“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
President UN Foundation
WHEN prosecuting the case for “unprecedented” man-made Global Warming, the first thing you need to make sure of is that no recent climate era was as warm or warmer than the present, even if that means having to rewrite the past to fit your narrative.
THE Medieval Warm Period, also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum (due to conditions favoured for crops, life and civilisation to thrive) existed a short time ago in the climate record, from c. 950 to c. 1250., and has remained a thorn in the side, ever since, for today’s
Global Warming Climate Change activist movement.
IN the 1990 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm Period was much warmer than the late 19th century:
THE IPCC’s 1990 report dives deeper into the reality of the Medieval Warm Period and provides an insight into the cause of these warming periods:
“This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases.”
BY the 2001 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm period disappeared and became much cooler than the late 20th century:
BY pure coincidence, in the year 1995 the IPCC made a decision to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear:
YOUTUBE clip of Dr David Deming’s US Senate testimony on the “disappearance” of the Medieval Warm Period (see 01m:50s) :
Video of Dr David Deming’s statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now throughly discredited hockey stick graph.
IN case you missed it…
“I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.””
The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be “gotten rid of.””
Statement of Dr. David Deming | U.S. Senate Committee
THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD : GLOBAL and PEER REVIEWED
ACCORDING to multiple lines of “peer-reviewed science”, the Medieval Warm Period was indeed ‘global’ and was as warm, if not warmer than today.
CLICK here for excellent interactive map of clickable peer-reviewed MWP studies in both North and Southern Hemispheres :
THE ‘INCONVENIENT’ PAST
THERE is absolutely nothing unusual about today’s so-called
Global Warming aka Climate Change.
LOOK at how many periods of warmth our planet has enjoyed during the past 10,000 years alone.
CIVILISATIONS flourished during those warm periods (“climate optimums”), and collapsed when they ended.
DID humans cause the Minoan warm period of about 3,300 years ago?
DID humans cause the Roman warm period of about 2,100 years ago?
DID humans cause the Medieval warm period of about 1,000 years ago?
WHAT about all of those other warm periods? Should we blame Fred Flintstone, perhaps?
IF the downward trend in temperature of the past 3,300 years continues, we could be in a heap of trouble. While our leaders keep on wringing their collective hands over global warming, we could be blindsided by an ice age.
ALL this talk about human-caused global warming is sheer nonsense, if not downright fraud. The record shows that both periods of warmth – and periods of cold – hit our planet with almost consistent regularity.
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
IT was such a success that the San Francisco International Airport’s corporate jet traffic rose roughly 30 percent to accomodate the planets most concerned citizens! Ahem.
NO doubt it was all worth it for the global eco-elites – flexing their moral muscles, nattering on how best to stop you from using cheap, reliable thermal energy sources and how to best control every aspect of your life and lifestyle.
MEANWHILE, at the same summit, four climate scientists, talking “science”, and without spending a cent of your hard-earned taxpayer money, took just 3 minutes and 46 seconds of your precious time to utterly destroy the crumbling edifice that the Climate Crisis Industry relies on to keep their scam afloat and your wallet open – Climate Change Alarmism…
Four climate scientists destroy the anthropogenic global warming myth in response to the Global Climate Action Summit.
Published on Sep 14, 2018
FOR details on the “Arctic dire warning” report featured in the clip, see here:
SEE also :
- CLIMATISM : State Of The Climate Report | Climatism
- 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism
- Private Jet Traffic Bumped Up 30 Percent During California Climate Conference | The Daily Caller
“Men are born ignorant, not stupid.
They are made stupid by education.”
– Bertrand Russell
Via (U.N) World Economic Forum :
Every summer for the last eight years, people who live in the Swiss Alps have been wrapping a beloved glacier in blankets.
The white canvas blankets are intended to reflect sunlight off the Rhone Glacier, to try to reduce how much of it disappears each year. And Swiss glaciologist David Volken says it’s probably working; he told Agence France-Presse the blankets may reduce seasonal melting by as much as 70%.
The Rhone Glacier is a popular tourist destination that has been shrinking rapidly over the last decade; of the roughly 1,148 feet (350 meters) in ice thickness lost since 1856, 131 ft has disappeared in the last 10 years alone, according to AFP. Thus the blankets.
It’s a rare approach, but not unprecedented, notes E&E News: People swaddle glaciers with reflective material in places in Italy and Germany, and Jason Box, a glaciologist with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, began advocating for covering sections of the Greenland ice sheet with reflective material as early as 2009.
Polar geoengineering ideas aren’t limited to blankets. At the annual meeting of the European Geosciences Union last spring, a research group from Utrecht University proposed blowing artificial snow across Switzerland’s Morteratsch Glacier, to help reflect sunlight, according to E&E News.
Others have suggested even larger-scale interventions, like using wind-powered pumps to squirt sea water over Arctic sea ice in winter, prompting thicker (and, they hope, more stable) ice to form, Oceans Deeply reports. Scientists have also floated the idea of building artificial platform-like mounds underwater to prop up particularly vulnerable ice sheets from below.
NOT sure whether to put this down to nostalgia, tourism, hubristic madness or simply an act of climate derangement syndrome?
BUT, one thing is a given – this almost ‘artistic’ yearly ritual, in defiance of Mother Nature is, no doubt, brought on by fear and anxiety over the perceived ill effect that mankind’s excesses and emissions are having on glaciers and the climate.
IT’S a shame that the good residents of the Rhone Glacier weren’t around in 1857 to spare a few blankets for Washington’s most famous glacier, Nisqually, that retreated 3,200 feet and lost 200 feet of thickness between 1857 and 1918…
COINCIDENTALLY, the Swiss Rhone Glacier began its retreat in 1856, a year before Nisqually in Washington began its melt…
“The Rhone Glacier is a popular tourist destination that has been shrinking rapidly over the last decade; of the roughly 1,148 feet (350 meters) in ice thickness lost since 1856…”
TONNES more blankets would have come in handy in 1902 when the Rhone Glacier was disappearing at alarming rates during NASA’s coldest years on record…
A monumental body of work. Meticulously researched and accurately referenced by climate-sceptical scientist and friend, Cha-am Jamal (Thailand)…
- Chapter 1 1980-1985
- Chapter 2 1985-1990
- Chapter 3 1990-1995
- Chapter 4 1995-2000
- Chapter 5 2000-2005
- Chapter 6 2005-2010
“CLIMATE alarmism is a gigantic fraud: it only survives by suppressing dissent and by spending tens of billions of dollars of public money every year on pseudo-scientific propaganda.” – Leo Goldstein
CLIMATISM TOP 10 ALARMIST MYTHS – Intro
EXCESSIVE or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat is fundamental in driving the human CO2-induced
global warming climate change narrative.
THE most popular climatic and weather-related events, as marketed by the Climate Crisis Industry, fall well within the bounds of natural variability. So, in order for such events to make the headlines, attract taxpayer funding for ‘research’, and advance the misanthropic, man-made climate change agenda, they must be accompanied by inflated language, an urgent tone, imagery of doom, and in many cases, fraudulent data.
IN this series we take an objective/sceptical look at ten of the more popular metrics used by warming alarmists to push the CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) narrative, testing the veracity of the all-too-often wild and alarmist claims associated with each…
#3. OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
“Corals evolved during the Cambrian Era six hundred million years ago, with CO2 levels 4000% of what they are now. They are made of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) – and could not exist without substantial amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Unless the chemical properties of CaCO3 have changed, the corals [and crustaceans] will be just fine.” – Tony Heller
WITH a stubborn atmosphere failing to warm as predicted, another climate threat was needed to sustain the Climate Crisis industry and keep lazy reporters supplied with junk science to feed their catastrophic climate narrative.
ENTER “Ocean Acidification”!
SOUNDS scary right? From the onset, the term “ocean acidification” was deceptive by design. And the only valid ‘science’ in the pseudoscientific study of “Ocean Acidification” is the ‘science’ of scare-mongering.
OCEANS are alkaline. The correct scientific term for any pH change toward zero is “less alkaline”. Obviously not the scariest of descriptors to shock the public into belief.
“OCEAN ACIDIFICATION” was first referenced in a peer-reviewed study in Nature in 2003, resulting in an explosion of journal articles, media reports and alarmist publications from environmental orgs. It has since gone viral, endorsed by scientists from numerous alarmist institutions including the Royal Society, the IPCC and NOAA who coined it “climate change’s evil twin” in a 2016 report.
A 2016 paper published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science put the issue of “ocean acidification” under the microscope, and found Scientists exaggerating the carbon dioxide threat to marine life…
Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research
“Ocean acidification” (OA), a change in seawater chemistry driven by increased uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans, has probably been the most-studied single topic in marine science in recent times. The majority of the literature on OA report negative effects of CO2 on organisms and conclude that OA will be detrimental to marine ecosystems. As is true across all of science, studies that report no effect of OA are typically more difficult to publish.
Excerpts from the paper:
Scientific or academic scepticism calls for critical scrutiny of research outputs before they are accepted as new knowledge (Merton, 1973). Duarte et al. (2014) stated that “…there is a perception that scientific skepticism has been abandoned or relaxed in many areas…” of marine science. They argue that OA is one such area, and conclude that there is, at best, weak evidence to support an OA-driven decline of calcifiers. Below, I raise some of the aspects of OA research to which I contend an insufficient level of organized scepticism has been applied (in some cases, also to the articles in this theme issue). I arrived at that conclusion after reading hundreds of articles on OA (including, to be fair, some that also raise these issues) and overseeing the peer-review process for the very large number of submissions to this themed issue. Importantly, and as Duarte et al. (2014) make clear, a retrospective application of scientific scepticism such as the one that follows could—and should—be applied to any piece of/body of research.
FROM an article in The Times :
An “inherent bias” in scientific journals in favour of more calamitous predictions has excluded research showing that marine creatures are not damaged by ocean acidification, which is caused by the sea absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
It has been dubbed the “evil twin of climate change” and hundreds of studies have claimed to show that it destroys coral reefs and other marine life by making it harder for them to develop shells or skeletons.
The review found that many studies had used flawed methods, subjecting marine creatures to sudden increases in carbon dioxide that would never be experienced in real life.
Dr Browman, who is also principal research scientist at the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, found there had been huge increase in articles on ocean acidification in recent years, rising from five in 2005 to 600 last year.
He said that a handful of influential scientific journals and lobbying by international organisations had turned ocean acidification into a major issue.
“Such journals tend to publish doom and gloom stories . . . stated without equivocation,” he said. The bias in favour of doom-laden articles was partly the result of pressure on scientists to produce eye-catching work, he added.
“You won’t get a job unless you publish an article that is viewed as of significant importance to society. People often forget that scientists are people and have the same pressures on them and the same kind of human foibles. Some are driven by different things. They want to be prominent.”
Patrick Moore: Ocean ‘Acidification’ Alarmsim in Perspective
From Moore’s report: Read the rest of this entry »
AUSTRALIA’S climate when CO2 was at “safe levels”…
The “Federation Drought”, 1895-1902
Many of Australia’s worst droughts occur when one or two very dry years follow several years of generally below average rainfall. Such was the case in the so-called “Federation drought”, which began in the mid 1890s and reached its devastating climax in late 1901 and 1902.
The five years leading up to Federation (January 1901) saw intermittent dry spells over most of the country, particularly in 1897 and 1899; in most of Queensland, dry conditions were virtually unbroken from 1897. Most other parts of the country had reasonable rain in 1900 and early 1901, but with the coming of spring 1901 very dry weather set in across eastern Australia. By February 1902 concerns were expressed about Sydney’s water supply, and the New South Wales Government declared 26 February a day of “humiliation and prayer” for rain in that state. Similar declarations were made in Queensland in…
View original post 123 more words
LAST week we analysed the profound effect that the Sun has on Earth’s climate and the sinister reasons as to why the Climate Crisis Industry almost completely dismisses it as having any effect on climate and weather:
THROUGH the forensic lens of Tony Heller’s excellent research, let’s take a deeper dive into the ‘conveniently’ dismissed nuclear-powered giant in the sky that has the ability to generate temperature swings of 40 degrees centigrade on any given day. And whose light, that takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds to reach Earth, delivers enough energy in one hour to power the world economy for an entire year! Read the rest of this entry »