Viv Forbes, Australia, posts at "Carbon Sense": The climate alarm media, the bureaucracy and the Green Energy industry follow an agenda which is served by inflating any short-term weather event into a climate calamity. They should take a long-term view. Earth’s climate is never still – it is always...
Tony Thomas posts cogently at Quadrant in Australia: "Warmists' predictions of climate doom haven't come to pass or anything like it, but give them credit for agility and perseverance in always concocting a fresh scare. The latest meme to keep grants flowing and careers on track: the purported mass die-off of species large and small."
U.S. logician, Dr David Wojick, posts at WUWT: "As a logician, I am always on the lookout for fallacies and there is no lack of them in climate change alarmist policies. New Zealand’s newly released climate risk assessment not only has multiple fallacies, they build on one another in a cascade."
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.”
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":
David Shelley, now retired, who was a long-serving member of staff of Geological Sciences at the University of Canterbury, and latterly Dean of Postgraduate Studies, writes in 'The Australian' newspaper: "Climate change is a defining issue of our time, especially for young people who are persuaded that we are doomed unless urgent action is taken on carbon emissions. Activists, with some success, are demanding climate emergencies be declared around the world, making those demands on the basis that temperatures are at record highs, glaciers and sea ice are melting at unprecedented rates, and sea levels rising dangerously. A cursory examination of the geological literature shows that the first two assertions are simply not true, and that rising sea levels are par for the course."
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."
This not a joke. Anthony Watts reports on his blog WUWT: "According to her mother Malena Ernman (48), 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg can see CO2 with the naked eye. She writes that in the book ‘Scenes from the heart. Our life for the climate’, which she wrote with her family."
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.
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.
In the annual Global Warming Policy Foundation lecture in London, expatriate New Zealander, Professor Michael J Kelly, of Cambridge University said, inter alia: "The global climate models seem to show heating at least twice as fast as the observed data over the last three decades. I am unconvinced that climate change represents a proximate catastrophe, and I suggest that a mega-volcano in Iceland that takes out European airspace for six months would eclipse the climate concerns in short order....Much of what is proposed by way of climate change mitigation is simply pie-in-the-sky.... The main message is that our present energy infrastructure is vast and has evolved over 200 years. So the chances of revolutionising it in short order on the scale envisaged by the net-zero target of Parliament is pretty close to zero; zero being exactly the chance of the meeting Extinction Rebellion’s demands."
Christopher Booker writes in the UK Sunday Telegraph: "The 'special report' by the IPCC urging the world to use only renewable energy is pure fantasy". He concludes: "However much those behind this report may delude themselves and try to delude the rest of us, the fact is that the rest of the world is no longer being taken in by their make-believe."
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.
In a major paper explaining the science of climate, Professor Will Happer writes:" The Earth is in no danger from increasing levels of CO2. More CO2 will be a major benefit to the biosphere and to humanity.". Acknlowedged to be one of the world's leading scientific authorities on climate behaviour,...
Sorry not to have found this earlier but this post from Towerofreason.blogspot.com tells the full story about how the lie about 97% of scientists agree with man-made global warming was cooked up.
Dr Jay Lehr and Tom Harris post at www.americaoutloud.com: "The climate crusade, promoting a world-wide delusion for which there exists not a shred of physical evidence, is again using children. These children are being used as ‘human shields’ for the evil doers of our day. Today’s crusade is built on fear and brainwashing children, sending them to the front with protest signs."
Paul Homewood writes at blog "Not A Lot People Know That" how global temperatures have returned to levels of 2002. Also scroll down to the interesting comments which follow, especially this one: "Never have so many been conned by so few for so much."
Dr Timothy Ball and Tom Harris post at 'America Outloud': " A small group fooled the world into believing that warming is bad and that today’s weather is warmer than ever before, all caused by the human addition of a relatively trivial amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. It is the biggest lie ever told, and that reason alone caused many to believe. The lie began with the assumption that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in temperature.
On April 1, 2019, the American Journal of Climate Change rejected a paper by physicist Dr Ed Berry for the following reason: "The conclusion of this paper is completely opposite to the consensus of the academic community." Dr Berry comments: "Yes, it is. But the journal did not forward any evidence that there is an error in my paper and did not acknowledge that my paper proves the 'consensus' is wrong. So, if it is unacceptable to publish a paper that contradicts the 'consensus' how can there be progress in science?" Read the paper here, and judge for yourself:
U.S. meteorologist Chuck Wiese has immediately supported the accuracy of Dr Berry's paper: Download ChuckWiese.pdf