“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
“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,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Satellite temperature records on six different data sets show that there has been no atmospheric global warming since 1998 or any statistically-significant warming for between 18 and 23 years. A distinct lack of any warming evident, despite a dramatic rise in industrial greenhouse gas emissions over the same period:
More Peer-Reviewed studies that confirm the lack of any recent global warming:
- Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment
- Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008
- Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade
- Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years – Nature Climate Change 28/8/2013
- Warmist scientists talk about no Global Warming
“The Oceans Ate My Global Warming”
With no rise in atmospheric temps over the past 15-17 years, the latest bluff in climate alarmism is that the ‘missing heat’ is hiding at the bottom of the oceans. However, the first globally accurate network of measurement buoys (3000+ ARGO satellite buoys), which descend to depths of 2,000 metres, have detected no significant increase in ocean heat since deployment in 2003.
Kevin Trenberth theorises that missing heat takes a dive into deep oceans. “The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries [and where lamentably, there are no reliable temperature measurements]. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air.” Yet sea surface temperatures and the upper heat content didn’t increase over the last decade by enough to account for the “missing heat” that those greenhouse gas emissions should have trapped in the Earth’s climate system but couldn’t be found. (via Forbes)
- Nature Journal now fully embrace a “16 year hiatus” in atmospheric global warming. They cite the natural effects of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), that “may be a crucial piece of the hiatus puzzle”.
- There is no mention of carbon dioxide, despite 35% of all human CO² emissions, since 1751, emitted over roughly the same 16 year period, having no effect on global temperature.
- With record carbon dioxide emissions having no effect on global temperature change over the past 16 years, it seems that something else, other than carbon dioxide, drives temperature and subsequent climate change. At the least, any effect human carbon dioxide may have, is clearly being lost as noise in the natural variability of the climate system.
IT’s OFFICIAL: Global warming is ‘no longer a planetary emergency’
The President of the Italian Senate, Judge Pietro Grasso and the President of the Federation, Professor Antonino Zichichi, said that care should be taken to examine carefully the basis for concern about CO² emissions as well as the relevance and cost-effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.
Last year’s magistral lecture to the Federation was by Professor Vaclav Klaus, then president of the Czech Republic, whose talk was entitled The manmade contribution to global warming is not a planetary emergency.
President Klaus had said: “Current as well as realistically foreseeable global warming, and especially Man’s contribution to it, is not a planetary emergency which should bother us. … My reading both of the available data and of conflicting scientific arguments and theories allows me to argue that it is not global warming caused by human activity that is threatening us.”
This year Dr. Christopher Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario and chairman of the Federation’s permanent monitoring panel on climate, gave the Federation’s closing plenary session his panel’s confirmation that “Climate change in itself is not a planetary emergency.”
Left to right: Christopher Essex, Pietro Grasso, Vaclav Klaus, and Antonino Zichichi.
Professor Essex pointed out that history had shown illegitimate political movements inventing false emergencies to bypass democratic constraints on their quest for absolute power.
The Earth’s climate, he said, is a dynamic and continually-changing system. “Human societies have lived and thriven under every conceivable climate, and modern technology makes adaptation to changing weather conditions entirely routine.”
The increasing fraction of CO² in the air could be expected to result in some warming, but it had been accepted that “the benefits of food production and the relief of starvation overwhelm concerns about the potential climate changes induced by land-surface modification.” He said the panel thought it essential to ask whether similar reasoning applied to global fossil-energy production.
On behalf of the climate monitoring panel, Professor Essex also spoke up for scientists who have been bullied, threatened or even dismissed for having dared to question the Party Line on climate. He said: “Our greatest concern at present is that the intellectual climate for scientific investigation of these matters has become so hostile and politicized that the necessary research and debate cannot freely take place.
“Political constraints take the form of declaring the underlying science to be settled when it clearly is not; defunding or denigrating research that is perceived to threaten the case for renewable energy; or the use of odious pejoratives like “denialist” to describe dissent from officially-sanctioned views on climate science.”
Professors Bob Carter and Murry Salby, who had questioned the severity of Man’s influence on the climate, were both ejected by their universities this year.
Professor Essex called for “free and open debate on all aspects of climate science, even where hypotheses are put forward for examination that openly contradict the official positions of political entities.”
He said the panel found persuasive indications that climate models systematically understated natural climate variability and significantly exaggerated the impact of CO² emissions. Accordingly, past, present and proposed policy measures could be shown not to provide net benefits to society regardless of the rate at which the planet might warm. Limited resources would be better devoted to more pressing issues.
The WFS is revising their website on the subject:
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”•“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”•“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
15 Year Global Warming Stasis Reports :
- Cooling ocean blamed for hiding missing warming
- A Cooler Pacific May Be Behind Recent Pause In Global Warming
- Pacific cooling explains slowdown in global warming: study
Climatism Links :
- Europe’s Green Energy Basket Case Is Tim Flannery’s Dream | CACA
- Driessen : A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude | CACA
- Global Warming Was Never About Science. It Was Always About Power And Money | CACA
- ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’ | CACA
- UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | CACA
- The Great Global Warming Climate Shift | CACA
- Judith Curry : Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan | CACA
- Richard Lindzen: Cool it on the climate | CACA
- The Truth About the Global Warming Agenda by Former NASA Climatologist | CACA
- When Hell Freezes Over | CACA
- ENVIRONMENTAL MUST READ : Bananas deadlier than Fukushima | CACA
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago
- Sea Level Rise slowed from 2004 – Deceleration, not acceleration as CO² rises | CACA
- State Of The Climate Report | CACA
- Bureaucratic Dioxide
- UTTER INSANITY: Spending $160b to cut the temperature by 0.00005 degrees
- UN-Settled Science
- Bureaucratic Dioxide
- A cooling consensus
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | CACA
- Scientists talking about no warming
- Modelling Climate Alarmism
- Green Agenda Has Parallels With Excesses Of Communism
- Global Warming Theory ~ Circular reasoning at its best
- 44th Pacific “Sinking Islands” Extortion Forum
- The missing hotspot « JoNova – The ‘Hotspot’ is crucial to the climate debate.
Prior to 1955, 100ºF readings were common in New York State. They rarely happen any more.
There are 30 HCN stations in New York which have been continuously active since 1930, and 90% of their 100ºF readings occurred with CO2 below 350 PPM. Ninety-three percent of those stations set their all-time record maximum with CO2 below 350 PPM.
So the Blanding’s Turtle must once again prove that it is in sufficient danger to warrant protection against industrial wind turbines from bestriding and destroying its unique, fragile habitat at Ostrander Point in Prince Edward County. Not only that, the proponents of the proposed wind factory, (Gilead Power) claim in their appeal of the recent decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) protecting the turtle, that the reptile’s advocates, Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN), must “prove that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the turtle population province wide.” (Our emphasis.)
This is an interesting tack to take considering that the original decision of the ERT rejected such extrapolations, insisting on case-by-case assessment, when it came to previous Tribunal findings about the harmful effects of industrial wind turbine operations on human health!
But Gilead, and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), which is also appealing the…
View original post 1,048 more words
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
― Michael Crichton
Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.
By RICHARD S. LINDZEN
November 30, 2009, 7:44 p.m. ET
Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.
Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and
because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.
The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.
The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.
There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.
The IPCC’s Scientific Assessments generally consist of about 1,000 pages of text. The Summary for Policymakers is 20 pages. It is, of course, impossible to accurately summarize the 1,000-page assessment in just 20 pages; at the very least, nuances and caveats have to be omitted. However, it has been my experience that even the summary is hardly ever looked at. Rather, the whole report tends to be characterized by a single iconic claim. Keep Reading »
The Climate Emails
Climate Craziness of the Week: Global Warming to cause ocean to lose its distinctive smell, and clouds, and maybe some other stuffPosted: August 28, 2013
Morano: New Warmist Fear: Global warming causing the oceans to lose their smell! Oceans unique odor is a ‘smell that’s endangered by climate change’ — ‘The real horror might be raising kids in a world where the only place you can smell the ocean is Bath & Bodyworks.’