By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers
Posted 01/05/2015 06:12 PM ET
'How many people do you want to kill or let die?" That's how I'm going to respond from now on to anyone who argues we should end or sharply restrict fossil fuel use to prevent global warming.
Arguing the science has no effect on global warming alarmists. They are immune to facts and stick to models and fallacious arguments from biased, unscientific authorities.
Climate models say temperatures should climb right along with the rise in CO2 emissions, yet emissions rose from the 1940s through the 1970s, when scientists were warning of a coming ice age. And for the past two decades, CO2 emissions have continued to rise while temperatures have been in a holding pattern for the past 18 years.
Models say we should see more intense hurricanes, yet for nearly a decade the U.S. has experienced below-average hurricanes making landfall, and they have been no more powerful than previously experienced.
Sea-level rise has slowed, polar bear numbers have increased, the Antarctic ice sheet has set new records for expansion month after month and even the Arctic is back to average ice levels for the decade.
None of these trends is consistent with models' predictions, yet alarmists ignore the facts because controlling human lives is their underlying goal, and their failed models are the only thing that enables them to claim disaster is in the offing if humans don't change their ways.
Global warming: 10 reasons to be sceptical
By Bryan Leyland and Professor Bob Carter
We are constantly told that man-made carbon dioxide has caused global warming that, in a few years, will bring doom and disaster. These predictions are largely based on the output of computer models, rather than observation of what is happening in the real world. My father always told me: “believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see”. It was good advice. One should always be sceptical and, in science, nothing is more important.
Here are 10 reasons why the public should be cautious of the hypothesis that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming.
1. The five internationally accepted temperature records – three surface and two satellite – show that the world has not experienced any significant warning over the last 18 years. At the same time atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 10%.
111 of the IPCCs 114 climate model runs failed to predict this lack of warming. In most branches of science, when the theoretical predictions do not line up with the observations, the hypothesis is abandoned. In climate science, the observations are discounted or ignored.
We can now be confident that man-made carbon dioxide does not cause dangerous global warming and that the predictions of computer models of the climate are worthless.
By Christopher Booker
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming.
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
In an effort to dupe more people into believing the climate change lie, the White House recently sent out invitations to people, encouraging them to contact the President's science adviser John Holdren with questions about climate change. What came as no surprise to me is the fact that Holdren has absolutely no background in weather or climate but is instead a staunch environmentalist whose primary concern since the 1970's has been curbing the world's population to protect the environment.
Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world's leading scientific organisation
- 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
Published: 18:37 EST, 14 March 2015 | Updated: 19:14 EST, 14 March 2015
Climate Boffins Target Depression
Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared by Viv Forbes and Supporters of The Carbon Sense Coalition.
Please pass on. We rely on our supporters to spread the word.
25 March 2014
To view a print friendly pdf of this newsletter with all images see:
Engineering the Emissions Target Depression.
The Climate Change Authority wants Australians to cut their production of carbon dioxide to 19% below 2000 levels by the year 2020.
The climate boffins should employ a demographer before they set such unrealistic goals.
The population of Australia in 2000 was about 19 million and it is now 23 million. By 2020 it will probably be over 25 million.
If Australia’s production of carbon dioxide was merely frozen at the 2000 level, that would require a 24% reduction per head of population by 2020.
If we add to that a real reduction in total emissions of 19% by 2020, emissions per capita would need to fall by 39% in just 6 years.
Even more unbelievable, China (supported by the UN/IPCC) thinks that developed countries “need to cut emissions by 40% from their 1990 levels by 2020”. This would require Australia’s per capita emissions to fall by 60% to just 40% of their 1990 levels. All achieved within the next six years.
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) to Issue Its Critique
of the United Nations’ IPCC Working Groups II and III Reports at National Press Club on April 9
What: Breakfast press conference with authors and reviewers of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, and Climate Change Reconsidered II: Human Welfare, Energy, and Policies
When: Wednesday, April 9, 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Where: National Press Club, Bloomberg Room, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC
Who: Joseph Bast, president, The Heartland Institute; Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia; Dr. Craig D. Idso, founder, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and others to be announced.
An international panel of climate scientists and economists will release a massive new report April 9 that finds the benefits of global warming “greatly exceed any plausible estimate of its costs.” The new report, the second and third volumes of Climate Change Reconsidered II, were produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and published by The Heartland Institute.
The new report summarizes scholarly research published as recently as January 2014 on the impacts, costs, and benefits of climate change. Hefty chapters summarize thousands of peer-reviewed studies of the impact of rising levels of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas produced during the burning of fossil fuels – on plants and soils, agriculture, forests, wildlife, ocean life, and humankind.