Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- czechlist on Mission Accomplished
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- czechlist on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
It’s the dust that done it!
“A Soviet scientist said today that increasing amounts of dust in the upper atmosphere might be responsible for a mysterious cooling of the earth’s climate in the past 30 years.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110705282
~1 Feb 1973
Rasool and Schnieder said more or less the same thing.
The New York Times enjoys scaring people with normal climate change. They have been at it now for over a century.
“150 Years of Global Warming and Cooling at the New York Times”
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640
“Fire and Ice”
[a collection of warming and cooling climate scares from the press / mags]
http://www.mrc.org/node/30586
No… it’s open to debate. Definitely getting colder, though:
“Debate about how climate is changing
The drop in mean temperatures since 1950 in the Northern Hemisphere has been sufficient, for example, to shorten Britain’s growing season for crops by two weeks.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110640393
~2 June 1975
No – wait. Maybe it’s supersonic planes.
Effects on climate by supersonic traffic
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110800871?
~4 Feb 1976
The CIA takes notice:
“C.I.A. WARNING
The report, which contends that the Climate changes began in 1960, is based on a study by Mr Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin. Its basic premise is that the world’s climate is cooling and will revert to conditions prevalent between 1600 and 1850.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110818238
~21 July 1976
Thanks for that link! Perfect!
Hmmm…I wonder who this “expert” might have been?
“Beginning of new ice age.
NORWICH. England, Monday (AAP). – A new ice age is beginning to creep over the northern hemisphere and during the rest of this century the weather will become progressively colder, a British climate expert says, the Associated Press reported.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/102003727
~12 Sep 1972
Imagine that! “Dreadful droughts” were once considered signs of cooling!
“New ice age ‘could be in our lifetime’
Scientist Mr George Denton, of the University of Maine, had produced evidence indicating that the world was in fact already in the middle of such an age and that the warmer weather this century was freakish.
“The cooling of the northern hemisphere since 1950, and the dreadful droughts in Africa and India in the 1970s, may well be signs that we are feeling the effects of the little ice age again“, Mr Calder said.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110789143
~22 Nov 1974
The climate may heat, the climate may cool. Who the f**k knows?
You call that science?
Global warmists have corrupted the word “Science”. You do not have to get into the details of the issue to make that determination. Taking a look at the current attitudes of warmists towards the “Scientific Consensus” of the 70’s as opposed to the “Scientific Consensus” of the current date speaks volumes of the warmists. According to the warmists, there was no consensus during the 70’s, and many, many scientists were warning about global warming. I am sure there were scientists warning about warming in the 70’s, but that does not counter the fact that the “Scientific Consensus” of the 70’s was widespread. Additionally, I do not recall the scientists of the 70’s who questioned global cooling being publically ridiculed.
The following are comments realated to the Prior and Current Scientific Consensus regarding climate change:
Al Gore: “I THINK THAT THOSE PEOPLE (GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS) ARE IN SUCH A TINY, TINY MINORITY NOW WITH THEIR POINT OF VIEW. THEY’RE ALMOST LIKE THE ONES WHO STILL BELIEVE THAT THE MOON LANDING WAS STAGED IN A MOVIE LOT IN ARIZONA AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE THE EARTH IS FLAT. THAT DEMEANS THEM A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT’S NOT THAT FAR OFF.”
Al Gore “IT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE AN OVER-REPRESENTATION OF FACTUAL PRESENTATIONS (LIE ABOUT) HOW DANGEROUS (GLOBAL WARMING) IS.”
NASA’s Jim Hansen and Former Colorado Senator Timothy Wirth’s Approach to Global Warming Science : “What we did… was went in (the Senate Meeting Room) the night before (Hansen’s testimony) and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …’
Al Gore’s Good Friend Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt (although he is talking about “Global Warming Deniers” his statement works both ways): “The thirst for information is ultimately the solution to the problems we talk about here,” he said. “You can hold back knowledge; you cannot prevent it from spreading. You can lie about the effects of climate change, but eventually you’ll be seen as a liar.”
THE 1970’S SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE:
FACT: 40 YEARS AGO, THE “SCIENTIFIC CONENSUS” WAS STARKLY DIFFERENT:
==============================================
1970s: ‘Fears of a coming ice age showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media’
Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.
February, 1973: Science Digest: “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age.”
1971: NASA warned of human caused coming ‘ice age’.
July 9, 1971 The Washington Post, Times Herald : The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University.
1975: National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age.
May 21, 1975, New York Times: Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead; Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
1964: CRU Director Hubert Lamb Predicted Little Ice Age for Britain.
1972: CRU Director Hubert Lamb of U. of East Anglia Predicted A New Ice Age: ‘We are in a definite downhill course for the next two centuries.’
1974: Office of Research and Development of the Central Intelligence Agency produced a report entitled “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”: “The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new (colder) climatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (little ice age) (1600- 1850) – an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.
1974: Global Cooling To Kill One Billion People. ‘Dr. Reid Bryson, a U. of Wisconsin climatologist, fears that climatic changes (cooling) now in progress will eventually affect the whole human population – ‘like a billion people dying,’ he says
1975: World Meteorological Organization: Global Cooling Causes More Extreme Weather
1977 book “The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age” – CIA Feared Global Cooling – Excerpt: In the early 1970s, top CIA thinkers concluded that changing (cooling) weather was “perhaps the greatest single challenge that America will face in coming years”. As a result they ordered several studies of the world’s climate, the likely changes to come and their probably effect on America and the rest of the world. The studies conclude that the world is entering a difficult period…
August 8, 1974: New York Times: “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output,” Excerpt: A recent meeting of climate experts in Bonn, West Germany, produced the unanimous conclusion that the (cooling) change in global weather patterns pose a severe threat to agriculture that could lead to major crop failures and mass starvation.
January 25, 1975: Science News National Academy of Sciences Report on Global Climate Change: “We may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown 10,000-year ice age.”
August 14, 1975: New York Times: “many signs that the Earth may be heading for another ice age.”
December 10, 1976: Science Magazine: heading “toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”
1976 Book: “The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun” By Lowell Ponte – Excerpt: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”
1963: Experts Wanted To Melt the North Pole – To Improve the World’s Climate
CURRENT “SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS” ON GLOBAL WARMING, WITH QUOTES FROM A FEW OF THE “TINY, TINY MINORITY FLAT EARTHERS”:
U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA: “It is a blatant lie put forth…that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
Award-winning Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has AUTHORED MORE THAN 125 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS, was decorated with the medal of honor with purple ribbon for a major contribution in the field of geology, SPECIALIZES IN THE GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF PREHISTORIC CLIMATE CHANGE: “Dr. Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the UN IPCC’s fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’ When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.’”
Award-Winning Swedish Climate Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic…The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.’
Mathematician Dr. Muriel Newman: “it remains very clear that contrary to what the politicians tell us, not
only is there is no consensus of scientific thought on this matter, but the science is certainly not settled.”
Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the American Chemical Society: “tens of thousands of scientists like me are ‘flat-earth types.’…my doctorate in chemical physics from Johns Hopkins doesn’t give me nearly the qualifications to analyze the science associated with the global climate as an editor with an agenda…The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice.”
Mike Hulme: Professor of Climate Change, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies.”
Dr. Richard Lindzen: “The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.”
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Warns: ‘Lesson for climate scientists..consensus can be wrong..many scientists will go along to avoid censure by their peers’
Dr. John Nicol, Chairman of the Australia Climate Science Coalition and a former Senior Lecturer of Physics at James Cook University: “The claims so often made that there is a consensus among climate scientists that global warming is the result of increased man- made emissions of CO2, has no basis in fact.”
Dr. Jim Buckee, who holds a PhD in Astrophysics from Oxford University, lectured about climate change at the University of Aberdeen: “[climate skepticism] is the dominant view in professional science circles. I know lots of people in universities and so on and quite often they have to retire before they can say what they want because it’s so frowned upon. Any dissension is like a heresy. People are stamped on so they can’t be heard.”
In 2009, the world’s largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many calling for the removal of the ACS’s climate activist editor.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis. ‘Only 36% of geoscientists & engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe nature is primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.’
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.’s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate. The petition states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This update from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.
Team of Ex-NASA Scientists Concludes No Imminent Threat from Man-Made CO2. “A group of 20 ex-NASA scientists have concluded that the science used to support the man-made climate change hypothesis is not settled and no convincing physical evidence exists to support catastrophic climate change forecast,
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,”
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong.” – NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The whole thing is a fraud.” – Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems and has published peer-reviewed papers.
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, slammed the UN IPCC as “the biggest ever scientific fraud”. “A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
Dr. Art Raiche, former Chief Research Scientist with Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: “The suppression of scientific evidence that contradicts the causal link between human-generated CO2 and climate has been of great concern to ethical scientists both herein Australia and around the world.”
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded… it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel prize winner for physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, AUTHOR OF 200 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS and former Greenpeace member.
New York Times June 16, 2013: “The rise in the surface temperature of Earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.” This fact “highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system.”
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “AMONG THE MOST PREEMINENT SCIENTISTS OF THE LAST 100 YEARS.”
“Predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”
Atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, a former adjunct professor in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Michigan and has authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies in the fields of ozone, sulfates and
Aerosols: “For too many in the (Climate Science) field, critical thinking, the basis for all scientific inquiry, is not only absent, it is disdained.”….
.…Professor Phil Jones, Director of Research of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit: It is not ‘standard practice’ in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research. “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing an Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino
UN IPCC Lead Author Hans von Storch: ‘Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth… By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public’s trust.”
Climate researcher Willis Eschenbach, who has published climate studies in Energy and Environment journal and had comments published in the journal Nature: “I am definitely a critic of the IPCC, they are doing their job abysmally poorly. Rather than advance the cause of climate science, they impede it through their reliance on bad statistics, bad economics, and bad data”.
Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences: “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken.”
Consulting Chemist and Forensic Scientist Dr. Jim Sprott of Auckland, NZ: “The much-vaunted IPCC scenarios are patently wrong. The manmade climate change proposition fails”.
Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech, explained her defection from the global warming activist movement. “There is ‘a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink…’ They are setting themselves up as second-rate scientists by not engaging,” Curry wrote in 2010. Curry critiqued the UN IPCC for promoting “dogma” and clinging to the “religious importance” of the IPCC’s claims. “They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them,” Curry lamented.
Prominent physicist Hal Lewis resigned from American Physical Society, calling “Global warming the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life.”
Astrophysicist Dr. Dennis Hollars: “What I’d do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that’s all it’s worth.”
Dr. Roger W. Cohen, an American Physical Society (APS) fellow: “I was…appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC.”
Analytical Chemist Michael J. Myers, who specializes in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing: “…man-made global warming is ‘junk’ science.”
Matt Ridley: ‘I have come to conclusion that current energy & climate policy is probably more dangerous, both economically & ecologically, than climate change itself’ Ridley: ‘This is not the same as arguing that climate has not changed or that mankind is not partly responsible. That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept. What I do not accept is that the change is or will be damaging, or that current policy would prevent it’
UN IPCC Lead Author Hans von Storch in new book: Climate Scientists…’Completely In Over Their Heads’
“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.
UN IPCC’s Eduardo Zorita: ‘I really do not see how the IPCC can help policy makers’. ‘The Summary for Policy Makers is co-written by government officials & scientists, & thus it seems that it is result of some type of obscure negotiations. This leads to all sorts of wrong incentives, also for scientists. In some countries, a criterion for promotion is whether your work has been cited by IPCC, this gives already an idea about how IPCC reports are misused for goals totally alien to intended purpose’
Prominent geologist warns ‘global COOLING is almost a slam dunk’ for up to 30 years or more — ‘There is no single piece of real evidence that points to CO2? as driving temps – Dr. Don Easterbrook: ‘We’ve had 27 climate changes in the last 400 years: warm, cold, warm, cold. There have been four in this past century that have nothing to do with CO2, because CO2 wasn’t a factor hundreds of thousands of years ago. We know that those are not at all related to CO2. So why would we expect climate change today to be related to CO2?’
AUSTRALIAN SCIENTIST PREDICTS GLOBAL COOLING: “SUN IS THE MAJOR CONTROL OF CLIMATE; LOOK FOR COOLING’ — ‘Prof. Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth & Env. Studies, U, of Western Australia, recently presented a paper in Poznan, Poland, in which he described the sun as the major control of climate, but not through greenhouse gases.”There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate. Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction. Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling. Many think that political decisions about climate are based on scientific predictions but what politicians get are projections based on computer models. The UN’s main adviser, the IPCC, uses adjusted data for the input, their models and codes remain secret, and they do not accept responsibility for their projections”.
Renowned Norwegian solar expert warns temps may ‘actually fall in the course of a 50-year period’ – [ By Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth and served as a referee for scientific journals. “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”
Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications, predicts that temperatures should cool between 2065 until 2100 and that global temperatures at the end of the century should be less than 1 degree cooler than at present.
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. Bryson was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.”
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990’s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe. “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown”.
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. “”Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical.”
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears “poppycock.”
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.”
Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind.”
Dutch meteorological institute KNMI critical of IPCC- suggests they are leaving out study of natural climate variability
Study published in Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, question proxy temperature studies —“People speculate that we can reconstruct past climates from biological archives like tree rings and coral growth bands. But living things grow differently in different years depending on what is happening in the local area” (not just temperature changes).
_________________________________________________________
Andy … the alarmists know and are experts.
If the climate doesn’t remain exactly the same (whatever that is) every year then it is global warming / climate change / weather weirding and all kinds of other scary stuff (most of which is unprecedented and worse than anyone thought) and it will be necessary to burn the witches … ops I meant stop all CO2 emissions to get back to the perfect days of the past that Steven takes such pleasure in documenting.
Big time sarc if anyone doesn’t realize it 😉 Enjoy your weekend peops … except that crew in the Beaufort – you can freeze your nut sacks off!
Additional quotes from the corrupted world of Global Warming Science:
“WHY SHOULD I MAKE THE DATA AVAILABLE TO YOU, WHEN YOUR AIM IS TO TRY AND FIND SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT.” IT IS NOT ‘STANDARD PRACTICE’ IN CLIMATE SCIENCE TO RELEASE DATA AND METHODOLOGY FOR SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS SO THAT OTHER SCIENTISTS COULD CHECK AND CHALLENGE THE RESEARCH.-Phil Jones, Director of Research of East Anglia University Climate Research Unit.
Al Gore in 1993 on Sea Level Rise: : “BECAUSE OF THE RISING SEA LEVEL, DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING, IN THE NEXT FEW DECADES … UP TO 60 PERCENT OF THE PRESENT POPULATION OF FLORIDA MAY HAVE TO BE RELOCATED.”
Response: Using Satellites, NOAA Determines That The Global Sea Rise Is Nearing Zero: ‘A new study by NOAA confirms that the actual sea level rise is slowly decelerating to zero’
Al Gore on Extreme Weather Events: “WE FACE A GLOBAL CRISIS OF UNPRECEDENTED PROPORTIONS. NOW WE FIND OURSELVES LIVING IN WHAT SCIENTISTS CALL A ‘NEW NORMAL’ OF MORE EXTREME WEATHER THAT’S HAPPENING ALL OVER THE WORLD WITH INCREASING FREQUENCY.” and “SCIENTISTS HAVE MADE A SUBTLE BUT PROFOUND CHANGE IN THE WAY THAT THEY SPEAK ABOUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND THE EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS. THEY USED TO SAY YOU CAN’T CONNECT ANY EXTREME WEATHER EVENT TO CLIMATE BECAUSE THERE ARE MULTIPLE FACTORS. NOW THEY’VE CHANGED.”
Response: Prof. Pielke Jr. regarding extreme weather events in the U.S.: ‘US floods have not increased over a century or longer (same globally). — US hurricane landfall frequency or intensity have not increased (in US for over a century or longer)’ ‘US intense hurricane landfalls are currently in longest drought (7 years+) ever documented — US tornadoes, especially strongest ones, have not increased since at least 1950. — US drought has decreased since middle of the past century. — US East Coast Winter Storms show no trends — Disaster losses normalized for societal changes show no residual trends (US, other regions or globally). — Trends in costs of disasters are not a proxy for trends in climate phenomena’
and
Prof. Pielke Jr.:‘There is seemingly a bottomless well of nonsense on disasters and climate change’
Al Gore: “AS HUMAN BEINGS, WE ARE VULNERABLE TO CONFUSING THE UNPRECEDENTED WITH THE IMPROBABLE. IN OUR EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE, IF SOMETHING HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE, WE ARE GENERALLY SAFE IN ASSUMING IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, BUT THE EXCEPTIONS CAN KILL YOU AND CLIMATE CHANGE IS ONE OF THOSE EXCEPTIONS.”
Response: CO2 Science: Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 1140 individual scientists from 657 research institutions in 46 different countries.
Al Gore on CO2 Concentrations: (AN INCREASE OF 100 PARTS PER MILLION OF CO2 IS)…“THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NICE DAY AND A MILE OF ICE ABOVE YOUR HEAD”.
Response: Sorry, that statement doesn’t deserve a response.
Al Gore on Arctic and Antarctic: 2008: “THE ENTIRE NORTH ‘POLARIZED’ CAP WILL DISAPPEAR IN 5 YEARS.” 2009: “SEEING THE WRITING ON EVERY WALL THEY LOOK AT. THEY’RE SEEING THE COMPLETE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE POLAR ICE CAPS RIGHT BEFORE THEIR EYES IN JUST A FEW YEARS.”
Response: FACT: JUNE 25, 2013: ARCTIC SEA ICE IS AT A 10-YEAR HIGH
FACT: JUNE 25. 2013: ANTARCTIC SEA ICE MORE THAN 1.3 MILLION SQ. KM. ABOVE 1979-2013 AVERAGE
Al Gore on Polar Bears: : “THEIR HABITAT IS MELTING.
BEAUTIFUL ANIMALS, LITERALLY BEING FORCED OFF THE PLANET.”-Al Gore
Response:THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ESTIMATES THAT THE POLAR BEAR POPULATION IS CURRENTLY AT 20,000 TO 25,000 BEARS, UP FROM AS LOW AS 5,000-10,000 BEARS IN THE 1950S AND 1960S. A 2002 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF WILDLIFE IN THE ARCTIC REFUGE COASTAL PLAIN NOTED THAT THE POLAR BEAR POPULATIONS ‘MAY NOW BE NEAR HISTORIC HIGHS.
Al Gore on Carbon Taxes: : “EVERY ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS TO CLIMATE CRISIS WILL BE MORE EFFECTIVE AND MUCH EASIER TO IMPLEMENT IF A PRICE IS PLACED ON CO2”
Response: EPA’s own climate model: Effect on temps of mega-carbon tax too small to measure on 50-year scale. Assuming outrageously high taxes that would reduce CO2 emissions by 83% (giving Americans the per-capita emissions of 1867), the amount of warming that would be prevented is too small to measure on the 50-year time scale. Anything less does even less.
and
State of the carbon market in 2013 is so sick the World Bank cancelled the report
Let’s just hope that Al Gore’s good friend,Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt is correct when he says: “You can lie about the effects of climate change, but eventually you’ll be seen as a liar.”