|
100 storylines blaming climate change as the problem.
What do UFO sightings in the UK, cold spells in Australia, shrinking sheep, heroin addiction, a surge in fatal shark attacks, duller fall foliage in 2007, snowfall in Baghdad, pine beetles, Swedish beetles, severe acne, global conflict, the crash of Air France 447, the Black Hawk down incident, flesh-eating disease, global cooling, beer tasting different, bigger tuna fish, Earth spinning faster, frozen penguin chicks, an increase in size of giant squid, cow infertility and the death of the winter wardrobe have in common?
They're all cased by global warming according to the media.
|
|
The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
|
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
|
|
September 2013 - A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
|
World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years
But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.
Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its tune after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years
Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.
The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.
The last IPCC ‘assessment report’ was published in 2007 and has been the subject of huge controversy after it had to correct the embarrassing claim that the Himalayas would melt by 2035.
It was then engulfed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal surrounding leaked emails allegedly showing scientists involved in it trying to manipulate their data to make it look more convincing – although several inquiries found no wrongdoing.
|
Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.
In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.
The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
|
NOAA says 2014 was warmest year worldwide on record; state climatologist John Christy disagrees
"It wasn't the hottest," said Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville as well as the state's climatologist.
While the National Climatic Data Center in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) disagreed, it included climate research from UAH in its report.
According to NOAA, the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest since record keeping began in 1880. It surpassed the previous high marks by 0.07 of a degree Fahrenheit.
The average temperature across the globe in 2014 was 1.24 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average, according to NOAA.
The conflict is that UAH measures atmospheric temperatures, not surface temperatures. The UAH data focuses on the lowest troposphere - the area between the earth's surface and roughly five miles into the atmosphere.
The atmospheric temperatures, Christy said, indicated that it was the third-hottest year on record - topped by 1998 and 2010.
"2014 was in a cluster of warmish years," said Christy, long known to be skeptical of claims of dangerous global warming. "That cluster is distinctly cooler than the two hottest years - 1998 and 2010."
2015 was supposed to be warmer. Yet even in a hot place like Brazil, things died of cold not heat it got cold enough to kill tropical animals.
"Some of the fish were imported from Africa, Asia and Oceania. An Anambi document said 80% of the fish died from a temperature drop as winter approached in Brazil."
|
Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models
A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
CITATION: “Comparing the Model-Simulated Global Warming Signal to Observations Using Empirical Estimates of Unforced Noise,” Patrick T. Brown, Wenhong Li, Eugene C. Cordero and Steven A. Mauget; Scientific Reports, April 21, 2015. DOI: 10.1038/srep09957
|
NY sued Exxon for "knowing climate change was real"... and lost. Because it's not.
|
Australia will no longer contribute to major UN climate change fund
Australia will no longer contribute to a major United Nations fund used to combat climate change.
Following previous promises by Prime Minister Scott Morrison to no longer “tip money into that big climate fund,” the country made its final $19 million contribution in December, according to budget documents released today and reviewed by Climate Home News.
The climate fund Morrison was referring to, the Green Climate Fund, was a basis for the Paris Climate Accord, with wealthier countries agreeing to contribute to projects that help developing nations lower their greenhouse gas emissions.
|
|
800 peer reviewed papers skeptical of AGW.
|
An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures
The rate of warming in the 20th century was the same as the rate of warming in the 80 previous
centuries.
There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.
|
97% of climate scientists believe AGW?
No, those statistics, like many others have been fraudulently manipulated, it's actually less than 1%. It's actually 75 people on climate grants, that's why they give the number as a percent. The thing to ask is percent of what?
|
Where does this stuff come from?
|
|
Big data finds medieval warming period.
|
|
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy. Opinion signed by sixteen scientists.
|
Evidence-Based Climate Science 2nd Edition 2016
Table of Contents
List of Contributors
Preface
Part I. Climatic Perspectives
Chapter 1. Climate Perspectives
1. Introduction
2. The “97%” Myth
3. The Scientific Method Versus Dogma
4. Comparison of Computer Modeling of Climate With Measured Temperatures
5. No Global Warming for 18 Years and 8 Months
6. Hottest-Year-Ever Claims
7. Data Corruption
8. The Past Is the Key to the Future
Part II. Temperature Measurements
Chapter 2. A Critical Look at Surface Temperature Records
1. Introduction
2. The Global Data Centers
3. The Golden Age of Surface Observation
4. Vanishing Stations
5. See for Yourself: The Data Are a Mess
6. Station Dropout Was Not Totally Random
7. Instrument Changes and Siting
8. Along Comes “Modernization”
9. Adjustments Not Made, or Made Badly
10. Heat From Population Growth and Land-Use Changes
11. U.S. Climate Data
12. U.S. State Heat Records Suggest Recent Decades Are Not the Warmest
13. Major Changes to USHCN in 2007
14. Hadley and NOAA
15. Final Adjustments: Homogenization
16. Problems With Sea Surface Temperature Measurements
17. Long-Term Trends
18. Summary
Chapter 3. Is the NASA Surface Temperature Record an Accurate Representation?
Chapter 4. In the Climate Debate, Hear Both Sides
1. Are Today's Temperature Changes Unprecedented?
2. Was the Glacial-to-Interglacial Global Warming as Little as 3°C?
3. Was 2014 “The Warmest Year on Record”? and Does It Matter?
4. What Is the Ideal United Kingdom and Global Temperature?
5. Stretching the Vertical Axis of the Temperature Graph
6. Imagined Effects of Global Warming
7. Is Sea Ice Really Declining Rapidly?
8. Rising CO2 Concentration and Its Effect on Global Temperature
9. Are the Computer Models of Climate Reliable?
10. Has Climate Science Become Dishonest?
11. Are Floods and Droughts Worsening and Crops Failing as Predicted?
12. Conclusions
Chapter 5. Southeast Australian Maximum Temperature Trends, 1887–2013: An Evidence-Based Reappraisal
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results and Discussion
4. Conclusions
Part III. Extreme Weather Events
Chapter 6. Weather Extremes
1. Introduction
2. Extreme Weather Events and the Earth's Climate
3. Heat Extremes
4. Cold Extremes
5. Floods and Droughts
6. Tropical Cyclones and Tornadoes
7. Economic Losses Due to Extreme Weather
8. Human Fatalities and Heat and Cold Extremes
9. Summary and Conclusions
Part IV. Polar Ice
Chapter 7. Evidence That Antarctica Is Cooling, Not Warming
1. Introduction
2. Are Antarctic Glaciers Melting at an Accelerating Rate?
3. Is Antarctica Warming or Cooling?
4. Physical Data Show Lack of Antarctic Warming
5. Cooling of the Southern Ocean Around Antarctica
6. West Antarctic Ice Sheet
7. Conclusions
8. Evidence of Stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
9. Credibility of the “Unstoppable Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet”
10. Isostatic Rebound
11. Conclusions
Chapter 8. Temperature Fluctuations in Greenland and the Arctic
1. Greenland
2. The Arctic
Part V. Carbon Dioxide
Chapter 9. Greenhouse Gases
1. Role of Water Vapor
2. Carbon Dioxide
3. Global Warming and CO2 During the Past Century
4. Geologic Evidence That Global Warming Causes Increased Atmospheric CO2—CO2 Does Not Cause Global Warming
5. CO2 Lags Warming Over Short Time Spans
Chapter 10. Is CO2 Mitigation Cost Effective?
1. Introduction
2. Projected 21st-Century CO2-Driven Warming
3. Method
4. Other Greenhouse Gases
5. The Intertemporal Discount Rate
6. Welfare Loss From Inaction
7. The Cost–Benefit Ratio
8. Illustrative Case Studies
9. Results
10. Discussion
11. Conclusions
Part VI. Oceans
Chapter 11. Relationship of Multidecadal Global Temperatures to Multidecadal Oceanic Oscillations
1. Introduction
2. The Southern Oscillation Index
3. Multivariate ENSO Index
4. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation
5. Frequency and Strength of ENSO and the PDO
6. Correlation of the PDO and Glacial Fluctuations in the Pacific Northwest
7. ENSO Versus Temperatures
8. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)
9. The North Atlantic Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, and the AMO
10. Synchronized Dance of the Teleconnections
11. Using Warm and Cold Pools in Operational Seasonal Forecasting
12. Short-Term Warm/Cool Cycles From the Greenland Ice Core
13. Where Are We Headed During the Coming Century?
Chapter 12. Sea Level Changes as Observed in Nature
1. Introduction
2. “Poster Sites” for Lobbyists
3. Test Areas of Eustatic Changes in Sea Level
4. Satellite Altimetry Before “Corrections”
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Chapter 13. Ocean “Acidification” Alarmism in Perspective
1. Introduction
2. The Historical Record of CO2 and Temperature in the Atmosphere
3. The Adaptation of Species to Changing Environmental Conditions
4. The Buffering Capacity of Seawater
5. The Ability of Calcifying Species to Control the Biochemistry at the Site of Calcification
6. A Warmer Ocean May Emit CO2 Back Into the Atmosphere
7. Summary of Experimental Results on Effect of Reduced pH on Calcifying Species
8. Conclusions
Part VII. Solar Influences on Climate
Chapter 14. Cause of Global Climate Changes: Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays, and Radiocarbon and Berylium Production Rates
1. Solar Variation—Grand Minima
2. Radiocarbon (14C6) Production Rates
3. Berylium-10 (10Be4) Production Rates
4. Cosmic Ray Incidence and Climate
5. Conclusions
Chapter 15. Solar Changes and the Climate
1. Introduction
2. The Earth–Sun Connection
3. Warming Due to Ultraviolet Effects Through Ozone Chemistry
4. The “Pause” and Climate Projections
5. Summary
Chapter 16. The Sun's Role in Climate
1. Introduction
2. Solar Activity Changes Over the Last 10,000 Years
3. Medieval Warm Period
4. Is Something Missing in the Climate Models?
5. Solar-Forced Millennial Climate Cycles
6. Coverage of Millennial Climate Cycles in the Fifth IPCC Climate Report
7. Conclusions
Chapter 17. The New Little Ice Age Has Started
1. Introduction
2. Milankovitch Cycles and Interrelated Variations in Climate and Abundance of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere
3. Interrelated Variations in the Climate, Total Solar Irradiance, and Solar Activity
4. Quasi-bicentennial Variations in Total Solar Irradiance and Mechanisms of Its Secondary Additional Influences
5. The Quasi-bicentennial Solar Cycle Determines Variations in Both the Duration and the Power of the 11-Year Solar Cycle
6. The Average Annual Energy Balance of the Earth
7. Quasi-bicentennial Variation in the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to an Energy Imbalance of the Surface–Atmosphere System
8. Current Total Solar Irradiance Decrease in the Quasi-bicentennial Cycle Has Led to a Long-Term Deficit in the Earth's Energy Balance and the Beginning of a New Little Ice Age
9. Sensitivity of Climate to Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide
10. Convection, Evaporation, and Condensation in Transfer of Thermal Flow at the Earth's Surface
11. Powerful Volcanic Eruptions Lead Only to Short-Term Cooling Periods
12. Future Deep Cooling Can Become a Major Problem for the Development of Petroleum in the Arctic
13. Increasing Global Temperature on the Earth Has Stopped Since 1997
14. Conclusion
Chapter 18. Aspects of Solar Variability and Climate Response
1. Solar Activity in the Little Ice Age and Modern Warm Period
Chapter 19. The Notch-Delay Solar Hypothesis
1. Introduction
2. The Notch in the Empirical Transfer Function
3. The Delay
4. The Force-X Hypothesis
5. The Force-ND Hypothesis
6. Mechanisms
7. A Prediction
8. The Notch-Delay Solar Model
9. Conclusions
Appendix A: Acronyms
Part VIII. Climate Models
Chapter 20. Correcting Problems With the Conventional Basic Calculation of Climate Sensitivity
1. Introduction
2. The Conventional Calculation of Climate Sensitivity
3. Problems With the Conventional Basic Climate Model
4. Proposed Feedback: “Rerouting”
5. Externally Driven Albedo Could Be Significant
6. Alternative Model
7. The “Hotspot”
8. Calculating the ECS Using the Alternative Model
9. Conclusions
Appendix: Acronyms
Part IX. Climate Predictions
Chapter 21. Using Patterns of Recurring Climate Cycles to Predict Future Climate Changes
1. Introduction
2. The Past is the Key to the Future: Lessons From Past Global Climate Changes
3. Significance of Past Global Climate Changes
4. Correlation of Temperature Cycles and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
5. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
6. Where Is Climate Headed During the Coming Century?
Index
|
Thus the BBC is engaged in the extinction of journalism
It never occurred to the BBC to ask who might be behind Extinction Rebellion, since a coordinated world-wide movement like this does not arise through spontaneous action.
Evidence that has emerged so far indicates a cynical alliance between capitalists and anti-capitalists. This piece suggests that behind Greta Thunberg, the movement’s teenage figurehead, lies a powerful non-profit industrial complex which has manufactured and promoted a youth movement in order to “to unlock 100 trillion dollars from pension funds” in the “financialisation of nature”.
This piece by Paul Homewood highlights documents reportedly retrieved from Extinction Rebellion’s computer database which reveal that its aims include “to build structure, community and test prototypes in preparation for the coming structural collapse of the regimes of western ‘democracies’ — now seen as inevitable due to stored-up crisis. Thus preparing a foundation to transform society and resist fascism/other extremes. This includes creating Rising from the Wreckage – a citizens’ assembly based on sortition [random selection]”.
As Forbes magazine noted here, over the past 150 years the world has warmed by a mere 0.8 degrees – and even that has tapered off to essentially flatlining over the last decade and a half.
As climate scientist Vijay Jayara wrote: “There is poor correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature. Between 2000 and 2018, global temperature showed no significant increase despite a steep increase in carbon dioxide emissions from anthropogenic sources. The same was the case between the years 1940 and 1970. When carbon dioxide concentration increases at a constant and steady rate and temperature doesn’t follow the pattern, we can be certain that carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of global temperature.
Data about temperatures in the USA from the NOAA show that, in six of the past nine months, temperatures were below normal — and the US temperature average is actually cooler now for 2019 than in 2005 when the dataset started. So is global warming only, er, occurring in Europe?
In March, a NASA study found the famous Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland was starting to grow again “after retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually since 2013,” but is growing the past two years (2016-2018). And for most of the past 10,000 years, the Greenland Ice Sheet was smaller than it is today.
As for the supposedly record number of wildfires, according to NASA global wildfires have dropped since 2003 by 25 per cent.
By this, Taalas meant that deep greens have been abusing the reports of the IPCC, cherrypicking parts that they think will support radical action.
“The IPCC reports have been read in a similar way to the Bible: you try to find certain pieces or sections from which you try to justify your extreme views. This resembles religious extremism.”
What are witnessing is not the imminent extinction of the planet. It is the extinction of reason.
|
|
PCC computer models have predicted the global temperatures will rise 1° per decade (Fig. 40A) for the next 10 decades and be 10° warmer by 2100. According to their models, global temperature should have warmed 1° from 2000 to 2011, but global climates have actually cooled, not warmed, since 1998 (Fig. 40B). Thus, the computer models have failed badly in predicting global climates and therefore must be considered unreliable.
|
|
A Consistent Pattern Of Data Tampering
Posted on February 8, 2012 by Steven Goddard
Global warming activists posing as scientists have engaged in a systematic pattern of altering data sets to prove global warming.
|
|
A Consistent Pattern Of Data Tampering
Posted on February 8, 2012 by Steven Goddard
Global warming activists posing as scientists have engaged in a systematic pattern of altering data sets to prove global warming.
|
|
Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world's leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows
- The Royal Society's motto is 'Nullius in verba' or don't take another's word
- It is the world's first scientific organisation in the world
Prof Michael Kelly fears that on climate change, it is ignoring the science
- He accuses the organisation of becoming dogmatic about climate change
|
|
|
|
|
As in "lies and deception".
|
|
Dr. Patrick Moore is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a director of Greenpeace International
|
|
"Linda Prokopy, a Professor of Natural Resource Social Science at Purdue University, surveyed more than six thousand farmers and scientists and found widespread disagreement on human contributions to climate change. While 90 percent of scientists and climatologists surveyed thought the climate was changing, only about 50.4 percent contended that humans were the primary cause of these changes. More shocking was that just 53 percent of climatologists surveyed thought “Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities.”
"This evidence is inconvenient to the many media outlets that have endlessly repeated that 97 percent of scientists endorse the global warming hypothesis. Prominent outlets like NBC and The New York Times, as well as countless others, have effectively shut down debate by asserting there is no scientific debate."
|
|
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists."
|
The lawn of Trinity College is seen after being dug up by Extinction Rebellion climate protesters
A spokeswoman for Trinity College said: "The college respects the right to freedom of speech and non-violent protest but draws the line at criminal damage and asked the protesters to leave.
|
|
So, should we worry or not about the warming climate? It is far too binary a question. The lesson of failed past predictions of ecological apocalypse is not that nothing was happening but that the middle-ground possibilities were too frequently excluded from consideration. In the climate debate, we hear a lot from those who think disaster is inexorable if not inevitable, and a lot from those who think it is all a hoax. We hardly ever allow the moderate “lukewarmers” a voice: those who suspect that the net positive feedbacks from water vapor in the atmosphere are low, so that we face only 1 to 2 degrees Celsius of warming this century; that the Greenland ice sheet may melt but no faster than its current rate of less than 1 percent per century; that net increases in rainfall (and carbon dioxide concentration) may improve agricultural productivity; that ecosystems have survived sudden temperature lurches before; and that adaptation to gradual change may be both cheaper and less ecologically damaging than a rapid and brutal decision to give up fossil fuels cold turkey.
We’ve already seen some evidence that humans can forestall warming-related catastrophes. A good example is malaria, which was once widely predicted to get worse as a result of climate change. Yet in the 20th century, malaria retreated from large parts of the world, including North America and Russia, even as the world warmed. Malaria-specific mortality plummeted in the first decade of the current century by an astonishing 25 percent. The weather may well have grown more hospitable to mosquitoes during that time. But any effects of warming were more than counteracted by pesticides, new antimalarial drugs, better drainage, and economic development. Experts such as Peter Gething at Oxford argue that these trends will continue, whatever the weather.
Just as policy can make the climate crisis worse—mandating biofuels has not only encouraged rain forest destruction, releasing carbon, but driven millions into poverty and hunger—technology can make it better. If plant breeders boost rice yields, then people may get richer and afford better protection against extreme weather. If nuclear engineers make fusion (or thorium fission) cost-effective, then carbon emissions may suddenly fall. If gas replaces coal because of horizontal drilling, then carbon emissions may rise more slowly. Humanity is a fast-moving target. We will combat our ecological threats in the future by innovating to meet them as they arise, not through the mass fear stoked by worst-case scenarios.
|
|
The difference between fact ("the earth is round"), consensus ("the earth is flat") and manufactured consensus (cherry picking data to produce a "consensus" for the benefit of a few).
|
|
A good laymans explanation of how you're being lied to about climate.
|
|
A bit of signal in a world of noise.
|
|
In an unexpected turn of events, France accused itself of failing to meet climate change goals that were set in the accord signed in and named after its own capital city.
An administrative tribunal in Paris found France guilty of failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as mandated by the 2015 Paris Agreement. The court declared that the French government is guilty of inaction on the treaty and is therefore responsible for ecological damage.'
The French government later issued a statement saying that it's taken note of the court's ruling and will introduce a new climate bill to the parliament next month that should help speed France's compliance with the terms of the accord.
|
|
Public confidence in the AGW hypothesis eroded in proportion to the error in the models. Amusingly, as that error went up so did the confidence factor in them expressed by te PCC in the media.
|
|
Royal Society issues new climate change guide that admits there are 'uncertainties' about the science
By NIALL FIRTH FOR MAILONLINE
UPDATED: 07:26 GMT, 7 October 2010
|
Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century
Debate over what influence (if any) solar variability has had on surface air temperature trends since the 19th century has been controversial. In this paper, we consider two factors which may have contributed to this controversy: 1. Several different solar variability datasets exist. While each of these datasets is constructed on plausible grounds, they often imply contradictory estimates for the trends in solar activity since the 19th century. 2. Although attempts have been made to account for non-climatic biases in previous estimates of surface air temperature trends, recent research by two of the authors has shown that current estimates are likely still affected by non-climatic biases, particularly urbanization bias. With these points in mind, we first review the debate over solar variability. We summarise the points of general agreement between most groups and the aspects which still remain controversial. We discuss possible future research which may help resolve the controversy of these aspects. Then, in order to account for the problem of urbanization bias, we compile a new estimate of Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature trends since 1881, using records from predominantly rural stations in the monthly Global Historical Climatology Network dataset. Like previous weather station-based estimates, our new estimate suggests that surface air temperatures warmed during the 1880s–1940s and 1980s–2000s. However, this new estimate suggests these two warming periods were separated by a pronounced cooling period during the 1950s–1970s and that the relative warmth of the mid-20th century warm period was comparable to the recent warm period. We then compare our weather station-based temperature trend estimate to several other independent estimates. This new record is found to be consistent with estimates of Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature (SST) trends, as well as temperature proxy-based estimates derived from glacier length records and from tree ring widths. However, the multi-model means of the recent Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) climate model hindcasts were unable to adequately reproduce the new estimate — although the modelling of certain volcanic eruptions did seem to be reasonably well reproduced. Finally, we compare our new composite to one of the solar variability datasets not considered by the CMIP5 climate models, i.e., Scafetta and Willson, 2014's update to the Hoyt and Schatten, 1993 dataset. A strong correlation is found between these two datasets, implying that solar variability has been the dominant influence on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since at least 1881. We discuss the significance of this apparent correlation, and its implications for previous studies which have instead suggested that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide has been the dominant influence.
|
|
Dyson founded the field of climate science and "got out when money corrupted it". Currey is an IPCC contributor and an expert on arctic ice. Linzen has some good proofs while Spencer is a NASA climate scientist and professor.
|
|
Wikipedia article about scientists who oppose the mainstream assessment of global warming.
|
"NASA ignored the principlews of physicist and best scientific practice"
Nobel prize winner Richard Feynman stated that in the shuttle disaster hearings.
Here is the 1986 footage of the Challenger Shuttle Disaster and here is Feynman showing how NASA screwed up. Never mistake consensus for truth.
|
|
A article raised a furor when it was billed as a climate skeptic finally understood the truth. But that's not what happened at all.
|
|
Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name.
|
John Stossel sues Facebook over false "fact checking" of climatge posts.
According to Stossel’s lawsuit, in the past year he posted two short video reports on Facebook in which he “interviewed experts in the climate change arena.”
In one video, “Government Fueled Fires,” about the 2020 wildfires in California, Facebook and its fact-checking partners “falsely attributed to Stossel a claim he never made, and on that basis flagged the content as ‘misleading’ and ‘missing context,’ so that would-be viewers would be routed to the false attribution statement.” The complaint says that Stossel’s video “explored a scientific hypothesis” that “while climate change undoubtedly contributes to forest fires, it was not the primary cause of the 2020 California fires.” Per the suit, Stossel says he never made the claim that “Forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change,” which was in Facebook’s fact-check.
On the second video, “Are We Doomed?”, Facebook added a “partly false”/“factual inaccuracies” label. That video questioned claims made by those Stossel refers to as “environmental alarmists,” including “claims that hurricanes are getting stronger, that sea level rise poses a catastrophic threat, and that humans will be unable to cope with the fallout.” Stossel claims the Facebook fact-check didn’t actually challenge any facts in the video, and he argues that the company’s fact-check process “is nothing more than a pretext… to defame users with impunity, particularly when Defendants disagree with the scientific opinions expressed in user content.”
|
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.
|
Facebook suspends environmental groups despite vow to fight misinformation
Facebook blames mistake in system for restrictions on groups including Greenpeace USA
|
|
|
