GLOBAL warming alarmists want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate or the environment. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore, what is in danger is freedom, not the climate.
FORMER head of Deutsche Bank, the ABC and ASX, Maurice Newman, writes a must read opinion piece in the The Australian providing further evidence that the “global warming movement is really the triumph of ideology over science”…
You have to hand it to Peter Hannam, The Sydney Morning Herald’s climate change alarmist-in-chief, for his report last month – “ ‘Really extreme’ global weather event leaves scientists aghast”.
Hannam is often the canary in the coalmine (er, wind farm) when there is a sense that public belief in man-made global warming is flagging. With Europe in the grip of a much colder winter than predicted and with the abnormal chill spreading even to Africa, he did his best to hold the line.
Earlier this year, Climate Council councillor Will Steffen also climbed on board — for The Sydney Morning Herald of course. Extreme cold in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, a record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US and an expansion of the East Antarctic ice sheet coincided with a Bureau of Meteorology tweet (later retracted) that January 7 had set a heat record for the Sydney Basin. Steffen told us these seemingly unrelated events were in fact linked. “Climate disruption” explained both. Whether fire or ice, we’re to blame. No ifs, no buts.
Now a warming Arctic provides the perfect opportunity for Hannam to divert attention from the latest deep freeze. He ominously warns: “Climate scientists are used to seeing the range of weather extremes stretched by global warming, but few episodes appear as remarkable as this week’s unusual heat over the Arctic.”
It’s true, warm air has made its way up to the high Arctic, driving temperatures up to 20C above average. But Anthony Watts, who runs a climate change website, puts things into perspective. He observes: “Warm moist air from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans has warmed the Arctic above the 80th parallel. It should be noted, however, that the Arctic Circle actually starts at 66 degrees north, meaning the record heat is over a much narrower area.”
Cato Institute atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue reviewed high Arctic temperature data going back to 1958 and says: “Data before the satellite era … has some problems, so it’s hard to say the current spike is for sure a record.” He says that if the baseline is 1973, when the polar-orbiting satellites began recording the data, there is not much difference between today’s ice extent and then.
Indeed, we now have satellite confirmation that global air temperatures are back to the same level they were before the 2014-16 super El Nino event and, this January and February, the decline accelerated. Since 2015 satellites also have detected a fall in sea surface temperatures.
Solar expert Piers Corbyn, of British forecasting group WeatherAction and famous for his successful wagers against the British Met Office forecasts, predicts Earth faces another mini ice age with potentially devastating consequences. He notes: “The frequency of sunspots is expected to rapidly decline … reaching a minimum between the years 2019 and 2020.” Indeed, the present decline in solar activity is faster than at any time in the past 9300 years, suggesting an end to the grand solar maximum.
Critics say while “it might be safe to go with (Corbyn’s) forecast for rain next Tuesday, it would be foolish to gamble the world can just go on burning all the coal and oil we want”. That’s the nub of it. The world has bet the shop on CO2 warming and the “science” must be defended at all costs.
But while spinning unfalsifiable “climate disruption” slogans may sway readers of The Sydney Morning Herald and resonate with believers in their centrally heated halls, those in the real world, witnessing hundreds of people dying of the cold and thousands more receiving emergency treatment, will consider they’ve been duped.
Not feeling duped are successive Australian governments that have become committed members of a green-left global warming movement promoted by the UN. On dubious scientific grounds they have agreed to accept meaningless, anti-growth, CO2 emission targets that enrich elites and burden the masses.
And, true to label, a Green Climate Fund supported by Australia and 42 mostly developed countries will redistribute $US100 billion ($128bn) annually to poorer nations as reparation for the unspecified environmental harm the West has allegedly caused them.
Big emitters such as China, India and Russia are conspicuously absent.
Policing Australia’s targets and helping to spread confirmatory propaganda is a network of international and local bureaucracies. The world’s academies and meteorological organisations, frequently found to be unreliable and biased, keep the faith alive. They reject debate and starve nonconforming researchers of funds and information. Students are indoctrinated with unproven climate-change theories that an unquestioning media gladly reinforces. Meanwhile, the country ingenuously surrenders its competitive advantage by refusing to embrace its rich endowment of affordable baseload energy. This it happily exports while lining the pockets of renewable energy rent-seekers with generous taxpayer subsidies.
Should the world enter a period of global cooling, we should expect concerted denial. Too many livelihoods, too many reputations and too much ideology depend on the CO2 narrative. Having ceded sovereignty over our economies’ commanding heights to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva, the West (Donald Trump excluded) repeatedly turns to expensive vanity projects to paper over this folly. If the iceman cometh, there can be no quick fix. Yet we know it takes twice as much energy to heat a home than to cool one. So pity the poor and infirm who respected medical journal The Lancet says are 20 times likelier to die from cold than heat.
While even to mention a mini ice age risks scorn and derision, recent research has shown a close correlation between solar activity and climate on Earth. That possibility alone should cause shivers. But it will take time and experience before we accept the global warming movement is really the triumph of ideology over science. Until then we will continue to commit life’s cardinal sin of putting too many eggs into one questionable basket.
(Climatism links and bolds added)
See also :
- HOTTEST Arctic Ever? Arctic Climate Change Fairytales vs. Reality | Climatism
- 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism
- THE Climate Change Farce Explained By Two Expert “Scientists” | Climatism
- WORLD Leading Authority : Climate and Sea Level Science Is A “Quasi Religion” Hijacked By An Activist Agenda | Climatism
- THE “97% Consensus” Meme Further Discredited By 97 New Papers Supporting A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm | Climatism
- THE Great Global Warming “Pause” | Climatism
Climate Change Alarmism / Fraud related :
- CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- Global Warming Is The Greatest And Most Successful Pseudoscientific Fraud In History | Climatism
- EXTREME WEATHER Propaganda – The Pathway To Global Warming Hysteria | Climatism
- NASA “Sea Level Rise” Fraud | Climatism
(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)
Click link for more info…TQ, Jamie
WORLD Leading Authority : Climate and Sea Level Science Is A “Quasi Religion” Hijacked By An Activist AgendaPosted: February 7, 2018
via NoTricksZone By on 4. February 2018 (Climatism bolds & links added) :
World Leading Authority: Sea Level “Absolutely Stable”… Poor Quality Data From “Office Perps”…IPCC “False”
German-speaking readers will surely want to save the text of an interview conducted by the online Baseler Zeitung (BAZ) of Switzerland with world leading sea level expert Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner.
Few scientists have scientifically published as much on sea level as Mörner has.
Yet because he rejects the alarmist scenarios touted by the media and alarmist IPCC scientists, the Swedish professor has long been the target of vicious attack campaigns aimed at discrediting him – yet to little effect.
Mörner, who headed of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics (P&G) Department at Stockholm University from 1991 to 2005, has studied sea level his entire career, visiting 59 countries in the process.
Sea level hijacked by an activist agenda
In the interview Mörner tells science journalist Alex Reichmuth that climate and sea level science has been completely politicized and hijacked by an activist agenda and has become a “quasi religion”.
According to the BAZ, recently Mörner has been at the Fiji Islands on multiple occasions in order “to study coastal changes and sea level rise”, and to take a first hand look at the “damage” that allegedly has occurred due to climate change over the past years.
IPCC is false
The Swedish professor tells the BAZ that he became a skeptic of alarmist climate science early on because “the [UN] IPCC always depicted the facts on the subject falsely” and “grossly exaggerated the risks of sea level rise” and that the IPCC “excessively relied on shaky computer models instead of field research.”
He tells the BAZ: “I always want to know what the facts are. That’s why I went to the Fiji Islands.”
“Very poor quality data” from “office perps”
Mörner also dismisses claims by the Swiss ProClim climate science platform who recently announced that the Fiji Islands are seeing a rapid sea level rise. According to Mörner the data were taken from poor locations. “We looked over the data, and concluded that they are of very poor quality” and that the researchers who handled the data were “office perps” who were “not specialized in coastal dynamic processes and sea level changes”.
“Many of them have no clue about the real conditions.”
Sea level “absolutely stable”
Mörner tells the BAZ that sea level at the Fiji islands was in fact higher than it is today between 1550 and 1700. Coral reefs tell the story and “they don’t lie,” the Swedish professor said. He added he was not surprised by the data because “it is not the first time the IPCC has been wrong”.
Over the past 200 years: “The sea level has not changed very much. Over the past 50 to 70 years it has been absolutely stable”.
“Because they have a political agenda”
Not only is sea level rise due to climate change at the Fiji Islands exaggerated, but the same is true worldwide as a rule. When asked why are we seeing all the warnings from scientists, Mörner tells the BAZ: “Because they have a political agenda.”
Mörner warns readers that the IPCC was set up from the get-go with the foregone conclusion man was warming the globe and changing the climate: Mörner says: “And it is sticking to that like a dogma – no matter what the facts are.”
When asked if sea level rise poses a problem for the islands, Mörner answers with one simple word: “No.”
Strong evidence solar activity impacts sea level
The Swedish professor also tells the BAZ that the rates of water rushing into the ocean due to glacier melt are exaggerated and that thermal expansion of the ocean is minimal. Mörner adds:
“Sea level appears to depend foremost on solar cycle and little from melting ice.”
Junk surveys produce “nonsense”
When asked by the BAZ why he became skeptical, Mörner recalls the “great anger” from an IPCC representative when he spoke at a 1991 sea level conference in the USA. He was surprised by the reaction, alluding to the fact that it is normal to have different views in science. And as the years followed, he became increasingly aware of the falsehoods made by the IPCC and the organization’s refusal to admit to them.
On the subject of publishing research results:
“Publishers of scientific journals no longer accept papers that challenge the claims made by the IPCC, no matter the paper’s quality.”
In his decades long career, Mörner has authored some 650 publications, and he tells the BAZ that he has no plans to stop fighting. “No one can stop me.”
Near the end of the interview Mörner calls the claim that 97% of all climate scientists believe global warming is man-made “nonsense” and that the number comes from “unserious surveys”.
“In truth the majority of scientists reject the IPCC claims. Depending on the field, it’s between 50 and 80 percent.”
Cooling over the next decades
Mörner also sees little reason to reduce CO2 emissions, and calls the belief in man-made climate change a religious movement driven by public funding.
In conclusion Mörner tells the BAZ that he thinks solar activity will likely decrease and that cooling will ensue over the coming decades.
“Then it will become clear just how wrong the global warming warnings are.”
See also :
- NASA “Sea Level Rise” Fraud | Climatism
- THE Fantasy Of Accelerating Sea Level Rise Just Got Hosed | Climatism
- BBC Forced To Withdraw Fake Sea Level Claims | Climatism
- SCIENTISTS : ‘Loud Divergence Between Sea-Level Reality And Climate Change Theory’ | Climatism
- 44th Pacific “Sinking Islands” Extortion Forum (COP21 Update 2015) | Climatism
- Fiji ‘Flooding’ Is Fake News From #COP23 | Climatism
“Using these modelled estimates, the globe should now be seeing a rapid acceleration in sea level rise. Yet no evidence of this can be found so far. In fact the real measured data show the opposite is happening: a deceleration in sea level rise is taking place.”
“In other words: global sea level rise has decelerated since the 1950s.”
We’ve been told over an over again that global warming would melt the icecaps, and melt Greenland, and that would result in catastrophic sea level rise flooding cities. We’ve also been told that “sea level rise is “accelerating” but in an investigation done here on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach, Putting the Brakes on Acceleration, he noted in 2011 that there seems to be no evidence of it at all, and notes that sea level was rising faster in the first half of the record.
Figure 1. Satellite-measured sea level rise. Errors shown are 95% confidence intervals. Data Source.
The smaller trend of the recent half of the record is statistically different from the larger trend of the first half. Will this reduction continue into the future? Who knows? I’m just talking about the past, and pointing out that we sure haven’t seen any sign of the threatened acceleration…
View original post 541 more words
THE back-pedalling by climate ‘scientists’ continues as it becomes ever more obvious that their alarming projections have been deliberately exaggerated to push an agenda far removed from reality.
THE refined estimate of ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity – the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled) is even more significant considering that recent emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed, according to scientists.
LATEST findings are yet another blow to the “settled science” meme…
Worst climate warnings ‘will not come true’
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
January 18 2018
Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to man-made emissions than previously feared, a study has found. It raises hopes that the worst predictions about global warming can be avoided.
It suggests that the target set in the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting the average temperature increase to well below 2C is more achievable than some scientists have claimed.
Apocalyptic predictions that the world could warm by up to 6C by 2100 with devastating consequences for humanity and nature are effectively ruled out by the findings.
However, the study makes clear that steep reductions in emissions will still be needed to avoid dangerous climate change. It also concludes that the aspirational target in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5C is less likely to be achieved.
The study, published in the journal Nature, refines previous estimates of how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide by considering the historical variability in global temperature.
It focuses on the key measure, known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is used by climate scientists to make predictions. ECS is the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled.
The concentration has already increased by about 50 per cent since pre-industrial times, from 270 parts per million (ppm) to 403ppm.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body which advises governments, gives a range for ECS of 1.5–4.5 degrees C. The new study narrows this range to 2.2–3.4C.
Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter and lead author of the paper, said his team had “squeezed both ends” of the range presented by the IPCC.
“We can rule out very low climate sensitivities that might imply you don’t need to do very much at all but also very high climate sensitivities that would be very difficult to adapt to.
“That’s useful because it gives policymakers and people an idea of what they have got to deal with and they can make decisions on that basis.”
Mr Cox said his study showed there was less need to worry about apocalyptic visions of the future, such as those presented in the 2007 award-winning science book Six Degrees – Our Future on a Hotter Planet, which had an image on the cover of a tidal wave breaking over Big Ben.
“The very high warming rates are looking less likely so that’s good news,” he said.
“Unless we do something bizarrely stupid, we are not looking at catastrophic climate change.
“But I wouldn’t want people to think we don’t need to act. It means that action is worthwhile. We can still stabilise the system if we choose to do so.
“We are definitely up against it but we aren’t in a position where we are talking about such large climate changes that we are just messing around on the decks of the Titanic. We know better now, I hope, from our work what we have got to do.”
He said his study showed the 2C target set in Paris was “still just about achievable” but limiting warming to 1.5C in the long term could only be achieved by “overshooting” and then somehow reducing the temperature using futuristic technology, such as artificial trees which suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, said the study “confirms that we will see significantly more warming and impacts this century if we don’t increase our ambition to reduce CO2 emissions; but the possibility of 6 degrees or more warming with associated devastating impacts can perhaps begin to be ruled out”.
Climatism Related :
- 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism
- THE Great Global Warming “Pause” | Climatism
- CLIMATE Alarmism Has Cost Far More Than Any Global Warming Ever Could | Climatism
- WHAT I Learned About Climate Change: The Science Is Not Settled | Climatism
ECS Related :
- Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’
- How scientists got their global warming sums wrong — and created a £1,000,000,000,000-a-year green industry that bullied experts who dared to question the figures | The Sun UK
- Climate scientists admit they were wrong on climate change effects | Watts Up With That?
- New climate change calculations could buy the Earth some time — if they’re right – The Washington Post
“A bit of reflection shows it was the climate science community itself — in collaboration with Arctic researchers and the media — who by the year 2000 (below left) set the polar bear up as an icon for catastrophic global warming. They made the polar bear a proxy for AGW.”
YET ANOTHER failed prediction from the catastrophic climate change cabal!
“This has left many folks unhappy about the toppling of this important global warming icon but ironically, consensus polar bear experts and climate scientists (and their supporters) were the ones who set up the polar bear as a proxy for AGW in the first place.”
Polar bear experts who falsely predicted that roughly 17,300 polar bearswould be dead by now (given sea ice conditions since 2007) have realized their failure has not only kicked their own credibility to the curb, it has taken with it the reputations of their climate change colleagues. This has left many folks unhappy about the toppling of this important global warming icon but ironically, consensus polar bear experts and climate scientists (and their supporters) were the ones who set up the polar bear as a proxy for AGW in the first place.
I published my professional criticisms on the failed predictions of the polar bear conservation community in a professional online scientific preprint journal, which has now been downloaded almost 2,000 times (Crockford 2017; Crockford and Geist 2017).
My paper demonstrates that the polar bear/seaice decline hypothesis, particularly the one developed by Steven Amstrup, is a failure. I’m not…
View original post 644 more words
“The alarmists’ 12 apocalyptic predictions have proved uniformly wrong. That’s zero percent correct.”
WITH so much of the public’s money spent (Trillion upon trillions) on “Climate Change” aka “Global Warming” aka “Climate Disruption” aka “Climate Crisis”, any sane person would naturally conclude that there is an actual “Climate Crisis”.
HOWEVER, outside of overheated U.N. climate models and daily hysteria from the sycophant lamestream media, there is still no tangible “Climate Crisis”.
THE name change from “global warming” to “climate change” is perhaps the biggest giveaway. Owing to the peer-reviewed, scientific fact that the planet stopped warming around 20 years ago.
ENTER “climate change” – hot, cold, wet, dry, flood, drought, blizzard – it’s all your fault and you and your “unsustainable” lifestyles are ‘changing’ the weather – whatever that means.
AND, what is the mythical perfect climate that alarmists want? What if we stop ALL hydrocarbon based energy tomorrow and there’s a hurricane next year? Or what happens if Australia has a heatwave? How many days should it last? How much less or more rain is better if we get serious and live in caves? Will the weather be eternally idyllic for modern cave-dwelling?
WILL the pontificators of the media driven climate hysteria; DiCaprio, Al Gore, Obama, Bill Nye, The Pope et al live in caves too?
CLEARLY they won’t. But why not? After all, there is a genuine “climate crisis” right? Or at least they tell us that there is. Everyday.
EITHER way, cave or no cave, Leonardo DiCaprio’s new island development is a serious death trap according to what he preaches atop the U.N. pulpit. Whoever advised him to build on an island when sea levels are meant to rise by 10-100 feet by 2100 according to experts like Leo.
MAYBE, just maybe he’s lying his ass off to feed the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind.
The climate alarmists have long tried to sell their apocalyptic scam by claiming that their policies will avoid catastrophic increases in global temperatures, writes Alan Carlin.
The Daily Caller has recently inventoried some of the widely publicized such climate apocalypses predicted over the last 30 years by examining 12 of them.
The alarmists’ 12 apocalyptic predictions have proved uniformly wrong. That’s zero percent correct.
View original post 67 more words
“Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities.
“Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed.”
FREEMAN DYSON, one the great scientific minds of our time. Well worth reading his entire essay.
I disagree with his statement; “I am not saying that the warming does not cause problems. Obviously it does.”
I would argue slight warming is beneficial to humanity versus the cold which kills at a ratio of 20:1. Cold is also the enemy of food production too.
HE somewhat clarifies by correctly pointing out, “I am saying that the problems are grossly exaggerated.” And the vast amount of public money spent on AGW theory could be better spent on “poverty and infectious disease and public education and public health, and the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.”
By Freeman Dyson
My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.
But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.
The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we…
View original post 2,206 more words