'A paper published in Nature Climate Change finds prior temperature reconstructions from tree-rings 'may underestimate pre-instrumental [pre-1850] temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times.' Many reconstructions show temperatures during the Medieval and Roman periods were warmer than the present, and this study suggests they were even warmer than previously thought'
Morano: 'UN IPCC scientist Kevin Trenberth has said every weather event now influenced by global warming. They are turning themselves into anti-science activists. When you claim without proof, it’s an assertion -- that 'hey global warming is everywhere' -- it’s a religion feeling. It’s like saying God is everywhere and every action you take is guided by the hand of God. You can’t prove or disprove that. Now with man-made global warming, they say every storm is guided by global warming...But let’s take a look at all the low co2 storms...Their theory that somehow the weather is unusual that we have a 'new normal' -- not only does it fail to convince -- it becomes a laughing stock when you start actually looking at the hard data'
Published in Quaternary Research: Study reconstructs temperatures in the Russian Subarctic over the past 10,000 years and finds 'The regional Holocene Thermal Maximum, characterized by maximum warmth and dryness occurred at 7900–5400 calendar years before the present. During this period, July temperatures were at least 1°C higher than at present.'
'I've grown old waiting for the promised global warming.' Literally: 'I was 35 when predictions of a looming ice age were supplanted by warmmongering. Now I'm 68, and there's still no sign of warmer weather.' -- 'So basically, all that the global warming advocates really have, as the evidentiary basis for their theory, is that global temperatures were a little higher than usual in the late 1990s. That's it. Which proves nothing. The climate varies, just as weather varies, and as far as we can tell, this is all well within the normal range' -- 'A theory with this many holes in it would be have been thrown out long ago, if not for the fact that it conveniently serves the political function of indicting fossil fuels as a planet-destroying evil and allowing radical environmentalists to put a modern, scientific face on their primitivist crusade to shut down industrial civilization. But can't we all just stop calling this 'science' now?'
The lawsuit against the state of Montana was filed by 16 children who ranged in ages of two to 18 when it was filed in March 2020
The youngsters argue that Montana's continuous use of fossil fuels has contributed to the climate crisis
The children are not looking for a lump sum of money, but, if the court rules in their favor, the group wants defendants to 'bring the state energy system into constitutional compliance,’ the March 2020 filing states.
The file includes stories about each plaintiff that describes how the climate crisis has impacted them personally
The youngest of the group, Nathaniel, was two at the time of the filing - he is now four years old. Nathaniel has respiratory issues that cause him frequent illnesses and the document claims the climate crisis is increasing the length and severity of Montana’s wildfire season which poses a threat on the young boy’s health.
The trial will take place on June 12, 2023 and conclude on June 23
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'People who think that they can control the climate… It’s just a pipe dream.'
Curry: The basic facts of the situation are pretty clear. Global temperatures have been warming. Humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 has an infrared emission spectra which overall acts to warm the planet. But there’s a lot of disagreement about the most consequential issues. How much of the warming has been human caused? How important is human-caused warming relative to solar variability, ocean circulation patterns and so on? ... What we do object to is the idea of a manufactured consensus for political purposes. This is not a natural scientific consensus that has emerged over a long time. It’s a manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policy makers, which has been too narrowly framed. There’s too much politics in it. And that’s what I object to and there’s a number of other scientists that object to this as well. And we’ve also been critical of the behaviour of some of the more politically active scientists who are exaggerating the truth in the interests of a good story or political objectives.
Pre-industrial is held up as some sort of golden age that we’re supposed to go back to. Well [in] pre-industrial [times] the weather was horrible. This was at the end of the little ice age. It was the coldest period of the millennium. There were horrible famines, extreme weather and extremely, terribly cold winters and springs and things like that. That was not good weather. The weather now is much better.