little talk about climate alarmism from the Times and Gore. In the highly unlikely case that he embraces climate alarmism in any serious way, his major goal is much less likely to be achieved. So he is much more likely to lend no more than a few soothing words towards climate alarmism.
One of the most important aspects of this oil and gas strategy is that it should result in large increases in Federal revenue, particularly if the oil and gas come from Federal lands and waters. Because of the somewhat precarious Federal finances that may result from Trump’s tax, military and infrastructure enhancement proposals, and budget deficits inherited from the Obama Administration, these increased revenues could be very crucial to the success of Trump’s Administration as a whole and thus his chances for reelection in 2020.
The Best Approach Is to Adopt the Already Existing Case that the Alarmist “Science” Is Invalid
The easiest way to justify this approach to climate strategy is simply to adopt the arguments put forth by climate skeptics concerning climate alarmism “science.” They have shown that the climate alarmist science is invalid. What better reason to abandon the Times and Gore in their continuing efforts to promote climate alarmism? A considerable portion of the research has been done by volunteers rather than the few and much maligned (by climate alarmists) paid professionals, but it is free for the asking, so why not? Many of the arguments concerning scientific invalidity can be found in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, and in a new research report by Wallace et al., 2016 discussed here.
Together, this and other research by climate skeptics shows that the “science” used by climate alarmists is scientifically invalid since it does not satisfy the scientific method. If Trump pursues this approach, he would be well advised to say so very publicly and very explicitly rather than attempting to hide his climate skepticism like George W. Bush. The NY Times and Al Gore will not like this, but it is better to fight it out on the basis of the alarmists’ invalid science rather than the moral wisdom of their alleged attempt to “save the world” from imaginary global warming/climate change due to human-caused CO2 emissions. It would also promote the use of good science in the future.
Bill Nye the not-really-Science Guy was on Tucker Carlson tonight. Tucker tried time after time to get Nye to say how much of the change was due to humans ...and time after time, Nye refused to say what his opinion was.
So Tucker got him to agree that the climate has always been changing.
Then, in response to the question as to “what the climate would be like if humans weren’t involved right now”, Bill Nye said (according to my own transcription):
NYE: “The climate would be like it was in 1750. And the economics would be that you could not grow wine-worthy grapes in Britain as you can today because the climate is changing. The use of pesticides in the Midwest would not be increasing because the pests are showing up sooner and staying around longer. The forests in Wyoming would not be overwhelmed by pine bark beetles as it is because of climate change. That’s how the world would be different if it were not for humans”.
Oh, my goodness. Isn’t that touching? Nye refuses to say how much of the change in temperature is due to humans ... but at the same time he claims that if there weren’t humans, that the climate would have stopped changing in 1750. Without humans, he says, we would have a climate which was forever the same…
...and people actually believe this guy? Tucker Carlson was scathing:
CARLSON: You’re not even a scientist, you’re an engineer ... So much of this you don’t know, you pretend that you know, and you gotta believe people who ask you questions.
Another escapade in the world of pseudo-science. Anyhow, after writing this I found a YouTube video of the interview - check it out, it’s good for a laugh.
As demonstrated by the confirmation hearings of Scott Pruitt for new Environmental Protection Agency chief, all-out war is being waged against the Trump administration by leftists who believe science is under attack from the evil empire.
Belief that this new administration puts science in jeopardy is not surprising given the fact that so many are confused about what science is, how it is practiced, and what it can tell us about the future.
The popular press adds to the confusion about science. Take the Feb. 13 issue of Time magazine, for example. In an article titled “How a war on science could hurt the U.S. - and its citizens,” the authors open with this assessment of science: “The discipline of science is one where the facts, once they are peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals, are fixed. They’re not open to interpretation, or at least not much.”
There are numerous problems with this confused understanding of science. Regardless, the authors continue by contrasting “science” with politics “in which nearly everything can be negotiated. But as the first days of the Trump administration have shown, many of those seemingly settled scientific facts - the ones that have informed countless policies from previous U.S. administrations - are once more up for debate.”
Science can be defined at its most basic level as “knowledge,” or what we think we know about a given topic. Since absolute truth on a subject is elusive, science is tentative, adjusted as additional information is accumulated through more research and wider perspective and, yes, even debate.
In practice, science can certainly be influenced by politics or, essentially, ideology. Those on the left apparently do not see a leftist ideology permeating certain areas of contemporary scientific practice and so equate scientific conclusions that endorse their beliefs as being absolutely irrefutable.
This blinkered perception manifests itself as “settled science” and is apparent in climate change science, and especially the power of this science to ascertain Earth’s future climate.
Accurate prediction is one of the biggest challenges in scientific practice, and indeed an accurate prediction for the right reasons is one of the conditions for a scientific assertion to be correct.
Here’s where climate science has fallen woefully short in recent decades.
The prediction that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions drive catastrophic climate change beginning with mounting global temperatures has been proven paltry at best. Yet, the dire global warming prediction, years ago, evolved into a belief and brandished as a proselytizing mantra by climate change crusaders.
Now the current climate change hypothesis is struggling and can use some insight from qualified, skeptical scientists to broaden the ambient landscape.
That broadening is difficult with a Time-skewed understanding of science and scientific practice. To say that the discipline of science is where facts are fixed once they are peer-reviewed and published is confused at best. Scientists use facts (like those associated with the fundamental principles of physics) as they observe natural events, propose hypotheses, and test their explanations of what they observe. Hypotheses are submitted to peer-reviewed scientific journals for critique.
The peer-review process is assumed to be rigorous, fair and balanced; however, that is not always the case. Documented instances have occurred where data in published reports were discovered to be falsified, or when work described was never actually performed, or when only friendly reviewers were chosen to assure acceptance of the conclusions, and the like. So, facts cannot be determined by peer review any more than real truth can be decide by an ad hoc committee. And published results are always open to further review, challenges and certainly interpretation.
True believers trust that their concept of science is rock-solid, especially when the science they choose to believe conforms to their preconceived notions.
But, the current world of climate science has been astutely branded by some challengers as a “climate-industrial complex.” The moniker may be well suited to describe the seemingly enormous political and monetary influence of this particular field by left-leaning vested interests.
Perhaps, with the arrival of the pragmatic Trump team, including Scott Pruitt, the climate world of “seemingly settled scientific facts” is about to be rocked by a bit more conservative assessment.
Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail” (Stairway Press, 2016).
There is a lot of angst in the air over the future of climate science now that the White House is occupied by a president who has referred to the global climate change scare as a hoax. But, is the anxiety warranted?
The president’s choice for the new directorship at the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, believes that climate change is real, as he attested in his recent confirmation hearing. He noted, “Science tells us that the climate is changing and that human activity in some manner impacts that change.”
Regardless of the obstructionist Democrats boycotting the committee confirmation vote, Pruitt’s main concerns as Oklahoma Attorney General is federal overreach into states rights, not encouraging dirty air and water.
So, what about any dangers to the science of climate science?
As any student of science knows, the scientific method involves observation, hypothesis, and testing - lots of testing - before a theory is established. Furthermore, modern scientific practice is assisted by the use of the powerful but quite limited tool of computer modeling.
To envision climate change decades from now, modern climatology must rely on modeling. Such modeling combines equations of atmospheric dynamics with multitudinous observations and estimates throughout numerous vertical layers of air to arrive at state-of-the-science outlooks of distant future global climate.
Obviously this is a complex job that would benefit from as much informed perspective and constructive observation and testing as available.
That’s where the new Trump initiative of more tolerance to alternative views comes in.
Rather than being anti-science, the new administration is more pro-perspective, apparently prepared to listen to scientists who have been marginalized as “deniers” by the Obama administration.
This can only improve the understanding of climate change, as many previously deplorable, yet highly qualified scientists are given a stronger voice to expand the frontiers of climate consciousness.
These scientists include atmospheric science PhDs, field-experienced practitioners, state and other government climatologists and meteorologists, and so many others well-versed in air-science theory and practice.
Regardless, there is a move afoot for some scientists to march against the perceived anti-science ideology of the Trump administration. When informed of this movement by a colleague who also wondered if there were any plans for a counter march, I responded: “Not ever likely… Those marching to protest the present leftist ideology permeating environmental science would probably have to march right to the unemployment office.”
Yet, even knowledgeable atmospheric scientists who are skeptical of the present climate change “theory” know that humans do affect climate in some way from a variety of activities; but the key questions include: to what spatial and temporal extent and how catastrophic is the manmade influence? Besides, is it worth spending trillions of dollars to theoretically control future global climate.
A good example of anthropogenically produced climate impact is the well-documented urban heat island. This heat island effect is demonstrated by the measured several degree increase in city temperatures compared with surrounding countryside temperatures. The magnitude of the city-country temperature difference can be mitigated somewhat by managed energy use, brightening cityscape rooftops to reflect away sunlight, and suchlike actions.
Note that the heat island effect is on a limited scale that most people seem to find quite bearable and preferable to more rustic subsistence.
Globally, measuring and finding natural versus human culprits for changing climate conditions is quite a bit more problematic.
Worldwide, both on the small-scale and the global scale, populations are better able to withstand the daily onslaught of changing weather and the long-term trend in climate when their governments properly allocate limited public funds to the best preparation, forecasting, and emergency response capabilities and ongoing research that tax dollars can buy.
Among this mix of critical funding allocations needed to best benefit the American public, the science of climate science should hold up well and advance just fine under the pragmatic Trump administration.
Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and author of In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail (Stairway Press, 2016).
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.
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.
From: Malcolm Roberts [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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.
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 fulfil 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.
BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society
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,
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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)