“What is sad about these pathetic little attempts to blame everything on global warming is that they stop us having a balanced and objective debate on the subject.”
Spot on Paul. Great post. Cheers
By Paul Homewood
The Guardian have dredged up a US meteorologist, Paul Douglas, to come up with a list of “extreme” weather events, which he then uses to claim that climate change is making worse.
Whatever happened to normal weather? Earth has always experienced epic storms, debilitating drought, and biblical floods. But lately it seems the treadmill of disruptive weather has been set to fast-forward. God’s grandiose Symphony of the Seasons, the natural ebb and flow of the atmosphere, is playing out of tune, sounding more like a talent-free second grade orchestra, with shrill horns, violins screeching off-key, cymbal crashes coming in at the wrong time. Something has changed.
Let’s start by looking at some of his claims:
View original post 1,118 more words
What matters is seeming green, not actually doing it.
By Paul Homewood
Leo DiCaprio picked up an environmental award in NYC this week — but hypocritically expanded his carbon footprint by 8,000 miles when he obtained the honor, by taking a private jet from Cannes, then flying straight back to France on another jet for a model-packed fund-raiser a night later.
DiCaprio was at the Cannes Film Festival this week, and was spotted there partying at club Gotha on Monday with model Georgia Fowler, then jetted back to New York for the Riverkeeper Fishermen’s Ball at Chelsea Piers on Wednesday, where he was honored by the clean-water advocacy group and Robert De Niro.
Just 24 hours later, DiCaprio reappeared back in France for amfAR’s glitzy Cinema Against AIDS gala, where he gave a speech.
Climate Craziness of the Week: Aussie Artists bag $10,000 Public Grant to Attack Christmas Climate WastePosted: December 20, 2015
The Green-Left despises the freedom that nurtures them. They have little notion of the hardships in store for them if they succeed in strangling it.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A group of Sydney artists have collected $10,000 of public money, to perform a single showing of a play which featured a sex clown attacking the negative impact of Christmas on the global climate.
According to The Daily Telegraph;
SYDNEY Lord Mayor Clover Moore has slugged already hard-up ratepayers a whopping $10,000 to fund a controversial left-wing review that attacked Christmas as being bad for the environment.
The show, called Climate Change Variety Hour, was performed in front of tiny audience of just 70 people at Sydney University on Saturday night.
The poor turnout means Ms Moore spent about $142 of ratepayers’ cash per audience member.
One of the acts featured a bizarre performance by a near-naked “sex clown”.
Read more (paywalled): The Daily Telegraph
View original post 75 more words
Dr. Tim Ball must read via WUWT :
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
“There’s nothing we can do to stop it (climate change). Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”
Update: A guest post response, along with a comment from me has been posted, please see A big (goose) step backwards
Guest Opinion: Dr.Tim Ball
Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? Some skeptics seem to believe it is just poor quality scientists, who don’t understand physics, but that doesn’t explain the amount, and obviously deliberate nature, of what has been presented to the public. What motive would you give, when asked?
The first step in understanding, is knowledge about how easily large-scale deceptions are achieved. Here is an explanation from one of the best proponents in history.
View original post 1,859 more words
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Award winning author and Telegraph reporter Christopher Booker sums up the great global warming hoax, and how we have been so ingeniously suckered in by that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which..will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group.
via The Telegraph :
Climate scaremongers are still twisting the evidence over global warming
4:16PM BST 05 Apr 2014
When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. They will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.
They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt. But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group. It had been set up in the 1980s by a small band of politically persuasive scientists who had become fanatically committed to the belief that, because carbon dioxide levels were rising, global temperatures must inevitably follow; an assumption that the evidence would increasingly show was mistaken.
Five times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports – another emerged last week – and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster – hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief “Summary for Policymakers”, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.
Each time it would emerge just how shamelessly these Summaries had distorted the actual evidence, picking out the scary bits, which themselves often turned out not to have been based on proper science at all. The most glaring example was the IPCC’s 2007 report, which hit the headlines with those wildly alarmist predictions that the Himalayan glaciers might all be gone by 2035; that global warming could halve African crop yields by 2050; that droughts would destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest. Not until 2010 did some of us manage to show that each of these predictions, and many more, came not from genuine scientific studies but from scaremongering propaganda produced by green activists and lobby groups (shown by one exhaustive analysis to make up nearly a third of all the IPCC’s sources).
Most of the particularly alarmist predictions came from a report by the IPCC’s Working Group II. This was concerned with assessing the impact on the world of those changes to the climate predicted by the equally flawed computer models relied on by Working Group I, which was charged with assessing the science of climate change. The technical report published last week was its sequel, also from Working Group II, and we can at once see, from its much more cautious treatment of the subjects that caused such trouble last time, that they knew they couldn’t afford any repeat of that disaster.
Looking at the Summary for Policymakers, however, we see how the scaremongers are still playing their same old game. On pages 12-14, for instance, they are still trying to whip up fears about extreme weather events, killer heatwaves, vanishing tropical islands, massive crop failures and so on, although little of this is justified by the report itself, and even less by the evidence of the real world, where these things are no more happening as predicted than the temperature rises predicted by their computer models.
This latest report has aroused markedly less excitement than did its hysterical predecessor in 2007. They have cried wolf once too often. The only people still being wholly taken in, it seems – apart from the usual suspects in the media – are all those mindless politicians still babbling on about how in Paris next year they are finally going to get that great global agreement which, if only we put up enough wind farms and taxes, will somehow enable us to stop the climate changing.
They can dream on. But alas, the rest of us must still pay the price for their dreams.
See also :
- Shock news : ‘Global warming’ is rubbish says top professor | Climatism
- No global warming for 17 years 8 months | Climatism
- Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace | Climatism
- IPCC WGII report relies on exaggerated climate model results | Watts Up With That?
- Official IPCC Words : “We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme” | SREX, Pielke Jr
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | Climatism
- Establishing Propaganda Is Vital For Climate Action | Climatism
- 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | Climatism
Agenda of the United Nations and the Political Elite :
- Socialism Masquerading As Environmentalism | Climatism
- UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | Climatism
- U.N. Official Admits: We Redistribute World’s Wealth by Climate Policy | TheBlaze.com
- Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | Climatism
- Shock News : UN Wants To Ban Private Property And Create “Human Habitat Settlement Zones” | Climatism
- Sustainability is Malthusianism for the 21st Century | Climatism
- United Nations Agenda 21 : The Death Knell of Liberty | Climatism
Climatism Related :
- 15 Questions Why Climate Change Is A Complete Hoax | Climatism
- The Worst Scientific Scandal Of Our Generation | Climatism
- The Truth About the Global Warming Agenda by Former NASA Climatologist | Climatism
- Global Warming Is The Greatest And Most Successful Pseudoscientific Fraud In History | Climatism
- Climate Change Alarmism Is Big Business For Billionaire Buffett | Climatism
- Climate Ambulance Chasing | Climatism
- Former NASA Scientists Reject Global Warming Crisis | Cliamtism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- Driessen : A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude | Climatism
- Global Warming Was Never About Science. It Was Always About Power And Money | Climatism
Did they predict, by 2010, Florida would turn into New York? http://markwallheiser.photoshelter.com/image/I0000XzNY.usjXhE
IDEAS & TRENDS (CONTINUED); A DIRE LONG-RANGE FORECAST By JAMES GLEICK Published: May 12, 1985
Beginning in a decade or two, scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps, raising the level of the seas, flooding coastal areas, eroding the shores and sending salt water far into fresh-water estuaries. Storm patterns will change, drying out some areas, swamping others and generally throwing agriculture into turmoil. Federal climate experts have suggested that within a century the greenhouse effect could turn New York City into something with the climate of Daytona Beach, Fla.