There must be a creator


The Purpose of Life

The lies the Academics tell

An Inconvenient Truth For Al Gore: The Ice Is Still There

by Tyler Durden 20December2018 https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-20/inconvenient-truth-al-gore-ice-still-there

Authored by Onar Am via Liberty Nation,

Former Vice President Al Gore made a ruckus at the COP15 climate conference in December 2009 when he said that “some of the models say that there is a 75% chance that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during part of the summer in only five to seven years.”

Now, nine years later, the ice is still there, just like the moderate scientists predicted.

It wasn’t just this prophesy that failed abysmally. The legacy media has not reported on it, but most alarmist predictions have failed. The earth did not warm significantly in the last two decades, a phenomenon that scientists refer to as the “pause” or “hiatus” in warming, and the weather has not been getting more extreme. Currently, the climate science community is in the awkward space between recognizing that warming has slowed down and acknowledging that this implies that the computer models are wrong.

Incompetence

President Donald Trump has referred to global warming as a “hoax.” While this, as many of his other statements, is inaccurate, it is directionally true. It did not start as a hoax. Highly ideologically motivated scientists inserted themselves at the center of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They wanted to be right, and therefore made a few shortcuts.

Until around 2000, the IPCC was still heavily influenced by objective scientists. But in 1999, Dr. Michael Mann published a paper with a graph that became the poster boy of climate alarmism: The Hockey Stick Graph.

It was rushed through peer review and plastered all over the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report in 2001. After this, no-one was allowed to doubt that humans were dramatically altering the climate. There was only one problem with it: Mann was incompetent, and the conclusions were bogus. A Canadian engineer called Stephen McIntyre started doing what no-one else had done before: He looked at the data and tried to recreate the result.

Mann tried to smear him, but after many years one of the leading statisticians in the U.S., Edward Wegman, was commissioned by Congress to write a report on the Hockey Stick Graph. The Wegman Report was a devastating blow to the credibility of Mann. The report demonstrated that the method he had used to produce the hockey stick graph could be used to create any shape you wanted.

The Cover-Up

The Wegman report should have ended Mann’s career, and many people in the IPCC should have lost their jobs for sloppy work and incompetence, but instead – because they have the media on their side – they’re still around.

Then in 2009, someone leaked emails from this group of tightly knit scientists, and they showed less than an honest handling of the situation. Rather than dealing with the matter in a scientifically rigorous manner, they tried to cover it up. This leak has been referred to as Climategate.

We do not have similar information from other areas of climate science, but some of the behavior we observe is consistent with fraud.

The 97% Consensus

One example is the claim that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists. What is rarely mentioned is that most so-called climate skeptics fall within that 97%. Most skeptics do not believe that humans do not affect the climate. They merely say that the warming is small enough to be of no concern. Why do the alarmists have to falsely boost their credibility with inaccurate claims about how many scientists support their position?

The Temperature Adjustments

Another example is the continual adjustments made to historical temperature data. There are many error sources in temperature measurements that can cause false trends. Population growth, more asphalt and buildings and other things all produce spurious patterns in the data over time, and they, therefore, must be corrected.

Most of the known error sources produce a false warming trend, and therefore the data need to be adjusted downward. However, since 2008, the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) has been producing modified data sets with the opposite effect. The graph  shows the changes made to the data lately. Notice how the past has become cooler and the recent decades have been made warmer.

What are the odds that every time a new data set is released, they have found some more warming? The behavior strongly resembles a pattern seen in elections in some districts where there is a close race between Republicans and Democrats. Time after time, if a Republican wins, someone “finds” some “lost” or “late” ballots and when they are counted, they mysteriously turn out to be almost all Democrats. Strange that.

Vigilance Is Needed

It could very well be that the temperature adjustments are scientifically sound, but if it were a fraud, this is precisely what you would expect to see. They leave the strong sense that many career alarmists are worried about their future and reputation and that actions are being made to change the observations so that they are in better agreement with the climate models.

Since the legacy media is staying wholly silent and uncritical of the climate community, it is vital to remain vigilant and remind people of the dubious nature of their endeavor. The science is not settled, and there is even a chance that the greatest scandal in scientific history is in the making. The answer may come sooner than you think.

See also Liberty Nation’s:

  • Five Facts about Climate Change and the Dire Predictions of Environmental Activists
  • Climate Change Hysteria: Part 1
  • Climate Change Hysteria: Part 2

TOP

Let’s Play Follow The Climate Money!

by Tyler Durden 07January2019 -https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-07/lets-play-follow-climate-money

Authored by Paul Driessen, originally published at CFACT.org

The climate crisis industry incessantly claims that fossil fuel emissions are causing unprecedented temperature, climate and weather changes that pose existential threats to human civilization and our planet. The only solution, Climate Crisis, Inc. insists, is to eliminate the oil, coal and natural gas that provide 80% of the energy that makes US and global economies, health and living standards possible.

Failing that, CCI demands steadily increasing taxes on carbon-based fuels and carbon dioxide emissions.

However, as France’s Yellow Vest protests and the latest climate confab in Poland demonstrated, the world is not prepared to go down that dark path. Countries worldwide are expanding their reliable fossil fuel use, and families do not want to reduce their living standards or their aspirations for better lives.

Moreover, climate computer model forecasts are completely out of touch with real-world observations. There is no evidence to support claims that the slight temperature, climate and weather changes we’ve experienced are dangerous, unprecedented or caused by humans, instead of by the powerful solar, oceanic and other natural forces that have driven similar or far more serious changes throughout history.

More importantly, the CCI “solutions” would cause unprecedented disruption of modern industrialized societies; permanent poverty and disease in poor countries; and serious ecological damage worldwide.

Nothing that is required to harness breezes and sunshine to power civilization is clean, green, renewable, climate-friendly or sustainable. Tens of billions of tons of rock would have to be removed, to extract billions of tons of ores, to create millions of tons of metals, concrete and other materials, to manufacture millions of wind turbines and solar panels, and install them on millions of acres of wildlife habitats – to generate expensive, intermittent energy that would be grossly insufficient for humanity’s needs. Every step in this process requires fossil fuels – and some of the mining involves child labor.

How do CCI alarmists respond to these points? They don’t. They refuse to engage in or even permit civil discussion. They rant that anyone “who denies climate change science” is on the fossil fuel industry payroll, thus has a blatant conflict of interest and no credibility, and therefore should be ignored.

“Rebuttals” to my recent “We are still IN” article cited Greenpeace and DeSmogBlog as their “reliable sources” and claimed: I’m “associated with” several “right-wing think tanks that are skeptical of man-made climate change.” One of them “received $582,000 from ExxonMobil” over a 14-year period, another got “$5,716,325 from Koch foundations” over 18 years, and the Koch Brothers gave “at least $100,343,292 to 84 groups denying climate change science” in 20 years, my detractors claimed.

These multi-year contributions work out to $41,571 annually; $317,574 per year; and $59,728 per organization per year, respectively – to pay salaries and overhead at think tanks that are engaged in multiple social, tax, education, medical and other issues … not just energy and climate change.

But let’s assume for a moment that money – especially funding from any organization that has any kind of financial, regulatory or other “special interest” in the outcome of this ongoing energy and economic battle – renders a researcher incapable of analyzing facts fairly and honestly.

Then apply those zero-tolerance, zero-credibility Greenpeace-DeSmogBlog-CCI standards to those very same climate alarmists and their allies – who are determined to shut down debate and impose their wind, solar and biofuel policies on the world. Where do they get their money, and how much do they get?

Billionaire and potential presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg gave the Sierra Club $110 million in a six-year period to fund its campaign against coal-generated electricity. Chesapeake Energy gave the Club $26 million in three years to promote natural gas and attack coal. Ten wealthy liberal foundations gave another $51 million over eight years to the Club and other environmentalist groups to battle coal.

Over a 12-year period, the Environmental Protection Agency gave its 15 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members $181 million in grants – and in exchange received quick rubberstamp approvals of various air quality rules. It paid the American Lung Association $20 million to support its regulations.

During the Obama years, the EPA, Interior Department and other federal agencies paid environmental pressure groups tens of millions in collusive, secretive sue-and-settle lawsuit payoffs on dozens of issues.

Then we get to the really big money: taxpayer funds that government agencies hand out to scientists, computer modelers and pressure groups – to promote global warming and climate change alarmism.

As Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore noted recently, citing government and other reports:

* Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

* The Feds spent an estimated $150 billion on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.

* That didn’t include the 30% tax credits/subsidies for wind and solar power: $8 billion to $10 billion a year – plus billions more from state programs that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.

* Worldwide, according to the “progressive” Climate Policy Initiative, climate change “investment” in 2013 totaled $359 billion – but this “falls far short” of the $5 trillion per year that’s actually needed.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change echoes those greedy demands. It says the world must spend $2.4 trillion per year for the next 17 years to subsidize the transition to renewable energy.

Bear in mind that $1.5 trillion per year was already being spent in 2014 on Climate Crisis, Inc. research, consulting, carbon trading and renewable projects, according to the Climate Change Business Journal. With 6-8% annual growth, we’re easily looking at a $2-trillion-per-year climate industry by now.

The US Government Accountability Office puts United States taxpayer funding alone at $2.1 billion per year for climate change “science” … $9.0 billion a year for technology R&D … and $1.8 billion a year for international assistance. Total US Government spending on climate change totaled $179 billion (!) from 1993 through 2017, according to the GAO. That’s $20 million per day!

At the September 2018Global Climate Action Summit, 29 leftist foundations pledged to give $4 billion over five years to their new Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming campaign. Sea Change Foundation co-founder Nat Simons made it clear that this “is only a down payment”!

And I get pilloried for working with organizations that received $41,571 to $59,728 per year from fossil fuel interests … questioning claims that fossil fuels are causing climate chaos … and raising inconvenient facts and questions about wind, solar and biofuel replacements for coal, oil and natural gas.

Just as outrageous, tens of millions of dollars are squandered every year to finance “studies” that supposedly show “surging greenhouse gases” and “manmade climate change” are creating dangerous hybrid puffer fish, causing salmon to lose their ability to detect danger, making sharks right-handed and unable to hunt, increasing the number of animal bites, and causing US cities to be overrun by rats.

Let’s apply the Greenpeace-DeSmogBlog-Climate Crisis, Inc. standard all these organizations and researchers.

Their massive multi-billion-dollar conflicts of interest clearly make them incapable of analyzing climate and energy matters fairly and honestly – and disqualify them from participating in any further discussions about America’s and the world’s energy and economic future.

At the very least, they and the institutions that have been getting rich and powerful off the catastrophic manmade global warming and climate hustle should be cut off from any future federal funding.

TOP

Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

Written by http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17207-al-gore-forecasted-ice-free-arctic-by-2013-ice-cover-expands-50

Al Gore, Global warming, Freezing Deer,Self-styled “global-warming” guru Al Gore and a gaggle of supposed “climate scientists” have egg all over their faces — big time. In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Gore publicly and very hysterically warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.” Citing “climate” experts, the government-funded BBC hyped the mass hysteria, running a now-embarrassing article under the headline: “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’.” Other establishment media outlets did the same.[wpex Read more]

Well, 2013 is almost over, and contrary to the alarmist “predictions” by Gore and what critics refer to as his “doomsday cult,” the latest satellite data show that Arctic ice cover has actually expanded 50 percent over 2012 levels. In fact, during October, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979. Experts predict the expansion to continue in the years to come, leaving global-warming alarmists scrambling fiendishly for explanations to save face — and to revive the rapidly melting climate hysteria.

In September, meanwhile, data also showed that sea ice levels in Antarctica had expanded to record levels for the second year in a row. Of course, by now, virtually everyone who has been following news about “global warming” — now more often referred to as “climate change” owing to public-relations concerns — also knows that global temperatures have not risen for some 17 years. The spectacular lack of warming demolished all 73 of the “climate models” used by the United Nations to push its controversial theories.

According to the dubious theories and predictions advanced by Al Gore and other alarmists, though, none of this should be happening. Speaking to an audience in Germany five years ago, Gore — sometimes ridiculed as “The Goracle” — alleged that “the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in 5 years.” While the original video of that particular failed prediction appears to have been scrubbed from the Internet, conservative bloggers managed to track down the same footage from other sources. “Five years,” Gore emphasized again, is “the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.”

The following year, Gore made similar claims at a UN “climate” summit in Copenhagen. “Some of the models … suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore claimed in 2009. “We will find out.” Indeed, the bogus prediction appears wildly off the mark, to put it mildly, but the establishment press and Gore apparently do not want the world to find out.

In fairness, Gore was hardly the only hysterical climate-doomsday proponent to be left looking foolish. In December of 2007, the BBC highlighted alleged “modeling studies” that supposedly “indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.” Incredibly, some of the supposed “experts” even claimed it could happen before then, citing calculations performed by “super computers” that the BBC noted “has become a standard part of climate science in recent years.”

“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” claimed Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, described as researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School who was working with co-workers at NASA to come up with the now-thoroughly discredited forecasts about polar ice. “So given that fact, you can argue that may be [sic] our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” Other “experts” quoted in the BBC article agreed with the hysteria.

In the real world, however, the scientific evidence demolishing the global-warming theories advanced by Gore, the UN, and government-funded “climate scientists” continues to grow, along with the ice cover in both hemispheres. In the Arctic, for example, data collected by Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft pointed to about 9,000 cubic kilometers of ice at the end of the 2013 melt season. In 2012, which was admittedly a low year, the total volume was about 6,000 cubic kilometers — some 50 percent less than the 2013 total. Polar bear populations are thriving, too.

Across the southern hemisphere, the data have proved even more devastating to what supposed “climate scientists” were caught referring to as their “cause” in the deeply embarrassing ClimateGate e-mails. First, the figures from 2012 showed a record high level of sea-ice cover — more than at any point since records began in 1978. This year set another new record, with ice covering more than 19.5 million square kilometers of ocean around Antarctica by September.

Around the world, meanwhile, record low temperatures continue to make a mockery of “global warming” theories. While anecdotal, to be sure, Cairo, Egypt, just saw its first snowfall in more than 100 years. In the United States there have been thousands of new records for cold temperatures and snowfalls just in the month of December. In an extremely bizarre twist, some “climate scientists” have even started claiming that the freezing temperatures are actually more evidence of “global warming.”

To explain the universally acknowledged lack of warming over the last 17 years in defiance of all UN climate theories, government-funded “climate scientists” and the UN have increasingly touted what critics ridicule as “The Theory of The Ocean Ate My Global Warming.” Under heavy political pressure from the Obama administration and other governments, the UN ran with the theory, despite the lack of any observable evidence to suggest the deep ocean is actually eating the UN’s predicted global warming.

Appearing increasingly detached from reality to independent scientists, the UN claimed in its latest global-warming report to be 95 percent sure that human emissions of carbon dioxide were to blame for rising temperatures. Those claims, now widely laughed at around the world, were made despite the fact that every single one of its computer models has been entirely discredited by the lack of warming for the last 17 years. Many experts are now even predicting global cooling.

Top scientists and experts around the world — even many who have served on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — have been ridiculing the global outfit and its discredited “climate” report. Most governments and dictators, however, continue playing along with what some experts call the climate “charade” or “hoax,” mostly due to built-in incentives and taxpayer funds that help perpetuate the unjustified alarmism.

For third-world dictators, the goal appears to be securing trillions in Western taxpayer money under the guise of “climate” reparations and “justice.” For governments ruling wealthier nations, the end-game seems to be carbon taxes and a planetary “climate” regime with unprecedented powers over humanity. Assembled in Warsaw for the latest UN climate summit, even as the implosion of the “science” behind global-warming theories was accelerating, member regimes agreed to finalize a global climate treaty by 2015.

Polls show that despite hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars squandered on global-warming alarmism, the American public still refuses to widely accept the man-made warming theories advanced by an increasingly discredited UN and its allies. A September Rasmussen survey of likely voters, for example, found that just 43 percent of likely U.S. voters believe alleged “global warming” is caused by human activity. About the same number believe it is not.

Despite vicious attacks and threats — some of it exposed in the ClimateGate scandal — scientists are increasingly jumping off the sinking “climate” ship as well. Even some major governments are working to rein in the out-of-control alarmism, with authorities in Australia, elected in a landslide earlier this year, promising to liberate the nation from “carbon taxes” while quashing much of the taxpayer-funded “global-warming” juggernaut. Calls for prosecuting “fraud” by “climate scientists” are growing, too.

So far, despite hyping the absurd claims five years ago, the establishment press has failed to inform its dwindling readership that Al Gore and his fellow alarmists were proven embarrassingly wrong. No apologies have been forthcoming from Gore, either, and none of the “scientists” who made the ridiculous predictions has apologized or lost his U.S. taxpayer-funded job. In fact, almost unbelievably, the establishment press is now parroting new claims from the same discredited “experts” suggesting that the Arctic will be “ice-free” by 2016.

As Gore put it in 2009, “We will find out.”

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.
TOP

Historic deep freeze across North America conclusively proves global warming is getting worse, right?

http://www.naturalnews.com/043395_freezing_weather_global_warming_scientific_evidence.html

January 05, 2014 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
(NaturalNews) Global warming is getting worse. It’s so bad now that it has thrust most of North America into an historic deep freeze with plummeting temperatures that haven’t been seen in decades. This is absolute proof that global warming is worsening, and the way I know that is because the same people who told me that record HOT temperature last summer were caused by global warming — “See? It’s really, really hot!” — are now saying that record COLD temperatures are also caused by global warming. “See? It’s really, really cold!” Global warming, in other words, is climate voodoo. Worshippers of the false science can invoke it to explain any event whatsoever: hurricanes (or lack of hurricanes), tornados (or lack of tornados), too much rainfall or too little rainfall, high temperatures, low temperatures, and basically any event that we used to simply call “weather.” Well, gee, if ALL weather events are evidence of global warming, then you have to ask yourself this simple, commonsense question: Which weather evidence would be evidence of global cooling? The answer is “None.” Because ALL weather events are invoked as evidence of global warming. It’s delusional thinking, in other words.

“Global warming” and the mass hypnosis of the public

Like any sort of false belief system, global warming involves the mass hypnosis of the public — a kind of hypnosis so deep that even when people are shivering from frightful cold, they can still convince themselves, in their own minds, “This is global warming!” in total denial of reality. Global warming is based on the same sort of wishy washy thinking as flu shots. “Get a flu shot and you won’t get the flu!” Except most people who get flu shots still get the flu. In fact, the drug industry’s own scientific studies show that flu shots don’t work on nearly 99 out of 100 people. The shots are quackery “medical voodoo” that are so fraudulent even Merck’s own scientists blew the whistle and went public with proof that the company entirely fabricated its vaccine science by spiking samples with animal antibodies. This was designed to spread the mumps and measles epidemic, thereby creating widespread panic that would result in more vaccine sales.

Global warming marketed with doomsday predictions

The global warming cultists are using the same kind of false science to spread fraudulent fear in order to sell something else: total government control over all emissions and, hence, all economic activity. If they can spread their doomsday theories far and wide enough, they can demand huge sums of money by forcing entire economies to pay “carbon taxes” which are nothing more than a high-level moneymaking scam. The lamestream media is so desperate to push this fraudulent delusion of global warming that 98% of the media stories covering the ship full of climate scientists that got stuck in the ice and had to be rescued failed to mention the ship was on a global warming mission. That little fact wouldn’t go over well with the media’s global warming delusion, so they simply decided to censor that fact from the public. This is just one small example of the routine mental contortions that take place in the lamestream media to front a massive lie. There are many more…

Every cult is based on sheer belief, not real evidence

Like any cult, global warming is based on “belief” instead of actual evidence. People who push global warming do not need to see any real evidence. They only need to have their beliefs reinforced by the media and by others who share their irrational beliefs. That alone is enough to confirm that they are right. Remember, the lamstream media is the same media that claims the national debt doesn’t matter, Obamacare is awesome, you don’t need the Bill of Rights, war is fun, GMOs are safe to eat and vaccines will increase your IQ. This is the same media where MSNBC, the most wretched tabloid anti-journalism organization to ever exist, makes fun of adopted black children or insists that people should poop in the mouths of political personalities they don’t like. The same media that says GMOs are safe, vaccines are awesome, war is fun and all white people are racist is now peddling global warming doom-and-gloom theories that fly in the face of reality. They even claim this extreme cold weather is caused by “global warming” and that if you don’t agree to pay more carbon taxes next year, the cold will get even worse. Yep, “warming” is now invoked to explain “freezing.” How stupid does this get? If the same media were pushing a theory of “global speeding” and claiming the Earth’s spin was accelerating and we would all die from being flung into outer space, they would also proclaim that a slowing of the Earth’s spin was yet more evidence of “global speeding.” Slowing is speeding, you see. Just like cooling is warming. Who needs logic when you own the media and can push total lies day after day to a mind-numbed public dosed up on fluoride and Prozac?

Delusional thinking explained

One of the mental contortions frequently invoked to support delusional thinking is to filter out all the evidence that contradicts your current belief. We are all guilty of this to some degree, but global warming conspiracy theorists take it to a new extreme. Here’s how it works: When the Midwest suffers a terribly hot drought, global warming theorists proclaim the drought is due to global warming. “It’s hotter, see?” That actually makes logical sense at some level. But by the same logic, when a deep freeze sweeps across the same region, they would logically have to concede that cold is the opposite of hot, and therefore if extreme hot weather is evidence of global warming, then extreme cold weather must be evidence against global warming. This is the litmus test of scientific sanity, you see: If a person is a consistent, clear thinker, they must concede that this current freeze is, indeed, evidence that the planet is not warming. But that’s not what happens: They proclaim that cold weather, too, is yet more proof of global warming! And with that statement, all their credibility vanishes. Because at that point they are admitting that, essentially, all events are somehow evidence of global warming. All “weather events” somehow magically support their theory. That idea is, of course, absurd. There are weather events during periods of global cooling, obviously. When the planet is cooling, the wind doesn’t stop blowing. The Earth doesn’t stop rotating. Earthquakes and hurricanes don’t magically cease. Thus, a rational person must be forced to admit that, yes, there are storms, and freak weather events, and droughts and floods when the planet is cooling, too. (The planet has warmed and cooled many times in its long history. These are natural cycles.) But explaining all this is a waste of time to global warming conspiracy theorists in the first place, because they are not engaged in an exercise of logic and rational thinking. The evidence doesn’t matter. Global warming is their religion, and thus no amount of evidence, or explanation, or logic, or rationality will ever overcome their religious belief in the doom-and-gloom conspiracy theory that we will all soon die as our planet is destroyed. At some level, it’s quite hilarious because many of the global warming faith believers are the very same people who make fun of conservative Christians and their belief in “the rapture” which essentially says much the same thing. Somehow, “Christians are stupid,” they say, for believing that we will all be destroyed in a massive clean sweep of human civilization caused by God, but they say “we are smart” for believing we will all be destroyed in a massive clean sweep of human civilization caused by carbon emissions.
TOP

1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,” Says Harvard Astrophysicist!

By on 3. January 2017 http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/03/1000-skeptical-peer-reviewed-climate-papers-should-put-un-ipcc-to-shame-says-harvard-astrophysicist/

More than 1000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last 3 years expose climate alarmism as fake science.

Claims that the earth is rapidly heating up because of man-made CO2 and thus heading for a “climate catastrophe” have taken a serious body blow over the past three years as a huge and fresh body of science emerges.

1000 papers in three years

Yesterday Kenneth Richard published his list of 500 climate catastrophe skeptic papers appearing in scientific journals in 2016 alone. It is the latest addition to the 282 papers published in 2015, and the 248 papers published in 2014, bringing the total number of peer-reviewed papers published over the past three years to more than 1000.

As a result the once many dramatic hockey-stick shaped curves put out by some climate scientists over the past two decades showing the earth is headed for disaster have been exposed as fake science, which of course had spawned some 20 years of nonstop fake news – much of it designed to spread panic among the population.

Needlessly hyped

According to Richard, the vast collection of fresh papers show that natural factors play a much larger if not a dominant role when it comes to climate change. The expected global warming has been needlessly hyped, experts are now saying.

Puts IPCC to shame

Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon thinks the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has strayed way off track. “I’m not surprised by the large number or empirical evidence that rejects the CO2 dangerous global warming alarmism,” wrote Soon in an e-mail. “This sort of literature review ought to put the sort of biased, if not anti-science, reports by the UN IPCC to shame.”

Dr. Soon has long been a sharp critic of the mainstream institutionalized climate science. He added: “It is high time for the wider public to not only bear witness to the unbalance and corruption of our science institutions, but also to demand answers on why there has been such a disregard for truth and fact.”

Climate well within natural variability

Many among the 1000 peer-reviewed scholarly papers show that extreme weather events are in fact NOT increasing in any unusual manner, that they were also common in the past, and that today they are still well within the range of natural variability.

Other papers show that biodiversity is not under any serious threat. Hundreds of other papers have found that solar activity and oceanic cycles are in fact the driving factors behind climate change. In short the latest fresh batch of scientific literature is telling us that all the past alarmism likely has been needlessly shrill and that it’s time to take a step back and to seriously refocus.

Although most of the papers listed by Richard do not refute global warming and that man plays a role – they do cast undeniable doubt over the cause of the warming, especially the warming over the past 35 years. The recent literature clearly shows that natural factors indeed play a major role, and CO2 much less so.

Climate science a UN charade

Not mincing any words, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball feels that global warming became a charade years ago and that it has gone on too long.

He offers an even harsher assessment of the UN climate science, writing that the IPCC is made up of “bureaucrats” who harbor a political agenda. “Extreme bias of climate research was deliberately created through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing runaway global warming,” he wrote to NTZ in an email.  “The political message and funding were directed to only research that proved their hypothesis. Only journals that favored the objective were used and encouraged, so the preponderance of research and publications supported the predetermined message. It is a classic case of Lysenkoism

Dr. Ball authored the climate science critical book: Human Caused Global warming – The Biggest Deception in History.

TOP

Is 100% Of “US Warming” Due To NOAA Data Tampering?

by Tyler Durden Dec 28, 2016 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-28/100-us-warming-due-noaa-data-tampering

Submitted by Tony Heller via RealClimateScience.com,

Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.

The U.S. Has Been Overwhelmingly Hot This Year | Climate Central

The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones.

They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century

The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5°F, which is the claimed warming in the article.

The adjustments correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.)

The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database.

When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints.

  1. They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data.
  2. They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves.

Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data.

Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is a real problem, but is very small. TOBS is based on the idea that if you reset a min/max thermometer too close to the afternoon maximum, you will double count warm temperatures (and vice-versa if thermometer is reset in the morning.) Their claim is that during the hot 1930’s most stations reset their thermometers in the afternoon.

This is easy to test by using only the stations which did not reset their thermometers in the afternoon during the 1930’s. The pattern is almost identical to that of all stations. No warming over the past century. Note that the graph below tends to show too much warming due to morning TOBS.

NOAA’s own documents show that the TOBS adjustment is small (0.3°F) and goes flat after 1990.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

Gavin Schmidt at NASA explains very clearly why the US temperature record does not need to be adjusted.

You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers.

One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues at the large scale – and they haven’t found any yet.

NASA – NASA Climatologist Gavin Schmidt Discusses the Surface Temperature Record

NOAA has always known that the US is not warming.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com

All of the claims in the Climate Central article are bogus. The US is not warming and 2016 was not a hot year in the US. It was a very mild year.

Jerusalem Cats Comment: They need to throw Al Gore and all the Global Warming Scientist into a Maximum Security Prison. If they lie about Global Warming what are they also lying about, Evolution? The Two State Solution? Land for Peace? It is time to listen to our Gedolim.

TOP

Martin Armstrong: 30 Years Of Global Warming Forecasts Have All Failed

by Tyler Durden

Trump To Revoke California’s Power To Fight Smog

by Tyler Durden Mon, 07/23/2018 https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-23/trump-revoke-californias-power-fight-smog

In a move that will infuriate environmentalists everywhere, but especially in California, the Trump administration is seeking to repeal California’s authority to regulate automobile emissions in a proposed revision of Obama-era standards, according to Bloomberg citing three people familiar with the plan.

The proposal which will be released later this week represents a “frontal assault” on one of Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California’s unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle.

And since the revamp also includes California’s mandate for electric car sales, it represents a gut punch to the likes of Elon Musk, who recently announced (yet again) a deal to begin work on a factory in China.

The proposed overhaul would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, instead it will cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the plan left behind by Obama.

As Bloomberg details, as part of the stunning proposal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose revoking the Clean Air Act waiver granted to California that has allowed the state to regulate carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and force carmakers to sell electric vehicles in the state in higher numbers.

Separately, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will assert that California is barred from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from autos under the 1975 law that established the first federal fuel-efficiency requirements, the people said.

Agencies are expected to claim it will reduce traffic fatalities by making it cheaper for drivers to replace older, less-safe cars, while paring sticker prices for new vehicles even if motorists have to spend more for gasoline.

In other words, in what amounts to a full-blown war between the White House and California, the administration will put its weight behind the dramatic overhaul, including the revocation of California’s cherished authority.

The state’s 2009 waiver of federal preemption under the Clean Air Act has allowed the California state to set emissions rules for cars and trucks that are more stringent than the federal government’s, but the state has aligned its rules with those set by the EPA and NHTSA in a so-called national program of clean-car rules.

Needless to say, if Trump’s plan sticks it would represent his biggest regulatory rollback yet.

Predictably, California was furious and rejects the idea that its 48-year ability to write its own tailpipe emission rules should end: “We have the law on our side, as well as the people of the country and the people of the world,” said Dan Sperling, a member of the state’s Air Resources Board said.

On May 2, California and 16 others plus the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration’s effort to unravel the Obama-era emissions targets. Sperling said that number will grow as more and more people come to realize how fundamentally Trump is attacking the idea of states’ rights.

A key, and still unanswered question is what happens to automakers who are caught somewhere in the middle of this fight between the president and most populous US state. According to Bloomberg, in recent months they have stressed they would not support freezing the federal targets and want Washington and Sacramento to continue linking their vehicle efficiency goals. While they spent the first year of the Trump administration attacking Obama’s rules as too costly, they fear the regulatory uncertainty that a years-long court battle over a rollback would create. In addition, other major auto markets such as China and Europe are pressing forward with tougher mandates of their own for cleaner cars.

Trump’s action will not make him any friends in the Golden State:

“This is nothing less than an outrageous attack on public health and states’ rights,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. “It’s a dumb move for an administration that claims it wants peace, because this will lead to an emissions war: progressive states versus a reactionary federal government. The big question: who will the car companies back?”

Meanwhile, others are secretly pleased: some conservatives have long chafed at the rare authority granted California and welcome the effort to revoke.

“Congress didn’t intend for California to set national fuel economy standards,” said Steve Milloy, a policy adviser for the Heartland Institute, a group critical of climate science. “It’s nutty it’s been allowed to develop. National fuel economy standards are set by the federal government so that’s what we are going to do.”

Meanwhile, as the pollution fight over California cars heats up, one wonders are its cows next? As a reminder, the meat and dairy industry will soon surpass big oil as the world’s biggest polluters. The silver lining for them is that by the time this happens, Trump will be long gone.
TOP

 

 

One Comment

  1. yonason
    Posted ז׳ בטבת ה׳תשע״ז (05/01/2017) at 16:54 | Permalink

    Saw your post over at No Tricks Zone.

    Nice blog you have.

    הצלחה

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*