Links tagged “new study”

New report by team of scientists debunks the media and Greenpeace hyped ‘plastics crisis’

An independent report by Dr. Michael Connolly, Dr. Ronan Connolly,
Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Patrick Moore and Dr. Imelda Connolly

Excerpted from new report: ‘Greenpeace wants a piece of your green’

Released During the UN Climate Summit in Katowice Poland (COP 24)

"What elevates the past four years above the previous ones is an El Nino event, the strongest one on record. As we have said many time before an El Nino is not a climatic phenomenon, it is weather. What’s more, after its peak in 2016 the global temperature has fallen by around 0.4° C. (.74F)"

James Taylor: The USGCRP’s steering committee and authors are composed almost entirely of Obama-era deep-state holdovers. The two lead authors for the report — prominent, controversial global warming activists Don Wuebbles and Katherine Hayhoe — were put in place by the Obama administration.

The over-the-top, cover-to-cover climate fables in the USGCRP report by agenda-driven climate activists demonstrate the need for the Trump administration to clean out agenda-driven deep-state holdovers from the Obama administration.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: Mean global sea level has risen at a slow creep for more than 150 years; since 1900, global mean sea level has risen about 7-8 inches. The implications of the highest values of projected sea-level rise under future climate change scenarios are profound, with far-reaching socioeconomic and environmental implications. However, these projections are regarded as deeply uncertain and the highest of these projections strain credulity...

Recent research has concluded that there is no consistent or compelling evidence that recent rates of sea level rise are abnormal in the context of the historical records back to the 19th century that are available across Europe...

Tide gauges also show that rates of global mean sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 were comparable to recent rates.

Dr. Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP): The Fourth National Climate Assessment offers no hard evidence, just vague assertions and claims that past climate change is no evidence about future climate change. It earns the distinction that it does not meet the standards of the Information Quality Act, and each page should be stamped: “Based on speculation, not hard evidence.”

Much of the latest USGCRP report is vague and unsubstantiated. 

Trump v. Trump: The global warming chorus immediately seized on the new USGCRP report claiming the Trump administration is contradicting President Trump’s claims about global warming. Amusingly, some of the chorus interviewed people who worked on the USGCRP, who were political appointees under the Obama Administration. Part of the problem stems from the disorganization of the Trump administration after his election. The administration was not prepared.

The USGCRP created an illusory climate using complex climate models without a physical basis. As such, the entire 1100-page report can be viewed as an assembly of prophecies that may or may not occur in the next 25 to 100 years – no contradictory evidence needed.

Climate analyst Paul Homewood: 'This latest Federal Climate Report follows the same pattern as previous ones. Cherry pick a few bad weather events, ignore all of the bad weather which did not happen, and extrapolate the lot using the most scary scenarios.'

Dr. Pat Michaels: The NA4 (fourth “National Assessment) and the accompanying Climate Science Special Report repeatedly state that models show anthropogenic emissions are responsible for almost all 20th-century warming. 

This is claimed despite the fact that of the two twentieth-century warmings; the first one, approximately from 1910 to 1945, could hardly have been a result of carbon dioxide emissions. The 1910-1945 warming is statistically similar in slope to the 1976-1997 warming.

Going back to 2000, there have been persistent problems throughout the entire assessment process, underscoring the need for major administrative change. For these and other reasons, draft NA4 should be shelved and reset, so that time and resources can be devoted to a new Assessment that corrects and addresses the first three Assessments and the draft NA4.

NA4 suffers from a fundamental methodological flaw in assuming that models making large bulk errors are representative of a range of future warming. Ubiquitous tuning of the models to the 20th-century history hardly increases their reliability.