we comprehensively and transparently show that…ocean acidification levels have negligible effects on important behaviours of coral reef fishes…we additionally show that …[results] that have been reported in several previous studies are highly improbable. [bold added]
Extending back to 2010, many of these studies were highly publicized at the time they appeared. Physicist Peter Ridd points out they were all produced by Australia’s James Cook University. Ridd, remember, was fired by James Cook after raising concerns about research quality.
Last week, Nature published a damning refutation of a significant body of climate change research. The title of that article is self-explanatory: Ocean acidification does not impair the behavior of coral reef fishes. The authors studied more than 900 fish from six different species over a period of three years, attempting to verify earlier findings by a team of researchers at Australia’s James Cook University. Their attempts failed.
The author in common is research leader Philip Munday. When eight of this man’s papers were double-checked, other scientists were unable to confirm his findings. They performed the same experiments but got different results. Every. Single. Time. The James Cook University website tells us Munday is “in the top 1% of cited researchers in the ISI fields of Plant and Animal Science” (bold added). He sits on the editorial board of three scientific journals. He also – ding, ding, ding – “has contributed to IPCC reports” on ocean acidification. In fact, Munday’s name appears 46 times in this 174-page document about a 2011 IPCC workshop on that topic. You heard it here first, folks. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s pronouncements about tropical fish relies on a man whose work falls to pieces whenever anyone tries to verify it.
Data published by the UN IPCC show quite clearly that temperatures can be much warmer than today and remain that way for thousands of years without reaching a tipping point for the Greenland ice sheet.
There are two main reasons for the decrease in weather-related disaster losses as a proportion of GDP.
The first reason is that many types of weather extremes associated with the greatest economic losses – including floods, drought, tornadoes and tropical cyclones (which includes landfalling U.S. hurricanes) – have not increased in frequency or intensity over the long-term.
"A second significant implication of the new perspective on emissions trajectories over the next several decades is that the IPCC is at risk of already being obsolete to the extent that its forthcoming 6th assessment report emphasizes high end emissions scenarios." ...
"Less than a decade ago, conventional wisdom was that coal use would expand dramatically through the 21st century. But just last year IEA suggested that global coal use may have peaked in 2014. In an analysis published last week at Carbon Brief a team of energy analysts argue that, “Global electricity production from coal is on track to fall by around 3% in 2019, the largest drop on record.” Robbie Andrew, a scientist at the CICERO Center for International Climate Research in Oslo, Norway, has published data indicating that coal generation for electricity in India is down 2.5% in 2019 from the year before. The new conventional wisdom is that for myriad reasons – climate, air pollution, economics among them — coal is on its way out.
"The proponents of the scary emergency need to be called out on this contradiction. No IPCC science supports the climate emergency. What the proponents of climate emergency are calling for is all cost with no benefit."
'The oceans heated less rapidly … from 2005 to 2017, than … from 1993 to 2005.' ...It’s obvious that the ocean heating rate – characterized by the slope of the graph – slowed down over this period, especially from 2003 to about 2008 when ocean heating appears to have stopped altogether. Both the IPCC’s table and figure in the report completely contradict its conclusions.This contradiction is important not only because it reveals how the IPCC is a blatantly political more than a scientific organization/
“The comprehensive examination found that with few exceptions, the pledges of rich, middle income and poor nations are insufficient to address climate change,” says Sir Robert Watson, former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and co-author of the report. “Simply, the pledges are far too little, too late.”