Climate change alarmism is big business for ‘reinsurance’ billionaire Warren Buffett. But he doesn’t believe in it:
– Warren Buffett: “The public has the impression, because there has been so much talk about climate, that the events of the last ten years have been unusual…they haven’t!
– Warren Buffett: “We’ve been remarkably free of hurricanes in the last five years [Now eleven years or 4003 days]. If you’ve been writing hurricane insurance it’s been all profit.”
– Warren Buffett: “I love apocalyptic predictions, because … they probably do affect rates…”
– Warren Buffett: “we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them.”
INCONVENIENT facts on the “Extreme Weather” meme :
“Extreme Weather Is Not Getting Worse” – Dr Roger Pielke Jr
Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” – Benjamin Franklin
The claims of increasing disasters presented as inevitable by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provided opportunities for government interference and crony capitalism on a massive scale. Their actions ignored the realities and enabled unwise behavior by offering assistance and compensation if problems developed in areas where problems are well-known and inevitable.
The insurance industry is a major benefactor of this crony capitalism. They promoted the false IPCC claims on their web pages, sponsored documentaries, and did everything to exaggerate the threat. Look at the comments from the web page of Swiss Re.
Re/insurance plays an important role in managing climate and natural disaster risk, and that’s why it’s part of Swiss Re’s core business.
Managing climate and disaster risk is part of Swiss Re’s DNA.
Munich Re is a…
View original post 904 more words
Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The alleged weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation appears to be triggering a growing amount of speculation about abrupt cooling, like the plot of the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”.
Crippled Atlantic currents triggered ice age climate change
The last ice age wasn’t one long big chill. Dozens of times temperatures abruptly rose or fell, causing all manner of ecological change. Mysteriously, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that these sudden shifts—which occurred every 1500 years or so—were out of sync in the two hemispheres: When it got cold in the north, it grew warm in the south, and vice versa. Now, scientists have implicated the culprit behind those seesaws—changes to a conveyor belt of ocean currents known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).
View original post 809 more words
“So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems…” Tim Flannery 2007
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull meets flood victims. Picture: ADAM TAYLOR
A LINE has been crossed now Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is telling massive porkies about the Tasmanian floods.
It’s time to declare war on global warming extremists.
I don’t mean war on Turnbull, himself. He’s just parroting popular untruths. No, I mean war on the extremists who feed him his falsehoods — the alarmists, Marxists and other Leftists who have seized control of our universities and punished the few academics who still dare challenge them.
Last week, Turnbull inspected the flood damage in Tasmania and, in just one widely reported comment, said three false or misleading things that hype the global-warming scare.
Tasmanians “have never seen as much water move as quickly as this,” he claimed.
“Certainly, larger and more frequent storms are one of the consequences that the climate models and climate scientists predict from global warming.”
Falsehood one: Tasmania actually suffered worse floods in 1929, when 22 people were killed after 500mm of rain was dumped in just three days over Burnie and Ulverstone.
(1929 Flood Insert via Climatism)
Falsehood two: Climate experts, in fact, used to claim we’d face droughts, not floods. Climate Council chief Professor Tim Flannery in 2007 famously warned: “Even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems.”
Falsehood three: Most climate scientists haven’t predicted more or larger storms at all.
In fact, in its latest report, the biggest group of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, admitted there was very little confidence in such claims.
In the report’s own words: there was “low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms” and “low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods”.
As for “heavy precipitation” of the kind just seen in Tasmania, the IPCC conceded that in areas “such as southern Australia and western Asia — there is evidence of decreases”.
That’s less heavy rain, not Turnbull’s more.
But as I say, what does Turnbull really know about global warming, other than that it’s fashionable to be an alarmist?
The real problem is this: name one university academic — a single climate scientist, physicist, meteorologist or historian — who publicly pointed out Turnbull was wrong. Most seem only too happy with such fearmongering.
True, there are a few brave sceptics left in academia. But they know the danger of speaking out, now the militant Left is so powerful in our universities and so hostile to debate.
The latest evidence: the threatened sacking of marine scientist Professor Peter Ridd, who has long warned that alarmist scientists were exaggerating the alleged damage done by global warming to the Great Barrier Reef, and getting big grants for it.
Ridd has been censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack for “failing to act in a collegial way” by exposing this alarmism.
He’d wickedly pointed out that the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority had published misleading photographs
of coral reefs near Stone Island — one taken in the late 19th century and the other in 1994 — which they’d claimed showed healthy coral had vanished.
As Ridd noted, there was no way of knowing if the photographs were of the same place, and coral cover could vary wildly in the same area. Nor could anyone know why coral seen in the 1800s was gone a century later.
Ridd could also have added that a new survey from the Australian Institute of Marine Science of 12 reefs off Townsville has found coral cover on 11 had recovered since Cyclone Yasi, and seven of the reefs had more coral now than 30 years ago.
But how crazy is his punishment? Since when did querying the claims of a fellow academic amount to a crime against “collegiality”?
This smacks of enforcing group think with threats of dismissal. Don’t universities do debate any more?
- Reef whistleblower censured by James Cook University – The Australian
- The Great Great Barrier Reef Swindle: A Note from Peter Ridd – Jennifer Marohasy
- Professor Peter Ridd has challenged the system of scientific peer review in relation to claims made about the health of the Great Barrier Reef – ABC
(Prof. Peter Ridd links added by Climatism)
In 2013, Professor Bob Carter, the retired head of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at this same James Cook University, was dumped as an adjunct (unpaid) professor for what he believed was his internationally recognised work in exposing global-warming scares.
- JCU caves in to badgering and groupthink — blackballs “politically incorrect” Bob Carter « JoNova (Link added by Climatism)
But even more shocking was the scandalous campaign to ban world-renowned political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist.
The University of Western Australia and Flinders University had each told the Abbott government they were interested in a grant to host Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus think tank, to debate economic policies.
But staff and students at both universities mutinied, attacking Lomborg for having warned that much of the trillions of dollars spent to fight global warming made little difference.
The academics’ union — the National Tertiary Education Union — should have defended an academic’s right to question orthodox thinking.
Instead, it circulated a petition demanding Lomborg be banned for “downgrading the importance to the world of climate change mitigation”.
The UWA caved first to these new witch-hunters, and then the new Turnbull Government canned the planned funding for Lomborg’s centre.
- Bjorn Lomborg on the despicable campaign by group-thinking academics to shut down his proposed centre at the University of Western Australia (Link added by Climatism)
But note this contrast: this same academics’ union that silences warming sceptics will fight to defend Marxists — ideologues who subscribe to a totalitarian creed that inspired the murder of tens of millions of people. Last week, NTEU members even formed a guard of honour for one of their union delegates, avowed Marxist academic Roz Ward, to welcome her back to work at La Trobe University.
The university had suspended Ward after she demanded that our “racist” flag have its Union Jack replaced with the red ensign of socialism, claiming this dragged into disrepute Ward’s taxpayer-funded Safe Schools program, which itself teaches children to think gender is “fluid” and to imagine themselves dating someone of their own sex.
But the university backed down after legal threats and protests from the NTEU, which then issued a press release crowing it had defeated “the Australian Right”, responsible for “screeching sloganeering and fearmongering around action on climate change”.
Now the NTEU is defending yet another Marxist academic and warming alarmist, journalism professor Martin Hirst, sacked by Deakin University after warning a commerce student who challenged his foully abusive tweets: “So are you happy to fail commerce?”
So it’s hardly Turnbull’s fault that he just goes with this warming flow, as set for him by professional alarmists and Marxists embedded in their university fortresses.
Why would he challenge this group think when he’d just get smashed anyway by the ABC — another powerful bastion of group think that refuses to let a single conservative or warming sceptic host any of its main current affairs shows?
You want Turnbull to think for himself on global warming? To take on the Leftist academic establishment and their media goons?
You ask too much. It takes a man or woman of guts and brains to stand up to them, and this country is critically short of such heroes.
Climatism comment :
Some Monday mirthness with the “quote of the millennium” from professional climate change alarmist ‘Tim Flannery’ :
Professional Climate Alarmist “Tim Flannery” Related:
- Flannery Plumbs Fresh Depths Of Doom On Australia’s Great Barrier Reef | Climatism
- Climate Change Australia – Tim Flannery’s Climate Council Vanishes An Inconvenient Woman | Climatism
- Shock news : Australia has always had heatwaves | Climatism
- When will Flannery admit he was wrong? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
- Al Gore’s ‘nine Inconvenient Untruths’ – Telegraph
- Climate Commission’s latest report slammed as ‘environmental activism’ « Australian Climate Madness
- MUST READ : Warmism’s bellowing dinosaurs — Quadrant Online
- Landline – 11/02/2007: Interview with Professor Tim Flannery . ABC
- EPIC Must Read Interview : Flannery vs Bolt transcript – Herald Sun
- Flannery Claims Global Action On Carbon Will Make No Difference To Global Temps For “1000” Years! MTR today, March 25 | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
- ALARMISM MUST READ : The warmists’ straw man: “We never said it wouldn’t rain” | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
- Flannery sacked | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
- No thanks for Flannery at end of climate career | Herald Sun
- Flannery’s green investment in deep strife | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
- Through the years Tim Flannery did indeed develop a reputation on climate change | The Australian
- Shock News : Before The Commodore Australia Had Droughts | Climatism
When all else fails, like empirical (scientific) evidence, not supporting your hypothesis/theory of man-made “global warming”, “climate change”, “global cooling”, or “global whatever it may be”, target human emotions. In this instance – World Heritage sites.
More classic UNEP agitprop to attempt to scare, deceive and convert you.
Remember all these fears and scares are based on failed (overheated) UN/IPCC CMIP5 RCP8.5 climate *models*.
Predictive (UN IPCC) models are not science and do not observe reality. They are predictions based on perceived inputs in and desired results out. Then the CAGW complicit MSM media simply runs with the output because those same modelled outputs suit their agenda nicely too, objectivity denied absolute.
By Paul Homewood
The Union of
Socialist Concerned Scientists have teamed up with the UN for their latest scare story, how thousands of world heritage sites are at risk from climate change.
Their British offerings include the remarkable neolithic site of Skara Brae in the Orkneys.
View original post 208 more words
An important, must read.
Guest Opinion; Dr. Tim Ball
Scientists lost the scientific script somewhere in the 20th century. The major loss involved the fact that correlation is not cause and effect. It was lost for several reasons:
- Failure to know or consistently apply scientific methods;
- Lack of ethics as the end justifies the means;
- Methods and process are not taught or emphasized;
- People are more willing to bypass or ignore everything for funding;
- Too many are willing to subjugate or exploit research for a political agenda;
- Achieving results to advance a career is more important;
- A person gets caught up in Groupthink as they go along to get along;
- and scientists are unwilling to look to themselves to stop the rot.
All of these reasons were on display in the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
An example of the problem of correlation occurred recently on TV screen when a…
View original post 1,765 more words
97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong. Yet we base, literally, trillions of dollars of other people’s (taxpayers) money on alarmist climate change policy, schemes and rent-seeking scams (windmills/solar) on overheated, predictive models that do not observe climate reality.
CMIP5 IPCC climate models don’t even ‘model’ clouds, the sun or ocean currents (AMO/PDO).
What possibly could go wrong? /sarc.
RCP8.5 BS in = Alarmist BS out.
It’s no wonder ‘Climate models don’t work’!
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
In February 2016 climate scientist Dr. John Christy presented testimony to Congress demonstrating that climate models grossly exaggerate and over estimate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures . Dr. Christy noted in his testimony that “models over-warm the tropical atmosphere by a factor of approximately 3″.
NOAA climate activist scientist Dr. Gavin Schmidt challenged Dr. Christy’s work claiming that it was “partisan” and using vague statistical arguments claimed that Christy’s work improperly presented the performance of climate models. These claims by government scientist Dr. Schmidt peaked the interest of statistics expert Steven McIntyre who was one of the most prominent experts to expose the flawed science (proxy shenanigans) and mathematics (statistical errors) behind the now disgraced thousand year long global temperature profile infamously known as the “hockey stick” (https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf).
Mr. McIntyre conducted a review of Dr. Schmidt’s claims (https://climateaudit.org/2016/05/05/schmidts-histogram-diagram-doesnt-refute-christy
View original post 752 more words
A single devastating graph shows official climate predictions were wild
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The new global warming speedometer shows in a single telling graph just how badly the model-based predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have over-predicted global warming.
The speedometer for the 15 years 4 months January 2001 to April 2016 shows the [1.1, 4.2] C°/century-equivalent interval of global warming rates (red/orange) that IPCC’s 1990, 1995 and 2001 reports predicted should be occurring by now, compared with real-world, observed warming (green) equivalent to less than 0.5 C°/century over the period.
RSS and UAH monthly near-global satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly values for each month from January 2001 to April 2016 were assumed to be broadly accurate and were averaged. The least-squares linear-regression trend on their mean was determined and found equivalent to 0.47 C°/century.
Predictions in IPCC’s Assessment Reports
IPCC (2007, 2013) are…
View original post 292 more words