Climatic Irony Found in An Old National Geographic Magazine

“THAT earth’s climate changes, and even now maybe changing quite rapidly, is widely recognized. The questions facing worried experts: are we warming the atmosphere of our planet irreversibly with our industry, automobiles, and land clearing practices? What sort of weather will our children and our grandchildren know? On the answers may rest the fate of nations and millions of people.”

SOUND like the all too familiar talking points of a circa 2017 warming alarmist?

NOT quite! The (edited) paragraph was from 1976, printed in NatGeo during the perceived man-made “global cooling” apocalypse.

SAME fears, different scare!

Read the full post by WUWT guest blogger Doug Ferguson…

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Doug Ferguson

Having moved from Minnesota to Alaska this past summer, we have been making the rounds of thrift shops, stores and other venues to restock our home with things we left behind to reduce our moving costs.

Before heading out to one of our recent forays, I caught up on the news on the well known climate blog, “Watts Up With That” and read the 10/39/17 article, How Google and MSM Use “Fact Checkers” to Flood Us with Fake Claims by Leo Goldstein. You should read it. The link is here

The main example was Time magazine, but it made me think of another publication that has more subtly switched gears over the past 40 years or so to maintain the sense of impending climate doom. This is the venerable National Geographic, which currently is in full global warming alarm mode.

Therefore it was with great…

View original post 1,109 more words

Advertisements

Scientists And Media Continue To Spread Misinformation About Polar Bears & Walrus

THE climate-obsessed mainstream media, continuing to brainwash their audience into belief by deception and scientific fraud.

polarbearscience

“Lies” might be a better word to characterize the misinformation that scientists and the media have been busy spreading to the public over the last few weeks. The information is either known to be false (by scientists whose job it is to relay facts honestly) or is easily shown to be false (by journalists whose job it is to fact-check their stories).

Churchill polar bear and walrus 2017

Polar bear misinformation

Earlier this month, biologist Nick Lunn was interviewed by the CBC and for the news program The National. He stated outright, without qualification, that Western Hudson Bay polar bear numbers have dropped from about 1200 (in 1987) to about 800 now (a 33% decline).

However, it is not scientifically appropriate to compare these figures because they were based on different types of surveys conducted over different portions of the region (they are also statistically insignificant). Lunn should know better because the published reports (Dyck et…

View original post 1,130 more words


Alan Carlin:  Climate Alarmism Is a Typical Scientific Scam but with Much More Serious Consequences

“It is time to bring climate alarmism-inspired reductions of CO2 to an end and use the vast resources devoted to it to solve the many unsolved problems that would actually benefit from their use rather than on a non-problem that government can do very little if anything about.”

TIME to divert the taxpayer trillions, wasted on fake fixes to a fake catastrophe, to solving *real* pollution problems.

TIME to stop demonising colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food “Carbon Dioxide” of which man contributes 3% to nature’s 97%.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Credit: planetsave.com
Alan Carlin argues here that ‘the main justifications offered for climate alarmism are expensive general circulation models, which cost taxpayers many billions of dollars but prove nothing except that garbage in results in garbage out.’ Meanwhile even more fortunes in public money are being spent chasing unattainable ‘climate’ goals.

Climate alarmism is an all too typical scientific scam replete with failure to follow the scientific method and many of the common illogical fallacies going back to Aristotle.

The difference is that its proponents have had almost infinite resources to sell their scam, especially taking into account the “free” media support supplied by the mainstream media.

But scam it nevertheless is since the scammers are benefitting from their efforts.

View original post 98 more words


GLOBAL WARMING Alarmists – The Real “Science” Deniers

Paul Bongiorno.jpg

Image: Paul Bongiorno, RN ABC Breakfast Political Commentator (ABC RN/Elliot Dunn)

“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.

Tony Abbott:

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.

Same story in Australia:

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.

February:

Australia’s winter grain harvest is now officially the largest for every single mainland state.

Last week:

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.

World crops.jpeg

World cereal crops

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.

UPDATE

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.

PAUL BONGIORNO, THE REAL DENIER | Herald Sun

•••

Climatism Related Hot Links :


UNMASKING The Great Arctic Sea-Ice “Death Spiral” Scam

afp_g38de

More scientific evidence that polar bears are doing just fine – a 30% increase in population with some of them “as fat as pigs.”

CONTRARY to popular myth, Arctic sea ice extent is not in a “death spiral“. In fact, there has been no real shrinking of Arctic sea ice in 10 years, which also corresponds to the fact that there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for nearly 20 years.

ALL this despite record “CO2” emissions over the same period, and record hot air bloviated by the trillion dollar climate crisis industry.

THE following is a remarkable post by Tony Heller from his Deplorable Climate Science Blog showing just how corrupt and politicised the “science” of the Arctic has become via the fake-news media and – sadly – from many our most respected scientific institutions including, yes, NASA…


More Spectacular Arctic Fraud At The New York Times

 

The New York Times just published another fake climate article – this time about the Arctic.  They start the article with the claim that satellites were first used to study the Arctic in 1979.

 

Given that we traveled to the moon in 1969, it is absurd to suggest that satellites weren’t used to study the Arctic before 1979. Here is a 1964 satellite image of the Arctic which was published in National Geographic in 1965.

 

Here is a detailed National Geographic Arctic sea ice map from 1971.

 

Here is a detailed satellite image of Antarctica from 1976, also published in National Geographic.

 

The 1990 IPCC report included NOAA Arctic satellite data back to 1973, when it was much lower than 1979.

 

In a spectacular display of scientific malpractice,  NOAA now hides all of the pre-1979 peak Arctic sea ice data. By starting right at the peak, they produce a fake linear downwards trend.

 

This 1985 DOE climate change report had Arctic data back to 1925, which showed little ice from the 1930s to the 1950s.

So why did the New York Times cherry pick 1979 as their start date? Because it came at the end of three of the coldest US winters on record , and Arctic sea ice was at a century peak. The graph below combines the 1985 DOE graph with the 1990 IPCC graph.

If the New York Times authors had bothered to research their own paper, they could have found this out for themselves. It was very warm in the Arctic in 1958

 

Three years later, the New York Times reported a unanimous consensus that earth was cooling.

 

By 1970, the Arctic climate was becoming more frigid, the ice was getting “ominously thicker” – and scientists were worried about a new ice age.

 

The polar ice cap had expanded 12% by 1975, after shrinking 12% before 1958. Icelandic ports were blocked with ice for the first time in the 20th century.

By hiding all the data before the 1979 peak, the New York Times is defrauding its readers. Arctic climate is cyclical – not linear.

Ninety-five years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.

 

 

 

 

Eighty years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.

 

Sixty five years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.

 

Then the New York Times  went on to obscure their graph (below) to hide the fact that there has been a large increase in minimum extent since 2012. Note the “End of summer minimum” label is at the 2012 minimum – not the 2017 minimum.

 

The Arctic minimum extent has been increasing for a decade. The New York Times doesn’t want their readers to know this.

 

The New York Times is defrauding their readers at many levels. It is the fake news we have learned to expect from them.

More Spectacular Arctic Fraud At The New York Times | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

•••

See also :

The Other (Inconvenient) Pole :

Global Warming “Pause” Related :

97% Of Climate Scientists Got it Wrong About Effects Of Global Warming, related :


Tangier Island

CLASSIC example of how sea-level rise is deceitfully abused as evidence of anthropogenic climate change (AGW) when sea-level rise should be treated on a region to region basis to account for, in this case, land subsidence.

The other no-brainer to identify wilful deception is the fact that there has been no sea-level rise acceleration, despite accelerating CO2 emissions…

You may notice this trend, or lack there of, in many cases of SLR fear-mongering.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

CBS have a report on rising sea levels at Tangier Island, in Chesapeake Bay here

The video is worth watching. The CBS reporter makes the usual attempts to blame it on “climate change”, but the locals know too much to fall for that old pony.
They know that sea levels have been rising, and land eroding, since 1850.

And they are right. Tide gauges in the area, such Sewell Point, Norfolk, confirm that sea levels have been steadily rising for a long time, long before recent rises in emissions of CO2.


https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8638610

The rate of rise is 4.6mm/yr, nearly three times the global rate. But there is a very good reason for this – the land is sinking.
Chesapeake Bay is the site of an ancient impact crater, caused by a comet or meteor. As a result the land has been subsiding ever since. Estimates by proper…

View original post 78 more words


Trump’s EPA pick is causing green heads to explode

Good to see Trump following through with his election promises “No more money for politicized science!”

And as for radical eco-activist groups like “The Sierra Club”, whose income stream relies on peddling eco-hysteria and climate alarm (supported by the activist EPA), they took fossil fuel money. Lots of it…

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/12/27/the-sierra-clubs-broken-moral-compass/

Watts Up With That?

From E&E Legal:

scott-pruitt_2014

“We are delighted with President-elect Trump’s selection of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Mr. Pruitt has led the charge in recent years to confront head on the enormous federal regulatory overreach proposed by the EPA as epitomized by the Clean Power Plan and Waters of the U.S. rule.  As a litigator, he also understands how environmental fringe groups like the Sierra Club and the NRDC – who are bankrolled by renewable energy tycoons like Tom Steyer and George Soros – use the state and federal court systems to essentially create new laws through such schemes as ‘sue & settle.’

It is also reassuring that President-Elect Trump has chosen someone from the state ranks, particularly a state so important to energy production, since it’s the states and their citizens who are suffering the most by this Administration’s out-of-control EPA.

We…

View original post 333 more words