Dr Mototaka Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.” The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”
Who cares about pesky facts? The ABC has a hysterical narrative to peddle. "Climate change is the single biggest challenge ever faced by humanity. We have absolutely no time to lose." If you believe that, you’ll probably believe that the ABC’s “Fact Checking Unit” actually checks facts. This post, from New Zealand blog TheBFD, about the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) is an example of the biased alarmism practised by news media through the world, in spite of the complete absence of any convincing evidence that we are in a "climate emergency".
Professor Larry Bell posts at 'Newsmax': "As one researcher prudently observed, 'It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.'"
This paper, "Climate Thinking - Broadening the Horizons"by Dutch climate scientist Professor Guus Berkhout, is probably the most layperson-friendly, and comprehensive explanation of the origins and the falsity of the 'global warming' hysteria we have even encountered. We are grateful to the UK's Global Warming Policy Foundation for permission to add it to our website.
The climate change debate might be one of the worst cases of academic suppression in history. CLINTEL (the Climate Intelligence Foundation) has issued the Magna Carta Universitatum 2020. This short document is basically an aspirational code of conduct for freedom of inquiry and speech at universities. The first Magna Carta Universitatum was issued in 1988 and to date at least 889 universities have signed on to it. CLINTEL notes that it is building directly on this precedent, to fit “the special challenges of today”. For each of the five principles enunciated, CLINTEL cites a climate example.
Courtesy of New Zealand's most widely-read blog, The BFD, this post by US CFact analyst, Peter Murphy says: "Some of the wealthiest people on the planet are driving and funding the climate change political agenda for more electric cars, wind turbines and solar panels, and eradication of nuclear energy and fossil fuels. Their message is clear: America and the world must reduce their reliance on traditional energy sources and adapt in order to save the planet. That means higher costs, less energy consumption and reduced living standards."
We've just picked up on this video which recounts the text of a letter from Canadian climate skeptic Dr Ross McKitrick in which he talks about what happens to people who openly challenge the current wave of propaganda alleging man-made climate change. Watch this video if you need help to stand up to the alarmists.(Thanks to Whaleoil Beef Hooked blog - link takes a few seconds to load).
Two world renowned scientists in their field, Professors William Happer and W.A. van Wijngaarden write:"So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH and CO increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts."
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".
At his blog, The Rational Optimist, Viscount Matt Ridley explains why legislating for "zero carbon" by 2050, is akin to legislating to abolish sin.
"Currently, sea-level rise does not seem to depend on ocean temperature, and certainly not on CO2. We can expect the sea to continue rising at about the present rate for the foreseeable future. By 2100 the seas will rise another 6 inches or so—a far cry from Al Gore’s alarming numbers. There is noth...
U.S. analyst Dr Ed Berry writes: "We have already won the science debate, but few people understand this. The alarmists have no scientific case. Now we must win the political debate....Our task is great. We must show the public why human CO2 does not change the climate. Our goal is to get climate change out of politics and back into science. The idea that we have a 'climate emergency' is a product of a crippled mind."
Have you thought to yourself that the Climate Change movement seems more and more like a religious movement? Will at Medium has, so he researched how to identify a religious cult. Rick Ross, an expert on cults and intervention specialist, developed a list of ten warning signs for unsafe groups, which is published by the Cult Education Institute. They're in the link below:
Dr Ed Berry, a US physicist, after several months, has resumed his weekly emails. In this one he invites fellow skeptics to join the climate revolution.
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."
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)."
Professor Michael Kelly, emeritus Professor of Technology at Cambridge University, was one of 43 Fellows of the Royal Society in UK who in 2016 accused the RS of being dogmatic on the topic of climate change. Dr Kelly wrote about the challenge in the Mail on Sunday, and his article is relevant two years later in New Zealand in view of the complaint by members of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition against the Royal Society of New Zealand alleging misleading statements in this country about causes of changes in climate.
[Link to pdf](Kelly on RS.pdf)
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’. "
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."