Hot = Climate
Cold = Weather
“This new climate report is not an objective or an honest assessment of the state of the climate, particularly in relation to the US.
Instead, it is a highly partisan and politicised report, designed to promote alarmism.
There has been much talk of the need for red and blue teams, to challenge lazy consensus.
It is now time for this to happen, so that this Report can be constructively assessed and, where appropriate, criticised. One of the tasks of a counter group should be to produce their own state of the climate assessment.
The climate mafia have had it their own way for far too long.”
Spot-on Paul. Great re-reporting to make the non-politicised version available!
The mere fact that activist “scientist” Katharine Hayhoe was a lead on the report, speaks volumes.
Corruption of climate ‘science’ by eco-activists, gobbled up by the sycophant mainstream media without any objective analysis.
Eisenhower was right, warning of the corruption of sciences by govt in 1960:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”
By Paul Homewood
The Federal Climate Science Special Report from the US Global Change Research Program, mandated under the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, has now been published.
As with the draft, which I reported on in August, it is the usual mix of half truths, exaggerations, omissions and outright lies.
Let’s look at the main sections:
View original post 2,389 more words
“It is impossible to save a planet that is not dying, and it is a disgrace to lead people into false fears concerning climate change.”
GREAT read from a non-climate-elitists (a normal persons) perspective…
Guest opinion by Vijay Jayaraj
As a citizen of a third-world country, I bring a different perspective about climate change from that held by most people in wealthy countries. While they fret about possible tenth-of-a-degree changes in global average temperature, I think about how a billion of my fellow Indians and I will obtain the food, water, health care, and other things we need that our richer neighbors take for granted.
So we puzzle when we observe climate alarmists on a scaremongering crusade following the recent hurricanes in the Atlantic. They saw hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria as providing another opportunity to blame climate change. Indeed, they tend to hold human-driven climate change guilty for the occurrence of any natural disaster.
But this is common only in the mainstream media. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a leading authority on climate-change science and policy, admits in its assessment reports…
View original post 511 more words
“I see two things going on here:
1) Most people are far more intelligent than the elites give them credit for. They can see through the deception they have been fed, and are capable of using their own eyes to see what is really going on.
2) People are growing numb to the incessant propaganda.”
3) Economies, businesses and (non-elite) peoples’ livelihoods are being destroyed by insanely high electricity bills as a direct result of the West’s mad obsession with unreliable-energy, wind and solar.
By Paul Homewood
From No Tricks:
If one were to rate the investment made by governments globally aimed at creating concern for a potential problem, then the huge investment in climate change fear by now would definitely have to be rated as “junk” quality.
Never has so much seen so little return.
Hundreds of billions have been invested so far with the aim of generating mass fear, and by now we would think the global public should be in a state of panic. That’s the least one would expect from such a massive investment in fostering fear.
But it turns out that climate change remains very low on the list of concerns that citizens have.
View original post 238 more words
DEEP within human nature there are certain types of people who yearn for catastrophe, they yearn to have significance in their lives believing that theirs is the time when the chickens are coming home to roost and everything is going to go tits up.
THE biggest selling environmental books in history, predict the mass destruction of the planet. Rachel Carson’s 1962 international bestseller “Silent Spring” predicted mass cancer from plant pesticides and DDT. Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” 1968, argued on malthusian lines that population explosion would mean mass starvation around the world. People buy this stuff. They lap it up and books like this sell in droves, in a way that more reasonable books that say “hang on, lets look at the facts”, don’t.
THIS short YouTube video via our friends @Carbongate needs no introduction, and is a must watch..
1970’s Global Cooling (Climate Change) Eco-scare related :
- THE Climate Change Farce Explained By Two Expert “Scientists” | Climatism
- The 1970’s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today | Climatism
- BBC – Real risk of a Maunder minimum ‘Little Ice Age’ | Climatism
- 40 Years Since Climate Scientists Warned Us! The New Ice Age Is Going To Starve Us To Death | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- Cooling On The Warming: Now Warnings Of A Mini Ice Age | Climatism
- 1974 Shock News : CIA Said Global Warming Was A Good Thing | Real Science
MORE 1970′s Global Cooling Scare Related :
- Feds Alarmed By Global Cooling in 1974 | Climatism
- CIA 1974 National Security Threat : Global Cooling/Excess Arctic Ice Causing Extreme Weather | Real Science
- 1974 Shock News : CIA Said Global Warming Was A Good Thing | Real Science
- 1975 : Climatologists Wanted Permission To Melt The Arctic To Stop Disastrous Climate Change | Real Science
- 1972 : UN Scientists Wanted To Melt The Arctic By Spreading Soot On It | Real Science
- 1974 : NCAR Called Global Cooling The “New Norm” And Blamed Climate Disasters On It | Real Science
- 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism
- The New Crisis : The Same As The Old Crisis | Climatism
- 1922 US Government Shock News : Radical Change In Arctic Climate – Glaciers Gone | Climatism
- 1970s Global Cooling Scare | Real Science
- Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.
- 21 Jul 1976 – C.I.A. WARNING Changes to climate to bring upheaval
- Climate Change And Its Effect On World Food (1974)
- TIME – Weather – The Big Freeze
Via Warwick Huges | Errors in IPCC climate science :
In 2012 I blogged To understand Perth sea-levels is a complex issue – much of the Perth plain has subsided in recent decades…
Recent media publicity around a “State of Australian Cities” reporthas beaten up claims that Perth sea-levels are rising at three times the global average, or near 10mm per year. A matter that Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese described as “disturbing and extraordinary”. Chris Gillham shows that the claims in the State of Australian Cities report re Perth sea level rise are over-hyped.
This chart fom a 2010 WA Govt planning report shows long term sea level changes at Fremantle.
The State of Australian Cities report concentrates on shorter term more sensational trends in the last 20 years but omits to quote recent research measuring rapid subsidence of large areas of the Perth coastal plain.
A 2012 paper – Anthropogenic land subsidence in the Perth Basin: challenges for its retrospective geodetic detection – says subsidence at Gnangara for the 14 years 1997-2011 has averaged 4.6mm per year – see Table 1 below.
In recent decades subsidence has been worsened by increased drawdown ground water for Perth water supplies – a process which has eased post 2005.
This online chart shows CGPS readings from the Hillarys tide gauge installation and indicates steady sinking of ~3mm per year 2006-2012. There are no CGPS readings I can find from Fremantle.
Hillarys has CGPS data from 1997 and Featherstone et al say those data – “…are not in a form that can be readily analysed in a short time frame, particularly because of the multiple equipment changes that make the time series very discontinuous.” Other published versions of the Hillarys CGPS data quote a 1998-2009 subsidence averaging just over 5mm per year. Watson PJ – Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level
Rise around Mainland Australia?
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2011
Featherstone et al 2012 discuss surveying to detect level changes and say – “There is some scope for detecting subsidence in the Perth Basin if levelling is repeated now or sometime in the future. However, the costs are likely to be prohibitive.”
I fail to see how a few repeat levelling traverses from the Darling Ranges to the coast costing what ? – a few $million ? – should be beyond the wealth of a First World nation like Australia. Apparently some traverses were carried out in the 1980’s.
There is no shortage of Govt grant monies to waste on shonky Greenhouse inspired “research”.
Tide gauges and harbours are often located in places where the crust is sinking due to say sedimentation from a river. Any harbour structure attached to piles will slowly sink into the muddy substrate over the decades – factors like traffic vibration, a century of ships banging into piles – all can contribute to piles sinking. Dock areas where tide gauges tend to be installed are often the sites of reclaimed land, Auckland is an example. This tends to quietly settle for decades which can confound tide gauge data. At Fremantle 150 years of urbanization – including storm-water drainage direct to the sea – can lower ground water levels and cause subsidence – quite apart from deliberate ground water harvesting.
See also :