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 of message 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!
SCEPTICS are not funded or subsidised by BIG government, unlike BIG green whose associated NGO’s and multinational green mega-corporations are funded to the tune of BILLIONS annually via subsidies, tax incentives, green loans and grants.
THE fight for messaging is massively lopsided with sceptics punching well above their weight, though, landing big blows through their message of truth, facts and reason.
TIME TO EVEN THE SCALES (a little bit each and every day!)
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
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,
Jamie Spry (Author and founder 🇦🇺 Climatism)
(PayPal or Cards accessible via button)
See also :
“PLANTS convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into energy in the form of sugars, which they can use to fuel any number of vital life processes. As more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, plants have an opportunity to produce a bounty of new energy.”
SHOCK HORROR!! Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and warmth are what eco-systems require to flourish 😱
From FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY and the “but wait, all climate change must be bad!” department.
Climate change linked to more flowery forests, FSU study shows
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — New research from a Florida State University scientist has revealed a surprising relationship between surging atmospheric carbon dioxide and flower blooms in a remote tropical forest.
FSU researchers studying the rich tropical forests of Panama’s Barro Colorado Island found that climbing rates of carbon dioxide have set the stage for a multidecade increase in overall flower production.
The findings were outlined in a paper published in the journal Global Change Biology
“It’s really remarkable,” said Assistant Professor of Geography Stephanie Pau, who led the study. “Over the past several decades, we’ve seen temperatures warming and carbon dioxide increasing, and our study found that this tropical forest has responded to that increase by producing more flowers.”
Pau’s findings suggest that tropical forests, which…
View original post 680 more words
A MUST read op/ed written by Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT and CFACT President David Rothbard.
THIS excellent piece focuses on an important part of the climate debate often overlooked – the heat absorption ability of the carbon dioxide molecule as its concentration increases in the atmosphere.
THE article received “coast to coast” attention via a media usually dismissive of sceptical arguments to the supposed “climate crisis”…
RUCKER’s forward received via email …
“Newspapers coast to coast”
Media bias against climate realism is rampant – especially on the national level. Some major publications, like the Los Angeles Times, have actually positioned themselves in opposition to free speech by imposing bans on opinions running counter to the Al Gore narrative.
Fortunately that is not the case with many local media outlets.
I’d like to call your attention, for a couple reasons, to a recent op/ed I co-wrote with CFACT President David Rothbard.
First, as we’ve discussed so often before, the contents of our article reveal that the hysterical case for global warming doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. There are good reasons, scientifically speaking, why those who are skeptical of climate alarmism have their doubts.
Secondly, and most encouragingly, our op/ed hasn’t been circular filed – as it might have been by the establishment media. In fact, it appeared in a host of local newspapers from one end of the United States to the other!
Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming
Many people are actively worried about global warming. And it frustrates them that skeptics and “deniers” refuse to acknowledge the “science” of such an urgent, manmade problem.
But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn’t so clearcut, here’s a basic climate question to ponder:
As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?
Most people will assume the answer is “increase.” After all, CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being “trapped.”
The correct answer, however, is decrease.
How do we know this? Because the U.N.’s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The IPCC explains that CO2 follows a “logarithmic dependence,” which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the IPCC recognizes that the middle of this band is already “saturated.”
People who fret about manmade warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 actually loses “heat-trapping” ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned IPCC admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear manmade warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.
This begs the question … are they right? The answer is “No.”
Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere — and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. In order to make their case, the IPCC theorizes that any additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this “feedback loop” that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.
It’s an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the IPCC admits that “an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”
One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.
The IPCC rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar “irradiance” (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun’s output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind — which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.
As the IPCC observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia “has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more.” It’s very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of manmade climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue.
CO2 Related :
- CO2 In The Atmosphere Is Not Pollution | Climatism
- THE Carbon Dioxide Word Game | Climatism
- WORDS Of Wisdom To A Disciple Of The Church Of Climatology | Climatism
- GLOBAL Cooling A Reality But Technology And CO2 Will Help Earth Survive | Climatism
CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :
- CSIRO Censoring Their Own Climate Research | Climatism
- The global dance of carbon dioxide and spreading green flora « JoNova
- Greening the Planet and how Fossil Fuels protect world’s Flora & Fauna | Dr. Matt Ridley | Climatism
- Good News! We Have Lots More Forest Than We Thought | Climatism
AN IMPORTANT and timely read Via The Times – MATT RIDLEY (Climatism bolds)
RECORD cold in America has brought temperatures as low as minus 44C in North Dakota, frozen sharks in Massachusetts and iguanas falling from trees in Florida. Al Gore blames global warming, citing one scientist to the effect that this is “exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis”. Others beg to differ: Kevin Trenberth, of America’s National Centre for Atmospheric Research, insists that “winter storms are a manifestation of winter, not climate change”.
Forty-five years ago a run of cold winters caused a “global cooling” scare. “A global deterioration of the climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilised mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon,” read a letter to President Nixon in 1972 from two scientists reporting the views of 42 “top” colleagues. “The cooling has natural causes and falls within the rank of the processes which caused the last ice age.” The administration replied that it was “seized of the matter”.
In the years that followed, newspapers, magazines and television documentaries spoke of the coming ice age. The CIA reported a “growing consensus among leading climatologists that the world is undergoing a cooling trend”.
This alarm about global cooling is largely been forgotten, but it has not entirely gone away. Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University has suggested that a quiescent sun presages another Little Ice Age like that of 1300-1850. I’m not persuaded. Yet the argument that the world is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age after 10,000 years of balmy warmth is in essence true. Most interglacial periods, or times without large ice sheets, last about that long, and ice cores from Greenland show that each of the past three millennia was cooler than the one before.
However, those ice cores, and others from Antarctica, can now put our minds to rest. They reveal that interglacials start abruptly with sudden and rapid warming but end gradually with many thousands of years of slow and erratic cooling. They have also begun to clarify the cause. It is a story that reminds us how vulnerable our civilisation is. If we aspire to keep the show on the road for another 10,000 years, we will have to understand ice ages.
The oldest explanation for the coming and going of ice was based on carbon dioxide. In 1895 the Swede Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this were true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.
A Serbian named Milutin Milankovich, writing in 1941, argued that ice ages and interglacials were instead caused by changes in the orbit of the Earth around the sun. These changes, known as eccentricity, obliquity and precession, sometimes combined to increase the relative warmth of northern hemisphere summers, melting ice caps in North America and Eurasia and spreading warmth worldwide.
IN 1976 Nicholas Shackleton, a Cambridge physicist, and his colleagues published evidence from deep-sea cores of cycles in the warming and cooling of the Earth over the past half million years which fitted Milankovich’s orbital wobbles. Precession, which decides whether the Earth is closer to the sun in July or in January, is on a 23,000-year cycle; obliquity, which decides how tilted the axis of the Earth is and therefore how warm the summer is, is on a 41,000-year cycle; and eccentricity, which decides how rounded or elongated the Earth’s orbit is and therefore how close to the sun the planet gets, is on a 100,000-year cycle. When these combine to make a “great summer” in the north, the ice caps shrink.
Game, set and match to Milankovich? Not quite. The Antarctic ice cores, going back 800,000 years, then revealed that there were some great summers when the Milankovich wobbles should have produced an interglacial warming, but did not. To explain these “missing interglacials”, a recent paper in Geoscience Frontiers by Ralph Ellis and Michael Palmer argues we need carbon dioxide back on the stage, not as a greenhouse gas but as plant food.
The argument goes like this. Colder oceans evaporate less moisture and rainfall decreases. At the depth of the last ice age, Africa suffered long mega-droughts; only small pockets of rainforest remained. Crucially, the longer an ice age lasts, the more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the cold oceans. When the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drops below 200 parts per million (0.02 per cent), plants struggle to grow at all, especially at high altitudes. Deserts expand. Dust storms grow more frequent and larger. In the Antarctic ice cores, dust increased markedly whenever carbon dioxide levels went below 200 ppm. The dust would have begun to accumulate on the ice caps, especially those of Eurasia and North America, which were close to deserts. Next time a Milankovich great summer came along, and the ice caps began to melt, the ice would have grown dirtier and dirtier, years of deposited dust coming together as the ice shrank. The darker ice would have absorbed more heat from the sun and a runaway process of collapsing ice caps would have begun.
All of human civilisation happened in an interglacial period, with a relatively stable climate, plentiful rainfall and high enough levels of carbon dioxide to allow the vigorous growth of plants. Agriculture was probably impossible before then, and without its hugely expanded energy supply, none of the subsequent flowering of human culture would have happened.
That interglacial will end. Today the northern summer sunshine is again slightly weaker than the southern. In a few tens of thousands of years, our descendants will probably be struggling with volatile weather, dust storms and air that cannot support many crops. But that is a very long way off, and by then technology should be more advanced, unless we prevent it developing. The key will be energy. With plentiful and cheap energy our successors could thrive even in a future ice age, growing crops, watering deserts, maintaining rainforests and even melting ice caps.
More Must Read Matt Ridley :
- WIND TURBINES Are Neither Clean Nor Green And They Provide Zero Global Energy | Climatism
- A Must Read : The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science | Climatism
- A must watch – Greening the Planet – Dr. Matt Ridley | Climatism
- THE TIMES : The sceptics are right. Don’t scapegoat them | Climatism
- Must Read : Matt Ridley – Why Nobody Ever Calls The Weather Normal
- Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change | Climatism
- A warming planet is helping humans | Climatism
“The pity is that Alarmist media cannot seem to educate the public, and doesn’t do a little reading-up on the subject, but rather seems determined to horrify. Horror is not helpful, unless your intent is to herd people with a sort of bullying. To paraphrase FDR, in truth we have nothing to be horrified about but horror itself.”
A truly glorious read on the wonders of the Arctic wilderness and its wildlife, to the not so wondrous world of the politicisation of climate ‘science’…
One thing that has fascinated me, in my study of sea-ice, is how swiftly vast areas can freeze over. This is apparent from many sources.
The captains of whaling ships, tempted north by whale’s habit of hunting in the rich ecosystem that exists at the very edge of the ice, sometimes appear like cowards for turning tail and fleeing the refreeze far before the whales chose to depart. (You might think whales would know best when to depart, for they suffocate when trapped under ice). However this choice does not seem so foolish once you understand larger whales could break up through a foot of ice, (with smaller beluga whales following and using the air-holes big whales created), while, without a strong following wind, a sailing craft could be bogged down and halted by a skim of ice only an inch thick. And despite all precautions, the ice formed so…
View original post 1,799 more words
“Blasphemy is what an old dogma screams at a new truth.” — Robert G. Ingersoll
Characterizing a professional, respected scientist as an unqualified vengeful opinion writer is the same kind of power attack as rape. It’s meant to humiliate and intimidate.
I said this as part of a response to a comment at WUWT late yesterday (copied in full below). The picture above shows Steven Amstrup holding polar bear cubs against their will — not for any scientific purpose, just for a photo that shows he can.
Also yesterday, Tom Fuller at ClimateScepticism wrote a hard-hitting critique of the Bioscience article that similarly noted the sexist nature of this harassment and the fact that this is the way Michael Mann and his colleagues behave toward female scientists who cross them or their supporters. He concludes:
“The purpose of these papers is not to communicate.
It is to excommunicate.”
As I said when this paper first came out, this response is all about my reasoned and…
View original post 697 more words
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell
A STARK lesson in climate facts and data Vs ABC groupthink eco-ideology via “denier” numero uno – Andrew Bolt of The Herald Sun.
MAKE your own mind up. Who really are the real “science deniers”, the sceptics or the “save the planet” virtue-signalling, eco-zealots? …
PAUL BONGIORNO, THE REAL DENIER
The real “deniers” are generally not the global warming sceptics but the extremists who denounce them. Take ABC commentator Paul Bongiorno, who today denied the science in attacking Tony Abbott’s speech in London overnight.
In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.
ABC presenter Fran Kelly on ABC Radio Breakfast quoted this at Paul Bongiorno this morning. His response:
This just flies in the face of contemporary science.
Actually, it’s warmist Paul himself who flies in the face of science.
Cold weather is 20 times as deadly as hot weather... The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.
A new study published in The Lancet shows 6.5% of deaths in this country are attributed to cold weather, compared with 0.5% from hot weather. Most deaths will be from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, as it’s the heart and lungs that struggle when we are outside our comfort zone.
And global warming policies of the kind Bongiorno supports will make the dying worse by making electricity too expensive for the poor:
The situation has become so dire that 77 per cent of low-income NSW households are going without heating in a bid to reduce their onerous power bills, new research from the NSW Council of Social Service (NCOSS) shows. And one in three low-income earners have been forced to stop using hot water for bathing to pay for energy bills.
Then there’s the increased crops we’re getting as the world (mildly) warms.
Australia’s winter grain harvest is now officially the largest for every single mainland state.
The latest indications for the current season point to record cereal production in 2017 at the world level with total inventories hitting a new peak.
It’s the invincible ignorance of Bongiorno that staggers me. Confronted with facts that challenge his ideology he instinctively denies them, and, indeed, went on to insult Abbott as someone he falsely claimed had said he couldn’t be believed unless he’d written it down (which, incidentally, Abbott had actually done in this case).
And what of Fran Kelly? She fancies herself as someone who is pretty well informed on global warming, which she, too, spruiks.
But to Bongiorno’s false claims she offered not a word of demurral.
Astonishingly, the Fairfax reporter is also astonished by Abbott’s claim, finding it so remarkable that she leads her report with it:
Tony Abbott says voters should beware the science of climate change but argues that higher temperatures “might even be beneficial” because “far more people die in cold snaps”.
Lancet reports that more people die in the cold than the heat and Fairfax doesn’t blink. But when Abbott says it Fairfax faints.
Climatism Related Hot Links :
- CLIMATE Alarmism Has Cost Far More Than Any Global Warming Ever Could | Climatism
- 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism
- FAKE NEWS ALERT : ABC Beating Up Perth Sea-Level-Rise Fails To Mention The Land Is Sinking | Climatism
- THE Great Barrier Reef Lie – Climate Scientists’ Scaremongering Trashed By Mother Nature | Climatism
- UNMASKING The Great Arctic Sea-Ice “Death Spiral” Scam | Climatism