The Price Of Telling The Truth In Al Gore’s World

Real Science

Dr. Bill Gray from CSU correctly predicted the hiatus 20 years ago, and was rewarded by VP Al Gore by having his long-time NOAA funding cut off.

ScreenHunter_804 Mar. 21 15.34

In 1996, CSU’s Bill Gray predicted weak cooling for the next 20-30 years.

ScreenHunter_801 Mar. 21 15.15

His forecast was spot on.

ScreenHunter_802 Mar. 21 15.17

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Hurricanes spiked shortly after Bill made his forecast.

ScreenHunter_811 Mar. 21 17.27

Bill’s reward for extreme competence and forecasting accuracy, was to be ostracized by the climate science community and have his funding cut off by Al Gore.  (Meanwhile, people like James Hansen have received huge amounts of funding and acclaim for spreading junk science and disastrously poor predictions.)

Bill Gray is a man of unwavering principle, and has self-funded his efforts to get the truth out about global warming for decades. Bill’s wife Nancy (who passed away in 2001) was mayor of Fort Collins in the early 1980’s, and was largely responsible for setting…

View original post 20 more words


Nature proves Al Gore wrong again

Watts Up With That?

Gore’s “ice free Arctic” prediction from five years ago, falsified by nature itself

The great bloviator has been pwned again, by the actions of nature itself. In Germany, five years ago this past Saturday, Al Gore claimed that the ““Entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years” .

Also, in Gore’s Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could “completely disappear” by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.

He’s been proven wrong on those two predictions, and he’s likely to be proven wrong on a third, when he moved the goalposts in 2009 in this video.

While we had a new record low in 2012 for the summer minimum, the 2013 rebound made Gore’s predictions a certain failure.

Now, on the 5 year anniversary of his…

View original post 368 more words


Al Gore’s enduring climate con

I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience
.”
– Al Gore,
Climate Change activist

Al Gore’s enduring climate conCHURCH OF CLIMATOLOGY

by John Happs

July 13, 2013


In 2006, the movie An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) was released along with Al Gore’s book on “the planetary emergency of global warming.” Both movie and book received widespread attention and acclaim. Politicians, environmentalists and elements of the media quickly embraced the global warming creed’s doomsday message to promote agendas such as taxing carbon dioxide, slowing economic growth, de-industrialisation and so-called green energy.


Whilst the media was quick to advertise the alarmism of AIT, it gave scant attention to the later events of October, 2007, when Chief Justice Michael Burton in London’s High Court identified many claims promoted in AIT as having been made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.” Expert scientific adviser Professor Bob Carter provided evidence on behalf of Stewart Dimmock, the school governor who objected to AIT’s propaganda being distributed throughout the UK schools systems.

Chief Justice Burton pointed out that the “apocalyptic vision” promoted in AIT was politically partisan, not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. Although Burton ruled that the movie could be shown in UK schools, he added that it must be accompanied by a cautionary statement about the political/ideological nature of the movie. If this did not occur, then screening the movie would contravene an Act of Parliament (section 406 of the Education Act 1996) designed to prohibit the political indoctrination of school children.

Justice Burton identified nine AIT claims which he readily identified as inaccurate. These were:

1.  Gore claimed that we can expect a sea level rise of up to 6 metres by the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland ice sheets. He implied that this would be in the near future and would displace large numbers of people from locations such as Manhattan, the Netherlands and Bangladesh.

TRUTH: Greenland ice cores show that the medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian and other periods were warmer than current temperatures in Greenland. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

2. Gore claimed that low-lying Pacific Islands are being inundated as a result of anthropogenic global warming with island populations being evacuated to New Zealand.

TRUTH: There is no evidence of sea level rise over the last 50 years and no evidence that Pacific Islands are under any threat.Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

3.  Gore claimed that anthropogenic global warming could shut down the thermohaline circulation and move Europe into a new ice age.

TRUTH: There is no evidence of any weakening of the thermohaline circulation. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

4.  Gore displayed graphs showing rising levels of carbon dioxide and increases in global temperature, with the implication that carbon dioxide levels drive global temperature.

TRUTH: Changes in global temperature precede changes in carbon dioxide levels. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

5.  Gore claimed that anthropogenic global warming is responsible for snowmelt on Africa’s Mount Kilimanjaro.

TRUTH: In fact melting of the Furtwangler Glacier at the summit of the mountain began more than 125 years ago and temperatures at the summit never rise above freezing point. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

6. Gore claimed that Africa’s lake Chad had dried up as a result of global warming.

TRUTH: In fact the lake has been dry on numerous occasions in the past (8500 BC, 5500 BC, 1000 BC and 100 BC) due to over-extraction and changing agricultural practices. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

7.  Gore claimed that Hurricane Katrina which devastated New Orleans in 2005 resulted from global warming.

TRUTH: Katrina was downgraded to category 3 when it made a direct hit on the levees, which failed as engineers predicted they would. Gore made no mention of the Category 4 Galveston hurricane that struck the Texas coast in 1900, or the Category 4 Palm Beach, Florida,  of 1928. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

8.  Gore claimed that polar bears were dying because they had to swim long distances to find ice, which was said to be disappearing due to global warming.

TRUTH: It is not unusual for Arctic sea ice to disappear over time and, despite continued hunting, polar bear numbers have grown from around 5,000 in the 1950’s to more than 25,000 today – the largest number since records began. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

9.  Gore claimed that coral reefs are being bleached because of global warming.

Strong El Nino events will lead to coral bleaching but there is no evidence to show that global warming would have long-term negative impacts on coral reefs. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

It could be argued that Chief Justice Burton was far too generous in his criticisms of AIT, since many more of Gore’s errors can be identified and just as easily refuted. These include statements such as:

  • 100 ppm of carbon dioxide leads to the difference between a nice day and having a mile of ice above your head;
  • ice melt leads to the sun heating the Arctic Ocean;
  • the Arctic is heating faster than the rest of the planet;
  • a record number of typhoons impacted Japan in 2004;
  • carbon dioxide is pollution; atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide will exceed 600 ppm by 2050;
  • in 2003, global warming caused the European heat wave and killed 35,000 people.

Gore also asserted, without evidence, that

  • global warming is producing stronger hurricanes;
  • insurance claims are increasing due to more extreme weather events;
  • flooding in Mumbai is increasing;
  • severe tornadoes are becoming more frequent;
  • the Greenland Ice Sheet is becoming unstable;
  • Himalayan glacial meltwater is declining;
  • Peruvian glaciers are disappearing;
  • Mountain glaciers are disappearing around the world;
  • The Sahara Desert is drying;
  • The West Antarctic ice sheet is becoming unstable;
  • Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up;
  • Mosquitoes are reaching higher altitudes;
  • Many tropical diseases are increasing, with West Nile virus spreading throughout the USA.

Gore and other alarmists rely on the generally low level of scientific literacy in the public and political communities to promote their unsubstantiated views. In fact, each of the above claims made by Gore can easily be checked in the scientific literature and shown to have little substance. Christopher Monckton has summarized rebuttals for each one.

In An Inconvenient Truth science is discarded and replaced by scaremongering and pseudoscience. Marlo Lewis has demonstrated howAIT is one-sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative and just bad science. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of climate science would have to agree.

So how did CSIRO climate scientists respond when, in September, 2006, Liz Minchin from The Age invited a number of our “best and brightest” to preview  AIT and “rate its scientific merit out of five.” Dr Penny Whetton, CSIRO’s Climate Change Impact and Risk leader, was fulsome in her praise for the Australian scientists who had advanced awareness of greenhouse gases, and she was just as enthusiastic about Gore’s flick.  So let’s start off with her reaction to AIT. She said:

“I was really quite moved, and given that this film was about a topic I deal with every day, this says something about how powerfully it communicates its message. Its scientific basis is very sound.”
Rating: 4.75 out of 5

Liz Minchin then asked Dr Kevin Hennessy, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Climate Impacts and Risk group who said:

“The only minor quibble I had was that Gore implies that most of the climate trends and recent extreme events are due to human activities. It’s not quite that simple … But easily the best documentary about global warming I’ve seen.”
Rating: 4.5 out of 5

The next reviewer was Dr Kathy McInnes, Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Climate Impacts and Risk group who said:

“There were bits and pieces that were glossed over … But I was surprised by how accurate the science was overall.”
Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Then came Dr Graeme Pearman, former CSIRO Director of Atmospheric Research. He said:

“By and large, I didn’t feel that the presentation overstated what we can say based on current scientific knowledge.”
Rating: 4 out of 5

When Minchin asked Dr Barrie Pittock, former CSIRO Climate Impact group leader, for his opinion and rating, he expressed entirely satisfied:

“It is technically brilliant, remarkably accurate and up to date, and should be palatable to a wide audience.
Rating: 5 out of 5 

Remarkably accurate? Sound scientific basis? Frankly, I found the above responses most embarrassing and I’m left wondering if these CSIRO scientists actually watched the same movie I did. I showed An Inconvenient Truth to some of my university students as an illustration of how climate science can be exaggerated and distorted for political/ideological purposes. Even undergraduate students can recognize alarmist nonsense.

There was no empirical evidence pointing to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) when Gore’s movie was released in 2006 and there is none today, despite the questionable process and findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Why then is the notion of CAGW still promoted by the CSIRO, and why do its scientists still assign any credibility to the IPCC?

It appears that significant CSIRO funding comes from federal, state and local government agencies, underwriting a policy of pursuing climate issues from a warmist perspective. This has helped fund unvalidated computer-model projections of more frequent droughts, global-temperature increases and sea-level rises, all conveyed with unjustified alarmism.

Atmospheric scientist Dr David Packham, a former principal research scientist with Australia’s CSIRO, made the point:

“I find that I am uncomfortable with the quality of the science being applied to the global warming question … research funding for environmental research in Australia, in my case mercury and wildfires, is almost impossible unless it is part of yet more greenhouse-data gathering. There is also an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or evidence.”

Atmospheric physicist Professor Garth Paltridge was a chief scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research:

“They (CSIRO) have been so successful with their message of greenhouse doom that, should one of them prove tomorrow that it is nonsense, the discovery would have to be suppressed for the sake of the overall reputation of science.”

Paltridge added:

“The bottom line is that virtually all climate research in Australia is funded from one source – namely, the government department which has the specific task of selling to the public the idea that something drastic and expensive has to be done.”

Former CSIRO Chief Scientist Dr Art Raiche observed:

“We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy. If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal.”

A senior CSIRO environmental economist, Dr Clive Spash, resigned after saying his criticism of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) was censored. Spash had been in a dispute over the publication of his paper which criticised carbon trading schemes.

Spash submitted his paper to the UK journal New Political Economy in 2009 but the CSIRO contacted the editors, telling them the paper was being withdrawn because it had not been approved through internal CSIRO processes. Dr Spash said that CSIRO managers maintained they had the right to ban the paper. He resigned after saying his criticism of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) had been censored.

A 2006 ABC Four Corners interview between former CSIRO scientist Dr Graeme Pearman (not an anthropogenic global warming skeptic) and reporter Janine Cohen revealed some interesting insights into CSIRO culture. Here is an extract:

Q. The Federal Government provides the majority of the funding to CSIRO; has that compromised the organisation in recent years?
A. There are times when it does.

Q. How were you pressured not to talk about climate change?
A. Well I was actually told that I couldn’t engage in the group but at that stage it was pretty late and in fact publications had already been prepared and so I was told what I could and couldn’t say publicly.

Q. And what were you told?
A. I was told that I couldn’t ah say anything that indicated that I disagreed with current government policy and I presume that meant Federal Government policy and as I say, I tried to reiterate that in fact the document that we had prepared, any public statement that I made, was a partisan statement and that it did not refer to any particular government.

Q. Did you feel compromised?
A. I was definitely compromised and it was probably only because I was in the latter stages of my career that I could handle, I could see that a young scientist placed in this position in the earlier stage of their career would probably have to roll over.

Q. Were you restricted from talking publicly about emission reductions in general?
A. Yes I was. I think it’s an organisation, it’s a CSIRO that is very afraid um that there may be consequences to their bottom line if they in fact are seen to be interfering with um government policy.

Q. Is there pressure to have only scientific results that deliver economic results?
A. Yes, lots.

Scientists from the CSIRO are involved in the production of IPCC reports as contributors and reviewers. The CSIRO is quick to offer support for the IPCC process and its findings, despite ample evidence showing how both are seriously flawed.

Endorsing and promoting integrity in science should be the goal of anyone practicing or teaching science at any level. Yet we appear to have the blatant politicising of science by vested interest groups such as the CSIRO, the IPCC, various environmental groups and, of course, individuals such as Al Gore.

A relatively small group of individuals has exerted a disproportionate amount of influence to promote alarmism about unsubstantiated catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Presumably, if the alarmism were to disappear then so might their funding.

Shame on any scientist who places self-interest above the integrity of science.

Dr John Happs has an academic background in the geosciences. He has been a science educator at several universities in Australia and overseas


HOW @AlGore Built The Global Warming Fraud

“GLOBAL COOLING gained considerable traction with the general public. But then, instead of cooling as long predicted by manmade climate change advocates, the planet started warming again. Something had to be done to rescue the climate change agenda from utter disaster. Enter Al Gore.”

ANOTHER Paul Driessen, must read, masterpiece…

PA Pundits - International

By Paul Driessen ~

Although his science is often seriously wrong, no one can deny that Al Gore has a flare for the dramatic. Speaking about climate change in an October 12 PBS interview, the former vice-president proclaimed, “We have a global emergency.” Referring to the most recent UN climate report, Gore claimed it showed that current global warming “could actually extend to an existential threat to human civilization on this planet as we know it.”

Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?

Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would…

View original post 990 more words


@AlGore Your ‘Save The Planet’ Legacy – Palm Oil – Is Making Indonesia Warmer!

THE title of James Delingpole’s epic must read, sums it up perfectly…

“Killing the Earth to Save it: How Environmentalists are Ruining the Planet, destroying the economy and stealing your jobs.”

Watts Up With That?

WUWT readers may recall Al Gore’s failed Goldman Sachs palm oil fantasy and the subsequent train wreck. Now, it gets even worse. Deforestation to make palm oil plantations is causing the very thing Al Gore rails against – warming of the climate.

From the EUROPEAN GEOSCIENCES UNION:

Deforestation linked to palm oil production is making Indonesia warmer by up to 10°C !

In the past decades, large areas of forest in Sumatra, Indonesia have been replaced by cash crops like oil palm and rubber plantations. New research, published in the European Geosciences Union journal Biogeosciences, shows that these changes in land use increase temperatures in the region. The added warming could affect plants and animals and make parts of the country more vulnerable to wildfires.

Palm oil is the most widely used vegetable oil in the world, appearing in the ingredients’ list of many consumer goods, from chocolate…

View original post 861 more words


Hey @Algore ! Explain this! Bottom drops out of US hurricanes in past decade

WAITING for Australian press gallery to cross-examine Al “Hurricane” Gore on this very ‘Inconvenient’ climate data…

(crickets)

Watts Up With That?

Inconvenient data for those who still insist climate change is making hurricanes more frequent is displayed in these two slides from Dr. Philip Klotzbach. As noted by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. The bottom dropped out of US hurricanes over the last 10 years.

CommonDreams.org quoted Al Gore back in 2005:

… the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm – thus magnifying its destructive power – makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.

Last year we had a lot of hurricanes. Last year, Japan set an all-time record for typhoons: ten, the previous record was seven. Last year the science textbooks had to be re-written. They said, “It’s impossible to have a hurricane in the south Atlantic.” We had the first…

View original post 221 more words


A reply to @HillaryClinton and @Algore on climate and weather

A MUST READ exposing, with hard-data and empirical “science”, the standard lies and deceit about “climate change” so brazenly perpetuated by the ideological and agenda-driven climate change faithful.

Astonishing and dangerous deceit.

Watts Up With That?

While attending a rally with Al Gore in Florida today, weather became climate.

Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore campaign together at the Miami Dade College on Tuesday in Miami. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore campaign together at the Miami Dade College on Tuesday in Miami. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Here is the video (h/t to WUWT commenter Alan Robertson)

Hillary Clinton later made the statement on Twitter:

Followed by Al Gore saying:

“from a tropical storm to a Category 5 hurricane in just 36 hours, that’s extremely unusual”

Maybe, as I don’t have stats on that, but Matthew only spent 6 hours as a category 5 storm, the record was the “Cuba” hurricane in 1932 with 78 hours as a Cat5.

View original post 546 more words


Gore Takes $500 Million From Oil Billionaires, Then Calls For Everyone Else To Give Up Their Big Oil Money

Real Science

Gore also expressed support for the divestment movement that has been growing in popularity on college campuses in the U.S., referring to investment in fossil fuels as a “carbon bubble.” The movement contends that investing in fossil fuels is a moral hazard but will become a financial hazard, too, when there is a global price on carbon emissions.

Al Gore Draws Parallels Between Budget Crisis And Climate Change Denial

View original post


ALL Quiet On The ‘Climate Emergency’ Front : Healthy Sea-Ice Levels At Both Poles

ALL Quiet On The Climate Emergency Front | Climatism

ALL Quiet On The Climate ‘Emergency’ Front | Climatism


“Blind trust in authority
is the greatest enemy of the truth.”
Albert Einstein

***

H/t EcologySenseUK @uk_ecology

IN case you hadn’t noticed, the COVID19 crisis has been highly successful in drowning out the mainstream media’s go-to-weapon of mass fear and panic – ClimateChange™️.

PERHAPS the timing is fortunate as recent and prominent climate data hasn’t really held up as ammunition-worthy material in support of their “climate emergency” nightly narrative, or whatever the latest GretaThunberg™️ meme of the day requires.

TWO of the favoured metrics used by CC activists and sycophant mainstream media, in order to push their memes, are conditions applicable to the Arctic and Antarctica. Namely, sea-ice levels.

UNFORTUNATELY for climate ambulance chasers, sea-ice levels for the Arctic and Antarctica are tapping and well within the long-term average respectively. Completely at odds with ‘expert’ and mainstream media predictions and U.N. climate model forecasts.

*

ANTARCTIC SEA-ICE

ACCORDING to NOAA, Antarctic sea-ice coverage in March came in “near the 1981–2010 avg & ended a 41-month period of below-avg monthly values.”

THIS rebound time (41 months) matches nicely the time from the date when a significant portion of Antarctic sea-ice was blasted away by a “perfect storm of tropical, polar conditions not due to climate change” – Malte F. Stuecker et al

*

CURRENT STATE OF ANTARCTIC SEA-ICE

NOTE the healthy rebound from 2016 to present…

Via NSIDC :

BLUE MARBLE VIEW

***

ARCTIC SEA-ICE

ACCORDING to NOAA, March 2020 #Arctic #SeaIce coverage was 11th smallest for March in the 42-year record”

Via NSIDC :

NOTE the complete lack of Arctic sea-ice decline over the past 14 years. In fact, sea-ice growth has been trending slightly up since 2006.

WHERE is the acknowledgment from NOAA that there has been *no* trend in Arctic sea-ice melt, at all, since 2006?

PERHAPS I prefer a “glass half full” approach to climate data analysis, whereas NOAA prefers a “glass half empty”, when assessing theirs…

NO doubt you, as a critical thinker, can work out why this is the case.

BLUE MARBLE VIEW

 

***

CONCLUSION

ANTARCTICA has always been a thorn in the side of ClimateChange™️. It is very much the ‘inconvenient’ pole, the naughty child, that has been gaining ice mass and cooling for decades, despite a 20 per cent increase in atmospheric CO2, and model predictions to the contrary.

THE Arctic, however, has been the veritable whipping-boy for the climate activist movement, as it has seen clear declines in sea-ice levels since the century-maximum of 1979.

BUT, hardly the declines that the mainstream media and ‘experts’ made us believe to be true, according to their dire and hyper-alarmist predictions.

HERE is a taste of what the fake news media and ‘expert’s’ told you about Arctic sea-ice having “disappeared” years ago …

  • “Arctic summers ice-free by 2013” (BBC 2007)
  • “Could all Arctic ice be gone by 2012?” (AP 2007)
  • “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?”(National Geographic 2007)
  • “Imagine yourself in a world five years from now, where there is no more ice over the Arctic” – Tim Flannery (2008)
  • “North Pole could be ice-free in 2008” – Mark Serreze (New Scientist 2008)
  • “Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” (USA Today 2009)
  • “Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within 4 years” (Guardian 2012)
  • “Say Goodbye to Arctic Summer Ice” (Live Science 2013)
  • “Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist” (The Guardian 2013)
  • “Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (Sierra Club 2013)
  • “Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’” – Peter Wadhams (The Guardian 2016)

CLIMATE DUD-PREDICTIONS : ‘Ice-Free’ Arctic Prophesies By The ‘97% Consensus’ And Compliant Mainstream Media | Climatism

HAVE they no shame? Or is their ClimateChange™️ ‘jihad’ too firmly entrenched for honest science and honest analysis of empirical data to exist, ever?

•••

SEE also :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Support The Fight Against Dangerous, Costly and Unscientific Climate Alarm

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps, heaps!

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

(NB// The PayPal account linked to “Climatism” is “Five-O-Vintage”)Donate with PayPal

Screen Shot 2020-02-12 at 5.35.38 am

•••


POLAR BEARS : The New Symbol Of Climate Change Realism And A Stable Arctic

POLAR BEARS - The New Symbol Of Climate Change Realism and A Stable Arctic | CLIMATISM

POLAR BEARS – The New Symbol Of Climate Scepticism and A Stable Arctic | CLIMATISM


“THE polar bear as an icon for climate change is dead
because the distorted predictions made by
polar bear specialists were wrong.”

“THIS is a lesson for researchers in other areas
who have failed to stop the invasion of
politics into their science.”

Dr Susan Crockford

***

Hat tip @EcologySenseUK

FOR years, the Polar Bear has been abused by climate change activists as the poster child of ClimateChange™️. They didn’t use rats or spiders to promote their misanthropic agenda. Instead, they chose the cute, cuddly, fluffy polar bear to illicit a desired emotional response.

2c30839678c3fa88005df14590e997f2

“Climate Action” Poster Child | CLIMATISM

YOU would have noticed that the polar bear is a much less common feature in science, while the fake news mainstream media has stopped using the polar bear as a propaganda tool to drive their climate agenda.

THE Arctic bear has been superseded by child soldiers and penguins …

*

*

REAL SCIENCE …

POLAR BEARS

“PUBLIC safety concerns, combined with the effects of
polar bears on other species, suggest that
in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear
may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”
Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe,
government document says – The Globe and Mail

*

WITH deadly irony, polar bear numbers have grown dramatically and to “dangerous” levels as carbon dioxide emissions have risen. A CO2 correlation, at last!

INDIGENOUS Inuit’s of Northern Canada are now facing the very real task of having to cull the population as “the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”

“Inuit believe there are now so many bears that public safety has become a major concern,”

“Public safety concerns, combined with the effects of polar bears on other species, suggest that in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”

Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe, government document says – The Globe and Mail

*

POLAR BEAR POPULATION (1981 – 2015)

screen-shot-2019-01-19-at-4.26.11-am.png

Polar Bear Population (1981 – 2015)

*

POLAR BEAR POPULATION – THE LATEST COUNT

via Susan Crockford PhD :

Susan Crockford is zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals.

UNTIL last year, Dr. Crockford ‘was’ adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, until UVic bowed to outside pressure and rescinded her adjunct professor status.

TELLING the truth on climate change and polar bears is considered heresy in the post-normal society of climate change hysteria that we currently inhabit. Just ask Peter Ridd.

About | polarbearscience

Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000)

It’s long past time for polar bear specialists to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate that will never be achieved and determine a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Since they have so far refused to do this, I have done it for them. My extrapolated estimate of 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible.

polarbear1_wikimedia_andreas-weith-photo-svalbard-sm.jpg
Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000) | polarbearscience

In 2014, the chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) emailed me to say that their global population size number ‘has never been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.’

In my new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, I contend that this situation will probably never change, so it’s time to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate and generate a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Recent surveys from several critical polar bear subpopulations have given us the information necessary to do this.

UPDATE: I have made this a sticky post for a while: new posts will appear below.

These new numbers make it possible to extrapolate from ‘known’ to ‘unknown’ subpopulations within so-called ‘sea ice ecoregions’ (defined in 2007 by polar bear scientists at the US Geological Survey, see Amstrup et al. 2007), as shown below, to update old estimates and generate new ones for never-studied areas.

usgs-polar-bear_ecoregions_icedrift.jpg

USGS – Polar Bear Ecoregions

Since the PBSG has so far refused to take this step, I took on the challenge. I contend that an estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible. See the graph below from my new book:

population-size-estimate-graph-chapter-10-e1553617271572

Global polar bear population size estimates to 2018. From Chapter 10 of The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Crockford 2019).

This new estimate for 2018 is a modest 4-6 fold increase over the 10,000 or so bears that existed in the 1960s and after 25 years, a credible increase over the estimate of 25,000 that the PBSG offered in 1993 (Wiig et al. 1995).

However, my new estimate is much larger than the improbable figure of about 26,000 (range 22,000-31,000) offered by PGSG biologists in 2015 (Regehr et al. 2016; Wiig et al. 2015). The scary question is this: what do Arctic residents do if there are actually as many as 58,000?

See my new book (Crockford 2019) for the full rationale and references used to arrive at this figure.

The bottom line: it is scientifically unacceptable for the PBSG to continue to refuse to provide an extrapolated ‘best guess’ global estimate for polar bears, given that the scientifically accurate estimate they crave is essentially unattainable. An estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible.

REFERENCES

Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G. & Douglas, D.C. 2007. Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century.US Geological Survey. Reston, VA. Pdf here

Crockford, S.J. 2019. The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.

Regehr, E.V., Laidre, K.L, Akçakaya, H.R., Amstrup, S.C., Atwood, T.C., Lunn, N.J., Obbard, M., Stern, H., Thiemann, G.W., & Wiig, Ø. 2016. Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines. Biology Letters 12: 20160556. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/12/20160556

Wiig, Ø., Born, E.W., and Garner, G.W. (eds.) 1995. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 11th working meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group, 25-27 January, 1993, Copenhagen, Denmark. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK, IUCN. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/

Wiig, Ø., Amstrup, S., Atwood, T., Laidre, K., Lunn, N., Obbard, M., et al. 2015. Ursus maritimus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T22823A14871490. Available fromhttp://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22823/0 [accessed Nov. 28, 2015]. See the supplement for population figures.

Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000) | polarbearscience

*

WATCH …

TUCKER CARLSON interviews Zoologist and Polar Bear specialist Dr. Susan Crockford on the prime time ratings-killer show Tucker Carlson Tonight, in a must watch segment that demonstrates how “overpopulation”, not extinction, is now the problem :

*

PROPAGANDA RULES

THIS is what your children are being taught and ordered to say about Polar Bears and global warming climate change. Blatant lies and falsehoods …

***

THE ARCTIC

DIRE predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic remain a popular and effective fear-mongering tool in the bag of ClimateChange™️.

SOME of the Arctic sea-ice predictions made by alarmists ‘scientists’ and the mainstream media over the years. ALL of which have failed to materialise :

  • “Arctic summers ice-free by 2013” (BBC 2007)
  • “Could all Arctic ice be gone by 2012?” (AP 2007)
  • “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?”(National Geographic 2007)
  • “Imagine yourself in a world five years from now, where there is no more ice over the Arctic” – Tim Flannery (2008)
  • “North Pole could be ice-free in 2008” – Mark Serreze (New Scientist 2008)
  • “Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” (USA Today 2009)
  • “Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within 4 years” (Guardian 2012)
  • “Say Goodbye to Arctic Summer Ice” (Live Science 2013)
  • “Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist” (The Guardian 2013)
  • “Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (Sierra Club 2013)
  • “Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’” – Peter Wadhams (The Guardian 2016)

CLIMATE DUD-PREDICTIONS : ‘Ice-Free’ Arctic Prophesies By The ‘97% Consensus’ And Compliant Mainstream Media | Climatism

*

ARCTIC SEA-ICE EXTENT

CLAIMS that Arctic sea ice is disappearing are patently false.

THERE has been no trend in Arctic sea ice extent since the start of MASIE records in 2006.

via Real Climate Science :

*

ARCTIC SEA-ICE EXTENT TO DATE

ARCTIC sea-ice extent is within the 1981-2010 median :

*

ARCTIC SEA-ICE VOLUME

ARCTIC sea ice volume has been trending upwards for the past twelve years.

*

ARCTIC TEMPS and MELT CYCLES

ARCTIC temperatures and melt cycles correlate almost perfectly with ocean circulation cycles (AMO) driven by the sun, and show zero correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels :

Reykjavik, Iceland Temperatures Vs. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

Reykjavik, Iceland Temperatures Vs. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

***

CONCLUSION

AN old Slovak proverb states, “The truth rises to the surface like oil on water.” So too, over time, has the truth been revealed as to the actual state of polar bears and the supposed “shrinking” Arctic.

THE mainstream media and climate scientists are aware of the underlying data on polar bears and the Arctic. They simply choose not to share the truth with you or any positive ‘Climate Change’ news, for that matter.

GOOD news climate stories would only spoil their “Climate Emergency” agenda that they have worked so hard to manufacture and maintain. Not to mention, would put in jeopardy a load of reputations, egos and money now at stake. The scam, it seems, is almost too big to fail.

AS for the polar bear, it is ours now! We own it as the symbol of a stable Arctic and a ClimateChange™️ agenda on life-support, becoming more hysterical by the day, under constant siege by ‘inconvenient’ scientific data and a litany of failed predictions.

•••

SEE also :

ORIGINS Of The ClimateChange™️ Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps, heaps!

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

(NB// The PayPal account linked to “Climatism” is “Five-O-Vintage”)Donate with PayPal

•••