TRUST in the mainstream media is at an all time low.
A 2018 Monmouth University poll found that 77% of the public believe major ‘news’ outlets report “fake news”. A sharp rise from 63% who felt that way the previous year. A 2018 Axios poll found that 92% of Conservatives believe the media intentionally reports fake news. Concerns vindicated this week by two glaring examples of blatant fake news in the Covington Catholic high school and BuzzFeed media fiascos.
NONE of this is surprising, considering that 92%+ of the mainstream media is monopolised by Left-leaning journalists and editorial boards.
FAKE NEWS is par for the course in the Climate Crisis Industry where gross exaggeration, vague causation, alarmist predictions and even outright falsehoods are common place and excused away as acts of nobility in the righteous quest to “Save the Planet”.
ONE of the perks of climate change scepticism (or realism) is the ability to exploit an almost unlimited supply of wild climate predictions made in the recent past by esteemed ‘experts’ and scientific bodies.
DIRE predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic have remained popular on the climate fear-mongering circuit, owing to the psychological currency of things melting and not least the emotional relevance applicable to the fate of the Arctic’s most famous resident – the polar bear…
CLAIMS that Arctic sea ice is disappearing are patently false. There has been no trend in Arctic sea ice extent since the start of MASIE records in 2006.
THE daily bombardment of fake climate news by the Climate Crisis Media helps foment a conventional wisdom and an accepted world view that there really is a “climate crisis”. This leads to gullible and virtue-signalling politicians, pressured by eco-activist minorities, to enact draconian and costly UN-based climate policies that are doing far more damage to people’s livelihoods and their economies, right now, than any purported 1-2°C “fabricated” temperature rise could ever do by 2100.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
.
IN order to avoid important free and open debate, on a system so chaotic as our climate, CAGW alarmists instinctively claim that the “science is settled” based on a purported “97% consensus” of all scientists.
.
ANY person or body that holds a dissenting view or presents contradictory evidence is immediately labelled a climate ‘denier’ – likened to those who claim the holocaust never occurred. A classic ad-hominem attack designed to smear and silence those who refuse to comply with the preferred wisdom of the day.
.
BOGUS 97% surveys have been concocted over the years claiming a scientific ‘consensus’ exists. However, consensus doesn’t decide science, facts do.
“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.”
Pierre L. Gosselin’s masterful resource NoTricksZone has unearthed 97 new papers in 2018 alone that further discredit the bogus “97% consensus” meme…
In just the first 8 weeks of 2018, 97 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.
These 97 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.
More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.
N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.
N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.
N(3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.
N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).
In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:
RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”
A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.
A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough“, which means that “the time for debate has ended“.
A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.
To reiterate, the 97 papers compiled in 2018 thus far support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions. The papers do not do more than that. Expectations that these papers should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are deemed unreasonable in this context.
Below are the two links to the list of 97 papers amassed as of 26 February, 2018, as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization. Also included are 24 sample papers included on the list, about 1/4th of the total.
Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century? (17) A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (9) Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (3) Sea Levels 1-3 Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (4) A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (7)
Solar Influence On Climate (21) ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (11) Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (3) The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (2)
Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (6) Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (2) Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (2) Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (2) No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (2) No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (1) Miscellaneous (5)
AS egg-on-face moments go, it was a double-yolker. Last week a group of climate scientists published apaper that admitted the estimates of global warming used for years to torture the world’s conscience and justify massive spending on non-carbon energy sources were, er, wrong. | THE TIMES
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“Themodels are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
***
IN February 2016, climate scientist Dr. John Christy presented testimony to Congress demonstrating that the UN IPCC’s CMIP5 climate models grossly exaggerate and over estimate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures. Dr. Christy noted in his testimony that “models over-warm the tropical atmosphere by a factor of approximately three″.
A landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geosciencenow concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. One of its authors, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admits his past predictions of runaway warming were too alarmist.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. We are in a better place than I thought.”
ANOTHER author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side” — meaning they exaggerated.
“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”
SO, the sceptics – the “climate deniers” – were spot-on, again.
The global warming backpedalling begins. “It’s less worse than we thought” | Tallbloke’s Talkshop
AND yet we have spent literally trillions of dollars of other peoples’ (taxpayers) money on alarmist global warming climate change policies, schemes and rent-seeking scams (windmills, solar panels, mothballed desal plants, pink bats, carbon taxes etc) on the advice of overheated, predictive computer models that do not even observe real-world reality!?
DON’T expect an apology or your money back anytime soon. The climate juggernaut will keep digging at your hip pocket a little while longer – too much money is on the line and too many reputations are now at stake.
There has been a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the findings of the new paper. This article mentions a letter to the Times by the phoneys, Lords Krebs and Stern.
I have also seen a similar letter in the Mail from Myles Allen. It stated that the difference of 0.3C was really rather insignificant, and that we were still all going to die if we did mend our evil ways, only slightly later!
But the difference is actually really huge, bearing in mind that this is over a period of just 15 years, and particularly when the authors admit that emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed.
ALEX EPSTEIN, author of the New York Times best-selling book “The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels” brilliantly and succinctly lays out why the much touted “97% of climate scientists agree” meme, amounts to nothing more than clever PR and propaganda used by climate alarmists to promote the Left’s pet environmental/political cause – “man-made global warming climate change”…
Before you view Alex’s terrific 4:36min presentation, ask yourself how plausible a 97% consensus of any belief or argument really is, without it having been subject to bogus and deceitful manipulation.
How many elections are won by a 97% majority?
100% of doctors believed passive smoking caused cancer until that theory was quashed.
100% of doctors believed cholesterol was deadly until recently.
If 97% of Meteorologists can’t predict the weather next week, why do 97% of climate experts alarmists think that they can predict the climate 100 years from now?
Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.
•••
These 30,000+ “scientists” weren’t sucked in by the “97%” climate consensus hoax…
NOW, climate scientists and their “97%” triad of sycophant orgs are promising you that your Arctic will be ice-free by “2040” – plenty more wriggle-room for their catastrophic predictions to play out…
Greenland not behaving as warming alarmists would prefer, or as their CO2 theory suggests!
DO NOT expect to hear this contradictory and “inconvenient” news from the Fake News, Climate-obsessed, Left Wing mainstream media – CNN, MSNBC, BBC, ABC, NYtimes, WaPO, NatGeo etc etc…
“Very noticeable difference between O7/17/2012 and today 07/17/2017. Greenland looks like a healthy fat bright white furry polar bear.” – Climate Detective
Very noticeable diffrence between O7/17/2012 and today 07/17/2017. Greenland looks like a healthy fat bright white furry polar bear. pic.twitter.com/3YB2FVI0rD
“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.”
― Michael Crichton
“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.”
― Michael Crichton
“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
From Friends of Science Newsletter by Albert Jacobs
Kenneth Richard has compiled a list of 770 papers published since January 1, 2014 that contradict the IPCC consensus statement, see here.
This includes 240 papers published during the first half of 2016, as shownhere.
The list of papers includes 43 on solar influences, 27 on natural ocean oscillation, 2 on Rossby waves, 3 on ozone, 6 on the small effect of CO2, 11 on natural variability, 11 on clouds and aerosols, 3 on CO2 stratospheric cooling, 15 on past climates, 4 on settled science, 19 on Climate Model Unreliability, 2 on urban warming, 6 on volcanic forcing, 2 on warming oceans, 7 on miscellaneous topics, 2 on forest fires, 2 on cold vs heat deaths, 6 on climate policy, 7 on extreme weather, 20 on polar ice, 9 on sea level rise, 12 on ocean acidification, 2 on…
Australia’s ‘premier’ government science body, CSIRO, predicted that there would be no snow in Australia by 2015. Another dud, global warming alarmist prediction.
Another example of why scientific organisations have – tragically – become almost the last places to hear the truth about climate change. Too many reputations are now at stake. And the funds must keep rolling in regardless of the truth.
Atmospheric CO2 has risen by 100 parts per million (one part per ten thousand) over the past century. That is equivalent to packing one extra person into this Bernie “everything will be free” Sanders rally.
Experts claim that this one molecule has heated the other 10,000 molecules up by more than one degree centigrade.
In order for one molecule to heat up 10,000 other molecules by 1°C, the effective temperature of that one molecule would have to be 10,000°C – about twice the temperature of the surface of the Sun.
Only a complete moron would believe something so ludicrous, which is why they say 97% of scientists agree on this utter nonsense.
I thought I might ask you for your comment on this before I rush to judge John cook.
The Reference Frame: Identity theft: the thief of Lubos_Motl turns out to be a well-known man
Specifically, I’m curious:
1) Why john would wish to post comments anywhere under any circumstances using another persons name?
2) How many other times has he done this?
3) Does he intend to do this again?
Thanks for your time.
This isn’t a brush away issue that he can ignore, as Dr. Lubos Motl found out yesterday, John Cook has been using the name of Dr. Lubos Motl to post comments that…
Recent Comments