“Polar bear science got some long overdue scrutiny by a large number of people at this meeting. Not unexpectedly, a good many folks were surprised and outraged to learn how the polar bear/sea ice situation has actually unfolded compared to the predicted outcome and on-going media hype.”
The same can be said for all state-sponsored climate “science” with its litany of alarmist, false, fake and dud-predictions.
Congrats Susan Crockford and thanks for having the guts to tell the scientific truth about Polar Bears while risking personal and professional attacks, smears and slander from the “Climate Industrial Complex.”
I’ve just returned from a few days in Washington DC, where I presented the details on the global warming icon that refused to die as modeled (see my slide #12 below) to an enthusiastic and influential audience at The Heartland Institute‘s 12th International Climate Change Conference (ICCC-12).
Polar bear science got some long overdue scrutiny by a large number of people at this meeting. Not unexpectedly, a good many folks were surprised and outraged to learn how the polar bear/sea ice situation has actually unfolded compared to the predicted outcome and on-going media hype.
I spent more time than I expected giving interviews (several that were video taped) – with the first request coming 2 minutes after I walked into my hotel room after check-in!
I also spent as much time as I’d hoped signing copies of my polar bear science books (see sidebar) and talking…
View original post 137 more words
With the UN’s annual climate gabfest, held this time in exotic Marrakech, now done and dusted, it is worth drilling down on the exact “science” that these luxurious and opulent meetings are supposedly based upon…
Assessing the current state of the climate should be a necessary precursor to all ‘climate-crisis’ meetings in order to justify not only the hundreds of thousands of tons of
CO2 carbon emissions emitted whilst jetting in the thousands of climate elites from every corner of the globe. But also to account for the millions upon millions of (your) taxpayer dollars spent in order to hold each lavish event.
25,903 participants had the time of their lives…
- Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming.
- The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
- Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
- Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.
- Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
- Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
- So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.
- A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’
- 2016 Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade’
- Deaths due to extreme weather have declined dramatically.
- Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.
I would also add to the list, the stubborn and inconvenient fact that 97% of 102 UN-IPCC CMIP5 predictive climate models DO NOT accord with observed reality.
They are all running ‘too hot’.
This is problematic as these same unverifiable climate models form the basis of the literal trillions of dollars of taxpayer money that directly funds radical climate policy and the schemes and scams that go with it like misguided and “unreliable” energy solutions – wind and solar.
Decide for yourself if there is a so called “Climate Crisis” and just how are the estimated trillions of dollars, earmarked to de-carbonise the globe, supposed to change the weather or adjust the temperature of the planet, and by how much exactly? No one really knows.
If you feel CFACT’s list of peer-reviewed and scientific climate realities are “cherry-picked”, ask yourself why no UN climate ‘expert’ or anyone at a climate conference will ever dare discuss these points. Of course they won’t and can’t because each point fundamentally wrecks their climate narrative and political agenda.
Then ask yourself why Marc Morano and his CFACT delegation were forcibly censored and shut-down by UN security for presenting these pesky facts (in front of a life-size Donald Trump cutout no less! Gold).
Note to Marc and other dissenters of the preferred wisdom of climate theology: If you want an invite to a UN climate event, and wish to remain for the entire two weeks enjoying the inner-sanctum of climate groupthink, pampering and chatter, you best pack the preferred memes of the climate crisis industry and use them frequently – “the science is settled” and “97% of all scientists agree”. Both equally deceptive and thoroughly debunked climate memes aimed to stifle debate, intimidate and isolate.
“Science” is never settled, nor does science listen to or work through “consensus”.
What We Do Know About UN Climate Meetings and Radical Agenda
With such little evidence of a ‘climate crisis’, why does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?
In Brussels February, 2015 she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”
In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.
Global warming has long abandoned any connection it has with actual science. It is has become as ideology. A new religion. Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott likening it to, “socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.
Figueres also added that “Communism is the best model to fight global warming.“
Ideology over Science
In 2013, UN IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3 Dr. Ottmar Endenhoefer unleashed this stunning revelation…
Follow The Money
The shock election of Donald J. Trump as President-elect of the United States has put Green groups in a literal (money) spin…
The Marrakesh COP22 climate conference has ended – and green groups are just waking up that without US financial support, nobody has committed any money to anything.
“I’m a little worried by the lack of financial support to help poor countries adapt. This conference has been taking place in Africa, it was generally agreed that there should be more money, but in concrete terms unfortunately these decisions failed to materialise,” said Lutz Weischer, team leader on international climate policy at Germanwatch.
It is genuinely possible most of the members of groups like Greenpeace and Germanwatch really didn’t know where all the money was coming from. Sounds crazy, but think about it – all greens had to do in the past is make a lot of noise, and bundles of cash turned up. They never had any reason to question where the cash was coming from.
I suspect climate activists are only now waking to the horrible possibility that after years of partying on the US taxpayer’s dime, they really don’t have that many friends anymore.
The two week conference, catering for 25,903 participants was declared the “conference of action”. Which is why the Paris rule has been delayed to 2018!
What a waste of time and…’
CO2 carbon emissions’.
As with all climate conferences, kicking the can down the road was to be expected and who’s complaining with another guaranteed two years of champagne, foie gras and chatter at exotic locations, on the taxpayer dime…
- Shock news : The UN’s Real Agenda Is A New World Order Under Its Control | Climatism
- Socialism Masquerading As Environmentalism | Climatism
- Skeptical scientists crash UN climate summit, praise Trump for ‘bringing science back again’ | Climate Depot
- CFACT delivers “State of the Climate” report to UN COP 22 | CFACT
- Climate Models Don’t Work | Climatism
- Judith Curry: climate models can’t be trusted | Herald Sun
- MUST READ : Finally, Warmists Find a Real Threat — Quadrant Online
- “My Only Worry Is The Money” Says African Climate Negotiator | Climatism
- All Aboard The Marrakesh Express | Climatism
Climatism Related :
A two-minute MUST READ.
Guest essay by Dr. Neil Frank, former Director, National Hurrricane Center
As former Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987), I was appalled when, in a campaign rally at Miami-Dade College October 11, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said, “Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.”
That is false.
We were extremely fortunate that Matthew—category 5 through much of the Caribbean—weakened to category 2 before landfall in South Carolina. It could have been much worse.
In 1893 a much stronger hurricane followed nearly the same track. When its eye reached the Georgia and South Carolina coasts, a 15–20 ft. storm surge inundated the coastal islands. Though population was a small fraction of today’s, between 2,000 and 3,000 died, making that the second deadliest hurricane in U.S. history. The same year another major hurricane killed 2,000 in Louisiana.
All together five hurricanes hit the U.S. in 1893, something that’s happened…
View original post 539 more words
Debunking the L A Times story claiming new study shows human caused warming doubled western U.S. area burned since 1984Posted: October 13, 2016
As evidence for anthropogenic global warming theory dwindles, with widespread debunking of the favoured canaries of doom (like the recent record September Arctic sea-ice growth along with its decadal recovery) the CAGW obsessed mainstream media will simply double down on their falsehoods to reinforce their ideologically driven agenda.
They certainly won’t re-evaluate or tell truths about “global warming”, as too many jobs, money and reputations are now at stake.
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The October 10, 2016 Times article addresses a study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences where the authors claimed that through the use of large scale climate models and annual wildfire data from 1984 to 2015 they determined that man made climate change increased the aridity of wildfire fuel by 55% which doubled the area of the western U.S. that burned during this period.
This latest story is significantly different in its presentation of a supposed wildfire connection to climate change versus a wildfire story which was published in the Times on October 18, 2015 where Governor Brown’s attempt to link man made climate change to wildfires was unsupported by fire experts.(
In October 18, 2015 Times article wildfire experts unsupportive of Brown’s position noted that:
“But climate scientists’ computer models show only that global warming will bring consistently…
View original post 1,015 more words
“Too bad so much effort and funding is wasted on IPCC circuses.”
The global warming aka climate change meme is simply the latest attempt by leftists to trick society into remaking itself in their image. It was never about science. It was always about power and money.
Warming alarmists see no good coming out of rising CO2 and the current climate optimum, and their warnings extend to forests as well. So in love with their theory of global warming, they cannot see the forests as they are, and as documented in numerous research studies.
Claim: Forest growth is diminished by higher CO2 and warmer summers.
Fact: CO2 increases have improved forest health.
Claim: Forest areas will be hard-hit by future droughts.
Fact: No trend in droughts is discernible.
Claim: Warmer temperatures increase damage from pests and pathogens.
Fact: Enhanced CO2 is making forests more resilient to diseases and infestations.
Claim: Old growth forests will not sequester CO2 as young forests do.
Fact: Rising CO2 has given new life even to aging forests.
Basic Vegetation Biology (from Bill Illis here)
Almost ALL C3 pathway vegetation (trees, bushes, wheat, rice and 95% of all plants) are CO2-starved except in extremely…
View original post 1,244 more words
“Ice has been melting for 15,000 years – since the end of the last ice age. Global warmers are quite possibly the stupidest people to ever occupy the planet.”
Climate alarmists, like those who write for the Guardian, hate climate history because it detroys their “human-induced” climate change narrative.
Front page news at The Guardian!
This event has repeated it itself every few decades. One might expect that newspaper publishers would know a little about their favorite talking points? Apparently they must have missed some past newspaper issues, like this one from 100 years ago saying that Alaska’s largest glacier was receding fifteen feet per day.
or perhaps this one from 110 years ago?
Or this one from 60 years ago?
Ore this one from 90 years ago?
Ice has been melting for 15,000 years – since the end of the last ice age. Global warmers are quite possibly the stupidest people to every occupy the planet.
Professor Bran Cox. Another ‘influencial’ public figure ingratiated into the fashionable, virtue-signalling and ever-lucrative world of “Climate Crisis Inc.”
And he had the perfect audience and forum to spout his activist-NASA derived climate propaganda within the gushing walls of the (their) ABC’s “QandA” echo chamber.
A PhD should know better.
On September 9, 2016, Quadrant Online published the following open letter from Graham Woods to Brian Cox. Grahan Woods is an Australian PhD.
By cellanr – Prof Brian Cox, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30982875
I’d appreciate your response to this email, which deals with your recent appearance on the ABC’s Q&A program.
First, I want to make it clear that, where you’re concerned, I’m not a ‘vexatious invigilator’. My wife and I (each with an earned PhD) have watched most of your TV programs, and have been struck by their intellectual clarity and your unassuming personal style (as well as by your BMI: we’re high-level wellness devotees). With that said, we both have serious misgivings about your recent appearance on Q&A.
No pronouncement that enjoys an audience has zero social consequences, and the more prominent the pronouncer the more significant the consequences are likely to be. Your…
View original post 679 more words