New UCLA End of Snow Prediction

“Climate scientists regularly embarrass themselves with “end of snow” predictions, because they are an inevitable consequence of the “projections” (don’t say predictions) of their runaway climate models.”

Dr David Viner of CRU should have taught the climate catastrophists a lesson or three. Although, that was back in 2000. Short memories them climate “scientists”, perhaps ?!

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

UCLA thinks that by the end of the century, Climate will reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack by 85%.

Climate change puts California’s snowpack in jeopardy in future droughts

UCLA research shows how warming trends affect the Sierra Nevada now and in the future

Belinda Waymouth | March 09, 2017

Skiing in July? It could happen this year, but California’s days of bountiful snow are numbered.

After five years of drought and water restrictions, the state is reeling from its wettest winter in two decades. Moisture-laden storms have turned brown hillsides a lush green and state reservoirs are overflowing. There’s so much snow, Mammoth Mountain resort plans to be open for business on Fourth of July weekend.

The Sierra Nevada snowpack, which provides 60 percent of the state’s water via a vast network of dams and reservoirs, has already been diminished by human-induced climate change…

View original post 570 more words

It’s Time To Declare War On Global Warming Extremists

“So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems…” Tim Flannery 2007

This planet is on course for a catastrophe.
The existence of Life itself is at stake
– Dr Tim Flannery,
Climate Council


Turnbull Warming Extremist

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull meets flood victims. Picture: ADAM TAYLOR

Column – How warming extremists rule our universities | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt :

A LINE has been crossed now Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is telling massive porkies about the Tasmanian floods.

It’s time to declare war on global warming extremists.

I don’t mean war on Turnbull, himself. He’s just parroting popular untruths. No, I mean war on the extremists who feed him his falsehoods — the alarmists, Marxists and other Leftists who have seized control of our universities and punished the few academics who still dare challenge them.

Last week, Turnbull inspected the flood damage in Tasmania and, in just one widely reported comment, said three false or misleading things that hype the global-warming scare.

Tasmanians “have never seen as much water move as quickly as this,” he claimed.

“Certainly, larger and more frequent storms are one of the consequences that the climate models and climate scientists predict from global warming.”

Falsehood one: Tasmania actually suffered worse floods in 1929, when 22 people were killed after 500mm of rain was dumped in just three days over Burnie and Ulverstone.

Tasmania Floods 1929.jpg

Remembering the 1929 Launceston floods

(1929 Flood Insert via Climatism)

Falsehood two: Climate experts, in fact, used to claim we’d face droughts, not floods. Climate Council chief Professor Tim Flannery in 2007 famously warned: “Even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems.”

Falsehood three: Most climate scientists haven’t predicted more or larger storms at all.

In fact, in its latest report, the biggest group of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, admitted there was very little confidence in such claims.

In the report’s own words: there was “low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms” and “low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods”.

As for “heavy precipitation” of the kind just seen in Tasmania, the IPCC conceded that in areas “such as southern Australia and western Asia — there is evidence of decreases”.

That’s less heavy rain, not Turnbull’s more.

But as I say, what does Turnbull really know about global warming, other than that it’s fashionable to be an alarmist?

The real problem is this: name one university academic — a single climate scientist, physicist, meteorologist or historian — who publicly pointed out Turnbull was wrong. Most seem only too happy with such fearmongering.

True, there are a few brave sceptics left in academia. But they know the danger of speaking out, now the militant Left is so powerful in our universities and so hostile to debate.

The latest evidence: the threatened sacking of marine scientist Professor Peter Ridd, who has long warned that alarmist scientists were exaggerating the alleged damage done by global warming to the Great Barrier Reef, and getting big grants for it.

Ridd has been censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack for “failing to act in a collegial way” by exposing this alarmism.

He’d wickedly pointed out that the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority had published misleading photographs
of coral reefs near Stone Island — one taken in the late 19th century and the other in 1994 — which they’d claimed showed healthy coral had vanished.

As Ridd noted, there was no way of knowing if the photographs were of the same place, and coral cover could vary wildly in the same area. Nor could anyone know why coral seen in the 1800s was gone a century later.

Ridd could also have added that a new survey from the Australian Institute of Marine Science of 12 reefs off Townsville has found coral cover on 11 had recovered since Cyclone Yasi, and seven of the reefs had more coral now than 30 years ago.

But how crazy is his punishment? Since when did querying the claims of a fellow academic amount to a crime against “collegiality”?

This smacks of enforcing group think with threats of dismissal. Don’t universities do debate any more?

Seems not.

(Prof. Peter Ridd links added by Climatism)

Tas floods 2016
Flood waters rage through Cataract Gorge in Launceston. Picture: SAM ROSEWARNE

In 2013, Professor Bob Carter, the retired head of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at this same James Cook University, was dumped as an adjunct (unpaid) professor for what he believed was his internationally recognised work in exposing global-warming scares.

But even more shocking was the scandalous campaign to ban world-renowned political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The University of Western Australia and Flinders University had each told the Abbott government they were interested in a grant to host Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus think tank, to debate economic policies.

But staff and students at both universities mutinied, attacking Lomborg for having warned that much of the trillions of dollars spent to fight global warming made little difference.

The academics’ union — the National Tertiary Education Union — should have defended an academic’s right to question orthodox thinking.

Instead, it circulated a petition demanding Lomborg be banned for “downgrading the importance to the world of climate change mitigation”.

The UWA caved first to these new witch-hunters, and then the new Turnbull Government canned the planned funding for Lomborg’s centre.

But note this contrast: this same academics’ union that silences warming sceptics will fight to defend Marxists — ideologues who subscribe to a totalitarian creed that inspired the murder of tens of millions of people. Last week, NTEU members even formed a guard of honour for one of their union delegates, avowed Marxist academic Roz Ward, to welcome her back to work at La Trobe University.

The university had suspended Ward after she demanded that our “racist” flag have its Union Jack replaced with the red ensign of socialism, claiming this dragged into disrepute Ward’s taxpayer-funded Safe Schools program, which itself teaches children to think gender is “fluid” and to imagine themselves dating someone of their own sex.

But the university backed down after legal threats and protests from the NTEU, which then issued a press release crowing it had defeated “the Australian Right”, responsible for “screeching sloganeering and fearmongering around action on climate change”.

Now the NTEU is defending yet another Marxist academic and warming alarmist, journalism professor Martin Hirst, sacked by Deakin University after warning a commerce student who challenged his foully abusive tweets: “So are you happy to fail commerce?”

So it’s hardly Turnbull’s fault that he just goes with this warming flow, as set for him by professional alarmists and Marxists embedded in their university fortresses.

Why would he challenge this group think when he’d just get smashed anyway by the ABC — another powerful bastion of group think that refuses to let a single conservative or warming sceptic host any of its main current affairs shows?

You want Turnbull to think for himself on global warming? To take on the Leftist academic establishment and their media goons?

You ask too much. It takes a man or woman of guts and brains to stand up to them, and this country is critically short of such heroes.

Column – How warming extremists rule our universities | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt


Climatism comment :

Some Monday mirthness with the “quote of the millennium” from professional climate change alarmist ‘Tim Flannery’ :


Ship of Hypocrites: Burn Some Carbon With Tim Flannery | Climatism


Professional Climate Alarmist “Tim Flannery” Related:

‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’

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 of the UN Foundation

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace


Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

Anthony Watts describes :

This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.

Telegraph reporter James Delingpole, who originally broke the Climategate affair, begins his reporting of the letter with this:

It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment.


Can’t repeat this often enough.

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.


Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)





Exclusive: Ellis Washington challenges scientists to speak truth on ‘climate change’

Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have seen in my long life.

~ Dr. Harold Lewis

Ten days ago, Harold Lewis, Ph.D., emeritus professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, tendered his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr., Princeton University, president of the American Physical Society, because Dr. Lewis finally realized that he could no longer support what he called the “successful pseudo-scientific fraud” of global warming.

Communist Chinese dictator Mao Zedong (1893-1976)

Remember, to the Democratic Party and RINO Republicans, truth doesn’t matter, because to them truth is relative. All that matters to liberals and progressives is Nietzsche’s “Will to Power” and control over the people. Like the Islamic doctrine Taqiyya, which sanctions deceit to further Islam, to progressives the end justifies the means; therefore, lying, stealing, killing and perverting the Constitution and science is acceptable to utopian socialists as long as they “change the world.”

Recall the words of New Deal brain-truster Stuart Chase who, after visiting the Soviet Union in the 1920s, asked with incredulity, “Why should Russians have all the fun remaking the world?” Progressives are very resilient, so when Soviet communism finally collapsed after 70 years of world wide tyranny, progressives and liberal Democrats pushed the existential green movement to the forefront, which was in reality the same old exhausted red communism in a new disguise.

Green is now the new red (communism).

Continue Reading »


Related links :

Climategate Related :

United Nation’s Agenda 21 :

NASA Massively Tampering With The US Temperature Record

Real Science

In 1999, NASA published this graph, showing that the 1930s was by far the warmest decade in the US

ScreenHunter_281 Aug. 15 20.10

The graph was accompanied by this text :

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

They have since eliminated the hot 1930s from the temperature record. Their current…

View original post 74 more words