Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenbergof the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Global warming-at least the modern nightmare version – is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and policy makers are not.” – David Bellamy, Daily Mail, July 9, 2004
2. Bob Carter: Climate Context As A Basis For Better Policy
A public lecture on “Climate Context as a basis for Better Policy”, given at the University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, June 2011 by Australian paleoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter.
Robert Merlin “Bob” Carter is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and former adjunct professorial research fellow in earth sciences at James Cook University, Queensland
3. True News: The Case Against Climate Change
Melting Watergate – First rate summary of facts and figures that oppose the prevailing hysteria about global warming climate change. From Freedomain Radio.
4. The Great Global Warming Swindle (Full Movie)
The documentary that *completely* turned me into a man-made global warming ‘sceptic’, after being largely convinced by Al Gore’s propaganda flick “An Inconvenient Truth”…
Inconveniently for Al, a year after his movies release, a British High Court judge cited 9 key errors, that had arisen “in the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming. Judge Burton noted the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change. It was also ruled, a “political film.”
In order to be shown in British schools, Judge Burton ruled that 77 pages of supporting documentation would be required as reference material.
However, the damage was done and Gore’s silver-screen alarmist fraud swept the world, gobbling up the gullible with catastrophic ease.
Thankfully the sceptical truth-seeker in me (that we should all unleash as a matter of scientific course) shone through, and I investigated for myself the dogmatic claims of climate catastrophe that hummed through the mainstream. And after seeing the “The Great Global Warming Swindle” my scepticism was solidified.
This excellent documentary provides a concise, and profoundly more ‘scientific’ narrative, in rebuttal to Gore’s political alarmism.
Originally broadcasted March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4.
Documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be “the biggest scam of modern times.”
“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
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
No introduction needed to this Driessen masterpiece, other than to say the article sums up nicely how modern environmentalism has nurtured a regime of government funded, pseudoscientific endeavour that has fuelled man-made global warming hysteria.
Editor’s Note: This article was co-authored by Dennis Mitchell.
Earth’s geological, archaeological and written histories are replete with climate changes: big and small, short and long, benign, beneficial, catastrophic and everything in between.
The Medieval Warm Period (950-1300 AD or CE) was a boon for agriculture, civilization and Viking settlers in Greenland. The Little Ice Age that followed (1300-1850) was calamitous, as were the Dust Bowl and the extended droughts that vanquished the Anasazi and Mayan cultures; cyclical droughts and floods in Africa, Asia and Australia; and periods of vicious hurricanes and tornadoes. Repeated Pleistocene Epoch ice ages covered much of North America, Europe and Asia under mile-thick ice sheets that denuded continents, stunted plant growth, and dropped ocean levels 400 feet for thousands of years.
Modern environmentalism, coupled with fears first of global cooling and then of global warming, persuaded politicians to launch the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its original goal was to assess possible human influences on global warming and potential risks of human-induced warming. However, it wasn’t long before the Panel minimized, ignored and dismissed non-human factors to such a degree that its posture became the mantra that only humans are now affecting climate.
Over the last three decades, five IPCC “assessment reports,” dozens of computer models, scores of conferences and thousands of papers focused heavily on human fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, as being responsible for “dangerous” global warming, climate change, climate “disruption,” and almost every “extreme” weather or climate event. Tens of billions of dollars have supported these efforts, while only a few million have been devoted to analyses of all factors – natural and human – that affect and drive planetary climate change.
You would think researchers would welcome opportunities to balance that vast library of one-sided research with an analysis of the natural causes of climate change – so that they can evaluate the relative impact of human activities, more accurately predict future changes, and help ensure that communities, states and nations can plan for, mitigate and adapt to those impacts. Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case.
In autumn 2013, Nebraska lawmakers budgeted $44,000 for a study of climate cycles and natural causes – avoiding additional speculation about manmade effects. Several Nebraska researchers rejected the idea, saying the budget was insufficient and they would not be interested unless human influences were made part of the study. They would not compromise their integrity or let politics dictate their research, they said. Ultimately, the project was cancelled in favor of yet another study of human influences.
Integrity is an important concern, especially when so many scientists have accepted far larger sums for research that emphasizes human causes, including some at Penn State, Virginia, George Mason and other institutions associated with the IPCC and EPA. Such grants have brought us “studies” connecting “dangerous manmade global warming” to dwindling frog populations, shrinking Italian pasta supplies, clownfish getting lost, cockroaches migrating, and scores of other remote to ridiculous assertions.
It is essential that some studies now begin to assess, understand and calibrate the powerful, complex, interrelated natural forces that drive climate fluctuations, cycles and changes. Only then will we be able to discern and separate significant human influences – and begin to predict why, when, how and where Earth’s climate is likely to change in the future. Even $44,000 would have enabled these accomplished Nebraska researchers to examine existing scientific papers and prepare a valuable report on natural factors that would help to put human influences in context. Only such comprehensive knowledge will enable us to predict, prepare for, mitigate and adapt to future climate variations with sufficient accuracy.
American taxpayers alone are providing billions of dollars annually for research focused on human factors, through the EPA and other government agencies. The universities and other institutions routinely take 40% or more off the top for “project management” and “overhead.” None of them wants to derail that gravy train, and all fear that accepting grants to study natural factors or climate cycles would imperil funding from sources that have ideological, political or crony corporatist reasons for making grants tied to manmade warming, renewable energy and related topics. Peer pressure, eco-activist harassment, politically correct posturing, and shared ideologies about fossil fuels, forced economic transformations and wealth redistribution via energy policies also play a major role, especially on campuses.
Racial and sexual diversity is applauded, encouraged, even required, on campuses, as is political diversity across the “entire” spectrum from communist to “progressive.” But diversity of opinion is restricted to 20×20-foot “free speech zones,” and would-be free speech practitioners are vilified, exiled to academic Siberia, dismissed or penalized – as “climate skeptics” from Delaware, Oregon, Virginia and other institutions can testify. Robust debate about energy and climate issues is denounced and obstructed.
As The Right Climate Stuff team points out, we cannot possibly model or distinguish human influences on climate change, without first understanding and modeling natural factors. But solar, cosmic ray, oceanic and other natural forces are dismissed in the corridors of alarmism. Even the adverse effects of climate change and renewable energy policies on jobs, economic growth, human health and welfare, and bird and bat populations receive little attention. Sadly, science has been subjected to such tyranny before.
When Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo found that science and observations did not support Ptolemy’s clever and complex model of the solar system, the totalitarian establishment of their day advised such heretics to recant – or be battered, banished or even burned at the stake. Today’s climate models are even more clever and complex, dependent on questionable assumptions and massaged data, unable to predict temperatures or climate events, and employed to justify costly energy and economic policies.
The modelers nevertheless continue to enjoy fame, fortune, power and academic glory – while those who question the garbage in-garbage out models are denounced and ostracized. Continue Reading »
CLIMATE change is real and it is happening very fast. The climate of opinion, that is, regarding the rapidly imploding fantasies of the global warming alarmists.
After a decade in which sane commentators have been angered and frustrated by the purblind adherence to the warmist superstition by followers of the Al Gore cult – prominent among them our own esteemed First Minister and President for Life Designate – the whole climate change scam has finally degenerated into a joke, provoking widespread derision.
That has not deterred the climate Gnostics, sustained by their mystical insight into inner truths hidden from sceptics (“deniers” in their language of anathema) and, increasingly, from scientists who have not taken the IPCC shilling. The cultists can rely on the support of politicians since non-existent global warming furnishes the pretext for all-too-existent and exorbitant taxes, which is what the whole myth is all about. Thus, during discussion of the recent floods in the Commons last week, David Cameron was prompted by the Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron to attribute the problem to climate change. The Prime Minister dutifully replied: “Colleagues across the House can argue about whether that is linked to climate change or not. I very much suspect that it is.”
That statement was overdue as it was seven weeks since he had been reported as telling his colleagues “We have to get rid of the green crap”, an exceptionally long period for Dave to entertain a consistent opinion. Unfortunately, Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, refused to endorse his leader’s view. Then the Meteorological Office intervened to contradict Dave: “At the moment there’s no evidence to suggest that these storms are more intense because of climate change.” That was a significant development because formerly the Met Office could be counted upon to support climate alarmism. Clearly it is now conscious of reputational damage and is hedging its bets.
It is not alone. Very subtly, unobtrusively, other institutions and individuals are backing away from the discredited orthodoxy of warmism. The process began some time ago when the Royal Society declared its switch to a more neutral stance in the climate debate. Scientists not committed to the cause by financial considerations are growing aware that the imposture is disintegrating so fast it could achieve Piltdown status within their own career spans. It is a measure of the bogus nature of the alleged climate crisis that the last time warming occurred there was a majority Tory government in office under John Major (“Oh, yes!”). Continue Reading »
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“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
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
With the release of the IPCC’s fifth climate assessment report AR5 due for release today, it’s important the reports findings are taken within the context of who the United Nations’ IPCC really are.
The IPCC is a ‘political’ (Intergovernmental) organisation masquerading as the science arm of the UN. They are charged with assessing the latest climate science and putting what they think is applicable into their report.
The most anticipated chapter is the “Summary For Policymakers,” about 30 pages long and is widely read and commented upon by politicians, bureaucrats and the media. This chapter is a summary of thousands of pages of scientific reports and is not compiled by scientists, but rather by the IPCC committee members themselves.
Their Chairman Rajendra Pachauri is the ultimate arbiter of what is released to politicians, bureaucrats and the media.
In his spare time, Pachauri writes forewords for Greenpeace publications and recently accepted an International Advertising Association “green crusader” award. He is an aggressive advocate for emissions reduction and carbon taxes.
“Since agendas and science don’t mix, environmentalists should keep their distance from activities that are supposed to be scientific. Their mere presence undermines the integrity of the research. It casts a shadow over the data and calls into question the conclusions.”
Enter NIPCC :
In 2004, after a United Nations climate conference in Milan, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was set up. NIPCC organised an international climate workshop in Vienna in April 2007, to provide an independent examination of the evidence for climate change.
Bob Carter is a former research professor at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia. He was head of the university’s School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999 and then held adjunct professorial positions. In January 2013 the university allowed his adjunct status to lapse, citing ‘lack of input’ into the university. Carter was clearly blackballed for having a scientifically sceptical view on climate change, although JCU denies this. Academia at JCU more akin to life in Stalingrad than Australia.
Carter is a marine geologist, environmental scientist and a lead author of the NIPCC.
THE issue under public discussion is that human-related carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or will cause, dangerous global warming.
The issue is not “is climate change happening”, for it always is and always has. Nor is it about whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or not, because all scientists agree that it is.
Rather, the key question concerns the magnitude of warming caused by the rather small 7 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide that enter the atmosphere each year, compared with the natural flows from land and sea of over 200 billion tonnes.
Despite well over twenty years of study by thousands of scientists, and the expenditure of more than $100 billion in research money, an accurate quantitative answer to this question remains unknown.
Scientists who advise the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) worry that a doubling of carbon dioxide over pre-industrial levels will cause warming of between 3 and 6 deg. Celsius, whereas independent scientists calculate that the warming for a doubling will be much less – somewhere between about 0.3 and 1.2 deg. Celsius.
Meanwhile, the scientific evidence now overwhelmingly indicates that any human warming effect is deeply submerged within planet Earth’s natural variations of temperature.
Importantly, no global warming has now occurred since 1997, despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 8%, which in turn represents 34% of all the extra human-related carbon dioxide contributed since the industrial revolution.
Few of these facts are new, yet until recently the public have been relentlessly misinformed that human-caused global warming was causing polar bears to die out, more and more intense storms, droughts and floods to occur, the monsoons to fail, sea-level rise to accelerate, ice to melt at unnatural rates, that late 20th century temperature was warmer than ever before and that speculative computer models could predict the temperature accurately one hundred years into the future.
It now turns out that not one of these assertions is true. So who has been telling us these scientific whoppers?
The United Nations, that’s who; which is not surprising given that global warming long ago gained a life of its own as a mainstream political issue, quite divorced from empirical science – politics, of course, being what the UN is all about.
The IPCC has been charged with providing advice about global warming since 1988, publishing four major summaries of the scientific literature in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007 and with a 5th Assessment Report due on September 27th. Press coverage indicates that this report will concede that many of the environmental threats attributed to global warming by the IPCC have hitherto been exaggerated.
Meanwhile, and starting in 2003, a new independent team of scientists has been on the climate job, drawn from universities and institutes around the world and called the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
In classic Green Team: Red Team tactical management style, the NIPCC has the role of providing an alternative Red Team view of the science of global warming, acting as a sort of “defense counsel” to verify and counter the arguments mounted for climate alarm by the IPCC’s Green Team prosecution.
NIPCC’s next report – entitled “Climate Change Reconsidered. II Physical Science”, will be released on September 18th.
The report summarises many of the thousands of scientific papers that contain evidence conflicting with the idea of dangerous human-caused warming. Considered collectively, the research literature summarised by the NIPCC shows that modern climate is jogging along well within the bounds of previous natural variation.
Faced with this reality check, it is not surprising that the UN apparently intends to tone down some of its earlier over-alarmist rhetoric.
Nonetheless, it remains the case that extreme natural climate events can cause great damage to both human communities and the environment. The task ahead, therefore, is to fashion a national climate policy that prepares for and adapts to all dangerous climate events, whenever they occur and of whatever origin.
Professor Bob Carter is an Emeritus Fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs and author of the book Taxing Air