http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/five-reasons-why-ridicule-is-the-proper-response-to-global-warming-alarmists/
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio appears at climate change meetings at the U.N. in New York City on April 22, 2016. When DiCaprio isn’t pretending to be someone else in front of movie cameras, he’s fumbling for gravitas as a political activist. (Van Tine Dennis/Sipa USA/Newscom)
Reprints
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.”
…
With barely a month as Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson is coming under fire for not having met with the UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa. Espinosa sent a request to Tillerson for a face-to-face meeting but the newly minted secretary has been traversing the globe and meeting with other diplomats. That’s not sitting well with worried environmentalists and the impecunious #United Nations.
Espinosa made her comments after a meeting this week in Chicago where she discussed making businesses less carbon intensive. She told reporters she’s not surprised given it was the beginnings of a new administration. She also recognized the importance of having the U.S. as a partner. Before leaving office, President Obama sent the U.N. climate green fund $1 billion.
‘Seat at the table’
Tillerson has been a proponent of a carbon tax and said at his confirmation hearings the United States should have a “seat at the table” when asked about the Paris Climate Accord. Espinosa admitted the U.S. was an important ally and she looked forward to meeting with the administration once everything has settled down.
She also fretted the U.S. could voluntarily withdraw from the Paris agreement, which calls for keeping warming from rising over 1.5°C by reducing CO2 emissions. Espinosa said she was worried the U.S. would change its position on the accord, which is why she was looking forward to working with Tillerson. Given previous comments by Trump, she has good reason.
Aggressive goals
And if President Trump did ignore the non-binding agreement there’s really not much the U.N. can do; Espinosa believes there are enough companies on the road to reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions so it won’t matter. She noted a number of cities, largely in California, have set aggressive agendas for meeting “sustainability” goals.…
Observations Show No Warming Trend, Mostly Stable Glaciers In The Himalayas…Contradicting IPCC’s ‘Fake News’
http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/23/observations-show-no-warming-trend-mostly-stable-glaciers-in-the-himalayas-contradicting-ipccs-fake-news/
By Kenneth Richard
IPCC Intentionally Uses Catastrophic Non-Science To Incite Policy Action “The most striking feature of the present reconstruction is the absence of any warming trend in the 20th century” — Yadav et al., 1997 Bhattacharyya and Chaudhary, 2003 In 2007, IPCC Claimed The Himalayan Region Has Been Warming So Rapidly Its Glaciers Would ‘Disappear’ By 2035 IPCC (2007) “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).” IPCC’s Fake Glacier Melt Claim Came From Activists, Intentionally Put In To Spur Policymakers To Action David Rose, UK Daily Mail “The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine [phone] interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental [activist] group WWF. It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.” 88% Of Himalayan Glaciers Are Stable Or Advancing — With Overall Negligible Change (0.2%) Since 2000 Bahuguna et al., 2014 (Himalayan Glaciers) “Two thousand and eighteen glaciers representing climatically diverse terrains in the Himalaya were mapped and monitored [between 2000-2010]. It includes glaciers of Karakoram, Himachal, Zanskar, Uttarakhand, Nepal and Sikkim regions. Among these, 1752 glaciers (86.8%) were observed having stable fronts (no change in the snout position and area of ablation zone), 248 (12.3%) exhibited retreat and 18 (0.9%) of them exhibited advancement of snout. The net loss in 10,250.68 sq. km area of the 2018 glaciers put together was found to be 20.94 sq. km or 0.2%.” Only 4 Gt Per Year Of ‘High Mountain Asia’ Glacier Loss For 2003-2010 Jacob et al., 2012 (‘High Mountains of Asia’) “The GIC [global glaciers and ice caps excluding the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets] rate for 2003–2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period. The high mountains of Asia [Himalayan Region], in particular, show a mass loss of only 4 ± 20 Gt yr−1 for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55 Gt yr−1 in …
Via: https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2017/01/29/us-scientific-integrity-rules-repudiate-the-un-climate-process/
U.S. Scientific Integrity Rules Repudiate the UN Climate Process
By Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise, author of the book, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.
Mere days before he left office, Barack Obama’s Department of Energy (DOE) introduced a sweeping new scientific integrity policy. This matters because the DOE is the largest funder of physical sciences in America, and because climate change is one of its core concerns.
Elsewhere, I’ve explained that the new policy is a startling departure from the one that prevailed while Obama was in charge. It seems designed to unleash mayhem. In both instances, however, the DOE was adamant concerning one issue: Politicians should not tamper with scientific findings.
The 2014 DOE policy declares:
Political officials will not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings. [italics added]
The 2017 DOE policy says:
Under no circumstance may anyone, including a public affairs officer, ask or direct any researcher to alter the record of scientific findings or conclusions. [italics added]
…personnel will not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings, or intimidate or coerce…others to alter or censor scientific or technological findings or conclusions.
There’s nothing equivocal about these statements. When scientists produce a document that says one thing, but their findings get massaged and manipulated by the people upstairs, scientific integrity has been violated. That is the clear position of the US government.
I am therefore happy to report that this same government has, in no uncertain terms, repudiated the process by which UN climate reports are produced.
In recent years, I’ve written two entire books about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Tasked with producing authoritative climate change assessments, the IPCC recruits scientists to write these documents.
The last major scientific assessment, released in 2013-2014, runs to 7,000 pages. No one has time to read such an opus, so the IPCC also released a Summary for Policymakers approximately 30 pages long for each of the report’s three sections.
These summaries were authored by a subset of the scientists who worked on the main report. But the IPCC considers scientists’ own, unadorned words to be a mere draft. Before each summary became an official IPCC document it was extensively altered. By political officials.
This …
By MICHAEL BASTASCH
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump told supporters at a Florida campaign rally he would “cancel billions in global warming payments to the United Nations” if he won the election.
“We will also cancel billions in global warming payments to the United Nations, and use that money to support America’s vital environmental infrastructure and natural resources,” Trump told supporters Wednesday.
Democrats often take the opposite tact in Florida when it comes to global warming. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign has pointed to flooding in Miami Beach as evidence of global warming’s worsening effects.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/02/trump-we-will-cancel-global-warming-payments-to-the-un/#ixzz4OsXrPedr
…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-gettysburg-address-first-100-days-speech-trade-economy-wall-hilary-clinton-immigrants-a7375711.html
His proposals include scrapping funding to UN climate change programmes.
. . .
“We’re paying billions of dollars [to the UN],” he said. “We’re going to fix our own environment.”…
Alan Carlin | September 21, 2016
As discussed in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, two of the reasonable inferences from the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis (the scientific basis for the world climate scare pushed by the United Nations and the Obama Administration) are that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels should affect global temperatures, and that the resulting heat generated should be observable by a hot spot about 10 km over the tropics. In fact, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) argues that both should exist and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) uses the hot spot as one of its three “lines of evidence” for justifying its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding (EF).
The EF, in turn, is used by EPA to justify all its climate regulations, including its ultra-expensive so-called “Clean Power Plan” (CPP} requiring that many coal plants be replaced with wind and solar-generated electric power at huge expense to ratepayers in terms of outlays and reductions in reliability as well as to taxpayers for government subsidies. The 2016 Democratic Party Platform last July now carries this approach to a new extreme by advocating that all use of fossil fuels be ended by 2050, which is highly unlikely to even be achievable at any cost.
Climate skeptic scientists have long questioned whether the effects of relatively minor (compared to other CO2 sources and sinks) human-caused emissions of CO2 have more than a minor effect on global temperatures and some have even questioned whether the UN and USEPA have even gotten the causation backwards (i.e., because on balance global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels). A very interesting new study shows that their skepticism has been more than justified. By using sophisticated econometric/statistical methods on 13 different climate databases for the years 1959 to 2015 where available, the study concludes that the changes in CO2 have no measurable net effects on global temperatures but that global temperatures affect CO2levels. The real advance in the new study is that it assumes that global temperatures may affect atmospheric CO2 levels in addition to assuming that CO2 may affect global temperatures (as assumed by UNIPCC and USEPA). This introduces complexity to the analysis but is a crucial improvement over most earlier studies.
New Research Findings Support Earlier Research by Skeptics
This conclusion is
…
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LuboMotlsReferenceFrame/~3/DG-1Mgvi1UI/notre-dame-instructors-ban-discussions.html
And my worries about these students are perhaps even greater. We read:
The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in the online forums. Moreover, students who choose to use outside sources for research during their time in the course may select only those that have been peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states.
Do the instructors ban the students’ discussions about particular topics in the online forums? What? The activity of the students outside the classroom or the campus is absolutely not the instructors’ business. If a student learns enough and fulfills the requirements in the classroom, he may very well be computing statistics for ATLAS at the LHC in her spare time, and perform human sacrifices in front of God Shiva, too.
Moreover, online discussions are clearly much more vital for the intellectual growth of the modern students than the human sacrifices to God Shiva. To prevent students from discussions conflicts with one of the basic values that the scholarly environment should be all about.
The attitudes of these three women are a textbook example of the reasons why the environmentalism is counted among one of the big totalitarian ideologies of the present. These totalitarian ideologies demand a 100% (total) political agreement with the “leaders” in the classroom – and in 100% (total) of the affected people’s lives out of the classroom, too.
Incidentally, the remark that they only allow papers approved by the IPCC is “cute”, too. And the formulation about “papers peer-reviewed by the IPCC” shows that these ladies don’t know what they’re talking about even from the viewpoint of informed fans of the IPCC. As every person who understands the words a little bit knows, the IPCC has never done anything that could be called peer review. The IPCC is/was only supposed to develop their assessmentsbased on the basis of (previously) peer-reviewed literature. They actually claim to simply adopt and present the collective verdicts by the body of the peer reviewers who did their work before the IPCC worked on those topics. The IPCC officially does no original research and no original reviews – this claim of theirs is really a necessary condition for them to pretend that they’re not acting as a transparently biased Inquisition-like filter distorting the scientific literature. Of course, they are distorting the literature, anyway, but the IPCC fans aren’t …
…
New Paper: Lower Arctic Sea Level Rise Estimated At Only 1.5 Millimeters Per Year!
http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/14/new-paper-lower-arctic-sea-level-rise-estimated-at-only-1-5-millimeters-per-year/
A brand new paper is out on sea level, and guess what? The findings show that sea level is going nowhere fast and that in the Arctic it is rising only half as fast as the much IPCC ballyhooed satellite altimetry measured 3.3 mm/year and accelerating rise. Authors: Peter Limkilde Svendsen, Ole B. Andersen, Allan Aasbjerg Nielsen Accepted manuscript online: 13 July 2016Full publication history DOI: 10.1002/2016JC011685View/save citation The paper’s abstract follows, with my emphasis added: Stable reconstruction of Arctic sea level for the 1950–2010 period Reconstruction of historical Arctic sea level is generally difficult due to the limited coverage and quality of both tide gauge and altimetry data in the area. Here a strategy to achieve a stable and plausible reconstruction of Arctic sea level from 1950 to today is presented. This work is based on the combination of tide gauge records and a new 20-year reprocessed satellite altimetry derived sea level pattern. Hence the study is limited to the area covered by satellite altimetry (68ºN and 82ºN). It is found that timestep cumulative reconstruction as suggested by Church and White (2000) may yield widely variable results and is difficult to stabilize due to the many gaps in both tide gauge and satellite data. A more robust sea level reconstruction approach is to use datum adjustment of the tide gauges in combination with satellite altimetry, as described by (Ray and Douglas, 2011). In this approach, a datum-fit of each tide gauges is used and the method takes into account the entirety of each tide gauge record. This makes the Arctic sea level reconstruction much less prone to drifting. From our reconstruction, we found that the Arctic mean sea level trend is around 1.5 mm +/- 0.3 mm/y for the period 1950 to 2010, between 68ºN and 82ºN. This value is in good agreement with the global mean trend of 1.8 +/- 0.3 mm/y over the same period as found by Church and White (2004).” No wonder global warming con-man Al Gore had no qualms about buying a beachfront home.
— gReader Pro…