Global sea level rise from tide gauges (1.6 mm/year) is half of that claimed from satellites (3.2 mm/year). Which is right? – ‘There is no acceleration of the increase’
The sea-rise is linear for at least 100 years, there is no acceleration of the increase. A signal due to anthropogenic CO2 (AGW) is nowhere visible.…
Scientists and Studies predict ‘imminent global COOLING’ ahead – Drop in global temps ‘almost a slam dunk’
Climate Depot Exclusive Round Up of Global Cooling Predictions – June 2014
Aussie Scientist Dr. David Evans: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling: Dr. David Evans: As we head to the UNFCCC meeting in Paris 2015 where global bureaucracy beckons, a sharp cooling change appears to be developing and set to hit in the next five years. Yet consortia of five-star politicians are not preparing for climate change, only for global warming. Around the world a billion dollars a day is invested in renewable energy, largely with the hope of changing the weather. Given that 20% of the world does not even have access to electricity, history books may marvel at how screwed priorities were, and how bureaucratized science cost so much more than the price of the grants.
‘Global cooling imminent’: ‘Sharp cooling’ to hit in the next five years, says new solar theory
German Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning: UN IPCC Models A Failure, ‘Have No Chance Of Success’…Sees Possible 0.2°C Of Cooling By 2020 – His charts show that solar activity correlates well with temperature, which Lüning calls “a surprisingly good match”. He then presents the various solar cycles that the sun undergoes, going into the works of Gerard Bond, who made temperature reconstructions using layers of ice-rafted material in the North Atlantic. Lüning calls the synchronicity between solar activity and temperature found by Bond “stunning”.
U.S. sees ‘slight cooling trend’ since 2005 – NOAA shows ‘the pause’ in the U.S. surface temperature record over nearly a decade – U.S. cools from 2005 through 2014: 
WSJ: The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’ – What is the origin of the false belief that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
WSJ: The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’; What is the origin of the false belief that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/wsj-myth-of-climate-change-97-what-is.html
The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?By JOSEPH BAST And ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET THE WALL STREET JOURNALLast week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.The survey’s …
Analysis: No Trend In Heavy Rain Events In The US
…NYT accused of ‘mindless parroting of the UN IPCC party line’ – Delusions Climactic & Otherwise @ the New York Times
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/04/22/delusions-climactic-otherwise-the-new-york-times/…
Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989!
According to the Boston Globe, the United Nations has issued a new climate “tipping point” by which the world must act to avoid dangerous global warming.
The Boston Globe noted on April 16, 2014: “The world now has a rough deadline for action on climate change. Nations need to take aggressive action in the next 15 years to cut carbon emissions, in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Once again, the world is being warned of an ecological or climate “tipping point” by the UN.
As early as 1982, the UN was issuing a two decade tipping point. UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the “world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” According to Tolba in 1982, lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”
In 1989, the UN was once again trying to sell their “tipping point” rhetoric to the public. See: U.N. Warning of 10-Year ‘Climate Tipping Point’ Began in 1989 – Excerpt: According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” (LINK) & (LINK)
It’s all so confusing. In 2007, UN IPCC chief Pachauri declared 2012 as the climate deadline to act or it would be “too late.” See: Celebrate! UN IPCC Chairman Pachauri: It’s Too Late to Fight Climate Change! — Pachauri in 2007: ‘If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment’
Not to be outdone by the UN, Former Irish President Mary Robinson weighed in this week, issuing a more generous 20 year tipping point. “Former …
Al Who? Gallup Poll: Americans concern about global warming falls to 1989 levels! — Climate ranks lowest among ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
[Climate Depot Note: Perhaps ‘belief’ in global warming is being impacted by lack of global warming. See: Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 8 months – No Warming Since August 1996]
#
Gallup April 4, 2014 survey Excerpts:
Americans’ generally low level of concern about global warming compared with other environmental issues is not new; warming has generally ranked last among Americans’ environmental worries each time Gallup has measured them with this question over the years. Concern about pollution of drinking water has generally been at the top of the list.
Gallup has tracked worry about global warming using this question format since 1989. The percentage of Americans expressing a great deal of worry has varied over that period, partly reflecting major global warming news events along the way. The highest levels of worry occurred in April 2000 (40%) and March 2007 (41%). On the other hand, worry reached its lowest points in October 1997 (24%), March 2004 (26%), and March 2011 (25%). The current 34% worry is essentially the same as it was in 1989.
…
Many climate change activists have attempted to raise awareness in recent years, as evidenced by the recent U.N. report. Former Vice President Al Gore has been active in raising the alarm about the potentially disastrous impact of global warming, including in a documentary and a book. But the data at the national level show that none of this has changed Americans’ worry about the issue in any lasting way — perhaps reflecting the strong counter-position taken by many conservative thought leaders, and the “Climategate” controversies.
…
Politics Remain Major Predictor of Worry About Global Warming
Politics remain a powerful predictor of Americans’ worries about global warming, with more than half of Democrats saying they worry about it a great deal, compared with 29% of independents and 16% of Republicans. This political differentiation of global warming attitudes is not isolated; other research shows that in today’s political environment, Republicans are much more likely to say that concerns about global warming are exaggerated and that warming’s effects will not affect them personally in their lifetimes, and are less likely to say scientists believe global warming is occurring.
Young Americans aged 18 to 29 are more worried about global warming than older adults, particularly those 50 and older. If these young people hold on to these …
Climatologist Dr. John Christy: Climate models overcook the planet by a factor of 3 times – ‘We are left to argue about unprovable claims’
When it comes to how the actual climate system might respond to extra greenhouse gases, we’re out of luck in terms of “proof” because the climate’s complexities are innumerable and poorly understood.
Climate science is a murky science. When dealing with temperature variations and trends, we do not have an instrument that tells us how much change is due to humans and how much to Mother Nature. Measuring the temperature change over long time periods is difficult enough, but we do not have a thermometer that says why these changes occur.
…
We cannot appeal to direct evidence for the cause of change, so we argue.
The real climate system is so massively complex we do not have the ability to test global-size theories in a laboratory. Without this ability, we tend to travel all sorts of other avenues to confirm what are essentially our unprovable views about climate. These avenues tend to comfort our souls because we crave certainty over ambiguity.
It is a fundamental characteristic of the scientific method and, therefore, of the confidence we have in our theories, that when we finally understand a system, we are able to predict its behavior.
…
All 102 model runs overshot the actual temperature change on average by a factor of three. Not only does this tell us we don’t have a good grasp on the way climate varies, but the fact that all simulations overcooked the atmosphere means there is probably a warm bias built into the basic theory — the same theory we’ve been told is “settled science.”
To me, being off by a factor of three doesn’t qualify as “settled.”
…
Others might look to certain climate anomalies and convince themselves that humans are the cause. I often hear claims that extreme weather is getting worse. Now, here we do have direct evidence to check. Whether it’s tornadoes (no change over the past 60 years), hurricanes (no changes over the past 120 years) or droughts and heat waves (not as bad as they were during the past 1,000 years), the evidence doesn’t support those claims. So, we argue.
Without direct evidence and with poor model predictability, what other avenues are available to us? This is where things get messy because we are humans, and humans tend to select those avenues that confirm their biases. (It seems to me that the less direct evidence there is for a …
Global warming religion advances: ‘Sin, guilt, tithes, penance, punishment, sacrifice, and now we have the sacred peer-reviewed scriptures’
Related Links:
‘Faith-Based IPCC Turns Science into Sin’ – ‘Climate alarmism is now and has always been a matter of faith, and not science’ — ‘The First Church of Climate Change needs a reformation. According to its leaders, we peasants are no more qualified to understand the subtle nuances of climate science than the serfs of medieval Europe were qualified to understand the mysterious motions of the heavens. And so we are told to put our faith in the modern-day version of the papal astronomer and to never, ever question the word of the educated elite. To do so would be heresy, a sin that has the most heinous of consequences.’
End Times: Peace Prof. Michael Klare in Salon Mag. ‘If earth continues heating at its exponential rate, our post-apocalyptic fantasies could become everyday realities’ — ‘We envision rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, freakish storms, hellish wildfires, and rising sea levels…food riots, mass starvation, state collapse, mass migrations, and conflicts of every sort, up to and including full-scale war, could prove even more disruptive and deadly…persistent drought and hunger will force millions of people to abandon their traditional lands and flee to the squalor of shantytowns’
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. in Financial Times: Climate activists ‘promote green imperialism that helps lock in poverty’ – ‘Climate policy robs the world’s poor of their hopes’
February 26, 2014 6:59 pm
Climate policy robs the world’s poor of their hopes
By Roger Pielke and Daniel Sarewitz
We need technologies that work in the US and in Pakistan, say Roger Pielke and Daniel Sarewitz
Selected Excerpts:
In Nigeria, the UN Development Programme is spending $10m to help “improve the energy efficiency of a series of end-use equipment . . .in residential and public buildings”. As a way of lifting people out of poverty, this is fanciful at best. Nigeria is the world’s sixth-largest oil exporter, with vast reserves of natural gas as well. Yet 80m of its people lack access to electricity.
Or consider Pakistan, where energy shortages in a rapidly growing nation of 180m have led to civil unrest – as well as rampant destruction of forests, mostly to provide firewood for cooking and heating. Western development agencies have refused to finance a project to use Pakistan’s Thar coal deposits for low-carbon natural gas production and electricity generation because of concerns over carbon emissions.
Half a world away, Germany is building 10 new coal plants over the next two years. These examples emerge from a larger, uglier background: a widely shared assumption that poor nations need not aspire to the sort of energy consumption seen in North America, western Europe and other wealthy regions. For example, the World Bank’s action plan for energy access fails to foresee that residents of a poor nation such as Chad might eventually aspire to use more than, say, a 10th of the energy consumption enjoyed by a middle-income nation such as Bulgaria.
Aspirations are critical here. If two lightbulbs, a fan and a radio are the goal – a standard measure of “energy access” used by the UN’s Sustainable Energy for All initiative – then a couple of solar panels or windmills might do the job. But if the rapidly urbanising poor are to have any chance of prosperity, they need access to energy on the same scale as all modern economies. Climate activists warn that the inhabitants of poor countries are especially vulnerable to the future climate changes that our greenhouse gas emissions will cause. Why then, do they simultaneously promote the green imperialism that helps lock in the poverty that makes these countries so vulnerable?
If, in coming decades, Africa was to achieve rapid economic growth of the kind that China has experienced, it would lift hundreds of …