U.S. climate analyst Dr David Wojick posts at CFact: "The brutal cold wave that just struck America provides a stark example of why 100% renewables cannot possibly work. Once the massive high pressure system was in place there was almost no wind, so no significant wind power. And the coldest temperatures by far were at night or early morning, when there was no solar power either."
Two Greek scientists report in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestial Physics: "The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface; the intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere; the results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence." Heavy scientific reading, but highly convincing.
Professor Larry Bell describes at Newsmax how fossils fuels have saved people in Canada and U.S. from freezing to death in the current severe cold snap.
"The global climate scare – and policies resulting from it – are based on models that do not work. For the past three decades, human-caused global warming alarmists have tried to frighten the public with stories of doom and gloom. They tell us the end of the world as we know it is nigh because of carbon dioxide emitted into the air by burning fossil fuels.". In this post at WUWT, Dr Jay Lehr and Tom Harris explain why those climate models just do NOT work.
Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball writes: "I will not apologize for my outrage at being lectured to about my moral obligations concerning climate change from the likes of Benjamin Santer, from his position at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Ironically, and sadly, he is right that we need to address climate change, but for the wrong reason. We need to address the false science about climate change and global warming he was part of creating and perpetuating almost from the start. We need to address and stop the use of science for a political agenda, as his latest pontificating illustrates."
Dr Jay Lehr and Tom Harris post at World Commerce Review: "Most of the periodic temperature increases and decreases observed in human history are average amount of the energy that we receive from the Sun. The mild heating and cooling per degrees Fahrenheit reflect changes in solar activity rather than exponential increase in temperature from 1880 to 1935 as the Littlre Ice Age ended. It decreased from 1935 to 1990, and has since levelled off. Temperature changes do not mirror emission changes."
Dr Roy Spencer explains about the icy coldness now gripping parts iof Canada and US: "For as long as we have had weather records (extending back into the 1800s), lobes of cold air rotating generally from west to east around the polar vortex sometimes extend down into the U.S. causing wild winter weather and general unpleasantness.....We used to call this process 'weather'. Now it’s called 'climate change'”.
Bob Tisdale posts at WattsUpWithThat: "This is a long post: 3500+ words and 22 illustrations. Regardless, heretics of the church of human-induced global warming who frequent this blog should enjoy it. Additionally, I’ve uncovered something about the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive that I hadn’t heard mentioned or seen presented before. It amazed even me, and I know how poorly these climate models perform. It’s yet another level of inconsistency between models, and it’s something very basic. It should help put to rest the laughable argument that climate models are based on well-documented physical processes."
Australian climate analyst, David Archibald, explains in full detail at WentworthReport.com, how the global warming myth was conjured up in 1980, and why, and rebuts the false claims by warmist propagandists. As Archibald says: "There is only one true path. This is dictated by physics, chemistry, and economics." THIS IS A MUST-READ.
Emeritus Professor Geoff Duffy writes: "The GHG concentration of the actual atmosphere is 1.028% of the total atmosphere, based on water vapour being 1% (200C, 75% Relative Humidity). The main gases from possible agricultural sources (methane and nitrous oxide) total only 0.02% of all the GHG, or 0.00021% of the total atmosphere......Hence, it can be concluded from all the available evidence that their contribution to any potential change in weather is miniscule".
Extract from a reply by astronaut Harrison Schmitt on climate change: "Right now, in my profession[geology], there is no evidence. There are models. But models of very, very complex natural systems are often wrong. The observations that we make as geologists, and observational climatologists, do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this. Now, there is a whole bunch of unknowns."
Professor Tim Ball and Tom Harris write in the "Washington Times": "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate forecasts were wrong from their earliest reports in 1990. They were so inaccurate that they stopped calling them forecasts and made three 'projections': low, medium, and high. Since then, even their 'low' scenario projections were wrong."
Christopher Booker writes in the UK Sunday Telegraph: "The 'special report' by the IPCC urging the world to use only renewable energy is pure fantasy". He concludes: "However much those behind this report may delude themselves and try to delude the rest of us, the fact is that the rest of the world is no longer being taken in by their make-believe."
"The IPCC well knows that halving CO2 emissions in 12 years is politically impossible, economically unaffordable and climatically unnecessary." Guest essay on WattsUpWithThat by Barry Brill, chair of New Zeakabd Climate Science Coalition.
The [UN]IPCC report is a fairy tale concerning the dangers of human-caused climate change, and a wish fulfillment fantasy concerning the world’s ability to reduce the use of fossil fuels while simultaneously eliminating poverty. This Non-Intergovernmental report explains why.
These slides by US physicist Dr Ed Berry prove human CO2 emissions add only 18 ppm to CO2 in the atmosphere while nature adds 392 ppm. Therefore, everything the UN IPCC and its supporters have told you about climate change is WRONG! Human emissions do not change the climate.(Click on downward arrow lower left corner to change slides)
In a lecture to the UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen, formerly of MIT, said: " None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history."
Interesting comment by Melanie Phillips in The Times (London): Link to Melanie
Lindzen tells Daily Mail global warming ended 20 years ago Link to Mail
Our earlier posting of links to Dr John McLean's exposure of errors in the HadCrut temperature data relied on by the IPCC for its (mostly misleading) predictions, reminded us of the 2009 paper by Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts that analysed the siting of temperature recording stations. That paper is worth reading again in 2018 as IPCC makes more scary predictions, continuing its line of alarmist forecasts which have still not come to pass.
When Al Gore coined the term "carbon footprint", he and his alarmist conspirators, in their evil desire to scare the populace, seized on using the term carbon as a synonym for carbon dioxide (CO2) knowing it would conjure up visions of soot, lamp black and coal dust, none of which were warm and fuzzy. Dr Jay Lehr and Tom Harris explain this attempted brainwashing.
The first ever audit of the HadCrut4 global data from 1850 onwards used by climate alarmists to justify their claims of "dangerous anthropogenic global warming" (now known as "climate change" in the absence of predicted warming) has been undertaken by Melbourne climate analyst Dr John McLean for his PhD thesis, and then continued it on afterwards until it was complete. Three links follow:
First by Joanne Nova on her widely-read blog (and be sure to read through the many comments that follow): Link
Then James Delingpole, well known UK columnist at Breitbart: Link to James
Finally, where to buy an on-line copy of the complete thesis for US$8: Buy