Our Coalition chairman, Hon Barry Brill, has welcomed the tutorial produced by three eminent US professors to help a California judge gain an understanding of the arguments involved in the 'global warming' debate now known as 'climate change'(see items dated April 2 below).
An important new paper by Dr David Whitehouse for the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals that 2019 was mostly without sunspots. For a long period, the Sun was spot-free for 90% of the time, making the period of minimum activity at the end of Solar Cycle 24* and the beginning of Cycle 25 one of the deepest solar minima ever observed. Understanding the 11-year solar cycle is important, not just for the science of the Sun, but also for appreciating and predicting its influence on Earth and its climate. This paper discusses some of these issues.
This absolutely outstanding PDF, derived from a PowerPoint presentation by Australian geologist Dr Geoff Derrick is a compulsiory read for anyone who may still doubt that there is no foundation for the climate alarmism promoted by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the power-hungry politicians who still support this elaborate scam. Long, it takes some seconds to download, but is well worth the wait. For instance, it completely destroys the myths that the trace gas Carbon Dioxide (CO2) can or does cause significant warming, and the Mann "hockey stick", and goes on to show that Pacific Ocean atolls and other land aeas are not in danger from rising seas.
The Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Petteri Taalas, says that the alarmist narrative on climate change has gone off the rails and criticised the news media for provoking unjustified anxiety. Speaking to Finland’s financial newspaper Talouselämä (“The Journal”) on 6 September 2019, Petteri Taalas called for cooler heads to prevail, saying that he does not accept arguments that the end of the world is at hand: "It is not going to be the end of the world. The world is just becoming more challenging. In parts of the globe living conditions are becoming worse, but people have survived in harsh conditions."
Dr Benny Peiser, GWPF says Taalas statement is "unprecedented":
Bjorn Lomborg writes for "The Australian": "The risk is that outsized fear will take us down the wrong path in tackling global warming. Concerned activists want the world to abandon fossil fuels as quickly as possible. But it will mean slowing the growth that has lifted billions out of poverty and transformed the planet. That has a real cost."
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."
"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...
Economist Bjorn Lomborg writes: "This British parliament declared the other day the planet was facing a 'climate emergency', making the UK the first country to do so after cities such as Los Angeles, London, Vancouver and Basel. It’s a move that sums up all that is wrong with climate policy: politicians are making grandiose, fearmongering declarations that are divorced from economic reality, as well as from what will fix the problem they claim to be addressing. Political rhetoric is cheap but drastic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions remain prohibitively expensive and technologically challenging."
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."
In this outstanding example of scientific scholarship, ground-breaking Danish physicist, Dr Henrik Svensmark dicusses the influence of the sun on Earth's climate and summarises: "the impact of solar activity on climate is much larger than the official consensus suggests. This is therefore an important scientific question that needs to be addressed by the scientific community."
Henrik Svensmark (born 1958) is a physicist and a senior researcher in the Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics Division of the National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Lyngby, Denmark.
An American blog, "Climatism", posts comments by 46 people who have been expert reviewers of reports by the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and have subsequently questioned its accuracy and its integrity.
With deepest regret we record the death in Wellington last week of one of the founding fathers of our Coalition, Dr Vincent R. Gray, at age 96. An indefatigable reviewer of every IPCC report so far, Dr Gray published many well-researched critiques of errors and misjudgements he found in IPCC reports, being especially harsh on computer models, with his constant refrain "Correlation is not evidence of causation." In the early years of our Coalition,his expert observations helped many of us to counter false propaganda advanced by the witless Green Party, condoned without correction by the gutless other New Zealand political parties. RIP.
A recent Netflix ‘Our Planet’ program with David Attenborough delivering a disturbing message of doom about walruses falling off a cliff to their deaths because of climate change is contrived nonsense on par with the bogus National Geographic starving polar bear video of 2017. The walruses shown in this Netflix film were almost certainly driven over the cliff by polar bears during a well-publicized incident in 2017, not because they were “confused by a combination of shrinking ice cover and their own poor eyesight“.
UPDATE No 1: Andrew Montford asks if Netflix film crew helped to drive walruses off cliff? Link to Update No.1
UPDATE No. 2: Was Attenborough's Netflix porn the worst BBC climate programme ever? Link to Update No.2
UPDATE No. 3: WHAT DAVID ATTENBOROUGH GOT WRONG IN HIS NETFLIX PROGRAMME Link to Update No. 3
UPDATE No $: Attenborough and Green propagandists rely on Tragedy Porn Link to Update No 4
This is a second posting of a paper by three of the world's most distinguished climate science authorities: Professors Will Happer, Steven Koonin and Richard Lindzen, which some of our followers have had difficulty in accessing from our website. It is a convincing and timeless document, that concludes: "Projections of future climate and weather events rely on models demonstrably unfit for the purpose. As a result, rising levels of CO2 do not obviously pose an immediate, let alone imminent, threat to the earth’s climate."
And here is a commentary by our Climate Science Coalition chair, Hon Barry Brill: Link to Barry
This paper by Mark P. Mills at the Manhattan Institute 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.”
Professor Ross McKitrick explains why IPCC's climate modelling is grissly misleading anbd inaccurate when based on its RCP 8.5 emissions scenario: "Thus for at least 30 years, when the IPCC and others have issued emission scenario ranges, the bottom end has always been the most realistic path and the rest has been exaggerated, yet the upper end gets all the media and academic attention. RCP8.5 takes this distortion to new heights. The purpose of global climate policy is to get us from the dangerous upper end of the forecast range down to the safe bottom end. But what users of climate projections need to understand is that we are already there. In fact, we never left it. We don’t need to kill the global economy to get onto an emissions path we’ve always been on. If we want to avoid the RCP8.5 future scenario all we have to do is stop feeding it into climate models, because that’s the only place it exists."
Britain’s plans to decarbonise the economy have not been properly thought through, and there is a dangerous lack of systems and project engineering input. That’s according to Michael Kelly, emeritus professor of technology in the Department of Engineering at the University of Cambridge, who says that replacing fossil fuels with electricity from renewables is impractical on the timescale of 2050.“It’s clear that there has been little or no systems engineering input into the plans. How can we possibly proceed further along the renewables path when we lack any technology to store electricity at scale? How can we hope to electrify transport when we would need to consume the whole global annual supply of several important minerals to do so, just for the UK?” And Professor Kelly warns that the costs of decarbonising will be ruinous of our current standards of living.
The Cornwall Alliance posts an article from the Washington Times that tells us: "In short, a great deal of what the mainstream media report, and politicians tout, as the sure results of solid climate science are anything but. The best evidence continues to be that natural causes of climate change—whether warming or cooling, wetting or drying, blowing or calming—far outweigh human contribution through CO2 and other greenhouse gases. So, don’t be tricked into embracing climate-change/global-warming alarmism. There’s science, and then there’s sleight-of-hand masquerading as science."
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).
Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London has been looking at how nature has reacted to forecasts of global warming, and shows that the rise in CO2 levels has not been accompanied by the claimed increases in temperature.