“IT would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
― Joseph Goebbels
FROM the “department of the absurd” comes this out of the global warming theory-obsessed NBC…
GOTTA love how 1 extra CO2 molecule per every 10,000 atmospheric molecules can change the way we look!
TWITTER’S excellent “Sooky Blessington” with the most viable explanation of what’s going on here…
Roger Federer, one of the world’s greatest tennis players, may have become an unwitting spokesman for the effects of climate change on Monday at the U.S. Open.
Federer, who is ranked No. 2, seemed to struggle all night in the heat and humidity at Arthur Ashe Stadium, losing in a fourth-round upset to John Millman, an Australian ranked 55th.
“It was hot,” Federer said. It “was just one of those nights where I guess I felt I couldn’t get air; there was no circulation at all.”
This was the first time Federer, who won the U.S. Open five consecutive times from 2004 to 2008, lost to a player outside the top 50 at the tournament.
To some, the comments by Federer, 37, may sound like sour grapes. But they also underscore a growing problem: increasing nighttime temperatures.
Under climate change, overall temperatures are rising — 2018 is on track to be the fourth-warmest year on record — but the warming is not happening evenly. Summer nights have warmed at nearly twice the rate of summer days. Average overnight low temperatures in the United States have increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit per century since 1895, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
TONY HELLER aka Steve Goddard of Real Science recently checked temperature trends at Ithaca NYC as part of a rebuttal to another piece of epic NYT climate propaganda and fraud – “How Much Hotter Is Your Hometown Than When You Were Born? – The New York Times”
WATCH the blatant fraud uncovered by Heller in this MUST SEE vid:
WHILE Heller’s work on the NY area at Ithaca doesn’t explore humidity, his analysis, using USHCN offical Govt data, shows that the number of hot days over 90F are declining as CO2 increases – the opposite of what global warming CO2-theory demands. And, shock news, Heller’s data shows the exact opposite of what the failing NYTimes impugns…
New York Times Fraud At Ithaca, New York
The New York Times claims that Ithaca, New York gets about three days per year over 90 degrees, when in fact they average almost double that.
The number of 90 degree days has declined by 50% over the last 90 years, as CO2 has increased.
The New York Times claims the opposite trend.
A large percentage of New York Times reporting is fraudulent, and sometimes it is trivial to prove. They are hiding readily available historical data, reporting incorrectly on historical and present data, and claiming trends which are the exact opposite of reality. Scientific and journalistic fraud at its worst.
AS an Aussie, bravo to John Millman for downing the Fed! And, obviously he had to play under the same conditions as the champ. Just maybe, Millman was the better player on the ‘humid’ night in NYC and in better condition than ye olde Rog, God bless him!
AS for the failing NY Times – “Scientific and journalistic fraud at its worst.” – we and the empirical evidence concur!
Tony Heller with the inconvenient truth on September 3 New York historical temperatures…
AUGUST is peak melt season for Arctic sea-ice. It’s also peak season for Arctic alarmists to scream and yell for an “ICE-FREE” Arctic.
HOWEVER, for the entire 21st Century, their cries, smears and slimes at “deniers” and Mother Nature have added up to nothing more than loud voices of a minority, with the usual and telling absence of empirical evidence or scientific reality.
THE attached fifteen second animation of all August months available via DMI, from 2003 – 2018, confirms the lies and falsehoods about the state of the Arctic that “Death Spiral” alarmists bleat about.
“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 »
ESSENTIAL reading and research for the ‘failing’ Guardian and New York Times respectively, who both launched new attack pieces on essential trace gas CO2, claiming this time that “Climate change [CO2] will make rice less nutritious”… 🤔
Before it was expropriated by the global warming/climate change movement, the term “Greenhouse Effect” referred to the effect of elevated carbon dioxide in greenhouses on crop chemistry. We know from greenhouse studies going back to the late 19th century that crop chemistry reflects the balance between soil chemistry, air chemistry, and light intensity. The important features of air chemistry are the availability of carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and of oxygen for plant respiration. The important features of soil chemistry are the availability of water, nitrates, phosphates, and minerals.
Greenhouse operations irrigation, air circulation to maintain air quality, heating for temperature control, the introduction of carbon dioxide to maintain elevated carbon dioxide levels of 1000 to 2000 parts per million for photosynthesis enrichment, and the availability of sufficient light for photosynthesis to occur. Photosynthesis enrichment improves crop yield and corresponding changes to soil chemistry must also be maintained to preserve the…
View original post 295 more words