Climate shocker: Carry on as we are until 2050, planet will be FINE

Posted on Saturday, 26 January 2013 11:11:01 a.m. by Da Bilge Troll

Doubled CO2 means just 1.9°C warming, says Norwegian gov

New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as "truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper safe limit of 2°C for many decades.

“In our project we have worked on finding out the overall effect of all known feedback mechanisms,” says project manager Terje Berntsen, who is a professor at the University of Oslo’s Department of Geosciences and a senior research fellow at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO).

“We used a method that enables us to view the entire earth as one giant ‘laboratory’ where humankind has been conducting a collective experiment through our emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, deforestation, and other activities that affect climate.”

"Fake But Accurate" Science

by Robert Tracinski- February 29, 2012

For years, we've been lectured at by the global warming establishment about how anyone who doubts them is an enemy of science. One of them in particular, a fellow named Peter Gleick who was the chair of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics, kept lecturing us about how much more scientific integrity the warmists have compared to us unscrupulous skeptics.

Well, now we know what the "scientific ethics" of this global warming establishment actually amounts to. It's not just that Gleick has confessed to stealing internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a think tank that supports global warming skepticism, or that he is suspected of forging another document in an attempt to defame Heartland. It's the fact that a whole section of the scientific establishment is defending Gleick on the grounds that it's OK to lie to promote their cause.

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now?

By David Rose  13 January 2013

Last year The Mail on Sunday reported a stunning fact: that global warming had ‘paused’ for 16 years. The Met Office’s own monthly figures showed there had been no statistically significant increase in the world’s temperature since 1997.

We were vilified. One Green website in the US said our report was ‘utter bilge’ that had to be ‘exposed and attacked’.

The Met Office issued a press release claiming it was misleading, before quietly admitting a few days later that it was true that the world had not got significantly warmer since 1997 after all. A Guardian columnist wondered how we could be ‘punished’.

But then last week, the rest of the media caught up with our report. On Tuesday, news finally broke of a revised Met Office ‘decadal forecast’, which not only acknowledges the pause, but predicts it will continue at least until 2017. It says world temperatures are likely to stay around 0.43 degrees above the long-term average – as by then they will have done for 20 years.

Climate and energy policy in perspective

Scientific Alliance in the UK, by its director Martin Livermore:

14 December 2012

Not surprisingly, perhaps, no big new issues have come to the top of the environmental agenda in the last year. Climate change remains the key issue which has dominated thinking for the 21st Century so far. However, the Copenhagen COP15 summit in 2009 arguably marked the high-water level of momentum on mitigation efforts. After the failure to make any substantive progress on agreeing a post-Kyoto settlement, succeeding conferences in Cancun, Durban and Doha have received fairly low-key coverage in the media and expectations remain low.

Activists have tried for some time to put forward lurid visions of a planet nearing the point of no return and committed to temperature rises of several degrees, bringing catastrophe to both the human race and many of the other species we share the Earth with. They realise that there is only a certain window of opportunity to embed new opinions in people’s minds and generate a groundswell of backing for action to be taken. It takes time to get to that position and, once the momentum begins to fade, it is pretty much impossible to revive it.

The Difference Between Engineers And Scientists ... cientists/

Engineers in industry know that their continued employment depends on being brutally honest and accurate. When engineering fails, there is no place to hide.

Scientist’s employment has different challenges. They have to convince politicians that they should receive money for their research. The easiest way to do this is by hypothesizing about future potential disasters. The global warming gravy train has been the most reliable ever, and honesty and accuracy got crushed on the tracks sometime around the year 2000.

The vast majority of “climate change scientists” have no marketable or useful skills. For people in that position, honesty and accuracy are irrelevant. It is all about survival of their pay check, not survival of the planet.

Junk Science Week: Money corrupts peer-review process

Government cash ­influences the process

The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has referred to its work as the gold standard, based on its oft-made claim that it only surveys work published in peer-reviewed professional research papers.

Interestingly, Albert Einstein’s famous 1905 paper on relativity was not peer-reviewed. It is therefore quite clear that peer-review is not a precondition for excellent, indeed epoch-making, scientific research.

So what is a peer-reviewed (also termed refereed) research paper?

Peer-review is a technique of quality control for scientific papers that emerged slowly through the 20th century, only achieving a dominant influence in science after the Second World War. The process works like this. A potential scientific author conducts research, writes a paper on his or her results and submits the paper to a professional journal that represents the specialist field of science in question.

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

H.E. Ban Ki-Moon,
United Nations
First Avenue and East 44th Street,
New York,

November 29, 2012

Mr. Secretary-General:

On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”

On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”

The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.

UN Summit: Transforming Your Kids into “Climate Change Agents”

by William F Jasper    6 December 2012

Do your children (or grandchildren) have nightmares about the Earth melting or exploding due to human-caused global warming? Do they believe they have no future because our planet is dying, the icecaps and glaciers are melting, the sea levels are rising, islands and coastal areas are disappearing, polar bears and children are drowning, plant and animal species are rapidly going extinct, and extreme weather will soon make human life unbearable, if not impossible? 

Frightening, not Enlightening

Fear of an impending Climate Apocalypse apparently afflicts millions of children and adolescents worldwide, according to news stories in the mainstream media over the past few years (see hereherehere, and here).

Psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers, and parents report that many children are depressed and fearful, have difficulty sleeping, and believe it is pointless to study or plan a career, since there is little hope for a livable future. As a result, many are experiencing serious psychological and physical health issues. This should not surprise anyone, considering that hundreds of millions of students have been captive audiences for Al Gore’s “documentary,” An Inconvenient Truth, (with many of them being subjected to multiple classroom showings) and other similar fare. After being continuously marinated in climate-change K-12 indoctrination in almost every subject area, it is little wonder that many kids suffer from depression and anxiety.

To Stop Climate Change, Students Aim at College Portfolios




SWARTHMORE, Pa. — A group of Swarthmore College students is asking the school administration to take a seemingly simple step to combat pollution and climate change: sell off the endowment’s holdings in large fossil fuel companies. For months, they have been getting a simple answer: no.

As they consider how to ratchet up their campaign, the students suddenly find themselves at the vanguard of a national movement.

In recent weeks, college students on dozens of campuses have demanded that university endowment funds rid themselves of coal, oil and gas stocks. The students see it as a tactic that could force climate change, barely discussed in the presidential campaign, back onto the national political agenda.

“We’ve reached this point of intense urgency that we need to act on climate change now, but the situation is bleaker than it’s ever been from a political perspective,” said William Lawrence, a Swarthmore senior from East Lansing, Mich.

The dead DOHA duck... and what it means, politically.

report on Doha from Jo Nova

Doha: dead- Kyoto: kaput, but NGO's win anyway (?)

How is Doha going? (Where was that, again?)

The Indians have gone home, The Chinese are being told off. Nobody else is very interested, except developing nations looking for a hand-out. The Australians already agreed to everything whatever it is. (Great negotiation ploy by our Labour Government that.) The EU wants to do what it’s already doing.

Mike Haseler at the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum says it’s all over, bar the shouting. Kyoto ends on December 31, and there is no treaty to replace it, and there can be no ratified treaty by Jan 1.

“Contrary to what many green NGOs are saying, the Kyoto commitment to CO2 reduction will cease effect on the 31st December. This is because the treaty requires amendments to be ratified well before they come into effect (by 3rd October). It took some 4 years for a quorum of countries to ratify Kyoto. Even if there were total agreement at Doha on any amendment (there isn’t) the earliest change to Kyoto is 2015. Without agreement the earliest if there were agreement at the end of next year is that a change to the Kyoto Commitment could come into force in 2016."

Syndicate content