EARLIER today I reported on Sydney’s Autumn 38 degree Sun-day, noting that “the usual climate ambulance chasers will be sharpening the lead and filling ink wells to inscribe “climate change” “global warming” on their “extreme weather” report cards, feeling morally-bound to fashionably link mankind’s activities to the follies of nature.”
IT didn’t take long for Australian Greens’ leader, Senator Richard Di Natale to blame the current bout of extreme, yet, not-out-of-the-ordinary natural disasters, on ‘climate change’.
“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)
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)
Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy? (99% of Haiti’s forests have been decimated, not for building materials, but for cooking fuel.)
WHEN the New York Times hired climate ‘Lukewarmer’ Bret Stephens as a contributing columnist in late April 2017, a collective cry of treasonous rage was heard throughout the deep-green environmental community. How dare anyone question whether we should accept absolutely every pronouncement of imminent eco-doom at face value?!
A snippet of the enraged reporting at the time from the usual suspects…
Climate Scientists Cancelling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens
By Graham Readfearn • Thursday, April 27, 2017 – 16:59
A New York Times defence of its hiring of a climate science denialist as a leading columnist is pushing high-profile climate scientists to cancel their subscriptions.
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany, is the latest scientist to write publicly to the New York Times detailing his reasons for cancelling their subscriptions.
Stephens wrote several columns while at the WSJ disparaging climate science and climate scientists, which he has collectively described as a “religion” while claiming rising temeperatures may be natural.
The NYT has been defending its decision publicly, saying that “millions of people” agree with Stephens on climate science and just because their readers don’t like his opinions, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be heard.
13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column
The Gray Lady’s newest hire used his debut column to defend his record of climate science denial.
29/04/2017 9:09 AM AEST Alexander C. Kaufman Business & Environment Reporter, HuffPost
The New York Times took a lot of heat for hiring Bret Stephens, a former opinion writer at The Wall Street Journal, as its newest columnist. There was a lot to criticize. In his storied tenure on some of the most radically conservative pages in print journalism, Stephens accused Arabs of suffering a “disease of the mind,” railed against the Black Lives Matter movement and dismissed the rise of campus rape as an “imaginary enemy.”
But Stephens’ views on climate change ― namely that the jury is still out on whether burning fossil fuels is the chief cause ― drew the widest condemnation. ThinkProgress admonished the Gray Lady for hiring an “extreme climate denier,” and famed climatologist Michael Mann backed them up in the critique. DeSmog Blog, a site whose tagline reads “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science,” reported on a letter from climate scientists who are canceling their subscriptions to the newspaper over its latest hire. In These Times’ headline pointedly asked: “Why the Hell did the New York Times just hire a climate denier?”
STEPEHENS has recently written another reasoned column in the Times that has no doubt sent the eco-freaks into another predictable tailspin!
IN the Feb 8 opinion piece, “Apocalypse Not“, Stephens argues that a healthy environment is dependent on a healthy economy first, namely a capitalist one.
“The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.”
A view not shared by radical environmental groups who, including the UN, believe that in order to “save the planet” we must fundamentally change the current economic development model. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres Brussels February, 2015
In 1919, the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines offered a dire warning for the future. “Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline.”
Nearly a century later, in July 2010, The Guardian ran a story with an ominous headline: “Lloyd’s adds its voice to dire ‘peak oil’ warnings.” Citing a report by the storied London insurer, the newspaper warned that businesses were “underestimating catastrophic consequences of declining oil,” including oil at $200 a barrel by 2013, a global supply crunch, and overall “economic chaos.”
I thought of these predictions on seeing the recent news that the United States is on the eve of breaking a 47-year production record by lifting more than 10 million barrels of crude a day. That’s roughly twice what the U.S. produced just a decade ago, and may even put us on track to overtake Saudi Arabia and even Russia as the world’s leading oil producer. As for global production, it rose by some 11 percent just since the Lloyd’s report, and by almost 200 percent since 1965.
Call it yet another case of Apocalypse Not.
“In best-selling books and powerful speeches, Vogt argued that affluence is not our greatest achievement but our biggest problem,” Mann writes. “Our prosperity is temporary, he said, because it is based on taking more from than earth than it can give. If we continue, the unavoidable result will be devastation on a global scale, perhaps including our extinction.”
In our own day, people like Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein have made careers saying more or less the same thing. This is a world where the clock is permanently set at two minutes to midnight, and where only a radical transformation of modern society (usually combining dramatic changes in personal behavior along with a heavy dose of state intervention) can save us.
The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.
I fall in the Borlaugian camp. That’s worth noting because one of the more tedious criticisms by the environmental left is that people like me “don’t care about the environment.” But imputing bad faith, stupidity or greed is always a lousy argument. Even conservatives want their children to breathe.
Borlaugians are environmentalists, too. They simply think the road to salvation lies not through making do with less, but rather through innovation and the conditions in which innovation tends to flourish, greater affluence and individual freedom most of all.
If environmental alarmists ever wonder why more people haven’t come around to their way of thinking, it isn’t because people like me occasionally voice doubts in newspaper op-eds. It’s because too many past predictions of imminent disaster didn’t come to pass.
CLIMATISM is a self-funded, one-man operation that has been running on fossil-fuel vapours and borrowed time since 2014.
Like most climate ‘sceptical’ outfits, success of message is reliant on a lot of passion and private support. After all, that cheque from “Big Oil” never arrived in the mail, much to the dismay of the climate cult who are convinced that the combined success of our individual efforts in fighting the “Climate Crisis Industry” must come down to funding from those “Koch Bros.” or “Exxon-Mobil”. Trust me, it doesn’t!
SCEPTICS are not funded or subsidised by BIG government, unlike BIG green whose associated NGO’s and multinational green mega-corporations are funded to the tune of BILLIONS annually via subsidies, tax incentives, green loans and grants.
THE fight for messaging is massively lopsided with sceptics punching well above their weight, though, landing big blows through their message of truth, facts and reason.
TIME TO EVEN THE SCALES (a little bit each and every day!)
HELP to keep the good fight alive by donating to Climatism today!
served up to you 24/7/365 by the “Climate Crisis Industry”- a literal billion dollar worldwide industry that is highly organised and well funded by Big government and green lobby groups with their propaganda broadcast, pro bono, by the virtue-signalling mainstream media, devoid of checks and objectivity. It is a campaign forcing a worldwide rollout of draconian and punitive climate policies that are devastating people’s livelihoods, namely the poorest in our communities. Fuel poverty and job losses happening in real time, causing far more damage than any slight warming (as foretold by the broken and overheated UN IPCC computer models) might cause by “2100”.
With your help, we can continue the fight against the insidious green blob and help alleviate the unnecessary burden of energy poverty and economic hardship once and for all.
What is in desperate need now is funding help for a new laptop to get posts out in an hour, rather than five! Employment opportunities to grow Climatism are also in the pipe for 2018.
All donations are welcome. Even as little as the cost of a cup of coffee helps the cause! No matter the amount, your donation is greatly appreciated. You WILL help make a difference. The less time spent finding money, the more time we have to fight the alarmists.
Thanks for you incredible patronage thus far and taking the time to read and share Climatism content!
“WE live in constant fear of the adverse impacts of climate change. For a coral atoll nation, sea level rise and more severe weather events loom as a growing threat to our entire population. The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us.“
– Saufatu Sopoanga, fmr Prime Minister ofTuvalu, at the 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly New York, 24th September 2003
THE Pacific island nation of Tuvalu has long been cited as proof that rising seas caused by man-made climate change are going to drown Pacific and Indian island atolls.
THE climate-obsessed fake news media has gleefully pawned the emotional link between climate change and ‘sinking’ tropical islands for eons … “The tiny pacific island nation of Tuvalu looks set to become a victim of global warming, with the entire country predicted to be washed away in 50 years.”(BBC 2002)
TUVALU’s plight even formed part of the basis for arguably the most hysterical fake news claim in the history of climate alarmism: the UN’s prediction that by the end of 2010, climate change would have created “50 million environmental refugees”!
CLIMATISM, along with the climate sceptic “denier” community have been citing real science, data and observations that have consistently contradicted the fashionable claims of “sinking islands” for years, only to be given the standard respect from the lame-stream activist media…crickets.
WHAT has now become even more apparent is that the purported plight of Pacific and Indian Ocean Island nations like Kiribati, Tuvalu, Seychelles and the Maldives serve merely as emotional arguments to promote the global climate agenda, whilst cash-strapped and over-populated island nations use the associated climate guilt as a vehicle to pursue compensation to be paid by Western nations. Economic outcomes in line with the United Nation’s wealth redistribution agenda.
DELLERS with a great summary of the latest “scientific” study out of Nature journal that has sent another alarmist claim to the propaganda graveyard…
Delingpole: ‘Sinking’ Pacific Island Actually Getting Bigger Shock
Tuvalu – the Pacific island group often cited by climate alarmists as the nation most immediately at risk from rising sea levels caused by ‘global warming’ – is not sinking after all.
In fact it’s getting bigger, scientists now admit.
A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.
It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.
Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose.
“We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing,” he said.
“The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.”
If only they’d done their study a bit earlier they could have saved a lot of alarmists a lot of worry.
As recently as last year, anxious wonks produced a paper for the World Bank arguing that the situation in Tuvalu (pop. 11,000) and nearby Kiribati (pop.107,000) was so dire that Australia and New Zealand should open their doors to the fleeing refugees.
According to the paper:
“The worsening impacts of climate change have provided a new moral imperative for providing open access.”
In 2007, Grist went so far as to cite Tuvalu of one of climate change’s most “tragic” victims.
‘Climate Change in Tuvalu’ even has its own Wikipedia page. It records possibly Tuvalu’s greatest moment of glory on the international stage when it seized the opportunity at the 2009 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to grandstand about its terrible plight.
In December 2009 the islands stalled talks at United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, fearing some other developing countries were not committing fully to binding deals on a reduction in carbon emission, their chief negotiator stated “Tuvalu is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change, and our future rests on the outcome of this meeting.” When the conference failed to reach a binding, meaningful agreement, Tuvalu’s representative Ian Fry said, “It looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future… Our future is not for sale. I regret to inform you that Tuvalu cannot accept this document.”
Fry’s speech to the conference was a highly impassioned plea for countries around the world to address the issues of man-made global warming resulting in climate change. The five-minute speech addressed the dangers of rising sea levels to Tuvalu and the world. In his speech Fry claimed man-made global warming to be currently “the greatest threat to humanity”, and ended with an emotional “the fate of my country rests in your hands”.
Tuvalu’s plight also formed part of the basis for arguably the most hysterical fake news claim in the history of climate alarmism: the UN’s prediction that by the end of 2010, climate change would have created “50 million environmental refugees”.
The UN has since removed the claim from most of its websites. Happily, it can still be glimpsed in the Guardian archives:
Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.
“There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change,” Dr Bogardi said. “This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations.”
In reality, the total number of environmental refugees fleeing climate change so far around the world is close to zero.
Seventeen people from the Pacific – including 11 from Tuvalu and five from Kiribati – have already made refugee claims in New Zealand, citing climate change as part of their basis of claim. None have been successful (four have yet to be determined and 13 have been rejected) because the refugees convention does not recognise climate change as grounds for protection.
To climate skeptics, the fact that Tuvalu is not drowning will come as no surprise whatsoever.
Their favorite sea levels expert – Nils-Axel Mörner – has written numerous papers on the subject.
MASSIVE response from defenders of free speech already through the ‘Gofundme’ page.
PLEASE try to donate even as little as $5 (a takeaway coffee).
FUNDING Professor Peter Ridd’s legal fund helps protect freedom of speech and sends a very important message to supposedly “free-thinking” institutions that suppression of thought, ideas and opinion MUST NOT and cannot be stifled because these ideas disagree with the preferred wisdom of the day or a chosen ideology. This is totalitarianism that directly undermines freedom and democracy.
DONATE today to help Prof Ridd fight @JCU and stick it to the tyrannical climate industrial complex.
EXCELLENT article written by a ‘Vegan Democrat’ and former CAGW believer, highlighting the reasons why many remain sceptical of the “settled science” of climate change…
By David Siegel Entrepreneur, investor, blockchain expert, start-up coach, CEO of the Pillar project and 20|30.io
What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.
More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.
Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.
There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.
Highly recommended ~ 38 minute read with an abundance of supporting data, evidence and peer-reviewed “science”….
This nine-thousand-word essay represents over 400 hours of research boiled down into a half-hour reading experience, with links to 250+ carefully chosen documents and videos. I’m building the argument from the bottom up, so take your time and see if it makes sense. Along the way, I’ll list five “smoking guns” that I think make the argument for decarbonization unsupportable. Before we dive in, I want to talk about …