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 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.”
Retired nuclear engineer, Regis Nicoll, explains in Crisis Magazine why science is never settled. "Red flags should go up every time we hear, 'There is no longer any debate, the science is settled.' History is full of 'widows' who were wedded to the science of the age. Adherents to Ptolemaic geocentrism, Newtonian determinism, and spacetime absolutism come to mind.
92-year old botanist, Sir Richard Attenborough is the latest climate change propagandist to weigh in with hysterical alarmism promising a forthcoming catastrophe-ridden series on BBC. Before falling for this nonsense, look at this piece by Paul Homewood on "Not a Lot of People Know That" reminding us of observed and recorded truths, especially the telling graphs (and scroll through the comments that follow).
"Seriously, folks, we’re supposed to be seeing all kinds of bad stuff. But none of it has happened. No cities gone underwater. No increase in heat waves or cold waves. No islands sinking into the ocean. No increase in hurricanes. No millions of climate refugees. The tragedies being pushed by the failed serial doomcasters for the last 30 years simply haven’t come to pass." Willis Eschenbach posts at WUWT.
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.
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:
Retired New Zealand agricultural research scientist offers sensible advice to children who marched on 15 March to draw attention to climate change.
UK academics draw attention of parents, children and teachers to dangers of brainwashing in schools (courtesy of Global Warming Policy Foundation).
Contributor Suze to New Zealand Whaleoil blog adds this constructive contribution to the debate
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.
This new volume by the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), "Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels", assesses the costs and benefits of the use of fossil fuels with a special focus on concerns related to anthropogenic climate change. The NIPCC authors conclude, “The global war on energy freedom, which commenced in earnest in the 1980s and reached a fever pitch in the second decade of the twenty-first century, was never founded on sound science or economics. The world’s policymakers ought to acknowledge this truth and end that war.”
Dr David Legates writes at Cornwall Alliance: "Generally, I conclude most of my climate change presentations with the phrase, 'It’s not about the climate; it never was.' Here, I would like to start with that statement. In this brief article, I will discuss why carbon dioxide isn’t the dangerous gas it is made out to be, why climate change is not an ‘existential’ threat to the planet, and why the Green New Deal is not a solution to climate change."
The '2018 State of the Polar Bear' report, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, confirms that polar bears are continuing to thrive, despite recent reductions in sea ice levels. This finding contradicts claims by environmentalists and some scientists that falls in sea ice would wipe out bear populations. The report’s author, zoologist Dr Susan Crockford, says that there is now very little evidence to support the idea that the polar bear is threatened with extinction by climate change.
Dr Tim Ball and Tom Harris post at communalnews.com: "Why are the public generally unaware of the important research that connects variations in the output of the Sun with climate change? They should know about it, since the Sun is responsible for far more climate change than anything we cause. The reason for this ignorance is that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ..."
Bjorn Lomborg posts at Project Syndicate: "Because honest and deep emissions cuts are staggeringly hard to make, achieving carbon neutrality anytime soon is an empty ambition for almost everywhere. But countries continue to make big promises and massage their emissions numbers to give a false sense of progress on combating global warming."
Professor Larry Bell writes at Newsmax how his numerous scientific friends wonder why major print and broadcast reports fail to note that, other than two El Niños (which have nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouse gases), no statistically significant global warming has occurred since the time most of today’s college sophomore students were born.
Dr Jay Lehr and Tom Harris post at Americaoutloud.com why the rewriting of Earth's climate history is "the most pervasive and damaging example of scientific fraud in the history of mankind".
The “Green New Deal” proposed by congressional Democrats is a “recipe for mass suicide” and the “most ridiculous scenario I ever heard,” Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore warned in an exclusive interview with The New American. In fact, Dr. Moore warned that if the “completely preposterous” prescriptions in the scheme were actually implemented, Americans could be forced to turn to cannibalism to avoid starvation — and they still would not survive.
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.
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
Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball posts at Technocracy News and Trends: "This is an update of an earlier effort to counter the propaganda war that is going on to promote the falsehoods about the environment and climate. An update is required because skills improved with practice and as they lose the war, desperation demands greater deceptions. Technocrats are at the center of this development."