A penetrating comment by an American science professor Dr Steve Koonin, writing in the "Wall Street Journal" about the history of "last chance"predictions of a climate crisis.
CLINTEL (the Climate Intelligence Foundation) has carried out a preliminary review of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the AR6 WGI report (on the Physical Science) just issued. It appears that the SPM is, as in previous reports, prone to data exaggeration and so provides little objective basis for policymaking. Surprisingly, climate scientists from IPCC-circles only last week admitted that their new AR6 generation of climate models are ‘overheated’ and therefore too alarmist.
Distinguished New Zealand meteorologist Dr John Maunder reports on minimal changes in temperature in the troposphere: "The chart created by the University if Alabama, Huntsville, USA, shows that since 1979, when reliable satellite observations became available, there has been little overall trend in the average tropospheric temperatures, apart from milder/warmer temperatures since about 1997, and two significant warm periods associated with the El Nino events in 1998 and 2015-16."
There are no more distinguished or highly credentialed experts in climatology in the world than Professors Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor Emeritus of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor Emeritus, of physics at Princeton University. In this detailed scientific analysis posted at National Review, they explain why there is no climate emergency.
In a report for the UK's Global Warming Policy Foundation, Dr Ralph B Alexander cites details from official documents that show a decline in extreme weather events during 2020, causing less deaths. Dr Alexander, a Ph.D in physics from the University of Oxford, is a professor at Wayne State University in Detroit.
Danish climate analyst Bjorn Lomborg's latest post: "To tackle climate change, rich nations are promising to end fossil fuel use in 29 years. As this becomes excruciatingly costly, the G7 is now thinking about making the world’s poor pay for it. That will go badly. The rich world has seen incredible development on the back of enormous increases in mostly fossil fuel energy. A couple of hundred years ago, most available power came from backbreaking human work. Even by the end of the 1800s, human labour made up 94 per cent of all industrial work in the US. Today, it constitutes just 8 per cent...Despite green protestations, rich people still get 79 per cent of their energy from fossil fuels. Ending that will be hard, socially destabilising and surprisingly ineffective."
Distinguished New Zealand meteorologist Dr John Maunder explains how the behaviour of the Sun is measured by "sunspots" and how the Sun is clearly the dominating element in effecting natural cyclical changes in the climates of Plant Earth. He also explains the origin of the cooler periods named after his famous namesake, the Maunder Minimum.
Not everyone who tells us: "Listen to the science" is telling the real truth. This post explains why science is important in telling us was IS, not WHAT OUGHT TO BE.
Eminent US climate scientist, Dr Judith Curry, in a post at "Climate, Etc", writes: "The consensus building process acts to amplify personal biases, and marginalizes disagreement from either a majority opinion or the opinion of the loudest or most motivated person in the room. One can only speculate on the magnitude and importance of the biases introduced into climate science by the IPCC’s consensus seeking process."
This is the tribute by UK journalist James Delingpole to Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, who has died in London at the age of 99.
Expatriate Kiwi, Dr Michael J Kelly, Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology at Cambridge University has responded to the NZ Productivity Commission's Draft Paper on "Low Emissions Economy", warning that not only are New Zealand's emissions minuscule in the global context, but the costs to...
This analysis indicates that the IPCC and its followers such as the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) rely on 19th century thinking and 19th century measurement techniques. As such, the IPCC maintains erroneous scientific thinking for its thirty years of existence. (Hat tip: WattsUpWithThat...
Chris Morrison writes in The Conservative Woman: "It has been an encouraging start to the contest for the year’s loopiest climate story. It has been an encouraging start to the contest for the year’s loopiest climate story."
"There is nothing coincidental about common déjà vu features of a CO2 climate crisis-premised war on fossil fuels and a hysterically-hyped sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission acid rain environmental calamity a half-century ago.Both scams have claimed to be based upon dire computer model-based predictions calling for costly interventions. Both also involved the same sorts of crony constituencies: alarmist 'scientific authorities,' deep-pocket NGO promoters, and headline-hungry politicians eagerly rewarded by swarms of credulous media reporters." Professor Larry Bell, posts at Newsmax.
Two Greek scientists report in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestial Physics: "The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface; the intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere; the results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence." Heavy scientific reading, but highly convincing.
Climate change alarmism is based entirely on speculation, not on science. Alarmism per se is not a hoax, because people really believe it. But alarmism is driven by a repeated practice that is in fact a hoax. This common hoax is the presentation of speculative conclusions as though they were established scientific facts about the physical world. The standard definition of a hoax is a deliberate deception that is intended to fool a lot of people. The scientists and journalists who falsely report speculations as facts know perfectly well what they are doing, which makes what they do a hoax.
In the new NIPCC report, 117 scientists, economists, and other experts address and refute the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertions that the impacts of climate change on human well-being and the natural environment justify dramatic reductions in the use of fossil fuels. The Summary provides more than 100 references to peer-reviewed literature, while the full report provides nearly 3,000 such references.
In this important paper, German scientist Uili Kulke, quotes Henrik Svensmark, head of solar research at Denmark’s Technical University in Copenhagen: “The climate is influenced more by changes in cosmic radiation than by carbon dioxide”. CO2 has an effect, of course, “but it is far less than most current climate models assume, and also less than the influence of cosmic radiation”. In his opinion, a doubling of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere would cause an increase in global temperature of at most one degree, and not two degrees, as is now generally accepted.