7 REASONS Why Activist Orgs Like NatGeo (Sadly) Cannot Be Trusted On Anything “Climate Change”

Nat GEop.jpg

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

NG1.png

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

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.

NG2.png

NG3

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.

Seven things to know about climate change–National Geographic | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

•••

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)

NATG4.png

NG5.png

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.

NG6.png

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=91&tstype2=20&year1=1900&year2=2016&itypea=0&axistype=1&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results

•••

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)

ng7.png

NG8.png

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

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?

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/andrew-montford-the-97/

•••

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)

NG9

NG10.png

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

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.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

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…

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/hh-lamb-cooling-in-the-arctic/

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:

Nuuk.png

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/greenland-temperature-trends-1873-2015/

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.

NG12

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=91&tstype2=0&year1=1895&year2=&itypea=0&axistype=0&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results

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.”

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/the-great-extreme-weather-climate-change-propaganda-con/

(Climatism comment)

ng5a

NG5b

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

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.

NG5c.png

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/684740869707071488

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.”

NG6a1

NG6a2

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

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.

NG6a3

HH Lamb: Climate, History and the Modern World – p264
There are many threats facing eco systems,
but a barely noticeable increase in temperature is not one of them.
•••

7. The Seventh Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

sg7a.png

sg7b.png

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.

sg7c.png

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/paris-agreement-will-lead-to-rise-in-ghg-emissions/

sg7d.jpg

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/why-the-uk-should-not-sign-the-paris-agreement/

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

sg7e

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.

sg7f
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.

sg7g

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 :


NASA “Sea Level Rise” Fraud

nasa_fraud

‘Sea Level Rise’ is just one in a long line of propaganda metrics used by the climate crisis industry to promote the narrative that your CO2 emissions are causing unprecedented climate change.

What ‘sea-level rise’ alarmists won’t tell you is that seas have risen 400 feet (120m) over the past 20,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age. And over the past 200 years have been rising at a steady rate of 1.7-1.8 mm/year according to NOAA.

Climate change and sea level rise over the past 20,000 years :

SLR Greenland Ice Core.jpg

Annotated graph via Tony Heller’s Real Science humorously notes the impact your SUV has had on sea-level rise versus Nature over the past 20,000 years :

SLR Man V Natural GODDARD2.png

Distinguishing Between Natural And Man-Made Sea Level Rise | Real Science

Sea Level Rise acceleration?

There has been no acceleration of sea-level rise since industrialisation. And critically, something other than evil plant food “Carbon Dioxide” caused seas to rise around 1790.

Important to note that 85% of man-made CO2 was emitted after 1945 :

jevrejeva-sea-levels-1700-1800-1900-2000-global-2

It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800 « JoNova

 

What we know about rising seas :

  • Seas have been rising for the past 20,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age.
  • Something other than CO2 caused the current steady rise around 1790.
  • No acceleration since 1790.

•••

With that hard science and peer-reviewed data in the vault, enter the climate fiddlers from the ‘Ministry of Truth’ – NASA…

 

 

Tony Heller of Real Climate Science has spent thousands upon thousands of hours of unpaid work exposing the relentless fraudulent adjustments and data tampering pushed out of government (taxpayer funded) climate institutions – NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, NCDC, CSIRO, BoM, UN IPCC to name a few.

The fraudulent data is then fed to the sycophant, global warming alarmist mainstream media, published as gospel, and voilà – the “Climate Change Crisis” is born!

This recent post via Real Climate Science on NASA tampering of Sea-level rise highlights the blatant malfeasance that these government funded institutions will undertake in order to push the man-made global warming climate change agenda, and keep the “Greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud in history” rolling and the billions upon billions of taxpayer funds flowing…

•••

NASA Shows How Science Fraud Is Done

 

In 1982, NASA showed that sea level rise dropped off sharply after 1950.

screen-shot-2016-10-25-at-6-56-02-am

NASA said that there was a high correlation with global surface temperature (i.e. global warming occurred from 1880 to 1940 and slowed considerably after 1950.)

screen-shot-2016-10-25-at-7-13-56-am-down

1982_Gornitz_go05100g.pdf

In 1990, the IPCC said there was no convincing evidence of an acceleration in sea level rise during the 20th century.

screen-shot-2016-10-23-at-6-03-54-am-down

ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf

The 1995 IPCC report showed no warming from the 1950’s to the 1990’s.

screen-shot-2016-10-24-at-5-25-32-am-down

ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf

The NASA/IPCC data wrecked two essential parts of the global warming scam – post-1950 warming and post-1950 sea level rise. So they found people who were willing to change the data to match the models. The current NASA sea level data is based on this confirmation bias fishing expedition.

This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations

Screen-Shot-2016-10-25-at-6.51.40-AM-768x499.gif

Church J, White N.. A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophys Res Lett 33: L01602

The overlay below shows how they changed the post-1950 data to match the theory.

screen-shot-2016-10-25-at-7-04-05-am

Church and White discovered a mysterious break in sea level in the year 1926, when sea level rise rates suddenly increased by almost 250% to 1,94 mm/year.

screen-shot-2016-10-25-at-6-53-06-am

Data

I can’t find one single tide gauge anywhere on the planet which shows this post-1926 acceleration. The Church and White study is utter nonsense.

8724580-2-3050-141-2-1024x390-28518750-5-1

But the NASA fraud gets worse. Their tide gauge data says 1.94 mm/year, but their web site shows 3.4 mm/year.

screen-shot-2016-10-25-at-7-39-27-am-down

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Sea Level

Only 10% of NOAA tide gauges show that much sea level rise, and all of those are in places where the land is rapidly sinking.

Screen-Shot-2016-10-04-at-7.59.13-AM-1024x580.gif

Sea Level Trends – MSL global stations trends table

NOAA says sea level is rising half as fast as NASA’s claims.

screen-shot-2016-10-04-at-8-16-10-am

absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year

Sea Level Trends – Global Regional Trends

NASA sea level claims are blatant fraud – being done right in front of our faces.

•••

NASA Global Temperature Fraud Related :

Sea Level Rise Fraud Related :

Mainstream Media Sea Level Rise Alarmism :


NOAA Blows Away Their Fraud Record By A Wide Margin In September

“It [global warming] is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

– Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Harold Lewis, on resignation from the American Physical Society.

Not much has changed since Harold resigned from the APS in 2010.

Real Science

2015-10-22-14-53-34

Lots of headlines today that September was the hottest ever – by a wide margin. The level of fraud which NOAA had to use to obtain this result (ahead of Paris) is quite stunning.

The first thing to note is the massive data tampering they did since last September. They increased the temperature of all recent years to get rid of the hiatus.

NOAASeptember2014-2015201409.gif (813×525)
201509.gif (813×525)

But that is the least of their fraud. They generated this red colored map, which does not even vaguely represent their measured data.

201509 (2)

201509.gif (990×765)

The map below shows their actual station data. They have coverage for less than 50% of the land surface, meaning that more than half of their surface temperatures in the map above are fake. Note that there are only two warm areas – the US and eastern Europe. They simply made up fake temperatures in the missing areas to paint their map…

View original post 140 more words


1976 : Climatologists Predicted Global Cooling – Skeptics Said It Was Nonsense


Global Warming Was Never About Science. It Was Always About Power And Money

Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis
.”
– Greenpeace International

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

This planet is on course for a catastrophe.
The existence of Life itself is at stake
.”
– Dr Tim Flannery,
Climate Council

•••

If you’re happy being part of a herd and your groupthink belief system is built around “consensus”, “settled science” and The Guardian. And if you’ve consumed obscene amounts of green Kool-Aid with a healthy dollop of communism to guard against socialised eco-guilt, then best not read this Kurt Schlichter article, which will guarantee put a 16-inch gaping hole in the side of your Global WarmingClimate Change “Save The Planet” sanctimony …

“The Los Angeles Times and Reddit recently barred dissenters from their pages – there’s no better concession of defeat than silencing your opponent.”

Climate Change Scammers’ Worst Week Ever

Kurt Schlichter | TownHall.com Jan 13, 2014

e03405ba-eef9-48f9-9e60-001f27494d65

Between global warming suckers getting entombed in ice while trying to prove the Antarctic ice cap has melted to most of America doing a Frigidaire impression, the entire façade of this bogus leftist power grab is crumbling.

Understand that the 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.

The scammers have been ably assisted by a palace guard media that eagerly reports the scammers’ every lie while ignoring every inconvenient truth. You’ll skim the mainstream media in vain for the reason behind the trapped expedition’s trip to the Antarctic. And, of course, the most inconvenient truth of all is that it hasn’t gotten significantly warmer since the industrial revolution started generating CO2, and it hasn’t warmed at all in recent years.

The left’s use of pseudo-science as a means to seize and centralize control has a colorful history. One particularly colorful scheme was the progressive nightmare of eugenics. Leftist icons like Margaret Sanger eagerly advocated it as a tool to eliminate infants of color.

Let’s fast forward to the 1970s, when we were entering a new ice age and the only possible solution was – surprise – more government power. The global cooling panic morphed into the global warming panic. Suddenly, temperatures were inexorably rising and the ice caps were melting. In fact, they should be melted by now.

But “global warming” is problematic when the uncherry-picked evidence shows that the Earth is not getting significantly warmer. The hockey stick is stuck. Now, one might take this new evidence and revise one’s conclusion to conform to the observed data. We call that science. But we are dealing with “science,” and when the evidence doesn’t support your conclusion you change the name of the phenomenon.

Hence, “climate change.” Its goal was stop us wacky literalists from being able to point to a lack of warming to disprove global warming. Apparently, we were fools to expect that what the scammers called “warming” might involve warming.

“Climate change” is useful because it minimizes the dangerous possibility of negating the theory through observation. Any kind of change in the weather is “climate change.” That means literally any evidence supports the theory. If you really want to tick off a scammer, ask him what piece of observable data would lead him to conclude that his climate change theory is incorrect.

Of course, in science, an unfalsifiable theory isn’t a theory at all. But in “science,” you aren’t really talking about theories. You are talking about politically necessary conclusions that are beyond question. “Science” is a religion, and we’re the heretics.

But even “climate change” has become problematic. What if the climate is not changing for the worse? Recent years have seen fewer hurricanes, and of less intensity. The Antarctic ice the penguins stood on while laughing at the trapped ship of fools was manifestly still there. Polar bears continue to wander the northern wastes uncooked.

So the left has now moved to an even vaguer, less empirically assessable concept – looming “climate collapse.” It’s a beautiful notion, at once evoking some sort of horrendous catastrophe while offering absolutely no way to evaluate its accuracy. The “climate collapse” remains off in the future, vague and ambiguous, an unspecified disaster where something bad might happen and no one can prove the negative, so there is no way to judge it to be fact or fiction.

This is “science.” And if you doubt that something of an undefined nature might possibly occur at some unknown point in the future and maybe have unexplained negative effects, you reject “science” in all its forms. You also probably believe in God and are definitely racist.

Climate change scam arguments pique my lawyerly interest as exemplar tactics, techniques and procedures in the art of obfuscation. But the nomenclature isn’t the only bit of dissembling. The scammers attempt to intertwine the idea that human activity has some sort of impact on the climate with their demand that we transfer to their control trillions of dollars and much of our sovereignty. They intentionally erase the distinction between the cause of the alleged problem and the proposed solution, neatly skipping the effect.

Continue Reading »

•••

Related Links :

Some Science :

Climate Money Related :

United Nations Freedom Related :