A new paper published by researchers form the University of Turku in Finland suggests that even though observed changes in the climate are real, the effects of human activity on these changes are insignificant. The team suggests that the idea of man-made climate change is a mere miscalculation or skewing the formulas by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
U.K. Daily Telegraph columnisty Sherrelle Jacobs writes: "This post-truth scam is having a chilling effect on science. Experts are locked in a race to the bottom to make detailed and disastrous premonitions. And despite the fact that disciplined debate is the motor of scientific discovery, eco-extremists are shutting down discussions that dissent from the Apocalypse narrative. "
U.S. climate scientist Judith Curry writes in a newspaper in Madird, scene of the latest U.N. IPCC Conference of Parties: "There is a growing realization that Paris climate agreement is inadequate for making a meaningful dent in slowing down the anticipated warming. And the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events remain largely unaddressed. How have we arrived at this point? For the past three decades, the climate policy ‘cart’ has been way out in front of the scientific ‘horse’. "
Professor Bjorn Lomborg writes in "The Australian" newspaper: "Alarming media stories that twist the facts about rising sea levels are dangerous because they scare people unnecessarily and push policymakers towards excessively expensive measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The real solution is to lift the world’s poorest out of poverty and protect them with simple infrastructure."
Guest poster to the New Zealand blog, TheBDF, Max Sky, explains why the Marxist origins of climate change alarmism is a pagan cult.
From Dr Ed Berry in U.S.: "New calculations prove all human CO2 emitted since 1750 has added only 31 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 to the atmosphere, and natural CO2 has added 100 ppm. All human carbon has added only one percent to the carbon in Earth’s carbon cycle. Nature has added much more carbon to the carbon cycle than humans have added. The new calculations use data from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
Eminent professor of geology, Ian Plimer, writes in 'The Austraian" newspaper: As soon as the words carbon footprint, emissions, pollution, and decarbonisation, climate emergency, extreme weather, unprecedented and extinction are used, I know I am being conned by ignorant activists, populist scaremongering, vote-chasing politicians and rent seekers. Pollution by plastics, sulphur and nitrogen gases, particulates and chemicals occurs in developing countries. That’s real pollution. The major pollution in advanced economies is the polluting of minds about the role of carbon dioxide. There are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims."
To emphasise its claim that there is no convincing evidence using the acknowledged scientific method that carbon dioxide (CO2) can or does cause temperature warming beyond natural cyclical limits long observed and recorded, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition has offered to New Zealanders the Professor Augie Auer prize of $NZ10,000, to be granted to the first applicant to present real-world evidence showing that the man-made fraction of airborne carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming.
In the annual Global Warming Policy Foundation lecture in London, expatriate New Zealander, Professor Michael J Kelly, of Cambridge University said, inter alia: "The global climate models seem to show heating at least twice as fast as the observed data over the last three decades. I am unconvinced that climate change represents a proximate catastrophe, and I suggest that a mega-volcano in Iceland that takes out European airspace for six months would eclipse the climate concerns in short order....Much of what is proposed by way of climate change mitigation is simply pie-in-the-sky.... The main message is that our present energy infrastructure is vast and has evolved over 200 years. So the chances of revolutionising it in short order on the scale envisaged by the net-zero target of Parliament is pretty close to zero; zero being exactly the chance of the meeting Extinction Rebellion’s demands."
In a blistering letter to the Chief Science Adviser to the New Zealander Prime Minister, a leading fraud investigator, John Rofe, has accused the PM and her Minister for Climate Change of fraud in what they have been telling New Zealanders about climate change and its causes.
Tony Thomas reminds us: "It’s the tenth anniversary next week of the 2009 Climategate email dump that exposed top climate scientists’ chicanery and subversion of science – and did so in their own words and out of their own mouths, or keyboards. I’ll list a few emails-of-infamy shortly, but first some background."
(The comments that follow Tony's article are equally enlightening).
Chris Kenny in "The Australian" with the truth about bush fires in his country: "Like a struck match in the bush, global warming is the spark that triggers a destructive firestorm in public debate. Heated on emotion, fanned by sensationalist media and fuelled by ideology, it burns through common sense, reason and decency, showing no respect for facts or rational thought. Climate alarmists are using tragic deaths and community pain to push a political barrow."
In a detailed and fully-referenced paper, Wellington researcher/analyst Barbara McKenzie has published a withering rebuttal of the New Zeaand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's comments in a speech lauding ther passage in the NZ Parliament of the so-called Zero Carbon Bill.Ms McKenzie writes: "Jacinda Ardern calls [the bill] the 'nuclear moment for this generation." What she means, of course, is that Parliament is in effect nuking the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand environment on the back of what is frequently referred to as the greatest hoax in the history of science."Later in the paper, Ms McKenzie says any MP who claims to take an interest in the climate debate must know "Jacinda's speech was a pack of lies."
U.S. climate analyst Roger Pielke writes at Forbes magazine: "The bottom line of this analysis should be undeniable: There is simply no evidence that the world is, or is on the brink of, making 'rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society' that would be required for the deep decarbonization associated with a 1.5°C temperature target. Anyone advocating a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 is engaging in a form of climate theater, full of drama but not much suspense. But don’t just take it from me, do the math yourself."
This paper provides a brief overview of the latest Climate Science, compiled by the ICSF for the information of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Action and of the Draft National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP), 2021‐2030...The latest research and observations indicate that while there is an...
Chris Mitchell writes in 'The Australian': " Environment writers should accurately report what climate scientists say. But they should also report what economists and scientists in disciplines such as physics, astronomy and geology say. Climate science is a relatively new field and many in it know their computer modelling is far from perfect. The sun and the Earth’s core are the main sources of heat on our planet, so media sneering at reporting of the work of astronomers and geologists on climate is infantile."
In a long, detailed and convincing letter to Professor Juliet Gerrard, Cnief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Honorary CEO of the Environomics Trust (NZ) Inc, Peter J. Morgan B.E. (Mech.), Dip. Teaching, has strongly rebutted claims that carbon dioxide (CO2) can or does cause unnatural or significant increases in Earth's mean temperature. Mr Morgan also reminds Professor Gerrard that correlation is not evidence of causation.
Outspoken columnist of New Zealand blog, TheBFD, Lushington Brady posts: "Listening to the apocalyptic shrieking of the Klimate Kids and the Extinction Rebellion nutters, it is clear that they are not staggeringly ignorant of “the science” they fetishise, but completely and utterly divorced from anything approaching reality. Like old-fashioned fire-and-brimstone preachers, scowling teenagers rant about the fire, tribulation and wailing and teeth-gnashing which awaits us climate sinners. But the strictly empirical evidence to date is that the mild warming of the 20th century has been extremely beneficial. The world has greened, fires have declined dramatically, natural disasters like cyclones have decreased, droughts have remained stable or decreased, and food is ever-more abundant."
Interesting post by Australian Professor Bryon Sharp about the research that convinced him to change from being a believer in "catastrophic" climate change to now being more relaxed about its natural causes and progression.