Australian climate analyst John McLean [posts at American Thinker: "When governments' policies are based on science, then it's up to the governments to first determine if the science is solid. It would simply be irresponsible of any government not to do so.Testing the evidence requires an open, impartial, and objective evaluation.
Dr Ed Berry writes: "IPCC’s claim that human emissions caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 is, without question, the most costly deception in the history of mankind. People think they can save the world if they can stop human emissions of CO2, but data and simple physics prove them wrong. Climate alarmists have money, critical government jobs, control of scientific organizations and journals, influential university positions, and well-funded environmental organizations."
A 'Happy Easter' posting on NZ blog Whaleoil: "As Eric Idle of Monty Python fame said, 'always look on the bright side of life'. There is so much gloom and doom pedalled by the MSM because it sells better. When it comes to climate change scientists actually increase their institution’s cash flow if they proclaim something catastrophic and threatening. So this is dedicated to Eric … “always look on the bright side of climate change, especially CO2 increases”.
In case you haven't linked with WattsUpWithThat under our "Other Must-Read Sites" (top right) and haven't read the latest essay by our distinguished climate science colleague, Professor Timothy Ball, of Canada, this is recommended as a thoughtul summary of the origins of climate change alarmism.
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...
U.K. Daily Telegraph columnisty Sherrelle Jacobs writes: "This post-truth scam is having a chilling effect on science. Experts are locked in a race to the bottom to make detailed and disastrous premonitions. And despite the fact that disciplined debate is the motor of scientific discovery, eco-extremists are shutting down discussions that dissent from the Apocalypse narrative. "
"There is NO climate emergency. Preaching doom and gloom is a crime against the young generation. These are the key points of a new manifesto from the Climate Intelligence Group or CLINTEL. CLINTEL is a rapidly growing international group, led by prominent scientists, that opposes the ill-founded attempts to scare people into hasty climate policy actions. They also oppose the terrorizing of children as part of the false climate alarm". U.S.analyst Dr David Wojick posts on New Zealand blog, TheBFD.
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.
Telling how and why the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) originated, Dr Ed Berry writes in the U.S.: "IPCC and climate alarmists have abandoned the time-tested scientific method. They exclude evidence that proves their theory is wrong. This is 'confirmation bias' and it contradicts the scientific method. In true science, proof that a theory is wrong prevails over all opinions, consensus, and so-called evidence used to support the theory. The proof is simple. Simple inspection of IPCC’s 2013 report shows IPCC made gross errors in its calculation of the human carbon cycle."
A website for continuing reference well worth adding to your bookmarks. This website explains why Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is essential for life, and the many benefits it confers on Planet Earth and all everyone who lives and everything that grows on it.
Thanks to Australian colleague, Professor Cliff Ollier, we are able to post papers from the Porto Climate Conference 2018 (7/8 September) held at Porto University, Portugal. These papers are a veritable treasure trove of the scientific realities of climate change, countering all of the alarmist propaganda topics. Papers begin at page 9, download takes a few seconds, but well worth reading in full.
Lnk here to individual presentations: Link to presentations
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."
Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball writes: "I will not apologize for my outrage at being lectured to about my moral obligations concerning climate change from the likes of Benjamin Santer, from his position at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Ironically, and sadly, he is right that we need to address climate change, but for the wrong reason. We need to address the false science about climate change and global warming he was part of creating and perpetuating almost from the start. We need to address and stop the use of science for a political agenda, as his latest pontificating illustrates."
Dr Jay Lehr and Tom Harris post at World Commerce Review: "Most of the periodic temperature increases and decreases observed in human history are average amount of the energy that we receive from the Sun. The mild heating and cooling per degrees Fahrenheit reflect changes in solar activity rather than exponential increase in temperature from 1880 to 1935 as the Littlre Ice Age ended. It decreased from 1935 to 1990, and has since levelled off. Temperature changes do not mirror emission changes."
Indian analyst, Sanjeev Sahblok writes in the 'Times of India" that the current level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is low by historical standards, and has no significant adverse effect on global temperatures. He says the UN IPCC is trying to "fix" a "problem" that doesn't exist.
U.S. analyst Dr David Wojick posts at CFact: "The UN’s climate action machinery is on the verge to collapse, beginning this November in Glasgow, Scotland. This time the annual climate summit, called COP 26, is most likely to end in complete disarray, even more than COP 25 did last year in Madrid, Spain. The failure of COP 25 was widely noted with sadness, but Madrid was a minor COP, with little of substance on the table. In contrast COP 26 is hugely important. When it fails, the UN has to rethink its entire approach to climate action."
"Yes, sunshine and wind are obviously clean but the turning either of those into electricity is anything but a clean, harmless process. The Greens, here, stomp on any suggestion of mineral extraction, but their brave new world requires massive increases in mining of metals and rare-earth minerals. This comes with ecological and social consequences. Based upon a 2017 World Bank report, to get to the zero-carbon nirvana would require building enough solar and wind plants to generate 14 TW of electricity by 2050." Columnist posts at New Zealand BFD blog
Australian geologist & farmer, Viv Forbes posts at BreakingViews.vco.nz: "The war on hydro-carbon fuels will have no measurable effect on global temperatures. Nor will carbon taxes, carbon offsets or subsidies for wind turbines or solar panels. There are climate controllers far bigger than human CO2...