My new report reveals that polar bears are doing well despite recent reductions in sea-ice. It shows in details why this is so, with summaries of critical recent research.
Press release and pdf below. And read my op-ed in the National Post here.
“In a new report published by London-based think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, zoologist Susan Crockford says that predictions that climate change is bringing about the demise of these iconic creatures have proven to be far from the mark.
Dr Crockford’s report, published to mark International Polar Bear day, makes clear that although Arctic sea-ice has declined to levels not expected until 2050 and widely predicted to cause catastrophe for polar bears, their numbers have remained stable, or have even increased slightly. As she explains
“Ice levels during the key feeding period in Spring have been good, and prey species have been abundant. It’s not…
EVERY year on Earth Day, 22nd of April, which by no coincidence happens to be the Birthday of Communist dictator Vladimir Lenin, we learn how bad humanity’s economic development is for the health of the planet. But maybe this is the wrong message. Maybe we should instead reflect on how human progress, even use of fossil fuels, has made our environment cleaner and healthier. Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains…
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
IN order to avoid important free and open debate, on a system so chaotic as our climate, CAGW alarmists instinctively claim that the “science is settled” based on a purported “97% consensus” of all scientists.
ANY person or body that holds a dissenting view or presents contradictory evidence is immediately labelled a climate ‘denier’ – likened to those who claim the holocaust never occurred. A classic ad-hominem attack designed to smear and silence those who refuse to comply with the preferred wisdom of the day.
BOGUS 97% surveys have been concocted over the years claiming a scientific ‘consensus’ exists. However, consensus doesn’t decide science, facts do.
“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.”
Pierre L. Gosselin’s masterful resource NoTricksZone has unearthed 97 new papers in 2018 alone that further discredit the bogus “97% consensus” meme…
In just the first 8 weeks of 2018, 97 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.
These 97 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.
More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.
N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.
N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.
N(3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.
N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).
In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:
RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”
A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.
A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough“, which means that “the time for debate has ended“.
A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.
To reiterate, the 97 papers compiled in 2018 thus far support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions. The papers do not do more than that. Expectations that these papers should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are deemed unreasonable in this context.
Below are the two links to the list of 97 papers amassed as of 26 February, 2018, as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization. Also included are 24 sample papers included on the list, about 1/4th of the total.
Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century? (17) A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (9) Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (3) Sea Levels 1-3 Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (4) A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (7)
Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (6) Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (2) Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (2) Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (2) No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (2) No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (1) Miscellaneous (5)
Trucks at the Murrin Murrin nickel-cobalt mining joint venture in Western Australia | The Australian
THE next time you are met with the fashionable climate hashtag #keepitintheground by a holier-than-thou climate warrior, calmly remind them that their iPhone, iPad and electric car is not as “sustainable” as they might have hoped for and definitely doesn’t run on a planet-friendly diet of tofu and mung beans.
THEN advise them to direct their misinformed, groupthink-enabled rage at their silicone valley eco-icons – Elon Musk and Apple et al – who are digging gigantic holes in the ground too. Oh, and hiring child miners aged 4 who are living a hell on earth in the Congo mining for their Cobalt…
Apple is seeking to buy cobalt directly from mining companies amid a looming shortage of the metal, a key ingredient for the lithium-ion batteries in its iPhones and iPads.
Fearful that the boom in electric cars might put pressure on supplies, the Californian technology giant has been in discussions to secure contracts for “several thousand metric tons” of cobalt each year for at least five years, according to Bloomberg.
While smartphones use an estimated ten grams of refined cobalt, a typical electric car battery uses five to ten kilograms.
If sales of electric vehicles hit a forecast of 30 million by 2030, it will drive further explosive growth in cobalt demand, according to research for Glencore, the mining company, by CRU, a commodities analyst. It forecasts a “material” impact from demand for electric cars by as early as 2020, with an extra 24,000 tonnes needed as early as 2020, compared with about 110,000 tonnes mined globally in 2017 and an additional 314,000 tonnes by 2030.
If Apple secures its own cobalt contracts, rather than leaving it to companies that supply its batteries, it could find itself in fierce competition with carmakers for the metal.
The talks, understood to have begun more than a year ago, come after a tripling in the price of cobalt in the past 18 months, as carmakers jump into the fully electric or hybrid power business, following the likes of Toyota and Tesla. Countries including Britain and France have said that they will ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2040.
Apple declined to comment on the talks. However, Ivan Glasenberg, chief executive of Glencore, the world’s biggest cobalt producer, said in December that the iPhone maker was among the companies it was talking to about cobalt, along with Tesla and Volkswagen.
Overnight (AEDT) Mr Glasenberg said that no deal had been signed. “We don’t have any long-term contracts with Apple; we haven’t signed anything with Apple.”
He added: “We have seen the investments that motor car companies are making in electric vehicles and they will need battery supply, so the demand for electric vehicles is strong. It will require a lot of cobalt and we all know the geological scarcity of cobalt.”
Mr Glasenberg noted that supply was “relatively constrained”, as cobalt could not be mined like lithium, but was a by-product mainly of copper and nickel.
There are also questions about the stability of supply in the Democratic Republic of Congo after a vote last month by its parliament to raise royalties on mining. The change is designed to ensure that the country gets a bigger share of the money paid for its commodities, but it will raise costs for producers.
Mining companies are lobbying against the change, which Mr Glasenberg said would lead to under-investment. “Can the world produce as much cobalt (as) it’s going to need? … What happens in the DRC is going to be very important going forward,” he said.
Apple’s move to secure its own supplies of cobalt comes amid a global drive to safeguard supplies of crucial metals used in electronics while reducing dependence on the DRC, which supplies two thirds of the world’s cobalt but has been criticised for human rights abuses, including using child labour.
In response to criticism from human rights groups, Apple now uses only cobalt refined and smelted in China, Belgium and Finland. It will accept metal from the DRC only if it comes from mines that can prove they provide adequate health and safety protections and safeguards against child labour.
Michael Giblin, mining analyst at S & P Global Market Intelligence, said that end-users of cobalt were already looking for alternatives to the metal.
“Due to the rapid increase in the cobalt price over the last year, plus the fact that the majority of cobalt will be sourced from areas with political and social instability, battery technology is being continually evolved to reduce the reliance on cobalt.
“Conventional battery chemistries are being modified to reduce the cobalt content by increasing content of other metals such as nickel or manganese.”
Deep Bore Into Antarctica Finds Freezing Ice, Not Melting as Expected
Scientists will leave sensors in the hole to better understand the long-term changes in the ice, which may have big implications for global sea level.
By Douglas Fox
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 16, 2018
Scientists have peered into one of the least-explored swaths of ocean on Earth, a vast region located off the coast of West Antarctica.
SURPRISING FINDS The surprises began almost as soon as a camera was lowered into the first borehole, around December 1. The undersides of ice shelves are usually smooth due to gradual melting. But as the camera passed through the bottom of the hole, it showed the underside of the ice adorned with a glittering layer of flat ice crystals—like a jumble of snowflakes—evidence that in this particular place, sea water is actually freezing onto the base of the…
Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy? (99% of Haiti’s forests have been decimated, not for building materials, but for cooking fuel.)
WHEN the New York Times hired climate ‘Lukewarmer’ Bret Stephens as a contributing columnist in late April 2017, a collective cry of treasonous rage was heard throughout the deep-green environmental community. How dare anyone question whether we should accept absolutely every pronouncement of imminent eco-doom at face value?!
A snippet of the enraged reporting at the time from the usual suspects…
Climate Scientists Cancelling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens
By Graham Readfearn • Thursday, April 27, 2017 – 16:59
A New York Times defence of its hiring of a climate science denialist as a leading columnist is pushing high-profile climate scientists to cancel their subscriptions.
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany, is the latest scientist to write publicly to the New York Times detailing his reasons for cancelling their subscriptions.
Stephens wrote several columns while at the WSJ disparaging climate science and climate scientists, which he has collectively described as a “religion” while claiming rising temeperatures may be natural.
The NYT has been defending its decision publicly, saying that “millions of people” agree with Stephens on climate science and just because their readers don’t like his opinions, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be heard.
13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column
The Gray Lady’s newest hire used his debut column to defend his record of climate science denial.
29/04/2017 9:09 AM AEST Alexander C. Kaufman Business & Environment Reporter, HuffPost
The New York Times took a lot of heat for hiring Bret Stephens, a former opinion writer at The Wall Street Journal, as its newest columnist. There was a lot to criticize. In his storied tenure on some of the most radically conservative pages in print journalism, Stephens accused Arabs of suffering a “disease of the mind,” railed against the Black Lives Matter movement and dismissed the rise of campus rape as an “imaginary enemy.”
But Stephens’ views on climate change ― namely that the jury is still out on whether burning fossil fuels is the chief cause ― drew the widest condemnation. ThinkProgress admonished the Gray Lady for hiring an “extreme climate denier,” and famed climatologist Michael Mann backed them up in the critique. DeSmog Blog, a site whose tagline reads “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science,” reported on a letter from climate scientists who are canceling their subscriptions to the newspaper over its latest hire. In These Times’ headline pointedly asked: “Why the Hell did the New York Times just hire a climate denier?”
STEPEHENS has recently written another reasoned column in the Times that has no doubt sent the eco-freaks into another predictable tailspin!
IN the Feb 8 opinion piece, “Apocalypse Not“, Stephens argues that a healthy environment is dependent on a healthy economy first, namely a capitalist one.
“The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.”
A view not shared by radical environmental groups who, including the UN, believe that in order to “save the planet” we must fundamentally change the current economic development model. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres Brussels February, 2015
In 1919, the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines offered a dire warning for the future. “Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline.”
Nearly a century later, in July 2010, The Guardian ran a story with an ominous headline: “Lloyd’s adds its voice to dire ‘peak oil’ warnings.” Citing a report by the storied London insurer, the newspaper warned that businesses were “underestimating catastrophic consequences of declining oil,” including oil at $200 a barrel by 2013, a global supply crunch, and overall “economic chaos.”
I thought of these predictions on seeing the recent news that the United States is on the eve of breaking a 47-year production record by lifting more than 10 million barrels of crude a day. That’s roughly twice what the U.S. produced just a decade ago, and may even put us on track to overtake Saudi Arabia and even Russia as the world’s leading oil producer. As for global production, it rose by some 11 percent just since the Lloyd’s report, and by almost 200 percent since 1965.
Call it yet another case of Apocalypse Not.
“In best-selling books and powerful speeches, Vogt argued that affluence is not our greatest achievement but our biggest problem,” Mann writes. “Our prosperity is temporary, he said, because it is based on taking more from than earth than it can give. If we continue, the unavoidable result will be devastation on a global scale, perhaps including our extinction.”
In our own day, people like Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein have made careers saying more or less the same thing. This is a world where the clock is permanently set at two minutes to midnight, and where only a radical transformation of modern society (usually combining dramatic changes in personal behavior along with a heavy dose of state intervention) can save us.
The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.
I fall in the Borlaugian camp. That’s worth noting because one of the more tedious criticisms by the environmental left is that people like me “don’t care about the environment.” But imputing bad faith, stupidity or greed is always a lousy argument. Even conservatives want their children to breathe.
Borlaugians are environmentalists, too. They simply think the road to salvation lies not through making do with less, but rather through innovation and the conditions in which innovation tends to flourish, greater affluence and individual freedom most of all.
If environmental alarmists ever wonder why more people haven’t come around to their way of thinking, it isn’t because people like me occasionally voice doubts in newspaper op-eds. It’s because too many past predictions of imminent disaster didn’t come to pass.
WITH a stubborn atmosphere failing to warm as predicted, another climate threat was needed to sustain the Climate Crisis industry and keep lazy reporters supplied with junk science to feed their catastrophic climate narrative. Enter “ocean acidification”!
FROM the onset, the term “ocean acidification” was deceptive by design. Oceans are alkaline. The correct ‘scientific’ term for any pH change toward zero is “less alkaline”. Obviously not the scariest of descriptors to shock the public into belief.
“Ocean Acidification” was first referenced in a peer-reviewed study in Nature in 2003, resulting in an explosion of journal articles, media reports and alarmist publications from environmental orgs. It has since gone viral, endorsed by scientists from numerous alarmist institutions including the Royal Society, the IPCC and NOAA who coined it “climate change’s evil twin” in a 2016 report.
A 2016 paper published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science put the issue of “ocean acidification” under the microscope, and found Scientists exaggerating the carbon dioxide threat to marine life…
Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research
“Ocean acidification” (OA), a change in seawater chemistry driven by increased uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans, has probably been the most-studied single topic in marine science in recent times. The majority of the literature on OA report negative effects of CO2 on organisms and conclude that OA will be detrimental to marine ecosystems. As is true across all of science, studies that report no effect of OA are typically more difficult to publish.
Excerpts from the paper:
Scientific or academic scepticism calls for critical scrutiny of research outputs before they are accepted as new knowledge (Merton, 1973).Duarte et al. (2014) stated that “…there is a perception that scientific skepticism has been abandoned or relaxed in many areas…” of marine science. They argue that OA is one such area, and conclude that there is, at best, weak evidence to support an OA-driven decline of calcifiers. Below, I raise some of the aspects of OA research to which I contend an insufficient level of organized scepticism has been applied (in some cases, also to the articles in this theme issue). I arrived at that conclusion after reading hundreds of articles on OA (including, to be fair, some that also raise these issues) and overseeing the peer-review process for the very large number of submissions to this themed issue. Importantly, and as Duarte et al. (2014) make clear, a retrospective application of scientific scepticism such as the one that follows could—and should—be applied to any piece of/body of research.
An “inherent bias” in scientific journals in favour of more calamitous predictions has excluded research showing that marine creatures are not damaged by ocean acidification, which is caused by the sea absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
It has been dubbed the “evil twin of climate change” and hundreds of studies have claimed to show that it destroys coral reefs and other marine life by making it harder for them to develop shells or skeletons.
The review found that many studies had used flawed methods, subjecting marine creatures to sudden increases in carbon dioxide that would never be experienced in real life.
Dr Browman, who is also principal research scientist at the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, found there had been huge increase in articles on ocean acidification in recent years, rising from five in 2005 to 600 last year.
He said that a handful of influential scientific journals and lobbying by international organisations had turned ocean acidification into a major issue.
“Such journals tend to publish doom and gloom stories . . . stated without equivocation,” he said. The bias in favour of doom-laden articles was partly the result of pressure on scientists to produce eye-catching work, he added.
“You won’t get a job unless you publish an article that is viewed as of significant importance to society. People often forget that scientists are people and have the same pressures on them and the same kind of human foibles. Some are driven by different things. They want to be prominent.”
ENTER climate alarmist in chief – Peter Hannam – Environment Editor at The Sydney Morning Herald / The Age, with his latest doomsday report peppered with the same old regurgitated buzz lines designed to scare you into belief; “tipping points”, “pressure on governments globally to act”, “catastrophic destruction”, “mass bleaching”…
World’s coral reefs face new peril from beneath within decades
New research, published in the journal Science on Friday, has found the sediments on which many reefs are built are 10 times more sensitive to the acidifying oceans than the living corals themselves. Some reef bases are already dissolving.
“Coral reef sediments around the world will trend towards dissolving when seawater reaches a tipping point in acidity – which is likely to occur well before the end of the century,” he said.
Not loving it enough: coral reefs face multiple threats from climate change, including as it turns out, from below.
At risk will be coral reef ecosystems that support tourism, fisheries and the many other human activities, he said.
“It is vital that we put pressure on governments globally to act in concert to lower carbon dioxide emissions as this is the only way we can stop the oceans acidifying and dissolving our reefs,” Professor Eyre said.
Notwithstanding the evidence owing to the inherent alarmism, exaggeration and journal bias of the OA scare, it might be useful for Hannam to consider this simple explanation of what goes on “beneath” the ocean surface…
Corals evolved during the Cambrian era with CO2 levels at 6,000-7,000 ppm, around 4,000% or 20 times higher than today’s “CO2-starved” environment of 400 ppm. Atmospheric and ocean temps were also far higher than today. Corals are made of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) – and could not exist without substantial amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
A sound explanation of the fallacy of ‘Ocean Acidification’ …
The last time I looked, the oceans were pronouncedly alkaline, and even the mad IPCC says the acid-base balance has been altered by only 0.1 acid/base units in the direction of slightly reduced alkalinity. However, that estimate, like much else in the IPCC’s mad gospels, is entirely guesswork, because there is no sufficiently well-resolved global measurement program for ocean pH. However, elementary theoretical considerations would lead us to expect homoeostasis in the acid/base balance of the oceans because the buffering influence of the rock basins in which they live and move and have their being is overwhelmingly powerful. Acid/base neutrality is at a pH of 7.0. The oceans are at about 7.8-8.2 (no one knows, so that the IPCC’s alleged dealkalinization of 0.1 acid/base units is well within the measurement error, so that we cannot actually be sure that it has occurred at all; and, on the elementary ground I have described, it is unlikely to have done so). Besides, there is about 50 times as much CO2 already dissolved in the oceans than there is in the atmosphere, so that even if all of the CO2 in the atmosphere were to make its way into the oceans the pH would scarcely change even in the absence of the overwhelming buffering effect of the rocks. As for calcifying organisms, they are thriving. The calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis and came into being 550 million years ago (you are too young to remember) during the Cambrian era, when atmospheric CO2 concentration was 25 times what it is today. The more delicate aragonite corals came into being 175 million years ago, during the Jurassic, when CO2 concentration was still 15 times today’s. “Ah,” you may say, “but it is the suddenness of the abrupt increase in CO2 concentration that the fragile corals will not be able to endure.” However, consider the great floods of the Brisbane River (eight of them from 1840-1900 and three of them since). The rainwater that pours into the ocean and meets the Great Barrier Reef is pronouncedly acid, at a pH of 5.4. Yet the corals do not curl up and die. “Ah,” you may say, “but what about the effect of sudden warming on the puir wee corals?” Well, the Great el Nino of 1997/8 gives us the answer to that one. Sudden increases in ocean temperature cause the corals to bleach. There have been two previous Great el Ninos in the past 300 years, and the corals bleached on both those occasions too. It is a natural defense mechanism against natural change. The corals continue to thrive. My brother and his three sport-mad boys dive on the reef every year and, like many others from whom I have heard, find the corals thriving except where the Crown of Thorns infestation has damaged small parts of the reef. Oh, and the Great Barrier Reef Authority, which has been moaning about the effects of rising sea temperatures on the corals, publish a dataset that shows zero increase in sea temperature in the region of the reef throughout the entire period of record. Don’t hold your breath worrying about ocean “acidification”: it can’t happen, even if all the CO2 in the air goes into the ocean.
The Multiple Impacts of “Ocean Acidification” on a Tropical Coral
Takahashi, A. and Kurihara, H. 2013. Ocean acidification does not affect the physiology of the tropical coralAcropora digitifera during a 5-week experiment. Coral Reefs32: 305-314.
The authors write that “according to the IPCC (2007) models, atmospheric CO2 is predicted to rise to 540-970 ppm by the end of this century and reach a maximum of approximately 1,900 ppm when the world’s fossil fuel reserves are fully exploited,” while noting that “a substantial number of laboratory studies have suggested a decline in coral calcification with a rise in seawater pCO2.” However, they say that recentstudies “have postulated that the sensitivity of corals to elevated levels of CO2 is potentially more diverse than previously considered,” citing the works of Fabricius et al. (2011), Pandolfi et al. (2011) and Rodolfo-Metalpa et al. (2011).
What was done
Intrigued by these new and diverse findings, Takahashi and Kurihara measured the rates of calcification, respiration and photosynthesis of the tropical coral Acropora digitifera – along with the coral’s zooxanthellae density – under near-natural summertime temperature and sunlight conditions for a period of five weeks.
What was learned
The two Japanese researchers found that these “key physiological parameters” were not affected by either predicted mid-range CO2 concentrations (pCO2 = 744 ppm, pH = 7.97, Ωarag = 2.6) or by high CO2concentrations (pCO2 = 2,142 ppm, pH = 7.56, Ωarag = 1.1) over the 35-day period of their experiment. In addition, they state that there was “no significant correlation between calcification rate and seawater aragonite saturation (Ωarag)” and “no evidence of CO2 impact on bleaching.”
What it means
Contrary to what many climate alarmists have long contended, there is mounting evidence that suggests that the negative consequences they predict for the world’s marine life in a future high-CO2 world are by no means assured, nor are they likely to be widespread. Keep Reading »
In the last decade or so, the climate change industry has become so vast and all encompassing, employing so many people, it simply cannot be allowed to fail.
According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, it’s now worth an astonishing $1.5 trillion — about the same as the online shopping industry. If the scare goes away, then all bets are off, because the entire global decarbonisation business relies on it. The wind parks, the carbon sequestration projects, the solar farms, the biomass plantations — none of these green schemes make any kind of commercial sense unless you buy into the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is catastrophically warming the planet and that radical green measures, enforced by governmental regulation, must be adopted to avert it.
It’s no coincidence that the ocean acidification narrative began in the early 2000s — just as it was beginning to dawn on the climate alarmists that global temperatures weren’t going to plan. While CO2 levels were continuing to rise, temperatures weren’t. Hence the need for a fallback position — an environmental theory which would justify the massively expensive and disruptive ongoing decarbonisation programme so assiduously championed by politicians, scientists, green campaigners and anyone making money out of the renewables business. Ocean acidification fitted the bill perfectly.
“Energiewende – CO2 emissions are rising, not falling as promised and predicted.
If “saving” the planet is – as we are repeatedly told – all about reducing man-made emissions of an odourless, colourless, naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on earth – then German energy/environmental policy has manifestly failed. And what an expensive failure it is.”
Merkel plays Head Jester: but Germans aren’t laughing.
Germany has long been held up as the poster child for wind and solar power, but the picture is now more tragedy, than triumph.
In Germany, around €130 billion has already been burnt on renewable subsidies; currently the green energy levy costs power consumers €56 million every day. And, the level of subsidy for wind and solar sees Germans paying €20 billion a year for power that gets sold on the power exchange for around €2 billion.
Squandering €18 billion a year on power – which Germans have in abundance from meaningful sources – has them asking the fair and reasonable question: just how much power are they getting for the €billions that they’ve thrown – and continue to throw at wind and solar? The answer – at a piddling 3.3% – is: NOT MUCH.
THE “Hottest Year Ever” meme is just one in a long line of marketing techniques used by Climate Crisis Inc. to make you believe the world is burning up.
HOW much of these claims are scientific, versus, pure-propaganda designed to heighten alarm on a publicly waning issue – catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)? A *theory* whose veracity is becoming increasingly questioned by contradictory science, real-world observations and growing public and media awareness of the disturbing trend of temperature data manipulation by our most ‘trusted’ scientific agencies.
Over and over, we are confronted with claims that last month or last year was “the warmest on record.” Each claim is accompanied by dire warnings that the alleged new records portend “unprecedented” chaos for wildlife, humans and planet.
Virtually never do these scary press releases mention:
That the supposed change is mere hundredths of a degree higher than previous measurements.
Never do they admit that the margin of error in these measurements is far greater than the supposed increase.
Never do they suggest that a little more warmth would be infinitely better than a colder world, with less arable land and shorter growing seasons.
And most certainly, never do they admit to the massive deficiencies in the system that supposedly tracks Earth’s temperature … and
Always blames any increases on humans and fossil fuels.
This article by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris points out all these highly relevant but often (deliberately) ignored realities.
Quote by Steven Cooper - 'These pulsation waves of air occur at a very low rate and activate the brain's sensory receptors. It has been suggested that the brain becomes confused, the brain thinks it receives noise, but there is no noise - just the pulsations".