NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
.
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

•••
According to ‘97%’ of expert scientists, the United Nations, IPCC and compliant alarmist media, Global Warming is accelerating out of control…

Screen Shot 2014-01-21 at , January 21, 12.12.36 pm

UN Charts ‘Unprecedented’ Global Warming Since 2000 – Bloomberg July 3 2013

According to mother nature and the latest peer-reviewed science – 97% of climate ‘experts’ and the consensus minions are 100% wrong…
Screen Shot 2013-08-30 at , August 30, 9.18.49 AM
Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Satellite temperature records on six different data sets show that there has been no atmospheric global warming since 1998 or any statistically-significant warming for between 18 and 23 years. A distinct lack of any warming evident, despite a dramatic rise in industrial greenhouse gas emissions over the same period:
SIX DIFFERENT DATA SETS - GLOBAL TEMP

WoodForTrees.org 

More Peer-Reviewed studies that confirm the lack of any recent global warming:

•••

“The Oceans Ate My Global Warming”

With no rise in atmospheric temps over the past 15-17 years, the latest bluff in climate alarmism is that the ‘missing heat’ is hiding at the bottom of the oceans. However, the first globally accurate network of measurement buoys (3000+ ARGO satellite buoys), which descend to depths of 2,000 metres, have detected no significant increase in ocean heat since deployment in 2003.

Kevin Trenberth theorises that missing heat takes a dive into deep oceans. “The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries [and where lamentably, there are no reliable temperature measurements].  But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air.” Yet sea surface temperatures and the upper heat content didn’t increase over the last decade by enough to account for the “missing heat” that those greenhouse gas emissions should have trapped in the Earth’s climate system but couldn’t be found. (via Forbes)

screen-shot-2013-09-06-at-september-6-1-13-12-pm

Upper Ocean Heat Content Anomaly – NOAA

screen-shot-2013-09-06-at-september-6-1-20-23-pm

Global Marine Argo Atlas

•••

UPDATE
  • Nature Journal now fully embrace a “16 year hiatus” in atmospheric global warming. They cite the natural effects of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), that “may be a crucial piece of the hiatus puzzle”.
  • There is no mention of carbon dioxide, despite 35% of all human CO² emissions, since 1751, emitted over roughly the same 16 year period, having no effect on global temperature.
  • With record carbon dioxide emissions having no effect on global temperature change over the past 16 years, it seems that something else, other than carbon dioxide, drives temperature and subsequent climate change. At the least, any effect human carbon dioxide may have, is clearly being lost as noise in the natural variability of the climate system.
Screen Shot 2014-01-21 at , January 21, 9.25.59 am
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment
•••
UPDATE
via WattsUpWithThat :

IT’s OFFICIAL: Global warming is ‘no longer a planetary emergency’

The World Federation of Scientists, at its annual seminars on planetary emergencies, has been advised by its own climate monitoring panel that global warming is no longer a planetary emergency.

The President of the Italian Senate, Judge Pietro Grasso and the President of the Federation, Professor Antonino Zichichi, said that care should be taken to examine carefully the basis for concern about CO² emissions as well as the relevance and cost-effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.

Last year’s magistral lecture to the Federation was by Professor Vaclav Klaus, then president of the Czech Republic, whose talk was entitled The manmade contribution to global warming is not a planetary emergency.

President Klaus had said: “Current as well as realistically foreseeable global warming, and especially Man’s contribution to it, is not a planetary emergency which should bother us. … My reading both of the available data and of conflicting scientific arguments and theories allows me to argue that it is not global warming caused by human activity that is threatening us.”

This year Dr. Christopher Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario and chairman of the Federation’s permanent monitoring panel on climate, gave the Federation’s closing plenary session his panel’s confirmation that “Climate change in itself is not a planetary emergency.”

clip_image004 clip_image006 clip_image008 clip_image010

Left to right: Christopher Essex, Pietro Grasso, Vaclav Klaus, and Antonino Zichichi.

Professor Essex pointed out that history had shown illegitimate political movements inventing false emergencies to bypass democratic constraints on their quest for absolute power.

The Earth’s climate, he said, is a dynamic and continually-changing system. “Human societies have lived and thriven under every conceivable climate, and modern technology makes adaptation to changing weather conditions entirely routine.”

The increasing fraction of CO² in the air could be expected to result in some warming, but it had been accepted that “the benefits of food production and the relief of starvation overwhelm concerns about the potential climate changes induced by land-surface modification.” He said the panel thought it essential to ask whether similar reasoning applied to global fossil-energy production.

On behalf of the climate monitoring panel, Professor Essex also spoke up for scientists who have been bullied, threatened or even dismissed for having dared to question the Party Line on climate. He said: “Our greatest concern at present is that the intellectual climate for scientific investigation of these matters has become so hostile and politicized that the necessary research and debate cannot freely take place.

“Political constraints take the form of declaring the underlying science to be settled when it clearly is not; defunding or denigrating research that is perceived to threaten the case for renewable energy; or the use of odious pejoratives like “denialist” to describe dissent from officially-sanctioned views on climate science.”

Professors Bob Carter and Murry Salby, who had questioned the severity of Man’s influence on the climate, were both ejected by their universities this year.

Professor Essex called for “free and open debate on all aspects of climate science, even where hypotheses are put forward for examination that openly contradict the official positions of political entities.”

He said the panel found persuasive indications that climate models systematically understated natural climate variability and significantly exaggerated the impact of CO² emissions. Accordingly, past, present and proposed policy measures could be shown not to provide net benefits to society regardless of the rate at which the planet might warm. Limited resources would be better devoted to more pressing issues.

UPDATE

The WFS is revising their website on the subject:

wfs_agw_page

Source: http://www.federationofscientists.org/PMPanels/Climate/ClimatePMP.asp

Keep Reading from WUWT »

•••

SETTLED SCIENCE?

To avoid free and open debate, climate alarmists claim the “science is settled”. Subsequently anyone who shares a dissenting view is labelled a climate ‘denier’ ~ likened to those who claimed the holocaust never occurred.
Bogus 97% surveys have been concocted claiming a scientific climate ‘consensus’ exists. However, consensus doesn’t decide science. The facts do.
The late Michael Crichton conveys the folly of a so-called ‘consensus’ in science:
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” 
See : UN-Settled Science | CACA
•••

15 Year Global Warming Stasis Reports :

Climatism Links :

Related:

90% Of New York State 100 Degree Readings Occurred With CO2 Below 350 PPM

Real Science

Prior to 1955, 100ºF readings were common in New York State. They rarely happen any more.

There are 30 HCN stations in New York which have been continuously active since 1930, and 90% of their 100ºF readings occurred with CO2 below 350 PPM. Ninety-three percent of those stations set their all-time record maximum with CO2 below 350 PPM.

ScreenHunter_514 Aug. 29 08.01

View original post


UN Agenda 21 Links

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.

– UN Agenda 21

Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the1976 report UN’s Habitat I Conference.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“ – Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP

is

•••

MUST SEE : MP Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21, Club of Rome – YouTube

MUST SEE : Glenn Beck meets with Rosa Koire author of BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21

Agenda 21 Plans Revealed In America

MUST SEE AGENDA 21 YOU TUBE – ALEXANDRA SWANN Agenda 21: Bankrupting America into Utopia–One City at a Time – YouTube

Agenda 21 – Wildlands Video | Resist 21

MUST SEE – UN Agenda 21 (ICLEI) Explained in This Video | PatriotsBillboard

MUST SEE – Kevin Rudd’s (secret) Agenda 21 v Peter Spencer and All Australian’s

 ICLEI-Agenda21 agenda-21-earth-summitUN-logo-United-Nations-Logo-pictures

UPDATE 10.10.13 – New Agenda 21 Links

MUST SEE VIDEO (Long vid, but break up. You, your children and friends need to see this)

Michael Shaw – America’s Choice – Liberty or Sustainable Development 

UPDATE

UPDATE – Nov 2013

UPDATE – Dec 2013

Agenda21_large

See Also “Club Of Rome” :

Climatism Related :

Quote Source – The Green Agenda


Victims of a massive global warming fraud

FAUXGREEN

IMG_3887

So the Blanding’s Turtle must once again prove that it is in sufficient danger to warrant protection against industrial wind turbines from bestriding and destroying its unique, fragile habitat at Ostrander Point in Prince Edward County. Not only that, the proponents of the proposed wind factory, (Gilead Power) claim in their appeal of the recent decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) protecting the turtle, that the reptile’s advocates, Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN), must “prove that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the turtle population province wide.” (Our emphasis.)

This is an interesting tack to take considering that the original decision of the ERT rejected such extrapolations, insisting on case-by-case assessment, when it came to previous Tribunal findings about the harmful effects of industrial wind turbine operations on human health!

But Gilead, and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), which is also appealing the…

View original post 1,048 more words


The Climate Science Isn’t Settled

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

― Michael Crichton

•••

the-wall-street-journal-logo

The Climate Science Isn’t Settled

Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.

By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

November 30, 2009, 7:44 p.m. ET

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and

lindzen

because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth’s atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let’s refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called “climate forcing.”

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.

The IPCC’s Scientific Assessments generally consist of about 1,000 pages of text. The Summary for Policymakers is 20 pages. It is, of course, impossible to accurately summarize the 1,000-page assessment in just 20 pages; at the very least, nuances and caveats have to be omitted. However, it has been my experience that even the summary is hardly ever looked at. Rather, the whole report tends to be characterized by a single iconic claim. Keep Reading »

The Climate Emails

The Economics of Climate Change
Rigging a Climate ‘Consensus’ 
Global Warming With the Lid Off 
Climate Science and Candor


Climate Craziness of the Week: Global Warming to cause ocean to lose its distinctive smell, and clouds, and maybe some other stuff

Morano: New Warmist Fear: Global warming causing the oceans to lose their smell! Oceans unique odor is a ‘smell that’s endangered by climate change’ — ‘The real horror might be raising kids in a world where the only place you can smell the ocean is Bath & Bodyworks.’
hehe

Watts Up With That?

Over at Grist, where “burnt out” David Roberts just threw in the towel, the craziness continues with a new alarmist writer:

Vanishing ocean smell could also mean fewer clouds

By John Upton

Next time you’re at the beach take a deep, long sniff: That special coastal scent might not last forever. While you’re at it, put on some extra sunscreen: As that smell dwindles, cloud cover could, too.

View original post 143 more words


Green Agenda Has Parallels With Excesses Of Communism

The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope
.”
– David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth

If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism
” 
– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First 

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

green agenda

Czech President Vaclav Klaus says the climate change movement is a threat to democracy. Source:Herald Sun

Green agenda has parallels with excesses of communism

via HERALD SUN
JULY 28, 2011 12:00AM

Miranda Devine

IN a serendipitous coincidence of timing, in the space of two hours this week, Australians were afforded a sharp, momentary insight into the two opposing ideological mindsets that are competing for the soul of our nation.

In a Sydney hotel on Monday night, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an economist who fought against communism, was warning of the new threats to our freedom he recognises in the doctrine of global warming.

Almost simultaneously, in a Hobart casino, Greens senator Christine Milne was unilaterally announcing, on ABC-TV’s Q&A show, that the Government would be conducting an inquiry into the section of the Australian media that she finds “extreme(ly) bias(ed) against action on climate change”.

Milne’s every illiberal pronouncement was greeted with applause by an audience that seemed full of tree huggers, bearded public servants and other recipients of government largesse, about the only growth industry left in Tasmania.

Klaus, on the other hand, was speaking to an audience of economic liberals and climate change realists invited by the Institute of Public Affairs, the Melbourne-based free-market think tank.

“Twenty years ago we still felt threatened by the remnants of communism. This is really over,” Klaus said.

“I feel threatened now, not by global warming — I don’t see any — (but) by the global warming doctrine, which I consider a new dangerous attempt to control and mastermind my life and our lives, in the name of controlling the climate or temperature.”

Klaus, 70, who has twice been elected as Czech President and is its former prime minister, is one of the most important figures in post-communist Europe. His experiences under totalitarian rule have made him exquisitely alert to the erosion of democratic freedoms.

He said environmentalists had been arguing for decades that we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, using various farcical ploys from the exhaustion of natural resources to the threat of “imminent mass poverty and starvation for billions”.

Those same environmentalists shamelessly talk now about dangerous global warming.

“They don’t care about resources or poverty or pollution.

“They hate us, the humans. They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them.

“I used to live in a similar world called communism. And I know it led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced.”

Global warming alarmists “want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore …what is in danger is freedom, not the climate”.

He described the parallels he sees between the loss of freedom under communism and the new global warming doctrine.

Under communism, “politics dictated the economics and dictated life. Our main ambition during the dark communist days was to change that and create an autonomous society and autonomous economic system with only a marginal role played by politics … I am sorry to discover now politics dictates the economics again. And the global warming debate is the same story (in which) politicians dictate the issue”.

He said because of his experience of communism, “maybe I am over-sensitive. I am afraid that some of the people who spend their lives in a free society don’t appreciate sufficiently all the issues connected with freedom.

“So my over-sensitivity is like an alarm clock warning about the potential development, which I am really afraid of.”

With Klaus’s words ringing in my ears I went home and watched a recording of Milne’s performance on Q&A.

There Milne was equating those decent Australians who have been exercising their democratic right to protest at anti-carbon tax rallies with the crazed gunman who killed 76 people in Norway on the weekend.

“It’s been pretty shocking around Australia over the last month or two in relation particularly to the carbon price,” she said.

Coupled with her view that the voices of those in the media who are against the carbon tax ought to be investigated, it was a chilling echo of the attack on freedom Klaus had just warned against.

The speed at which the arrogance of the Greens has grown since they entered a power-sharing arrangement with the Gillard Government almost a year ago, and the shambolic acquiescence of the Government to their demands, has caught us unawares. It has lulled us into accepting as normal some remarkably illiberal ideas.

For instance, there is the drastic reshaping of the economy by the carbon tax Gillard assured us we would not have, and its six unaccountable new bureaucracies.

There is the media inquiry flagrantly designed by the Government and Greens to punish only the media organisation whose newspapers (such as this one) have most embarrassed them and exposed their mistakes.

THERE is the idea that companies that create wealth and jobs for Australia are evil “big polluters”, and that our most important industry, mining, should be saddled with a “super-profits tax”.

There is the idea that there is something so wrong with private school funding that an inquiry is needed, and that the Greens’ policy of 30 per cent death duties on estates over $5 million is perfectly reasonable. Continue Reading »

•••

Green Related :