UN climate chief candidly admits goal is not to help environment but to end capitalism
from Investor’s Business Daily:
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.read the rest
"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, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
The giveaway, of course, has always been that the proposed “solutions” to climate change without fail are some form of taxation or redistribution of wealth.
EPA ‘Public Listening Session’ Turns Into Sierra Club Talking Session →
The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey
Posted on November 20, 2013 by Anthony Watts
52percent_AMS-vs-97percent_SkS
The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey
Posted on November 20, 2013 by Anthony Watts
52percent_AMS-vs-97percent_SkS
We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.
In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.
Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al².
So, while we’ll be fighting this lie for years, one very important bit of truth has emerged that will help put it into its proper place of propaganda, rather than science. A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water.
The survey is titled:
Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members¹
Abstract
Meteorologists and other atmospheric science experts are playing important roles in helping society respond to climate change. However, members of this professional community are not unanimous in their views of climate change, and there has been tension among members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who hold different views on the topic. In response, AMS created the Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication to explore and, to the extent possible, resolve these tensions. To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known email addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate (n=1,854). In this paper we tested four hypotheses: (1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated–and (2) climate expertise, (3) liberal political ideology, and (4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated–with (a) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, (b) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human-caused, and (c) perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents’ views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related. We suggest that AMS should: attempt to convey the widespread scientific agreement about climate change; acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold non-majority views just need to be “educated” about climate change; continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community.
From the abstract, it is clear the authors didn’t expect to find this result, as they were likely expecting something close to the fabled 97%. They give this away when they advise in the abstract steps that can be taken to “correct” the low number reported.
The introduction says:
Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).
So clearly, none of the work to date matches Cook’s pal reviewed activist effort.
The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts:
“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”
Respondent options were:
Yes: Mostly human
Yes: Equally human and natural
Yes: Mostly natural
Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
Yes: Don’t know cause
Don’t know if global warming is happening
Global warming is not happening
Here’s the kicker:
Yes: Equally human and natural
Yes: Mostly natural
Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
Yes: Don’t know cause
Don’t know if global warming is happening
Global warming is not happening
Here’s the kicker:
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.
The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.
1. 2014 Was One of the 3% Coldest Years in the Last 10,000
Posted: 25 Jan 2015 11:53 AM PST
(John Hinderaker)
Climate alarmists play a number of tricks to try to make their catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory seem plausible. One of the most important is that they focus on a ridiculously short period of time, beginning either in the late 19th century or at the beginning of the 20th. This is, of course, not even the blink of an eye in geologic time. Given that the Earth began emerging from the Little Ice Age in the mid to late 19th Century, it is hardly surprising–and a very good thing–that from then until now, temperatures have tended to rise.
Climate alarmists play a number of tricks to try to make their catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory seem plausible. One of the most important is that they focus on a ridiculously short period of time, beginning either in the late 19th century or at the beginning of the 20th. This is, of course, not even the blink of an eye in geologic time. Given that the Earth began emerging from the Little Ice Age in the mid to late 19th Century, it is hardly surprising–and a very good thing–that from then until now, temperatures have tended to rise.
Alarmists shriek that 2014 was the warmest year ever! But that claim is absurd if put in the context of the Earth’s recent history. As Dr. Tim Ball writes:
In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda.
This chart shows Northern Hemisphere temperature changes over the last 10,000 years, based on ice core data. Dr. Ball explains: “The red line, added to the original diagram, imposes the approximate 20th century temperatures (right side) against those of the last 10,000 years.”
clip_image0211
If the Earth continues to be warm, temperatures will be more nearly aligned with what they have generally been over the last 10,000 years.
There are many other problems with global warming alarmism, of course, and Dr. Ball touches on several of them. For one, the quality of the surface temperature record is terrible, nowhere near good enough to support the alarmists’ claims of precision. For another, the surface temperature record has been corrupted. The records are maintained by alarmist organizations, which have repeatedly “adjusted” historical data to make the past look cooler and the present warmer. This is one of many examples; it relates to New Zealand, where historical temperature records have been “adjusted” by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research:
clip_image0082
Typically these adjustments are carried out surreptitiously, and only come to light when someone comes across contemporaneous temperature records from, say, the 1930s, and finds that the temperatures reported at the time are different from the ones now claimed by the same agencies. If you are willing to spend many billions of dollars, as the world’s governments are, you can buy a lot of rewriting of history.
So next time one of your liberal friends tells you that 2014 was the hottest year on record, and therefore we must turn what is left of our economy over to the Obama administration, you can tell him that actually, 2014 was one of the 3% coldest years of the last 10,000.
2. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... no.
Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of its own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change.
Supporting this view is British scientist Jane Francis, who maintains:
" What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said, " It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."
3. SCAM
At the Heart of John's Discovery Were Several Blatant Lies... Here Are 3 of Them
*Lie No.1: The World Is Getting Hotter . . .FAST!
You’ve heard how the earth is rapidly heating up . . . causing drought and mayhem.
For sure, the media jumps on the “global warming” story every time there is a heat wave and each time a hurricane hits the East Coast.
But how much has the world really warmed?
Well, according to NASA’s own data, the world has warmed .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).
I think you would agree that a .36 degree increase in temperature over the last 35 years is hardly anything to get in a panic about.
Granted, that does mean the world is warmer, right?
The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING ever since!
Fact: We Haven't Seen Any 'Global Warming' for 17 Years!
The reality is this: The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998.
Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations.
If you’re like me, this makes a lot of sense.
We’ve had cooler summers and longer winters.
Again, take one more look at the chart above — global warming reversed its rise in 1998. In the dossier John handed me, he explains exactly why this happened . . . and what’s going to happen next.
But for now, just keep this fact in your back pocket: the case for “global warming” is dead in its tracks.
Lie No. 2: The Oceans Are Getting Warmer
“Global warming” proponents have said for a long time we’d see a heating of the oceans.
This proposition is necessary, since it means all those big chunks of ice are supposed to melt, killing off polar bears and causing states like Florida to get swallowed up by water.
In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his “global warming” initiative (and quietly pocketing millions of dollars), Al Gore made a striking prediction . . .
“The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely
gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.”
gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.”
Fact: The North Polar Ice Cap Is Increasing in Size!
The arctic ice caps have increased in size by 43% to 63%.
It is seven years later, and recent satellite images show that not only have the icecaps not melted . . . but they’ve expanded in size by 43% to 63%.
Here’s what a Globe and Mail article had to say: “An area twice the size of Alaska — America's biggest state — was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice.”
I think we know who’s using actual science, and who’s fear-mongering their way to wealth and fame.
Since 2002, the ocean temperatures have fluctuated less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. There is no warming.
Again, there is nothing to get hysterical about here.
Lie No. 3: Scientists Agree — Humans Are Causing ‘Global Warming’ FAST!
You’ve heard for years how climate change has been caused by . . . well, you!
Al Gore and his liberal friends have stood onstage blaming you and your “gas-guzzling” car, standard four‑bedroom house, and the factory downtown.
Al Gore spreads “Global Warming” propaganda for his own profit.
Shame on you, right?
Of course, the hypocrisy of the claim is that Al Gore himself racks up annual electric and gas bills of $30,000, more than 20 times the national average.
Now, while I am all for keeping the environment clean (I recycle, drive a fuel-efficient car, and reuse materials), humans have not caused “global warming” . . . nothing can be further from the truth.
Indeed, “global warming” alarmists and their allies in the liberal media are famous for saying that scientists agree that man has caused “global warming.”
President Obama even tweeted on May 16, 2014, “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.
Shame on Them, Because That 97% Figure Is Completely Fabricated.
NOTE: I’ve shared a quick snapshot of the facts in John’s controversial 164-page document. Truth be told, John has 33 scientifically reviewed reasons that “global warming” is more than just a farce . . . it’s the product of bad, botched science. In John’s own words, the research in this document is “something you have not been allowed to hear for almost 20 years.” That is, the truth about our climate, the politicians manipulating the science, and the real key that controls our planet’s temperature — the sun.
As The Wall Street Journal reported, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.”
As The Wall Street Journal reported, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.”
When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change.
In outrage, a petition was signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Indeed, even a founding father of the man-made “global warming” theory — Claude Allegre — recently came out and renounced his position by admitting, “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”
Fact: There Has Always Been, And Always Will Be Climate Change
The reality is simply this: The climate changes over time.
When Alexander the Great was conquering Persia, climate change was a big factor. And we all learned in high school that the “little ice age” that rocked Europe killed hundreds of thousands of people from the 1600s through the 1800s. Additionally, we know about the heat wave and drought that wiped out much of America during the 1930s. Thousands of people were dislocated in search of survival.
Were those events caused by man-made “global warming”?
Of course not.
And, the reality is, most scientists who advocate “global warming” today know mankind has nothing to do with climate change.
Remember: Temperatures have only risen .36 degrees since 1979 . . . and the bulk of that happened during the 1990s! We haven’t seen any warming for the last 17 years . . . in fact we have seen a drop in temperatures.
Now, the Question Is . . . What Does Cause Climate Change?
Well, think about it.
Every year, the temperatures rise and fall with spring, summer, fall, and winter. A year is simply a 365-day cycle.
The sun is 1.3 million times larger than the earth. When its temperature changes, our temperature changes.
Every day, the temperatures rise and fall with daytime and nighttime. A day is simply a 24-hour cycle.
These two cycles happen automatically. We can neither change them nor stop them any more than we can stop the Earth’s rotation. It’s impossible. The temperatures fluctuate based on these cycles.
So clearly, the Earth’s temperatures rise and fall based on its exposure to . . . the sun.
Well, here’s the breaking news. And you must pay close attention . . . because what I’m about to tell you has been deemed a “forbidden theme” in the scientific community.
Talking about it gets you a black mark at the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the World Meteorological Society.
You see, there are larger cycles of the sun . . . “solar cycles.”
This may not seem earthshattering, but solar cycles are — bar none — the most devastating argument against man-made “global warming.”
Essentially, there are times when the sun gets hotter and times when it cools off as measured by “sunspots.” And John Casey found multiple solar cycles that determine the temperatures of the Earth.
The thing about these cycles is that they are predictable, and therefore it’s not difficult to see what is coming in the years ahead.
Indeed, if scientists were paying attention to these “solar cycles” years ago, they could have told you that the Earth would get warmer during the 1990s, and then it would cool . . . just like it has.
In fact, this climate cycle, along with several other cycles, has allowed John to make 11 accurate predictions about the Earth’s climate over the past few years, and it has allowed him to make a catastrophic prediction which I will share with you in a moment.
Ironically, as John released his data on these solar cycles, the ugly lie about man-made “global warming” started leaking out.
Evidence Leaked That the 'Global Warming' Faction Has Blatantly Lied.
You probably already knew somewhere deep inside that something wasn’t right about the “global warming” theory.
Sure, during the 1990s, we all noticed it getting warmer. But, to say that it is directly tied what humans are doing seemed to be a stretch, and, we have all noticed it getting a LOT cooler lately.
So it might not come as a surprise to say that “global warming” is a sham. But what does come as a surprise to many is the evidence of outright lying that is now leaking out of trustworthy scientific agencies.
Shortly after John exposed the truth about “global warming,” 1,000 emails and 2,000 documents from leading “global warming” scientists were found . . . revealing potential conspiracies, collusions, data manipulation, destruction of information, and even admission of flaws that were buried.
For example:
One leading scientist — Kevin Trenberth — admitted “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.” A travesty simply because they were worried about losing their government funding.
In another email, Dr. Phil Jones — a leading “global warming” advocate at the United Nations — admitted that he used “Mike’s Nature trick” in a 1999 graph to “hide the decline” in temperature.
And another study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed just how ridiculous “climate scientists” can get with data manipulation. Here is what he had to say: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models.”
There are several other documents just like these.
In another email, Dr. Phil Jones — a leading “global warming” advocate at the United Nations — admitted that he used “Mike’s Nature trick” in a 1999 graph to “hide the decline” in temperature.
And another study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed just how ridiculous “climate scientists” can get with data manipulation. Here is what he had to say: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models.”
There are several other documents just like these.
More recently, Professor Robert Stavins — who helped write the 2014 United Nations Climate Report — came out to Breitbart News . . . and revealed that politicians demanded he change and edit parts of the report to fit their needs!
In short, governments, and government-funded scientists, want to make sure that any “global warming” research published . . . will say exactly what they want it to say.
Now, everyone knows from their high school education that the No. 1 rule of doing scientific research is that it cannot be undertaken with an end goal in mind because you will only use the data points that support your end goal.
That’s not real science.
But that’s exactly what “global warming” scientists are doing! They are only using partial data . . . the data the supports their end goal . . . to make their point that there is man-made “global warming.”
So, we’re being told that the survival of our planet, of the human race, relies on tackling “global warming” . . . yet the whole thing is a sham.
But Why?
Why would this network of politicians, corporations, and scientists do such a thing?
Well, think about it.
Our federal government spends $22 billion on “global warming” research each and every year (twice as much as we spend on protecting our border!).
Again, that is $41,856 every minute.
If government-funded scientists came out and said “global warming” didn’t exist, their funding would be cut immediately.
But “global warming” has been kept on life support for another crucial reason: It has been a practical ATM for every in-the-know political figure.
The media is catching on to Al Gore’s lies, but he is not going down without a fight.
Al Gore, for example, has been one of the most vocally aggressive crusaders for “global warming.”
In 2001, before leaving office as vice president, Gore was worth less than $2 million. Since then, he has grown his wealth to $100 million . . . almost entirely by investing in a handful of “green-tech” companies . . . 14 of which received more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants, tax breaks, and more from the Obama administration.
The Telegraph reports Al Gore could become the “world’s first carbon billionaire” thanks to his investments in green companies . . . all of which benefit from tax dollars and government loans to “prevent global warming.”
And he’s not alone.
President Obama Has His Hand in the Cookie Jar Too.
You are likely familiar with the story of the failed Solyndra green energy initiative, which cost taxpayers $500 million; President Obama took a lot of flak for that.
After accepting $1.25 million in campaign contributions, President Obama made sure to include his “global warming” plans in his victory speech: “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.” But here’s a little-known side of the Solyndra story I bet you haven’t heard: Obama, in essence, used taxpayer money to finance his re-election campaign . . . by funneling it through Solyndra.
You see, when Solyndra fell on hard times, it passed into the hands of two large private equity investors . . . Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser. When $500 million in taxpayer money was given to Solyndra, both Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser benefited. Coincidentally, both have made contributions to Obama’s election campaigns adding up to roughly $1.25 million.
It doesn’t stop there.
In 2010, another federal loan of $400 million went Abound Solar. That resulted in a bankruptcy as well. But investors in Abound Solar seemed to do just fine . . . investors like billionaire heiress Patricia Stryker. Stryker has famously contributed $500,000 to the Coalition for Progress while throwing $85,000 toward Obama’s inaugural committee. It’s just a coincidence that the government handed a company she invested in $400 million just before bankruptcy . . . right?
There’s also A123 Systems, which paid one lobbying firm $970,000 to secure money from the government — and received $279 million in federal assistance. The CEO of A123 Systems went on to fund multiple Democratic senators and contributed to Obama’s campaign.
First Solar received $646 million in government loan guarantees, and has since contributed more than $180,000 to Democratic campaigns.
GE is notorious for spending tens of millions of dollars a year to “buy” green energy credits for its wind turbines and other green technologies — credits which helped the firm pay ZERO taxes in 2011.
There are a host of other examples of liberals getting wealthy off “global warming” initiatives just like these.
There’s also A123 Systems, which paid one lobbying firm $970,000 to secure money from the government — and received $279 million in federal assistance. The CEO of A123 Systems went on to fund multiple Democratic senators and contributed to Obama’s campaign.
First Solar received $646 million in government loan guarantees, and has since contributed more than $180,000 to Democratic campaigns.
GE is notorious for spending tens of millions of dollars a year to “buy” green energy credits for its wind turbines and other green technologies — credits which helped the firm pay ZERO taxes in 2011.
There are a host of other examples of liberals getting wealthy off “global warming” initiatives just like these.
You can see why green energy is such a profitable business — CEOs and executives get to rake in millions of dollars, while politicians get lucrative donations for their campaigns . . . and scientists get all the funding they need to keep them going . . . all on your dime.
But here’s the cherry on top . . .
While $22 billion of our money is being redistributed every year to greedy scientists, politicians, and corporations . . .
The Real Cost Is $1.75 Trillion
$22 billion is just what is spent on these “global warming” initiatives.
The reality is, these initiatives have ripple effects . . . mainly the regulations (from government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency) that shackle free enterprise and force us to rely on foreign energy.
According to Forbes, the total cost of these ripple effects is a staggering $1.75 trillion annually.
I want you to really think about that for a moment.
We’re watching $1.75 trillion per year . . . $3,329,528 per minute . . . go to waste.
It’s worse when you note that the U.S. Energy Information Administration says these regulations could ultimately cause gasoline prices to rise 77% over baseline projections . . . send 3 million Americans to the welfare line . . . and reduce average household income by a whopping $4,000 each year.
Washington knows all of this . . . and is still barreling forward with its nonsense policies!
They’re just letting you foot the bill, while they pocket the benefits.
Fact is, organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency have handcuffed capitalism . . . based on a theory even its staunchest supporters (like the aforementioned Dr. Allegre) have already renounced.
The result: reduced business, higher energy and food costs, higher taxes, lost jobs, and more money going overseas.
With $1.75 trillion in annual costs, you would think someone out there would listen to John and his research, but . . .
They Mocked Him
When John discovered that the world was indeed cooling, he urgently shared his findings, only to get lambasted.
Al Gore himself specifically called John a “pseudo-scientist” and discarded his findings.
“Global warming” advocate Dr. Benjamin Kirtman simply dismissed John’s warnings as the “usual nonsense.”
Media Matters has published two personal attacks against John — saying he has “no background in climate science” (which isn’t true) and calling him a “scam artist.”
But think about something for a moment.
Why would John take on this mission to expose the truth about “global warming” if he didn’t fully know that his evidence was fact? Why would he risk his reputation, his retirement, and his way of life?
It would have been much easier to walk away.
But John isn’t the type to walk away from the truth . . . especially when it would put his family, country, and even the world at risk.
That is why John has taken on this mission, even if it means doing it alone.
It is why he has exhausted his savings and retirement funds to spread the word about his research through his organization, Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC).
He will let nothing stop him.
After 7 Long Years of Fighting . . . HOPE!
John’s persistence is finally paying off.
A small movement is starting . . . one that I am proud to be a part of, and one that I will invite you to join in a moment.
Helping fuel this movement has been the series of cold winters and cool summers that John predicted would come. The media no longer could ignore the irony in front of them. Here is what they have reported recently.
And now, a small but distinguished group of scientists and researchers are publically aligning themselves with John Casey and his organization.
One such organization recently named John . . .
'America's No. 1 Climate Forecaster'
Perhaps that is because unlike some of the “global warming” darlings and proponents — NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC — John’s research has consistently predicted weather patterns correctly.
John has spoken at conferences across the United States . . . making 11 accurate predictions.
Since he first began sharing this work in 2007, John’s 11 predictions have come true (mind you, these are MAJOR events, not predicting that tomorrow will be slightly cloudy with a chance of rain).
I could walk you through all 11, but they are very extensive and heavy on the science. John has accurately predicted everything from a drop in solar activity (NASA later adjusted their own projections to fall in line with his) to a rise in historic earthquake activity (10 months before the earthquake that hit Japan and caused the Fukushima meltdown).
Please know, all 11 of his predictions of have been verified — by myself and other third parties. All of them have been attacked by government-funded scientists, only for those same scientists to eat their words later.
Each and every one of John’s predictions have been made publicly and shared with top government officials and the mainstream media for the last seven years.
John has made every effort to share this information. But instead of listening, the media and the left treated him like a leper and have done their best to smear his name.
Science and politics have worked this way for hundreds of years.
Galileo was ridiculed by scientists invested in the idea the sun revolves around the Earth.
Robert Goddard — the man who ushered in the Space Age and rocket ships — was ridiculed endlessly during his life for proposing . . . traveling to the moon.
William Harvey was ostracized for proposing the theory of blood circulation . . .
Opponents could never refute the science — they could only attack the man behind it. Just like they do with John today.
But there is a small group of scientists that are starting to listen, and take action!
17 Scientific Masterminds Speak
Unlike the “scientists” who want to present information that has been twisted to fit a political agenda, and slam anyone who rebels against the accepted dogma . . .
John has done nothing but put his research up to public scrutiny for the last few years.
And now some of the top scientific minds in the world are rallying to him. Here’s what they have to say . . .
Dr. Fumio Tsunoda, professor emeritus of geology at Japan’s Saitama University, testified, “ [John’s] work is quite a revelation that marks a step toward a new scientific civilization ” and his findings “add a brilliant page to the history of science.”
Dr. Natarajan Venkatanathan, professor of physics, SASTRA University, said, “ [John’s] ideas may be opposed by conventional scientists, but they will have to accept his theory because the truth prevails. ”
Dr. Boris Komitov, one of Europe’s top solar physicists and a professor at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, was so impressed with John’s work, he reached out to John and joined the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC). Here’s what Dr. Komitov had to say: “These problems brought on by this next climate change that Casey ably discusses . . . are more important than ever. ”
Dr. Ole Humlum, professor of physical geography at the University of Oslo, said, “The history of science is filled with examples of individuals with new ideas being met by the current scientific establishment not with enthusiasm, but rather with disregard and sometimes, even ridicule. These hypotheses were considered outrageous by many contemporary scientists, but today they represent the very foundation for much of our present understanding of planet Earth’s dynamics. New hypotheses based on empirical observations should always be welcomed warmly. This also applies very much to [the work] by John Casey.”
Dr. Giovanni Gregori, who has served on the National Research Council of Italy since 1963 and serves on multiple astronomical councils and in several societies, went so far as to say that John Casey is the modern day Leonardo da Vinci. He also said: “[John Casey’s work] is an important contribution for understanding and facing the environmental challenge, in its multifaceted and often disquieting manifestations.”
Dr. Dong Choi, editor-in-chief of the New Concepts in Global Tectonics newsletter, calls John’s work “earth-shattering.”
Each of these scientists has reviewed John’s work and had no choice but to agree with his conclusion after seeing the evidence, just as I did.
Dr. Natarajan Venkatanathan, professor of physics, SASTRA University, said, “ [John’s] ideas may be opposed by conventional scientists, but they will have to accept his theory because the truth prevails. ”
Dr. Boris Komitov, one of Europe’s top solar physicists and a professor at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, was so impressed with John’s work, he reached out to John and joined the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC). Here’s what Dr. Komitov had to say: “These problems brought on by this next climate change that Casey ably discusses . . . are more important than ever. ”
Dr. Ole Humlum, professor of physical geography at the University of Oslo, said, “The history of science is filled with examples of individuals with new ideas being met by the current scientific establishment not with enthusiasm, but rather with disregard and sometimes, even ridicule. These hypotheses were considered outrageous by many contemporary scientists, but today they represent the very foundation for much of our present understanding of planet Earth’s dynamics. New hypotheses based on empirical observations should always be welcomed warmly. This also applies very much to [the work] by John Casey.”
Dr. Giovanni Gregori, who has served on the National Research Council of Italy since 1963 and serves on multiple astronomical councils and in several societies, went so far as to say that John Casey is the modern day Leonardo da Vinci. He also said: “[John Casey’s work] is an important contribution for understanding and facing the environmental challenge, in its multifaceted and often disquieting manifestations.”
Dr. Dong Choi, editor-in-chief of the New Concepts in Global Tectonics newsletter, calls John’s work “earth-shattering.”
Each of these scientists has reviewed John’s work and had no choice but to agree with his conclusion after seeing the evidence, just as I did.
John even confided in me that several other scientists secretly support his work. They agree with his conclusions. They think “global warming” and the accepted climate science is hogwash.
But they can’t say anything about it.
In John’s words: “If you work for the government and you stand up and say, ‘Man-made climate change is all nonsense’ you can kiss your government job goodbye. They’ll either make it hell to work there, or fire you outright.”
It’s easy to get upset with these scientists, and we should be, but in reality, they are just trying to keep their jobs. We should put the bulk of the blame on our government.
4. The 10 Top Inconvenient Truths About the Climate Change Hoax
September 23, 2014 By TPNN Staff
Global Warming Climate Change high priests Barack Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore, as well as all Democrats have been aggressively pushing the junk science, all as a deceptive attempt to feed their political greed and give government more control over our lives.
Largely ignored by the leftstream media is the fact that NOAA/NASA altered US temperatures showing a warming trend the last 130 years where none existed. This information is part of a larger set of data, proving that the climate change “experts” are advocates, not objective, thriving on a welfare system of research dependent on making global climate change a threat.
Scientists for years have been colluding with government regulators to exact control over our economic system, attempting to replace capitalism with communism/socialism through climate change nonsense, preying on weak-minded Democrats, liberals, and progressives.
It is important to understand a few things (see supporting documentation below list):
1. The “Greenhouse Effect” is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.
2. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.
3. Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn’t cause climate change, and we cannot stop it.
4. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.
5. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.
6. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.
7. When using unaltered historical NOAA/NASA data, there has been no warming trend the last 130 years.
8. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat.
9. The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, combined with everyone on the planet, we contribute around 8 or 9 percent of human carbon dioxide production.
10. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a mental disorder.
Despite the fact that CO2 levels have continued to increase, there has been no global warming for nearly two decades, the communist believers in the false religion formerly known as “global warming,” but now referred to as “climate change” (the climate has ALWAYS changed, fyi), these fanatical evangelists deny the fact there is no science proving manmade global warming.
After multiple accounts of proven scientific fraud, such as ClimateGate I and ClimateGate II, proving that taxpayer-bilking scientists doctored data to make it look like global warming existed when there was none, the sycophantic worshiping of this manmade religion can only be attributed to a serious mental condition.
RELATED: Weather Channel Founder Explains the History of the Global Warming Hoax
And Here’s the Proof:
Plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. (Reference: John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama)
All of southern Greenland and most of the northern part were ice-free during the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in. Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and, like southern Sweden today, had a relatively mild climate. (Reference: University of Copenhagen (2007, July 5). Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable. ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 3, 2009, fromhttp://www.sciencedaily.com)
Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor). (Reference: Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,)
RELATED: VIDEO: Hypocrite Al Gore Leaves Climate March in Suburban SUV
April 28, 1975 Newsweek printed an article about scientists predicting doom and gloom because of Global Cooling. This cooling was supposed to put us into another ice age.
An early indication that the Sun’s variability in ways other than total output had something to do with climate was the “Maunder Minimum“. The researcher Maunder found that during this cold period between 1645-1715 there was very little sunspot activity, and this discovery led to the naming of the phenomenon after him. It suggested that solar activity was coupled to climate and led to tabulations of sunspot number as an indication of solar activity. Even more compelling is the fact that there exists a well-documented Roman Warm period from the time of the Roman Caesars, and a Medieval Warm Period, both of which correlate with solar activity, but certainly can have nothing whatever to do with CO2 produced by any human industrial activities. Solar activity is now expected to decrease in a 30-year cycle. (reference: : Dr. Kelvin Kemm, engineering news)
Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. the laws of physics don’t seem to allow CO2 it’s currently assumed place as a significant “greenhouse gas” based on present concentrations. if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won’t matter a bit. (Reference: The Middlebury Community Network 2008)
RELATED: VIDEO: ‘Do You Agree with Obama’s Global Warming Alarmism?’ Watch What Dem-Invited Witnesses Say
Scientists have found that studying density of plant stomata can be a much more accurate measure of historical atmospheric carbon dioxide than ice core studies. Studies of plant stomata show that the currently held view of predominantly stable CO2 levels (260-280 ppm) before the Industrial Revolution (1750 AD, i.e. 200 years B.P.) may be an inaccurate view. CO2 levels appear to have regularly exceeded 280 ppm– the average of CO2 concentrations across the Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) appears to have been approximately 305 ppm . Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over time spans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm– not the exception. (Retrieved 06/23/2014 fromhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html)
Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth’s ice and 80 percent of its fresh water. Sea ice at Antarctica is up over 43% since 1980. Arctic ice is down less than 7%. winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1°F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. (Reference: NOAA GISS, website National Snow and Ice Data Center’s website of the University of Colorado).
U.N. scientists have relied heavily on computer models to predict future climate change, and these crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate. According to the models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to have risen in recent years. Yet according to the U.S. National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001 — in the range of measurement error and thus not statistically significant. Climate models also predicted that sea levels would rise much faster than they actually have. The models didn’t predict the significant cooling the oceans have undergone since 2003 — which is the opposite of what you’d expect with global warming. Cooler oceans have also put a damper on claims that global warming is the cause of more frequent or intense hurricanes. Even more importantly, the United States is currently undergoing the longest streak in modern history without a major landfall hurricane (June, 2014). The models also failed to predict falling concentrations of methane in the atmosphere, another surprise. Reference: Wall Street Journal, Feb 5th 2007
5.
Climate Science Is Not Settled
We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy, writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin
By
Steven E. Koonin
Sept. 19, 2014 12:19 p.m. ET
Steven E. Koonin
Sept. 19, 2014 12:19 p.m. ET
The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Mitch Dobrowner
The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.
My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.
The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.
Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?" Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.
But—here's the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.
Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.
A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.
A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate's response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.
Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image
Scientists measure the sea level of the Ross Sea in Antarctica. National Geographic/Getty Images
But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.
Beyond these observational challenges are those posed by the complex computer models used to project future climate. These massive programs attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the various components of the Earth system—the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, the ice and the biosphere of living things. While some parts of the models rely on well-tested physical laws, other parts involve technically informed estimation. Computer modeling of complex systems is as much an art as a science.
For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.
We often hear that there is a "scientific consensus" about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue.
Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image
There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. Pictured, an estuary in Patgonia. Gallery Stock
For the latest IPCC report (September 2013), its Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, uses an ensemble of some 55 different models. Although most of these models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth's climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect all of the limitations that I have described. For example:
• The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere's energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate's inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right.
• Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.
Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.
• The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.
• The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that "hot spot" has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.
• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.
• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.
These and many other open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not "minor" issues to be "cleaned up" by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.
Yet a public official reading only the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies. These are fundamental challenges to our understanding of human impacts on the climate, and they should not be dismissed with the mantra that "climate science is settled."
While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem.
We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. An international commitment to a sustained global climate observation system would generate an ever-lengthening record of more precise observations. And increasingly powerful computers can allow a better understanding of the uncertainties in our models, finer model grids and more sophisticated descriptions of the processes that occur within them. The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes.
A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.
Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is "settled" (or is a "hoax") demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.
Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.
But climate strategies beyond such "no regrets" efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.
Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about "believing" or "denying" the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity's deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.
Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.
Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, BP.L
No comments:
Post a Comment