This post by John Rofe, a New Zealand fraud investigator and columnist on energy issues tells a sad story of how and why the man-made global warming hoax was created by a wealthy minority to eliminate their multi-national taxation problems throigh a one-world government.
SEE NEW FILM 'CLIMATE HUSTLE 2"
In his new weekly Wednesday column for NewZealand's most widely-read blog, TheBFD, our Coalition honorary secretary Terry Dunleavy has reviewed CFact's new film, "Climate Hustle 2" which he striongly recommends to anyone seeking the truth about what Earth's climate is doing - or not doing, and the motivations of the wealthy elite who have fomented the false alarm.
Ethan Huff posts at Natural News: "For more than 60 years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has known that the changes occurring to planetary weather patterns are completely natural and normal. But the space agency, for whatever reason, has chosen to let the man-made global warming hoax persist and spread, to the detriment of human freedom.
Dr Judith Curry is a renowned US climate scientist who once espoused "global warming" alarmist theories. Then she did intensive research and became one of the most lucid and learned climate skeptics, feared by the alarmists because they are unabe to answer her challenges for them to prpoduce the evidence for their claims of looming catastrophe.. This latest post on her website is one of the most convincing rebuttal articles you will ever read.
Sunday, April 22 will mark the 48th anniversary of Earth Day. A lot of concern about the planet’s future was generated back then and a passionate movement was launched that endures to this day. But is all the fear over a warming world justified? Here are five reasons not to freak out about manmade climate change this Earth Day.
In this post to "WattsUpWithThat?", Canadian climate scientist Dr Tim Ball explains how and why ALL empirical records show that it is rises in Earth's temperature that cause increases in levels of carbon dioxide (CO2); not the other way round as climate alarmists would have you believe.
Dr Jay Lehr and Tom Harris write at Heartland.org: "Claims of unprecedented carbon-dioxide levels ignore most of Earth’s 4.6-billion-year history. Relative to Earth’s entire record, carbon-dioxide levels are at historically low levels; they only appear high when compared to the dangerously low levels of carbon dioxide that occurred in Earth’s very recent history."
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) is misleading humanity about climate change and sea levels, a leading expert on sea levels who served on the UN IPCC told The New American. In fact, it is more likely that sea levels will decline, not rise, explained Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University.
Professor Bruce Pardy writes in the 'Financial Post': "Paris is a climate fairy tale. It has always been more about money and politics than the environment. Last year, U.S. President Donald Trump wisely announced that America would withdraw. For developed nations who still believe Paris is a viable plan, the prospect of a massive transfer of wealth under the guise of carbon reductions must seem less attractive without the U.S. to help foot the bill."
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."
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
U.S. physicist, Dr Ed Berry at his website edberry.com writes: "The fact that IPCC’s human carbon cycle is significantly different from the true human carbon cycle – that corresponds to IPCC’s natural carbon cycle – proves IPCC’s human carbon cycle is invalid. IPCC treats human and natural carbon differently, which is unphysical."
Comprised of 450 instrumental records from temperature stations sheltered from ocean-air/urbanization/adjustment biases throughout the world, a new 20th/21st century global temperature record introduced previously here very closely aligns with paleoclimate evidence from tree rings, ice cores, fossil pollen and other temperature proxies.
Coupla weeks ago, due to a slip-up- by our administrator, we lost irretrievably some important recent posts that hadn't been backed up. We are re-posting some of them here:
First: A video in which Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, Dr Richard Lindzen, explains why he and so many other scientists is a skeptic. It's a short but convincing piece.
Second: Originally a co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore explains in this video why he quit the organisation and now opposes current Greenpeace propaganda, especially on climate change
Third: Dr Patrick Moore again in greater detail about why we need more carbon dioxide (CO2) to sustain life on Earth, and why it's important that we continue to extract oil and gas from beneath our oceans
Fourth: Dr Judith Curry rebuts alarmist propaganda about alleged recent rises in sea levels LINK
Interesting keynote address in Amsterdam by Nick Lewis, who graduated in mathematics and physics from Cambridge University, and after a successul mid-life career in finance, turrned his attention to climate science, as he explains in this video:
For slides in Nick's address:
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.
In a new paper, atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen summarizes the “implausible” claims today’s proponents of dangerous anthropogenic global warming espouse. Dr. Lindzen retired several years ago, and yet his immense contribution to the atmospheric sciences lives on. His research is still cited about 600 times per year.
Duvat (2018) recently pointed out that over the past decades, the atoll islands of the Pacific (and Indian) Ocean exhibited no sign of drowning because of sea-level rise. The data, that covers 30 atolls including 709 islands, reveal that no atoll lost land area, 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, and only 11.4% of islands contracted. In this paper Albert Parker and Clifford Ollier explain more in detail about the Pacific Islands.
Vijay Jayaraj writes at Cornwallis Alliance: "Real climate-change deniers should be called out. They are as dangerous as climate-change alarmists, who impede scientific advancement and lead the masses into believing extreme theories using scare tactics. Both climate-change deniers and climate-change alarmists are wrong on their claims about the implications of this [Northern Hemisphere] winter and how they interpret the behaviour of the earth's climatic system over the past 2000 years. Here are four reasons why:"
The Cornwall Alliance posts: "Have mathematical models replaced good old-fashioned scientific testing? An understanding of the big picture in a field of study helps to frame and give essential perspective to that field. Take the field of natural science for instance. A big-picture look at the overall operation of the natural science profession has traditionally been seen in the “scientific method,” which consists of observation, hypothesis and testing. Rigorous testing of a hypothesis eventually leads to a “theory.”... Of late, mathematical modeling, an essential investigative tool, appears to have taken over the world of natural science. And with the ascension of modeling, the focus in scientific endeavors — particularly in the practice of atmospheric science — may have shifted away from the rigour of testing to verify a hypothesis and toward constructing a model to represent a theory."