Category: Climate Change

Posted on

Media Ignore Deposed UN Climate Chief: Fighting Climate Change Is ‘My Religion’

Pachauri

Pachauri

Media Ignore Deposed UN Climate Chief: Fighting Climate Change Is ‘My Religion’
By Tim Graham | February 28, 2015 | 9:57 AM EST

As Joseph Rossell noted earlier, Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, the scientist leading the fight against “climate change” at the United Nations, resigned after some sexual-harassment allegations surfaced against him in his home country of India, and the networks completely ignored it.

So it’s also obvious that they also ignored the shocking admission in Dr. Pachauri’s resignation letter: fighting against global warming, he said, was “my religion.”

“For me, the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma [the path of righteousness].”

Investors’ Business Daily explored this on its editorial page on Friday:

And all this time we were supposed to believe that global warming and climate change were about rigorous science. Pachauri’s admission merely confirms what we have said for years. The zealots have concocted a warming religion .

This is an observation also made by Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who told a gathering at the Cato Institute in fall 2009 that all of environmentalism, not just the climate-change belief system, “is a religion.”

University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse made a similar remark a year later. “When everything is evidence of the thing you want to believe, it might be time to stop pretending you’re all about science,” she wrote in her blog.

– See more at: https://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2015/02/28/media-ignore-deposed-un-climate-chief-fighting-climate-change-my#sthash.zBQN9pOM.dpuf

Posted on

Study Shows Warming Skeptics Know More Climate Science Than Believers

url

url

Study Shows Warming Skeptics Know More Climate Science Than Believers
By Jeff Dunetz

In order to cut off debate, believers of the global warming hypothesis disparage those who are skeptical of it by comparing them to people who say the Holocaust never happened, calling them “deniers.” Some, like Secretary of State Kerry, say skeptics are like members of the “flat earth society.” But, a study by Yale Professor Dan Kahan to be published in Advances in Political Psychology reports that skeptics score slightly better in a quiz about climate science than believers.

As reported by FoxNews.com 2,000 respondents were asked “nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.”

On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.

One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.

Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.

Antarctic ice should not be a problem, at least in the near term. A study released in January 2015 reported that the South Pole’s sea ice extent has been growing since 1979, while other research says Antarctic temperatures haven’t increased during the same period.

Liberals were more likely to correctly answer questions like: “What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?” The correct answer is carbon dioxide.

The believers who answered the above correctly are refusing to acknowledge that, 12,750 years ago, the Earth’s average temperature was about the same as it is today – but, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time was higher than current levels. They are also ignoring the fact that, during some of the Earth’s ice ages, the CO2 levels were 5-10x higher than today.

A similar study conducted in 2012 and published in the journal Nature Climate Change found that global warming skeptics know just as much about science; but the study detailed above questioned respondents specifically about climate science.

Climatologists who are skeptical about the extent of man-made global warming say the results don’t surprise them.

“It’s easy to believe in the religion of global warming.  It takes critical thinking skills to question it,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

As to the Secretary of State’s claim that warming skeptics are like the members of the Flat Earth Society, in February 2013 after President Obama made a similar Flat Earth Society claim, Salon sought out the president of the “Flat Earth Society” to find out how the group feels about climate change. Turns out, the group’s president, Daniel Shenton is a global warming believer:

I accept that climate change is a process which has been ongoing since beginning of detectable history, but there seems to be a definite correlation between the recent increase in world-wide temperatures and man’s entry into the industrial age,” he said. “If it’s a coincidence, it’s quite a remarkable one. We may have experienced a temperature increase even without our use of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution, but I doubt it would be as dramatic as what we’re seeing now.

Thanks to the latest study by Professor Dan Kahan, we now know that along with having the same beliefs as the leader of the “flat-Earthers,” proponents of the global warming hypothesis are not as knowledgeable about climate science than those who are skeptical about climate change.

IMPORTANT PROGRAMMING NOTE:  For those who planned to attend the Yale University Global Divestment Day sponsored by Fossil Free Yale, the event has been canceled. Per the Daily Caller the “frigid, snowy weather set for this weekend will mean their global warming protest will have to be postponed.”

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/study-says-warming-skeptics-know-more-climate-science-believers

Posted on

Climategate: Temperature Data Manipulated

screenhunter_555-feb-27-08-12

screenhunter_555-feb-27-08-12

Flashback: Meteorologist Anthony Watts on ‘adjusted’ U.S. temperature data: ‘In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data’

Watts: ‘Is history malleable? Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here, where the temperature for July 1936 reported … changes with the moment’

Updated Feb. 8, 2015: ‘BREATHTAKING’ ADJUSTMENTS TO ARCTIC TEMPERATURE RECORD. IS THERE ANY ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ WE CAN TRUST?

Satellites: Warming pause continues & 2014 not the hottest

UK Telegraph on new climategate: ‘Fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever’

By: Marc Morano – Climate DepotJanuary 10, 2013 1:40 PM with 912 comments

Related Links updated February 8, 2015:

Flashback: Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: ‘The raw temperature data is continually adjusted to show more warming’ – PATRICK J. MICHAELS and PAUL C. “CHIP” KNAPPENBERGER: U.S. temperature ‘history has been repeatedly “revised” to either make temperatures colder in the earlier years or warmer at the end’ -‘A major and ongoing federal effort has been to try and cram these numbers into the box imposed by the theory that gives the government the most power—i.e., strong global warming.’ – ‘Please be advised that this history has been repeatedly “revised” to either make temperatures colder in the earlier years or warmer at the end.  Not one “adjustment” has the opposite effect, a clear contravention of logic and probability.  While the US has gotten slightly warmer in recent decades, compared to the early 20th century, so have the data themselves.  It’s a fact that if you just take all the thousands of fairly evenly-spaced “official” weather stations around the country and average them up since 1895, that you won’t get much of a warming trend at all.   Consequently a major and ongoing federal effort has been to try and cram these numbers into the box imposed by the theory that gives the government the most power—i.e., strong global warming.’

NOAA’s National Climatic Data center caught cooling the past – modern processed records don’t match paper records – ‘The average state temp records used in current trends analysis by NCDC do not reflect actual published records of such as they appeared in Monthly Weather Reviews and Climatological Data Summaries of years past…looked at entire years of data from 1920s & 1930s for numerous different states & found that this ‘cooling’ of old data was fairly consistent across the board…Is this purposeful mendacity, or just another example of confirmation bias at work?’

Rewriting Their Own Temperature Past At The National Academy Of Sciences: ‘Massively altered temp history since their 1975 report. They have eliminated most of the 1940-1970 cooling’ – ‘If they didn’t tamper with the data, there is no global warming since 1940.’ – In 1978, NOAA reported 0.5C global cooling from 1960-1965. NAS has almost completely erased that.’

https://www.climatedepot.com/2013/01/10/meteorologist-anthony-watts-on-adjusted-us-temperature-data-in-the-business-and-trading-world-people-go-to-jail-for-such-manipulations-of-data/

Posted on

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

url

url

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming

By Christopher Booker

10:15PM GMT 07 Feb 2015

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Posted on

‘LOOK into my EYES: You are feeling very worried about the climate … SO worried’

dracula__120113013218

dracula__120113013218

‘LOOK into my EYES: You are feeling very worried about the climate … SO worried’

Psychohistory prof Pidgeon strikes again

Comment A trick-cyclist who promised several years ago to use a new form of mass hypnosis to get the public motivated to fight climate change claims that he’s done it. In fact the claim is bogus: it is itself part of his attempt to carry out his plan of manipulating public opinion.

The trick-cyclist is, as regular readers of these pages will have guessed, Professor Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff uni. Several years ago, the prof (a specialist in “social and decision sciences”) stated publicly that he and his fellow soft-studies academics should develop a new method of manipulating public opinion, one that would work better than normal advertising or propaganda. This new and more powerful discipline of mass hypnosis should be used to condition the public into a state where they would support drastic action against the perceived dangers of man-made climate change.

At the time, we compared Pidgeon’s proposed new methods to Isaac Asimov’s science-fictional discipline of “psychohistory”, a set of methods which could be used to manipulate the behaviour of large populations without their knowledge.

Pidgeon wrote then that the key was to arouse the right emotions in the public:

Emotion is an integral part of our thinking … Emotion creates the abiding commitments needed to sustain action on difficult problems, such as climate change … appropriately framed emotional appeals can motivate action, given the right supporting conditions (in particular a sense of personal vulnerability … and [a sense of] the support of others).

(Our italics.)

Obviously when you want to give people the feeling that they are personally vulnerable to climate change it would make sense to point to some natural disaster such as the 2013/14 floods and suggest that they were caused by climate change, and that there will be more of this as a result of climate change. If you want to suggest that there is strong support from other people for action on climate change, it would be a cunning plan to tell them that other people overwhelmingly support such action.

Funnily enough, Professor Pidgeon has done just those things. In a press release issued today, he says:

The British public’s belief in the reality of climate change and its human causes rose significantly last year – and is now at its highest since 2005 … In December 2013 and January 2014, an exceptional run of winter storms hit the UK, leading to widespread flooding … such extremes of weather are predicted to be more frequent and severe in the UK under a changed climate … The flooding events were seen as a sign of things to come … Regarding support for political action, around three-quarters (74 per cent) of people surveyed in the national sample supported the UK signing up to international agreements to limit carbon emissions, with only 7 per cent opposing this measure … This finding above all sends a clear signal to the UK government.

In summary: YOU are PERSONALLY VULNERABLE to climate change and there is strong SUPPORT FROM OTHERS for action against it (that is against carbon emissions).

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/29/look_into_my_eyes_you_are_feeling_ivery_worriedi_about_the_climate_so_worried/