PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

 

 

Donate with PayPal

CLIMATISM is a self-funded, one-man operation that has been running on fossil-fuel vapours and borrowed time since 2014.

Like most climate ‘sceptical’ outfits, success is reliant on a lot of passion and private support. After all, that cheque from “Big Oil” never arrived in the mail, much to the dismay of the climate cult who are convinced that the combined success of our individual efforts in fighting the “Climate Crisis Industry” must come down to funding from those “Koch Bros.” or “Exxon-Mobil”. Trust me, it doesn’t!

So, I have decided to finally rattle the tin in an effort to keep Climatism alive and help inspire more content in order to fight the propaganda and misinformation campaign

Jamie - Climatism "fight the good fight!"

HELP to keep the good fight alive by donating to Climatism today!

served up to you 24/7/365 by the “Climate Crisis Industry”- a literal billion dollar worldwide industry that is highly organised and well funded by Big government and green lobby groups with their propaganda broadcast, pro bono, by the virtue-signalling mainstream media, devoid of checks and objectivity. It is a campaign forcing a worldwide rollout of draconian and punitive climate policies that are devastating people’s livelihoods, namely the poorest in our communities. Fuel poverty and job losses happening in real time, causing far more damage than any slight warming (as foretold by the broken and overheated UN IPCC computer models) might cause by “2100”.

With your help, we can continue the fight against the insidious green blob and help alleviate the unnecessary burden of energy poverty and economic hardship once and for all.

What is in desperate need now is funding help for a new laptop to get posts out in an hour, rather than five! Employment opportunities to grow Climatism are also in the pipe for 2018.

All donations are welcome. Even as little as the cost of a cup of coffee helps the cause! No matter the amount, your donation is greatly appreciated. You WILL help make a difference. The less time spent finding money, the more time we have to fight the alarmists.

Thanks for you incredible patronage thus far and taking the time to read and share Climatism content!

Thank you all and warm regards,

JS SIGNATURE - Climatism DONATE post 190218

Jamie Spry  (Author and founder 🇦🇺 Climatism)

Donate with PayPal

(PayPal or Cards accessible via button)

•••

See also :

Advertisements

CLIMATE “Deniers” Were Right – Island Nation Growing, Not ‘Sinking’ With Sea Level Rise!

“WE live in constant fear of the adverse impacts of climate change. For a coral atoll nation, sea level rise and more severe weather events loom as a growing threat to our entire population. The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us.
– Saufatu Sopoanga, fmr Prime Minister of Tuvalu, at the 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly New York, 24th September 2003

tuvalu-1-640x480.png

THE Pacific island nation of Tuvalu has long been cited as proof that rising seas caused by man-made climate change are going to drown Pacific and Indian island atolls.

THE climate-obsessed fake news media has gleefully pawned the emotional link between climate change and ‘sinking’ tropical islands for eons … “The tiny pacific island nation of Tuvalu looks set to become a victim of global warming, with the entire country predicted to be washed away in 50 years.” (BBC 2002)

TUVALU’s plight even formed part of the basis for arguably the most hysterical fake news claim in the history of climate alarmism: the UN’s prediction that by the end of 2010, climate change would have created “50 million environmental refugees”!

CLIMATISM, along with the climate sceptic “denier” community have been citing real science, data and observations that have consistently contradicted the fashionable claims of “sinking islands” for years, only to be given the standard respect from the lame-stream activist media…crickets.

WHAT has now become even more apparent is that the purported plight of Pacific and Indian Ocean Island nations like Kiribati, Tuvalu, Seychelles and the Maldives serve merely as emotional arguments to promote the global climate agenda, whilst cash-strapped and over-populated island nations use the associated climate guilt as a vehicle to pursue compensation to be paid by Western nations. Economic outcomes in line with the United Nation’s wealth redistribution agenda.

DELLERS with a great summary of the latest “scientific” study out of Nature journal that has sent another alarmist claim to the propaganda graveyard…

Delingpole: ‘Sinking’ Pacific Island Actually Getting Bigger Shock

James Delingpole // Brietbart

Tuvalu – the Pacific island group often cited by climate alarmists as the nation most immediately at risk from rising sea levels caused by ‘global warming’ – is not sinking after all.

In fact it’s getting bigger, scientists now admit.

A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

 Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose.

“We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing,” he said.

“The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.”

If only they’d done their study a bit earlier they could have saved a lot of alarmists a lot of worry.

As recently as last year, anxious wonks produced a paper for the World Bank arguing that the situation in Tuvalu (pop. 11,000) and nearby Kiribati (pop.107,000) was so dire that Australia and New Zealand should open their doors to the fleeing refugees.

According to the paper:

“The worsening impacts of climate change have provided a new moral imperative for providing open access.”

In 2007, Grist went so far as to cite Tuvalu of one of climate change’s most “tragic” victims.

Climate Change in Tuvalu’ even has its own Wikipedia page. It records possibly Tuvalu’s greatest moment of glory on the international stage when it seized the opportunity at the 2009 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to grandstand about its terrible plight.

In December 2009 the islands stalled talks at United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, fearing some other developing countries were not committing fully to binding deals on a reduction in carbon emission, their chief negotiator stated “Tuvalu is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change, and our future rests on the outcome of this meeting.”[57] When the conference failed to reach a binding, meaningful agreement, Tuvalu’s representative Ian Fry said, “It looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future… Our future is not for sale. I regret to inform you that Tuvalu cannot accept this document.”[58]

Fry’s speech to the conference was a highly impassioned plea for countries around the world to address the issues of man-made global warming resulting in climate change. The five-minute speech addressed the dangers of rising sea levels to Tuvalu and the world. In his speech Fry claimed man-made global warming to be currently “the greatest threat to humanity”, and ended with an emotional “the fate of my country rests in your hands”.[59]

Tuvalu’s plight also formed part of the basis for arguably the most hysterical fake news claim in the history of climate alarmism: the UN’s prediction that by the end of 2010, climate change would have created “50 million environmental refugees”.

The UN has since removed the claim from most of its websites. Happily, it can still be glimpsed in the Guardian archives:

Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.

“There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change,” Dr Bogardi said. “This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations.”

In reality, the total number of environmental refugees fleeing climate change so far around the world is close to zero.

But that hasn’t stopped a few chancers from trying it on

Seventeen people from the Pacific – including 11 from Tuvalu and five from Kiribati – have already made refugee claims in New Zealand, citing climate change as part of their basis of claim. None have been successful (four have yet to be determined and 13 have been rejected) because the refugees convention does not recognise climate change as grounds for protection.

To climate skeptics, the fact that Tuvalu is not drowning will come as no surprise whatsoever.

Their favorite sea levels expert – Nils-Axel Mörner – has written numerous papers on the subject.

In 2012, he wrote:

In Tuvalu, the President continues to claim that they are in the process of being flooded. Yet, the tide-gauge data provide clear indication of a stability over the last 30 years.

Delingpole: ‘Sinking’ Pacific Island Actually Getting Bigger Shock | Brietbart

•••

‘Sinking Island’ Climate Change Propaganda related :

Related :

 


James Cook University @jcu censures a climate skeptic – help him fight back

MASSIVE response from defenders of free speech already through the ‘Gofundme’ page.

PLEASE try to donate even as little as $5 (a takeaway coffee).

FUNDING Professor Peter Ridd’s legal fund helps protect freedom of speech and sends a very important message to supposedly “free-thinking” institutions that suppression of thought, ideas and opinion MUST NOT and cannot be stifled because these ideas disagree with the preferred wisdom of the day or a chosen ideology. This is totalitarianism that directly undermines freedom and democracy.

DONATE today to help Prof Ridd fight @JCU and stick it to the tyrannical climate industrial complex.

https://www.gofundme.com/peter-ridd-legal-action-fund

Watts Up With That?

UPDATE: I made this a “top post” that will remain at the top of WUWT until we reach the goal. New content will appear below.

Last week we covered this ugly saga of how a colleague of the late Dr. Bob Carter has been singled out for criticism and ruin by his university: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/29/the-power-of-grant-money-on-display-at-james-cook-university/

Now we have this announcement from Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, reposted below.

I ask three things of our readers.

  1. Retweet and repost this story wherever you can, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc.
  2. To show support, buy a copy of the book in which he says the Great Barrier Reef alarmism is just that.
  3. If possible, donate to his campaign to fight back against the university- link below.

Peter Ridd Asks for your Help – Now

Peter Ridd and Jennifer Marohasy speaking about the need for quality assurance in science last November in Sydney.

PROFESSOR Peter Ridd is a…

View original post 799 more words


WHAT I Learned About Climate Change: The Science Is Not Settled

ramclr-050814-settled-ibd-color-final-cms.gif

EXCELLENT article written by a ‘Vegan Democrat’ and former CAGW believer, highlighting the reasons why many remain sceptical of the “settled science” of climate change…

*

By David Siegel Entrepreneur, investor, blockchain expert, start-up coach, CEO of the Pillar project and 20|30.io

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

1*fo9wFKN5dhW6645fMr5VlQ.jpg

  1. Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves. The increase in storms is simply a result of improved measurement methods. There has been no real increase.
  2. Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth iswarming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.
  3. There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
  4. New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
  5. CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.
  6. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
  7. Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.
  8. The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.
  9. No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.
  10. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking — or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey…

Read all of it here: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled | Medium

Highly recommended ~ 38 minute read with an abundance of supporting data, evidence and peer-reviewed “science”….

This nine-thousand-word essay represents over 400 hours of research boiled down into a half-hour reading experience, with links to 250+ carefully chosen documents and videos. I’m building the argument from the bottom up, so take your time and see if it makes sense. Along the way, I’ll list five “smoking guns” that I think make the argument for decarbonization unsupportable. Before we dive in, I want to talk about …

David Siegel | Medium

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled | Medium

H/T  🇦🇺 Canberroo  🇦🇺

•••

Related :

 


WORDS Of Wisdom To A Disciple Of The Church Of Climatology

TWITTER has become a hotbed of debate between staunch believers of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) and those sceptical of the supposed adverse impacts of mankind’s energy emissions on planet Earth.

THERE is little grey area or middle-ground in often heated debates, with the CAGW camp blaming the burning of fossil fuels, namely coal, not only for a >1 degree celsius warming of the atmosphere since 1850, but on literally anything and everything that moves, shifts, spins or tilts upon contact with colourless, odourless, tasteless, non-reactive, trace gas and plant food carbon dioxide!

HERE’S s a list of everything caused by global warming climate change as of 2012:

LIST OF THINGS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING – CO2 & WHAT IT DOES LIST !!!! LOL !!! A complete list of things caused by global warming

ANY good scientist is a sceptic; if he or she is not, then he or she should not be a scientist. But yet the language of the global warming alarmist, is to accuse anyone who does not believe in man-made climate change as a “denier”, a heretic, a blasphemer. This is the language of religion, not science.

SCEPTICS do not ‘deny’ the existence “climate change” or “global warming”. The earth’s average temperature has been increasing and decreasing since the beginning of time. A climate sceptic is basically ‘sceptical’ of how much of the recent warming can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels versus natural variation. And, in fact, any slight warming might actually be beneficial. After all, cold weather is twenty times more deadly than hot weather, according to a study published in the British journal The Lancet.

MOREOVER, sceptics acknowledge the remarkable benefits of the essential gas-of-life, carbon dioxide, that has become so politically demonised with a religious zeal rivalling the Spanish Inquisition.

GREENPEACE co-founder and prominent climate sceptic Patrick Moore PhD penned a must read treatise on the benefits of life-giving CO2, noting This is probably the most important paper I will ever write.

MOORE looks at the historical record of CO2 in our atmosphere and concludes that we came dangerously close to losing plant life on Earth about 18,000 years ago, when CO2 levels approached 150 ppm, below which plant life can’t sustain photosynthesis. He notes:

A 140 million year decline in CO2 to levels that came close to threatening the survival of life on Earth can hardly be described as “the balance of nature”.

NOW, with 400ppm in the atmosphere, the biosphere is once again booming as many recent studies confirm. He also points out how environmental groups and politicians are using the “crisis” of CO2 increase to drive their own draconian agendas.

CONTROL CO2 and you control energy, thus you control everyone and everything!

*

AND to the point of this post!

StormSignalSA” is a rancher and climate sceptic from the great land of South Africa. A recent tweet of his captured the attention of many for a wonderful response to a climate catastrophist who derided “Storm” for his stance on coal.

IT is a brilliant retort in defence of Mother Nature’s mighty black rock that has allowed us to improve human well-being and make the world a better place…

STORED solar energy that will continue to improve the lives of anyone exposed to it and lift millions more out of abject poverty, including the 1.3 Billion who still have no electricity, at all.

ALTERNATIVE energy sources, “unreliables“, are either too expensive, too difficult to access, or simply too inefficient to achieve any meaningful results for the most impoverished.

AMEN to that!

•••

Alternative Energy Related :

Life-Saving Fossil Fuels Related :

Plant Food CO2 Related :

CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :


Freeman Dyson On ‘Heretical’ Thoughts About Global Warmimg

“Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities.

“Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed.”

FREEMAN DYSON, one the great scientific minds of our time. Well worth reading his entire essay.

I disagree with his statement; “I am not saying that the warming does not cause problems. Obviously it does.”

I would argue slight warming is beneficial to humanity versus the cold which kills at a ratio of 20:1. Cold is also the enemy of food production too.

HE somewhat clarifies by correctly pointing out, “I am saying that the problems are grossly exaggerated.” And the vast amount of public money spent on AGW theory could be better spent on “poverty and infectious disease and public education and public health, and the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.”

Watts Up With That?

By Freeman Dyson

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.

But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.

The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we…

View original post 2,206 more words


Death of the polar bear as climate change icon validates Mitch Taylor’s skepticism

“It’s now clear that Mitch Taylor was right to be skeptical of sea ice models based on pessimistic climate change assumptions…”

EXCELLENT. Great post SC 🐻

polarbearscience

You could call it karma — the death of the polar bear icon after the shameful hubris of polar bear experts back in 2009.

That year, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group booted 20-year member Mitch Taylor out of their organization, explaining that his skeptical views on human-caused global warming were “extremely unhelpful” to their polar bear conservation agenda.

Said chairman Andrew Derocher in his email to Taylor:  “Time will tell who is correct.”

It’s now clear that Mitch Taylor was right to be skeptical of sea ice models based on pessimistic climate change assumptions; he was also right to be more optimistic than his PBSG colleagues about the ability of polar bears to adapt to changing sea ice conditions (Taylor and Dowsley 2008), since the bears have turned out to be more resilient than even he expected.

Fat mother and cubs_Southern Beaufort April 2016_USGSFat polar bears — not starving ones — dominate photos taken in…

View original post 694 more words