ALEX EPSTEIN, author of the New York Times best-selling book “The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels” brilliantly and succinctly lays out why the much touted “97% of climate scientists agree” meme, amounts to nothing more than clever PR and propaganda used by climate alarmists to promote the Left’s pet environmental/political cause – “man-made
global warming climate change”…
Before you view Alex’s terrific 4:36min presentation, ask yourself how plausible a 97% consensus of any belief or argument really is, without it having been subject to bogus and deceitful manipulation.
- How many elections are won by a 97% majority?
- 100% of doctors believed passive smoking caused cancer until that theory was quashed.
- 100% of doctors believed cholesterol was deadly until recently.
If 97% of Meteorologists can’t predict the weather next week, why do 97% of climate
expertsalarmists think that they can predict the climate 100 years from now?
Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.
These 30,000+ “scientists” weren’t sucked in by the “97%” climate consensus hoax…
The “97%” Hoax Related :
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | Climatism
- IPCC Insider Says That The 97% Consensus Actually Consists Of “A Few Dozen” | Climatism
- 97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming | Climatism
- 97% Of Climate “Experts” Promised You The Arctic Would Be Ice-Free By 2014 | Climatism
- The Cook ‘97% consensus’ paper, exposed by new book for the fraud that it really is | Watts Up With That?
- Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims | Forbes
- Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | National Review
- TOP READ: The 99.99% pure climate consensus – how to ignore thousands of skeptical scientists « JoNova
A MUST READ unemotional and clinical scientific rebuttal of National Geographic’s latest climate change hysteria and groupthink propaganda rhetoric…
Yet another example of why – sadly – mainstream media activist outlets like the once respected NatGeo cannot be trusted on anything
global warming climate change.
7 part series via our friends over at Paul Homewood’s excellent site – notalotofpeopleknowthat:
1. Seven things to know about climate change–National Geographic
National Geographic has long lost any scientific credibility on climate change issues. It’s new project, “Seven things to know about climate change”, does nothing to restore it.
In fact, as their graph clearly shows, temperatures have been steadily rising the 19thC, long before CO2 emissions could have made any noticeable difference.
Why is there no mention that the Little Ice Age, culminating in the late 19thC, is known to be probably the coldest period in Earth’s history since the end of the last Ice Age?
They also mention satellite measurements, but strangely forget to state that atmospheric temperatures last year were no higher than in 1998.
2. Second Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 2 – Colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food – carbon dioxide (CO2) hysteria… (Climatism comment)
They fail to explain why global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980, at the same time as CO2 emissions were rising rapidly.
They also forget to mention the role that the great ocean cycles played in 20thC warming. The post 1940 cool down coincided with the shift of both PDO and AMO to cold phase.
Similarly post 1980 warming was in large part the result of a return to warm phase for both cycles.
3. Third Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 3 – The fake “97% consensus” revered worldwide by the likes of Barack Obama, cooked up by cartoonist and professional climate activist John Cook. Following on from the bogus Doran/Zimmerman study of 2009: http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-comment/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats (Climatism comment)
The main cause of global warming? Err, well no actually.
According to the Cook study quoted, only 65 papers found explicitly found that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.
I make that 1.6%, not 97%.
Full details are here.
Virtually all scientists accept that man has some effect on climate, even if only through urbanisation. The Cook study is therefore pretty much worthless anyway, as the authors knew before they published it.
But the fact that only 65 papers identified humans as the primary cause is extremely damning to the supposed consensus.
If humans are actually responsible for less than half of recent warming, the whole scare story falls apart.
Prof Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre summed up just how meaningless Cook’s study was:
The [Cook et al.] article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in [an earlier study]: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?
4. Fourth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 4 – Starting your Arctic sea ice extent graph at the century maximum of 1979… (Climatism comment)
Even their graph of Arctic sea ice extent shows that the ice has stabilised since 2007. They are, of course, hoping that readers will not notice this.
They start their graph in 1979, at the end of a period when the Arctic had been getting colder for three decades.
In Climate, History and the Modern World, HH Lamb wrote (in 1982):
The cooling of the Arctic since 1950-60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the 20thC, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world’s oceans, but also in the Norwegian-East Greenland Sea….
A greatly increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for fifty years. In April-May 1968 and 1969, the island was half surrounded by ice, as had not occurred since 1888.
Such sea ice years have always been dreaded in Iceland’s history because of the depression of summer temperatures and the effects on farm production….. The 1960’s also saw the abandonment of attempts at grain growing in Iceland, which had been resumed in the warmer decades of this century after a lapse of some hundreds of years…
And during the earlier decades of warming, which he mentions, we know that temperatures around the Arctic were at similar levels to today.
For instance, Nuuk in Greenland:
The warming and cooling cycles in the Arctic have nothing at all to do with global warming, but follow the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a perfectly natural event, which NOAA says has been occurring for at least the last 1000 years.
As for the Antarctic, the land ice mass there is actually growing, according to satellite altimeters.
They also mention glaciers, but do not tell their readers that glaciers worldwide grew massively between the Middle Ages and the mid 19thC, in other words during the Little Ice Age. (See here.)
They began retreating around the mid 19thC, and observations show that the rate of recession was greater then and in the early 20thC than it is now.
As glaciers melt, we are finding the remains of forests, carbon dated to the Middle Ages, as far apart as Alaska and Patagonia. Clearly glaciers are simply returning to their natural state prior to the Little Ice Age.
5. Fifth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 5 – The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con
“by most metrics, extreme weather events are becoming ‘less’ extreme as CO2 increases.”
There is no doubt that the “extreme weather lie” is one of the most fraudulent aspects of the whole climate scam.
Even the IPCC’s SREX report could not find any evidence that that extreme weather was increasing.
National Geographic’s claim is based on the above graph from Munich Re, showing the number of “global natural disasters”. But how are these defined?
Clearly every single flood, storm and so on is not counted. According to Munich Re themselves:
Taking very small events out of the equation, 750 relevant loss events [in 2016]such as earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves were recorded in the Munich Re NatCatSERVICE database.
So what determines a “relevant event”. The answer of course is heavily weighted to economic cost. While this may have relevance to the insurance industry, it has little bearing on climate trends.
As the European Environment Agency explained in their “Damages from weather and climate-related events” report in 2012:
- The observed damage increase is primarily due to increases in population, economic wealth and human activities in hazard-prone areas and to better reporting.
- It is currently difficult to determine accurately the proportion of damage costs that are attributable to climate change.
Roger Pielke Jnr, a leading expert on the cost of disasters, has repeatedly shown claims that extreme weather is getting worse to be worthless. His graph below sums the whole topic up well.
Note that it is based on Munich Re’s own database.
Of course, Munich Re have a vested interest in pretending that weather disasters are on the increase, as it allows them to push up their insurance premiums.
Despite a supposedly calamitous year for disasters, Munich Re actually made a profit of Eu2.6bn in 2016, well ahead of its target of Eu2.3bn.
Most of this profit came from the reinsurance business, which made Eu2.5bn.
6. The Sixth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 6 – “There are many threats facing eco systems, but a barely noticeable increase in temperature is not one of them.”
In 1982, HH Lamb wrote about how the ranges of birds and fishes had moved poleward in the first half of the 20thC.
When the Earth started cooling around 1960, this movement was reversed. All that animal and plant species are doing is returning to where they were a half a century or so ago.
7. The Seventh Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
It is hard to know where to start with this load of garbage!
1) If climate change was not a serious danger, would 195 countries have signed the Paris Agreement, pledging to keep the warming below 2C?
Clearly National Geographic have failed to read what actually was agreed at Paris.
For a start, the Agreement itself actually states that, under the “pledges” made, emissions will continue to rise. To meet the 2C scenario, they would need to be cut by at least half.
Secondly, the vast majority of the 195 countries, including China and India, are designated as “developing” countries. As such, the Paris Agreement places no obligation on them at all to cut emissions, as it does on developed nations.
2) Switch to renewables
They claim that we can save the planet by switching to renewable energy. Yet even their own graph shows that, although the use of renewable energy will roughly double by 2040, this will be dwarfed by the increasing use of fossil fuels.
The reason for this is very simple – the demand for cheap, reliable energy is growing fast amongst developing countries, as their economies expand and the expectations of their people for a better standard of living grow.
Renewable energy, such as wind and solar, is utterly incapable of meeting this demand.
The sort of emission cuts needed “to do something” would condemn billions of people to grinding poverty.
3) In the US, solar now employs more people than coal, oil and gas combined.
Given that solar only provides 0.4% of the US’s energy, this fatuous statement shows just how inefficient solar power really is.
BP Energy Review 2016
4) We can do something about it!
Who is this WE?
In the last decade or so, emissions have been slowly dropping in the US and EU, and now only account for 27% of global CO2.
Meanwhile, emissions in China and the rest of the world have been rocketing upwards.
BP Energy Review 2016
Even if US and EU emissions dropped to zero, it would only take global emissions back to their level in 2002, and make next to no difference to the climate.
This whole series from National Geographic has from start to finish been based on a combination of irrelevant, fake and cherry picked data.
Sadly this seems to sum up the low standards that it has now sunk to.
National Geographic Climate Change Alarmism Related :
- You Were Lied To About Arctic Sea Ice Disappearing | Climatism
- What “permanent drought”? New all-time rainfall record set for California | Climatism
- National Geographic : Global Warming Makes People Throw Acid In Each Other’s Faces | Climatism
- National Geographic Goes Full Criminal | Climatism
- National Geographic’s Junk Science: How long will it take for sea level rise to reach midway up the Statue of Liberty? | Climatism
- Spectacular Climate Fraud From National Geographic | Climatism
- Mind Blowing Sea Level Fraud At National Geographic | Climatism
- National Geographic Exposes Their Real Agenda | Climatism
Meanwhile, China opens a new coal-fired power station every week. With 2,500 more in the pipe by 2030 (the exact year the Obama/China ‘Emission cap’ deal takes place).
Epic greenwashing propaganda by the Chinese. But all told, they are winning the propaganda green game with green activists the world over, including Greenpeace China, praising China for their “unreliable” energy (wind/solar) efforts!
Hilarious how far the West and eco-nuts are being taken for a ride.
Nice one China. You still got it ! (Propaganda wise that is!) 🇨🇳
Smog hangs over a construction site in Weifang city, Shandong province, Oct 16. 2015. Air quality went down in many parts of China since Oct 15 and most cities are shrounded by haze. [Photo/IC] Guest essay by Eric Worrall
China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, has just called the USA “selfish” for wanting to remain economically competitive.
Trump must be urged to save climate deal
Source:Global Times Published: 2017/3/30 0:13:40 Last Updated: 2017/3/30 7:14:23
Leaders from China and the US reached an agreement on climate change at the end of 2014, which paved the way for the signing of the Paris Agreement the next year. China and the US are the world’s two largest emitters of carbon dioxide. China is poised to reduce the emissions per unit of GDP by limiting the use of fossil fuels. However, what the US is doing undermines the other countries’ dedication…
View original post 217 more words
The “Extreme Weather” meme has earned its place in climate change history as the fundamental driver of climate scaremongering, used deceptively and effectively to promote the catastrophic man-made climate change theory by instilling fear, doom and gloom directly into the human psyche through simple imagery and repetitive correlation rhetoric.
Even though “weather” is not climate, the daily bombardment via news and multi-media of climatic disaster clips provide more than enough evidence for the casual observer to convince them that the climate is in fact changing as a direct result of human CO2 emissions.
Much of the mainstream media gleefully encourages and promotes the catastrophic man-made warming narrative. Hence, sensationalising a typhoon in the Phillipines or a forest fire in California has become fair-game in the virtuous and IMHO nefarious push to enhance the supposed human CO2-induced climate catastrophe.
However, when you look at hard data and scientific evidence pertaining to extreme weather through the lens of “Government data” and “Peer-Reviewed Science”, as opposed to scary pictures and videos, absorbed via billions of iPhones and hysterical climate-obsessed mainstream media, things are not quite as bad as they seem. In fact, by most metrics, extreme weather events are becoming ‘less’ extreme as CO2 increases. This should come as relieving news to all, though sadly, yet predictably, such data will come as extremely inconvenient news to the virtuous “Save The Planet” lobby and especially those invested in the trillion dollar
global warming climate change industry that feeds and thrives off doomsday scenarios.
Below are listed the more common metrics associated with the much maligned and deceptively ascribed “extreme weather” meme. A term which I would label as a very clever weapon of mass climate propaganda to elevate hysteria, emotions and fear with the ultimate end to mould groupthink belief in human CO2-induced climate change…
The US is currently experiencing a record 12 year (4,380 days) drought of major landfall hurricanes (Cat3+). The last major hurricane to hit was “Wilma” in 2005:
Interesting historical reference point:
NOAA keeps hurricane records back to 1850. The average number of US hurricane strikes per presidency is about eleven. Obama’s presidency had five hurricane strikes, the last being “Matthew” (Cat 1 at landfall, October 8,2016).
Grover Cleveland (1885 – 1889 & 1893 – 1897) and Franklin D Roosevelt (1933 – 1945) both presided over 26 hurricanes, almost six times as many as Obama:
The presidency of Barack Obama had the lowest frequency of US hurricane strikes of any president:
During Obama’s presidency, atmospheric CO2 levels were between 384-400 ppm. At the time of Grover Cleveland, atmospheric CO2 levels were at 294 ppm. (NASA CO2 Data)
Last years tornado season marked the fifth consecutive year of below normal tornado activity in the US:
Over the past 55 years there has been a large reduction in frequency of stronger tornadoes:
There has been no trend in EF-1+ Tornadoes 1954-2014:
Last year may set the record for the least number of Tornadoes on record:
In summary, with an interesting caveat from NOAA:
- No trend in EF-1+ Tornadoes 1954-2014 tornadoes.
- Large reduction in frequency of stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.
- 2016 perhaps a record for the least number of Tornadoes on record.
ALL THIS despite rising CO2 and advanced technologies, including doppler radar and greater attention to reporting – Tornado chasers, increased population etc – which can create “a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency.” – NOAA
Jamal Munshi of Sonoma State University published this paper last June, A General Linear Model for Trends in Tropical Cyclone Activity:
The ACE index is used to compare tropical cyclone activity worldwide among seven decades from 1945 to 2014. Some increase in tropical cyclone activity is found relative to the earliest decades. No trend is found after the decade 1965-1974. A comparison of the six cyclone basins in the study shows that the Western Pacific Basin is the most active basin and the North Indian Basin the least. The advantages of using a general linear model for trend analysis are described.
Again, despite rising CO2, there is no trend in tropical cyclone activity after the decade 1965-1974. With a sharp decline in activity over the past two decades.
AUSTRALIAN TROPICAL CYCLONES
Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology graph shows a significant downtrend in all tropical storms, with no discernible trend for severe tropical cyclones:
Again, it’s clear from the BoM graph that as CO2 has increased, the frequency and strength of cyclones has decreased.
NB, the (warmist) BoM is still yet to update its cyclone graph from 2011. Are they simply lazy? Have no data since 2011? Or are they trying to hide inconvenient climate data that doesn’t fit the CO2-induced extreme weather narrative? You decide.
Snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.”
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)
Climate change alarmists (experts) use tangible and emotional climatic horror scenarios to scare you into belief. One of the more classic instances of such fear-mongering, gone horribly wrong, was that by Dr David Viner – esteemed climatologist from the UK’s CRU, in 2000.
From the Independent’s most cited article: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past by Charles Onians:
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
After over 15 years, the Independent removed that article, and the URL used to come up like this:
It originally read like this:
The original link now boots back to their homepage.
Our friends at WUWT have preserved the entire article as a PDF for posterity:
In fairness, perhaps the good Dr Viner was
colluding consulting with the virtuous partners of climate catastrophe expertise, the UN IPCC…
The (warmist) CSIRO jumped on the “end of snow” bandwagon in August 2003:
Simulations of future snow conditions in the Australian alpine regions were prepared for the years 2020 and 2050…
The low impact scenario for 2020 has a minor impact on snow conditions. Average season lengths are reduced by around five days. Reductions in peak depths are usually less than 10%, but can be larger at lower sites (e.g. Mt Baw Baw and Wellington High Plains).
The high impact scenario for 2020 leads to reductions of 30-40 days in average season lengths. At higher sites such as Mt Hotham, this can represent reductions in season duration of about 25%, but at lower sites such as Mt Baw Baw the reduction can be more significant (up to 60%)…
We have very high confidence (at least 95%) that the low impact scenarios will be exceeded and the high impact scenarios will not be exceeded.
In 2014, the New York Times signalled “The End of Snow”:
BACK TO THE REAL WORLD
2017 Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent was amongst the highest on record last month:
Winter Northern Hemisphere snow extent is trending upwards, despite rising CO2 emissions:
SNOW EXTENT UPDATE 2017
January snow extent update… 10th highest on record.
Again, as CO2 has increased, NH Snow extent has increased :
And for Australia’s CSIRO who assured the end of snow by 2020/2030…
Australia’s snowfields have been overdosed by snow over the past 5+ years.
“DISAPPEARING” SNOW UPDATE – August 8, 2017
FLOODS / DROUGHT
“So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems…” Tim Flannery 2007
IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.
“Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones….
“There is a debate in the climate community, after … close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent…”
As Jones wrote to the University of East Anglia the year before: “Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse…”
A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change…
”It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,” said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal.
THE REAL WORLD (as of 2016 data)
For the continent of Australia as a whole, there is more rain, not less – and certainly no permanent drought:
Winter was Australia’s second wettest on record – just missing out on a new high by a couple of millimetres, leaving many regions already sodden.
“It’s about as wet as it has been in the past 110 years [of records] across Australia,” David Jones, head of climate predictions at the Bureau of Meteorology, said.
Floods! Near-record rainfall! When will the head of climate predictions at the Bureau of Meteorology (David Jones) explain why his 2008 prediction of a “new climate” of drought turned out so, so wrong?
THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROFESSIONAL CLIMATE ALARMISTS’ DUD-PREDICTIONS
The price of global warming alarmism is enormous. Take the cost of the mothballed desalination plants, built after warmists persuaded politiciansthe rains would dry up:
Sydney’s privatised desalination plant, which is costing residents more than $500,000 a day to keep on standby, will not be needed for at least another four or five years. The sale of the plant last year to a private company for $2.3 billion means residents are locked into paying about $10 billion in fees for the next 50 years, whether the plant is operating or not. Not one drop of water has come out of the Kurnell facility since it stopped operating more than a year ago. With dam levels at 93.4 per cent, the plant has been placed into “water security” mode, a long-term shutdown which is likely to continue for some time.”My best estimate is it will still be about four to five years before we turn the desalination plant on,” Sydney Water’s managing director Kevin Young told 7.30 New South Wales
Mind you, big cities did need more water security as they grew. Dams were the cheap option, but who made those almost illegal?
Australia is now awash with water. Nearly every dam is full. And we are left with x4 mothballed desal plants that cost $12Billion to build and are costing the taxpayer $1million per day (each) under contract until 2030/50.
Unfortunately, the worst Flannery and his climate change alarmist comrades can ever be accused of, for the litany of failed alarmist dud-predictions resulting in massive taxpayer-dollar waste, is an excess of “Save the planet”virtue.
Last September, New York’s Daily News forecast centuries of global warming drought for California:
One of the myriad incorrect assertions by climate-change deniers is that scientists who have proven manmade causes for the current global warming ignore periods of warming in the Earth’s past that were not caused by industrial pollution.
Since it’s essentially, and of course ironically, entirely non-scientists who make this claim, the deniers would do well to read a recent UCLA study that indicates California’s current six-year severe drought could be exacerbated enough by global warming to extend the dry period for centuries.
California has now seen more moisture in the last 8 weeks than it typically does in an entire year… San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and several other cities have recorded one of their wettest Januarys on record and an incredibly wet 8 weeks overall.
And for those who desire to claim the recent California floods are “unprecedented” and “extreme”, the below graph shows that inflow to Oroville so far this year is far from unprecedented, with a much greater total in 1997.
And we can see from the state rainfall totals that January 2017 was nothing special:
HISTORICAL DROUGHT PERSPECTIVE
USA drought during the low-CO2 1930’s:
USA drought during 400ppm “unprecedented”-CO2 levels of 2017:
For the next few “Extreme Weather/Climate” categories, feel free to click on the links to read government data and peer-reviewed science sourced to unfold any concern(s) you may have…
SEA LEVEL RISE
If Sea Level Rise were such a threat, ask yourself one simple Q: Why would Barack Hussein Obama (spruiker-in-chief of climate change alarmism) purchase the Hawaii seaside mansion where Magnum PI was filmed?
Maybe its because, outside of his eco-pantheist ideology and Leftist, wealth redistribution agenda, Obama too, knows very well that Islands like Hawaii “Shape-shift” i.e. they grow with Sea Level Rise. In fact, 80% of Island nations around the world are growing, not “Sinking” as climate activists and alarmists will have you believe.
RECENT “EXTREME WEATHER” RELATED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES
China’s not so extreme weather study:
The biggest study of China’s extreme weather finds the frequency of hail storms, thunderstorms and high wind events has actually halved since 1960.
In one of the most comprehensive studies on trends in local severe weather patterns to date, an international team of researchers found that the frequency of hail storms, thunderstorms and high wind events has decreased by nearly 50 percent on average throughout China since 1960…
“Most of the data published on trends in severe weather has been incomplete or collected for a limited short period,” said Fuqing Zhang, professor of meteorology and atmospheric science and director, Center for Advanced Data Assimilation and Predictability Techniques, Penn State. “The record we used is, to the best of our knowledge, the largest, both in time scale and area of land covered.”
When will warmist scientists admit the apocalypse they predicted simply isn’t coming?
Oh and just as a side, Al Gore’s “Extreme Weather” poster child sufferers – POLAR BEARS – are doing more than fine…as CO2 rises!
If we rely on the above scientific hard data and peer-reviewed evidence, it should hopefully become clearer that colourless, odourless, plant food and trace gas CO2 – the gas of life – does not control the climate or the weather.
In my opinion if the temperature gradient between the polar regions and tropics were to increase because of polar cooling, expect to see more and genuine extreme weather occurrences. Ergo, has slight global warming since the 1970’s actually decreased the frequency and strength of extreme weather events? The above evidence strongly supports this case. Especially in the case of Northern Hemisphere Hurricanes, Tornadoes and drought.
Ironically and to this point, in 1974 climatologists blamed extreme weather on “Global Cooling”.
The panic was so real during the “Global Cooling” scare of the 1970’s that UN scientists wanted to melt the Arctic by spreading black soot on it!
And today, the UN, all those expert climatologists and their sycophant media gleefully blame any extreme weather event, not on “global cooling” but now “global warming”. Nuff said.
TO FINISH. A message, in their own words, from the promulgators of climate change fear, doom and gloom – the UN’s very own IPCC …
Direct from their IPCC SREX report released 2012 :
Recommended / Related :
- It’s Time To Declare War On Global Warming Extremists | Climatism
- Global warmists trash our planet | Daily Mail – James Delingpole
- TIM FLANNERY – Epitome Of The Climate Scam | Climatism
- Fake News “Cooks” Guardian’s Climate Credibility | Climatism
- There Is No Climate Change Crisis | Climatism
- Why CSIRO and BoM Cannot Be Trusted On Anything “Climate Change” | Climatism
- NASA “Sea Level Rise” Fraud | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
Driving down on Saturday, we stopped off at Crickley Country Park in Gloucestershire.
On the information board there was the usual eco stuff we often see these days. At the top it mentioned (roughly)
Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant and is harmful to the environment.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of pollution is;
The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects.
Clearly, CO2 is not poisonous, and far from being harmful is absolutely essential for life on Earth as we know it.
At best, the only argument can be that an increase in CO2 levels MAY, on balance, be harmful, but equally a reduction could be even more harmful.
Unfortunately, this sort of sloppy, lazy propaganda is far too common these days.
Crickley Park is owned and run by Gloucestershire County Council. It is sad we cannot count on…
View original post 8 more words
Umm, perhaps because China is pragmatic and still ‘scientific’ enough not to yield to the radical environmentalist con that the colourless, odorlesss, trace gas and plant food carbon dioxide (CO2) is a “pollutant”.
The big lie of climate alarmist’s is to conflate real ‘carbon’ pollution (soot) with CO2. China sees this a mile away and isn’t influenced by ‘carbon’ propaganda and western eco-political correctness.
Yet again – smart China, dumb West.
L.A. Times climate science denial article instead shows the Times clearly denying well established climate sciencePosted: September 20, 2016
Shock news : Global Warming hysterical mainstream media, spewing anti-science alarmist agitprop.
The L. A. Times published an article claiming that “Trump’s climate science denial clashes with the reality of rising seas in Florida”
The article fails to address easily available and comprehensive NOAA tide gauge data updated through the year 2015 (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.htm) showing that the Florida coastline is experiencing no acceleration in coastal sea level rise and that the rate of coastal sea level rise there remains constant and consistent over more than 100 years of long term period tide gauge data measurements.
This long term steady rate of coastal sea level rise is documented at numerous locations around the state including Mayport, Fernandina Beach, Key West, St. Petersburg, Cedar Key, and Pensacola.
Climate alarmists have been falsely claiming for 3 decades now that coastal sea level rise is accelerating but NOAA tide gauge data demonstrates that this is not happening in Florida or anywhere else around…
View original post 186 more words