Month: March 2020

A global declaration / publication authored by Guus Berkhout, President of CLINTEL The Hague, February 2020.

This global declaration, signed by more than 800 scientists and experienced professionals, disputes the climate alarmist narrative with a clear message: There is NO Climate emergency.

The six statements of the declaration:

1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
2. Warming is far slower than predicted
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models
4. CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on earth
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

Lots to read in the declaration, but it is well presented and not bogged down by complicated science. A core idea is that the reliance on climate models is a big mistake, due to the total inability of models to reliably predict anything: ” So far, application of poorly validated climate models has led to the prediction of an apocalyptic future. It may be seen as the biggest scientific mistake of mankind in its recent history.”

The declaration further states that the real danger is moving forward with “green new deal” types of public policies that will destroy the global economic system. The IPCC and the UN fully reject criticism and debate on they alarmist narrative.

This declaration is the one we should be recognizing, not the climate alarmist narrative. Rise up!

update 160320: UN’s climate action machinery is on the verge to collapse, beginning this November in Glasgow, Scotland. This time the annual climate summit, called COP 26, is most likely to end in complete disarray, even more than COP 25 did last year in Madrid, Spain.

While it is being hyped that the major economies will table bold new plans for cutting emissions under the Paris Accord, the major economies will do no such thing. China and India have said they will not do it. The U.S. will have quit the Accord by then. Russia has no interest, and Japan is busy building coal fired power plants to replace its moth-balled nukes. Boris Johnson has said nothing about new immediate UK actions. Brazil has a populist president like Trump. And so it goes down the list of major economies. There is no support.

source: Link to JoNova blog

Wikipedia is into full censorship mode, deleting an article that lists scientists who are climate skeptics. In the now deleted article, the scientists are not skeptical of climate change, but of the cause and effect. The list is broken down as such:

• scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades
• scientists publicly questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate models
• scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
• scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
• deceased scientists who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

So, “the science is now settled” mantra is being enforced by silencing critics and skeptics. I can’t state emphatically enough what a dangerous place this is. Dystopian and fascist. These are the same people that are parading Joe Biden, a man with a clearly deteriorating mental state around as a candidate for the US presidency. Its about power and control. Don’t give in. If you do, you deserve what is coming.

In 2009, the EPA determined there was “compelling support for finding that greenhouse gas air pollution endangers the public welfare of both current and future generations.” Such finding, according to EPA, was based upon “both current observations and projected risks and impacts into the future,” which risks and adverse impacts, they claimed, “are expected to increase over time.”

According to the petition, in the ten years since the EPA made this judgment, considerable amount of scientific research has been conducted on the potential impacts of rising greenhouses gases on humanity and the natural world. The additional knowledge obtained from such research and observations reveal quite clearly that rising greenhouse gases do not represent what EPA identified in 2009 to be a current or future threat to public welfare.

Multiple observations confirm that projected risks and adverse impacts of rising greenhouse gases accepted by EPA in the Endangerment Finding are failing to occur and are not increasing with time. Moreover, numerous scientific studies reveal that CO2 emissions and fossil fuel use have actually enhanced life and improved humanity’s standard of living, and will continue to do so as more fossil fuels are used.

The studies cited in the petition thoroughly debunk the CO2 is bad for humanity and the world falsehood. It clearly establishes that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is a benefit to life on earth.

And besides, there are no links to rising levels of CO2 and climate change. In fact, most or all the climate models “run hot,” and consistently overshoot actual observed temperatures. So much so that climate modelling totally lacks credibility.

I won’t even get into the other climate alarmist hokum the petition debunks (e.g. increased severity of extreme weather events, which is discussed at length).

This is a really important document that should resolve the CO2 canard. But it likely won’t, at least for the time being. I can’t imagine, however, that the EPA will be able to ignore it.

Read the petition here.

In an effort to promote the false claim that the Australia bush fires were cause by climate change, CSIRO, the Australian federal government agency responsible for scientific research, tabled a document in parliament making this claim despite its own official position being that there are no studies to prove this.

Per Senator Canavan: “This was a document about climate change and the science about bushfires and they failed to include that the CSIRO has concluded in their last report on climate change in Australia that there are no studies linking climate change to fire weather at this stage. “

When confronted as to why this was not included in the report, the hapless Dr Peter Mayfield bumbled on: “… it is really a question of what you choose to put in and not put in. There’s a lot of other things we could have written.”  

Yeah, right. Clearly, officials at CSIRO are promoting the climate alarmist narrative, despite the truth they otherwise know. This is not incompetence.

Link to the GrumpDenier blog (2013)

Here’s a few samples:

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furor started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”

Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”

Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”

Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”

Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

Wow. Tough crowd. So much for “the science is settled” canard.

Much ado has been written about the accelerating melting of glaciers and sea ice, and how rising sea levels will submerge coastal cities. A study by the University of York found evidence for a period of enhanced pre-industrial sea-level rise of about 2-3 millimetres per year in three locations — Nova Scotia, Maine and Connecticut, which were largely natural, without any human constructions or man-made factors. In other words, sea levels have been slowly rising at a fairly continuous since the Little Ice Age without human influence.

Just a bit of a side note: The Little Ice Age lasted from 1300-1850. There were two phases of the Little Ice Age, the first beginning around 1290 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially, with the coldest period between 1645 and 1715. During the coldest phase of the Little Ice Age, average winter temperatures in Europe and North America were as much as 2°C lower than at present. So, warming since 1715.

At issue were studies that suggested rising sea levels were accelerating, implicating human caused climate warming. This was based on evidence collected in the noted northern east coast areas — Nova Scotia, Maine and Connecticut. Previous studies showed that, since the 1950s, rates of sea level rise along the Atlantic coast of North America were faster than the global average, leading to this region coming to be known as a sea level rise “hotspot.”

The new study speculates that observed variations (i.e. observed greater than average change) are consistent with sea‐level “fingerprints” of Arctic ice melt, and that sea‐level fluctuations are related to changes in Arctic land‐ice mass.

Lead author Prof Roland Gehrels, from the University of York’s Department of Environment and Geography, said this earlier rapid episode of sea level rise in the 18th Century (coinciding with the warming post-1715) wasn’t known before. To find out what the warming is doing to sea levels today, the team examined the base level from historical times:

“In the 20th Century, we see rates of up to three or four millimetres per year, faster than in any century in at least the last 3000 years.  In the 18th Century they were slightly slower, but still much quicker than you would expect for the Little Ice Age, partly because the Arctic was relatively warm during the 18th Century. ”

“It was a pre-industrial phenomenon, so there were no anthropogenic forces – or human influences … In the 20th Century they might have played a key role but well before industrialization, those rapid episodes of sea level rise on the north east coast of North America in the 18th Century might have been due to natural causes.”

The only clarification I would add is in the last sentence of the two paragraph quote, where Prof Gehrels says “might have been due to natural causes.” Clearly, the timing of the variations were pre-industrial, and had to have been due to natural causes.

So, yes, the climate is changing. No, the evidence does not support that the change is human-caused.

original sources: American Thinker, International Business Times

Its true. There are only about 30,000 polar bears left. In 1960, there were 10,000.

From the Polar Bear Science blog: Sea ice measurements around Svalbard, Norway at the end of February 2020 is way above average, with more polar bear habitat now than there has been in two decades.

Contrary to suggestions that more Svalbard ice is better for polar bears, there is no evidence that low extent of sea ice habitat in winter or summer over the last two decades harmed polar bear health, reproductive performance, or abundance. In fact, polar bear numbers in 2015 were 42% higher than they were in 2004, and most bears were found to be in excellent condition. Read more here …

Read the climate alarmists chirp in here, including the CBC attempting to discredit the Polar Bear Science blog. Haters gonna hate.