Posted on

30 years Later…….

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

Greenpeace cofounder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore : “Global Warming Hoax Pushed By Corrupt, Grant-Seeking Scientists “

John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel, “Global warming the greatest scam in history”

PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 29, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

Continue reading 30 years Later…….
Posted on

Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

r-FLORIDA-RETIREMENT-large570

Published on February 9, 2017

Written by Dr Mark Imisides (Industrial Chemist)

Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.

Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/

Posted on

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

al gore climate hoax

Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

Posted on

DAVID ROSE: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth

abominable-snowman-520169

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday

PUBLISHED: 21:21 EST, 11 February 2017 | UPDATED: 04:59 EST, 12 February 2017

They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.

The response has been extraordinary, with The Mail on Sunday’s disclosures reverberating around the world. There have been nearly 150,000 Facebook ‘shares’ since last Sunday, an astonishing number for a technically detailed piece, and extensive coverage in media at home and abroad.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html#ixzz4YW1xdjK8

Posted on

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

abominable-snowman-520169

The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XttSddhn

Posted on

Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry Resigns over ‘the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.’

Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry

She is a prominent critic of the “consensus” that man-made climate change is an impending catastrophe

Ronald Bailey|Jan. 4, 2017 12:05 pm

Wikimedia CommonsClimatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology Judith Curry has announced her resignation effective immediately on her blog, Climate, Etc. I have long found Curry to be an honest researcher and a fair-minded disputant in the ongoing debates over man-made climate change. She excelled at pointing out the uncertainties and deficiencies of climate modeling. Given the thoroughly politicized nature of climate science her efforts to clarify what is known and unknown by climate science caused her to be pilloried as “anti-science” by other researchers who are convinced that man-made global warming is leading toward catastrophe. In her blog annoucement Curry explains her resignation:

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).

Let me relate an interaction that I had with a postdoc about a month ago. She wanted to meet me, as an avid reader of my blog. She works in a field that is certainly relevant to climate science, but she doesn’t identify as a climate scientist. She says she gets questioned all the time about global warming issues, and doesn’t know what to say, since topics like attribution, etc. are not topics that she explores as a scientist. WOW, a scientist that knows the difference! I advised her to keep her head down and keep doing the research that she thinks interesting and important, and to stay out of the climate debate UNLESS she decides to dig in and pursue it intellectually. Personal opinions about the science and political opinions about policies that are sort of related to your research expertise are just that – personal and political opinions. Selling such opinions as contributing to a scientific consensus is very much worse than a joke.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/04/georgia-tech-climatologist-judith-curry

Posted on

My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic

abominable-snowman-520169

My research was attacked by thought police in journalism, activist groups funded by billionaires and even the White House.

By
ROGER PIELKE JR.
Updated Dec. 2, 2016 7:04 p.m. ET

Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”

WikiLeaks provides a window into a world I’ve seen up close for decades: the debate over what to do about climate change, and the role of science in that argument. Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community, my long experience shows what can happen when politicians and media turn against inconvenient research—which we’ve seen under Republican and Democratic presidents.

I understand why Mr. Podesta—most recently Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman—wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518

Posted on

MORE NOAA “TEMP” ADJUSTMENTS

abominable-snowman-520169

NOAA Adjustments Correlate Exactly To Their Confirmation Bias

Posted on November 21, 2016 by tonyheller

Thermometers show the US cooling since about 1920, but NOAA massively cools the past to create the appearance of a warming trend.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/noaa-adjustments-correlate-exactly-to-their-confirmation-bias/

Posted on

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

abominable-snowman-520169

James Taylor ,

CONTRIBUTOR

I am president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#2680b67332da

Posted on

Why Everything You Know About Climate Change Is Wrong

abominable-snowman-520169

April 2,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Point: Manmade climate change is a real phenomenon.

Counterpoint: No, it’s not. Climate has been changing since before humankind existed.

And so the conversation has circled for decades. But what if there was an alternative way of understanding what’s happening to our planet?

For scientist William Goodenough, we are wasting resources barking up the wrong tree. He agrees the planet is in a natural warming cycle, but suggests a shift in Earth’s magnetic poles is a primary cause of climate change.

“Our politicians are diverting $22 billion in annual research that tries to connect climate change to our use of carbon,” says Goodenough, author of “The Three Concepts of Climate Change: Is AGW Politics or Science?” (www.whyclimatechange.net).

“That research proves inconclusive year after year. Many people suggest completely reorganizing our economy to meet a radical energy policy, to the tune of an unquantifiable amount of money and a great economic burden on the average American.”

Here’s how Goodenough explains key concepts of his alternative theory.

• No scientific instrument connects human activity to climate change. If there was direct evidence tying humanity’s activity to climate change, we would have heard of it by now. Nonetheless, the message in the media has continuously reinforced the connection. Advocates for manmade climate change have successfully linked the issue to environmental problems associated with humans, including air pollution. The result has been public confusion.
• How the magnetic poles come into play. Earth’s magnetic poles are relocating by 3,000 miles. This shift is having a significant impact onrealized in computerized aircraft-control navigational systems, and that’s a clue it’s likely affecting Earth’s climate, too. The magnetic pole alters the direction of the enormous current flow through the Earth, causing magnetic chaos in our planet’s core. This weakens the magnetic shield that protects the planet from damaging solar particles. Pole shifting changes the direction of the interaction between the geophysical and the magnetic North Poles by moving the coldest area of the Arctic toward Asia, thereby significantly altering the climate while not changing total Earth temperature.
• A multi-disciplined approach to understanding climate change is necessary. “AGW climate science” is a gross oversimplification of terms. The issue includes perpetual changes in total Earth temperature, the direction of the sun’s activity, and the planet’s distance and orientation to the sun during orbit. Also in need of consideration is how the sun’s activity, Earth’s core and magnetic forcing interact with Earth’s atmosphere. In most of today’s climate research, all necessary fields of study aren’t taken into account, including meteorology, climatology, geophysics, geomagnetism, archaeology, paleoclimatology and history.

“If you respect sufficient evidence,” Goodenough says, “you aren’t satisfied with mainstream theories on this problem and should be open to compelling new data.”

About William Goodenough

William Goodenough is author of “The Three Concepts of Climate Change: Is AGW Politics or Science?” (www.whyclimatechange.net). He is a technical analyst with decades of experience in scientific analysis of computer systems, control systems, pneumatic systems, power distributions systems, automated processes, hydraulic systems and fuel systems related to aerospace certification.