Search
Close this search box.

Search Results for: Scientists debunk global warming claims

Carbon Dioxide Causes Much Less Warming Than is Commonly Believed, New Paper Finds

Chris Morrison of the Daily Sceptic: Three scientists, including Atmospheric Professor Yi Huang of McGill University, have reduced by nearly 40% the basic amount of warming caused by a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide – a figure commonly used to promote the global warming scare. In addition they cast doubt on the ability of CO2 to heat the atmosphere beyond the levels already passed in the pre-industrial age. “Transmissivity in the CO2 band centre is unchanged by increased CO2 as the absorption is already saturated,” they note…It is published by the American Meteorological Society in its Journal of Climate.

Another sensational finding is that higher levels of CO2 seem to actually cool Antarctica. “The [doubled CO2] forcing in polar regions is strongly hemispheric asymmetric and is negative in the Antarctic,” write the scientists.

The main paper is behind a paywall but an excellent summary of its contents is provided by the science blog No Tricks Zone. The science is complex with the ‘Abstract’ explaining that the paper evaluates the “spatiotemporal variation of the instantaneous, longwave CO2 radiative forcing at both the TOA [top of the atmosphere] and surface”. In plain terms, the work investigates the rise in temperature at three levels in the atmosphere as the Earth adjusts its thermal balance from heat trapped by so-called ‘greenhouse’ gases. Using a watts per square metre formulation (3.7 W/m2), it is commonly held by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a rise in temperature at the TOA of 1.2°C. The scientists have reduced this number to 2.26 W/m2, a 39% reduction down to a temperature rise of 0.72°C. At the surface, the rise is only 0.55°C. Large parts of the globe are measured at 0 W/m2 including below zero for Antarctica.

Technocracy: Critics Slam UN ‘Climate Scientists’ Bid for Dictatorial Power

https://thenewamerican.com/world-news/un/climate-conference/technocracy-critics-slam-un-climate-scientists-bid-for-dictatorial-power/ by Alex Newman DUBAI — Top leaders at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are seeking the power to prescribe “climate” policy at the international level and then potentially even oversee its implementation and enforcement. Critics, however, warned that the demands were not just unscientific, but would undermine self-governance while ushering in an “insane” totalitarian technocratic form of government. Speaking to the U.K. Guardian, one of the largest newspapers in the British Isles and perhaps the most alarmist on “climate” issues, almost half a dozen IPCC officials suggested that these UN “scientists” needed vast new powers. The supposed goal: Save humanity from itself and carbon dioxide (CO2), known to scientists as the “gas of life” despite being demonized as “pollution” by man-made global-warming theorists. “At some point we need to say that if you want to achieve this aim set by policymakers then certain policies need to be implemented,” explained UN IPCC Vice Chairman Sonia Seneviratne, who has served as coordinating lead author of the UN “climate science” body for over a decade. “As climate change becomes worse and worse, it is becoming more difficult to be policy relevant without being prescriptive.” Leading scientists in the field, however, ridiculed the calls. Princeton University Physics Professor Emeritus Will Happer, who served as climate advisor to President Donald Trump and is a vocal critic of the UN’s alarmism, paraphrased well-known conservative pundit William F. Buckley, telling The New American he would “rather have climate policy set by the first 1,000 people in the telephone directory than by IPCC ‘scientists.’” Top astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon with the independent Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) was similarly dismissive of the proposed IPCC power grab. Soon, who recently worked with dozens of scientists to publish three scientific papers in peer-reviewed literature showing that observed warming could be explained by changes in solar activity and the “urban heat-island effect,” was appalled. “This is a rather appalling, [though] not unexpected, development for all the ‘humble’ scientists at [the] UN IPCC to now call for IPCC to violate its own founding 35-year principle for their reports to never be policy prescriptive but merely policy relevant,” he told The New American. “The bad weather and extreme climate were all imagined in those scientists’ computer climate model toys,” continued Dr. Soon, who retired last year from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. “It is sad and dangerous for those non-elected scientists to go this far to stretch their daily dramas to the epic levels that they can literally now be permitted to stop anyone from enjoying a fine filet mignon or cooking their food with gas. This is what the ‘power’ to prescribe policy that they have demanded means.” For her part, Seneviratne of the IPCC expressed “shock” about what The Guardian referred to as the “discrepancy” between the supposedly “scientific” findings of the scandal-plagued (and frequently wrong) UN climate body and the policies being pursued by governments around the world. “It’s very difficult for us to understand as scientists because it doesn’t seem to make any sense,” she was quoted as saying. The policies that Seneviratne and other IPCC leaders said the UN climate body should be allowed to dictate are enormously significant. They would alter the lives of everyone on the planet. For example, one she mentioned was phasing down or even eliminating humanity’s use of “fossil fuels” (hydrocarbon energy such as oil, gas, and coal). Those sources currently provide well over 80 percent of all the energy people use around the world. In short, the UN climate body would become the global master of all energy use, with deadly implications, critics observed. Asked about “fossil fuel” elimination in 2019, Greenpeace co-founder and former Greenpeace Canada President Dr. Patrick Moore, an environmental scientist, said eliminating hydrocarbon energy would be a “recipe for mass suicide.” “It’s amazing that somebody in government would propose that we eliminate all fossil fuels in 12 years,” he told The New American, saying that if done globally it would result in the “decimation of the human population” and the cutting down of virtually every tree. Speaking of the IPCC being allowed to dictate and even enforce policy under the guise of stopping climate change, Patrick Wood, author of several books on technocracy and the leading critical expert on the movement, warned of disastrous consequences. If such a scheme were to move ahead, it would mean the end of freedom and the emergence of a new form of government dreamed up almost a century ago and pushed by David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. “That a single group of deluded technocrat scientists should declare themselves to be the sole enforcers of their own ‘science’ is patently insane,” he told The New American. “If they are not summarily stopped, it will give them the dictatorial power to implement every facet of Agenda 21, the UN 2030 Agenda, Global Biodiversity Assessment, and more — in other words, total scientific dictatorship.” Wood noted that when the idea of “technocracy” — rule by scientists and experts — was originally hatched by scientists at Columbia University in 1932, they had a vision similar to that hinted at by the IPCC. “They basically called on FDR to declare himself dictator, to summarily dismiss Congress and to appoint scientists to run all of society,” explained Wood. Pointing to the infamous Club of Rome’s 1991 book The First Global Revolution, Wood also noted that these would-be tyrannical technocrats openly discussed “searching for a common enemy,” as they put it. That led to the idea of “the threat of global warming,” ultimately allowing them to claim the “real enemy” was “humanity itself.” “In other words, it was a scam made up as a pretext for implementing Technocracy,” Wood said. Commenting on the IPCC scientists’ calls for more power, Climate Depot editor Marc Morano, one of the world’s leading “climate skeptics,” suggested there was a link between their latest pronouncements and governments’ Covid power grabs of recent years. “The UN scientists were jealous when they saw how public health officials could implement authoritarian policies during COVID and now they want Fauci-like powers!” he argued, describing the advocates as “scientist dictators.” As if to confirm that, another IPCC coordinating lead author, Gert-Jan Nabuurs, blasted the fact that governments and people — often through democratic mechanisms such as voting — were able to withstand the UN body’s demands. “The IPCC’s critical, independent and guiding roles seem to be less and less evident,” he said. “As they decline, countries seem to be exerting a larger and larger influence.” If “countries” should not be exerting influence, the alternative would be the increasingly aggressive UN or its legions of IPCC scientists acting in defiance of nations and their governments. For Nabuurs and other IPCC “experts,” the problem is that “we can’t be policy prescriptive.” In other words, they cannot make demands and “hard statements” about what should be done. Nabuurs lamented that, despite the UN continuing to produce “assessment reports” warning of imminent doom, governments are not doing what he believes is required. “We already know that in five to six years’ time the message is not going to be very different, the problem will still be there, emissions will still be going up, there will be more evidence of impacts and less time to try to stay under 2 degrees Celsius [of warming],” he complained. And yet, in reality, the IPCC has consistently been wrong. Noting failures ranging from debunked predictions about Antarctic ice and snow fall to outlandish “climate” models predicting massive warming and sea-level rise that never happened, numerous scientists have told this magazine that the UN body cannot be trusted. … Separately, when Kerry was asked at COP28 about the prospect of Trump coming back to power and derailing the “progress” made on “climate,” he responded arrogantly. “They’re not going to stop this,” he told the world after making faces. “This economic transformation is going to be the biggest transformation in human history — it’s bigger by far than the industrial revolution — and it is going to happen.” The New American asked seven U.S. senators at the UN summit about the prospect of Trump’s return to power and the fact that most Americans reject the man-made global-warming theory, with just over a third being willing to pay even one single additional dollar on their electric bills to “fight climate change.” Senator Chris Coons (R-Del.) sounded just as confident as Kerry that nothing could stop the agenda. Boasting that the “Inflation Reduction Act,” described as the largest “climate” bill in world history, had already hooked conservative states with tens of billions of tax dollars, he painted it all as unstoppable. “Am I suggesting that were the former president to be our next president that everything would be fine? Not at all,” he said. “But I am saying that there is broad enough and deep enough support for continuing investments to combat climate change and for the Inflation Reduction Act and bipartisan infrastructure law; in particular that we will continue — we’ll continue to move forward regardless.” As UN IPCC leaders and other technocrats seek more and more power at the expense of national sovereignty, democratic norms, individual rights, and self-government, opposition is growing in tandem. Americans and people around the world are clearly rejecting the agenda as costs and reality begin to hit home, with few Americans willing to fork over even a dollar a month for the cause. The prospect of voluntary submission to an all-powerful pseudo-scientific climate dictatorship under the IPCC is zero. But the battle is just getting started.

Watch: Morano debunks Biden’s ‘science-free’ climate/energy claims point-by-point – On Bongino’s Fox News show: ‘I think it’s easier to transition your gender than it is to transition to green energy’

https://twitter.com/UnfilteredOnFox/status/1639809394710814720 Unfiltered With Dan Bongino – Fox News Channel – Broadcast March 25, 2023 MARC MORANO DEBUNKS BIDEN’S CLIMATE HYSTERIA: ‘IT IS COMPLETELY SCIENCE-FREE’ – ‘It is just designed to scare people to accept their total government control solutions on climate’ Marc Morano Debunks Climate Change Myths With Facts – “It is completely science free.” Full Unfiltered With Dan Bongino is available here.  Excerpts: Dan Bongino: I sat down with an actual climate expert Marc Morano, who debunked the administration’s ridiculous claims with actual facts. Let’s get right to it. We’re gonna go through three pieces of the video here Marc and I want you to debunk them one by one. Here’s claim number one. Listen to this piece of audio from the Biden administration about storms getting worse. The Apocalypse coming soon as we check this out. Biden: Mother Nature let her wrath be standing in the last two years, floods, droughts. So people can’t deny it anymore. Bongino: Marc, you can’t deny it. It’s all getting worse. We’re all gonna die. floods and droughts. Your thoughts? Marc Morano: It’s completely science free. There are always going to be floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires. That’s the history of the Earth. That’s completely normal. What’s key here is if you look at the peer-reviewed literature and even buried in United Nations climate reports and the National Climate Assessments — hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, droughts, wildfires are either not increasing, or they are declining on climate timescales of 30, 50, or 100 years. There is no debate on that. There’s just not happening. They can find shorter periods and say, since 2014, this area of California had an increase,, but they cannot do it on a global scale. It is just designed to scare people to accept their total government control solutions on climate. Bongino: Numbers always get in the way of a good story with the left. Marc, here is claim number two about temperature increases, take a listen.. Biden: We don’t keep the temperature from going above 1.5 degrees Celsius raised and we’re in real trouble. That whole generation is damned. Bongino: Marc were damned one and a half percent, one and a half degree hike we’re all going to burn in or it’s gonna burn or whatever. Is it any any veracity of that claim? Morano: No. In fact, the United Nations, during the Climategate scandal, when all the emails were released, revealed that top UN scientist Phil Jones said, Where did we even get this number, this temperature of 1.5 or 2 degrees goal from? He said it was likely pulled from thin air with no science behind it, and other scientists, Dr. Roger Pilkey Jr. analyzed it. This is a political talking point, not based on science. And more importantly, we’re in the 10% coldest period of Earth’s geologic history 90% of Earth’s history has been warmer than today with higher co2 levels than today. And the idea was that we’re damned as he says, That’s invoking the language of religion to allegedly talk about science. Bongino: Good point, and that’s what it is. Claim Number Three Marc, take a listen. Green Energy is cheaper but no one seemed to figure it out but the government. Solar began do wind cheaper than we can do fossil fuels. So it’s a matter of transitioning. Bongino: Wow. Marc the capitalists just haven’t figured it out. It’s just so much cheaper. Your thoughts on that? Morano: You know, I think it’s easier to transition your gender than it is to transition to green energy. There’s just no way to put this. This green energy is not green. It’s not clean, and it’s not cheaper to replace fossil fuels. It requires fossil fuels to make green energy, wind, and solar require more reliance on China, requires rare earth mining, and renewables dig the earth, not in a Brady Bunch 1970s kind of way — they dig deep into the earth. And what’s amazing here is none of Biden’s supporters could care less about China, Venezuela, OPEC in the Middle East, exploring their fossil fuels, but they express horror if we do it here in the U.S., suddenly America’s evil. They could care less about all these other regimes doing it with lower human rights and lower environmental standards. Solar and wind by the way, less than 5% of our total energy production and are not replacing fossils. If you go back 100 years, 80% of the world’s energy was fossil fuel-produced energy. 100 years later, in the current day, 80% of global energy is still from fossil fuels. Nothing’s happening. Nothing’s happening quick without major technological breakthroughs. Bongino: Such a great job. See, this is why our audience is so much smarter than left we bring people like we want to have this thing called numbers and facts always gets in the way of their story magically Marc thanks a lot for your time. Really appreciate it. Morano: Thank you, Dan. Appreciate it.    Definitive Guide to Extreme Weather: No trends or declining trends in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, droughts, heat waves, disaster losses, wildfires – All peer-reviewed & official sources – By Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. – Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. “Everything you find in this thread. Everything — is consistent with what has been reported in the IPCC & found in official data and the peer-reviewed literature.” Biden warns young people ‘damned’ if his green policies thwarted & makes wildly wrong climate claims – Point-by-point rebuttal by Climate Depot # Book reveals UN’s goal of ‘2 degree’ limit of ‘global warming’ has no scientific basis – ‘Pulled out of thin air’ Book Excerpt: In 2007, Jones emailed, “The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means. Is it 2 deg C for globe or for Europe? Also when is/was the base against which 2 deg C is calculated from? I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air.” “Two degrees is not a magical limit—it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Professor Roger Pielke Jr. explained in 2017 that the 2-degree goal “is an arbitrary round number that was politically convenient. So it became a sort of scientific truth. However, it has little scientific basis but is a hard political reality.” # Green Killers: Congo’s Miners Dying to Feed World’s Hunger for Electric Cars Biden admin closes off mining in Minnesota — But authorizes mining in the Congo Federalist interviews Morano: ‘The West will be more reliant on China with this UN Green New Deal agenda’ & Explains why Trump was seen as ‘Satan’ for nixing Paris climate pact Morano: “China doesn’t only benefit from not having to pay so-called climate reparations. But they benefit from the entire UN Green New Deal [and] net-zero agenda because the world is going to be looking to China. The U.S. buys over 80 percent of our solar panels currently from China. We rely on China for all the rare earth mining for lithium and cobalt. China is expanding mining operations in Africa — places like the Congo with allegations of underage labor of children of 8, 9 years old by international human rights groups. So this whole UN climate summit we saw in Egypt was actually the China empowerment summit.”  .. “I interviewed as a member of the Ukrainian delegation at this conference, and they actually told me with a straight face that [what] Vladimir Putin fears [the most] is European nations doubling down on green energy. I can tell you right now, the Middle East, Venezuela, China, and Vladimir Putin’s Russia would laugh hysterically at European nations doubling down on green energy.” … “The flip side of that is how do you get African nations and poor nations where a billion people don’t have adequate running water and electricity — how do you get them to sign on to these UN deals? You pay them off. You come up with a climate slush fund, the climate reparations fund. So the one thing you have to understand is the UN is very competent at one thing, Evita, and that is A) throwing a party and B) knowing how to play politics, knowing how to transfer money, knowing how to put the right interests in the right place to make things happen.” … “Donald Trump was seen as Satan himself for not supporting the UN Paris climate accords and withdrawing from them.” Read Chapter 3 excerpt of Green Fraud: ‘Man-Made Climate Change Is Not a Threat’ – ‘Hundreds of causes & variables influence climate’ not just CO2 NOAA features temperature chart showing Earth’s history much hotter than today – Past temps ‘Much too warm for ice sheets or perennial sea ice’ NOAA’s Climate.Gov website: “The Phanerozoic Eon, or roughly the last half a billion years…with global temperatures repeatedly rising above 80°F and even 90°F—much too warm for ice sheets or perennial sea ice.” “Preliminary results from a Smithsonian Institution project led by Scott Wing and Brian Huber, showing Earth’s average surface temperature over the past 500 million years.  For most of the time, global temperatures appear to have been too warm (red portions of line) for persistent polar ice caps. The most recent 50 million years are an exception.” Reality check: In 1908, fossil fuels accounted for 85% of U.S. energy consumption. In 2015, more or less the same  http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=28592 …   Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: Group betraying its history & by siding with wind turbines over whales as 400% increase in whale deaths past 6 years & Trillions wasted Report: Wind industry & the gov’t colluding to mislead public about the true cost of wind energy – FOI reveals – Wind farms can simply ignore agreed contracts and cash in big time, FOI reveals – Net Zero Watch has accused the wind industry and the government of colluding to mislead the public about the true cost of wind energy. The Government has repeatedly assured us that energy bills would soon fall as a result of much lower prices for offshore wind power, set at recent Contracts for Difference (CfD) auctions.New Report by Oxford Physicist: ‘Wind power is inadequate. It is intermittent & unreliable; it is exposed & vulnerable; it is weak with a short life-span’ Wind Turbine Collapses: ‘Leaking Oil Everywhere!’ – ‘Wait, these ‘green’ wind turbines use oil???’ – Yes, avg of 12,000 gallons of oil for typical wind farm – “Depending on its size, a wind turbine gearbox needs an oil quantity between 200 (53 gallons) and 800 L (211 gallons), according to a peer-review article published by MDPI, titled “Monitoring the Oil of Wind-Turbine Gearboxes: Main Degradation Indicators and Detection Methods.” Patricia Pitsel, Ph.D., Principal at Pitsel & Associates Ltd. estimates that the typical wind farm requires about 12,000 gallons of oil: “Right now the average wind farm is about 150 turbines. Each wind turbine needs 80 gallons of oil as lubricant and we’re not talking about vegetable oil, this is a PAO synthetic oil based on crude… 12,000 gallons of it. That oil needs to be replaced once a year. “It is estimated that a little over 3,800 turbines would be needed to power a city the size of New York… That’s 304,000 gallons of refined oil for just one city.” Marc Morano – Your Spot on Dan's Show Was The Best – Nothing But "Knockout Punches Of The Facts!" – Excellent!!! — BlippityBlap (@BlapBlippity) March 26, 2023

Top climate scientists predict decades of global cooling in study published in Nature journal Climate & Atmospheric Science

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/top-climate-scientists-predict-decades-of-global-cooling-in-study-ignored-by-mainstream-media/?utm_source=daily-usa-2023-01-25&utm_medium=email (The Daily Sceptic) — Whisper it quietly – and don’t tell Al “Boiling Oceans” Gore – but the Northern hemisphere may be entering a temperature cooling phase until the 2050s with a decline up to 0.3°C (~1.14°F). By extension, the rest of the globe will also be cooled. These sensational findings, ignored by the mainstream media, were released last year and are the work of six top international scientists led by Nour-Eddine Omrani of the Norwegian Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research. Published in the Nature journal Climate and Atmospheric Science, the scientists say that the North Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, an important sea current that has been pumping warmer water into the Arctic, is weakening and that’s leading to a cooler North Atlantic area and lower temperatures, as was observed in the period 1950–1970. Certainly, current observations back up these suggestions. As The Daily Sceptic reported recently, Arctic summer sea ice stopped declining about a decade ago and has shown recent growth. The Greenland surface ice sheet grew by almost 500 billion tonnes in the year to August 2022, and this was nearly equivalent to its estimated annual loss. Of course, climate alarmists have not quite caught up with these recent trends, with Sir David Attenborough telling his BBC Frozen Planet II audience that the summer sea ice could all be gone within 12 years. Interestingly, the six scientists, whose work has helped debunk the “settled” science myth, still attribute some global warming to human causes. The Northern hemisphere is characterised by “several multidecadal climate trends that have been attributed to anthropogenic climate change.” But producing work that predicts 30 years of global cooling puts them outside the “settled” narrative that claims human-produced carbon dioxide is the main – possibly the only – determinant of global and local temperatures. At the very least, it dials down the hysteria pushing for almost immediate punitive Net Zero measures. Lead author Omrani is reported to have said that the expected warming pause “gives us time to work out technical, political, and economic solutions before the next warming phase, which will take over again from 2050.” Needless to say, such thinking was absent at last week’s Davos climate freak show, with elite delegates ramping up the fearmongering to record heights. Former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore went into full meltdown, ranting about “rain bombs” and “boiling oceans.” Current U.S. climate envoy, and private jet owner, John Kerry described the gathering as a “select” group of people trying to “save the planet,” while chief UN carnival barker Antonio Guterres claimed we were flirting with climate disaster and every week brought a new horror story.

Meteorologist rips media claims: Why ‘Zombie Ice’ & other claims of Greenland ice melt raising sea levels are just modeled hokum

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/30/why-zombie-ice-and-other-claims-of-greenland-ice-melt-raising-sea-levels-are-just-modeled-hokum/ By Anthony Watts: From the check your Chinese soot before you check your CO2 driven climate model department. One of the dumbest climate claims this week is “Zombie Ice” from the ever alarmed and almost always wrong Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press. He of course just made up the term “Zombie Ice” to grab headlines. It doesn’t exist in the science study. Other headlines such as this one in the Washington Post are less ridiculous. On Monday, August 29, 2022, The Washington Post (WaPo) made a claim that melting ice on the Greenland ice sheet would raise global sea level by one foot by the year 2050 or possibly 2100. This is false, and easily disproven. One of the favorite scare stories that has continued to circulate about effects of climate change is the never-ending alarm over future sea level rise. Back in 1989, when today’s catch-all phrase of “climate change” was known as “global warming,” there was this prediction from the United Nations (UN) covered in an Associated Press story. “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.” That claim voiced by the UN official was based on computer models projecting future sea levels. Obviously, the models were wrong, because that claim never happened. Today, 22 years past the due date, not one country, not even a city, has been “wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels.” Today, we have the same old scare story; computer models designed and interpreted by humans who fully believe what they programmed, are used to make a scare story in major media. First, let’s look at the claim in the headline: Greenland ice sheet set to raise sea levels by nearly a foot, study finds Sounds dire, doesn’t it? Surely some low-level places built right next to the sea would be flooded if that happened. In the body of the story, they say this, bolds mine: Human-driven climate change has set in motion massive ice losses in Greenland that couldn’t be halted even if the world stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, according to a new study published Monday. The findings in Nature Climate Change project that it is now inevitable that 3.3 percent of the Greenland ice sheet will melt — equal to 110 trillion tons of ice, the researchers said. That will trigger nearly a foot of global sea-level rise. The predictions are more dire than other forecasts, though they use different assumptions. While the study did not specify a time frame for the melting and sea-level rise, the authors suggested much of it can play out between now and the year 2100. There is no time frame specified for the one foot of claimed rise? How can peer-reviewed climate science be so imprecise? 110 trillion tons of ice?  That sounds unimaginably large, and most people can’t even begin to understand the magnitude of that. For most people, the number alone is scary. First let’s tackle the big scary “110 trillion tons of ice” number that will supposedly be melted. In our companion website, Climate at a Glance (CAAG) we have already debunked this issue in Climate at a Glance: Greenland Ice Melt. The key point to consider is this: When recent ice loss is compared to the full Greenland ice sheet, the loss is so small that it is almost undetectable. Over the past couple of decades, claims of ice melt in Greenland have been used to bolster fears of runaway sea-level rise. For example, NASA scientists said the following about the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets: “The two regions have lost 6.4 trillion tons of ice in three decades; unabated, this rate of melting could cause flooding that affects hundreds of millions of people by 2100.” Although several trillion tons of ice sounds like massive ice loss, it amounts to less than 1 percent of Greenland’s total ice mass. As shown in Figure 1, the total ice loss each year is nearly undetectable, coming in at just 0.005 percent of the Greenland ice sheet. Figure 1. A comparison of presentations of satellite data capturing Greenland’s ice mass loss. The image on the right shows changes in Greenland’s ice mass relative to Greenland’s total ice mass. Sources: The data plotted in these graphs are from the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-Comparison Exercise, a joint exercise by NASA and the European Space Agency.4 Graphs originally by Willis Eschenbach. Adapted and annotated by Anthony Watts. As you can see, even if the 3% number projected by the computer model for some time in the future were to actually come true, it is still miniscule compared to all of the ice in Greenland. But, there are two very important real-world things that are not covered in the new study. The first is weather patterns, and the second is black carbon soot. Weather patterns, not climate change, determine if ice will melt in Greenland or not. In July 2021 alarm was raised about a one-day weather event in Greenland during the summer when cloud cover lifted and the sun came out, melting the surface layer. Greenland: Enough Ice Melted on Single Day to Cover Florida in Two Inches of Water, claimed The Guardian. It was yet another climate scare-story, and what they didn’t tell you was that the very next day, all that melted water re-froze when the clouds returned. The water never made it to the ocean. The new study cited by WaPo simply doesn’t factor in weather patterns, but assumes a simple linear causation from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warming the planet enough to cause enough melt to raise sea-level by a foot sometime in the future, maybe by 2050, maybe by 2100 – they aren’t sure as both dates were used in the article. The other factor not considered is black carbon soot being deposited on the Greenland ice sheet. Both forest fires and increased industrialization factor into that soot. The black carbon soot absorbs more sunlight, thus increasing heat retention from sunlight, and enhances melting. Another peer reviewed study says Asia’s booming coal based economy is a primary cause of the soot being deposited in the Arctic, including Greenland. They say: Snow and sea ice are two of the most reflective surfaces occurring naturally on planet Earth. Light absorbing aerosols, such as wind blown black carbon, that stick to these pristine surfaces can make them less reflective, thus converting more sunlight into heat. The added heat leads to increased surface temperatures and is detrimental to the Arctic climate. Note in the Figure 1 graph how the ice melt really doesn’t start until around the year 2001. If climate change was really the cause, you would be seeing ice melt all the way back to 1980, because global carbon dioxide levels have been steadily increasing and supposedly warming the planet since then. What really happened around the year 2001 becomes abundantly clear in Figure 2. Figure 2. Source: Our World in Data, China energy mix. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-region?stackMode=absolute&country=~CHN Figure 2 shows China’s use of coal really took off around 2001, and as most anyone knows, coal produces significant amounts of soot when burned, which is why it has been dubbed as a “dirty fuel.” It doesn’t take a PhD in climate science to notice the clear correlation between China’s coal use, soot production, and Greenland ice melt post 2001. The new study cited by WaPo misses that completely. What will happen in the future if China uses less coal and produces less soot? Finally, let’s run the numbers so far and without the aid of billion-dollar supercomputers, we can make our own simple math model for projecting sea level rise into the future. From Climate at a Glance: Sea Level Rise we have these numbers: Global sea level has been rising since at least the mid-1800s, and data show there has been only minor recent acceleration. NASA satellite instruments, with readings dating back to 1993, show global sea level rising at a pace of merely 1.2 inches per decade, even post 2001 with the additional melt from Greenland. So, if we choose 2050 as the end date for the purported 1 foot of sea level rise the math works out to be: 2050-2022= 28 years. We’ll round that to three decades. 3 decades x 1.2”/decade = 3.6” by 2050 Or for the year 2100 we have: 2100-2022= 78 years. We’ll round that to eight decades. 8 decades x 1.2”/decade = 9.6” by 2100 No matter what end date you choose, you still can’t get to 1 foot of sea level rise cited by the study. And since the study can’t even put a date in place for that, nor do they consider soot, weather patterns, or changes to energy production, especially in China, the study is little more than an exercise in guessing wrapped up in a peer-reviewed paper to give sort of sense of credulity for unquestioning reporters. And here is something the zombie, er, one-track-mind reporters like Seth Borenstein and Chris Mooney won’t tell you. “The Greenland ice sheet gained a record-breaking 7 gigatons of snow/ice yesterday, the most during any summer month since the early-1980s. Journos are selective, they’ll report on a day of record melt, but you can bet your hard-earned dollar this won’t make any major headlines.” (h/t Chris Martz on Twitter) Looking back to the impossible, irresponsible, and falsified sea-level claim made in 1989, the present day articles from WaPo and AP reminds me of the greatest quote from Yogi Berra ever: ‘It’s Deja Vu All Over Again’ Note: Some parts of this essay originally appeared on Climate Realism – Anthony

DEBUNKED: Europe’s claimed ‘worst drought in 500 years’ – Peer-reviewed studies, data & IPCC reveal ‘drought has not increased’ & ‘cannot be attributed to human-caused climate change’

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/series-what-the-media-wont-tell-you Dr. Pielke Jr.: Let’s take a look at what the peer-reviewed literature and the IPCC actually say about drought trends in this region and their possible attribution to climate change. One recent study — Vincente-Serrano et al. 2020 — looked at long-term trends in drought in Western Europe from 1851 to 2018, with a focus on precipitation deficits…The figure below shows trends aggregated for the region as a whole. They conclude: “Our study stresses that from the long-term (1851–2018) perspective there are no generally consistent trends in droughts across Western Europe.” Another recent study — Oikonomou et al. 2020 — looked at more recent trends, from 1969 to 2018, and inclusive of all four of the IPCC European sub-regions. They found overall: “Seemingly, one of the central outcomes of this research is that there is little change in drought characteristics for 1969–2018. It also seems, no particular tendencies for more or less frequent droughts in the two major geographical domains of Europe are present. This reinforces the stochastic nature of the drought natural hazard.” …  The IPCC AR6 — which summarizes a much broader literature than the two papers cited above — classifies drought into three categories: meteorological, hydrological and agricultural/ecological which emphasize respectively precipitation, streamflow and soil moisture. With respect to hydrological drought in Western and Central Europe the IPCC could not be stronger in its conclusion: “in areas of Western and Central Europe and Northern Europe, there is no evidence of changes in the severity of hydrological droughts since 1950”   For hydrological drought the IPCC is also quite strong in its conclusions: “Low confidence: Weak or insignificant trends” In Western and Central Europe — basically Atlantic France all the way to Moscow, north of the Mediterranean region and south of the North Sea region — the IPCC and the underlying peer reviewed research on which it assesses has concluded that drought has not increased and, logically, that increased drought cannot be attributed to human-caused climate change. # Roger Pielke Jr: What the media won’t tell you about drought in Europe Roger Pielke Jr., 15 August 2022[…] Europe is in the midst of what has been called the worst drought in 500 years. According to a drought expert with the European Commission in comments last week: “We haven’t analysed fully the event (this year’s drought), because it is still ongoing, but based on my experience I think that this is perhaps even more extreme than 2018. Just to give you an idea the 2018 drought was so extreme that, looking back at least the last 500 years, there were no other events similar to the drought of 2018, but this year I think it is really worse than 2018.” While a full analysis of the ongoing 2022 European drought remains to be completed, so too the drought itself, it is clearly exceptional if not unprecedented. In this post I take a close look at the state of understanding the possible role of climate change n this year’s drought. Specifically, I report on what the most recent assessment report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and underlying literature and data say about the detection of trends in Western and Central European drought and the attribution of those trends to greenhouse gas emissions. The figure below shows the specific region that is the focus of this post, which includes all of Germany, most of France, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, and western Russia among other nations. In general, for the other three regions in the above map the IPCC expects with varying levels of confidence at at different levels of warming by 2100 drought to decrease in Northern Europe (NEU, which includes the UK), increase in the Mediterranean (MED) and to be highly uncertain in Eastern Europe (EEU). I will be happy to explore these other regions in depth in a future post. (See IPCC AR6 Chapter 11 if you’d like to explore for yourself.) For Western and Central Europe, and especially for Germany and Northern France which are the subject of considerable news coverage right now, accurate representations of the current state of scientific understandings of drought are typically absent. Instead, we see many confident claims by journalists and some scientists of that this year’s drought is a signal of (or, if you prefer — fueled by, linked to, evidence of) human-caused climate change. Let’s take a look at what the peer-reviewed literature and the IPCC actually say about drought trends in this region and their possible attribution to climate change. One recent study — Vincente-Serrano et al. 2020 — looked at long-term trends in drought in Western Europe from 1851 to 2018, with a focus on precipitation deficits. (Note that their geographical definition of Western Europe differs slightly from that of the IPCC). The figure below shows trends aggregated for the region as a whole. They conclude: “Our study stresses that from the long-term (1851–2018) perspective there are no generally consistent trends in droughts across Western Europe.” Source: Vincente-Serrano et al. 2020 The paper goes through a number of different metrics of drought for various subregions across Europe. The authors are careful to note that there are other metrics of drought which may show different results:”We emphasize that our findings should be seen in the context of the drought metric applied. Our assessment of drought characteristics is based on SPI, which is a precipitation-based metric. For a long-term assessment of drought in the region, it is not possible to use metrics that employ other important variables (e.g., streamflow, soil moisture, or AED).” Another recent study — Oikonomou et al. 2020 — looked at more recent trends, from 1969 to 2018, and inclusive of all four of the IPCC European sub-regions. They found overall: “Seemingly, one of the central outcomes of this research is that there is little change in drought characteristics for 1969–2018. It also seems, no particular tendencies for more or less frequent droughts in the two major geographical domains of Europe are present. This reinforces the stochastic nature of the drought natural hazard.” Of course, as the studies above acknowledge, trend analyses can be sensitive to start and end dates. One reason for this sensitivity is the fact that climate varies a great deal even without the presence of human forcings — and this variability is of course one of the challenges facing the detection of long-term trends, especially for rare events. For its part, the IPCC AR6 — which summarizes a much broader literature than the two papers cited above — classifies drought into three categories: meteorological, hydrological and agricultural/ecological which emphasize respectively precipitation, streamflow and soil moisture. With respect to hydrological drought in Western and Central Europe the IPCC could not be stronger in its conclusion: “in areas of Western and Central Europe and Northern Europe, there is no evidence of changes in the severity of hydrological droughts since 1950” For hydrological drought the IPCC is also quite strong in its conclusions: “Low confidence: Weak or insignificant trends” The IPCC lumps WCE in with many other global regions in its conclusion that, “Past increases in agricultural and ecological droughts are found on all continents and several regions” which it expresses with medium confidence, a qualitative judgment which is typically interpreted as about a 50-50 chance of being true. Looking to the future the IPCC is quite clear that we should not expect to be able to attribute trends in drought to climate change today. The IPCC projects only medium confidence for increases in hydrological agricultural/ecological drought at 2 and 4 degrees C increases in temperature and low confidence for increases in meteorological drought at 2C. In short, the IPCC does not expect that either detection or attribution should occur in 2022, when we are still well below 2C and suggests that it may be many decades before detection and attribution claims can be more strongly supported. I have stitched together the summary table from IPCC AR6 Chapter 11 on the various metrics of drought and reproduced that below (alternatively, flip to pp. 1689-90 in Chapter 11 of IPCC AR6). IPCC AR6 summary of it conclusions for various metrics of drought for Western and Central Europe. Source: Chapter 11, 1689-90 The bottom line: In Western and Central Europe — basically Atlantic France all the way to Moscow, north of the Mediterranean region and south of the North Sea region — the IPCC and the underlying peer reviewed research on which it assesses has concluded that drought has not increased and, logically, that increased drought cannot be attributed to human-caused climate change. The only exception here is that the IPCC has medium confidence in an increasing trend of soil moisture deficits in some subregions, however the IPCC has low confidence that this trend can be attributed to human-caused climate change. Looking to future, at temperature changes of 2C and more, at present the IPCC does not expect the current state of scientific understandings to change. But stay tuned — that’s why we do science. # Related Links:  Excerpt from Green Fraud: Droughts Aren’t Getting Worse, Either— and Neither Are Wildfires “Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century,” Professor Roger Pielke Jr. observed. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has concluded there is “no trend in global droughts since 1950.” Other studies found “a decline in drought levels in recent decades,” noted the Global Warming Policy Forum in 2020. “The IPCC says it is hard to say (‘low confidence’) whether global drought has become better or worse since 1950,” said the GWPF. A 2015 study found that megadroughts in the past two thousand years were worse and lasted longer than current droughts. There is “less fire today than centuries ago,” as scientists and multiple studies counter the claim that wildfires are due to “climate change.” # Excerpt from Green Fraud: Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado testified to Congress there was simply “‘no evidence’ that hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes are increasing.” A 2020 study by Pielke published in the journal Environmental Hazards found that the “evidence signal of human-caused climate change in the form of increased global economic losses from more frequent or more intense weather extremes has not yet been detected.” On nearly every metric, extreme weather is on either no trend or a declining trend on climate timescales. Even the UN IPCC admitted in a 2018 special report that extreme weather events have not increased. The IPCC’s special report found that “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.”56 The IPCC report also concluded “low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale.” Pielke testified to Congress on the current state of weather extremes, “It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.” # 1000 year rainfall study suggests droughts and floods used to be longer, worse Biden falsely links Kentucky floods to ‘climate change’ – Reality Check: Floods ‘have not increased in frequency or intensity’ – White House ignores peer-reviewed studies & IPCC & data Debunked: Kentucky’s Floods Were NOT Caused By ‘Climate Change’ – Media/Biden ‘Claims are rubbish & fraudulent’

Watch: Morano on The First TV debunks John Kerry’s claims about ‘global warming’

Video here: https://www.thefirsttv.com/watch/climate-warming-debunked/ Marc Morano of Climatedepot.com goes down the list to debunk all the climate “warming” myths. First, much of it comes down to the framing of statistics and fear-mongering a sense of urgency. Morano knows it’s all apart of some political agenda, and you can ask former UN scientists who will tell you personally, they left because it was a corrupt, dishonest system. I’m Right w/Jesse Kelly  

COVID/Climate Merging: Modeling study claims: ‘Climate Change Will Make Pandemics Like COVID More Likely’

Climate Depot Special Report Marc Morano comments: “The climate movement is now merging their focus on linking viruses to “climate change” and thus making fighting climate change a part of fighting deadly viruses. Global warming promoters know that they should never let a crisis go to waste. They are pouncing on any opportunity to inject climate change into the COVID-19 issue.  They want to keep both climate and COVID fears humming along to push their so-called solutions, so what better way than to merge the two issues!? Worried about COVID-19, then support the UN Paris climate pact, the Green New Deal, carbon taxes, etc., or else you are a gramma killer! The activists will then attempt to piggyback efforts like the Green New Deal as a part of future virus-fighting strategies. Already, media reports are claiming more Green New Deal Style policies are needed because ‘efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions may not be enough to stave off the increased transmission of viruses between species.’ Doctors are now clinically diagnosing patients with ‘climate change” and there are calls from academics to add ‘climate change’ as a cause of death on death certificates. In short, climate change can no longer survive on its own, it needs to be linked with COVID fears to prop it up as a concern. The climate establishment spent decades trying to scare us about overpopulation, global cooling, the amazon rainforest (allegedly disappearing), and finally, climate change and they utterly failed. A virus came along in 2020 and they realized that this cut across ideologies, cut across political affiliation and they were able to declare an emergency and suspend normal democracy. They were able to achieve their one-party state with an unelected bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the data does not support this latest speculative computer model COVID/Climate scare story: See: H. Sterling Burnett’s analysis: Science Crushes Claimed Link Between COVID & Climate– ‘In reality, if a modestly warming Earth has any impact on viruses and pandemics, it is to make them less likely and less severe…Historically, we know that the Black Plague arose and ran rampant in Europe and elsewhere during the Little Ice Age.’ # Bill Gates warns ‘climate change’ will cause more viruses like COVID-19 – Claims ‘it’s quite clear’ it originated in bats Bill Gates: “It’s quite clear in this case, [Covid] came across through animals. And almost all our diseases, like HIV, crossed over from chimpanzees in Africa quite some time ago; Ebola came from bats, this also, with one step in between came across from bats.” – “So it’s going to keep happening, particularly with climate change where we’re invading a lot of habitats. And you want to catch it as soon as you can.” US News & World Report: Climate Change Will Make Pandemics Like COVID More Likely: Report April 28, 2022, at 8:36 a.m. Excerpt: Planet Earth is growing hotter, forcing different animal species to migrate to new areas and interact with other unfamiliar creatures at an increasing rate. That phenomenon could have dire consequences to human health, a new study says, raising the odds for new viral illnesses such HIV (which originated in primates), as well as pandemics such as COVID-19, which many believe originated in a coronavirus that jumped from species such as bats or pangolins to people. Potential new contacts between different species are expected to essentially double over the next 50 years, increasing the risk that other viruses will jump from animal to animal and eventually into humans, researchers predict. Viruses will move to a new animal species at least 15,000 times by 2070 as a result of migration driven by climate change, according to projections published in the journal Nature. # NPR: Climate change may have one more side effect — another pandemic – Excerpt: NPR’s RASCOE: And you and your colleagues built a computer model to project how viral jumps between species might change in a warming world. What type of information did you use to build that model, and what did your results show? CARLSON: So we’ve been running simulations on and off for about three years. We take huge climate models. We project where animals can go to track their habitats, and then we use machine learning to figure out what animals might be able to share viruses with each other. What we find is that everybody’s on the move. We found that most species are probably going to have at least one chance to pick up new viruses. And at a sort of global scale, this is really concerning news when it comes to human health because it means that species like bats that have coronaviruses, Ebola virus, all of these things we worry about, they’re probably going to need to share some of the same places that we already live. And they’re going to be sharing a ton of viruses in our backyard. # The Atlantic: We Created the ‘Pandemicene’ – By completely rewiring the network of animal viruses, climate change is creating a new age of infectious dangers. By Ed Yong Excerpt: For the world’s viruses, this is a time of unprecedented opportunity. An estimated 40,000 viruses lurk in the bodies of mammals, of which a quarter could conceivably infect humans. Most do not, because they have few chances to leap into our bodies. But those chances are growing. Earth’s changing climate is forcing animals to relocate to new habitats, in a bid to track their preferred environmental conditions. Species that have never coexisted will become neighbors, creating thousands of infectious meet-cutes in which viruses can spill over into unfamiliar hosts—and, eventually, into us. Many scientists have argued that climate change will make pandemics more likely, but a groundbreaking new analysis shows that this worrying future is already here, and will be difficult to address. # Forbes: Climate Change Could Spark Future Pandemics, Study Finds Global warming could fuel future pandemics by dramatically increasing the risk viruses will jump into humans from other animals, researchers warned Thursday, illuminating another hidden and far-reaching cost of the climate crisis. As the world gets warmer, many animals will be forced to find new places to live, taking any parasites and pathogens they carry along for the ride, researchers wrote in Nature. The researchers examined how climate change could alter the geographic range of some 3,100 mammal species between now and 2070 and how this might affect the transmission of viruses between species. Even under the most optimistic climate forecasts—less than 2°C warming—the researchers predict climate change will trigger at least 15,000 new instances of viruses crossing between species for the first time by 2070.  The researchers said these “spillover” events will be predominantly driven by bats—which can travel large distances, are likely to carry pathogens capable of infecting humans and are widely believed to be the source of Covid-19—and concentrated in densely populated areas in Asia and Africa. While it’s not clear precisely how the new viruses will affect species involved, Dr. Gregory Albery, one of the study’s lead authors and a disease ecologist at Georgetown University, said it is “likely” many will “fuel the emergency of novel outbreaks in humans.” With human activity driving temperatures upwards, this process could already be well underway, the researchers warned, adding that efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions may not be enough to stave off the increased transmission of viruses between species. # Climate change ‘already’ raising risk of virus spread between mammals – Excerpt: Mammals forced to move to cooler climes amid global warming are “already” spreading their viruses further – with “undoubtable” impacts for human health, a new study says. The research, published in Nature, uses modelling to map how climate change could shift the geographic ranges of 3,100 mammals species and the viruses they carry by 2070. …  The findings suggest that climate change could “easily become the dominant [human] driver” of cross-species virus transmission by 2070, the authors say. # Climate Change To Increase ‘Zoonotic Spillover’ — Yes, That’s Very Bad # Flashback 2020: Anthony Fauci: COVID-19 is due to ‘extreme backlashes from nature’ – ‘Will require changes in human behavior’ & ‘Other radical changes’ – ‘Rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence’ Fauci in a September 3, 2020 paper published in the biomedical journal Cell Press: “Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence…” Flashback 2020: Harvard School of Public Health links Climate & COVID: ‘The root causes of climate change also increase the risk of pandemics’ – ‘We also need to take climate action to prevent the next pandemic’ Dr. Aaron Bernstein, Director of Harvard Chan C-CHANGE: “We also need to take climate action to prevent the next pandemic.” … “Climate change alters how we relate to other species on Earth and that matters to our health and our risk for infections.” … “Many of the root causes of climate change also increase the risk of pandemics.” ‘Fantastic’ for the climate: Activists See Coronavirus Lockdowns As Dress Rehearsal for ‘Climate Emergency’ – Special Report Update:The ‘Great Reset’: Rule by Unelected ‘Experts’ – COVID-Climate Technocracy has arrived – ‘The danger of letting lab coats run the world’ – Special Report The climate movement is now merging their focus on linking viruses to “climate change” and thus make fighting climate change a part of fighting deadly viruses. Former Sec. of State John Kerry on ‘the parallels between the coronavirus and the climate crisis’: “Climate change is a threat multiplier for pandemic diseases, and zoonotic diseases — 70 percent of all human infections — are impacted by climate change and its effect on animal migration and habitats.” Washington Post’s science reporter claims: ‘Climate change affects everything — even the coronavirus’ – ‘No aspect of life on this planet has been untouched by climate change — viruses included’ Jane Fonda: ‘Climate change guarantees that COVID-19 will not be the last pandemic we will see’ – “The melting of the Arctic ice sheet is releasing untold pathogens to which humans are not immune. Climate change guarantees that COVID-19 will not be the last pandemic we will see.” The activists will then attempt to piggyback efforts like the Green New Deal as a part of future virus-fighting strategies. Climate activists: Coronavirus response needs to be ‘a Global Green New Deal’ to ‘decarbonize the global economy as fast as is feasibly possible’ Global warming promoters know that they should never let a crisis go to waste. They are pouncing on any opportunity to inject climate change into the COVID-19 issue including attempts to make sure that federal stimulus bills include going in the “right direction toward decarbonization.” The expected merging of COVID & Climate: CBS News: Study: Climate change ‘may have played a key role’ in coronavirus pandemic – Claims it may make ‘future pandemics more likely’     Rolling Stone mag: “How Climate Change Is Ushering in a New Pandemic Era”: The author writes, “[a] warming world is expanding the range of deadly diseases and risking an explosion of new zoonotic pathogens from the likes of bats, mosquitoes, and ticks.” The article is long on assertions, touching anecdotes, and personal stories but short on facts and scientific evidence. Rebuttal: Science Crushes Claimed Link Between COVID & Climate– In reality, if a modestly warming Earth has any impact on viruses and pandemics, it is to make them less likely and less severe…Historically, we know that the Black Plague arose and ran rampant in Europe and elsewhere during the Little Ice Age. H. Sterling Burnett: Climate alarmists and major media outlets are deceitfully exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to tell the public lies that climate change makes pandemics more likely and severe. In reality, the evidence is quite clear that warmer temperatures make pandemics and underlying outbreaks of viruses like the flu less frequent and severe. In a March 24 editorial in The Hill, Vinod Thomas, former direct-general of the Independent Evaluation Group at the World Bank Group, writes, “There is a link to pandemics, like COVID-19, and a warmer world….” Thomas’s claim follows many others in the media. For example, a recent Time magazine article states, “I have no evidence that climate change triggered this particular virus to jump from animals to humans at this particular time, or that a warmer planet has helped it spread. That said, it’s pretty clear that, broadly speaking, climate change is likely to lead to an uptick in future epidemics caused by viruses and other pathogens.” … Numerous studies demonstrate that transmissible diseases like the flu and the coronavirus are far more prevalent and deadly during the late-fall, winter, and early spring, when the weather is cold and damp, rather than in the summer months when it is warm and dry. That is a reason the flu season runs from fall through early spring, and then peters out. And colds, while not unheard of, are less common in the summer as well. Chapter 7 or the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change’s report of Climate Change Reconsidered: Biological Impacts details the results of dozens of peer reviewed studies and reports showing premature deaths from illness and disease are far more prevalent during colder seasons and colder climate eras rather than during warmer seasons and warmer climate eras. In 2010, British Broadcasting Channel’s health correspondent Clare Murphy analyzed mortality statistics from the UK’s Office of National Statistics from 1950 through 2007 and found, “For every degree the temperature drops below 18C [64 degrees Fahrenheit], deaths in the UK go up by nearly 1.5 percent.” U.S. Interior Department analyst Indur Goklany studied official U.S. mortality statistics and found similar results. According to official U.S. mortality statistics, an average of 7,200 Americans die each day during the months of December, January, February, and March, compared to 6,400 each day during the rest of the year. In an article published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004, W. R. Keatinge and G. C. Donaldson noted, “Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.” More recently, in a study published in the Lancet in 2015, researchers examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries, accounting for more than 74 million deaths—a huge sample size from which to draw sound conclusions—and found cold weather, directly or indirectly, killed 1,700% more people than hot weather. No, that is not a typo – 1,700% more people die from cold temperatures than warm or hot temperatures. Contrary to the fear-mongering assertions in The Hill and Time, the overwhelming scientific evidence shows it is cold, not heat, that kills. Therefore, a modestly warmer world, with shorter, less severe winters, should result in fewer premature deaths from disease, viruses, pandemics, hunger, and other natural causes. 2021: Epic Fail: Chuck Todd Tries to Bait Anthony Fauci on Climate Change BBC: How much does human breathing contribute to climate change? BBC Excerpt: In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 – which amounts to around 1kg in mass. This doesn’t sound much until you take into account the fact that the world’s population is around 6.8 billion, collectively breathing out around 2500 million tonnes of the stuff each year – which is around 7 per cent of the annual CO2 tonnage churned out by the burning of fossil fuel around the world. So, on the face of it, we humans are a significant contributor to global warming. But, in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2. 2021: B.C. doctor clinically diagnoses patient as suffering from ‘climate change’ – ‘Picked up his patient’s chart & penned in the words ‘climate change’ 2020: Calls to add ‘climate change’ to death certificates – New study demands ‘climate change’ be added as ‘pre-existing condition’ .    When all else fails, use kids to advance your propaganda: 2021 Study: ‘Climate change makes children vulnerable to infectious diseases’ – Can the Green New Deal save the children!? Media Push Unfounded Claim That ‘Climate Change’ Exacerbating Spread Of Diseases

Climate activists try to smear & censor Jordan Peterson for climate model claims – But Peterson made accurate scientific claims

Jordan Peterson appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and made scientific valid claims about climate change. The climate activists and their media supporters tried everything to discredit Peterson’s claims. See; UK Guardian: ‘Word salad of nonsense’: scientists denounce Jordan Peterson’s comments on climate models – By Graham Readfearn – Speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Peterson claimed the climate was too complex to be modeled accurately, which was quickly shot down by scientists … Peterson told Rogan that because the climate was so complex, it couldn’t be accurately modeled. He said: “Another problem that bedevils climate modeling, too, which is that as you stretch out the models across time, the errors increase radically. And so maybe you can predict out a week or three weeks or a month or a year, but the farther out you predict, the more your model is in error. “And that’s a huge problem when you’re trying to model over 100 years because the errors compound just like interest.” Peterson said that if the climate was “about everything” then “your models aren’t right” because they couldn’t include everything.  CNN also chimed in with the usual attacks on any climate claim that differed from the United Nations or Al Gore. # Climate Depot’s Morano comment: “Jordan Peterson gave a fantastic scientific analysis of climate models that even the United Nations IPCC, UN scientists and many top scientists agree with. The UK Guardian smear piece on Jordan claimed “He has no frickin’ idea” about the climate or climate models. The exact opposite is true and verifiable.” “Models are used as a tool to hype climate fears. When current reality fails to alarm, make scarier and scarier predictions of the future.” Climate Reality Check:  UN IPCC’s Third Assessment Report admitted: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.”   For a climate reality check, read Chapter 3 excerpt of Green Fraud: ‘Man-Made Climate Change Is Not a Threat’ – ‘Hundreds of causes & variables influence climate’ not just CO2 The scientific fact is that your heralded “state-of-the-art climate models could “show” any outcome you wish to create. Climate activist Michael Mann admitted in 2017: “Predictions can never be ‘falsifiable’ in the present: we must ultimately wait to see whether they come true.” Prominent scientists have exposed your climate model con. See: Page 113 of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change: In 2007, top UN IPCC scientist Jim Renwick admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well,” Renwick conceded. Page 110: Predictions Are Suddenly “Evidence,” Models are Now “Data” – And yet, such is the climate establishment’s attachment to their computer models that they have begun to refer to their predictions as “evidence” and “data.” Scientists affiliated with the federal Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee claimed in 2011, “We find evidence from nine climate models that intensity and duration of cold extremes may occasionally, or in some cases quite often, persist at end-of-20th-century levels late into the 21st century in many regions.” And Seth Wenger of the University of Georgia has said that “the most dire climate models show temperatures in Idaho rising an average of 9 degrees in 70 years. That would make Boise pretty unpleasant. None of us want to believe that.” But Wenger added, “I have to set aside my feelings and use the best data.” Models Do Not Equal Evidence: The assertion that models are now “evidence” raised the ire of former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. “The use of the term ‘evidence’ with respect to climate models illustrates that this study is incorrectly assuming that models can be used to test how the real world behaves,” Pielke explained. … Page 114: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Vincent Gray of New Zealand, the author of more than one hundred scientific publications and an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, declared in that IPCC claims were “dangerous unscientific nonsense” because, “All the [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,’” Gray noted. Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed software engineers. “I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society,” Tennekes wrote in 2007. The late atmospheric scientist Augie Auer ridiculed climate model predictions, comparing them to video games: “Most of these climate predictions or models, they are about a half a step ahead of PlayStation 3. They’re really not justified in what they are saying. Many of the assumptions going into [the models] are simply not right.” And atmospheric physicist James Peden compared the climate models to children’s toys, calling them “computerized tinker toys with which one can construct any outcome he chooses.” … If It’s Not a Prediction, It Can’t Turn Out to Be Wrong Kevin Trenberth, another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, referred to climate models’ projections as “storylines.” As he wrote on the blog of the journal Nature on June 4, 20017, “In fact, there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self-consistent ‘story lines’ that then provide decision-makers with information about which paths might be more desirable.” Trenberth also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings: “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.” # Flawed Models Are Throwing Off Climate Forecasts Of Rain And Storms – Efforts to attribute specific weather events to ‘global warming’ are rife with errors Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: The art and science of climate model tuning Fmr. IPCC & MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen In Germany Extreme Weather Claims ‘Pure Propaganda’ – Portrays IPCC Climate Models As Fudged… – Lindzen ridicules the UN climate view its models, the ones near the center of the range and the bad outlier ones: ‘In the democratic processes of the UN, all models are equal.’ On extreme weather, at the end of his presentation, Lindzen calls the science surrounding it ‘one of the crazier things.’ – ‘Extreme weather is pure propaganda. The IPCC itself acknowledges no relation.’ Paper finds IPCC climate models don’t realistically simulate convection: Published in Geophysical Research Letters finds climate models do not realistically simulate convection, ‘a key element of the weather and climate system for transporting mass, momentum, and thermal energy’ Paul D Williams – Published:24 October 2005 – The Royal Society –  “Modeling climate change: the role of unresolved processes” – Excerpt: A general review of the problem of unresolved scales in climate models has been presented. Important unresolved features include ocean eddies, gravity waves, atmospheric convection, clouds and small-scale turbulence, all of which are known to be key aspects of the climate system and yet are too small to be explicitly modeled. … Other important sub-grid-scale features in the atmosphere include convection, convective clouds and small-scale turbulence in the boundary layer (i.e. the part of the atmosphere that is directly influenced by contact with the Earth). All of these features are known to be key aspects of the climate system, owing to their nonlinear interactions with the resolved scales, and yet they are too small to be explicitly modeled. The presence of such critical unresolved processes must surely be one of the most disheartening aspects of climate modeling. The 2018 federal National Climate Assessment warned of dire consequences from man-made global warming. But even a cursory reading of the National Climate Assessment reveals that it was written by environmental activists and overseen by President Obama’s former UN Paris climate pact negotiator, Andrew Light. The National Climate Assessment is a political report masquerading as science. The media hyped a rehash of frightening climate change claims by Obama administration holdover activist government scientists. The National Climate Assessment report reads like a press release from environmental pressure groups—because it is. Two key authors are longtime Union of Concerned Scientist activists, Donald Wuebbles and Katha- rine Hayhoe. The government is paying our National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to come up with an alarming report with a bunch of scary climate computer models. (NAS is almost entirely dependent on federal funding.)1 New Santer Climate Study Claim: 97% Consensus is now 99.99997%! Climatologist debunks: ‘Climate models are programmed to only produce human-caused warming’ 6 New Papers: Climate Models Are Literally Worth ZERO Spate Of Recent Papers: Climate Models Still Unable To Reproduce Even Most Fundamental Cycles! Climate Models Over-Estimated Warming Recent Research Shows Climate Models Are Mostly “Black Box” Fudging, Not Real Science Virtual Reality: Hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel admits models are merely Sony Playstation games?: ‘The change in [hurricane] activity depends very much on whose climate model you look at’ New modeling study warns of climate doom by 2050! Study seeks to scare public to prompt ‘unified action across all sectors of society’ Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon rips Michael Mann for his ‘pool of lies and deceit’ for claiming hurricanes caused by ‘climate change’ – Dr. Willie Soon: “Mann’s paper that was published January 2020 found climate models could not produce reliable multidecadal variations as observed in real-world data (as you can even read from the abstract of his junkie pal-reviewed paper!). Today he thinks he can pull a fast lie through the help of NYT. Let pray for those in harm ways and bury Mann in his pool of lies and deceits. Study the two slides please and echo echo echo so Mann can be really famous for his lies!”

For more results click below