With a loss at explaining new record ice over the last week of August and first week of September for Arctic sea ice extent and thickness plus continued growth of Antarctic sea & land ice, excuses and theories fly.
How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10…
CO2 cools atmosphere NASA study http://planet.infowars.com/science/na…
Exact Dates Given for Grand Solar Minimum Cooling commencing Globally in a paper by Zharkova, Shepherd, Popova and Zharkov, then the IPCC Tried to Suppress Research by asking the Royal Astronomical Society to remove the findings through the groups of scientific organizations associated with the IPCC. So much research is out in the world about the commencing grand solar minimum, the the lack of government action must have an agenda behind it.
SC 26 Forecast http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15…
Wave Patterns http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15…
IPCC and other scientific bodies try to remove and suppress Zharkova’s research and published papers. http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/09/sci…
“A word-salad of delusional nonsense.”
Piers Corbyn and WeatherAction comment on the #COP21 Climate “Deal”:
“It is a pack of lies, a word-salad of delusional nonsense. It is not science but politics and we challenge David Shukman of BBC and Sir David Attenborough to public debate on their claims and to answer the points made by us and all scientists at the Paris Climate Challenge alternative to UN IPCC held 1-3Dec – http://www.PCC15.org
I. THE FACTS OBSERVED IN THE REAL WORLD, rather than the product of failed models by the self-serving appointees of governments which make-up the IPCC process ARE:
(i) ALL the predictions of the ‘Global Warming’ theory of the UNIPCC have failed.
Real world temperatures as accurately measured by satellites are not rising but falling while the UN-IPCC models based on ‘cretin-Physics’ predicted rising for decades.
Arctic sea ice has now INCREASED to record levels not fallen as required under the UN IPCC model. Continue reading »
An international team of scientists have stunned attendees at the UN’s climate change conference in Paris recently by debunking claims that global warming is man-made.
The scientists say that while the science refutes the UN’s claim that man-made carbon emissions are to blame for global warming, they claim that the UN is pressing ahead with its sinister ‘climate regime’ agenda, which includes: destroying industrial civilization, propping up kleptocrats with Western tax funds, and seizing control of the global economy under the guise of regulating the immensely beneficial “gas of life,” also known as carbon dioxide.
– In Paris, Scientists Debunk UN “Climate” Hysteria (The New American):
PARIS — Amid United Nations efforts to shackle humanity to a UN “climate regime” at the COP21 global-warming summit, an international team of scientists and experts from various fields debunked the hysteria at a separate conference in Paris for realists. Essentially, the prestigious scientists said, there is no man-made global-warming crisis. The UN’s “climate” efforts, meanwhile, have a much more sinister agenda: Destroying industrial civilization, propping up kleptocrats with Western tax funds, and seizing control of the global economy under the guise of regulating the immensely beneficial “gas of life,” also known as carbon dioxide. The top U.S. senator on the Environment Committee also offered a message of hope to climate realists, saying the “climate charade” by the UN and the Obama administration was dead on arrival. Continue reading »
H/t reader squodgy:
“We are being cleverly herded into the pen.”
– 6 Manufactured Problems That Are Behind 6 Major Globalist Agendas (Activist Post, June 14, 2015):
Problem-reaction-solution, the Hegelian Dialectic is that process the globalist ruling class have chosen to use as the primary tool to constantly change society in the direction they want it to go. They manufacture a problem, focus on that problem, then sell the solution. The solution is always the very thing that drives their plan forward.
In this day and age the fundamentals of basic knowledge and awareness of what is happening in the world can be gauged by someone’s awareness of the Hegelian Dialectic. If someone is not aware of this powerful tool used by the controllers it is likely they are not aware of a lot of other things. For this reason the basics of the Hegelian Dialectic cannot be underscored enough in explaining major agendas today. Let’s look at 6 absolutely engineered problems today whose solutions play perfectly into the new world order plans. No one should mistake these for anything other than manufactured problems without which there would be no new world order. For this reason the following manufactured problems will never be solved. These manufactured problems are required and we should not expect them to go away any time soon. Continue reading »
Video Direct Link:https://youtu.be/4Ew05sRDAcU
1 – The Climate is Changing Unexpectedly
- The Global Warming Pause: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/
- Forbes Article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/
- NASA Data Shows Pause/Ice: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17470-nasa-data-global-warming-still-on-pause-sea-ice-hit-record
- Volcano Under Antarctica: http://www.livescience.com/41262-west-antarctica-new-volcano-discovered.html
- NOAA Data: http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch
- Recent Temp Graph:http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1995/to:2016/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2016/plot/rss/from:1995/to:2016
- US 2014 Temps:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/Statewidetrank/201401-201412.gif
- US Coldest Year 2014: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/divisionaltmaxrank/201401-201412.gif Continue reading »
Originally broadcasted March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4.
A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be “the biggest scam of modern times.”
– Arctic Ice Brake-up is NASA’s ‘most deluded scare story ever’ (The Real Agenda news, May 14, 2014):
“Unstoppable break-up of SOME Antarctic Ice due to non-existent Global-Warming threatens sea level Rise in 200 years time,” says Piers Corbyn.
Western media alarmism has spiked this month after NASA ‘revealed’ that a large section of the Antarctic shell was breaking off and will soon make sea levels rise to cover us all. The year of mid-term elections seems to be the year of hyped politics as NASA and the U.S. government continues to spread the lies about man-made global warming.
In the most recent example of how out of proportion statements help scare people, NASA used cherry-picked data and speculation to say that a ‘gigantic’ piece of West Antarctica is now melting and falling into the sea. NASA did not mention anything about the state of the whole Antarctic & South Hemisphere, mainly because it does not fit the narrative and scare tactics of the climate change alarmists. One entity that has gone the extra mile to explain the reality of ice caps in the Antarctica was the most-respected National Snow and Ice Data Center.
In the graph below, the organization shows that, at least for the last 35 years, ice has been accumulating, not melting in the Southern Hemisphere. Continue reading »
– The IPCC’s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science (Forbes, March 31, 2014):
This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.
– What happened to global warming? The warmest year recorded globally was 1998 (BBC News, Oct.9, 2009):
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
Original article (Google translation down below.):
– Die CO2-Lüge „Seit 12 Jahren ist die Erd-Erwärmung gestoppt!“ (BILD, Feb. 7, 2012):
Von PROF. FRITZ VAHRENHOLT und DR. SEBASTIAN LÜNING
Wirbelstürme! Biblische Fluten! Forscher warnen vor dem Klima-Kollaps! Doch Hamburgs Ex-Umweltsenator Fritz Vahrenholt und seine Mitautoren geben in einem neuen Buch* Entwarnung.
Heute Teil 2 der BILD-Serie: Der Einfluss der Ozeane auf unser Wetter
Global warming is a scam. (All links down below.)
Original BILD article here:
Von PROF. WERNER WEBER (TU Dortmund)
Steht die Menschheit vor einer selbstgemachten Klima-Katastrophe? Oder ist die globale Erwärmung nur eine große CO2-Lüge hysterischer Wissenschaftler? Ein Autorenteam um Hamburgs Ex-Umweltsenator Fritz Vahrenholt* gibt Entwarnung!
Die Klima-Katastrophe sei die Erfindung von Politikern und UN-Wetterforschern! In Wahrheit sei die Sonne mindestens genauso verantwortlich für die Temperaturschwankungen der Erde wie CO2! Exklusiv für BILD haben die Autoren ihre Thesen zusammengefasst.
Teil 1: Was der Weltklimarat der UNO verschweigt
Wir schlittern also in eine jahrzehntelange SonnenFLAUTE hinein.
‘NoTricksZone’ has some info and translation of the article (Google translation of the entire article below.):
“THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?”
That’s what Germany’s leading daily Bild (see photo) wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book – one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure.
YouTube Added: Aug 17, 2011
Global warming is a scam:
Tags: Carl Wunsch, Climate Change, CO2, Documentary, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Environment, Frederick Singer, Global Cooling, Global News, Global Warming, Ian Clark, IPCC, James Shikwati, John Christy, Lord Lawson de Blaby, Nigel Calder, Nir Shaviv, Patrick Michaels, Patrick Moore, Paul Reiter, Philip Stott, Piers Corbvn, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Science, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Tim Ball
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner:
‘The IPCC group and the Presidents of the Maldives and Tuvalu continue to claim that the flooding is in progress, and will soon flood the islands and wipe those island nations off the surface of the globe (or rather ocean). Already here we are facing a behavior that well might be termed a “sea-level-gate.” In an open letter to the President of the Maldives (Mörner 2009), I addressed the divergence between his claim and our field observations. No reply has come.’
– Make Bono History (Telegraph):
According to the Post, Bono’s anti-poverty ONE foundation received $14,993,873 in donations from philanthropists in 2008, of which just $184,732 was distributed to three charities. (ONE is an “advocacy organisation” whose main purpose is to change policies, not support charities, it says.) So what happened to the rest? More than $8 million was spent on executive and employee salaries.
This isn’t gossip.
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri is an elite puppet (= a currupt liar and fraud).
Why did the Charities Commission let the European wing of Rajendra Pachauri’s empire get away with such poor accounting, asks Christopher Booker.
Next weekend, as delegates from 194 countries gather in South Korea for a crucial meeting of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, their big talking point will be whether the IPCC’s chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri should resign – as a recent report from the world’s leading scientific academies seemed strongly to hint he should. The delegates face a dilemma. If they sack him, it would be a serious blow to the reputation of the panel, which has been central to the global warming scare since its founding in 1988. If he stays, it could severely damage the authority of its next major report, due in four years’ time.
Last winter, Dr Pachauri’s reputation took a hammering. On the one hand, there was the exposure of all those glaring and alarmist scientific errors in the IPCC’s last major report, produced under his guidance in 2007. On the other was the revelation in this newspaper of how his prestige as the “world’s top climate official” had coincided with a massive expansion in the fortunes of Teri, his Delhi-based research institute. Not only had Pachauri been appointed as an adviser to some of the richest banks and investment funds in the world, but Teri’s empire had mushroomed to include branches in Europe, North America, Dubai, Japan and South-East Asia.
When Dr Richard North and I came to examine this empire, our interest was drawn to Teri Europe, based in a suburban house in south London, which is registered under British law as a charity and is obliged to publish its accounts on the Charity Commission website. When we looked at these, however, they seemed rather odd. The figures showed the charity’s income and expenditure rising steadily in its early years – but from 2006 onwards they suddenly plunged to below £10,000 a year.
This was significant because £10,000 is the threshold below which a charity does not have to publish full accounts. Yet we knew that in these years Teri Europe was rapidly expanding, receiving sums way above that threshold. These included several payments from the UK government, such as £30,000 for the services of an employee of Dr Pachauri’s Delhi office to act as his co-editor on the IPCC’s 2007 Synthesis Report.
When we approached Teri Europe with our evidence, the charity’s secretary immediately admitted that there were “anomalies” in the accounts. The Charity Commission agreed to investigate. Not the least point of interest was that the charity’s trustees – “responsible,” in the commission’s words, “for approving the accounts before submission” – included, alongside Dr Pachauri, two other luminaries of the global warming establishment. Sir John Houghton was a founder of the IPCC, and had long played a key role in it. Sir Crispin Tickell was one of Houghton’s most influential allies back in 1988, as “our man at the UN” and as the adviser who talked Mrs Thatcher into enthusiasm for global warming at that crucial moment (a fervour she later disavowed).
Since it seemed that both Teri Europe and the trustees were in serious breach of the Charity Commission’s rules, this has led over recent months to a protracted series of exchanges with the commission.
First, the names of Houghton and Tickell swiftly disappeared from the list of trustees. Then, in May, after an audit by a firm of accountants, the commission’s website showed dramatically revised figures for one of the three years in question. The charity’s income for 2008 had now risen from £8,000 to £103,980, its expenditure from £3,000 to £97,419. But the figures for the previous two years were unchanged. The commission explained that it had allowed this “to save the charity a considerable amount in accounting fees”. It also claimed that the errors were due to the charity’s “inexperience in preparing accounts”, though the figures for earlier years showed no sign of “inexperience”.
I therefore put 10 searching questions to the commission. Why, for instance, was its website continuing to give false information? Would the commission show equal leniency to other bodies found to have provided misleading accounts, since normally a charity would be severely penalised for such offences?
When eventually I had a lengthy response it didn’t give a direct answer to any of my questions, except to say they were not prepared to disclose the date on which Houghton and Tickell had resigned as trustees. But clearly the commission had been embarrassed by my questions, since over the next few weeks revised figures for two more years appeared online. Income for 2007 rose from £9,000 to £49,878, for 2006 from £7,000 to £16,610 – showing that nearly £150,000 had not previously been disclosed. And, as can be seen from the commission’s website, the accounts are now shown to have been up to “1,246 days overdue”.
Don’t miss: Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint
Warmists may be winning the big grants, but they’re not winning the argument
Ever more risibly desperate become the efforts of the believers in global warming to hold the line for their religion, after the battering it was given last winter by all those scandals surrounding the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
One familiar technique they use is to attribute to global warming almost any unusual weather event anywhere in the world. Last week, for instance, it was reported that Russia has recently been experiencing its hottest temperatures and longest drought for 130 years. The head of the Russian branch of WWF, the environmental pressure group, was inevitably quick to cite this as evidence of climate change, claiming that in future “such climate abnormalities will only become more frequent”. He didn’t explain what might have caused the similar hot weather 130 years ago.
Meanwhile, notably little attention has been paid to the disastrous chill which has been sweeping South America thanks to an inrush of air from the Antarctic, killing hundreds in the continent’s coldest winter for years. Continue reading »
See also: Cap and Trade Is a Gigantic Scam
Are there really no depths to which ManBearPig-worshippers will not stoop in order to shore up their intellectually, morally and scientifically bankrupt cause?
Apparently not, as we see from the latest “study” – based on a petty, spiteful, Stasi-like blacklist produced by an obscure Canadian warmist – outrageously aggrandised by being published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
The study examined 1,372 scientists who had taken part in reviews of climate science or had put their name to statements regarding the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Scientists were grouped as “convinced” or “unconvinced”, and researchers examined how many times they had published papers on the climate.
The results showed that “unconvinced” scientists accounted for just three of the 100 most prolific authors on the subject, while papers by “convinced” scientists were more frequently cited in other research.
Well, no s***, Sherlock. And might this have anything to do, perchance, with the fact that – as the Climategate emails made abundantly clear – “unconvinced” scientists were deliberately shut out of the peer-review process by the “convinced” ones?
And how many scientists, with bachelor of science degrees or higher, have signed the Oregon Petition expressing doubts about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)? 31,000 plus.
And how many of the supposed 2500 climate scientists responsible for the IPCC “consensus” were actively involved in the sections to do with AGW? 53.
And how many scientists does it require to successfully falsify – ie prove wrong – a shabby, tired old theory like “Phlogiston”, or “Geocentrism”, or “Dangerous, unprecedented Man Made Global Warming?” One.
But guess how BBC Radio 4 reported the story this morning? Yep. “98 per cent of scientists support global warming theory.” (Hat tip: Nick Mabbs)
Then again, since when did we expect any kind of honesty or decency from the Warmists? Have a look, for example, at this great analysis by the National Post’s Lawrence Solomon on how Warmist propagandists are using their useful idiots in the MSM to exaggerate the level of public credulousness in AGW. Continue reading »
YouTube has already almost completely removed the video ‘Hide The Decline’ (right now there is only one uploaded video left) and ‘Hide the Decline II’ has been removed completely.
Climategate: Hide The Decline – the video
Just in case that this last video will also be removed:
Climategate: Hide The Decline – the video
Climate Experts Square Off Over Video
Experts on opposing sides of the global-warming debate are now squaring off against each other over a satirical Internet video.
On one side is Dr. Michael Mann, professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, who has been ensnared in the Climategate scandal. He is threatening to sue Minnesotans for Global Warming (M4GW) after the group produced a satirical video called “Hide the Decline,” which features Mann’s face and makes fun of his scientific findings, and accuses him of covering up evidence of an apparent decline in temperatures over the past decade.
On the other side is Dr. Patrick Michaels, a contributing author and reviewer on the U.N.’s 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a well-known skeptic of global-warming alarmism. At a National Press Club press conference Tuesday, Michaels criticized Mann for having “very, very, very thin skin.”
The notion that a professor would file a lawsuit over a satirical video “is just quite shocking,” said Dr. Michaels.
Dr. Mann is perhaps most famous for his “hockey stick graph” which showed that mean global temperature changes, which had remained stable for the past millennium, spiked dramatically during the 20th Century. Mann was also involved in controversial e-mails between climate experts, which sat at the center of the Climategate scandal.
“Makin’ up data the old hard way, Fudgin’ the numbers day by day, Ignoring the snow and the cold and a downward line, Hide the decline (hide the decline),” reads the song in the video’s background, critical of Dr. Mann’s alleged manipulation of climate data.
The “Hide the Decline” video garnered more than 500,000 viewers and was featured on the CBS Evening News as well as on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. Continue reading »
Oops! There go another two bricks, tumbling out of the IPCC wall of deceit on man-made global warming – there is not a lot left now; even the Berlin Wall (to which the AGW construct is ideologically allied) has survived better. Unhappily for Al, Phil, Michael, George and the rest of the scare-mongers, these two discredited components are among the most totemic in the AGW religion.
Firstly, a new study, funded by Nasa (which may be feeling the need to rehabilitate itself post-Climategate) has revealed that the ridiculous claim in the notorious IPCC 2007 report that up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest could be drastically affected by even a small reduction in rainfall caused by climate change, so that the trees would be replaced by tropical grassland, is utter nonsense. That assertion has already been exposed as derived from a single report by the environmentalist lobby group WWF.
Now Dr Jose Marengo, a climate scientist with the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research and himself a member of the IPCC, says: “The way the WWF report calculated this 40 per cent was totally wrong, while (the new) calculations are by far more reliable and correct.” These calculations were done by researchers at Boston University and were published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters. They used satellite data to study the drought of 2005, when rainfall fell to the lowest in living memory, and found that the rainforest suffered no significant effects.
So, the rainforest scare, like the Himalayan glaciers panic, is garbage. A further encouraging feature of this development is that genuine scientists are increasingly becoming emboldened to challenge the IPCC’s junk science: the Academy is beginning to reassert its integrity. AGW without withered rainforests is Hamlet without the prince. It was one of those emotive claims much invoked by priggish children in the voice-overs of nanny-state “green” commercials, lecturing their elders on the stewardship of the planet.
An even bigger tear-jerker was the plight of polar bears, bolstered by carefully cropped photographs of lonely bears stranded on fast-melting icebergs, doomed to extinction. That is the second brick that has fallen out of the IPCC wall. The official legend is that polar bears are threatened with extinction by global warming. The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, which has bought into global warming in a big way, has claimed that, of the 19 sub-populations of polar bears (13 of them in Canada, home to 60 per cent of polar bears), eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing and there is insufficient data on the remaining seven. Continue reading »
Global warming is a scam!
Ignored concerns: Professor Mitchell approved controversial report
The Meteorological Office is blocking public scrutiny of the central role played by its top climate scientist in a highly controversial report by the beleaguered United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Professor John Mitchell, the Met Office’s Director of Climate Science, shared responsibility for the most worrying headline in the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning IPCC report – that the Earth is now hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years.
And he approved the inclusion in the report of the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a steep 20th Century rise.
By the time the 2007 report was being written, the graph had been heavily criticised by climate sceptics who had shown it minimised the ‘medieval warm period’ around 1000AD, when the Vikings established farming settlements in Greenland.
In fact, according to some scientists, the planet was then as warm, or even warmer, than it is today.
Early drafts of the report were fiercely contested by official IPCC reviewers, who cited other scientific papers stating that the 1,300-year claim and the graph were inaccurate.
But the final version, approved by Prof Mitchell, the relevant chapter’s review editor, swept aside these concerns.
Now, the Met Office is refusing to disclose Prof Mitchell’s working papers and correspondence with his IPCC colleagues in response to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The block has been endorsed in writing by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth – whose department has responsibility for the Met Office.
Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a co-ordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.
Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled that scientists from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – the source of the leaked ‘Warmergate’ emails – acted unlawfully in refusing FOI requests to share their data.
Some of the FOI requests made to them came from the same person who has made requests to the Met Office.
He is David Holland, an electrical engineer familiar with advanced statistics who has written several papers questioning orthodox thinking on global warming.
The Met Office’s first response to Mr Holland was a claim that Prof Mitchell’s records had been ‘deleted’ from its computers.
Later, officials admitted they did exist after all, but could not be disclosed because they were ‘personal’, and had nothing to do with the professor’s Met Office job.
Finally, they conceded that this too was misleading because Prof Mitchell had been paid by the Met Office for his IPCC work and had received Government expenses to travel to IPCC meetings. Continue reading »
Add that to Climategate! Global warming is a scam.
Most experts believe that the Himalayan glaciers will take centuries to melt
The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.
Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.
The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.
Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”
Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”
However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”
The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change.
Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”. Continue reading »
Alex welcomes back to the show Christopher Monckton, the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor and ardent critic of the bogus scientific consensus on climate change.
Climate scam guru Al Gore has for years refused to accept Monckton’s repeated challenge to a public debate on global warming. Monckton has warned the proposed UN Climate Change Treaty Obama is expected to sign along with other world leaders in Copenhagen will cede U.S. sovereignity to the UN.
1 of 4:
Added: 17. December 2009 Continue reading »
From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen
In the Grand Ceremonial Hall of the University of Copenhagen, a splendid Nordic classical space overlooking the Church of our Lady in the heart of the old city, rows of repellent, blue plastic chairs surrounded the podium from which no less a personage than Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, was to speak.
I had arrived in good time to take my seat among the dignitaries in the front row. Rapidly, the room filled with enthusiastic Greenies and enviro-zombs waiting to hear the latest from ye Holy Bookes of Ipecac, yea verily.
The official party shambled in and perched on the blue plastic chairs next to me. Pachauri was just a couple of seats away, so I gave him a letter from me and Senator Fielding of Australia, pointing out that the headline graph in the IPCC’s 2007 report, purporting to show that the rate of warming over the past 150 years had itself accelerated, was fraudulent.
Would he use the bogus graph in his lecture? I had seen him do so when he received an honorary doctorate from the University of New South Wales. I watched and waited.
Sure enough, he used the bogus graph. I decided to wait until he had finished, and ask a question then.
Pachauri then produced the now wearisome list of lies, fibs, fabrications and exaggerations that comprise the entire case for alarm about “global warming”. He delivered it in a tired, unenthusiastic voice, knowing that a growing majority of the world’s peoples – particularly in those countries where comment is free – no longer believe a word the IPCC says.
They are right not to believe. Science is not a belief system. But here is what Pachauri invited the audience in Copenhagen to believe.
1. Pachauri asked us to believe that the IPCC’s documents were “peer-reviewed”. Then he revealed the truth by saying that it was the authors of the IPCC’s climate assessments who decided whether the reviewers’ comments were acceptable. That – whatever else it is – is not peer review.
2. Pachauri said that greenhouse gases had increased by 70% between 1970 and 2004. This figure was simply nonsense. I have seen this technique used time and again by climate liars. They insert an outrageous statement early in their presentations, see whether anyone reacts and, if no one reacts, they know they will get away with the rest of the lies. I did my best not to react. I wanted to hear, and write down, the rest of the lies.
3. Next came the bogus graph, which is featured three times, large and in full color, in the IPCC’s 2007 climate assessment report. The graph is bogus not only because it relies on the made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia but also because it is overlain by four separate trend-lines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however – neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it – is that from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975-1998.
(Click on image to enlarge.)
4. Pachauri said that there had been an “acceleration” in sea-level rise from 1993. He did not say, however, that in 1993 the method of measuring sea-level rise had switched from tide-gages to satellite altimetry against a reference geoid. The apparent increase in the rate of sea-level rise is purely an artefact of this change in the method of measurement.
5. Pachauri said that Arctic temperatures would rise twice as fast as global temperatures over the next 100 years. However, he failed to point out that the Arctic was actually 1-2 Celsius degrees warmer than the present in the 1930s and early 1940s. It has become substantially cooler than it was then.
6. Pachauri said the frequency of heavy rainfall had increased. The evidence for this proposition is largely anecdotal. Since there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” for 15 years, there is no reason to suppose that any increased rainfall in recent years is attributable to “global warming”.
7. Pachauri said that the proportion of tropical cyclones that are high-intensity storms has increased in the past three decades. However, he was very careful not to point out that the total number of intense tropical cyclones has actually fallen sharply throughout the period.
8. Pachauri said that the activity of intense Atlantic hurricanes had increased since 1970. This is simply not true, but it appears to be true if – as one very bad scientific paper in 2006 did – one takes the data back only as far as that year. Take the data over the whole century, as one should, and no trend whatsoever is evident. Here, Pachauri is again using the same statistical dodge he used with the UN’s bogus “warming-is-getting-worse” graph: he is choosing a short run of data and picking his start-date with care so as falsely to show a trend that, over a longer period, is not significant.
9. Pachauri said small islands like the Maldives were vulnerable to sea-level rise. Not if they’re made of coral, which is more than capable of outgrowing any sea-level rise. Besides, as Professor Morner has established, sea level in the Maldives is no higher now than it was 1250 years ago, and has not risen for half a century. Continue reading »
And how about CO2?
1 of 3:
Added: 14. December 2009
2 of 3:
Added: 14. December 2009
3 of 3:
Added: 14. December 2009
The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story
If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.
Although the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.
But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.
From The Telegraph article: ‘This is a socialist, World Government putsch.’
… or Fascist World Government putsch, which is just the other side of the same medal.
And the man-made global warming scam is all based on fraud and ignorant, total ignorant (or bought and paid for?) George Monbiot is telling us that this is just propaganda:
– The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it’s working
This is really all about the New World Order and taxes that you will have to pay, because you have bought into a lie:
– Study: CO2 levels remained constant since 1850! (University of Bristol)
‘Rises in C02 lag 800 years behind temperature rises. So temperature is leading CO2 by 800 years!’
– Prof. Ian Clark
CO2 is rising (with a 800 year delay) because temperature has risen and not the other way around.
You will pay taxes for nothing!!! (More information about this epic fraud at the end of the following article.)
And this fraud is used to press World Government into your lives, the New World Order:
– Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement? U.N. plans for a new ‘world government’ are scary. (The Wall Street Journal)
And the same banksters who are still destroying the entire world economy with CDS (credit default swaps), their invented weapon of mass destruction responsible for the entire financial crisis, will run the show:
The elitists and their puppets just go on with their agenda as if CLIMATEGATE didn’t happen.
Who needs tanks on the lawn when you have the Environmental Protection Agency? Barack Obama’s use of the EPA to pressurise the Senate to pass his climate change Nuremberg Decrees shows his dictatorial mentality. He wants to override Congress, which is hostile to his climate gobbledegook because it is representative of the American electorate, and sideline the nation’s elected Senators by ruling by decree, courtesy of the EPA. This is a coup d’état.
And what is the justification for this undemocratic action? The allegedly imminent threat from “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. There is always a supposed threat, when tyrants take the stage. The President of the United States has just reduced his moral authority to the level of any Third World dictator heading a “Government of National Emergency”. Fortunately, the world’s leading democracy, which he is trying to subvert, has guarantees of liberty so deeply embedded in its Constitution that US citizens are well placed to fight back.
In the first place, regulation can be challenged in a way that laws cannot. So the EPA’s proposed ruling on so-called “Greenhouse Gases” can be opposed extensively with litigation, to the point that the ruling might not yet be in force when Obama demits office. In the second place, the EPA is funded by Congress. So, if the Agency is being used to bypass or neuter Congress, why should legislators not play hardball and retaliate by cutting off its funding? The EPA may look formidable, but its situation is rather as if Rommel were buying the fuel for his tanks from the Allies.
Due to unforeseen circumstances, Al Gore has had to cancel a Copenhagen speaking event at which he had hoped to charge starry-eyed believers in his ManBearPig religion $1200 a piece for the privilege of shaking his hand, breathing in his CO2 and having his latest book inflicted on them.
Could those unforeseen circumstances have anything to do with Climategate?
I think so. Climategate is now huge. Way, way bigger than the Mainstream Media (MSM) is admitting it is – as Richard North demonstrates in this fascinating analysis. Using what he calls a Tiger Woods Index (TWI), he compares the amount of interest being shown by internet users (as shown by the number of general web pages on Google) and compares it with the number of news reports recorded. The ratio indicates what people are really interested in, as opposed to what the MSM thinks they ought to be interested in.
Tiger Woods delivered 22,500,000 web and 46,025 news pages, giving ratio of 489. That is the “Tiger Woods Index” (TWI) against which I chose to measure a raft of other issues.
Here are the rankings:
1. Climategate: 28,400,000 – 2,930 = 9693
2. Afghanistan: 143,000,000 – 154,145 = 928
3. Obama: 202,000,000 – 252,583 = 800
4. Tiger Woods: 22,500,000 – 46,025 = 489
5. Gordon Brown: 12,300,000 – 37,021 = 332
6. Climate change: 22,200,000 – 68,419 = 324
7. Sally Bercow: 25,000 – 86 = 290
8. David Cameron: 545,000 – 4837 = 113
9. Meredith Kercher: 261,000 – 3,471 = 75
10. Chilcot Inquiry: 125,000 – 4,350 = 29
So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it’s not like you’re going to find much of this reported in the MSM.
1. Australia’s Senate rejects Emissions Trading Scheme for a second time. Or: so turkeys don’t vote Christmas. Expect to see a lot more of this: politicians starting to become aware their party’s position on AGW is completely out of kilter with the public mood and economic reality. Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme – what Andrew Bolt calls “a $114 billion green tax on everything” – would have wreaked havoc on the coal-dependent Australian economy. That’s why several opposition Liberal frontbenchers resigned rather than vote with the Government on ETS; why Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull lost his job; and why the Senate voted down the ETS.
2. Danes caught fiddling their carbon credits. (Hat tip: Philip Stott) Carbon trading is the Emperor’s New Clothes of international finance. It was invented by none other than Ken Lay, whose Enron would currently be one of the prime beneficiaries in the global alternative energy market, if it hadn’t been shown to be (nearly) as fraudulent as the current AGW scam. It is a licence to fleece, cheat and rob. Still, jolly embarrassing for the Danes to get caught red handed, what with their hosting a conference shortly in which the world’s leaders will try, straight-faced, to persuade us that carbon emissions trading is the only viable way of defeating ManBearPig. ‘People don’t trade carbon because they are good people,’ exclaims Patrick Birley, the chief executive of the ICE European Climate Exchange
3. Hats off to The Daily Express – the first British newspaper to make the AGW scam its front page story.
The piece was inspired by another bravura performance by Professor Ian Plimer, the Aussie geologist who argues that climate change has been going on quite naturally, oblivious of human activity, for the last 4,567 million years.
Thanks to James Delingpole and to all the other blogs on the internet we now have a discussion.
Those criminals would have just covered it all up.
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash
A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian‘s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
As the fallout from CRUHACK grows, the biggest story is not actually whether data was manipulated in individual cases, although in my view that’s bad. And it’s not that global warming scientists were so arrogant in 2004 as to mock the death of an opponent, although that too is bad.
It’s not that some of these scientists were sitting on taxpayer-sourced slush funds worth tens of millions of dollars each, for an industry total of somewhere close to US$100 billion, whilst their supporters raised merry-hell about Exxon sponsoring skeptic research to the tune of a few million, although this too is massively hypocritical.
It’s not that the scientists show signs of being political activists, and even helping promote a global governance agenda.
No, in my view the biggest scandal to erupt from CRUHACK is the death of peer-reviewed climate science.
We now all know – the entire industrialized world – that while global warming scientists and their supporters were publicly ridiculing skeptic’s arguments as “not peer reviewed” because – by implication – the arguments were not good enough, that in fact some of the top scientific advisors to the UN IPCC were conspiring (and that is the right word) to sabotage any attempt by other scientists to publish peer reviewed papers challenging global warming.
We now know the UN IPPC/Global Governance lobby had sufficient political clout to intimidate scientific journals into submission and to run roughshod over the integrity of the peer review process. Continue reading »