The 12th International Conference on Climate Change is coming –seats still available
The 12th International Conference on Climate Change is just two weeks away–seats still available
Via press release and email: The 12th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-12) will take place on Thursday and Friday, March 23–24 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC, and you will not want to miss it. Meet and hear the scientists, economists, engineers, and policy experts who persuaded President Donald Trump that man-made […]
— gReader Pro…
Why do True-Believer Alarmists cling to the Falsified AGW hypothesis?
Why do True-Believer Alarmists cling to the Falsified AGW hypothesis?
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2017/03/why-do-true-believer-alarmists-cling-to.html
Carolyn GregoireSourceIn a HuffPo piece, Carolyn Gregoire, wrote, under the heading and sub-heading:Why Some Conservatives Can’t Accept That Climate Change Is RealIt’s never really been about the science.Photoshopped ImageMaybe it wasn’t Carolyn’s headings and the photoshopped image that headed her article, but her opinion piece is easy to tear apart. And her piece wasn’t about the science!She begins with POTUS Trump’s quoted statement:”I am not a believer. Unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather.”And to try to tear down POTUS Trump’s statement, Carolyn pulls out the many times exposed as false statement – “97 percent of climate scientists insist climate change is real.”When will these clowns realise that this is a flawed statistic?See: (iner alia)97% NON-CONSENSUS with CAGW;The Consensus Myth: 97% of NothingThe Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%”97% Of Climate Scientists Agree’ Is 100% WrongThe “97% Consensus” Debunked yet again.And of course, the greatest deception of the fake 97% consensus – the Cook et al piece that was so flawed:0.3% CONSENSUS, NOT 97.1%The latest paper apparently showing 97% endorsement of a consensus that more than half of recent global warming was anthropogenic really shows only 0.3% endorsement of that now-dwindling consensus.Carolyn continues:Sea Levels are rising:Yes, we are still coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA). The Little Ice Age was from ~1300 to ~1870. As Land Ice melts, so sea level rises (SLR). However, the rate of SLR has slowed down.Global temperatures are rising:The article was written in November 2015. Carolyn says: this year is on track to become the hottest on record. Well, if you count proxies for the MWP, Roman Warm Period, The Minoan Warm Period, there was no way that 2015 was the hottest on record.However, in the satellite era, it could have been an insignificantly warm year. However, as James Taylor explains:Forget what global warming activists would lead you to believe – 2015 was not even close to the hottest year on record. Satellite temperature readings going back to 1979 show 1998 was by far the warmest year in the satellite era, followed by 2010. 2015 comes in third. And these results are only for the period since 1979. Glaciers are meltingYep, Glaciers are melting as we come out of the little ice age. A NASA study that came out one month before Carolyn’s piece:A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began …
Aussie Climate Forum: The Climate Data – Come check for yourself!
One Nation Public Forum: The Climate Data – Come check for yourself!
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2017/03/one-nation-public-forum-climate-data.html
Press Release from the Office of Senator Malcolm Roberts: Dear ColleaguesYou are invited to One Nation’s Public Forum “The Climate Data – Come check for yourself” on Wednesday 29 March at Parliament House.Senator Roberts and guests will deconstruct a sample out of 250+ data sets used by the United Nations IPCC. These data sets are taken from NOAA, BOM, The Scripps Institute, The Hadley Centre and other international data Centres.An invitation has also been extended to the Chief Scientist, CSIRO Chief Executive and staff, and the Director of the Bureau of Meteorology to attend and engage in these discussions.Registration DetailsDate: Wednesday 29 MarchTime: 7.00 – 9.00pmWhere: Main Committee Room, Parliament HouseRSVP: COB Monday 27 March to E: [email protected], or call 07 3221 9099On the night6.00pm: Arrival at Parliament House if you require signing in7.00pm: Public Forum commences – overview of data, Q&A and discussions9.00pm: Evening concludesIf you are unable to attend you can watch it at https://www.facebook.com/malcolmrobertsonenation/ as the evening’s proceedings will be streamed live on Facebook.Please advise of any special mobility requirements you may have so we can ensure your needs are met.Come along and check the climate data out for yourself. I look forward to hearing from you.Yours faithfullyBoston WhiteOn behalf of Senator Malcolm Roberts
— gReader Pro…
Esquire Mag Features Climate Depot…Again: ‘It’s the Golden Age’ of Climate Skeptics – ‘Grinning ear-to-ear’
BY JACK HOLMES
MAR 12, 2017
Excerpts;
“We’re sleeping much better now,” said Marc Morano, the executive director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Morano, a former aide to Senator James Inhofe—of snowball infamy—has for decades disputed the scientific consensus on climate change in various capacities. He denies that the Earth is warming, that we could know for sure humans are predominantly causing it, and that we could do anything about it even if we did. (It’s important to cover your bases.) “We are grinning ear-to-ear, climate skeptics,” Morano said. “We have a rational, scientific approach coming to Washington under the Trump administration.” Morano, who has a B.A. in political science from George Mason University, is more of a traditionalist climate skeptic: Happer’s group takes a more proactive approach, but its message is still a distortion of the science…
In our conversations, both Happer and Morano said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who left his post as CEO of ExxonMobil to take the job, could be the biggest obstacle to their agenda in the White House. (That ExxonMobil has donated over half a million dollars to Morano’s organization over the years doesn’t seem to complicate things for him. Happer, whose organizations have also received funding from large fossil fuel companies and prominent conservative donor networks like the Bradley Foundation, described a “David and Goliath” scenario where the Sierra Club is Goliath.) …
Morano claims, that climate science is manufactured as part of a U.N. conspiracy. From a more practical standpoint, Morano wants the Trump administration to overturn Obama-era executive orders like the Clean Power Plan, defund the United Nations climate panel, and to “Clexit” (or “climate exit”) from the Paris Climate Accords. He also suggested, in glowing terms, that fellow traveler Happer may join the Trump administration as a “science czar.” After that, Morano wants the president to “unleash” fracking, oil drilling, and coal production, the latter of which he somewhat agreed was no longer even competitive due to the rise of cheap natural gas.
…
New EPA Chief Bashes Global Warming Orthodoxy
On Thursday, Scott Pruitt, the chief of the environmental Protection Agency, triggered massive outrage among environmentalists, bluntly stating human activity might not be a “primary contributor to global warming.”
Warmists Freak Out Over EPA Chief’s Skepticism: ‘Outed himself as a pure climate denier’ – ‘Unqualified…extreme…irresponsible’
Scientists, environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers quickly denounced EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt after he said Thursday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to climate change.
“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” he said.
…
Sen. Tom Carper, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, tweeted about the comment, “I think 97% of the world’s scientists were surprised to learn this today! I know I was.”
…
With his latest comment, Pruitt’s mask has come off, said David Doniger, director of the Climate & Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“After obscuring his true views during his Senate confirmation hearings, Scott Pruitt has outed himself as a pure climate denier,” he said. “Having an EPA administrator who claims carbon pollution is not the primary cause of climate change is like having a U.S. surgeon general who says smoking is not the primary cause of lung cancer.”
…
Pruitt’s comment on Thursday is “nothing short of an atrocity,” said Aura Vasquez, director of Climate Justice at the Center for Popular Democracy, a group that aims to build organizing power at the state and local level.
“Denying the science of this reality will impact millions of people on the front lines of a dangerously changing climate, especially low-income communities and communities of color,” she said.
…
Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, co-chair of the Senate Climate Action Task Force issued a statement shortly after the interview calling Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible.”
“Anyone who denies over a century’s worth of established science and basic facts is unqualified to be the administrator of the EPA. Now more than ever, the Senate needs to stand up to Scott Pruitt and his dangerous views,” he said in a statement.
…
Dr. Richard Lindzen responds to the MIT letter objecting to his petition to Trump to withdraw from the UNFCC.
Apparently, MIT didn’t like its name being used in petition to Trump. Dr. Richard Lindzen responds to that letter.
March 9, 2017
President Donald Trump
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
On 2 March, 2017, members of the MIT Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate (PAOC) sent a public letter to the White House, contesting the Petition I circulated. The Petition, signed by over 330 scientists from around the world so far, called for governments to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Since MIT’s administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute, with PAOC playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis. But the PAOC letter shows very clearly the wisdom of James Madison’s admonition, in the Federalist, 10:
“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”
For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.
Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.
The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.
We note that:
- The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,
- It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2,
- Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded
Science Restored in DC! EPA chief says CO2 not primary contributor to ‘global warming’ – Calls UN Climate Treaty ‘a bad deal’
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
“But we don’t know that yet. … We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
“This idea that if you’re pro-environment you’re anti-energy is just something we’ve got to change so that attitude is something we’re working on very much,” he said.
Pruitt also called the Paris Agreement, an international accord aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change, “a bad deal.” He said it puts the United States on a different playing field than developing countries like China and India.
The United States has vowed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. In comparison, China has committed to reach peak carbon emissions levels by 2030, but will try to reach that point sooner.
Five Reasons Why Ridicule Is The Proper Response To Global Warming Alarmists
COMMENTARY
Five Reasons Why Ridicule Is The Proper Response To Global Warming Alarmists
If it seems that the climate radicals are acting desperately because they sense that their “movement” is dying, then that’s probably an accurate assessment. From EPA employees threatening resistance to Donald Trump’s presidency to junk-science guy Bill Nye appearing on Fox News to tell the world that humans are fully responsible for “the speed that climate change is happening,” the irrational behavior is overflowing.
Of course the alarmists can’t give up their shrillness. They’re still bullies who try to marginalize, shame and silence those who don’t agree with their narrative that man is dangerously overheating the planet through his greenhouse gas emissions.
But they’re the ones who should be mocked. Here’s why:
They’re wrong. The devastating heat they predicted simply hasn’t happened. Climate scientists Roy Spencer, John Christy and others have showed this numerous times.
They’ve hidden their true agenda. The zealots want to destroy capitalism and take over the world’s economy.
Two years ago, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said “this is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years.”
…The CON-sensus: The History of the ‘97% Consensus’ Claims On ‘Global Warming’
By MICHAEL BASTASCH
But how many proponents of “climate action” have actually bothered to read the research that underlays such a popular talking point? How many realize the “consensus” the research claims to find is more of a statistical contortion than actual agreement?
Probably not many, so let’s talk about the 2013 study led by Australian researcher John Cook claiming there’s a 97 percent consensus on global warming.
What Does The ‘Consensus’ Really Mean?
Cook and his colleagues set out to show just how much scientists agreed that humans contribute to global warming.
To do this, Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.
Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.
Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.
In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.
But Cook also invited the authors of these papers to rate their endorsement of the “consensus.” Cook emailed 8,574 authors to self-rate their papers, of which only 1,189 authors self-rated 2,142 papers.
Again, 35.5 percent, or 761, of those self-rated papers took no position on the cause of global warming. Some 62.7 percent, or 1,342, of those papers endorsed the global warming “consensus,” while 1.8 percent, or 39, self-rated papers rejected it.
Twisting the numbers a bit, Cook concludes that 97.2 percent (1,342 of 1,381) of the self-rated papers with a position on global warming endorsed the idea humans were contributing to it.
Other studies written before and after Cook’s attempted to find a consensus, but to varying degrees, finding a range of a 7 to 100 percent (yes, no disagreement) among climate experts, depending on what subgroup was surveyed.
Cook’s paper is probably the most widely cited, having been downloaded more than 600,000 times and cited in popular media outlets.
Criticisms
Left-wing politicians and environmental activists pushing for laws and regulations to …