Advertisements

THE SUN : Climate Changer, Climate Driver, Climate Disruptor

***

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:

THE SUN : Climate Control Knob, Enemy Of The Climate Cult | Climatism

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 »

Advertisements

Climate Revisionism 101 : “We Have To Get Rid Of The Medieval Warm Period”

WHEN you are a man-made global warming alarmist prosecuting your case as “unprecedented”, you need to make sure 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 theory.

THE Medieval Warm Period, also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum (for obvious reasons) existed a short time ago in the climate record, from c. 950 to c. 1250., and has remained a thorn in the side for modern “global warming” catastrophists…

Read the rest of this entry »


THE “97% Consensus” Meme Further Discredited By 97 New Papers Supporting A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

climatism-97-consensus.jpg

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

.
IN order to avoid important free and open debate, on a system so chaotic as our climate, CAGW alarmists instinctively claim that the “science is settled” based on a purported “97% consensus” of all scientists.
.
ANY person or body that holds a dissenting view or presents contradictory evidence is immediately labelled a climate ‘denier’ – likened to those who claim the holocaust never occurred. A classic ad-hominem attack designed to smear and silence those who refuse to comply with the preferred wisdom of the day.
.
BOGUS 97% surveys have been concocted over the years claiming a scientific ‘consensus’ exists. However, consensus doesn’t decide science, facts do.
.
THE late Michael Crichton on the folly of a so-called ‘consensus’ in science…
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” 

Pierre L. Gosselin’s masterful resource NoTricksZone has unearthed 97 new papers in 2018 alone that further discredit the bogus “97% consensus” meme…

A Teetering Consensus: 97 New Papers Amassed In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

The Science Unsettles

In just the first 8 weeks of 2018,  97 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.

These 97 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

N(3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:

A(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.

RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”

A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.

A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough“, which means that “the time for debate has ended“.

A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.

To reiterate, the 97 papers compiled in 2018 thus far support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions.  The papers do not do more than that.  Expectations that these papers should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are deemed unreasonable in this context.

Below are the two links to the list of 97 papers amassed as of 26 February, 2018, as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.  Also included are 24 sample papers included on the list, about 1/4th of the total.

Skeptic Papers 2018 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2018 (2)


(Parts 2 and 3 are on the same page).  

Part 1. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction

Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century? (17)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (9)
Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (3)
Sea Levels 1-3 Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (4)
A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (7)

Part 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change  

Solar Influence On Climate (21)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (11)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (3)
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (2)

Part 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling

Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (6)
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (2)
Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (2)
Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (2)
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (2)
No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (1)
Miscellaneous (5)

Read full report here…

A Teetering Consensus: 97 New Papers Amassed In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm | NoTricksZone

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Click this link for brief info…TQ

Donate with PayPal

•••

Climatism hot links :

Climate Science related :


Read The #NunesMemo Here

FROM Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky: “Accuse your opponent of what only you are doing as you are doing it to create confusion.” (Quote also attributed to Karl Marx and Goebbels.)

HILLARY Clinton and Barack Obama both seriously engaged with Alinsky’s ideas — Clinton knowing him personally. Her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky.

What did Alinsky actually believe?
Rules for Radicals was Alinsky’s last book, completed the year before his death, and it laid out his organizing philosophy in detail. Its centerpiece is a list of rules of “power tactics,” meant as basic guidelines for community organizers (Obama) and community activists (Clinton):

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

MOST of these are elaborated upon in more detail in the book. For example, on #5, Alinsky notes, “It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react (Trump tweets!) to your advantage.”

IT’S not hard to see the link between the modern Left’s tactics of identity politics; PC, division, smear and slime and Alinsky’s rules for radicals.

LOCK ‘EM ALL UP!

MORE info on links between Clinton/Obama and Alinsky:

Clinton/Alinsky : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/20/hillary-clinton-saul-alinsky-and-lucifer-explained/?utm_term=.dee58d37f9a6

Obama/Alinsky : https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0128/Who-is-Saul-Alinsky-and-why-is-Newt-Gingrich-so-obsessed-with-him

Watts Up With That?

Monitoring Twitter, a number of people are reporting some download sites aren’t working. So, since WUWT has been setup to handle such things (Climategate for example) here is the memo in full. Some might say “Why is WUWT getting into the polictical mess that has nothing to do with climate?”.

Well, if you monitor Twitter like I do, you’ll see that many of the major players in climate alarmism are Tweeting about it. I figure if Michael Mann can rail about it

…the least I can do is provide a link for the document.

370598711-House-Intelligence-Committee-Report-On-FISA-Abuses (PDF)

(updated to include Mann’s Tweet)

View original post


ARCTIC SEA ICE — Ice Traps Narwhals

“The pity is that Alarmist media cannot seem to educate the public, and doesn’t do a little reading-up on the subject, but rather seems determined to horrify. Horror is not helpful, unless your intent is to herd people with a sort of bullying. To paraphrase FDR, in truth we have nothing to be horrified about but horror itself.”

A truly glorious read on the wonders of the Arctic wilderness and its wildlife, to the not so wondrous world of the politicisation of climate ‘science’…

Thanks Caleb!

Sunrise's Swansong

One thing that has fascinated me, in my study of sea-ice, is how swiftly vast areas can freeze over. This is apparent from many sources.

The captains of whaling ships, tempted north by whale’s habit of hunting in the rich ecosystem that exists at the very edge of the ice, sometimes appear like cowards for turning tail and fleeing the refreeze far before the whales chose to depart. (You might think whales would know best when to depart, for they suffocate when trapped under ice). However this choice does not seem so foolish once you understand larger whales could break up through a foot of ice, (with smaller beluga whales following and using the air-holes big whales created), while, without a strong following wind, a sailing craft could be bogged down and halted by a skim of ice only an inch thick. And despite all precautions, the ice formed so…

View original post 1,799 more words


Polar bears refused to die as predicted and this is how the propheseers respond

Belief and “Denial” are the words of zealots, not scientists.

The fact that you have taken on the climate establishment and criticized their failed doomsday theories, with regards to their favourite catastrophe mascot – the cuddly polar bear – “with supporting evidence is precisely why these “leading researchers” feel so threatened and why the paper had to be written.”

It is not surprising that you are being targeted by serial smear merchants like Michael E Mann et al. How dare anyone question their religion and threaten its veracity with solid data and evidence?!

You’ve hurt them and their melting credibility even more with your excellent, objective, data-driven science. Well done Susan!

The truth really does hurt.

polarbearscience

The polar bear experts who predicted tens of thousands of polar bearswould be dead by now (given the ice conditions since 2007) have found my well-documented criticisms of their failed prophesies have caused them to loose face and credibility with the public.

Fig 3 Sea ice prediction vs reality 2012 Predicted sea ice changes (based on 2004 data) at 2020, 2050, and 2080 that were used in 2007 to predict a 67% decline in global polar bear numbers vs. an example of the sea ice extent reality experienced since 2007 (shown is 2012). See Crockford 2017 for details.

Although the gullible mediastill pretends to believe the doomsday stories offered by these researchers, the polar bear has fallen as a useful icon for those trying to sell a looming global warming catastrophe to the public.

Here’s what happened: I published my professional criticisms on the failed predictions of the polar bear conservation community in a professional online…

View original post 439 more words


Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Government Climate Data

THE emperor really has no clothes!

Earlier this week we learned Michael Mann and his fraudulent Hockey Stick have been slapped down in a Canadian court. Mann was ordered to produce the data on which his fake claim was based (as good science demands). He refused the request and Contempt of Court charges will follow!

Add EPA Pruitt’s “red team” to the mix and the house of climate cards is looking like a dangerous place to reside!

Don’t expect the Goebbels Media to utter a peep about any of this.

Watts Up With That?

Cartoon by Josh at cartoonsbyjosh.com

Guest essay by Michael Bastasch

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming…

View original post 719 more words