46 STATEMENTS By IPCC Experts Against The IPCCPosted: March 7, 2020 Filed under: Climate Change, Climatism, IPCC, ORIGINS OF THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM, Sceptics, UN, UNEP, WHO | Tags: Climate Change, Climate Crisis, Climate Emergency, Climatism, Global Warming, Greta Thunberg, IPCC, UN, UNEP, UNFCCC, WHO 38 Comments
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth
Fmr President of the UN Foundation
Thankfully, we usually always get to hear the inconvenient and raw truth about taxpayer funded, unelected, bloated government bureaucracies when members eventually leave and are not subject to bullying and financial repercussions.
46 enlightening statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC:
- Dr Robert Balling: The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
- Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
- Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
- Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
- Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
- Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
- Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
- Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
- Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
- Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
- Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
- Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
- Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
- Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
- Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
- Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
- Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
- Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
- Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
- Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
- Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
- Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
- Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
- Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
- Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
- Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
- Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
- Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
- Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
- Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
- Steven McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
- Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
- Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
- Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
- Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
- Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
- Dr Murry Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
- Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
- Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”
- Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
- Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
- Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”
- Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
- Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
- Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
- Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”
Via : 46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC | grumpydenier
BIOGRAPHIES of IPCC SCIENTISTS
- Dr Robert C Balling, Jr. is a professor of geography at Arizona State University, and the former director of its Office of Climatology. His research interests include climatology, global climate change, and geographic information systems. Balling has declared himself one of the scientists who oppose the consensus on global warming, arguing in a 2009 book that anthropogenic global warming “is indeed real, but relatively modest”, and maintaining that there is a publication bias in the scientific literature.
- Dr Lucka Bogataj (Kajfež Bogataj Lučka) The joint recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, she is one of Slovenia’s pioneers in researching the impact of climate change, and she regularly informs the general public of her findings.She is a full professor and teaches at the Biotechnical Faculty, while also lecturing at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics and at the Faculty of Architecture. More…
- Dr John Christy John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satelliteremote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record.He is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama‘s state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA‘s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society‘s “Special Award.” In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
- Dr Rosa Compagnucci : Retired but she continue advancing in her
- Dr Richard Courtney is a Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry) who lives in Epsom, Surrey (UK). In the early 1990s Courtney was a Senior Material Scientist of the National Coal Board (also known as British Coal) and a Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management. Member of the European Science and Environment Forum. Acting as a technical advisor to several U.K. MPs and mostly-U.K. MEPs
- Dr Judith Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee. After publishing over a hundred scientific papers and co-editing several major works, Curry retired from academia in 2017.
- Dr Robert Davis is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Virginia‘s Department of Environmental Sciences.
Davis received his Ph.D. in 1988 from the University of Delaware. His research contributions include the development of a system for measuring the power of Nor’easters. In his studies of global warming, he has suggested that it may manifest more by milder winters than by hotter summers, and predicted that its effects on human population will not be severe.
- Dr Willem de Lange Position: Senior Lecturer, Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Waikato.
Field: Earth and ocean sciences, focus on coastal oceanography. An earth scientist and lecturer at the University of Waikato, was born in the Netherlands and moved with his family to New Zealand when he was 18 months old. Since then, he has stayed put in Hamilton. He did his Bachelor of Science, master’s and PhD at the University of Waikato and is now a Senior Lecturer in the Earth and Ocean Sciences Department there.
- Dr Chris de Freitas New Zealand climate scientist. He was an associate professor in the School of Environment at the University of Auckland. De Freitas, born in Trinidad, received both his Bachelor’s and his Master’s at the University of Toronto, Canada, after which he earned his PhD as a Commonwealth Scholar from the University of Queensland, Australia. During his time at the University of Auckland, he served as deputy dean of science, head of science and technology, and for four years as pro vice-chancellor. He also served as vice-president of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand and was a founding member of the Australia–New Zealand Climate Forum.
- Dr Oliver Frauenfeld My research activities include a broad range of topics in climate variability and climate change. I focus primarily on surface-atmosphere interactions, over both the land and the oceans. One of these research areas investigates changes in Arctic and high-altitude environments; specifically, the interactions between frozen ground (permafrost and seasonally frozen areas) and other cryospheric variables in the high latitudes of Eurasia, with the overlying atmosphere.
- Dr Peter Dietze Independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller; official reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Bavaria, Germany.Independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller; official reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Bavaria, Germany.
- Dr John Everett is a marine biologist who has worked with NOAA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and manages the UN Atlas of the Oceans; he is currently president of the consulting firm Ocean Associates, Inc.”I was a Member of the Board of Directors of the NOAA Climate Change Program from its inception until I left NOAA. I led several impact analyses for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1988 to 2000, while a NOAA employee. The reports were reviewed by hundreds of government and academic scientists as part of the IPCC process.”
- Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen Friis-Christensen received a Magisterkonferens (Ph.D. equivalent) in Geophysics from University of Copenhagen in 1971. In 1972, he was a geophysicist at the Danish Meteorological Institute. His interest in solar activity began in August, in his tent, when he experienced an extreme solar storm:
- Dr Lee Gerhard is a retired geologist from the University of Kansas. His profile at Thomasson Partner Associates, Inc. describes him as as an Honorary Member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, past president and Honorary Member of that society’s Division of Environmental Geosciences, an Honorary Member of the Association of American State Geologists, and an Honorary Member of the Kansas Geological Society.
- Dr Indur Goklany is a science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy.He has represented the United States at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and during the negotiations that led to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He was a rapporteur for the Resource Use and Management Subgroup of Working Group III of the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990, and is the author of Clearing the Air (1999), The Precautionary Principle (2001), and The Improving State of the World (2007).
- Dr Vincent Gray (24 March 1922 – 14 June 2018) was a New Zealand chemist, and a founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Gray was awarded a PhD in physical chemistry by the University of Cambridge. He commented on every publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with 1,898 comments on the 2007 Report.
- Dr Mike Hulme Professor of Human Geography in the Department of Geography at the University of Cambridge. He was formerly professor of Climate and Culture at King’s College London (2013-2017) and of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA). Hulme served on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) from 1995 to 2001. He also contributed to the reports of the IPCC.
- Dr Kiminori Itoh Japanese award winning environmental physical chemist who contributed to the U.N. IPCC AR4 climate report. Itoh on the man-made global warming theory: Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” Received his Ph.D. in industrial chemistry from University of Tokyo in 1978. “I have written (or participated in) four books (in Japanese, unfortunately) on this issue including the present one. I also took a patent on sunspot number anticipation, and did some contribution to the IPCC AR4 as an expert reviewer.”
- Dr Yuri Izrael was a vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until September 2008, when the new bureau was elected. zrael was former chairman of the Committee for Hydrometeorology. He also served as director of the Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, which is a part of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He was a first vice-president of the World Meteorological Organization and helped develop the World Weather Watch.
- Dr Steven Japar a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
- Dr Georg Kaser is a South Tyrolean glaciologist and is considered one of the most influential climate researchers worldwide. He worked twice as lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations‘ World Council of Nations.
- Dr Aynsley Kellow is a climate skeptic at the School of Governement University of Tasmania. Aynsley Kellow was an IPCC reviewer to Working Group II of AR4.
- Dr Madhav Khandekar is a former research scientist from Environment Canada and is presently on the editorial board of the Journal of Natural Hazards (Kluwer). He is an environmental consultant on extreme weather events and a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. He has worked in the fields of weather and climate for nearly 50 years and has published more than 120 papers, reports, and book reviews and a monograph on ocean surface wave analysis and modeling (Springer-Verlag 1989). Khandekar is one of the external reviewers for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 1997 Fourth Assessment Report.
- Dr Hans Labohm Hans HJ Labohm was born in 1941. He studied economics and economic history at the Municipal University of Amsterdam. After his military service, from 1967 he worked for the Ministry of Defense at the Dutch Permanent Representation to NATO in Brussels. In 1971 he joined the Foreign Service and was sent to Sweden. After returning to the Netherlands in 1974, he worked in various positions at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: from 1978 as Deputy Policy Planning Advisor. From 1987 to 1992 he was Deputy Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris. Since September 1992, he has been affiliated with the Clingendael Institute as a guest researcher and advisor to the Board of Directors. He has regularly published in Het Financieele Dagblad, NRC Handelsblad, de Volkskrant, the Internationale Spectator and Liberaal Reveil, among others. From 2002 he worked as a columnist on the American website of ‘Tech Central Station’. After years of blogging for The Daily Standard (DDS), he has been writing for Climategate.nl and Yalta since June 2015.
- Dr Andrew Lacis NASAGISS National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA AST, CLIMATE & RADIATION STUDIES). Andrew A. Lacis received his B.A. in Physics in 1963, M.S. in Astronomy in 1964, and Ph.D. in Physics in 1970, all from the University of Iowa. He was selected for the NASA traineeship program, a program established by NASA to encourage graduate students in the pursuit of scientific research and study. While a graduate student, he also did research in astrophysics and astronomy in Japan at the University of Kyoto, and at the University of Tokyo. Following his Ph.D., he was Instructor in Astronomy at the University of Iowa. In 1972, he teamed up with James E. Hansen for post-doctoral research in planetary atmospheres at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) more…
- Dr Chris Landsea is an American meteorologist, formerly a research meteorologist with the Hurricane Research Division of the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, and now the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.
- Dr Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983 until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change‘s Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change and what he has called “climate alarmism.”
- Dr Harry Lins is a Scientist Emeritus (Hydrology) with the U.S. Geological Survey. During his years at USGS, his work spanned several Earth science disciplines, including coastal processes, surface water hydrology, and hydroclimatology. Although most of his career was spent conducting research, he managed the USGS Global Change Hydrology Program from 1989 to 1997, and served as Co-Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group for the IPCC First Assessment Report. In 1999, he and USGS colleague David Wolock developed “WaterWatch”, the Nation’s first website depicting maps and graphs of water resources conditions in near real-time. Lins currently serves as President of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Hydrology.
- Dr Philip Lloyd UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, [Nuclear Physicist] and Chemical Engineer, and author of more than 150  refereed publications. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” Google natural CO2 vs man-made CO2 for the real facts.Philip Lloyd’s Professional details- Honorary Research Fellow: Energy Research Centre: University of Cape Town, Cape Town; Fellow: SA Acad of Engineering ; Chair: VAF: Chemical & Allied Industries Association; Fellow: SA Chemical Institute (SACI)
- Dr Martin Manning Professor Martin Manning was the Founding Director of the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University of Wellington, established to build better interactions between science, policy, and society on climate change issues. From 2002 to 2007, Martin was Director of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I Technical Support Unit that produced the Fourth Assessment Report on climate change for governments. He has produced over 50 papers in peer-reviewed science literature and been an author and review editor for several of the major IPCC reports. Martin has worked in several countries but spent most of his life in New Zealand where he led research on greenhouse gases, atmospheric chemistry, and other aspects of climate change science over the last thirty years. In 2008, Martin became an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit for his services to climate change science.
- Steven McIntyre is a Canadian mining exploration company director, a former minerals prospector and semi-retired mining consultant whose work has included statistical analysis. He is best known as the founder and editor of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is most prominent as a critic of the temperature record of the past 1000 years and the data quality of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is known in particular for his statistical critique, with economist Ross McKitrick, of the hockey stick graph which shows that the increase in late 20th century global temperatures is unprecedented in the past 1,000 years.
- Dr Patrick Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He was a research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for 30 years. Michaels was a contributing author and is a reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
- Dr Nils-Axel Morner is the former head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He retired in 2005. He was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Commission on Neotectonics (1981–1989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997–2003). He is a critic of the IPCC and the notion that the global sea level is rising.
- Dr Johannes Oerlemans is a Dutch climatologist specialized in glaciology and sea level. He is a professor of meteorology in the Faculty of Physics and Astronomy at Utrecht University.
- Dr Roger Pielke is an American political scientist and professor, and was the director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder. He previously served in the Environmental Studies Program and was a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University’s Saïd Business School in the 2007-2008 academic year.
- Dr Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. He was an employee of the Center for Disease Control (Dengue Branch) for 22 years. He is a specialist in the natural history, epidemiology and control of mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever, West Nile fever, and malaria. He is a Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society. Reiter
says hewas a contributor to the third IPCC Working Group II (Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) report, but resigned because he “found [himself] at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of [his] speciality”. After ceasing to contribute he says he struggled to get his name removed from the Third report.
- Dr Murry Salby is an American atmospheric scientist who focused on upper atmospheric wave propagation for most of his early career, and who more recently argued against aspects of the scientific consensus that human activity contributes to climate change. He has written two textbooks, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics (1996), and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (2011). The latter textbook, building on his first book, offers an overview of the processes controlling the atmosphere of Earth, weather, energetics, and climate physics.
- Dr Tom Segalstad has conducted research, publishing, and teaching in geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, volcanology, structural geology, ore geology, and geophysics at the University of Oslo and at Pennsylvania State University. His current research interests include general geochemistry (the chemistry of the Earth), metallogenesis (how mineral deposits and ore deposits form), igneous petrogenesis (how magmatic rocks form), and carbon dioxide and the “greenhouse effect” (how carbon dioxide cannot cause “global warming”).He is past head of the Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo and currently a member of several international and national professional working groups and committees, including an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.
- Dr Fred Singer an atmospheric and space physicist, founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). He served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971–94); distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL (1989–94); chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987– 89); vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) (1981–86); deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970–71); deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967– 70); founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964–67); first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962–64); and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953–62).
- Dr Hajo Smit a former member of the UN IPCC committee who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a sceptic. (Climatism: very limited online footprint.)
- Dr Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex. He is also professor of the economics of climate change at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He is a member of the Academia Europaea. Tol was a coordinating lead author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Tol said in March 2014 that he had withdrawn from the writing team for the Summary for Policy Makers of the report in September 2013, citing disagreement with the profile of the report which he considered too alarmist and putting too little emphasis on opportunities to adapt to climate changes.
- Dr Tom Tripp is Professor of Management, Rom Markin Endowed Leadership Chair in Business, and Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the Carson College of Business at Washington State University. He previously taught at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and at the Sauder School of Business at University of British Columbia.
- Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber undertook undergraduate and graduate studies in atmospheric sciences at the Free University of Berlin, during which time he was a Fulbright and Indiana University Scholar. Further study in America gained him an M.Sc. degree in atmospheric sciences from the University of Michigan. He returned to the Free University of Berlin to study for his Meteorology Ph.D. in conjunction with the Max-Planck Institute of Aeronomy.
- Dr David Wojick has a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science and mathematical logic from the University of Pittsburgh and a B.S. in civil engineering from Carnegie Tech. He has been on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon University and the staffs of the U.S. Office of Naval Research and the Naval Research Lab.
- Dr Miklos Zagoni is a physicist and science historian at Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, now governmental adviser. He is a well-known science writer in Hungary. He participated in the Hungarian Academy of Science’s climate change project and was the expert-reporter of three documentary films on that project. His list of publications, interviews, papers, and book chapters on the issue is more than 200 items (most of it in Hungarian).
- Dr Eduardo Zorita is a Spanish paleoclimatologist. As of 2010, he is a Senior Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, where he has worked since 1996. Zorita was a contributing author to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, and is review editor of the journal Climate Research.
“The climate blog article of 2020, so far, is up …”
MANY thanks to the team at Suspicious0bservers for their generous review of this post.
Climate Science Criticized by Climate Experts & More – YouTube
U.N. IPCC Related :
- UN IPCC : Climate “Has Almost Nothing To Do With Environmental Policy.” | Climatism
- UN IPCC : “Long-Term Prediction of Future Climate States Is Not Possible.” | Climatism
- UN IPCC Rewrote Temperature History To Suit Their Political Agenda | Climatism
- Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace | Climatism
DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO : Cultural Communists Know How To Spend Your Money To Fight Climate ChangePosted: December 24, 2018 Filed under: Carbon Dioxide, Climate Money, Climatism, COP24, Hypocrisy, Politics, Taxpayer waste, UN, UNFCCC, Wealth Redistribution | Tags: carbon dioxide emissions, Climate Change, Climate Conference, climate money, Climatism, CO2, COP24, Eco-hypocrisy, Global Warming, Hypocrisy, Katowice, Poland, Sustainability, Taxpayer Billions, Taxpayer Funded, UN, UNEP, UNFCCC Leave a comment
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that
the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of UNEP
WITH far greater frequency than a hurricane strike in the Floridas, the biggest names in the political and climate world gather at exotic locations around the globe to pretend that they are intent on “saving the planet”, again. Quite simply the Oscars of virtue signalling.
YET it’s (almost) set in stone that these confabs will fail their primary objective. That is, to force rich countries to quietly destroy their economies and for the poor economies, with the highest death rates, to reject energy and prosperity.
THE only resolution guaranteed by all ‘parties’ (excuse the pun) is where to hold the next, taxpayer-funded climate change junket.
MEANWHILE, all those taxpayer funded frequent flyer miles hurt your hip pocket and apparently the planet too. Or, maybe only when it’s you doing the flying…?
SCIENCE writer Viv Forbes wraps up the latest UNFCCC climate party…
Poland climatefest dumps several million tonnes of CO2 into atmosphere aiding plant growth
$500M Climate Carnival Concludes.
COP 24 just concluded in Poland. Nearly 23,000 climate saviours attended this 24th annual climate carnival.
Every year, plane-loads of concerned busybodies fly to some interesting new location to spend tax dollars on a well-fed 12 day holiday. They concoct plans to ration and tax the energy used by real workers, farmers and families back home.
Few delegates arrived by bicycle or solar-powered plane – a fleet of at least 100 commercial, private and charter aircraft brought them at a cost estimated at US$57M. When the costs of hotels, ground transport, food, entertainment, air conditioning and office services are added, the bill is likely to top $500 M.
Australian taxpayers supported 46 junketeers. Now these Chicken Littles are back home spreading climate scare stories and lecturing locals to not overspend on Christmas presents.
There is a bright side – all that carbon dioxide emitted by planes, cars, buses, heaters, stoves, beer, champagne and Poland’s coal-fired power stations will help global plant growth.
Poland climatefest dumps several million tonnes of CO2 into atmosphere aiding plant growth | cairnsnews.org
DOING THE NUMBERS :
Cultural Communists Know How to Spend Your Money to Fight Climate Change
One of the largest conferences of the year just wrapped up this past weekend in Katowice, Poland. And it was on everyone’s favorite subject, climate change.
Yes, this is the annual conference where tens of thousands of delegates fly into a foreign town. On your tax dollars. To iron out a plan for the future of the planet.
It’s called the United Nations Climate Change Conference. And this years’ went under the short name of COP24 (Conference of the Parties – 24th edition).
And it was the second biggest one since the monster Paris Climate Change conference back in December 2015 (COP21 for those keeping count).
According to this official attendance list, there were 22,700 delegates from 197 countries there.
This conference was not a weekend or even a week long.
It was hosted for 12 whole days.
But first, all these people had to get to the COP24 Climate Change conference. And unfortunately, zero-emission transit was not available to get them all to Katowice.
There are no bike lanes crossing the Atlantic Ocean or the Mediterranean Sea.
If you think trillions of dollars over dozens and dozens of years is impossible for parties to fight climate change with their vision…
Here’s how Cultural Communists Spent Nearly Half of Billion Dollars in 12 days:
These attendees took commercial, charter and private planes to get to Katowice International Airport just north of the city.
For all their green agendas, they flew the big, bulky, carbon-spewing and nature polluting airplanes.
Without every receipt, it’s not easy to pinpoint how much various flight types cost. But you can bet even those travelling on commercial aircraft were not flying with the common folk.
Let’s assume $2,500 per person to fly to and from Katowice, Poland.
Cost of Flights = 22,700 x $2,500 = $57 million dollars.
Thinking that the delegates like to travel together, let’s be conservative and say they all flew commercial on a Boeing 747 in groups of 227. Unlikely, but it makes our napkin calculation simple.
This would require 100 planes flying in and flying out…
According to Blue Sky Model, 1 mile of flight produces about 53 pounds of carbon dioxide for the average plane.
Now sticking with simplicity, let’s assume the average flight was just about the distance between New York City and Katowice – 4,283 miles. In reality, people flew from as far away as Auckland, New Zealand.
The total amount of carbon emitted = 100 planes x 4,283 miles x 53 pounds per mile x 2 trips = at least 45 million pounds of evil, harmful polluting carbon dioxide into the air.
Do as the cultural communists say, I guess. Not as they do.
And I’m being optimistic.
For reference, WIRED Magazine estimates that all the planes that flew to the Paris climate talks released about 575 million pounds of CO2.
Now let’s correctly assume that politicians, dignitaries and their entourages didn’t stay in Holiday Inn’s or Best Westerns like the working class.
Nor would they opt for AirBnB type services for their fellow taxpayers…
And since this conference would be among the top destinations in the world at this climate change time of year, hoteliers would have increased their nightly room prices. It’s Opportunism 101.
So let’s allow $500 per night for hotels or private flats. Katowice and the surrounding areas aren’t exactly Paris. So things are a bit more affordable.
Cost of hotels = 27,700 people x 12 nights x US $500 = $166 million dollars
Delegates then had to drive the roughly 34 kilometers (21 miles) to the city core.
Heaven forbid if these people all took the transit system. How could they possible hold a dignified image taking the subway or public buses?
So they likely hired private cars and limousines.
The rates for these vehicles goes anywhere from $500 – $1,000 per day. Let’s assume some attendees followed their agendas and carpooled, thus requiring only 20,000 cars.
Cost of Transportation = 20,000 cars x $750 per day x 12 days = $180 million dollars
Let’s not forget that people need to eat.
And when in Poland, you can’t be eating Subway or McDonalds. How can you possibly pair a fine Bordeaux with a Big Mac?
So we have to factor in meals and entertainment.
Most attendees will have gotten a per diem for their travels. We can safely assume these costs to be anywhere from $100 – $500 per day depending on their stature.
Cost of food = 27,700 x $250 per diem x 12 days = $83 million dollars
And what about the workers who put it all together?
The average wage in Poland is just shy of $1,170 per month.
Data on workers hasn’t been released yet. But at the Paris conference 3 years ago, there were 3,000 workers hired directly for the conference and about 11,000 police and military to keep the place secure.
Let’s assume the same amount of security and workers were used in Poland.
And considering security forces are not cheap, let’s just assume they all made double the average wage…
Cost of personnel = 14,000 x $1,170 x 2 x ½ month’s work = $16.3 million dollars
Let’s sum it all up…
There is a good chance I have been too conservative and underestimated some of the costs.
The cost of saving the future world for just a couple weeks was half a billion dollars. But you’ll be happy to know that the official meal plan for attendees had some options for a low emission footprint, as you can see below.
Until next year’s Climate Change conference in Chile…
Wait, did I not mention the pre-conference in Costa Rica?
Cultural Communists Know How to Spend Your Money to Fight Climate Change – Katusa Research
ONE wonders if any of the 22,771 taxpayer funded climate crusaders actually know what their favourite buzz-word “sustainability” actually entails?
HERE’s a crash course in case they have forgotten:
SEE also :
- DRACONIAN UN CLIMATE AGENDA EXPOSED : ‘Global Warming Fears Are A Tool For Political and Economic Change…It Has Nothing To Do With The Actual Climate’ | Climatism
- UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity And The Environment | Climatism
UN ‘Climate Refugees’ – Lost and FoundPosted: December 15, 2018 Filed under: Alarmist media, Alarmist Predictions, Climate Refugees, Climatism, Dud predictions, Propaganda, UN, UNEP | Tags: Alarmist Predictions, Climate Change, Climate Refugee, climate refugees, Climatism, COP24, Dud Predictions, Global Warming, Global Warming Alarmism, MSU, nasa, UAH, UN, UN Climate Refugees, UNEP, UNFCCC 12 Comments
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)
“That snow outside is what
global warming looks like.”
George Monbiot – The Guardian
IN 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) predicted that
global warming climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.
SINCE then, not a single “climate refugee” has been found. In fact, the UN has since ‘disappeared’ the official climate refugee map from their UNEP website:
ORIGINAL page cached :
IT turns out that the disasters haven’t occurred and the population has been increasing in the areas targeted by the UN. Ooops!
AFTER Asian Correspondent posted the story on April 11th, it was picked up by news outlets around the world such as Investor News, American Spectator and was cited in the Australian newspaper.
CLIMATE REFUGEE FOUND?
COULD Kelly Bruton of St. John’s, Newfoundland be the U.N’s first official documented “climate refugee”?
SHE could prove them right, be the UN’s new climate pin-up garl! Even if her considered move is as a result of cold extremes, rather than from a ‘hot’ one. After all, it’s called “climate change” right? So, it needn’t matter which way the temp swings to qualify as a U.N. “climate refugee” …
East Coast woman considers ‘moving away’ after icy fall
CBC News | The Weather Network
Wednesday, December 12, 2018, 10:02 AM –As Kelly Bruton drives through St. John’s on the way to the hospital, she can’t help but cringe at the snow-covered sidewalks she passes along the way.
Almost three years ago, Bruton slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk in the downtown area. The pins that held her ankle together are coming out today.
“Just like Frankenstein,” Bruton said, rubbing her thumb over the metal that is protruding from her ankle bone.
Bruton said although she is feeling better, it’s been a hard couple of years. She had to take time off of work to heal. Then she faced anxiety for the next few winters while walking outside.
When she looks at the sidewalks after the city’s recent snowfall, she gets nervous for others.
“I’ve thought about moving away because I am not sure how things are going to go here in the winter times.… I like to be outside, so if you can’t walk to get your groceries, what are you going to do?”
Bruton continues to advocate for safer sidewalks on the Facebook page she created, called Winter Sidewalks in St. John’s, Newfoundland. She has also altered her daily routine, which includes taking a closer look at the weather and wearing spikes on her boots.
MEANWHILE, the snow that was to become “a very rare and exciting event” that your
“children just aren’t going to know what (snow) is” has just set a North American record for November coverage :
FAKE NEWS MEDIA
The CO2-centric, mainstream media insists that, “that snow outside is what global warming looks like.” :
BACK IN REALITY LAND
VETERAN meteorologist Barry Burbank explains the fake news furphy behind Moonbat and other warming alarmists claims that recent record snowfall is caused by ‘Global Warming’ :
“Interestingly, some scientists have stated that increasing snow is consistent with climate change because warmer air holds more moisture, more water vapor and this can result in more storms with heavy precipitation. The trick, of course, is having sufficient cold air to produce that snow. But note that 93% of the years with more than 60″ of snow in Boston were colder than average years. The reality is cooling, not warming, increases snowfall.”
NASA satellites and HadCRUT temperature data sets confirm recent rapid global cooling :
NASA MSU Satellite Data :
GLOBAL Temperature Drops By 0.4°C In Three Years (HadCRUT) :
••• Read the rest of this entry »
DIESEL-POWERED Climate Junket : UNreliables Confirmed As Token Gestures To The Folly Of ‘Green’ MadnessPosted: December 13, 2018 Filed under: Climatism, COP24, Energy Poverty, Failed Green Schemes, Fossil Fuels, Green Energy, Hypocrisy, Uncategorized | Tags: Climate Change, Climate Change Hypocrisy, COP24, Diesel, Energy Poverty, Failed Green Schemes, Fossil Fuels, Fuel Poverty, Global Warming, Hypocrisy, Katowice, Poland, Renewable energy, renewables, Solar PV, UN IPCC, UNFCCC, unreliables, Wind Energy, Wind Farms, wind power 3 Comments
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University/Royal Society fellow
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
– Judi Bari,
principal organiser Earth First, UN consultant
ISN’T the latest COP 24 climate junket in Poland, with 22,771 taxpayer funded, jet-setting delegates in attendance, the PERFECT event to showcase the wonders of 100%
Renewables UNreliables – wind and solar?
WHY then is the latest UN “Save The Planet” climate change conference 100% powered by “dirty” fossil fuels?
ON the ground with The Rebel Media :
It’s another United Nations Climate Change Conference and you know what that means! Plenty of fossil fuels are being used to keep the fancy dignitaries comfortable.
At my first climate change conference in Morocco, the desert conference was air conditioned and cool despite the Moroccan sun outside.
Last year in Bonn Germany, we followed a tangle of power cords back to find the diesel generators powering the conference on the Rhine River banks.
This year is no different. Fossil fuels have a starring role in Katowice, Poland.
We found the army of frost fighter diesel heaters — the kind seen everyday in the oil patch — being used to keep everyone snuggly and warm inside the conference as the snow falls outside.
Frost-fighting diesel generators warm UN dignitaries at Global Warming conference | The Rebel
DIESEL TO THE RESCUE!
DIESEL has become the petrochemical substance of choice for ‘Green’ energy zealots acting as cover for the unreliability of their hallowed ‘clean’ energy devices:
THE ‘green’ energy madness that threatens our ability to turn on the lights and heating further exposed as an ineffective, socialist policy-driven, big government debacle, right at ground zero of ‘renewable energy’ cheerleading – the UN climate conference!
SEE also :
- WHAT I See When I See a Wind Turbine | Climatism
- ‘GREEN’ Energy Future | Climatism
- GREEN Energy Is The Perfect Scam | Climatism
WHAT I See When I See a Wind TurbinePosted: December 9, 2018 Filed under: Climatism, Energiewende, Energy Poverty, Fact Check, Failed Green Schemes, Fossil Fuels, Government Grants/Funding, Green Agenda, Green Energy, Renewables, Unreliables, Wind Farms | Tags: auspol, Climate Change, Climatism, COP24, Crude Oil, Energiewende, Energy Poverty, Fossil Fuels, Global Warming, Green Energy, Green Energy Failure, Industrial Wind, Renewable energy, UNFCCC, unreliables, Wind Energy, wind energy scam, Wind Farms, wind power, Wind Turbine Syndrome 3 Comments
“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett
“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” – James Hansen (The Godfather of global warming alarmism and former NASA climate chief)
“Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.” – Top Google engineers
AN extremely inconvenient insight into the monumental amount of “dirty” fossil fuel derivatives required to manufacture, install and maintain so-called “green”, “clean” and “renewable” industrial wind turbines…
(Climatism images, links and bolds added)
To Get Wind Power You Need Oil
Each wind turbine embodies a whole lot of petrochemicals and fossil-fuel energy
WIND turbines are the most visible symbols of the quest for renewable electricity generation. And yet, although they exploit the wind, which is as free and as green as energy can be, the machines themselves are pure embodiments of fossil fuels.
Large trucks bring steel and other raw materials to the site, earth-moving equipment beats a path to otherwise inaccessible high ground, large cranes erect the structures, and all these machines burn diesel fuel. So do the freight trains and cargo ships that convey the materials needed for the production of cement, steel, and plastics. For a 5-megawatt turbine, the steel alone averages [pdf] 150 metric tons for the reinforced concrete foundations, 250 metric tons for the rotor hubs and nacelles (which house the gearbox and generator), and 500 metric tons for the towers.
If wind-generated electricity were to supply 25 percent of global demand by 2030 (forecast [pdf] to reach about 30 petawatt-hours), then even with a high average capacity factor of 35 percent, the aggregate installed wind power of about 2.5 terawatts would require roughly 450 million metric tons of steel. And that’s without counting the metal for towers, wires, and transformers for the new high-voltage transmission links that would be needed to connect it all to the grid.
A lot of energy goes into making steel. Sintered or pelletized iron ore is smelted in blast furnaces, charged with coke made from coal, and receives infusions of powdered coal and natural gas. Pig iron is decarbonized in basic oxygen furnaces. Then steel goes through continuous casting processes (which turn molten steel directly into the rough shape of the final product). Steel used in turbine construction embodies typically about 35 gigajoules per metric ton.
To make the steel required for wind turbines that might operate by 2030, you’d need fossil fuels equivalent to more than 600 million metric tons of coal.
A 5-MW turbine has three roughly 60-meter-long airfoils, each weighing about 15 metric tons. They have light balsa or foam cores and outer laminations made mostly from glass-fiber-reinforced epoxy or polyester resins. The glass is made by melting silicon dioxide and other mineral oxides in furnaces fired by natural gas. The resins begin with ethylene derived from light hydrocarbons, most commonly the products of naphtha cracking, liquefied petroleum gas, or the ethane in natural gas.
The final fiber-reinforced composite embodies on the order of 170 GJ/t. Therefore, to get 2.5 TW of installed wind power by 2030, we would need an aggregate rotor mass of about 23 million metric tons, incorporating the equivalent of about 90 million metric tons of crude oil. And when all is in place, the entire structure must be waterproofed with resins whose synthesis starts with ethylene. Another required oil product is lubricant, for the turbine gearboxes, which has to be changed periodically during the machine’s two-decade lifetime.
Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year. However, all of it will be in the form of intermittent electricity—while its production, installation, and maintenance remain critically dependent on specific fossil energies. Moreover, for most of these energies—coke for iron-ore smelting, coal and petroleum coke to fuel cement kilns, naphtha and natural gas as feedstock and fuel for the synthesis of plastics and the making of fiberglass, diesel fuel for ships, trucks, and construction machinery, lubricants for gearboxes—we have no nonfossil substitutes that would be readily available on the requisite large commercial scales.
For a long time to come—until all energies used to produce wind turbines and photovoltaic cells come from renewable energy sources—modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels.
This article appears in the March 2016 print issue as “What I See When I See a Wind Turbine.”
To Get Wind Power You Need Oil – IEEE Spectrum
WIND ENERGY – not as “clean”, “green” or “renewable” as the bumper sticker suggests!
SEE also :
- ‘GREEN’ Energy Future | Climatism
- IF CO2’s Your Poison, Renewable Energy Is No Antidote | Climatism
- UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity And The Environment | Climatism
- TRULY GREEN? How Germany’s #Energiewende Is Destroying Nature | Climatism
- GREEN Energy Is The Perfect Scam | Climatism
- DO NOT PASS GO! Seven Years Jail Time For Using Cheap Electricity In Australia | Climatism
- WESTERN Nations, Driven By A Global Agenda Of Climate Alarmism, Are Destroying Their Industries With Carbon Taxes And Promotion Of Expensive, Intermittent Green Energy | Climatism
- COP24 : Climate Alarmism Is Threatening To Destroy Australia | Climatism
PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE : The Medieval Warm Period Was Indeed Global And Warmer Than TodayPosted: December 3, 2018 Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Alarmism uncovered, Climate Change, Climate History, Climatism, COP24, Empirical Evidence, Fact Check, Global Cooling, Global Temperature, Global Warming, Medieval Warm Period, Pal-Review, Science, State Of The Climate | Tags: Climate Change, Climate history, Climatism, COP24, global cooling, Global Temperature, Global Warming, Grand Solar Minimum, Katowice, Medieval Warm Period, nature, Peer Review, Peer review study, science, Science and Environment, UN IPCC, UNFCCC 6 Comments
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
President UN Foundation
WHEN prosecuting the case for “unprecedented” man-made Global Warming, the first thing you need to make sure of is that no recent climate era was as warm or warmer than the present, even if that means having to rewrite the past to fit your narrative.
THE Medieval Warm Period, also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum (due to conditions favoured for crops, life and civilisation to thrive) existed a short time ago in the climate record, from c. 950 to c. 1250., and has remained a thorn in the side, ever since, for today’s
Global Warming Climate Change activist movement.
IN the 1990 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm Period was much warmer than the late 19th century:
THE IPCC’s 1990 report dives deeper into the reality of the Medieval Warm Period and provides an insight into the cause of these warming periods:
“This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases.”
BY the 2001 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm period disappeared and became much cooler than the late 20th century:
BY pure coincidence, in the year 1995 the IPCC made a decision to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear:
YOUTUBE clip of Dr David Deming’s US Senate testimony on the “disappearance” of the Medieval Warm Period (see 01m:50s) :
Video of Dr David Deming’s statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now throughly discredited hockey stick graph.
IN case you missed it…
“I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.””
The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be “gotten rid of.””
Statement of Dr. David Deming | U.S. Senate Committee
THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD : GLOBAL and PEER REVIEWED
ACCORDING to multiple lines of “peer-reviewed science”, the Medieval Warm Period was indeed ‘global’ and was as warm, if not warmer than today.
CLICK here for excellent interactive map of clickable peer-reviewed MWP studies in both North and Southern Hemispheres :
THE ‘INCONVENIENT’ PAST
THERE is absolutely nothing unusual about today’s so-called
Global Warming aka Climate Change.
LOOK at how many periods of warmth our planet has enjoyed during the past 10,000 years alone.
CIVILISATIONS flourished during those warm periods (“climate optimums”), and collapsed when they ended.
DID humans cause the Minoan warm period of about 3,300 years ago?
DID humans cause the Roman warm period of about 2,100 years ago?
DID humans cause the Medieval warm period of about 1,000 years ago?
WHAT about all of those other warm periods? Should we blame Fred Flintstone, perhaps?
IF the downward trend in temperature of the past 3,300 years continues, we could be in a heap of trouble. While our leaders keep on wringing their collective hands over global warming, we could be blindsided by an ice age.
ALL this talk about human-caused global warming is sheer nonsense, if not downright fraud. The record shows that both periods of warmth – and periods of cold – hit our planet with almost consistent regularity.
* Read the rest of this entry »