Delingpole: Climate Mafia Caught Tampering With Evidence Again…
ATTILA KISBENEDEK/AFP/Getty
by JAMES DELINGPOLE5 Jul 201721
If you want to know what’s really going on with global warming watch this video by Tony Heller.
It’s called The Ministry of Climate Truth – Erasing The Satellite Data and tells a story so shameful that if the mainstream media ever did their job, none of the shysters involved would ever be able to show their heads in public again.
Essentially, it’s about how the alarmist science community – the Climate Mafia, if you will – bullied a science data gatekeeper into tampering with the evidence in order to suit their criminal agenda.
One day, the data showed mild warming. The next – hey presto! – it showed dramatically increased warming.
Here is the before:
Here is the after…
This is #fakenews on stilts. Most fake news generators content themselves with making up stories that just aren’t true. But the Climate Mafia doesn’t mess around with mere lies: it actually goes a step further by tampering with the nature of reality itself…
Here’s how the Climate Mafia are boasting about their victory in one of their online propaganda journals.
This story would definitely be huge if true because the satellite temperature datasets are one of the main pieces of evidence used by climate skeptics to support their argument that the whole global warming scare has been overdone. Because satellites show much less global warming than the surface temperature datasets it supports the skeptics’ longstanding contentions that
a) the surface temperature datasets have been adjusted – aka rigged – to the point of meaninglessness by corrupt scientists
b) dramatic warming isn’t actually happening. It has just been made to look that way by people with a vested interest in promoting the AGW scam.
So what reason do we have to doubt the word of the expert responsible for these adjustments, a guy by the name of Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)?
After all, it’s not like he didn’t provide a plausible-looking scientific justification for it all.
“Correcting for problems caused by the decaying of satellites.” Yup. We’ve all been there haven’t we? One minute you’re heading innocently down Highway One to look at the cute sea otters, the next you’ve somehow strayed over the Niagara Falls. Your stupid satnav failed to take those pesky “problems caused by the decaying of satellites” into account. And until now, no scientist was clever enough to notice…
Well it is a possibility, I suppose.
But as Tony Heller points out there are several good reasons why there’s a distinctive rat-like smell about the whole enterprise.
One is that this exactly what Heller predicted two years ago would happen:
Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.
UAH, by the way, refers to University of Alabama, Huntsville – which is the only other satellite temperature gatekeeper (and, as of this week, the only credible one) in the world run by two skeptics John Christy and Roy Spencer. The reason they are skeptics is because the data they maintain gives them good reason to be skeptical: viz, while the (heavily-adjusted) surface temperature data sets show dramatic warming, their (more reliable) satellite data does not.
Marvel for yourself at the divergence:
Now do you understand why the Climate Mafia were so keen to nobble those pesky satellites? They weren’t telling the right lies.
OK. So we’ve established a motive. But that still doesn’t necessarily prove that a crime has been committed. How do we know for certain that the surface temperature datasets aren’t a more accurate gauge of global warming and that – therefore – Carl Mears’s adjustments aren’t a fair representation of reality?
Well, here’s a massive clue:
Here is the December 2016 global climate record according to NOAA based on their surface “measurements”.
Note how one of the places showing unusual warming – “record warmest” no less – is in Central Africa.
Yet, by spooky coincidence, this is also one of the places where there are ZERO thermometer readings.
Can you imagine a more brazen piece of fabrication than that? NOAA – and NASA which uses the same data – are quite literally making up their own climate evidence.
(Oh and by the way – check for yourself at Real Climate Science – the satellites show no anomalous warming in Central Africa in December ’16)
But there’s one more major giveaway which gives us cause to doubt RSS’s sudden shift on climate change: the fact that before making these apparently necessary adjustments, Carl Mears didn’t get his paper peer-reviewed by the two people in the world most qualified to assess it: John Christy and Roy Spencer.
What we have here, in other words, is #fakenews on stilts. Most fake news generators content themselves with making up stories that just aren’t true. But the Climate Mafia doesn’t mess around with mere lies: it actually goes a step further by tampering with the nature of reality itself…
Why did Mears cave? Because that’s the nature of Groupthink. If you don’t pay lip service to the Green Goddess, you are ostracised as a heretic – so it’s much easier to play along for a quiet life.
Why don’t more people know about the scale of the fraud going on in climate science right now?
Probably because it’s so epic and brazen it seems just too implausible to be credible.
That’s the bad news.
The good news is that one of the people who does know what it is go on – I don’t know who is briefing him but whoever it is is so on point he could be me – is Donald Trump.
And his administration isn’t going to take any prisoners…
3075
by JAMES DELINGPOLE5 Jul 201721
If you want to know what’s really going on with global warming watch this video by Tony Heller.
It’s called The Ministry of Climate Truth – Erasing The Satellite Data and tells a story so shameful that if the mainstream media ever did their job, none of the shysters involved would ever be able to show their heads in public again.
Essentially, it’s about how the alarmist science community – the Climate Mafia, if you will – bullied a science data gatekeeper into tampering with the evidence in order to suit their criminal agenda.
One day, the data showed mild warming. The next – hey presto! – it showed dramatically increased warming.
Here is the before:
Here is the after…
This is #fakenews on stilts. Most fake news generators content themselves with making up stories that just aren’t true. But the Climate Mafia doesn’t mess around with mere lies: it actually goes a step further by tampering with the nature of reality itself…
Here’s how the Climate Mafia are boasting about their victory in one of their online propaganda journals.
Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.
This story would definitely be huge if true because the satellite temperature datasets are one of the main pieces of evidence used by climate skeptics to support their argument that the whole global warming scare has been overdone. Because satellites show much less global warming than the surface temperature datasets it supports the skeptics’ longstanding contentions that
a) the surface temperature datasets have been adjusted – aka rigged – to the point of meaninglessness by corrupt scientists
b) dramatic warming isn’t actually happening. It has just been made to look that way by people with a vested interest in promoting the AGW scam.
So what reason do we have to doubt the word of the expert responsible for these adjustments, a guy by the name of Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)?
After all, it’s not like he didn’t provide a plausible-looking scientific justification for it all.
“Correcting for problems caused by the decaying of satellites.” Yup. We’ve all been there haven’t we? One minute you’re heading innocently down Highway One to look at the cute sea otters, the next you’ve somehow strayed over the Niagara Falls. Your stupid satnav failed to take those pesky “problems caused by the decaying of satellites” into account. And until now, no scientist was clever enough to notice…
Well it is a possibility, I suppose.
But as Tony Heller points out there are several good reasons why there’s a distinctive rat-like smell about the whole enterprise.
One is that this exactly what Heller predicted two years ago would happen:
Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.
UAH, by the way, refers to University of Alabama, Huntsville – which is the only other satellite temperature gatekeeper (and, as of this week, the only credible one) in the world run by two skeptics John Christy and Roy Spencer. The reason they are skeptics is because the data they maintain gives them good reason to be skeptical: viz, while the (heavily-adjusted) surface temperature data sets show dramatic warming, their (more reliable) satellite data does not.
Marvel for yourself at the divergence:
Now do you understand why the Climate Mafia were so keen to nobble those pesky satellites? They weren’t telling the right lies.
OK. So we’ve established a motive. But that still doesn’t necessarily prove that a crime has been committed. How do we know for certain that the surface temperature datasets aren’t a more accurate gauge of global warming and that – therefore – Carl Mears’s adjustments aren’t a fair representation of reality?
Well, here’s a massive clue:
Here is the December 2016 global climate record according to NOAA based on their surface “measurements”.
Note how one of the places showing unusual warming – “record warmest” no less – is in Central Africa.
Yet, by spooky coincidence, this is also one of the places where there are ZERO thermometer readings.
Can you imagine a more brazen piece of fabrication than that? NOAA – and NASA which uses the same data – are quite literally making up their own climate evidence.
(Oh and by the way – check for yourself at Real Climate Science – the satellites show no anomalous warming in Central Africa in December ’16)
But there’s one more major giveaway which gives us cause to doubt RSS’s sudden shift on climate change: the fact that before making these apparently necessary adjustments, Carl Mears didn’t get his paper peer-reviewed by the two people in the world most qualified to assess it: John Christy and Roy Spencer.
What we have here, in other words, is #fakenews on stilts. Most fake news generators content themselves with making up stories that just aren’t true. But the Climate Mafia doesn’t mess around with mere lies: it actually goes a step further by tampering with the nature of reality itself…
Why did Mears cave? Because that’s the nature of Groupthink. If you don’t pay lip service to the Green Goddess, you are ostracised as a heretic – so it’s much easier to play along for a quiet life.
Why don’t more people know about the scale of the fraud going on in climate science right now?
Probably because it’s so epic and brazen it seems just too implausible to be credible.
That’s the bad news.
The good news is that one of the people who does know what it is go on – I don’t know who is briefing him but whoever it is is so on point he could be me – is Donald Trump.
And his administration isn’t going to take any prisoners…
[ No surprise here, but it won't stop the scumfucks from pushing their global scam ]
[h=1]DELINGPOLE: ‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds[/h]
FRANCOIS GUILLOT/AFP/Getty Images
by JAMES DELINGPOLE9 Jul 20171,778
[h=2]Much of recent global warming has been fabricated by climate scientists to make it look more frightening, a study has found.[/h]The peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician looked at the global average temperature datasets (GAST) which are used by climate alarmists to argue that recent years have been “the hottest evah” and that the warming of the last 120 years has been dramatic and unprecedented.
What they found is that these readings are “totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
That is, the adjusted data used by alarmist organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office differs so markedly from the original raw data that it cannot be trusted.
This chart gives you a good idea of the direction of the adjustments.
The blue bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted downwards to make it cooler; the red bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted upwards to make it warmer.
Note how most of the downward adjustments take place in the early twentieth century and most of the upward take place in the late twentieth century.
According to meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso, this has the effect of exaggerating the warming trend:
[h=1]DELINGPOLE: ‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds[/h]
30162
34
by JAMES DELINGPOLE9 Jul 20171,778
[h=2]Much of recent global warming has been fabricated by climate scientists to make it look more frightening, a study has found.[/h]The peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician looked at the global average temperature datasets (GAST) which are used by climate alarmists to argue that recent years have been “the hottest evah” and that the warming of the last 120 years has been dramatic and unprecedented.
What they found is that these readings are “totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
That is, the adjusted data used by alarmist organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office differs so markedly from the original raw data that it cannot be trusted.
This chart gives you a good idea of the direction of the adjustments.
The blue bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted downwards to make it cooler; the red bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted upwards to make it warmer.
Note how most of the downward adjustments take place in the early twentieth century and most of the upward take place in the late twentieth century.
According to meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso, this has the effect of exaggerating the warming trend:
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments.”
“Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened.”
What this means, the report concludes, is that claims by NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office that the world is experiencing unprecedented and dramatic warming should be taken with a huge pinch of salt: they all use the same corrupted global average temperature (GAST) data.“Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened.”
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming.
July 13, 2017
The avalanche begins: Turkey dumps Paris Accord following u.S.
By Monica Showalter
Everyone knows a scam when they see one. President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord, and within about a month, Turkey was right on our heels, scrapping its role in the pact right behind us. They didn't want to be another pillar in some fake global warming establishment myth that would ruin their economy and empower eurocrats, just so wealthy greenie hipsters in the West can feel good about themselves.
“After that step taken by America, the position that we adopt is in the direction of not passing it in parliament,” he told the press Saturday at the end of the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany.
Despite the fact that every other leader but Trump signed on to summit’s final statement asserting “the Paris agreement is irreversible,” Erdoğan said some of those countries had a “problem” with the accord and are “not renewing their support.”
Notice that in their case, with the U.S. pullout, it's a case of the gravy train shutting down. Under the original pact, President Obama pledged $2 billion to third world countries as part of the deal. Well, now that the money's run out, there's no reason to hang around.
Basically, the avalanche begins.
And what I forecast the day the pact was dumped.
Which means, now's a good time to look for the London bookies to start setting up betting pools.
In my earlier piece, I wrote:
arty:
The avalanche begins: Turkey dumps Paris Accord following u.S.
By Monica Showalter
Everyone knows a scam when they see one. President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord, and within about a month, Turkey was right on our heels, scrapping its role in the pact right behind us. They didn't want to be another pillar in some fake global warming establishment myth that would ruin their economy and empower eurocrats, just so wealthy greenie hipsters in the West can feel good about themselves.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said on Saturday that Turkey will not be ratifying the Paris climate accord, citing President Donald Trump’s decision to abandon the deal.
“After that step taken by America, the position that we adopt is in the direction of not passing it in parliament,” he told the press Saturday at the end of the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany.
Despite the fact that every other leader but Trump signed on to summit’s final statement asserting “the Paris agreement is irreversible,” Erdoğan said some of those countries had a “problem” with the accord and are “not renewing their support.”
Notice that in their case, with the U.S. pullout, it's a case of the gravy train shutting down. Under the original pact, President Obama pledged $2 billion to third world countries as part of the deal. Well, now that the money's run out, there's no reason to hang around.
Basically, the avalanche begins.
And what I forecast the day the pact was dumped.
Which means, now's a good time to look for the London bookies to start setting up betting pools.
In my earlier piece, I wrote:
Meanwhile, this comes against a backdrop of ongoing climate skepticism. Officials from the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Australia, and the oil-rich Arab states have openly questioned global warming in the past. While any pullout depends on who gets elected to office, the reality is there that many officials want nothing to do with this economy-killing pact. As for China and India, sure, they want the pact – so long as they never have to produce any results.
So who will the next exit candidate be? We have got the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Australia, the Gulf states and from the TPM account, we can add Russia. Care to take bets as to when the next one will bail?
arty:And yet the climate scammers persist...
Gore compares climate fight to slavery, gay rights & apartheid at Aussie summit
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJuly 13, 2017 12:32 AM with 0 comments
MELBOURNE, Australia — Former Vice President Al Gore likened the battle against “global warming” to previous social causes. Gore spoke to the EcoCity World Summit in Melbourne Australia on July 13th. The conference is being held from July 12-14.
“The abolition of slavery, woman’s suffrage and women’s rights, the civil rights movement and the anti apartheid movement in South Africa, the movement to stop the toxic phase of nuclear arms race and more recently the gay rights movement,” Gore said. “All these movements have one thing in common. they were all met with ferocious resistance,” Gore said on July 13th during his talk to the conference in Melbourne. (Full Transcript of Al Gore’s Speech to Australian Climate Summit)
Gore sang the praises of fossil fuels during his speech. “Must we change? We have had tremendous benefits from our reliance on fossil fuels. Poverty has declined, living standards have increased and we still depend on them for more than 80% of world’s energy,” Gore opened his talk stating. But then he again added, “Must we change?”
Gore’s answer was yes — we must change and he spent the remainder of his talk on showing the alleged negative impacts of carbon dioxide’s impact on the climate. Gore’s talk featured bad weather stills and videos from around the world from floods to typhoons to heat waves and wild fires and blamed them on rising CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. (Climate Depot Note: Blaming extreme weather on “climate change” is not supported by evidence.)
Climate Depot has repeatedly debunked Gore’s climate claims, most recently here: Gore admits Paris pact symbolic – Makes incorrect claims about Greenland, sea levels & extreme weather on Fox News And here: Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims And Here Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit
Gore also touted his participation in the People’s Climate March in Washington DC last April. “I never thought I would be marching on the White House. There was a time when it occurred to me,” he joked.
Gore claimed that a wind and solar energy revolution was now happening globally. But history shows that over the past 100 years, the energy mix has not changed all that much.
Climate Depot Reality Check: In 1908, fossil fuels accounted for 85% of U.S. energy consumption. In 2015, more or less the same
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=28592…
Other speakers at the summit tied climate “solutions” to social causes. Climate activists admitted that “Carbon Neutral” goals were being used to achieve “gender & social equity.”
Johanna Partin spoke about the CNCA or Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance. In her talk, she clearly stated a key “mission” of going “carbon neutral” was to “increase gender and social equity.”
Partin joins many other climate activists who are using the man-made global warming scare to advance other agendas that have nothing to do with climate.
Author Naomi Klein, author of the new book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate”, admitted during the 2014 People’s Climate March in New York City activists would be caling for the same “solutions” even if there was no climate “crisis.” She was asked, “Even if climate change issue did not exist, you would be calling for same structural changes?” Klein responded: ‘Yeah.’
Following the panel, Climate Depot asked Klein if she would support all the same climate “solutions” even if the science was wrong.
“Yes, I would still be for social justice even if there was not climate change. Yes, you caught me Marc,” Klein answered sarcastically as she abruptly ended the interview. [Also see: EU Commissioner: Global Warming Policy Is Right Even If Science Is Wrong ] Klein told the activists she recommended “weaving this [climate] movement into all of our movements.” (Also See: Warmist Naomi Klein: ‘Capitalism is irreconcilable with a livable climate’ – Facing climate change head-on means changing capitalism & See: Warmist Naomi Klein: ‘Dealing with the climate crisis will require a completely different economic system’
Background:
University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”
In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!
The United Nations has publicly stated its goal is not to ‘solve’ climate change, but to seek to redistribute wealth and expand its authority through more central planning. UN official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, admitted what’s behind the climate issue: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard revealed: Global Warming Policy Is Right Even If Science Is Wrong. Hedegaard said in 2013, “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate,’ would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”
The UN is seeking central planning. UN climate chief Christiana Figueres declared in 2012 that she is seeking a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.” She added: “This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.”
The UN and EPA regulations are pure climate symbolism in exchange for a more centrally planned energy economy. The UN and EPA regulations are simply a vehicle to put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of our energy economy and ‘save’ us from bad weather and ‘climate change.’
Related Links:
Flashback 2007: Former Czech Pres. Vaclav Klaus: ‘As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism’
Klaus: ‘This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.’
Flashback: ALERT: German Climate Advisor ‘proposes creation of a CO2 budget for every person on planet!’
#
Face to Face: Morano confronts Gore with ‘Climate Hustle’ DVD in Australia! Gore refuses to accept, departs in SUV
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/07/13/gore-compares-climate-fight-to-slavery-gay-rights-apartheid-at-aussie-summit/
Gore compares climate fight to slavery, gay rights & apartheid at Aussie summit
Aussie Herald Sun newspaper on Gore's speech: 'Audience members were physically stopped from recording the speech'
Watch: Skeptic Morano confronts Gore with ‘Climate Hustle’ DVD in Australia! Gore refuses to accept, departs in SUV
Watch: Skeptic Morano confronts Gore with ‘Climate Hustle’ DVD in Australia! Gore refuses to accept, departs in SUV
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJuly 13, 2017 12:32 AM with 0 comments
MELBOURNE, Australia — Former Vice President Al Gore likened the battle against “global warming” to previous social causes. Gore spoke to the EcoCity World Summit in Melbourne Australia on July 13th. The conference is being held from July 12-14.
“The abolition of slavery, woman’s suffrage and women’s rights, the civil rights movement and the anti apartheid movement in South Africa, the movement to stop the toxic phase of nuclear arms race and more recently the gay rights movement,” Gore said. “All these movements have one thing in common. they were all met with ferocious resistance,” Gore said on July 13th during his talk to the conference in Melbourne. (Full Transcript of Al Gore’s Speech to Australian Climate Summit)
Gore sang the praises of fossil fuels during his speech. “Must we change? We have had tremendous benefits from our reliance on fossil fuels. Poverty has declined, living standards have increased and we still depend on them for more than 80% of world’s energy,” Gore opened his talk stating. But then he again added, “Must we change?”
Gore’s answer was yes — we must change and he spent the remainder of his talk on showing the alleged negative impacts of carbon dioxide’s impact on the climate. Gore’s talk featured bad weather stills and videos from around the world from floods to typhoons to heat waves and wild fires and blamed them on rising CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. (Climate Depot Note: Blaming extreme weather on “climate change” is not supported by evidence.)
Climate Depot has repeatedly debunked Gore’s climate claims, most recently here: Gore admits Paris pact symbolic – Makes incorrect claims about Greenland, sea levels & extreme weather on Fox News And here: Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims And Here Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit
Gore also touted his participation in the People’s Climate March in Washington DC last April. “I never thought I would be marching on the White House. There was a time when it occurred to me,” he joked.
Gore claimed that a wind and solar energy revolution was now happening globally. But history shows that over the past 100 years, the energy mix has not changed all that much.
Climate Depot Reality Check: In 1908, fossil fuels accounted for 85% of U.S. energy consumption. In 2015, more or less the same
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=28592…
Other speakers at the summit tied climate “solutions” to social causes. Climate activists admitted that “Carbon Neutral” goals were being used to achieve “gender & social equity.”
Johanna Partin spoke about the CNCA or Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance. In her talk, she clearly stated a key “mission” of going “carbon neutral” was to “increase gender and social equity.”
Partin joins many other climate activists who are using the man-made global warming scare to advance other agendas that have nothing to do with climate.
Author Naomi Klein, author of the new book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate”, admitted during the 2014 People’s Climate March in New York City activists would be caling for the same “solutions” even if there was no climate “crisis.” She was asked, “Even if climate change issue did not exist, you would be calling for same structural changes?” Klein responded: ‘Yeah.’
Following the panel, Climate Depot asked Klein if she would support all the same climate “solutions” even if the science was wrong.
“Yes, I would still be for social justice even if there was not climate change. Yes, you caught me Marc,” Klein answered sarcastically as she abruptly ended the interview. [Also see: EU Commissioner: Global Warming Policy Is Right Even If Science Is Wrong ] Klein told the activists she recommended “weaving this [climate] movement into all of our movements.” (Also See: Warmist Naomi Klein: ‘Capitalism is irreconcilable with a livable climate’ – Facing climate change head-on means changing capitalism & See: Warmist Naomi Klein: ‘Dealing with the climate crisis will require a completely different economic system’
Background:
University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”
In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!
The United Nations has publicly stated its goal is not to ‘solve’ climate change, but to seek to redistribute wealth and expand its authority through more central planning. UN official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, admitted what’s behind the climate issue: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard revealed: Global Warming Policy Is Right Even If Science Is Wrong. Hedegaard said in 2013, “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate,’ would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”
The UN is seeking central planning. UN climate chief Christiana Figueres declared in 2012 that she is seeking a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.” She added: “This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.”
The UN and EPA regulations are pure climate symbolism in exchange for a more centrally planned energy economy. The UN and EPA regulations are simply a vehicle to put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of our energy economy and ‘save’ us from bad weather and ‘climate change.’
Related Links:
Flashback 2007: Former Czech Pres. Vaclav Klaus: ‘As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism’
Klaus: ‘This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.’
Flashback: ALERT: German Climate Advisor ‘proposes creation of a CO2 budget for every person on planet!’
#
Face to Face: Morano confronts Gore with ‘Climate Hustle’ DVD in Australia! Gore refuses to accept, departs in SUV
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/07/13/gore-compares-climate-fight-to-slavery-gay-rights-apartheid-at-aussie-summit/
[ More fraud... ho hum. Yawn. ]
[h=1]Delingpole: Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology Caught Erasing Record Low Temperatures[/h] 466
6
Peter B Kraehenbuehl/Wikipedia Commons
by James Delingpole1 Aug 2017704
[h=2]Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has been caught red handed erasing record-breaking cold temperatures from its data records.[/h] The BOM has now been shamed by media investigations into ordering a review of its procedures. But it has yet to provide an explanation as to why it made these “adjustments” in the first place.
These “adjustments” seem to go only one way. The BOM is perfectly happy to record and announce it whenever Australia’s temperatures hit record-breaking highs. But when the temperatures reach new lows it’s a different matter altogether.
For some strange reason that the BOM has been unable to explain, when temperatures go below a certain point it either deletes them as if they had never been – or it enters them into its records at higher temperature than the one actually recorded by its thermometers.
The dodgy adjustments were spotted by investigative journalist Jennifer Marohasy.
Earlier this month, she was contacted by bush meteorologist Lance Pidgeon who had noticed that Goulburn, a town south west of Sydney, had smashed its temperature record with a low of -10.4 degrees Celsius.
For example, against the principles of robust science, it refuses to allow its data to be audited independently – or to discuss why or how it makes its temperature adjustments.
As The Australian notes in a paywalled editorial, these unexplained adjustments are no way to inspire confidence among a taxpaying public which has to fund the BOM to the tune of an annual 365.3 million (2015/16 figures).
But this scandal is not as widely known as it should be, largely because it goes virtually unreported in the liberal-dominated mainstream media. This partly explains the huge discrepancy between the way liberals think about climate change and the way conservatives do. According to this survey, liberals in both the U.S and the UK are dramatically more worried about climate change than conservatives.
Perhaps this is because conservatives are simply better informed.
[h=1]Delingpole: Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology Caught Erasing Record Low Temperatures[/h] 466
6
by James Delingpole1 Aug 2017704
[h=2]Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has been caught red handed erasing record-breaking cold temperatures from its data records.[/h] The BOM has now been shamed by media investigations into ordering a review of its procedures. But it has yet to provide an explanation as to why it made these “adjustments” in the first place.
These “adjustments” seem to go only one way. The BOM is perfectly happy to record and announce it whenever Australia’s temperatures hit record-breaking highs. But when the temperatures reach new lows it’s a different matter altogether.
For some strange reason that the BOM has been unable to explain, when temperatures go below a certain point it either deletes them as if they had never been – or it enters them into its records at higher temperature than the one actually recorded by its thermometers.
The dodgy adjustments were spotted by investigative journalist Jennifer Marohasy.
Earlier this month, she was contacted by bush meteorologist Lance Pidgeon who had noticed that Goulburn, a town south west of Sydney, had smashed its temperature record with a low of -10.4 degrees Celsius.
Except, the Bureau has since erased this measurement.
According to the Bureau’s own rules, the coldest temperature record during a 24-hour period to 9am is recorded as the minimum for that day. So, for Sunday 2 July the carry-over minimum should be -10.4 degrees Celsius. But instead the summary documentation shows -10.0. There is now no public record of -10.4 degrees Celsius.
This is not the first time the BOM has been accused of behaving more like a political activist organization than a scientific one. On every occasion, instead of fessing up to its dodgy antics, it has hidden behind a wall of bluster and pretend-scientific authority.According to the Bureau’s own rules, the coldest temperature record during a 24-hour period to 9am is recorded as the minimum for that day. So, for Sunday 2 July the carry-over minimum should be -10.4 degrees Celsius. But instead the summary documentation shows -10.0. There is now no public record of -10.4 degrees Celsius.
For example, against the principles of robust science, it refuses to allow its data to be audited independently – or to discuss why or how it makes its temperature adjustments.
As The Australian notes in a paywalled editorial, these unexplained adjustments are no way to inspire confidence among a taxpaying public which has to fund the BOM to the tune of an annual 365.3 million (2015/16 figures).
That adjustment process, known as homogenisation, has got the bureau in trouble in the past. Again, the issue has been one of transparency. The bureau has made a series of changes to historical records across the country. It says it does so to adjust for the movement of a weather station site, changes to surrounding vegetation or results that look wrong when compared with nearby sites. Such homogenisation is not unique to Australia but the bureau sometimes fails to convince when asked to explain the specific local adjustments it has made, especially if these bolster a warming trend. The same goes for any practices that discount cold temperatures.
The official record must be accurate and trusted. Otherwise, claims of historic extremes — the hottest winter day! — only mislead and public policy gets corrupted. Even if the bureau does have all the answers, it needs to do a better job of taking the public — sceptics included — into its confidence.
The same is true, of course, in the US where organizations like NASA and NOAA have also been caught red-handed making adjustments to their own temperature data sets, none of these convincingly explained.The official record must be accurate and trusted. Otherwise, claims of historic extremes — the hottest winter day! — only mislead and public policy gets corrupted. Even if the bureau does have all the answers, it needs to do a better job of taking the public — sceptics included — into its confidence.
But this scandal is not as widely known as it should be, largely because it goes virtually unreported in the liberal-dominated mainstream media. This partly explains the huge discrepancy between the way liberals think about climate change and the way conservatives do. According to this survey, liberals in both the U.S and the UK are dramatically more worried about climate change than conservatives.
Perhaps this is because conservatives are simply better informed.
This guy is a such a "bullshit artist" it's unreal...
Commercial Fisherman Asks Al Gore Why Ocean Levels Haven’t Changed In 50 Years
Warner Todd Huston
09:32pm August 2, 2017
Al Gore has been indulging his inner Chicken Little over global warming for decades now, but at one recent appearance, he was smacked down by a man who has made his living on the ocean for 50 years who said water levels haven’t changed since he started his career as a commercial crabber.
Gore appeared at a CNN town hall held on Tangier Island, Virginia, with host Anderson Cooper to talk about how the region has been affected by global warming (which I’ll call globaloney, from this point forward).
But, according to Daily Caller, Gore was slammed by a man who has been working on the sea since the early 1970s.
During a question and answer period, commercial crabber James Eskridge — who is also Tangier mayor — confronted Gore on his claims of rising sea levels.
Eskridge also disputed that Tangier Island is sinking due to globaloney.
Eskridge went on to say that erosion was slowly eating away at the island, but it was a natural force caused by “wave action [and] storms.”
Still, Tangier officials have asked the federal government for help because the island has lost 66 percent of its land mass to erosion.
Mayor Eskridge has asked the feds to build a seawall to prevent or limit more erosion.
Gore also asked the mayor if he has seen a larger number of storms since he first started working as a fisherman.
The mayor is right. In fact, despite Gore’s absurd arm waving that hurricanes and tropical storms are increasing, we haven’t even had a hurricane this year.
hno:
Commercial Fisherman Asks Al Gore Why Ocean Levels Haven’t Changed In 50 Years
Warner Todd Huston09:32pm August 2, 2017
Gore appeared at a CNN town hall held on Tangier Island, Virginia, with host Anderson Cooper to talk about how the region has been affected by global warming (which I’ll call globaloney, from this point forward).
But, according to Daily Caller, Gore was slammed by a man who has been working on the sea since the early 1970s.
During a question and answer period, commercial crabber James Eskridge — who is also Tangier mayor — confronted Gore on his claims of rising sea levels.
“I’m a commercial crabber and I’ve been working the Chesapeake Bay for 50+ years. I have a crab house business out on the water and the water level is the same as it was when the place was built in 1970,” Eskridge said. “I’m not a scientist, but I am a keen observer and if sea level rises are occurring, why am I not seeing signs of it?”
Eskridge also disputed that Tangier Island is sinking due to globaloney.
Eskridge went on to say that erosion was slowly eating away at the island, but it was a natural force caused by “wave action [and] storms.”
Still, Tangier officials have asked the federal government for help because the island has lost 66 percent of its land mass to erosion.
Mayor Eskridge has asked the feds to build a seawall to prevent or limit more erosion.
Gore also asked the mayor if he has seen a larger number of storms since he first started working as a fisherman.
“Have [the storms] increased any?” Gore asked.
“Not really,” Tangier’s mayor responded.
“Not really,” Tangier’s mayor responded.
The mayor is right. In fact, despite Gore’s absurd arm waving that hurricanes and tropical storms are increasing, we haven’t even had a hurricane this year.
hno:
Bad news for all you pet owners out there...
https://www.theverge.com/platform/a...ogs-meat-diet-greenhouse-gases-climate-change
The environmental footprint of your pet is bigger than you think
Yes, that's right! Now animals are bad for the environment. Hmm.
Lets see...
Don't have pets
Don't have kids
Don't live in a home
Don't use any electricity
Don't fly or drive anywhere
Don't eat any meat
Don't fart or burp
Don't bake or BBQ any food.
Does that cover it?
Next article: The environmental footprint of air is bigger than you think. Time to eliminate it!
These absolute lunatics are the dumbest form of life to ever exist.
https://www.theverge.com/platform/a...ogs-meat-diet-greenhouse-gases-climate-change
The environmental footprint of your pet is bigger than you think
Yes, that's right! Now animals are bad for the environment. Hmm.
Lets see...
Don't have pets
Don't have kids
Don't live in a home
Don't use any electricity
Don't fly or drive anywhere
Don't eat any meat
Don't fart or burp
Don't bake or BBQ any food.
Does that cover it?
Next article: The environmental footprint of air is bigger than you think. Time to eliminate it!
These absolute lunatics are the dumbest form of life to ever exist.
‘This was not supposed to happen’: Gore’s sequel comes in dismal 15th at box office
Gore fans allege film ‘sabotaged’ by Paramount
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08...-fans-allege-film-was-sabotaged-by-paramount/
ointer:
Gore fans allege film ‘sabotaged’ by Paramount
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08...-fans-allege-film-was-sabotaged-by-paramount/
ointer:‘This was not supposed to happen’: Gore’s sequel comes in dismal 15th at box office
Gore fans allege film ‘sabotaged’ by Paramount
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08...-fans-allege-film-was-sabotaged-by-paramount/
No normal person would watch this shit, I could see BZ and Turd sitting on the front row though
[ Scammers wrong again. ]
[h=1]Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’[/h] 8945
Peter Macdiarmid/Getty
by James Delingpole19 Sep 20177,238
[h=2]Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming.[/h] This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.
The paper – titled Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C – concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true.
In order for that to happen, temperatures would have to rise by a massive 0.5 degrees C in five years.
Since global mean temperatures rarely rise by even as much as 0.25 degrees C in a decade, that would mean the planet would have to do 20 years’ worth of extreme warming in the space of the next five years.
This, the scientists admit, is next to impossible. Which means their “carbon budget” – the amount of CO2 they say is needed to increase global warming by a certain degree – is wrong. This in turn means that the computer models they’ve been using to scare the world with tales of man-made climate doom are wrong too.
One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” in its implications.
He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget.
In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp.
But you certainly wouldn’t guess this from the way the scientists are trying to spin their report.
According to the London Times:
Grubb is claiming that the facts have changed. Which they haven’t. Climate skeptics have been saying for years that the IPCC climate models have been running “too hot.” Indeed, the Global Warming Policy Foundation produced a paper stating this three years ago. Naturally it was ignored by alarmists who have always sought to marginalize the GWPF as a denialist institution which they claim – erroneously – is in the pay of sinister fossil fuel interests.
Allen’s “so it’s not that surprising” is indeed true if you’re on the skeptical side of the argument. But not if, like Allen, you’re one of those scientists who’ve spent the last 20 years scorning, mocking and vilifying all those skeptics who for years have been arguing the very point which Allen himself is now admitting is correct.
That’s why Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says, this is a “landmark” moment in the history of great climate change scare.
This is little more than a damage limitation exercise by scamsters who know they’ve been caught cheating and have now been forced to concede at least some territory to their opponents for fear of looking ridiculous.
Paul Homewood has their number:
Oh, and by the way, snooty alarmist scumbags: that word you were looking for to describe the current state of global warming science is: “Sorry.”
[h=1]Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’[/h] 8945
by James Delingpole19 Sep 20177,238
[h=2]Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming.[/h] This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.
The paper – titled Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C – concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true.
In order for that to happen, temperatures would have to rise by a massive 0.5 degrees C in five years.
Since global mean temperatures rarely rise by even as much as 0.25 degrees C in a decade, that would mean the planet would have to do 20 years’ worth of extreme warming in the space of the next five years.
This, the scientists admit, is next to impossible. Which means their “carbon budget” – the amount of CO2 they say is needed to increase global warming by a certain degree – is wrong. This in turn means that the computer models they’ve been using to scare the world with tales of man-made climate doom are wrong too.
One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” in its implications.
He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget.
In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp.
But you certainly wouldn’t guess this from the way the scientists are trying to spin their report.
According to the London Times:
Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one ofthe study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong.
He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”
Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.
“It’s still likely to be very difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place than I thought.”
andHe stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”
Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.
“It’s still likely to be very difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place than I thought.”
Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author of the paper, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”
He said that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government research institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.
He said that too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.
Note the disingenuousness here.He said that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government research institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.
He said that too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.
Grubb is claiming that the facts have changed. Which they haven’t. Climate skeptics have been saying for years that the IPCC climate models have been running “too hot.” Indeed, the Global Warming Policy Foundation produced a paper stating this three years ago. Naturally it was ignored by alarmists who have always sought to marginalize the GWPF as a denialist institution which they claim – erroneously – is in the pay of sinister fossil fuel interests.
Allen’s “so it’s not that surprising” is indeed true if you’re on the skeptical side of the argument. But not if, like Allen, you’re one of those scientists who’ve spent the last 20 years scorning, mocking and vilifying all those skeptics who for years have been arguing the very point which Allen himself is now admitting is correct.
That’s why Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says, this is a “landmark” moment in the history of great climate change scare.
“It’s the first official confirmation we’ve had that CO2 is not as big a driver of climate change as the computer models have claimed; and it’s the first official admission that the planet is not warming dangerously.”
But this is not, unfortunately, a cause for wild celebrations in the street. ManBearPig has been scotched but by no means been slain. Nor are the alarmists yet ready to admit the full scale of their errors.
This is little more than a damage limitation exercise by scamsters who know they’ve been caught cheating and have now been forced to concede at least some territory to their opponents for fear of looking ridiculous.
Paul Homewood has their number:
1) We have known for several years that the climate models have been running far too hot.
This rather belated admission is welcome, but a cynic would wonder why it was not made before Paris.
2) I suspect part of the motivation is to keep Paris on track. Most observers, including even James Hansen, have realised that it was not worth the paper it was written on.
This new study is designed to restore the belief that the original climate targets can be achieved, via Paris and beyond.
3) Although they talk of the difference between 0.9C and 1.3C, the significance is much greater.
Making the reasonable assumption that a significant part of the warming since the mid 19thC is natural, this means that any AGW signal is much less than previously thought.
4) Given that that they now admit they have got it so wrong, why should we be expected to have any faith at all in the models?
5) Finally, we must remember that temperatures since 2000 have been artificially raised by the recent record El Nino, and the ongoing warm phase of the AMO.
Yup. But at least we climate skeptics have been proved right yet again, that’s the main thing.This rather belated admission is welcome, but a cynic would wonder why it was not made before Paris.
2) I suspect part of the motivation is to keep Paris on track. Most observers, including even James Hansen, have realised that it was not worth the paper it was written on.
This new study is designed to restore the belief that the original climate targets can be achieved, via Paris and beyond.
3) Although they talk of the difference between 0.9C and 1.3C, the significance is much greater.
Making the reasonable assumption that a significant part of the warming since the mid 19thC is natural, this means that any AGW signal is much less than previously thought.
4) Given that that they now admit they have got it so wrong, why should we be expected to have any faith at all in the models?
5) Finally, we must remember that temperatures since 2000 have been artificially raised by the recent record El Nino, and the ongoing warm phase of the AMO.
Oh, and by the way, snooty alarmist scumbags: that word you were looking for to describe the current state of global warming science is: “Sorry.”
[ Yet more proof that man-made global warming is complete bullshit. ]
[h=1]Delingpole: Man-Made Climate Catastrophe Is a Myth, More Studies Confirm[/h]
AP/Nam Y. Huh
by JAMES DELINGPOLE10 Oct 20171,681
[h=2]From the world of science – as opposed to grant-troughing junk science – two more studies confirming that the man-made global warming scare is a myth.[/h]One, a study by Scafetta et al, published in International Journal of Heat and Technology, confirms that the “Pause” in global warming is real – and that “climate change” is much more likely the result of natural, cyclical fluctuations than man-made CO2 emissions.
The second study, by Hodgkins et al, published in the Journal of Hydrology, concerns flooding in North America and Europe.
Flooding events, it shows, have more to do with chance than any noticeable long term trend. It finds no link between flooding and “global warming.”
One, they explode – yet again – the myth that there is a consensus among scientists about catastrophic man-made climate change. In fact, as I reported earlier this year, there are dozens of papers produced every year by reputable, honest scientists which call into question the great man-made climate change scare.
Two, the alarmists hate it when you point this out. After my Breitbart piece Global Warming is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017, an alarmist website published a supposed expert rebuttal by leading climate scientists. The problem was, of course, that all the “experts” involved were members of the alarmist cabal who pal-review one another’s papers and who ruthlessly shut out of the debate any scientists who dare to disagree with them.
Three, the alarmists know the jig is up and have done for some time. But in the interests of damage limitation they’re trying to drip out their corrections (aka admissions of error) slowly – and on their terms – rather than allow any hated skeptics (like yours truly) the chance to crow.
This is what happened after that bombshell paper released in Nature Geoscience last month by leading climate alarmists including Oxford University’s Myles Allen. Buried beneath its misleading and dull abstract was an extraordinary admission: that their computer models had wildly overestimated the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming.
Which in turn means, of course, that the entire AGW scare (which relies above all else on those computer models) is bunk and that really – “Big Mac meal with Coke, 5 chicken select, curry dip and two large teas, thanks Myles” – it’s about time these taxpayer-funded Chicken Littles did something useful with their lives for a change.
But when journalists pointed this out, the alarmists responded by attacking the journalists, supposedly for having misrepresented their paper. Yeah right. Look guys, if a dodgy company – say Enron Inc – releases its annual report with a summary that says: “Good news. Our profits are up again and our prospects are better than ever” but on closer examination of the company accounts this turns out to be drivel, it is not the job of journalists to report that rosy executive summary, however much Enron/Global Warming Inc might prefer it.
Let’s get something absolutely clear about this global warming debate. (I may have mentioned this before but it’s worth restating). Anyone at this late stage who is still on the alarmist side of the argument is either a liar, a cheat, a crook, a scamster, an incompetent, a dullard, a time-server, a charlatan or someone so monumentally stupid that they really should be banned by law from having an opinion on any subject whatsoever.
And that’s just the scientists.
The parasitic industry profiting from all that junk-science nonsense the alarmists keep pumping into the ether is even worse.
Just one brief example. The other week, the British press was chock full of stories about this incredible advance which had been made in the offshore wind turbine industry whereby costs had fallen so markedly that suddenly those sea-based bat-chomping, bird-slicing, whale-killing eco-crucifixes were more competitive than ever before. There was barely a newspaper that didn’t fall for this “good news” propaganda story.
The story had been heavily promoted by a number of vested interests: a “coalition of companies and civil society organisations” (including Dong Energy, GE, ScottishPower Renewables, Siemens Gamesa, SSE, Vattenfall, Greenpeace, Marine Conservation Society, and WWF.”
Look at that list and marvel and the range and influence and financial muscle of those co-conspirators. Mighty, global NGOs and vast industrial conglomerates with a combined income running into the many billions. Environmentalism is not some gentle, bunny-hugging Mom and Pop operation. It’s a ginormous, many tentacled, spectacularly greedy and corrupt Green Blob.
And guess what? That story – repeated unquestioningly by the MSM, crowed about by the BBC – was horse shit. Actually, it was worse than that: it was fox shit, which – as anyone who has smelt it will know – is an altogether more noisome, pungent, vile substance.
Now the Global Warming Policy Foundation has reported these liars to the Advertising Standards Authority.
And Paul Homewood has done the numbers and worked out that actually, far from being a bargain, this is yet another massive taxpayer rip off.
Never forget this next time you hear anyone bleating about Trump doing something sensible like pulling out of the Paris climate accord or scrapping the Clean Power Plan. The global warming scare is the biggest scam in the history of the world. It cannot be killed off soon enough.
[h=1]Delingpole: Man-Made Climate Catastrophe Is a Myth, More Studies Confirm[/h]
1312
by JAMES DELINGPOLE10 Oct 20171,681
[h=2]From the world of science – as opposed to grant-troughing junk science – two more studies confirming that the man-made global warming scare is a myth.[/h]One, a study by Scafetta et al, published in International Journal of Heat and Technology, confirms that the “Pause” in global warming is real – and that “climate change” is much more likely the result of natural, cyclical fluctuations than man-made CO2 emissions.
Abstract
The period from 2000 to 2016 shows a modest warming trend that the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory have labeled as the “pause” or “hiatus.” These labels were chosen to indicate that the observed temperature standstill period results from an unforced internal fluctuation of the climate (e.g. by heat uptake of the deep ocean) that the computer climate models are claimed to occasionally reproduce without contradicting the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) paradigm. In part 1 of this work, it was shown that the statistical analysis rejects such labels with a 95% confidence because the standstill period has lasted more than the 15 year period limit provided by the AGWT advocates themselves. Anyhow, the strong warming peak observed in 2015-2016, the “hottest year on record,” gave the impression that the temperature standstill stopped in 2014. Herein, the authors show that such a temperature peak is unrelated to anthropogenic forcing: it simply emerged from the natural fast fluctuations of the climate associated to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. By removing the ENSO signature, the authors show that the temperature trend from 2000 to 2016 clearly diverges from the general circulation model (GCM) simulations. Thus, the GCMs models used to support the AGWT are very likely flawed. By contrast, the semi-empirical climate models proposed in 2011 and 2013 by Scafetta, which are based on a specific set of natural climatic oscillations believed to be astronomically induced plus a significantly reduced anthropogenic contribution, agree far better with the latest observations.
Note also that it says the computer-modelled predictions of climate doom relied on by all global warming alarmists to support their thesis are wrong.The period from 2000 to 2016 shows a modest warming trend that the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory have labeled as the “pause” or “hiatus.” These labels were chosen to indicate that the observed temperature standstill period results from an unforced internal fluctuation of the climate (e.g. by heat uptake of the deep ocean) that the computer climate models are claimed to occasionally reproduce without contradicting the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) paradigm. In part 1 of this work, it was shown that the statistical analysis rejects such labels with a 95% confidence because the standstill period has lasted more than the 15 year period limit provided by the AGWT advocates themselves. Anyhow, the strong warming peak observed in 2015-2016, the “hottest year on record,” gave the impression that the temperature standstill stopped in 2014. Herein, the authors show that such a temperature peak is unrelated to anthropogenic forcing: it simply emerged from the natural fast fluctuations of the climate associated to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. By removing the ENSO signature, the authors show that the temperature trend from 2000 to 2016 clearly diverges from the general circulation model (GCM) simulations. Thus, the GCMs models used to support the AGWT are very likely flawed. By contrast, the semi-empirical climate models proposed in 2011 and 2013 by Scafetta, which are based on a specific set of natural climatic oscillations believed to be astronomically induced plus a significantly reduced anthropogenic contribution, agree far better with the latest observations.
The second study, by Hodgkins et al, published in the Journal of Hydrology, concerns flooding in North America and Europe.
advertisement
What it shows is that, contrary to the claims often made by climate alarmists, there has been NO increase in flooding due to “global warming” or “climate change.”
Flooding events, it shows, have more to do with chance than any noticeable long term trend. It finds no link between flooding and “global warming.”
Abstract
Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many studies have analysed annual-maximum flow trends but few have quantified changes in major (25–100 year return period) floods, i.e. those that have the greatest societal impacts. Existing major-flood studies used a limited number of very large catchments affected to varying degrees by alterations such as reservoirs and urbanisation. In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods was based on counting the number of exceedances of a given flood threshold within a group of gauges. Evidence for significant trends varied between groups of gauges that were defined by catchment size, location, climate, flood threshold and period of record, indicating that generalizations about flood trends across large domains or a diversity of catchment types are ungrounded. Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends.
A few take-home points from these studies.
One, they explode – yet again – the myth that there is a consensus among scientists about catastrophic man-made climate change. In fact, as I reported earlier this year, there are dozens of papers produced every year by reputable, honest scientists which call into question the great man-made climate change scare.
Two, the alarmists hate it when you point this out. After my Breitbart piece Global Warming is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017, an alarmist website published a supposed expert rebuttal by leading climate scientists. The problem was, of course, that all the “experts” involved were members of the alarmist cabal who pal-review one another’s papers and who ruthlessly shut out of the debate any scientists who dare to disagree with them.
Three, the alarmists know the jig is up and have done for some time. But in the interests of damage limitation they’re trying to drip out their corrections (aka admissions of error) slowly – and on their terms – rather than allow any hated skeptics (like yours truly) the chance to crow.
This is what happened after that bombshell paper released in Nature Geoscience last month by leading climate alarmists including Oxford University’s Myles Allen. Buried beneath its misleading and dull abstract was an extraordinary admission: that their computer models had wildly overestimated the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming.
Which in turn means, of course, that the entire AGW scare (which relies above all else on those computer models) is bunk and that really – “Big Mac meal with Coke, 5 chicken select, curry dip and two large teas, thanks Myles” – it’s about time these taxpayer-funded Chicken Littles did something useful with their lives for a change.
But when journalists pointed this out, the alarmists responded by attacking the journalists, supposedly for having misrepresented their paper. Yeah right. Look guys, if a dodgy company – say Enron Inc – releases its annual report with a summary that says: “Good news. Our profits are up again and our prospects are better than ever” but on closer examination of the company accounts this turns out to be drivel, it is not the job of journalists to report that rosy executive summary, however much Enron/Global Warming Inc might prefer it.
Let’s get something absolutely clear about this global warming debate. (I may have mentioned this before but it’s worth restating). Anyone at this late stage who is still on the alarmist side of the argument is either a liar, a cheat, a crook, a scamster, an incompetent, a dullard, a time-server, a charlatan or someone so monumentally stupid that they really should be banned by law from having an opinion on any subject whatsoever.
And that’s just the scientists.
The parasitic industry profiting from all that junk-science nonsense the alarmists keep pumping into the ether is even worse.
Just one brief example. The other week, the British press was chock full of stories about this incredible advance which had been made in the offshore wind turbine industry whereby costs had fallen so markedly that suddenly those sea-based bat-chomping, bird-slicing, whale-killing eco-crucifixes were more competitive than ever before. There was barely a newspaper that didn’t fall for this “good news” propaganda story.
The story had been heavily promoted by a number of vested interests: a “coalition of companies and civil society organisations” (including Dong Energy, GE, ScottishPower Renewables, Siemens Gamesa, SSE, Vattenfall, Greenpeace, Marine Conservation Society, and WWF.”
Look at that list and marvel and the range and influence and financial muscle of those co-conspirators. Mighty, global NGOs and vast industrial conglomerates with a combined income running into the many billions. Environmentalism is not some gentle, bunny-hugging Mom and Pop operation. It’s a ginormous, many tentacled, spectacularly greedy and corrupt Green Blob.
And guess what? That story – repeated unquestioningly by the MSM, crowed about by the BBC – was horse shit. Actually, it was worse than that: it was fox shit, which – as anyone who has smelt it will know – is an altogether more noisome, pungent, vile substance.
Now the Global Warming Policy Foundation has reported these liars to the Advertising Standards Authority.
And Paul Homewood has done the numbers and worked out that actually, far from being a bargain, this is yet another massive taxpayer rip off.
Never forget this next time you hear anyone bleating about Trump doing something sensible like pulling out of the Paris climate accord or scrapping the Clean Power Plan. The global warming scare is the biggest scam in the history of the world. It cannot be killed off soon enough.
[ You won't see this published on CNN faux news, or any other fucking liberal trash news outlet ]
[h=1]Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth[/h]
ADRIAN DENNIS/AFP/Getty Images
by JAMES DELINGPOLE24 Oct 2017698
[h=2]When I reported earlier this year on the 58 scientific papers published in 2017 that say global warming is a myth the greenies’ heads exploded.[/h]Since then, that figure has risen to 400 scientific papers.
Can you imagine the misery and consternation and horror this is going to cause in the corrupt, rancid, rent-seeking world of the Climate Industrial Complex?
I can. It will look something like this.
Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say:
What they are saying in their different ways is that “global warming” – as in the big scare story that the planet is heating up at a catastrophic unprecedented rate because of man-made CO2 emissions – is bunk; or that the methods being used to combat the problem are bunk.
Here – courtesy of Kenneth Richard, who has waded through them all – are some examples of what they say.
It’s the sun, stupid! (106 papers stress solar influence on climate)
Li et al., 2017
[h=3][/h]
Climate influenced by natural oscillation (eg El Nino; La Nina)
Belohpetsky et al., 2017
Conroy et al., 2017
Volcano/Tectonic Influence on Climate
Viterito, 2017
Blaauw, 2017
Blackall, 2017
Janković and Shultz, 2017
Frick et al., 2017
Together with these 400 new papers, that makes 900 science papers in the last two years casting doubt on global warming.
CONSENSUS? WHAT CONSENSUS??
[h=1]Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth[/h]
691
by JAMES DELINGPOLE24 Oct 2017698
[h=2]When I reported earlier this year on the 58 scientific papers published in 2017 that say global warming is a myth the greenies’ heads exploded.[/h]Since then, that figure has risen to 400 scientific papers.
Can you imagine the misery and consternation and horror this is going to cause in the corrupt, rancid, rent-seeking world of the Climate Industrial Complex?
I can. It will look something like this.
Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say:
Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.
Natural factors such as the Sun (106 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (37 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.
And current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).
In other words, nobody is denying that climate changes, nobody is denying that the planet has warmed by 0.8 degrees C in the last 150 years, while only a handful deny that carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) has the power to influence temperatures.Natural factors such as the Sun (106 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (37 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.
And current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).
What they are saying in their different ways is that “global warming” – as in the big scare story that the planet is heating up at a catastrophic unprecedented rate because of man-made CO2 emissions – is bunk; or that the methods being used to combat the problem are bunk.
Here – courtesy of Kenneth Richard, who has waded through them all – are some examples of what they say.
It’s the sun, stupid! (106 papers stress solar influence on climate)
Li et al., 2017
It has been widely suggested from both climate modeling and observation data that solar activity plays a key role in driving late Holocene climatic fluctuations by triggering global temperature variability and atmospheric dynamical circulation
Yndestad and Solheim, 2017
advertisement
Periods with few sunspots are associated with low solar activity and cold climate periods. Periods with many sunspots are associated with high solar activity and warm climate periods.
Tejedor et al., 2017
The main driver of the large-scale character of the warm and cold episodes may be changes in the solar activity
[h=3][/h]
Climate influenced by natural oscillation (eg El Nino; La Nina)
Belohpetsky et al., 2017
It is well known that most short term global temperature variability is due to the well-defined ENSO natural oscillation
Park et al., 2017
According to our results, the central Mexican climate has been predominantly controlled by the combined influence of the 20-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the 70-year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).
Lim et al., 2017
Our study demonstrated that floodfrequency and climate changes at centennial-to-millennial time scales in South Korea have been coupled mainly with ENSO activity
Modern climate in phase with natural variability
Conroy et al., 2017
20th century precipitation variability in southern Tibet falls within the range of natural variability in the last 4100 yr, and does not show a clear trend of increasing precipitation as projected by models
Verdon-Kidd et al., 2017
Overall, the inter-annual and inter-decadal variability of rainfall and runoff observed in the modern record (Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 22% for rainfall, 42% for runoff) is similar to the variability experienced over the last 500 years (CV of 21% for rainfall and 36% for runoff).
Volcano/Tectonic Influence on Climate
Viterito, 2017
This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979.
Huhtemaa and Helama, 2017
[M]ore than half of the agricultural crises in the study region can be associated with cooling caused by volcanism.
Greenhouse Effect Not the Main Driver of Climate
Blaauw, 2017
This paper demonstrates that globalwarming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory
Munshi, 2017
…No evidence is found that changes in atmospheric CO2 are related to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale.
Reinhart, 2017
Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change
Climate Models are Unreliable/The Pause is Real
Blackall, 2017
The science publication Nature Climate Change this year published a study demonstrating Earth this century warmed substantially less than computer-generated climate models predict. Unfortunately for public knowledge, such findings don’t appear in the news.
Rosenblum and Eisenman, 2017
Observations indicate that the Arctic sea ice cover is rapidly retreating while the Antarctic sea ice cover is steadily expanding. State-of-the-art climate models, by contrast, typically simulate a moderate decrease in both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice covers.
Ahlström et al., 2017
We conclude that climate bias-induced uncertainties must be decreased to make accurate coupled atmosphere-carbon cycle projections.
Zhou and Wang, 2017
Despite the ongoing increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady and has even decreased in the central and eastern Pacific since 1998. This cooling trend is referred to as the global “warming hiatus”
Renewable Energy/Climate Policies are Failing
Janković and Shultz, 2017
[A] preindustrial climate may remain a policy goal, but it is unachievable in reality
Heard et al., 2017
While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible.
Emery et al., 2017
The total social costs of ethanol blends are higher than that of gasoline, due in part to higher life-cycle emissions of non-GHG pollutants and higher health and mortality costs per unit.
Qiao et al., 2017
BEVs [Battery Electric Vehicles] are designed to obtain more environmental benefits, but the energy consumption and GHG emissions of BEV production are much larger than those of ICEV [Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles] production in China.
Wind Power Harming the Environment
Frick et al., 2017
Our resultssuggest that wind energy development may pose a substantial threat to migratory bats in North America.
Liu and Barlow, 2017
The research indicates that there will be 43 million tonnes of blade waste worldwide by 2050 with China possessing 40% of the waste, Europe 25%, the United States 16% and the rest of the world 19%.
Vasilakis et al., 2017
Numerous wind farms are planned in a region hosting the only cinereous vulture population in south-eastern Europe […]
[…] Even under the most optimistic scenario whereby authorized proposals will not collectively exceed the national target for wind harnessing in the study area (960 MW), cumulative collision mortality would still be high (17% of current population) and likely lead to population extinction.
In 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science.[…] Even under the most optimistic scenario whereby authorized proposals will not collectively exceed the national target for wind harnessing in the study area (960 MW), cumulative collision mortality would still be high (17% of current population) and likely lead to population extinction.
Together with these 400 new papers, that makes 900 science papers in the last two years casting doubt on global warming.
CONSENSUS? WHAT CONSENSUS??
U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials
Smoke rose from trees burned in a wildfire in Wrightwood, Calif., last year. A report from 13 federal agencies says extreme weather events have cost the United States $1.1 trillion since 1980.
JONATHAN ALCORN / AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
By LISA FRIEDMAN and GLENN THRUSH
NOVEMBER 3, 2017
WASHINGTON — Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.
Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather events and temperature extremes, the report says. The global, long-term warming trend is “unambiguous,” it says, and there is “no convincing alternative explanation” that anything other than humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame.
The report was approved for release by the White House, but the findings come as the Trump administration is defending its climate change policies. The United Nations convenes its annual climate change conference next week in Bonn, Germany, and the American delegation is expected to face harsh criticism over President Trump’s decision to walk away from the 195-nation Paris climate accord and top administration officials’ stated doubts about the causes and impacts of a warming planet.
“This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not getting it from their own scientists.”
While there were pockets of resistance to the report in the Trump administration, according to climate scientists involved in drafting the report, there was little appetite for a knockdown fight over climate change among Mr. Trump’s top advisers, who are intensely focused on passing a tax reform bill — an effort they think could determine the fate of his presidency.
The climate science report is part of a congressionally mandated review conducted every four years known as the National Climate Assessment. The product of hundreds of experts within the government and academia and peer-reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, it is considered the United States’ most definitive statement on climate change science.
The White House put out a statement Friday that seemed to undercut the high level of confidence of the report’s findings.
“The climate has changed and is always changing,” Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said in the statement. “As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on ‘remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth’s climate’” to greenhouse gas emissions, he added.
Despite the scientific consensus presented in the report, the Environmental Protection Agency has scrubbed references to climate change from its website and barred its scientists from presenting scientific reports on the subject.
The E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, has said carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to warming. Rick Perry, the energy secretary, asserted Wednesday that “the science is out” on whether humans cause climate change.
Document | Read the Full Climate Science Special Report “It is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the report states.
Their agencies referred questions to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversaw the research.
The report has provoked consternation in scientific circles for months. Though the study has been in the works since 2015, several scientists said the election of Mr. Trump, who has labeled climate change a “canard” and appointed cabinet members who disputed the scientific consensus, caused them to worry the report would be blocked or buried.
That did not happen. Scientists who worked on the report said none of the 13 agencies that reviewed it tried to undermine its findings or change its wording.
“I’m quite confident to say there has been no political interference on the message,” said David Fahey, a NOAA scientist and a lead author of the report. “Whatever fears we had weren’t realized.”
Responsibility for approving the report fell to Gary D. Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, who generally believes in the validity of climate science and thought the issue would have been a distraction from the tax push, according to an administration official with knowledge of the situation.
Phoenix experienced record highs in June. The report says there are “no convincing alternative explanations” other than human activity to account for rising global temperatures.
RALPH FRESO / GETTY IMAGES
One of Mr. Cohn’s top policy deputies, Michael Catanzaro, had the authority to block, delay or change the report. But Mr. Catanzaro, a former energy adviser to President George W. Bush and former Speaker John A. Boehner, chose instead to follow the lead of the Obama administration by referring the report back to more than a dozen federal agencies for feedback.
That review, according to two people familiar with the process, went relatively smoothly, surprising some scientists who worked on the report who had expected more resistance.
The only significant turbulence, according to one person familiar with the process, came from a midlevel political appointee at the Department of Energy who grilled the report’s authors on changes that had been made to temperature and other climate data over the years. The authors responded by adding a more detailed explanation of their methodology and all of the agencies then gave their approval, the person said.
Mr. Trump was barely aware of the report’s existence, several White House officials said.
Some critics of climate change science attacked the report as the product of holdovers from the Obama administration and chastised the Trump administration for allowing it to be published.
“I’m saddened that they have decided they will let the permanent government, the civil servants, continue down this road without supervision,” said Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian advocacy group.
Interactive Feature | Climate Change Is Complex. We’ve Got Answers to Your Questions. We know. Global warming is daunting. So here’s a place to start: 17 often-asked questions with some straightforward answers.
Scientists said the report’s findings were clear.
“This new report simply confirms what we already knew. Human-caused climate change isn’t just a theory, it’s reality,” said Michael E. Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University. “Whether we’re talking about unprecedented heat waves, increasingly destructive hurricanes, epic drought and inundation of our coastal cities, the impacts of climate change are no longer subtle. They are upon us. That’s the consensus of our best scientists, as laid bare by this latest report.”
The report says the Earth has set temperature highs for three years running, and six of the last 17 years are the warmest years on record for the globe. Weather catastrophes from floods to hurricanes to heat waves have cost the United States $1.1 trillion since 1980, and the report warns that such phenomena may become common.
“The frequency and intensity of extreme high temperature events are virtually certain to increase in the future as global temperature increases,” the report notes. “Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world.”
In the United States, the report finds that every part of the country has been touched by warming, from droughts in the Southeast to flooding in the Midwest to a worrying rise in air and ground temperatures in Alaska, and conditions will continue to worsen.
“This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the report states. “For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”
The findings, other researchers said, create an unusual situation in which the government’s policies are in direct opposition to the science it is producing.
“This profoundly affects our ability to be leaders in developing new technologies and understanding how to build successful communities and businesses in the 21st century,” said Christopher Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. “Choosing to be dumb about our relationship with the natural world is choosing to be behind the eight ball.”
Smoke rose from trees burned in a wildfire in Wrightwood, Calif., last year. A report from 13 federal agencies says extreme weather events have cost the United States $1.1 trillion since 1980.
JONATHAN ALCORN / AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
By LISA FRIEDMAN and GLENN THRUSH
NOVEMBER 3, 2017
WASHINGTON — Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.
Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather events and temperature extremes, the report says. The global, long-term warming trend is “unambiguous,” it says, and there is “no convincing alternative explanation” that anything other than humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame.
The report was approved for release by the White House, but the findings come as the Trump administration is defending its climate change policies. The United Nations convenes its annual climate change conference next week in Bonn, Germany, and the American delegation is expected to face harsh criticism over President Trump’s decision to walk away from the 195-nation Paris climate accord and top administration officials’ stated doubts about the causes and impacts of a warming planet.
“This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not getting it from their own scientists.”
The climate science report is part of a congressionally mandated review conducted every four years known as the National Climate Assessment. The product of hundreds of experts within the government and academia and peer-reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, it is considered the United States’ most definitive statement on climate change science.
The White House put out a statement Friday that seemed to undercut the high level of confidence of the report’s findings.
“The climate has changed and is always changing,” Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said in the statement. “As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on ‘remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth’s climate’” to greenhouse gas emissions, he added.
The E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, has said carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to warming. Rick Perry, the energy secretary, asserted Wednesday that “the science is out” on whether humans cause climate change.
Document | Read the Full Climate Science Special Report “It is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the report states.
Their agencies referred questions to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversaw the research.
The report has provoked consternation in scientific circles for months. Though the study has been in the works since 2015, several scientists said the election of Mr. Trump, who has labeled climate change a “canard” and appointed cabinet members who disputed the scientific consensus, caused them to worry the report would be blocked or buried.
“I’m quite confident to say there has been no political interference on the message,” said David Fahey, a NOAA scientist and a lead author of the report. “Whatever fears we had weren’t realized.”
Responsibility for approving the report fell to Gary D. Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, who generally believes in the validity of climate science and thought the issue would have been a distraction from the tax push, according to an administration official with knowledge of the situation.
Phoenix experienced record highs in June. The report says there are “no convincing alternative explanations” other than human activity to account for rising global temperatures.
RALPH FRESO / GETTY IMAGES
One of Mr. Cohn’s top policy deputies, Michael Catanzaro, had the authority to block, delay or change the report. But Mr. Catanzaro, a former energy adviser to President George W. Bush and former Speaker John A. Boehner, chose instead to follow the lead of the Obama administration by referring the report back to more than a dozen federal agencies for feedback.
The only significant turbulence, according to one person familiar with the process, came from a midlevel political appointee at the Department of Energy who grilled the report’s authors on changes that had been made to temperature and other climate data over the years. The authors responded by adding a more detailed explanation of their methodology and all of the agencies then gave their approval, the person said.
Mr. Trump was barely aware of the report’s existence, several White House officials said.
Some critics of climate change science attacked the report as the product of holdovers from the Obama administration and chastised the Trump administration for allowing it to be published.
“I’m saddened that they have decided they will let the permanent government, the civil servants, continue down this road without supervision,” said Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian advocacy group.
Interactive Feature | Climate Change Is Complex. We’ve Got Answers to Your Questions. We know. Global warming is daunting. So here’s a place to start: 17 often-asked questions with some straightforward answers.
Scientists said the report’s findings were clear.
“This new report simply confirms what we already knew. Human-caused climate change isn’t just a theory, it’s reality,” said Michael E. Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University. “Whether we’re talking about unprecedented heat waves, increasingly destructive hurricanes, epic drought and inundation of our coastal cities, the impacts of climate change are no longer subtle. They are upon us. That’s the consensus of our best scientists, as laid bare by this latest report.”
“The frequency and intensity of extreme high temperature events are virtually certain to increase in the future as global temperature increases,” the report notes. “Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world.”
In the United States, the report finds that every part of the country has been touched by warming, from droughts in the Southeast to flooding in the Midwest to a worrying rise in air and ground temperatures in Alaska, and conditions will continue to worsen.
The findings, other researchers said, create an unusual situation in which the government’s policies are in direct opposition to the science it is producing.
“This profoundly affects our ability to be leaders in developing new technologies and understanding how to build successful communities and businesses in the 21st century,” said Christopher Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. “Choosing to be dumb about our relationship with the natural world is choosing to be behind the eight ball.”
now the only plausible explanation for climate change is "man made" !!!!!!, seriously?
when climate change has been ongoing for 2 billion years and counting, WTF?
the earth's most recent cycle of global warming is approximately 17,000 and counting, WTF?
the earth's climate warms in 15,000 to 20,000 year cycles followed by 70,000 year cycles of global cooling
man has been around for 6,000 years, 11,000 years after the most recent cycle of global warming began (why did the earth warm for those 11,000 years before mankind?)
we started burning fossil fuels 200 years ago (why did the earth warm for 17,000 years before the industrial revolution?)
why will the earth's climate stop changing after 2 billion years of changing?
why is the earth's next cycle of global cooling not eminent? (relatively speaking)
what makes the authors of this report think the earth's cycles of warming and cooling would just stop and everything remains constant if man was not around?
when scientists answer those questions, I'll listen. Until then, I'm going to assume the earth's climate is changing and will continue to change and some of those changes will be catastrophic and mankind is not going to stop 2 billion years of climate change or prevent the next cycle of global cooling
The problem may be life itself that warms the earth's temperatures, then the cycle of global cooling restores balance, at least that theory could absorb 2 billion years of climate change and thousands of warming cycles followed by cooling cycles, because blaming 2 billion years of climate change and 17,000 years of global warming on man burning fossil fuels for 200 years just doesn't add up
PS: I think mankind contributes, but mother nature and the sun (solar spots) are what controls our climate and we're NOT stopping climate change or global warming
when climate change has been ongoing for 2 billion years and counting, WTF?
the earth's most recent cycle of global warming is approximately 17,000 and counting, WTF?
the earth's climate warms in 15,000 to 20,000 year cycles followed by 70,000 year cycles of global cooling
man has been around for 6,000 years, 11,000 years after the most recent cycle of global warming began (why did the earth warm for those 11,000 years before mankind?)
we started burning fossil fuels 200 years ago (why did the earth warm for 17,000 years before the industrial revolution?)
why will the earth's climate stop changing after 2 billion years of changing?
why is the earth's next cycle of global cooling not eminent? (relatively speaking)
what makes the authors of this report think the earth's cycles of warming and cooling would just stop and everything remains constant if man was not around?
when scientists answer those questions, I'll listen. Until then, I'm going to assume the earth's climate is changing and will continue to change and some of those changes will be catastrophic and mankind is not going to stop 2 billion years of climate change or prevent the next cycle of global cooling
The problem may be life itself that warms the earth's temperatures, then the cycle of global cooling restores balance, at least that theory could absorb 2 billion years of climate change and thousands of warming cycles followed by cooling cycles, because blaming 2 billion years of climate change and 17,000 years of global warming on man burning fossil fuels for 200 years just doesn't add up
PS: I think mankind contributes, but mother nature and the sun (solar spots) are what controls our climate and we're NOT stopping climate change or global warming
[ These leftist maggots are so sick in the head. ]
[h=1]NBC: Having a Child ‘Is One of the Worst Things You Can Do for the Environment’[/h]
Wayne Evans/Pexels
by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.16 Nov 2017157
[h=2]In a provocative new essay, NBC News Think claims that science has proven that having kids is bad for the environment and therefore “having many children is wrong, or at least morally suspect.”[/h]In an article titled “Science proves kids are bad for Earth: Morality suggests we stop having them,” bioethicist Travis Rieder argues that having a child “is a major contributor to climate change” and thus “everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.”
In an ominous warning to parents, Rieder declares that we “need to stop pretending kids don’t have environmental and ethical consequences” before comparing the decision to have children to that of freeing a convicted murderer from jail.
Consider this case, Rieder proposes: “If I release a murderer from prison, knowing full well that he intends to kill innocent people, then I bear some responsibility for those deaths — even though the killer is also fully responsible.”
“Something similar is true, I think, when it comes to having children,” Rieder continues. “Once my daughter is an autonomous agent, she will be responsible for her emissions. But that doesn’t negate my responsibility.”
View image on Twitter
NBC News THINK
✔@NBCNewsTHINK
Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them. http://nbcnews.to/2AK40vc
8:40 AM - Nov 15, 2017
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The unarticulated supposition behind this line of reasoning is that the environment is valuable for its own sake, rather than the sake of the human beings who inhabit the earth. Therefore, if humans cause dangerous climate change, fewer humans is a good thing.
To allow women to have as many children as they want, Ehrlich said, is like letting people “throw as much of their garbage into their neighbor’s backyard as they want.”
As a logical consequence of his position, Ehrlich has defended mass sterilization, sex-selective abortion and infanticide, since by his worldview human beings are the enemies of the planet. For the religion of environmentalism, overbreeding is a mortal sin while population control by any means is a sacrament.
Although Ehrlich’s apocalyptic thesis proved to be spectacularly wrong, it has shown remarkable resilience, as Wednesday’s article in NBC Think demonstrates.
Ehrlich sold the world the idea that mankind stood on the brink of Armageddon because there was simply no way to feed the exponentially increasing world population, while climate alarmists now say that the environment cannot sustain the procreation of little carbon dioxide emitters. The earlier thesis focused on consumption while the newer version underscores output. The conclusion is the same.
Rieder claims that the science behind his contentions “is fairly well-established,” since scientists have shown “that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment.”
While I recognize that this is an uncomfortable discussion, Rieder concedes, “I believe that the seriousness of climate change justifies uncomfortable conversations. In this case, that means that we need to stop pretending the decision to have children doesn’t have environmental and ethical consequences.”
The author goes to make a further provocative comparison, that some parents might find somewhat offensive, by likening children to consumer luxury items.
People who care about the environment “might eventually admit that having many children is wrong, or at least morally suspect, for standard environmental reasons: Having a child imposes high emissions on the world, while the parents get the benefit,” Rieder writes.
“So like with any high-cost luxury, we should limit our indulgence,” he concludes.
“If having one fewer child reduces one’s contribution to the harms of climate change, the choice of family size becomes a morally relevant one,” he says.
While generously suggesting that his arguments don’t necessarily mean coercion should be applied to force parents to have fewer children, not much imagination is required to connect the dots.
“As we face the very real prospect of catastrophic climate change, difficult — even uncomfortable — conversations are important,” Rieder writes.
The history of the twentieth century would suggest that such “uncomfortable” proposals will often result in unspeakable evils committed against real people.
Humanity forgets this to its own peril.
[h=1]NBC: Having a Child ‘Is One of the Worst Things You Can Do for the Environment’[/h]
102
by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.16 Nov 2017157
[h=2]In a provocative new essay, NBC News Think claims that science has proven that having kids is bad for the environment and therefore “having many children is wrong, or at least morally suspect.”[/h]In an article titled “Science proves kids are bad for Earth: Morality suggests we stop having them,” bioethicist Travis Rieder argues that having a child “is a major contributor to climate change” and thus “everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.”
In an ominous warning to parents, Rieder declares that we “need to stop pretending kids don’t have environmental and ethical consequences” before comparing the decision to have children to that of freeing a convicted murderer from jail.
Consider this case, Rieder proposes: “If I release a murderer from prison, knowing full well that he intends to kill innocent people, then I bear some responsibility for those deaths — even though the killer is also fully responsible.”
“Something similar is true, I think, when it comes to having children,” Rieder continues. “Once my daughter is an autonomous agent, she will be responsible for her emissions. But that doesn’t negate my responsibility.”
View image on Twitter
NBC News THINK ✔@NBCNewsTHINK
Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them. http://nbcnews.to/2AK40vc
8:40 AM - Nov 15, 2017
The unarticulated supposition behind this line of reasoning is that the environment is valuable for its own sake, rather than the sake of the human beings who inhabit the earth. Therefore, if humans cause dangerous climate change, fewer humans is a good thing.
advertisement
Similar arguments were famously employed by Paul Ehrlich, author of the 1968 doomsday bestseller, The Population Bomb, which spawned mass hysteria over the future of the world and the earth’s ability to sustain human life.
To allow women to have as many children as they want, Ehrlich said, is like letting people “throw as much of their garbage into their neighbor’s backyard as they want.”
As a logical consequence of his position, Ehrlich has defended mass sterilization, sex-selective abortion and infanticide, since by his worldview human beings are the enemies of the planet. For the religion of environmentalism, overbreeding is a mortal sin while population control by any means is a sacrament.
Although Ehrlich’s apocalyptic thesis proved to be spectacularly wrong, it has shown remarkable resilience, as Wednesday’s article in NBC Think demonstrates.
Ehrlich sold the world the idea that mankind stood on the brink of Armageddon because there was simply no way to feed the exponentially increasing world population, while climate alarmists now say that the environment cannot sustain the procreation of little carbon dioxide emitters. The earlier thesis focused on consumption while the newer version underscores output. The conclusion is the same.
Rieder claims that the science behind his contentions “is fairly well-established,” since scientists have shown “that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment.”
While I recognize that this is an uncomfortable discussion, Rieder concedes, “I believe that the seriousness of climate change justifies uncomfortable conversations. In this case, that means that we need to stop pretending the decision to have children doesn’t have environmental and ethical consequences.”
The author goes to make a further provocative comparison, that some parents might find somewhat offensive, by likening children to consumer luxury items.
People who care about the environment “might eventually admit that having many children is wrong, or at least morally suspect, for standard environmental reasons: Having a child imposes high emissions on the world, while the parents get the benefit,” Rieder writes.
“So like with any high-cost luxury, we should limit our indulgence,” he concludes.
“If having one fewer child reduces one’s contribution to the harms of climate change, the choice of family size becomes a morally relevant one,” he says.
While generously suggesting that his arguments don’t necessarily mean coercion should be applied to force parents to have fewer children, not much imagination is required to connect the dots.
“As we face the very real prospect of catastrophic climate change, difficult — even uncomfortable — conversations are important,” Rieder writes.
The history of the twentieth century would suggest that such “uncomfortable” proposals will often result in unspeakable evils committed against real people.
Humanity forgets this to its own peril.
the sad thing Zit, they're probably getting closer to home now
life itself causes the earth's temperature to rise, the more people and the more animals the more heat we remit
so to truly stop the earth's temperature from rising, we would have to control life
try selling that to the people, it's much easier to blame fossil fuels
my unscientific opinion is just that, but it least it's a plausible explanation for 17,000 years of warming AND the end to warming cycles in the past when a warming pattern triggered a cataclysmic climate change event
life was present, but burning fossil fuels was NOT
life itself causes the earth's temperature to rise, the more people and the more animals the more heat we remit
so to truly stop the earth's temperature from rising, we would have to control life
try selling that to the people, it's much easier to blame fossil fuels
my unscientific opinion is just that, but it least it's a plausible explanation for 17,000 years of warming AND the end to warming cycles in the past when a warming pattern triggered a cataclysmic climate change event
life was present, but burning fossil fuels was NOT
[ More fraud from the global warming scammers. ]
[h=1]Tidalgate: Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise[/h] 141
AP/Tassanee Vejpongsa
by James Delingpole6 Dec 2017125
[h=2]Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.[/h]The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).
But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.
The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.
advertisement
The paper – Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen? – examines the discrepancies between raw and adjusted sea level data in Aden, Karachi and Mumbai.
Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone reports:
The authors do not mince their words. They refer to these adjustments as “highly questionable” and “suspicious.”
That’s because they can find no plausible scientific explanation for the adjustments.
As they explain at the beginning of their paper, it is hard to put together consistent sea level records covering a long time period. This is because tide gauges are often the result of multiple sets of data, taken over different time periods using different instruments, which are then spliced together.
What is wrong is the way that the scientists at PSMSL have adjusted them. In every case, they have revised them in order to make them produce a sharp upward trend in sea level rise – despite the fact that global records do not support this.
The truth, Parker and Ollier conclude in their paper, is that sea level has changed very little in the three sites examined:
In Aden, for example, the alarmists have turned a modest 1.21 mm/year rise into a 3.02 mm/year rise.
As the authors put it:
A major part of the global warming scare narrative is that melting ice caps will cause sea levels to rise at a dangerous and unprecedented rate, enveloping low-lying Pacific islands, flooding vulnerable countries like Bangladesh and perhaps one day drowning even places like Manhattan.
There is little if any scientific evidence that this is actually happening.
What’s extraordinary is the desperation of scientists at what ought to be impeccably neutral and trustworthy institutions such as NASA, NOAA and PSMSL to pretend that it is.
When alarmists in charge of surface temperature datasets make dishonest adjustments to exaggerate the appearance of global warming, it looks like corruption.
When alarmists in the entirely separate field of sea level measurement make precisely the same sort of dishonest adjustments in order to accord with the same global warming narrative, it starts to look like a conspiracy.
[h=1]Tidalgate: Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise[/h] 141
by James Delingpole6 Dec 2017125
[h=2]Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.[/h]The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).
But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.
The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.
advertisement
The paper – Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen? – examines the discrepancies between raw and adjusted sea level data in Aden, Karachi and Mumbai.
Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone reports:
The authors expose how PSMSL data-adjusters make it appear that stable sea levels can be rendered to look like they are nonetheless rising at an accelerated pace.
The data-adjusters take misaligned and incomplete sea level data from tide gauges that show no sea level rise (or even a falling trend). Then, they subjectively and arbitrarily cobble them together, or realign them. In each case assessed, PSMSL data-adjusters lower the earlier misaligned rates and raise the more recent measurements. By doing so, they concoct a new linearly-rising trend.
Here is a before/after from Karachi:The data-adjusters take misaligned and incomplete sea level data from tide gauges that show no sea level rise (or even a falling trend). Then, they subjectively and arbitrarily cobble them together, or realign them. In each case assessed, PSMSL data-adjusters lower the earlier misaligned rates and raise the more recent measurements. By doing so, they concoct a new linearly-rising trend.
The authors do not mince their words. They refer to these adjustments as “highly questionable” and “suspicious.”
That’s because they can find no plausible scientific explanation for the adjustments.
As they explain at the beginning of their paper, it is hard to put together consistent sea level records covering a long time period. This is because tide gauges are often the result of multiple sets of data, taken over different time periods using different instruments, which are then spliced together.
What is proposed as a single record in databases such as the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) (PSMSL 2017a) is often the composition of data collected by different instruments, sometimes in different locations or over different time windows, with significant gaps in between one measurement and the others. This is the case of the Aden, Yemen tide gauge that is the only tidal location of the Arabian Peninsula spanning a time window long enough to infer a trend and acceleration of the relative sea level (assuming there was continuous measurement and no quality issue). In Aden, similar to Karachi and Mumbai and other tide gauges of the area, a single-tide gauge record is the result of multiple sets of data subjectively coupled together. While a new tide gauge is recording since about 2007, the alignment of the previous data is continuously changing.
So there is nothing per se wrong with PSMSL making adjustments in order to make the different datasets align.
What is wrong is the way that the scientists at PSMSL have adjusted them. In every case, they have revised them in order to make them produce a sharp upward trend in sea level rise – despite the fact that global records do not support this.
The truth, Parker and Ollier conclude in their paper, is that sea level has changed very little in the three sites examined:
The reconstructed tide gauge records of Aden, Mumbai and Karachi are perfectly consistent with multiple lines of evidence from other key sites of the Indian Ocean including Qatar, Maldives, Bangladesh and Visakhapatnam. The sea levels have been stable since the start of the twentieth century in Aden similar to Karachi and Mumbai.
But the official PSMSL data – as used by other global data-keeping bodies such as NOAA – claims that there has been a sharp increase.
In Aden, for example, the alarmists have turned a modest 1.21 mm/year rise into a 3.02 mm/year rise.
In Aden, with data 1880–1969, the trend was + 1.21 mm/year.
Per the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Centre for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (NOAA 2017a), with data from an intermediate version of a single-tide gauge record by PSMSL we may call (n-1), the sea-level trend in Aden is + 3.02 mm/year based on the monthly average mean sea-level (MSL) results 1879–2011, Fig. 6a (image from NOAA(2017b) downloaded on September 13, 2017).
Using the online analysis tool of Burton’s sealevel.info (Sealevel.info 2017a), with data from the latest update of the PSMSL database that we may call version n, with 2 more years of data, but also with some other corrections, see the data before the year 1900 shifted up, the sea-level trend in Aden is + 1.35 mm/year based on the MSL results 1879–2013, Fig. 6b (image from Sealevel.info (2017b) downloaded on September 13, 2017). Worthy of note, the acceleration is now large and positive.
Again, there is no plausible scientific explanation for these adjustments.Per the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Centre for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (NOAA 2017a), with data from an intermediate version of a single-tide gauge record by PSMSL we may call (n-1), the sea-level trend in Aden is + 3.02 mm/year based on the monthly average mean sea-level (MSL) results 1879–2011, Fig. 6a (image from NOAA(2017b) downloaded on September 13, 2017).
Using the online analysis tool of Burton’s sealevel.info (Sealevel.info 2017a), with data from the latest update of the PSMSL database that we may call version n, with 2 more years of data, but also with some other corrections, see the data before the year 1900 shifted up, the sea-level trend in Aden is + 1.35 mm/year based on the MSL results 1879–2013, Fig. 6b (image from Sealevel.info (2017b) downloaded on September 13, 2017). Worthy of note, the acceleration is now large and positive.
As the authors put it:
“It is always highly questionable to shift data collected in the far past without any proven new supporting material.”
Indeed, but it is perfectly consistent with the behavior of alarmist scientists in other fields, notably those concerning surface temperature data records. As we have reported here before, there is copious evidence to suggest that the gatekeepers of global warming have consistently and shamelessly cooked the books and rigged the data in order to give the impression that “climate change” is a major and unprecedented phenomenon.
A major part of the global warming scare narrative is that melting ice caps will cause sea levels to rise at a dangerous and unprecedented rate, enveloping low-lying Pacific islands, flooding vulnerable countries like Bangladesh and perhaps one day drowning even places like Manhattan.
There is little if any scientific evidence that this is actually happening.
What’s extraordinary is the desperation of scientists at what ought to be impeccably neutral and trustworthy institutions such as NASA, NOAA and PSMSL to pretend that it is.
When alarmists in charge of surface temperature datasets make dishonest adjustments to exaggerate the appearance of global warming, it looks like corruption.
When alarmists in the entirely separate field of sea level measurement make precisely the same sort of dishonest adjustments in order to accord with the same global warming narrative, it starts to look like a conspiracy.
