‘China now burns as much coal as rest of the world combined,’ reports NYTimes
KEEP SHARP OBJECTS AWAY FROM WARMISTS: ‘China now burns as much coal as rest of the world combined,’ reports NYTimes. http://goo.gl/u3i5ua
Sen. Boxer: ‘Stop the denial’ on climate change
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/05/boxer-stop-the-denial-on-climate-change.html…
Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘ENVIRONMENTALISM HAS BECOME A RELIGION’
…Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘I’ll see your 97%, and raise you 3% – ‘John Kerry is so clueless about this issue it’s downright embarrassing’
I’ll see your 97 percent, and raise you 3 percent
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/ill-see-your-97-percent-and-raise-you-3-percent/
The meme that 97% of climate scientists believe global warming is, well, apparently whatever you want them to believe, is getting really annoying. John Kerry is so clueless about this issue it’s downright embarrassing. Does he really think we can do something that will measurably affect global temperatures without killing millions of poor people in the process? Really?
Or maybe that’s the ultimate goal?
As a published climate scientist myself, I would wager that 97% of climate scientists can’t agree on anything.
Except maybe it’s warmer now than 100 years ago (so what? I’ll agree to that).
Or, that humans are at least partly responsible for some of that warming (so what? I’ll agree to that, too).
But I think a more significant statistic — one that doesn’t rely on opinions, but on facts — is that 100% of climate scientists don’t know how much of the warming in the last 50-100 years is natural versus human-caused.
They dance around this issue with weasel words and qualitative language. Because they don’t know. They can say “most” warming is human caused…but how do they know that? They don’t.
You see, we have no idea how much natural climate variations figure into the climate change equation.
For example, this proxy reconstruction of past temperatures suggests climate change is the rule, not the exception:
And this is the stumbling block that will be in everyone’s way until we understand and quantify the causes of natural climate change.
A majority of climate scientists (60%, 80%, or even 97%) might “believe” this or that, but until they figure out just how much of climate change is naturally-induced, we will never know how much is due to humans. All that statistic measures is how inbred the climate research community has become.
And since there is no fingerprint of human- versus natural-caused warming, we might never know the answer to this central question. We might have to just sit back and watch where global temperature go from now on.
And if the climate models are ever going to be proved correct, dramatic warming is going to have to get started pretty darn soon.…
German Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt: German Scientists Tried To Expurgate Me – ‘Alarmism Being Put In Its Place…Doubt Getting Broader, More Public’!
German Professor Fritz Vahrenholt: “Alarmism Being Put In Its Place…Doubt Getting Broader, More Public”!
I sent an e-mail to Fritz Vahrenholt to ask his opinion on the Lennart Bengtsson mobbing scandal. Professor Vahrenholt is one of the fathers of the German environmental movement and co-author of the best-selling skeptic climate science book “Die kalte Sonne“.
Climate science critic Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt says doubt on climate science is gaining. Photo credit: Die kalte Sonne.
My questions to Professor Vahrenholt:
Also having expressed skepticism on climate science and having come under fire for doing so, do you think there is an atmosphere of intimidation that acts to keep people from expressing their doubts on climate science? Do you feel this is also the case in Germany? Do you think the strategy of marginalizing and silencing critics has been a successful one for the warmist side? Or do you think it is failing and is only hurting them?
Professor Vahrenholt’s responded:
It would be a wonder in a country where climate alarmism sets the tone of the energy-political debate like in no other country things would be otherwise.
I still can remember very well when the Academy of Technical Sciences prepared a report on the possibilities to adapt to climate change three years ago. At the time I was one of the three directors of the Working Group. I attempted to add to the report the uncertainties of the climate models, the natural influences on climate development, the decoupling between CO2 rise and temperature development over the last 15 years.
Three scientists threatened to quit unless I ceded the leadership of the WG. But I resisted the pressure to do so. The three scientists (which included the vice president of the German Weather Service) resigned.
Or just think back to the unspeakable report by the Federal Environment Minister in which scientists and journalists who held skeptical views were branded.
My impression, however, is that the marginalization of mainstream alternative positions is no longer succeeding so easily.
The real development is putting the apologists of climate alarmism in their place. And the off-the-rails energy policy, which believes will have an impact on the global climate, is doing the rest.
Doubt over the dogmatic position of the CO2-alone is causing climate change is increasingly getting broader and more public.”
***********************************
Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, is a professor of Chemistry at the University of Hamburg. …
New excuse for ‘the pause’ – the wrong type of El Niños = ‘Could explain recent decade-scale slowdowns in global warming’
…Scientist counters media hype on Antarctic ice sheet ‘collapse: ‘It has been in progress for several thousand years, and is neither new nor man-caused’
Watch Now: Potential GOP Presidential Candidate Marco Rubio on global warming:
…Misleading Hype Over Antarctic Ice Loss: ‘Antarctic land ice has been steadily disappearing since the end of the Ice Age, some 18,000 years ago’
…Author of 1975 Newsweek global cooling article, Peter Gwynne, issues partial ‘mea culpa’ — Rails on ‘deniers’ & promotes Michael Mann & Now says of cooling fears ‘scientists now know that they were seriously incomplete’
However, both types of warming deniers, along with policymakers who have consistently opposed any regulation designed to reduce acid rain, the destruction of the ozone layer, and other perceived ills, have consistently used the articles – particularly mine – as ammunition.
But that’s just one line of attack. Mann suffered another starting in 1998, after he published an article in the journal Nature; that included a “hockey stick” model that demonstrated a dramatic increase in the rate of recent global warming.…