|
120 years of climate scares
|
CNN Wraps up Climate (and Pharma) divisions.
"Staffers are shocked, as the health department is considered successful and CNN recently declared that no layoffs were imminent.
“There are no mass layoffs at CNN. I have no idea where that crazy rumor came from. We have recently offered a voluntary buyout option for employees, and just over 100 people voluntarily decided to take it. That's it,” executive vice president Allison Gollust told Fox News on May 7. “We have nearly 4,000 people at CNN… and around 100 of them exercised the option for a program that was offered. That's it. Those are the facts.”
Despite CNN’s denial, staffers have been worried about potential layoffs since rumors began surfacing.
“CNN’s Southeast Bureau in Atlanta, CNN Health and CNN Climate will now be under one leadership, something that was not the case before,” Katz said.
TVNewser, a media watchdog site started by CNN’s Brian Stelter, managed to get confirmation from the network -- just in time for a Friday news dump.
“As part of the normal course of business, our newsgathering team made a small restructure earlier this week that ultimately impacts 6-7 employees within CNN’s Health Unit,” a CNN spokesperson told TVNewser’s A.J. Katz.
The more than 100 CNN employees who decided to accept a voluntary buyout option included CNN International executive vice president Tony Maddox, who left the ratings-challenged network after 21 years.
|
IPCC releases a new report based on a retracted paper.
Via Retraction Watch:
A major new report about the dramatic warming of the oceans cites a 2018 Nature paper on the topic that was retracted earlier this week.
What makes the flawed citation more remarkable is that researchers have been aware of errors in the analysis for more than 10 months. As has been reported, almost immediately after publication of the paper, concerns that eventually prompted the retraction.
Full story at Retraction Watch Did the IPCC’s new oceans report mean to cite a now-retracted paper?
|
World has six months to avert climate crisis, says energy expert
The world has only six months in which to change the course of the climate crisis and prevent a post-lockdown rebound in greenhouse gas emissions that would overwhelm efforts to stave off climate catastrophe, one of the world’s foremost energy experts has warned.
“This year is the last time we have, if we are not to see a carbon rebound,” said Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency.
Governments are planning to spend $9tn (£7.2tn) globally in the next few months on rescuing their economies from the coronavirus crisis, the IEA has calculated. The stimulus packages created this year will determine the shape of the global economy for the next three years, according to Birol, and within that time emissions must start to fall sharply and permanently, or climate targets will be out of reach.
|
Why you look foolish when you say "97% of the world's..."
Never mistake consensus for truth.
Executive summary
The IPCC wanted to show all its contributors endorsed the IPCC conclusions, but the problem is they didn't at all. So a grad student and her thesis advisor - associate professor Peter Dolan tried to prove they did. Using a list of 10,000 scientists they threw 7000 away who might potentially disagree with the IPCC summary, only to find not as many as hoped endorsed it (~80%). After several sessions of removing disagreeing members, 77 people were identified as "proper" respondents and 75 of them believe the AGW hypothesis.
So, 75 scientists (97.4%) agree with the IPCC and 99.97 of the worlds scientists disagree with them.
How much does it actually matter that some people will say this is "warming" ?
Now, how does this compare to what the models said would happen in this century?
|
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
How the number was derived.
|
CBC admits it wrongly reported hyped-up insurance 'climate risks'
Ombudsman said CBC 'failed to comply with journalistic standards' in assessing and reporting on the industry’s claims
February 1, 2019
On Wednesday, the CBC published corrections to its reports. “The ombudsman,” said the CBC correction, “has ruled in favour of the complainant. Certain statements relating to rainfall amounts and the so-called 100-year events deemed to be inaccurate or irrelevant to the story have been removed and/or replaced. Information from Environment Canada has been added to indicate their statistics show no increase in rainfall or extreme rain events beyond ‘normal’ variations … These changes to the original story have been made on Jan. 29, 2019 to comply with the ombudsman’s decision.”
There are many angles to the ombudsman’s report. The ombudsman makes it clear that he is not passing judgment on the fundamental accuracy of any of the claims. His issue is with the CBC’s failure to report the other side of the story.
|
|
Piers Corbyn asks what happened to the 62% of temperature reporting stations whose data is not being used and points out not one of the global warming predictions have as of yet come true.
|
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
|
Did exaggerated records make global warming look worse? Scientists to investigate whether 'adjusted' temperatures skewed data
An international panel of scientists will today launch a major inquiry to discover whether official world temperature records have exaggerated the extent of global warming.
|
Ocean temperature measurments are wrong
The automated robots that measure ocean temperature don't mafh more accurate measurements taken by passing ships with specially calibrated highly accurate instruments. It's not one or two, it's systematic.
|
|
The [Australian] Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming. Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science.
|
There is no global 'temperature'
"But last summer I was found out in Santa Fe. It happened at a climate research conference, where I was invited to speak on another topic. At the conference dinner, one participant stood up and exposed my global temperature denial. The room erupted into chaos. I started eyeing the exits and sinking under the table. I imagined there were calls for a rope, as the crowd of scientists seemed to teeter toward becoming a lynch mob.
But my fears were not realized. It wasn't the Wild West after all. The crowd settled and a scientist at my table asked me why I objected to global temperature. I replied minimally, "on physical grounds." To my surprise, my interrogator simply nodded and accepted the explanation. He obviously knew the physics. However, he said, "but an average over temperatures is OK to use as an 'index,' isn't it?"
"Well, er, yes. I suppose it's OK," I replied. But if increasing temperature means "warming," what does increasing "index" mean? Global "indexing"?
My dark secret needs little explanation for thermodynamically minded people. For them, it is really quite simple: The Earth is not in "thermodynamic equilibrium," so there is no single temperature for the whole thing. No statistical hocus pocus can change that. However, global warming proponents and skeptics alike have been very busy averaging temperature data, unsupervised, on an industrial scale for years.
A few years earlier, after a lecture on averaging temperatures for climate purposes, I questioned the statistician who made the presentation. What do his averages mean in terms of physics, I asked, given that averaging temperatures is not physical. Apparently no one had asked him that before.
Many people think that you can make sense out of an average of anything at all. My usual reply is to ask what an average over telephone numbers means. Temperature is like that. When averaged, it does not produce an actual temperature of anything, any more than an average over telephone numbers must be a callable number, let alone a number you might care to call."
-Christopher Essex is professor of applied mathematics and director of program in theoretical physics at University of Western Ontario, and co-author of Taken by Storm: the Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.
essex at uwo.ca
|
In the climate debate, hear both sides
"...the questions whether all other things are equal, and how much warming our sins of emission may cause, and whether the cost of mitigation today is less than that of adaptation the day after tomorrow, are by no means settled."
|
|
They're liars. Here's how and why.
|
The same data now, used to show "warming", was once used to show cooling.
Thermometers Show That The US Has Been Cooling For Nearly A Century. Also mentined in The Telegraph
|
The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria
We must correct the political culture that funds all this wasteful climate research.
|
|
“Fiddling temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever,” says Christopher Booker, not pulling his punches. And I think he’s right not to do so. If – as Booker, myself, and few others suspect – the guardians of the world’s land-based temperature records have been adjusting the raw data in order to exaggerate “global warming” then this is indeed a crime against the scientific method unparalleled in history.
|
How the press got this so wrong.
NYTimes:
"California Braces for Unending Drought"
UNENDING.
"LOS ANGELES — With California entering its fifth year of a statewide drought, Gov. Jerry Brown moved on Monday to impose permanent water conservation measures and called on water suppliers to prepare for a future made drier by climate change."
Then USA Today ran this:
"Causes of Calif. drought natural, not man-made: NOAA
Which one is the reliable newspaper?
"You won't believe what happens next! More after the jump..."
|
|
Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.
|
|
This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.
Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).
So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ?
|
Facebook admits in court that its "fact checkers" are not factual, but actually editorial opinion.
Journalist John Stossel sued Facebook after Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ labeled climate change information that Stossel posted as “false and misleading”.
In its response to Stossel’s defamation claim, Facebook responds on Page 2, Line 8 in the court document that Facebook cannot be sued for defamation (which is making a false and harmful assertion) because its ‘fact checks’ are mere statements of opinion rather than factual assertions.
Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook’s complaint is,
“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”
|
One of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
11 February 2015 - 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
|
Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play for Green Money
"The biggest player in the beleaguered nuclear power industry wants a place alongside solar, wind and hydroelectric power collecting extra money for producing carbon-free electricity.
Exelon Corp., operator of the largest fleet of U.S. nuclear plants, says it could have to close three of them if Illinois rejects the company's pitch to let it recoup more from consumers since the plants do not produce greenhouse gases."
Who do you think funds the daily barrage of science denial that pretends it's still warming?
|
The triumph ofr rhetoric over facts
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday at age 87, helped establish critical Supreme Court precedent that empowered EPA to address the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
Until the Daily Mail flipped in 2016 an odd situation existed with the Daily Mail publishing correct data from NASA and ws honest about the decline in early 21st century temperature while The Guardian lied through it's collective teeth many times a day.
|
|
Paid PR flak. Nothing more. Left NASA to "spend more time with his family".
|
Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming?
Posted on June 4, 2015 | 802 Comments
by Judith Curry
A new blockbuster paper published today by NOAA:
These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.
`
Color me ‘unconvinced.’
|
|
They recently made a big fuss that July 2012 was the hottest July on recored - but it wasn't, July 1936 was.
|
|
"I think it is plucked out of thin air."
|
Rupert Murdoch's son James forced out over "Climate Denial"
I don't like the Murdochs. I don't like their papers. However, to be fired for not believing a falsehood is patently and utterly absurd.
|
|
The good science NASA does is relayed to the public by the biggest pack of liars round. Here's some examples of how they distorted the evidence to mean the opposite to fit somebody's commercial agenda.
|
NOAA data brougt into question
The lack of any global warming after 1998 has been erroneously referred to as "the pause" in global warming which implies it's real and will keep going.
The problem is it didn't. After the hottest year in 1998, it not only stopped getting warmer but each year was colder than the previous until 2009 and in 2010 it was warmer but not as warm as 1998 which no year in the twentieth century has been so far.
The amount of data that was fudged is epic and began with the original models the IPCC policy is made from - NASA pointed out they forgot trees in their CO2 models and Dyson, who founded the field pointed out they left out clouds and accused them of "fudging" their data.
The current mess is about one set of ocean measurements, and never mind that Dyson, the greatest living mathematician has pointed out you can't actually take a measurement of "the ocean"- we have but a few small samples of surface readings. There are problems, coincidentally, with both the land based and sea based probes being off by a couple of degrees and from these the NOAA claims to have produced precise results in the hundredths of a degree.
The problem is the math doesn't hold up.
|
|
"snowless winters by 2000"
|
|
A new paper published in PNAS finds an astonishing deficiency and major false assumption of climate models, which has major implications for Arctic and global warming/climate change, the Earth's energy budget, and which is also another nail in the coffin for the overheated and falsified IPCC climate models. IMHO, it is effectively a death knell to conventional climate models and their projections, as well as the attribution statement of the IPCC based upon such models and blaming allegedly "more than 100%" of global warming on man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The authors state climate models falsely assume water (71% of Earth's surface) is 100% efficient in emitting (and absorbing) far-infrared energy, but instead find "that is not the case," and that this discovery is allegedly a "previously unknown phenomenon."
|
|
UN and Oxfam caught in "funded journalism" project which was non factual.
|
All Of Paraguay’s Temperature Record Has Been Tampered With
These warming adjustments have taken place at every single, currently operational site in Paraguay.
|
List of failed alarmist predictions
|
|
2021 was an El Nina year, this weather phenomena spurred the UN to again proclaim the sky was falling, which they also did in 1989 - when not one of their predictions came true.
|
124 years of failed climate predictions
Notable quotes.
|
Der Spiegel Slams IPCC Lead Author Rahmstorf: “Scandal Surrounds German Government Climate Advisor”
Journalist Irene Meichsner wrote a critical report about the IPCC, which appeared in the Frankfurter Rundschau daily, to which Rahmstorf reacted quite nastily. He asserted at his blog that the journalist had been dishonest, sloppy, had never read the IPCC report, and that she even lifted text from another source (Richard North and Jonathan Leake). For a journalist, such accusations are of course career threatening and thus deadly serious.
Meichsner didn’t stand for it, took the case to court, and won.
The Original text of the Court Judgement and coverage in Der Spiegel
|
|
Jeff Sessions asks EPA director to explain difference between modeled and measured temperature and can not.
|
|
At the paint ages ground weathers stations read high, by twice the amount the IPCC is alarmed about over a 100 year span.
|
Warming is ok as long as you don't know math.
"The last time we had this discussion was 2013, remember? Before that it was 2010. Before that it was 2005, and everything started with the Super El Nino in 1998. Statistically, saying that 2014 was the hottest year ever is a very valid thing, and if you understand statistics, I am envious of you."
They actually said this. Here's NASA saying the same thing but without the WHAT WIZARDRY IS THIS?!?! about the math.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2241/
February 23, 2015 - "The past year was the warmest year on record, though their analysis has 2014 in a virtual tie with 2005 and 2010. "
When several years all tie for the warmest year it means temperature isn't increasing.
You can use your best crayons to prove this to yourself, easily.
|
Everywhere on earth is warming twice as fast as the global average
|
1936 was the hottest July on record, not 2012
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.
This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.
“Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States,” Watts wrote. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.”
"It violates the Data Quality Act.”
|
"Global warming is not starting these fires"
PG&E violated its felony probation.
January 31, 2019 - SAN FRANCISCO — A day after PG&E filed for bankruptcy protection from what could be multi-billion dollar wildfire liability costs, a federal judge Wednesday declared the beleaguered utility in violation of its probation for the 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion and spent three hours excoriating the company for its role in the blazes that have ravaged Northern California over the past two years.
"You’ve got to be on your absolute best behavior — no more crimes"
"Those fires killed 22 people, burned alive in their cars and homes"
"There is one clear pattern here: PG&E is starting these fires. Global warming is not starting these fires"
"Should I let you keep killing people?"
"Does a judge turn a blind eye and let PG&E continue what you’re doing, let you keep killing people?"
"Can’t we have electricity that is delivered safely in this state?"
"In two years, 3 percent of California burned up"
|
|
|
