"Large but previously unrecognized uncertainties must therefore exist in all the past and present air temperature projections and hindcasts of even advanced climate models. The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables." Patrick Frank posts at Frontiers in Science.
Dr Ed Berry sums up: "Today, almost all major news media, government websites, and case law assumes the IPCC climate theory is correct. But the IPCC theory is not correct. The IPCC theory is groupthink and nothing more. In 1972, Yale professor of psychology, Irving Janis, published the results of his study on human behavior, Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. He revised and enlarged his second edition published in 1982. He defined the term Groupthink to describe what happens when people get caught up in a pattern of collective psychological behavior. He showed that groupthink has three distinct features:: 1.A group of people assume a belief without a proper appraisal of the evidence. 2.To take the place of evidence, they claim their belief is shared by a ‘consensus.’ 3.Because their belief is not based on evidence, they defend their belief by irrational and dismissive hostility towards anyone who dares to question it. They will not engage in scientific discourse. They will reject all evidence that proves their belief is wrong.
"A movement has been growing for decades to replace hydrocarbons, which collectively supply 84% of the world’s energy. It began with the fear that we were running out of oil. That fear has since migrated to the belief that, because of climate change and other environmental concerns, society can no longer tolerate burning oil, natural gas, and coal—all of which have turned out to be abundant. So far, wind, solar, and batteries—the favored alternatives to hydrocarbons—provide about 2% of the world’s energy and 3% of America’s. Nonetheless, a bold new claim has gained popularity: that we’re on the cusp of a tech-driven energy revolution that not only can, but inevitably will, rapidly replace all hydrocarbons. ....This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a 'new energy economy.'
Chris Morrison writes in The Conservative Woman: "It has been an encouraging start to the contest for the year’s loopiest climate story. It has been an encouraging start to the contest for the year’s loopiest climate story."
"As environmental activists jet around the world complaining of 'carbon footprints' and preaching 'renewable energy' while insisting that countries be taxed for their CO2 emissions, they are silent regarding the real and present menace that is currently wiping out millions of human beings around the world," writres Dr Thomas D. Williams.
Australian climate analyst John McLean [posts at American Thinker: "When governments' policies are based on science, then it's up to the governments to first determine if the science is solid. It would simply be irresponsible of any government not to do so.Testing the evidence requires an open, impartial, and objective evaluation.
This is a video with clearty credible slides of a lecture to the University of Dublin by the distinguished American climatologist Dr John Christy, of the University o\f Alabama which completely debunks alarmist claims of an alleged "climate crisis". Yoiu will need to enter this Access Passcode: S+R$j6N% (copy and paste when requssted - then when vcdeo page opens, click on small white triangle at lower left to activate and get sound) LINK
"If everyone planted a tree, how much land would that require? Let's say they’re planted in a square grid, 5 meters apart, so that each tree takes up an area of 25 square meters. With 7.5 billion trees, that requires 1.8 x 1011 square meters of land, or 72,000 square miles. That's roughly the size o...
In an Open Letter to the senior executives of NIWA, MBIE, Ministry for the Environment, Climate Change Commission, the NZTA, and all university vice-chancellors, Peter J Morgan, Honorary Chairman and CEO of Environomics (NZ) Trust, has written what he describes as "Irrevocable refutation of the UNIPCC’s ‘Climate Change’ hypothesis, that mankind’s increasing emissions of CO2 cause the atmosphere to warm up dangerously – known as Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)".
In this lengthy Word.docx, which may take some seconds to download into your Downloads folder, experienced New Zealand investigator John Rofe recounts how the U.N. management and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has misled the world about unnatural global warming (now called "climate change" in the absence of the alleged warming), and plans to refer to our country's Serious Fraud Office our National Institute for Water & Atmosphere (NIWA) and two top Government Ministers.
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."
Dr Ed Berry writes: "IPCC’s claim that human emissions caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 is, without question, the most costly deception in the history of mankind. People think they can save the world if they can stop human emissions of CO2, but data and simple physics prove them wrong. Climate alarmists have money, critical government jobs, control of scientific organizations and journals, influential university positions, and well-funded environmental organizations."
A 'Happy Easter' posting on NZ blog Whaleoil: "As Eric Idle of Monty Python fame said, 'always look on the bright side of life'. There is so much gloom and doom pedalled by the MSM because it sells better. When it comes to climate change scientists actually increase their institution’s cash flow if they proclaim something catastrophic and threatening. So this is dedicated to Eric … “always look on the bright side of climate change, especially CO2 increases”.
“We are plunging now into a deep mini ice age,” says British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, “and there is no way out.....The fact is the sun rules the sea temperature, and the sea temperature rules the climate,” explains Corbyn. “What we have happening now is the start of the mini ice age … it began around 2013. It’s a slow start, and now the rate of moving into the mini ice age is accelerating.
September 14 was the 14th day when no sunsports were observed. For 400 years a record of numbers of sunspots has been recorded in recurring solar cycles. This method appears to hone in on one forecast and one forecast alone: a cold and snowy future — one akin to the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), the previous prolonged spell of low solar output and the previous ‘full blown’ Grand Solar Minimum. This post explains what this could mean for the future of Earth's climate.
As the stretch of years with no statistically significant global warming lengthens, environmentalists scratch their heads and ask, 'Well, if we can’t scare people with global warming, what can we use?' And one of their stock answers has become, 'Ocean acidification!' At Cornwall Alliance, Dr E. Calvin Beisner explains why this is bunkum scientifically.
Telling how and why the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) originated, Dr Ed Berry writes in the U.S.: "IPCC and climate alarmists have abandoned the time-tested scientific method. They exclude evidence that proves their theory is wrong. This is 'confirmation bias' and it contradicts the scientific method. In true science, proof that a theory is wrong prevails over all opinions, consensus, and so-called evidence used to support the theory. The proof is simple. Simple inspection of IPCC’s 2013 report shows IPCC made gross errors in its calculation of the human carbon cycle."