Advertisements

DROUGHT : Data Doesn’t Lie, Climate Ambulance Chasers Do

Malcolm Turnbull - Oz Drought Lies - CLIMATISM.png


“Well, the climate is changing. I know it becomes a political debate. But there’s no doubt that our climate is getting warmer.”
Malcolm Turnbull PM

*

ANDREW Bolt, yet again, calling out the blatant climate falsehoods and exaggerations pushed by the usual band of climate change ambulance chasers keen to blame human emissions for Australia’s latest cyclical drought.

CLIMATE falsehoods not backed up by any ‘scientific’ theory, proof or reasoning, yet are thrown around like confetti by the likes of Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s ‘conservative’ PM, and the global warming theory-obsessed mainstream media…

NO, MALCOLM, WARMING ISN’T MAKING MORE DROUGHTS

Here we go again:

Malcolm Turnbull says climate change helps cause droughts, dismissing suggestions Australia abandon global emissions reduction targets.

ABC presenter and warmist Fran Kelly this morning pushed the same line – global warming now had to be made front and centre of drought policy.

Pardon? This is a complete misreading of what is really going on in our climate.

In fact, the rainfall data for NSW shows the pattern of droughts has not got worse over the century. Indeed the first half was drier:

NSW rainfall

NSW rainfall

No sign of increased drought, either, in the crucial Murray-Darling Basin, our agricultural heartland:

Murray Darling rainfall

Murray Darling rainfall

Across Australia, rainfall seems to have increased, not decreased:

Rainfall in Australia

Rainfall in Australia

Yes, the drought has hurt harvests, but there is no evidence before the past year of climate change hurting crops. The opposite, in fact.

From last year:

“Last year’s crop smashed records by about 30 per cent,” [ABARES senior economist Peter] Collins said…

The forecast national harvest sits two per cent above the 10-year-average, but Mr Collins said not everywhere would have an average crop.

Why do warmists so often exaggerate, and treat weather as climate?

NO, MALCOLM, WARMING ISN’T MAKING MORE DROUGHTS | Herald Sun

*** Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

PARIS Accord Based on Fraud

PARIS ACCORD FRAUD.png


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 Itohan 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.

•••

MUST READ information on the Paris Accord Fraud via Viv Forbes’  The Carbon Sense Coalition :

INTRO – Why Should Australia Pull Out Of The Paris Accord?

Quit Paris Treaty

Tony Abbott is right – Australia should quit the Paris Climate Treaty.China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia will ignore Paris. USA has already quit and Japan even withdrew from the Kyoto Treaty. Germany will fail to meet its obligations and Poland will not try very hard. France relies heavily on nuclear power and naturally supports imposing Paris handicaps on competitors.

And most of the rest of the world are just hanging in there hoping for a flood of cash from the climate compensation fund or from selling phony carbon credits.

Australia has huge coal, gas, oil and uranium resources. To export these, while we hobble our industries with windmill power, is insane.

Viv Forbes

*

PARIS Accord Based on Fraud

By Brendan Godwin

Weather Observer and General Meteorology
Bureau of Meteorology
Mawson Antarctic 1974

The Paris Accord is based on fraud. Carbon Dioxide or CO2 is essential for all life on earth. Without it we are all extinct.

There is nothing unusual happing with the globe’s temperatures. No unusual warming.

Our interglacial warm period peaked 8,000 years ago and we are cooling. We’ve come to the end of this interglacial and are about to enter the next ice age. Humans can do nothing to stop that.

The globe has no temperature control knob, it is impossible for humans to control the globe’s temperature.

CO2 does not produce warming. There’s not enough of it to do anything.

It is warming that produces CO2. It is impossible for the cause to be the effect.

CO2 has lagged temperature by 1,000 years for the past 1 mil years and it has never stopped the earth from entering an ice age, even when it was 4,000 ppm.

CO2 is the gas of life. We need more not less of it and we should be regulating for more not less emissions. It is needed to grow our food crops.

Paris is based on IPCC reports. The IPCC rely on their GCM models. None of the models rely on past climate history but rather a mathematical theory based on refuted, negated, fake and fraudulent science. They all incorporate:

  • A “human fingerprint” or THS (Tropical Hot Spot) on the earth’s climate that doesn’t exist. IPCC’s AR2 report was fraudulently altered to remove scientific reports that were negative of their GHE definition;
  • Lewis Fry Richardson’s flawed atmospheric model equation;
  • Michael Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick graph in AR3;
  • Arrhenius’ flawed hypothesis of the greenhouse effect; Arrhenius invented heat from nothing.
  • The multiplier effect of water vapor feedback. The flawed CO2 increases water vapor hypothesis based on Arrhenius and the Charney report; From observations, water vapor is decreasing.
  • A corrupted peer review process.

Then back all this up by fraudulently altering the data to support the failed models that can’t even predict the last 30 years of hindsight. Read the rest of this entry »


Some Of The Loudest Backers Of Paris Climate Accords Are Bucking The Agreement

“THE stark reality is that healthier economies mean more energy use, and consequently, rising emissions (though not always). When economies were in a slump, it was easier to commit to emissions reductions. When countries’ economies began to grow, many saw emissions rise.

“…the Berlin-based organization Urgewald projects that 1,600 new coal-fired generating plants under construction or planned will result in 840,000 megawatts of new capacity.

“Germany, a world leader on climate action, has failed to cut emissions and has actually seen emissions rise during the past two years.

https://climatism.blog/2018/04/29/if-co2s-your-poison-renewable-energy-is-no-antidote/

PA Pundits - International

By Nicolas Loris and Bryan Cosby ~

June 1 marks the first anniversary of President Donald Trump’s having begun the process of withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate accord.

Foreign leaders immediately criticized the decision. German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the decision to leave “extremely regrettable,” while the prime minister of Denmark, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, called the move “a sad day for the world.”

Most nations that signed the Paris climate accords will soon fail to meet their agreement-defined deadlines for fossil fuel reduction. (Photo: baona/Getty Images)

Trump justified the withdrawal by calling the situation “the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries.”

Trump was wrong. The climate accord is not just a bad deal for the U.S., but for all of the developed countries that have committed to higher energy…

View original post 669 more words


18 EXAMPLES of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around the first “Earth Day” in 1970

“EARTH DAY” 22nd of April. Also the Birthday of Russian communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin. Obviously rather fitting with the motives and parallels between the “climate change” ideology and the totalitarian intent of dictator Lenin, far too intertwined to be a coincidence!

Watts Up With That?

Tomorrow, Sunday, April 22, is Earth Day 2018

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 48th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 18 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey.

Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around…

View original post 874 more words


Here is Why the Left is Officially Insane

“The election of Donald Trump may have brought the violent nature of the Left that was always known underneath the surface and was successfully *hidden for many years to the surface…”

Spot-on Gjihad. The Left, the not so “tolerant, peaceful, diverse, inclusive or kumbaya” champions that they claim to be.

Green Jihad

It finally built up from the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States to now to demonstrate how insane the Left truly is. All of the riots, lootings, shootings and multiple political demonstrations all lead to two news stories that finally prove the Left has not been radicalized, they are radicals.

This past Saturday, a well-known proponent of gay rights and environmentalist named David Buckel set himself on fire in Prospect Park in New York City as a means to warn people that the Earth is in big trouble due to human activity. Ironically, Buckel used a fossil fuel in order for his tragic act to be successful.

Pollution ravages our planet, oozing inhabitability via air, soil, water and weather, Buckel said in his suicide note. Our present grows more desperate, our future needs more than what we’ve been doing.

In Los Angeles, California, at a cost…

View original post 211 more words


HOW Green Central Planning And Big Government Has Destroyed Australia’s Electricity Market

“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” – James Hansen (The Godfather of global warming alarmism and former NASA climate chief)

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.” – Top Google engineers

***

AUSTRALIA’S once key economic advantage and proud boast of having the cheapest power prices in the world has been sacrificed at the altar of climate change by its politicians’ obsession with global warming theory and subsequent mad rush into large-scale unreliable ‘energy’ sources – wind and solar.

BIPARTISAN appeasement to the UN climate gods has come at a major cost to Australian businesses and households, now exposed to some of the highest power prices in the world, South Australia officially the highest.

 

JUST as socialist central planning failed miserably before it was replaced by free market economies, green central planning will have to be discarded before Australia will see a return to energy security and competitive pricing.

TWO must read articles via the IPA and Australian columnist Chris Kenny, exposing the entirely man-made energy crisis that is crippling industry and eroding the living standards of everyday Australian’s…


Screen Shot 2018-04-07 at 6.01.16 am

The Destruction By Government Of Australia’s Electricity Market

Throughout the western world over the last 20-30 years in particular, we have witnessed the tightening hand of the state, which has become ever more bold in insisting where and how we live, who we can work for or employ, what we can say and think, whose car we can get into, whose home we can stay in, and what we’re allowed to put into our mouths.

But these remarks are about how government intervention has destroyed the electricity market in Australia and throughout much of the western world, and what it means for personal and economic liberty, now and in the future.

Let me start by outlining what a market should be, and how it should work with electricity.

A real market is simply a place where consumers and producers meet, and agree on a price and means to satisfy consumer demand.

A real electricity market is one open to all fuel technologies – coal, gas, uranium, wind, water or the sun. Where producers compete to grow market share and increase their profit based on efficient production, with all consumers – household and business – the winners.

Read the rest of this entry »


THE Greatest Threat To The Environment Is Not Affluence, It’s Poverty

haiti-v-dominican-republic

Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy? (99% of Haiti’s forests have been decimated, not for building materials, but for cooking fuel.)

WHEN the New York Times hired climate ‘Lukewarmer’ Bret Stephens as a contributing columnist in late April 2017, a collective cry of treasonous rage was heard throughout the deep-green environmental community. How dare anyone question whether we should accept absolutely every pronouncement of imminent eco-doom at face value?!

A snippet of the enraged reporting at the time from the usual suspects…

Climate Scientists Cancelling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens

By Graham Readfearn • Thursday, April 27, 2017 – 16:59

A New York Times defence of its hiring of a climate science denialist as a leading columnist is pushing high-profile climate scientists to cancel their subscriptions.

Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany, is the latest scientist to write publicly to the New York Times detailing his reasons for cancelling their subscriptions.

The NYT has hired former Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens as a writer and deputy editorial page editor.

Stephens wrote several columns while at the WSJ disparaging climate science and climate scientists, which he has collectively described as a “religion” while claiming rising temeperatures may be natural.

The NYT has been defending its decision publicly, saying that “millions of people” agree with Stephens on climate science and just because their readers don’t like his opinions, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be heard.

But the NYT defence has angered scientists.

Climate Scientists Canceling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens | DeSmogBlog

*

Huffington Post also joined the fun…

13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column

The Gray Lady’s newest hire used his debut column to defend his record of climate science denial.

29/04/2017 9:09 AM AEST
Alexander C. Kaufman Business & Environment Reporter, HuffPost

The New York Times took a lot of heat for hiring Bret Stephens, a former opinion writer at The Wall Street Journal, as its newest columnist. There was a lot to criticize. In his storied tenure on some of the most radically conservative pages in print journalism, Stephens accused Arabs of suffering a “disease of the mind,” railed against the Black Lives Matter movement and dismissed the rise of campus rape as an “imaginary enemy.”

But Stephens’ views on climate change ― namely that the jury is still out on whether burning fossil fuels is the chief cause ― drew the widest condemnation. ThinkProgress admonished the Gray Lady for hiring an “extreme climate denier,” and famed climatologist Michael Mann backed them up in the critique. DeSmog Blog, a site whose tagline reads “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science,” reported on a letter from climate scientists who are canceling their subscriptions to the newspaper over its latest hire. In These Times’ headline pointedly asked: “Why the Hell did the New York Times just hire a climate denier?”

Even the Times’ own reporters publicly questioned the hire.

13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column |HuffPo

(via WUWT)

*

STEPEHENS has recently written another reasoned column in the Times that has no doubt sent the eco-freaks into another predictable tailspin!

IN the Feb 8 opinion piece, “Apocalypse Not“, Stephens argues that a healthy environment is dependent on a healthy economy first, namely a capitalist one.

“The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.”

A view not shared by radical environmental groups who, including the UN, believe that in order to “save the planet” we must fundamentally change the current economic development model. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.

“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 Brussels February, 2015

FIGUERES even went so far as to affirm that Communism is the best model to fight global warming.

IN other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

GLOBAL Warming theory has long abandoned any connection it has with actual science. It is has become as ideology. A new religion. Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott likening it to, socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.

IN 2013, UN IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3 Dr. Ottmar Endenhoefer unleashed this stunning revelation…

 


HIGHLIGHTS from Stephens’ must read column in the times…

Apocalypse Not

Norman Borlaug, the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.CreditMicheline Pelletier/Sygma, via Getty Images

In 1919, the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines offered a dire warning for the future. “Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline.”

Nearly a century later, in July 2010, The Guardian ran a story with an ominous headline: “Lloyd’s adds its voice to dire ‘peak oil’ warnings.” Citing a report by the storied London insurer, the newspaper warned that businesses were “underestimating catastrophic consequences of declining oil,” including oil at $200 a barrel by 2013, a global supply crunch, and overall “economic chaos.”

I thought of these predictions on seeing the recent news that the United States is on the eve of breaking a 47-year production record by lifting more than 10 million barrels of crude a day. That’s roughly twice what the U.S. produced just a decade ago, and may even put us on track to overtake Saudi Arabia and even Russia as the world’s leading oil producer. As for global production, it rose by some 11 percent just since the Lloyd’s report, and by almost 200 percent since 1965.

Call it yet another case of Apocalypse Not.

—–

“In best-selling books and powerful speeches, Vogt argued that affluence is not our greatest achievement but our biggest problem,” Mann writes. “Our prosperity is temporary, he said, because it is based on taking more from than earth than it can give. If we continue, the unavoidable result will be devastation on a global scale, perhaps including our extinction.”

In our own day, people like Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein have made careers saying more or less the same thing. This is a world where the clock is permanently set at two minutes to midnight, and where only a radical transformation of modern society (usually combining dramatic changes in personal behavior along with a heavy dose of state intervention) can save us.

—–

The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.

I fall in the Borlaugian camp. That’s worth noting because one of the more tedious criticisms by the environmental left is that people like me “don’t care about the environment.” But imputing bad faith, stupidity or greed is always a lousy argument. Even conservatives want their children to breathe.

—–

Borlaugians are environmentalists, too. They simply think the road to salvation lies not through making do with less, but rather through innovation and the conditions in which innovation tends to flourish, greater affluence and individual freedom most of all.

—–

If environmental alarmists ever wonder why more people haven’t come around to their way of thinking, it isn’t because people like me occasionally voice doubts in newspaper op-eds. It’s because too many past predictions of imminent disaster didn’t come to pass.

(Climatism bolds)

Read Stephens’ excellent piece in full here…

•••

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

•••

Related :

Climate Science related :