Eminent US climate scientist, Dr Judith Curry, in a post at "Climate, Etc", writes: "The consensus building process acts to amplify personal biases, and marginalizes disagreement from either a majority opinion or the opinion of the loudest or most motivated person in the room. One can only speculate on the magnitude and importance of the biases introduced into climate science by the IPCC’s consensus seeking process."

LINK

This is the tribute by UK journalist James Delingpole to Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, who has died in London at the age of 99.

LINK

In the New Zealand Parliament, the Green Party has introduced a Bill known as the "Zero Carbon" Bill. It has passed its First Reading and been referred to the Environment Select Committee for public comment. Later this year, the Bill will have its Second Reading, at which stage the Opposition National Party is being urged to vote against it, thus putting the heat on Government Coalition partner, NZ First to decide whether the measure proceeds or goes no further. Our Climate Science Coalition chair, Hon Barry Brill has made a 5-part submission to the Select Committee urging it to recommend that the Bill is rejected:

Submission No 1pdf

Submission No. 2pdf

Submission No. 3pdf

Submission No 4.pdf

Submission No 5.pdf

In the light of a new report by a science group, the Argonauts, showing that the UN IPCC made a fundamental error of physics which predicted warming at three times the rate actually recorded, a New Zealabd trust, Environomics (NZ) Trust, has called on its government to either refute the Argonauts' f...

Continue Reading...

As the stretch of years with no statistically significant global warming lengthens, environmentalists scratch their heads and ask, 'Well, if we can’t scare people with global warming, what can we use?' And one of their stock answers has become, 'Ocean acidification!' At Cornwall Alliance, Dr E. Calvin Beisner explains why this is bunkum scientifically.

LINK

Distinguished Canadian climate scientist, Professor Timothy Ball rebuts claims by an American group of medical doctors that "climate change" is a threat to human health.

Continue Reading...

"We know there is simply no basis for climate alarm. All 'scientific' predictions have failed, life has survived happily with much higher CO2 in the past, the medieval warming period a thousand years ago was much warmer than today, the small temperature variations of the 20th century are easily explained by natural causes, and the IPCC reports confirm that there is no increase in extreme weather events and no economic harm from CO2. And yet the hysteria is increasing by the day." Sanjeev Sahblok, leader of the Swarna Bharat Party writes in The Times of India. (Note: slight error about the middle when he incorrectly names Maurice Strong as "Michael")

LINK

Self-styled environmentalist Michael Shellenberger has publicly apologised for his earlier part in creating a climate scare: "On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem."

LINK

With the New Zealand Parliament having received a Notice of Motion (since passed on 2 December 2020) declaring a "Climate Emergency", Professor Geoff Duffy, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Auckland sent MPs a written analysis of the many reasons why such an "emergency...

Continue Reading...

Bjorn Lomborg wites in "The Australian" newspeper: "Climate campaigners want to convince us that not only should we maintain these staggering costs, but that we should spend a fortune more on climate change, since our very survival is allegedly at stake. But they are mostly wrong, and we’re likely to end up wasting trillions during the coming decades. I will outline how we could spend less, do a better job addressing climate change, and help far more effectively with many of the world’s other ills."

DOWNLOAD pdf

Also from towerofreason.blogspot.com (exellent site!) an American certified electromagnetic compliance engineer with more than 30 years practical experience in high power radio frequency and microwave applicationsapologies for this post being highly technical, but explains why his critique of the CO2 driven climate change theory is based on a practical understanding of the intersection between chemistry and electromagnetic theory.

LINK

New Zealand blog Climate Conversation has just issued this media releaae: "Global warming fear is powered by the belief that we cause it, but the UN now tacitly admit they can’t prove it, after a group of prominent New Zealand sceptics asked the IPCC Secretariat for evidence of dangerous man-made warming and got nothing."

DOWNLOAD CLIMATE CONVERSATION PDF

And here's further proof: DOWNLOAD ALLISON PDF

This analysis indicates that the IPCC and its followers such as the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) rely on 19th century thinking and 19th century measurement techniques. As such, the IPCC maintains erroneous scientific thinking for its thirty years of existence. (Hat tip: WattsUpWithThat...

Continue Reading...

Anyone concerned at the misinformational peddled about alleged adverse effects on Earth's climate arising from of emissions of methane (CH4) by farm animals must read this 2014 paper by U.S. scientist Dr Tom Sheahen, in which he first applies to CH4 the term "irrelevant", a term since picked up by other scientists such as Dr Will Happer.

DOWNLOAD pdf

Climate change alarmism is based entirely on speculation, not on science. Alarmism per se is not a hoax, because people really believe it. But alarmism is driven by a repeated practice that is in fact a hoax. This common hoax is the presentation of speculative conclusions as though they were established scientific facts about the physical world. The standard definition of a hoax is a deliberate deception that is intended to fool a lot of people. The scientists and journalists who falsely report speculations as facts know perfectly well what they are doing, which makes what they do a hoax. Distinguished US analyst Dr David Wojick explains:

Link

A post that goes so far, but not far enough, but is informative nevertheless: "The results are meagre from thirty years of debate about a public policy response to climate change. There is little support in America for action, the IPCC’s AR5 has disappeared from the news, much of the public no longer trust climate scientists, and debate has almost stopped. The weather will determine future policy, not our foresight."

LINK

In a break-through paper just accepted for publication by the International Journal of Atmospheric & Ocean Sciences, U.S. physicist, Dr Edwin Berry shows that natural and human CO2 do not “add” CO2 to the atmosphere. Both natural and human CO2 “flow through” the atmosphere. As CO2 flows through the atmosphere, it raises the level of atmospheric CO2 just enough so CO2 outflow equals CO2 inflow. Nature balances CO2 in the atmosphere when outflow equals inflow.

LINK

Dr Berry comments on the release of his break-through paper:

UP-DATED LINK

This detailed report prepared by Dr Ole Humlum for the Global Warming Policy Foundation covers all the aspects of "climate change" and shows we have little or nothing to worry about - unless it is future cooling. Dr Humlum is former Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard, Norway, and Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Oslo, Norway.

DOWNLOAD PDF