ALL Quiet On The ‘Climate Emergency’ Front : Healthy Sea-Ice Levels At Both Poles

ALL Quiet On The Climate Emergency Front | Climatism

ALL Quiet On The Climate ‘Emergency’ Front | Climatism


“Blind trust in authority
is the greatest enemy of the truth.”
Albert Einstein

***

H/t EcologySenseUK @uk_ecology

IN case you hadn’t noticed, the COVID19 crisis has been highly successful in drowning out the mainstream media’s go-to-weapon of mass fear and panic – ClimateChange™️.

PERHAPS the timing is fortunate as recent and prominent climate data hasn’t really held up as ammunition-worthy material in support of their “climate emergency” nightly narrative, or whatever the latest GretaThunberg™️ meme of the day requires.

TWO of the favoured metrics used by CC activists and sycophant mainstream media, in order to push their memes, are conditions applicable to the Arctic and Antarctica. Namely, sea-ice levels.

UNFORTUNATELY for climate ambulance chasers, sea-ice levels for the Arctic and Antarctica are tapping and well within the long-term average respectively. Completely at odds with ‘expert’ and mainstream media predictions and U.N. climate model forecasts.

*

ANTARCTIC SEA-ICE

ACCORDING to NOAA, Antarctic sea-ice coverage in March came in “near the 1981–2010 avg & ended a 41-month period of below-avg monthly values.”

THIS rebound time (41 months) matches nicely the time from the date when a significant portion of Antarctic sea-ice was blasted away by a “perfect storm of tropical, polar conditions not due to climate change” – Malte F. Stuecker et al

*

CURRENT STATE OF ANTARCTIC SEA-ICE

NOTE the healthy rebound from 2016 to present…

Via NSIDC :

BLUE MARBLE VIEW

***

ARCTIC SEA-ICE

ACCORDING to NOAA, March 2020 #Arctic #SeaIce coverage was 11th smallest for March in the 42-year record”

Via NSIDC :

NOTE the complete lack of Arctic sea-ice decline over the past 14 years. In fact, sea-ice growth has been trending slightly up since 2006.

WHERE is the acknowledgment from NOAA that there has been *no* trend in Arctic sea-ice melt, at all, since 2006?

PERHAPS I prefer a “glass half full” approach to climate data analysis, whereas NOAA prefers a “glass half empty”, when assessing theirs…

NO doubt you, as a critical thinker, can work out why this is the case.

BLUE MARBLE VIEW

 

***

CONCLUSION

ANTARCTICA has always been a thorn in the side of ClimateChange™️. It is very much the ‘inconvenient’ pole, the naughty child, that has been gaining ice mass and cooling for decades, despite a 20 per cent increase in atmospheric CO2, and model predictions to the contrary.

THE Arctic, however, has been the veritable whipping-boy for the climate activist movement, as it has seen clear declines in sea-ice levels since the century-maximum of 1979.

BUT, hardly the declines that the mainstream media and ‘experts’ made us believe to be true, according to their dire and hyper-alarmist predictions.

HERE is a taste of what the fake news media and ‘expert’s’ told you about Arctic sea-ice having “disappeared” years ago …

  • “Arctic summers ice-free by 2013” (BBC 2007)
  • “Could all Arctic ice be gone by 2012?” (AP 2007)
  • “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?”(National Geographic 2007)
  • “Imagine yourself in a world five years from now, where there is no more ice over the Arctic” – Tim Flannery (2008)
  • “North Pole could be ice-free in 2008” – Mark Serreze (New Scientist 2008)
  • “Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” (USA Today 2009)
  • “Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within 4 years” (Guardian 2012)
  • “Say Goodbye to Arctic Summer Ice” (Live Science 2013)
  • “Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist” (The Guardian 2013)
  • “Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (Sierra Club 2013)
  • “Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’” – Peter Wadhams (The Guardian 2016)

CLIMATE DUD-PREDICTIONS : ‘Ice-Free’ Arctic Prophesies By The ‘97% Consensus’ And Compliant Mainstream Media | Climatism

HAVE they no shame? Or is their ClimateChange™️ ‘jihad’ too firmly entrenched for honest science and honest analysis of empirical data to exist, ever?

•••

SEE also :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Support The Fight Against Dangerous, Costly and Unscientific Climate Alarm

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps, heaps!

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

(NB// The PayPal account linked to “Climatism” is “Five-O-Vintage”)Donate with PayPal

Screen Shot 2020-02-12 at 5.35.38 am

•••


COVID-19 : A Prelude To Life Under The ‘Net Zero 2050’ Policy


“Action must be powerful and wide-ranging.
After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment.
It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will.
Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it.

We need to dismantle them all.”
–– GretaThunberg™️

“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 (Fmr UNFCCC chief)
UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming

***

WHAT an Orwellian world we inhabit, in this the 21st Century. The age of social media and the twenty four hour news cycle where the race to the top is defined by who is the most outraged, the most aggrieved. Where personal gain is measured by entitlement. Where online ‘likes’ outweigh offline friendships, and where Western politicians take their scientific advice from a 17-year-old child-activist diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder, and selective mutism.

THIS is the age of morality, where it’s more important to signal virtue than sense and reason.

PERHAPS the greatest and most dangerous example of virtue-signalling in recent years has been the frenzied push by eco-activists and their mainstream media acolytes for “Net Zero CO₂ Emissions By 2050” in direct response to GretaThunberg™️‘s “Climate Crisis” palaver.

BUT, what’s the cost? The most vocal will not tell you, perhaps because they don’t even know or simply haven’t weighed up the social and economic consequences of the other side of their zero-emissions utopia.

CFACT contributor Ronald Stein expertly lays out the not-so-pretty side of a #NetZero2050 future with the Coronavirus parallel giving pause for zero emissions zealots to take stock of a Net-Zero future and evaluate what their lives may look like outside of virtue-signalling and panic.

*

Social Changes With COVID-19 Are A Prelude To Life With Less Fossil Fuels

Posted on Thu 03/12/2020 by

By Ronald Stein ~

While the world is feverishly trying to reduce emissions from fossil fuel usage, we get hit with the horrific contagious Coronavirus COVID-19. We’ve seen extensive self-imposed social adjustments to transportation that are very similar to what will be required to live with less fossil fuels in the future.

We’ve seen a serious reduction in the usage of the transportation infrastructures of airlines, cruise ships, as well as automobiles, trucks and their impact on the leisure and entertainment industries, all to avoid crowds.

FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCTS

Fossil Fuel Derivatives (Climatism insert)

Before fossil fuels and the thousands of products made from petroleum derivatives, and electricity that followed, the world was a zero-sum snake pit. One that was at war against one another scrounging for food, water, and shelter. In the 1800’s most people never traveled 100-200 miles from where they were born. Life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 20 and 30 years of age.

The social lifestyles before 1900 had no such transportation choices, as they had no autos, planes, or cruise ships for transportation. The inventions of the automobile, airplane, and the use of petroleum in the early 1900’s led us into the Industrial Revolution. Crude oil, natural gas, and coal changed – for the better – the lifestyles of every person living in developed countries such as, the U.S., Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

We would not be able to “make products and move things” if not for the thousands of products from petroleum derivatives that get manufactured from crude oil that wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture.

Economies around the world, and all the infrastructures are increasing their demand and usage each year of those energy sources from deep earth minerals/fuels to make thousands of products, inclusive of but not limited to:

  • Medications and medical equipment for cures for most diseases

  • Electronics for worldwide communications

  • Fertilizers to help agriculture feed the world

  • Asphalt for all the roads

  • Tires for all vehicles

  • Steel for every building in the world

  • Wire for the worldwide electrical grid

Today, the airlines that did not exist before 1900, transported more than 4.1 billion passengers in 2017 around the world and projections are 7.8 billion airline passengers by 2036. Cruise ships which also did not exist before 1900 move 25 million passengers around the world every year.

Along with those transportation options available for society, we also have billions of vehicle trips to and from airports, hotels, ports, and amusement parks that are increasing each year. COVID-19 has shown us that society changes can reduce the demand of those growing numbers.

Yes, we may be using fossil fuels too extensively for leisure and entertainment but the developed world is where it is today, healthier and wealthier, because of all those products we get from those oil derivatives.

To meet those low emission targets, we’ll need to continue to reduce the transportation demands of society and COVID-19 may be showing us how we’ll need to retract from our extravagant usage of the various transportation systems that did not exist before fossil fuels.

Our future existence may be less vacations and less business conferences. Reductions in the usage of the entertainment and hospitality industries, neither of which existed before fossil fuels, may also be necessitated.

As we wean ourselves from oil, we’ll need to lower our demands for transportation infrastructures that COVID-19 has shown us the way.

As we wean ourselves away from fossil fuels, we’ll need to accept that developing countries like many in China, India, and Africa are still stuck in the pre-1900’s era. They have yet to join the industrial revolution and the opportunity to enjoy the thousands of products in our daily lifestyles. Of which may never do so as the fuels that support the demands of the various transportation infrastructures will be diminishing.

The same politicians that are thrashing on the oil and gas industry, and seeking its demise, are the same ones reaping the benefits of the medications, medical equipment, communication networks, and the thousands of other products. This from industries that have contributed to their lifestyles and their ability to live beyond 80 years of age. Those vocal about emissions need to join the conservation movement.

Yes the world has changed from the societies that existed in primeval times, without airlines, trains, vehicles, merchant ships, medications, fertilizers, cosmetics, and military equipment like aircraft carriers, battleships, planes, tanks and armor, trucks, troop carriers, and weaponry, and electricity that did not exist before 1900, but now may be the time to start showing our conservation cards.

At a rapid pace more and more countries and governments are moving their energy policies toward ridding the world of fossil fuels to electrify societies using only intermittent electricity from wind turbines and solar panels. Electricity alone may support a simplified lifestyle but cannot support the huge energy needs of the transportation infrastructures, nor provide the thousands of products that societies demand from those petroleum derivatives.

Ron Stein contributes Posts at the CFACT site. He is an engineer who, drawing upon 25 years of project management and business development experience, launched Principal Technical Services (PTS) in 1995. He writes frequently on issues of energy and economics.

Read more excellent articles at CFACT  http://www.cfact.org/

Social Changes With COVID-19 Are A Prelude To Life With Less Fossil Fuels | PA Pundits – International

***

SEE also :

U.N. Agenda 21 / 2030 related :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Support The Fight Against Dangerous, Costly and Unscientific Climate Alarm

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps, heaps!

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

(NB// The PayPal account linked to “Climatism” is “Five-O-Vintage”)Donate with PayPal

Screen Shot 2020-02-12 at 5.35.38 am

•••


46 STATEMENTS By IPCC Experts Against The IPCC

800px-Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change_Logo

U.N. IPCC (logo)


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. Definitely no exception here…

46 enlightening statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.”
  3. 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.”
  4. 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.”
  5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
  6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
  7. 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.”
  8. 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.”
  9. 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.”
  10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
  11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
  12. 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.”
  13. 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.”
  14. 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.”
  15. 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.”
  16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
  17. 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.”
  18. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
  19. 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.”
  20. 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.”
  21. 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.”
  22. 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.”
  23. 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.”
  24. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
  25. 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.”
  26. 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.”
  27. 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.”
  28. 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.”
  29. 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.”
  30. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
  31. Steven McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
  32. 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.”
  33. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
  34. 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.”
  35. 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.”
  36. 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.”
  37. 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.”
  38. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
  39. 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?”
  40. 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.”
  41. 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.”
  42. 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.”
  43. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
  44. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
  45. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
  46. 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 


  1. Dr Robert C Balling, Jr.  Dr Robert Ballingis 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.

  2. Dr Lucka Bogataj (Kajfež Bogataj Lučka) The joint recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, Lučka Kajfež Bogatajshe 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…

  3. Dr John Christy John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist John Christyat 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.

  4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci : Retired but she continue advancing in herRosa_Compagnucci past line of research. Four years ago he worked at the Department of Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences, Universidad de Buenos Aires and was Principal Research in the Argentina Research Council CONICET. Rosa does research in Climatology, Meteorology and Paleoclimatology. Their most recent publication is ‘RELATIONSHIP AMONG A SUPERNOVA, A TRANSITION OF POLARITY OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD AND THE PLIO-PLEISTOCENE BOUNDARY’.

  5. Dr Richard Courtney is a Technical Editorrichard-courtney 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

  6. Dr Judith Curry is an American climatologist 140px-Curry_2006_200dpiand 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.

     

  7. Dr Robert Davis is a Professor of Climatology Unknownat 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.


  8. Dr Willem de Lange Position: Senior LecturerEcho-sounding20150807-30580-jnufa4, 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.


  9. Dr Chris de Freitas New Zealand Dr Chris de Freitasclimate 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.

  10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld My research mugshotactivities 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.

  11. Dr Peter Dietze Independent energypeter_dietze 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.

  12. Dr John Everett is a marineDr John Everett 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.”

  13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen Friis-ChristensenDr Eigil 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:

     

  14. Dr Lee Gerhard is a retired geologist fromlee-gerhard_1 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.

  15. Dr Indur Goklany is a science andDr Indur Goklany 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).

  16. Dr Vincent Gray (24 March 1922 – 14 June 2018)Dr Vincent Gray 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.

  17. Dr Mike Hulme Professor of Human GeographyDr Mike Hulme  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.[5] He also contributed to the reports of the IPCC.

  18. Dr Kiminori Itoh Japanese award Dr Kiminori Itohwinning 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.”

  19. Dr Yuri Izrael was a vice-chairmanDr Yuri Izrael 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.

  20. 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.

  21. Dr Georg Kaser is a South Tyrolean glaciologist Dr Georg Kaserand 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.

  22. Dr Aynsley Kellow is aDr Aynsley Kellow climate skeptic at the School of Governement University of Tasmania. Aynsley Kellow was an IPCC reviewer to Working Group II of AR4.

  23. Dr Madhav Khandekar is a MadhavJun09200hformer 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.

  24. Dr Hans Labohm Hans HJ Labohm Hanswas 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.

  25. Dr Andrew Lacis  NASAGISS Lacis_AGU_2011National 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

  26. Dr Chris Landsea Dr Chris Landseais 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.

  27. Dr Richard Lindzen 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.”

  28. Dr Harry Lins Dr Harry Linsis 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.

  29. Dr Philip Lloyd Dr Philip LloydUN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, [Nuclear Physicist] and Chemical Engineer, and author of more than 150 [189] 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)

  30. Dr Martin Manning oManningProfessor 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.

  31. Steven McIntyre Steven McIntyreis 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.

  32. Dr Patrick Michaels pmichaelsis 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.

  33. Dr Nils-Axel Morner Dr Nils-Axel Morneris 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.

  34. Dr Johannes Oerlemans Dr Johannes Oerlemans is a Dutch climatologist specialized in glaciology and sea level.[1] He is a professor of meteorology in the Faculty of Physics and Astronomy at Utrecht University.

  35. Dr Roger Pielke Dr Roger Pielkeis 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.

  36. Dr Paul Reiter Dr Paul Reiteris a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, FranceHe 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 malariaHe is a Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society. Reiter says he was 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.

  37. Dr Murry Salby Dr Murray Salbyis 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.[1] He has written two textbooks, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics (1996),[2] 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.

  38. Dr Tom Segalstad Dr Tom Segalstadhas 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.

  39. Dr Fred Singer Dr Fred Singeran 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).

  40. 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.)

  41. Dr Richard Tol Dr Richard Tolis 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.

  42. Dr Tom Tripp Dr Tom Trippis 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.

  43. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber Ger-Rainerundertook 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.

  44. Dr David Wojick 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.

  45. Dr Miklos Zagoni KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERAis 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).

  46. Dr Eduardo Zorita Dr Eduardo Zoritais 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.

***

UPDATE

“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 :


ARCTIC Meltdown Latest

Apt quote on the Arctic “meltdown” via Tony Heller’s twitter feed :

“Climate alarmists say they love Arctic sea ice, but for some reason get very angry when they are shown that it is not disappearing.”

https://twitter.com/Tony__Heller/status/1234999734873444352?s=20

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Arctic sea ice extent continues to run well ahead of the last few years, as it has done for most of this year so far, and continues to grow at a time of year when it normally begins to stabilise and recede.

Average extent in February was the highest since 2013, and stands greater than 2005 and 2006:

image

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php

Temperatures in the Arctic have been close to average, apart from a brief blip at the end of last month:

meanT_2020

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Meanwhile, down under sea ice extent has recovered strongly at the summer minimum in the last year or two, and is back to 1980s levels.

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

View original post


MALDIVES To Open Four New ‘Underwater’ Airports In 2020


“Action must be powerful and wide-ranging.
After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment.
It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will.
Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it.

We need to dismantle them all.”
–– GretaThunberg™️

***

Hat tip @yota_berlin

IN 1988, environmental ‘authorities’ and the United Nations predicted that the Maldives’ 1,196 islands would be underwater by 2018.

‘Sea level is threatening to completely cover’ Maldives’ 1,196 islands within 30 years…

*

TWO years on from the drowning of the Maldives, the situation is dire…

Screen Shot 2020-03-02 at 11.08.24 am

Maldives to open four new airports in 2020 – Maldives Insider

***

ALARMISM PAYS

THE Maldivian government, along with other “disappearing” (cash-strapped) coral island nations have a well documented history of using climate guilt and the fake threat of sea-level rise inundation as a vehicle to pursue compensation, paid for by Western nations, under the United Nations’ wealth redistribution agenda.

*

KIRIBATI fears by Pulitzer experts …

*

TUVALU : You can always rely on the Guardian to scare you into accepting more windmills and mirrors to stop the seas rising …

*

TUVAU PM : Global Warming is “a slow and insidious form of terrorism” …

***

WHAT THE ‘SCIENCE’ SAYS

UNFORTUNATELY for cash-strapped island nation governments and ClimateChange™️ catastrophists, Mother Nature is aware that the seas have been steadily rising for the past 15,000 years, and she knows precisely how to compensate for that incremental rise.

“SHAPE-SHIFTING” Islands

NZ peer-reviewed research proves that coral island atolls are growing or “shape-shifting”, not shrinking or “sinking” as weaponised by climate alarmists.

This finding is consistent with our case studies in the Great Barrier Reef and the Maldives, which show that islands can form under a range of sea-level conditions including rising, falling, and stable.

Together, these studies show that sea level alone is not the main factor that controls the formation and subsequent change of reef islands. These processes also depend on the surrounding coral reef generating sufficient sand and shingle to build islands.

Dynamic atolls give hope that Pacific Islands can defy sea rise | The Conversation

WEBB et al : The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific – ScienceDirect

NATURE Communications :

*

EVEN the climate-hysterical ABC’s ‘fact’ check unit agrees!

*

MALDIVES : SEA-LEVEL RISE TREND

THE Maldives have remained at just one meter above sea level for centuries with no noticeable change.

NOAA tidal gauge reading shows Maldives SLR running around the global average at 3.69 millimeters/year, with no acceleration this century at the same time as CO2 emissions have risen significantly.

***

HOW inconvenient for climate alarmists that tourists and families can still enjoy time-out from work at delightful island retreats.

***

CONCLUSION

A few questions for the ClimateChange™️ industry :

  1. WHAT date will GretaThunberg™️ and her yacht be arriving in Malé to protest the opening of the 4 new airports? And, will she be demanding the immediate resignation of President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih? “How Dare He!”?
  2. IF sea-level-rise is “catastrophic” and “settled science”, what available scientific evidence did the Maldivian government and airport engineers view to tell them that purported ‘human driven sea-level-rise’ was utterly insignificant?
  3. IS it reasonable that the Maldives can build 4 new airports while the U.K., being approximately 800 times larger than the Maldives, has been banned by Law (Extinction Rebellion) from building a simple extension of Heathrow Airport?

***

UPDATE

AHH the hypocritical irony!

Hat tip @WTeach2

•••

SEE also :

U.N. Agenda 21 quick-history :

CORAL Island Atoll related :

RELATED :

EXTREME WEATHER Related :

STATE Of The Climate Report :

ORIGINS Of The ClimateChange™️ Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Support The Fight Against Dangerous, Costly and Unscientific Climate Alarm

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps, heaps!

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

(NB// The PayPal account linked to “Climatism” is “Five-O-Vintage”)Donate with PayPal

Screen Shot 2020-02-12 at 5.35.38 am

•••


CLIMATE CRISIS UNEARTHED : Adelaide’s Temperature Rose Above 38°C Fourteen Times In January (1908)


“PEOPLE have been imagining that the climate is changing,
exaggerating every weather event, getting widespread press coverage,
and blaming it on man – for as long as there have been newspapers.”
Tony Heller
Climate Change Insanity Never Changes

“IT is fortunate for the community’s peace of mind
that the Commonwealth Meteorological Office [BoM] exists as a
corrective to scare mongering and shameless prophecy.”
Mr. E. Bromley : Commonwealth Meteorological Office (BoM) 1923

***

DEEP within human nature there are certain types of people who yearn for catastrophe. They yearn to have significance in their lives believing that theirs is the time when the chickens are coming home to roost and everything is going to go tits up.

THE biggest selling environmental books in history, predict the mass destruction of the planet. Rachel Carson’s 1962 international bestseller “Silent Spring” predicted mass cancer from plant pesticides and DDT. Population freak, Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book “The Population Bomb”, argued on Malthusian lines that population explosion would mean mass starvation around the world. People buy this stuff. They lap it up and books like this sell in droves, in a way that more reasonable books that say “hang on, lets look at the facts”, don’t.

MORE than half a century on, we still ‘yearn for catastrophe’. The perpetrator, still, ‘evil’ mankind.

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome
(Eco consultants to the U.N.)

THIS time around; “Climate Catastrophe, “Climate Armageddon”, “Climate Crisis”, “Climate Emergency” and every other hyperbolic descriptor of climate and weather are all blamed on mankind’s excesses, chiefly its production of trace gas carbon dioxide – the byproduct of around ninety per cent of all global energy production.

*

WHY CARBON DIOXIDE?

ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, former MIT Professor of Meteorology and IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that fuels the ClimateChange™️ agenda.

LINDZEN’s enlightening summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate :

“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”

https://youtu.be/OwqIy8Ikv-c

*

CONTROL CO2, CONTROL THE WORLD

https://twitter.com/ClimatismBlog/status/1182615029142540288?s=20

***

CLIMATE HISTORY

WITH a clearer understanding of why colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant-food carbon dioxide is demonised as “carbon pollution” by the zero-emissions-zealots, let’s wind back the clock to gain some historical perspective into the relentless bombardment of “Hottest Evahh” and “unprecedented” hyperbole that dominates the lexicon of the lazy mainstream media, deliberately fanning the flames of  ClimateChange™️ hysteria.

OVER the weekend, Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney endured two days of January summer weather, prompting the usual suspects to default into extreme rhetoric mode.

NOTE to news.com.au author : Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology defines a “heatwave” as “unusually hot conditions over a period of four days.

THE “heatwave” that South-Eastern Australia just endured, lasted two days. A cool change arrived in Adelaide yesterday and Melbourne last night, ending the “Darwin” like climate…where humidity in Melbourne maxed at a mere 45% on Friday. Darwin’s relative humidity for January averages 71%. Wrong, wrong and deceptive again, the mainstream media.

*

WHAT A REAL “HEATWAVE” LOOKS LIKE

IN 1908, when CO was at “safe” levels, Adelaide experienced fourteen days of temperatures over 38°C (101.9°F minimum) in the month of January. The average temperature over these fourteen days was 142°C (107.3°F).

WHAT is even more astonishing is that the extreme month of heat was split into two mega-heatwaves lasting six days for the first and seven days for the second.

A cool change separated the two, though this would have brought little comfort to the population who endured the extended heatwaves without the luxury of AC!

THERE was little respite in February with another four-day heatwave delivering temps again over 100°F.

*

“CLIMATE EMERGENCY” ADELAIDE (JANUARY, 2020)

WITH current global CO levels pushing an “unprecedented” (blah, blah…) 411 ppm it would track that heatwaves should be longer and hotter during the hottest month of the Australian year – January – and temps significantly higher. That is if CO is doing its job properly.

UNFORTUNATELY for ClimateChange™️ “doomers” Adelaide max temps have been well below average for January with only three days above 38°C (101.9°F) and no consecutive days of ‘heatwave’.

MELBOURNE has been about average for January. With only two days above 38°C (101.9°F)

*

‘HISTORY IS HERESY!’

A recent tweet that compared January 2020 Adelaide max temps to those in January 1908, prompted this post.

ONE angry troll responder noted, “Wow so you presented two data points & drew a conclusion! Very scientific- did u get a science degree from a cornflakes packet???”.

SHE is right, two data points don’t necessarily ‘draw a conclusion’.

HOWEVER, just imagine if any capital city in the world, today, had two consecutive heatwaves in one month – with one lasting six days and the other, seven days with temps averaging  42°C (107.3°F) ?

THE mainstream media would have apoplexy, and @alison_rixon along with her Extinction Rebellion mates and GretaThunberg™️ in tow would be glueing themselves to the nearest sidewalk, demanding big employers be shut down, whilst pleading for global communism in order to stop the “CLIMATE CRISIS!”.

***

CONCLUSION

“The study of History
is the beginning of wisdom.”

— Jean Bodin

AN area of great success for climate change realists, in the process of hitting back against dangerous and costly ClimateChange™️ alarmism and mainstream media eco-hysteria has been in the area of historical referencing. Comparing past climate and weather events to present ones.

CLIMATE sceptics are denounced as “deniers” for daring to use the past to nullify hysterical claims of the present or even the modelled future. ‘How dare’ anyone refute claims by ‘leading scientists’ that current conditions are “unprecedented”!

THE master of historical referencing has ‘historically’ been @Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard over at Real Climate Science. I urge you to checkout his excellent and powerful work. You will even get a good laugh, too! A very clever scientist, environmentalist and humanitarian.

YE shall know the truth and the truth shall make you [and your power bills] free.  

•••

SEE also :

EXTREME WEATHER Related :

STATE Of The Climate Report :

TEMPERATURE Related :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps, heaps!

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

(NB// The PayPal account linked to “Climatism” is “Five-O-Vintage”)Donate with PayPal

•••

 


SCIENTIST : Let’s Not Pollute Minds With Carbon Fears


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.”UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

FOR such an important topic that is centred around ‘science’, the vocabulary that punctuates the global warming climate change scare certainly does not live up to the principles of ‘science’ from the outset.

INTENTIONALLY scary sounding words and phrases like “carbon”, “carbon pollution”, “carbon emissions” and “decarbonisation” do little for our understanding of science, rather, frame the earth gas carbon dioxide (CO2), at the centre of the debate, as a dirty, sooty substance that must be universally condemned and therefore eliminated.

EMERITUS professor Ian Plimer thoughtfully and ‘scientifically’ explains this grand deception, allaying the fears and misconceptions that far too many, otherwise intelligent people hold towards; colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food CO2 …

*

Via The Australian :

(Climatism bolds and inserts added)

Let’s not pollute minds with carbon fears

As soon as the words carbon footprint, emissions, pollution, and decarbonisation, climate emergency, extreme weather, unprecedented and extinction are used, I know I am being conned by ignorant activ­ists, populist scaremonger­ing, vote-chasing politicians and rent seekers.

Pollution by plastics, sulphur and nitrogen gases, particulates and chemicals occurs in developing countries. That’s real pollution. The major pollution in advanced economies is the polluting of minds about the role of carbon dioxide. There are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims.

But then again, we should be used to this after the hysteria about the Great Barrier Reef bleaching that has really been occurring for hundreds of years, fraudulent changing of past weather records, the ignoring of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives are growing rather than being inundated, and unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting. By ignoring history and geology, any claim of unusual weather can be made sensational.

We’ve had reefs on planet Earth for 3500 million years. They came and went many times. The big killer of reefs was because sea level dropped and water temperature decreased. In the past, reefs thrived when water was warmer and there was an elevated carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. Reef material is calcium carbonate, which contains 44 per cent carbon dioxide. Reefs need carbon dioxide; it’s their basic food.

We are not living in a period of catastrophic climate change. The past tells us it’s business as usual.

8308af5095bbbc1e7c6848f6a0024608.jpg

A large staghorn coral grows on Moore Reef in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Picture: Brendan Radke

It has never been shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming.

Climate models have been around 30 years. They have all failed. Balloon and satellite measurements show a disconnect from climate model predictions. If they have failed across the past 30 years when we can compare models with measurements, there is little chance that the climate projections across the next 50 years will be more successful. Modellers assume carbon dioxide drives climate change. It does not. The role of the sun and clouds was not considered important by modellers. They are the major drivers for the climate on our planet.

Climatism insert:

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

The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful
.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University

100% Of Climate Models Prove That 97% Of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism

We emit a trace atmospheric gas called carbon dioxide at a time in planetary history of low atmospheric carbon dioxide. The geological history of the planet shows major planetary climate changes have never been driven by a trace gas. Just because we are alive today does not mean we change major planetary systems that operated for billions of years. Earth’s climate dances to rhythms every day, every season and on far larger lunar, ocean, solar, orbital, galactic and tectonic cycles. Climate change is normal and continual. When cycles overlap, climate change can be rapid and large. Sporadic events such as supernovas and volcanic eruptions can also change climate.

The main greenhouse gas is water vapour. It is the only gas in air that can evaporate, humidify and condense into clouds that precipitate rain, hail and snow. These processes involve a transfer of energy, and water vapour makes the atmosphere behave like a giant airconditioner. Carbon dioxide is a non-condensable atmospheric gas like nitrogen and oxygen. Water vapour in air varies depending on temperature and location from five times the atmospheric carbon dioxide content in deserts to more than 100 times in the tropics. Water is 12 times more effective than carbon dioxide with respect to all incoming and outgoing radiation.

Earth is unevenly heated. Our spinning oblate globe is influenced by two fluids of different composition and behaviour moving chaotically against each other over the irregular solid surface of the planet. Oceans hold most of the planet’s surface heat, not the atmosphere. Processes that occur during sunlight do not occur at night due to the prime driver of our planet’s surface temperature: the sun.

eaebbda1794d855cca510663596632c6

A polar bear walks on sea ice in the Arctic. Picture: iStock

Carbon dioxide is plant food. It is neither a pollutant nor a toxin. Without carbon dioxide, all life on Earth would die. Plants convert carbon dioxide, water and sunlight during photosynthesis into sugars, cellulose, fruit, vegetables and grains, which animal life uses as food. Marine organisms also take up and use carbon dioxide. Plants need almost three times today’s carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere to thrive. For decades horticulturalists have pumped carbon dioxide into glasshouses to increase yields. The fossil record shows that a thriving and diversification of plant and animal life occurs every time the atmosphere had a very high carbon dioxide content. In the past, warming has never been a threat to life on Earth. Why should it be now? When there is a low atmospheric carbon dioxide content, especially during very cold times, life struggles.

For the past 500 million years, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content has been decreasing and if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die. This carbon dioxide has been removed into the oceans and is sequestered into coral, shells, limey sediments and muds and on the land into coals, muds, soils and vegetation.

Air contains 0.04 per cent carbon dioxide. We add carbon compounds to our bodies from food and drinks and exhale carbon dioxide. The human breath contains at least 4 per cent carbon dioxide. Our bodies contain carbon compounds. If we were so passionately concerned about our carbon footprint, then the best thing to do is to expire.

7934ef12098d26a39cca28e1e06f05db.jpg

Data shows that Pacific islands and the Maldives, above, are growing rather than being inundated. Picture: iStock

In our lifetime, there has been no correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature. On a larger scale, the ice caps show that after a natural orbitally driven warming, atmospheric carbon dioxide content increases 800 years later. Rather than atmos­pheric carbon dioxide driving temperature, it is the opposite. Geology shows us again there is no correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. Each of the six major past ice ages began when the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was far higher than at present. The thought that a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to unstoppable global warming is demonstrably wrong.

In the past decade China has increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 53 per cent, 12 times Australia’s total carbon dioxide output of 1.3 per cent of the global total. The grasslands, forests, farms and continental shelves of Australia absorb far more carbon dioxide than we emit. The attack on emissions of the gas of life is an irrational attack on industry, our modern way of life, freedoms and prosperity. It has nothing to do with the environment.

Climatism insert :

Emeritus professor Ian Plimer’s latest book is The Climate Change Delusion and the Great Electricity Ripoff (Connor Court).

Let’s not pollute minds with carbon fears | The Australian

•••

MORE Plimer :

CO2 (“carbon Pollution”) Related :

SEE also :

EXTREME WEATHER Related :

STATE Of The Climate Report :

TEMPERATURE Related :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Pls Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps!

Click link for more info…

Thank You! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••


46 Statements By IPCC Experts Against The IPCC

46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC

  1. 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.
  2. 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.”
  3. 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.”
  4. 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.”
  5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
  6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
  7. 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.”
  8. 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.”
  9. 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.”
  10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
  11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
  12. 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.”
  13. 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.”
  14. 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.”
  15. 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.”
  16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
  17. 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.”
  18. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
  19. 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.”
  20. 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.”
  21. 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.”
  22. 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.”
  23. 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.”
  24. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
  25. 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.”
  26. 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.”
  27. 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.”
  28. 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.”
  29. 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.”
  30. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
  31. Dr Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
  32. 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.”
  33. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
  34. 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.”
  35. 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.”
  36. 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.”
  37. Dr Murray 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.”
  38. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
  39. 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?”
  40. 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.”
  41. 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.”
  42. 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.”
  43. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
  44. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
  45. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
  46. 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.”

grumpydenier

46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC

View original post 1,509 more words