This Is Gases , Chapter 6 From The Book Beginning Chemistry (Index: Fill & Download for Free

Yes, the perception that most scientists are on side with a man made climate crisis is false and based on fudged data. The fact is the author of this post and much of the public have misled about who and how many scientists doubt the anthropogenic global warming scare. Also, it is very important to see that science progress is not a popularity contest. Doubt and skeptics are the life blood of break through science."Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. HarvardI will list in detail THE MANY THOUSANDS of leading scientists using observational evidence to debunk the claim that there is any meaningful climate effect from human emissions of CO2. My list will give names and details from books, lectures, and published research of highly reputed scientists including many Nobel Laureates.I WILL BEGIN MY LIST WITH THE LECTURE OF A FAMOUS NOBEL LAUREATEIvar Giaever - Smashes The Global Warming/Climate Change HoaxNobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015. Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming objectively gathers and analyzes scientific data concerning patterns of past climate changes, influences of changes in ocean temperatures, the effect of solar variation on global climate, and the effect of CO2 on global climate to clearly and objectively present counter-global-warming evidence not embraced by proponents of CO2.·An unbiased, evidence-based analysis of the scientific data concerning climate change and global warming· Authored by 8 of the world’s leading climate scientists, each with more than 25 years of experience in the field· Extensive analysis of the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its role in global warmingD.J.EasterbrookWestern Washington University, Bellingham, WA, United Stateshttps://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-1...AbstractA greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits infrared radiation. The primary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a nontoxic, colorless, odorless gas. Water vapor accounts for by far the largest greenhouse effect (90–85%) because water vapor emits and absorbs infrared radiation at many more wavelengths than any of the other greenhouse gases, and there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than any of the other greenhouse gases. CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth's climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.The atmosphere of the planet is huge and notwithstanding our arrogance we are not a big factor.ALSO, The evidence for at least the past two decades there has been a pause in any global warming yet an increase in human CO2 emissions. This evidence shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature which surely puts in doubt the science supporting the fear of a climate crisis from a too hot climate. Japan scientists are confident enough of the pause reality to go back to building coal fired power plants as are China (especially in Africa and India also.Global warming: Sun and waterHarold J BlaauwEnergy & Environment. Jun2017, Vol. 28 Issue 4, p468-483. 16p.First Published March 1, 2017 Research Articlehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X17695276Article informationAbstractThis paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth's climate system consisting of three layers: the surface, a lower and an upper atmospheric layer. The distinction between the atmospheric layers rests on the assumption that the latent heat from the surface is set free in the lower atmospheric layer only. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system's energy transfers. All variations in the energy exchanges can be expressed in terms of the temperature variations of the layers by means of an energy transfer matrix. It turns out that the latent heat transfer as a function of the temperatures of the surface and the lower layer makes this matrix next to singular. The near singularity reveals a considerable negative feedback in the model which can be identified as the ‘Klimaverstärker’ presumed by Vahrenholt and Lüning. By a suitable, yet realistic choice of the parameters appearing in the energy transfer matrix and of the effective heat capacities of the layers, the model reproduces the global warming: the calculated trend in the surface temperature agrees well with the observational data from AD 1750 up to AD 2000.Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition)Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming2016, Pages 163-173Chapter 9 - Greenhouse GasesMIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: Believing CO2 controls the climate ‘is pretty close to believing in magic’Lindzen: "Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.""The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all."By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotMay 1, 2017 12:27 PM with 0 commentsVia: http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Image via The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)MIT atmospheric science professor Richard Lindzen suggests that many claims regarding climate change are exaggerated and unnecessarily alarmist.Introduction:For over 30 years, I have been giving talks on the science of climate change. When, however, I speak to a non-expert audience, and attempt to explain such matters as climate sensitivity, the relation of global mean temperature anomaly to extreme weather, that warming has decreased profoundly for the past 18 years, etc., it is obvious that the audience’s eyes are glazing over. Although I have presented evidence as to why the issue is not a catastrophe and may likely be beneficial, the response is puzzlement. I am typically asked how this is possible. After all, 97% of scientists agree, several of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past 18 years, all sorts of extremes have become more common, polar bears are disappearing, as is arctic ice, etc. In brief, there is overwhelming evidence of warming, etc. I tended to be surprised that anyone could get away with such sophistry or even downright dishonesty, but it is, unfortunately, the case that this was not evident to many of my listeners. I will try in this brief article to explain why such claims are, in fact, evidence of the dishonesty of the alarmist position.The 97% meme:This claim is actually a come-down from the 1988 claim on the cover of Newsweek that all scientists agree. In either case, the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people. The claim is made by a number of individuals and there are a number of ways in which the claim is presented. A thorough debunking has been given in the Wall Street Journal by Bast and Spencer. One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on, but which has no obvious implication of danger. Nonetheless this is portrayed as support for catastrophism. Other dodges involve looking at a large number of abstracts where only a few actually deal with danger. If among these few, 97% support catastrophism, the 97% is presented as pertaining to the much larger totality of abstracts. One of my favorites is the recent claim in the Christian Science Monitor (a once respected and influential newspaper): “For the record, of the nearly 70,000 peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in 2013 and 2014, four authors rejected the idea that humans are the main drivers of climate change.” I don’t think that it takes an expert to recognize that this claim is a bizarre fantasy for many obvious reasons. Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (this body, generally referred to as the IPCC is the body created by the UN to provide ‘authoritative’ assessments of manmade climate change) doesn’t agree with the claim.Despite the above, I am somewhat surprised that it was necessary to use the various shenanigans described above. Since this issue fully emerged in public almost 30 years ago (and was instantly incorporated into the catechism of political correctness), there has been a huge increase in government funding of the area, and the funding has been predicated on the premise of climate catastrophism. By now, most of the people working in this area have entered in response to this funding. Note that governments have essentially a monopoly over the funding in this area. I would expect that the recipients of this funding would feel obligated to support the seriousness of the problem. Certainly, opposition to this would be a suicidal career move for a young academic. Perhaps the studies simply needed to properly phrase their questions so as to achieve levels of agreement for alarm that would be large though perhaps not as large as was required for the 97% meme especially if the respondents are allowed anonymity.https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/01/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-believing-co2-controls-the-climate-is-pretty-close-to-believing-in-magic/This book by two German scientists, FRITZ VAHRENHOLT and SEBASTION LUNING is a great example of powerful science research demolishing the alarmism view denying the role of the Sun in >400 pages and 1000 references to peer reviewed science papers.The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, ProfessorIn this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.AMAZONAlan Reece Longhurst is a British-born Canadian oceanographer who invented the Longhurst-Hardy Plankton Recorder,and is widely known for his contributions to the primary scientific literature, together with his numerous monographs, most notably the “Ecological Geography of the Sea”. He led an effort that produced the first estimate of global primary production in the oceans using satellite imagery, and also quantified vertical carbon flux through the planktonic ecosystem via the biological pump.[4]More recently, he has offered a number of critical reviews of several aspects of fishery management science and climate change science.WStrong evidence of a counter consensus is documented by Dr. Alan Longhurst in his tour de force book Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science.I think the following insight by Alan Longhurst unravels the alarmist’s failed predictions, as their models are too simple like a one trick pony in a big complex circus -I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects, rather than as a highly complex system having several dominant states, each having a characteristic return period imposed on gradual change at millennial scale.“Precisely the very unscientific folly and bias of the climate-change crowd.Free pdf book is available here -https://www.academia.edu/35571845/DOUBT_AND_CERTAINTY_IN_CLIMATE_SCIENCE_https_curryja.files.wordpress.com_2015_09_longhurst-print.pdfNew book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate SciencePosted on September 20, 2015 by curryja | 561 Commentsby Judith CurryDoubt and Certainty in Climate Science is an important new book that everyone should read. And its free.It is a privilege to make available to you the book Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science, by Alan Longhurst [link Longhurst print to download the book].The book is 239 pages long, with 606 footnotes/references. The book is well written, technical but without equations – it is easily accessible to anyone with a technical education or who follows the technical climate blogs.In this post I provide a brief overview of the book, biosketch of Alan Longhurst, some additional backstory on the book, and my own comments on the book.PrefaceThe Preface provides some interesting history, here are some excerpts:But more recently, I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects, rather than as a highly complex system having several dominant states, each having a characteristic return period imposed on gradual change at millennial scale. The research of H.H. Lamb and others on the natural changes of regional and global climate of the Holocene appeared to be no longer of interest, and the evidence for anthropogenic climate change was being discussed as if it was reducible to change in a single value that represented global surface temperature.The complex relationship between solar cycles and regional climate states on Earth that was central to classical climatology (and is still being discussed in the peer-­‐reviewed literature) had been replaced with a reductionist assumption concerning radiative balance, and the effective dismissal of any significant solar influence. I found this rejection of an entire body of scientific literature troubling, and looked for a disinterested discussion of the balance between natural and anthropogenic effects, but could not find what I wanted -­‐ a book that covered the whole field in an accessible and unprejudiced manner, and that was based solely on the scientific literature: I found text-­‐books on individual topics aplenty, together with a flood of others, either supporting or attacking the standard climate change model, but none that was based wholly on studies certified by peer-­‐review -­‐ and whose author was inquisitive rather than opinionated.One thing led to another and this text is the result. My intention has been to examine the scientific literature that both supports – and also contradicts -­‐ the standard description of anthropogenic climate change, and its effects on Earth systems: I undertook the task with an open mind concerning the interpretation of the evidence presented in individual research reports, and collectively by those who have been tasked to report to governments on the progress of climate change and to predict future states.Because of my experience, this review leans very heavily on discussion of the role of the oceans in controlling climate states, but I make no apology for this: their role is central and critical and too often ignored.Anthropogenic modification of climate, especially of micro-­‐climates, is undoubtedly occurring but I have been unable to convince myself that the radiative contribution of carbon dioxide can be observed in the data, although modellers have no trouble in demonstrating the effect.Because there will certainly be some who will question my motive in undertaking this task, I assure them that I have been impelled by nothing other than curiosity and have neither sought nor received financial support from any person or organisation in the prepaatio and distribution of this eBook.Global warming: Sun and waterHarold J Blaauw First Published March 1, 2017 Research ArticleGlobal warming: Sun and water - Harold J Blaauw, 2017Article informationArticle has an altmetric score of 4 No AccessAbstractThis paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth's climate system consisting of three layers: the surface, a lower and an upper atmospheric layer. The distinction between the atmospheric layers rests on the assumption that the latent heat from the surface is set free in the lower atmospheric layer only. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system's energy transfers. All variations in the energy exchanges can be expressed in terms of the temperature variations of the layers by means of an energy transfer matrix. It turns out that the latent heat transfer as a function of the temperatures of the surface and the lower layer makes this matrix next to singular. The near singularity reveals a considerable negative feedback in the model which can be identified as the ‘Klimaverstärker’ presumed by Vahrenholt and Lüning. By a suitable, yet realistic choice of the parameters appearing in the energy transfer matrix and of the effective heat capacities of the layers, the model reproduces the global warming: the calculated trend in the surface temperature agrees well with the observational data from AD 1750 up to AD 2000.References1. IPCC fourth assessment report: climate change 2007, the AR4 synthesis report, 2007. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar2. Beer, J, Wender, W, Stellmacher, R. The role of the sun in climate forcing. Q Sci Rev 2000; 19: 403–415.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI3. Vahrenholt, F, Lüning, S. Die kalte Sonne: warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet, Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe, 2012.Google Scholar4. Kiehl, JT, Trenberth, KE. Earth's annual global mean energy budget. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 1997; 78: 197–208.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI5. Arnol'd, VI . Ordinary differential equations, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1992. .Google Scholar6. Sellers, WD . Physical climatology, New York: University of Chicago Press, 1965.Google Scholar7. Budyko, MI . The earth's climate: past and future, New York: Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar8. Peixoto, JP, Oort, AH. Physics of climate, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar | Crossref9. Schmidt, E . Verein Deutscher Ingenieure-Wasserdampftafeln, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1968.Google Scholar10. International Civil Aviation Organization. Manual of the ICAO standard Atmosphere (extended to 80 kilometres (262 500 feet)), Doc 7488-CD, 3rd ed. Montreal (Can.): International Civil Aviation Organization, 1993.Google Scholar11. De Groot, SR, Mazur, P. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics, Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co, 1962. .Google Scholar12. Buck, AL . New equations for computing vapor pressure and enhancement factor. J Appl Meteorol 1981; 20: 1527–1532.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI13. Krivova, NA, Balmaceda, L, Solanki, SK. Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux. Astron Astrophys 2007; 467: 335–346.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI14. A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: evidence and climate significance. In: Kopp, G, Lean, JL (eds). Geophys Res Lett 2011; 38: L01706.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI15. Schwartz, SE . Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of earth's climate system. J Geophys Res 2007; 112: D24505.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI16. Scafetta, N . Comment on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of earth's climate system” by Schwartz SE. J Geophys Res 2008; 113: D15104.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI17. Knutti, R, Krähen-mann, S, Frame, DJ. Comment on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of earth's climate system” by Schwartz SE. J Geophys Res 2008; 113: D15103.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI18. Schwartz SE. Response to comment on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of earth's climate system”, http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCap CommentResponse.pdf (accessed January 2017).Google Scholar19. Boer, GJ, Stowasser, M, Hamilton, K. Inferring climate sensitivity from volcanic events. Clim Dyn 2007; 28: 481–502.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI20. Kopp, G, Krivova, N, Wu, CJ. The impact of the revised sunspot record on solar irradiance reconstructions. Solar Phys 2016, pp. 2951–2965, . Epub ahead of print 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s11207-016-0853-x.Google Scholar | ISI21. McIntyre, S, McKitrick, R. Corrections to the Mann (1998) proxy data base and Northern hemisphere average temperature series. Energy Environ 2003; 14: 751–771.Google Scholar | SAGE Journals22. McIntyre, S, McKitrick, R. The M&M critique of the MBH98 northern hemisphere climate index; update and implications. Energy Environ 2005; 16: 69–100.Google Scholar | SAGE Journals23. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Science Division. Recent temperature data, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_vs/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (accessed 2013).Google Scholar24. Climate decadal oscillations, https://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html (accessed September 2016).Google Scholar25. Scafetta, N . Multi-scale dynamical analysis (MSDA) of sea level records versus PDO, AMO, and NAO indexes. Climate Dyn 2014; 43: 175–192.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI26. Scafetta, N . Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic based on astronomical cycles. Earth-Sci Rev 2013; 126: 321–357.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI27. IPCC fourth assessment report: Climate change 2007, the AR4 synthesis report, 2007, section 9.5.4.2. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar28. Dai, A, Fung, IY, Del Genio, A. Surface observed global land precipitation variations during 1900–1988. J Climate 1997; 10: 2943–2962.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI29. US Environmental Protection Agency, Precipitation Worldwide 1901–2013, Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Precipitation | US EPA (2016, accessed September 2016).Google Scholar30. Berger, A, Loutre, MF. Insolation values for the climate over the last 10 million years. Q Sci Rev 1991; 10: 297–317.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI31. Petit, JR, Jouzel, J, Raynaud, D. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 1999; 399: 429–436.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISIGlobal warming: Sun and water - Harold J Blaauw, 2017kikoukagakushanokokuhaku chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu: Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis (Japanese Edition) Kindle Editionby Nakamura Mototaka (Author)Articles GSMANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 CAP ALLONDr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.DATA FALSIFICATIONWhen arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).But now we have Nakamura.The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his website realclimatescience.com.Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.NAKAMURA ON CO2He writes:“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”Read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free on Kindle — arm yourself with the facts, and spread them.Facts such as these little nuggets (all lifted/paraphrased from the book):“[The models have] no understanding of cloud formation/forcing.”“Assumptions are made, then adjustments are made to support a narrative.”“Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world.”SOLAR FORCINGSolar output isn’t constant, IPCC. And the modulation of cloud nucleation is a key consequence. During solar minima, like the one we’re entering now, the sun’s magnetic field weakens and the outward pressure of the solar wind decreases. This allows more Cosmic Rays from deep space to penetrate our planet’s atmosphere. These CRs have been found to nucleate clouds (Svensmark et al). And clouds are a crucial player earth’s climate.As Roy Spencer, PhD. eloquently writes:“Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”Another Climate Scientist with Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks: "Our models are Mickey-Mouse Mockeries of the Real World" - ElectroversePartial list of 150 + scientists who do NOT support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Scam:(includes ~60 Nobel Prize winners)Sceptical list provided by David Harrington of leading scientists. They all have many excellent published papers on the AGW subject.A.J. Tom van Loon, PhDAaron Klug, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Abdus Salam, Nobel Prize (Physics)Adolph Butenandt, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Al Pekarek, PhDAlan Moran, PhDAlbrecht Glatzle, PhDAlex Robson, PhDAlister McFarquhar, PhDAmo A. Penzias, Nobel Prize (Physics)Andrei Illarionov, PhDAnthony Jewish, Nobel Prize (Physics)Anthony R. Lupo, PhDAntonino Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists.Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Prize (Physics)Arthur Rorsch, PhDAustin Robert, PhDAsmunn Moene, PhDBaruj Benacerraf, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bert Sakmann, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bjarne Andresen, PhDBoris Winterhalter, PhDBrian G Valentine, PhDBrian Pratt, PhDBryan Leyland, International Climate Science CoalitionCesar Milstein, Nobel Prize (Physiology)Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize (Physics)Chris C. Borel, PhDChris Schoneveld, MSc (Structural Geology)Christian de Duve, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Christopher Essex, PhDCliff Ollier, PhDSusan Crockford PhDDaniel Nathans, Nobel Prize (Medicine)David Deming, PhD (Geophysics)David E. Wojick, PhDDavid Evans, PhD (EE)David Kear, PhDDavid R. Legates, PhDDick Thoenes, PhDDon Aitkin, PhDDon J. Easterbrook, PhDDonald A. Glaser, Nobel Prize (Physics)Donald Parkes, PhDDouglas Leahey, PhDDudley R. Herschbach, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Edwin G. Krebs, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Erwin Neher, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Frank Milne, PhDFred Goldberg, PhDFred Michel, PhDFreeman J. Dyson, PhDGarth W. Paltridge, PhDGary D. Sharp, PhDGeoff L. Austin, PhDGeorge E. Palade, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Gerald Debreu, Nobel Prize (Economy)Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhDHans Albrecht Bethe, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hans H.J. Labohm, PhDHarold E. Varmus, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Harry M. Markowitz, Nobel Prize (Economics)Harry N.A. Priem, PhDHeinrich Rohrer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hendrik Tennekes, PhDHenrik Svensmark, physicistHerbert A. Hauptman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Horst Malberg, PhDHoward Hayden, PhDI. Prigogine, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ian D. Clark, PhDIan Plimer, PhDIvar Giaever, Nobel Prize (Physics)James J. O’Brien, PhDJean Dausset, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Jennifer Marohasy, PhDJerome Karle, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Joel M. Kauffman, PhDJohan Deisenhofer, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Charles Polanyi, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Maunder, PhDJohn Nicol, PhDJon Jenkins, PhDJoseph Murray, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Julius Axelrod, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Kai Siegbahn, Nobel Prize (Physics)Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of SciencesKlaus Von Klitzing, Nobel Prize (Physics)Gerhard Kramm: PhD (meteorology)L. Graham Smith, PhDLee C. Gerhard, PhDLen Walker, PhDLeon Lederman, Nobel Prize (Physics)Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize (ChemistryLord Alexander Todd, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Lord George Porter, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Louis Neel, Nobel Prize (Physics)Lubos Motl, PhDMadhav Khandekar, PhDManfred Eigen, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Marcel Leroux, PhDMarshall W. Nirenberg, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Max Ferdinand Perutz, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ned Nikolov PhDNils-Axel Morner, PhDOlavi Kärner, Ph.D.Owen Chamberlain, Nobel Prize (Physics)Pierre Lelong, ProfessorPierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel Prize (Physics)R. Timothy Patterson, PhDR. W. Gauldie, PhDR.G. Roper, PhDRaphael Wust, PhDReid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Page on d.sc. D.Engr.Richard Laurence Millington Synge, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard Mackey, PhDRichard R. Ernst, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard S. Courtney, PhDRichard S. Lindzen, PhDRita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Roald Hoffman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert H. Essenhigh, PhDRobert Huber, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert M. Carter, PhDRobert W. Wilson, Nobel Prize (Physics)Roger Guillemin, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Ross McKitrick, PhDRoy W. Spencer, PhDS. Fred Singer, PhDSallie Baliunas, astrophysicist HarvardSalomon Kroonenberg, PhDSherwood B. Idso, PhDSimon van der Meer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir James W. Black, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Kendrew, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir John R. Vane , Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Warcup Cornforth, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir. Nevil F. Mott, Nobel Prize Winner (Physics)Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhDStanley Cohen, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Stephan Wilksch, PhDStewart Franks, PhDSyun-Ichi Akasofu, PhDTadeus Reichstein, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas Huckle Weller, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas R. Cech, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Timothy F. Ball, PhDTom V. Segalstad, PhDTorsten N. Wiesel, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Vincent Gray, PhDWalter Starck, PhD (marine science; specialization in coral reefs and fisheries)Wibjorn Karlen, PhDWillem de Lange, PhDWilliam Evans, PhDWilliam Happer, physicist PrincetonWilliam J.R. Alexander, PhDWilliam Kininmonth Page on m.sc., Head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for ClimatologyWilliam Lindqvist, PhDWilliam N. Lipscomb, Nobel Prize Winner (Chemistry)Willie Soon, astrophysicist HarvardYuan T. Lee, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhDKarl ZellerZichichi, PhDComment ID: 3716166https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warmingJuly 16, 2017 at 9:20 am“Unfortunately, climate science has become political science…: “It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best.”” Award-winning Princeton physicist Dr. Robert Austin, member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, speaking to Senate minority staff March 2, 2009.Dr. Willam Gray, Colorado State Univ. noted AGW is “the greatest scientific hoax of all time.”“Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.” Prof. Martin Keeley, University College of London, cited from Newsmax Magazine March, 2010, p. 52Dr. Patrick Moore, an ecologist and the co-founder of Greenpeace, also has said “We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” while Dr. Will Happer physicist at Princeton Univ, who has stated “Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense,” at a Texas Public Policy Foundation meeting. Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and others at this meeting said claims of the hottest year on record are “nonsense” because there’s so much uncertainty surrounding surface temperature readings — especially since scientists often make lots of adjustments to weather station readingsIn 2014, famed astronaut Walt Cunningham went to that year’s global warming UN climate Summit and called the whole AGW gambit “one of the biggest frauds in the field of science.”Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist, withdrew from membership in the Global Warming Policy Foundation, citing unbearable group pressure to conform to the AGW hypothesis, which threatened his ability to work and even his safety. Similarly, climate statistics professor Dr. Cliff Rossiter wrote in the WSJ that global warming was “unproved science,” he was terminated form his 23 year fellowship at the liberal Inst. for Policy Studies (see article by Climate Depot, http://tinyurl.com/p6otgd9.NASA and NOAA, which get a half billion dollars a year from the government, “have been systematically fiddling the worldwide temperature for years, making ‘global warming; look worse than it is.: Joe D’Aleo, American Meteorology Society fellow, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/noaa_2010_report.pdfDr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said the global temperature “has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift toward cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.”“The difference between a scientist and propagandist is clear. If a scientist has a theory, he searches diligently for data that might contradict it so that he can test it further or refine it. The propagandist carefully selects only the data that agrees with his theory and dutifully ignores any that contradicts it. The global warming alarmists don’t even bother with data! All they have are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with reality and have already been proven to be false.” Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry“If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories.” Dr. Nicola Scafetta, Duke University Heartland Inst. confirms this by noting “The IPCC’s climate science assessment is dominated by a small clique of alarmists who frequently work closely with each other outside the IPCC process.”“ Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized things are far more complicated than the story told to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.” Dr. Nir Shariv who also notes that “solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th century global warming” and greenhouse gases are largely irrelevant to the climate, stating if the amount of C02 doubled by 2100, it “will not dramatically increase the global temperature….” And “Even if we havle the C02 output, and the CO2 increates by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant” Dr. Nir, Shariv, top astrophysicist and assoc. professor at Hebrew Univ.“Dr. Harold Lewis, on resigning from the American Physical Society stated about ClimateGate (exposing the outright fraud behind AGW), said he “found fraud on a scale I have never seen” and stated the money flood has become the raison d’etre of much of physics research. He concluded “The global warming scam with the (literally) millions of dollars driving it… has carried the APS before it like a rogue wave.” http://tinyurl.com293enhl“‘There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,’ John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. ‘We can’t ignore it.’ And echoing this in a related blog post, “‘Reality has deviated from our expectations – it is perfectly normal to try and understand this difference,’ Ed Hawkins, co-author of the study and United Kingdom climate scientist”“I do not accept the premise of anthropogenic climate change, I do not accept that we are causing significant global warming and I reject the findings of the IPCC and its local scientific affiliates….I would happily debate the science with any member opposite but I know they are too gutless to take me on.”– Dr. Dennis Jensen, only science Ph.D. in Australian parliament(Note: William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology also disagrees with the global warmers)“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”– Former Czech president Vaclav Klaus, in Blue Planet in Green Shackles“I want to …talk about … the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. … “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results…“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. … .” … Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”– Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology, cited from http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/10/05/the-corruption-of-science/– Atmospheric scientist Dr. Chris Walcek is a professor at the University at Albany in NY and a Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center who studies the relationship of pollutants within the atmosphere. Walcek is also a skeptic of man-made global warming fears. “10,000 years ago we were sitting under 2,000 feet of ice right here. It looked like Antarctica right here. And then over a one to two thousand year period, we went into today’s climate and the cause of that change is not, well, nobody has a definitive theory about why that happened,” Walcek said according to an article. In a separate interview, Walcek expanded on his climate skepticism and accused former Vice President Al Gore of having “exaggerated” part of his film. “A lot of the imagery like hurricanes and tornados. And as far as tornados go, there is no evidence at all that tornados are affected. And a recent committee of scientists concluded that there isn’t a strong correlation between climate change and hurricane intensity. A lot of people are saying we’re going to see more Katrina’s and there’s just not much evidence of that. We have had strong hurricanes throughout the last hundred years and we’re probably going to have strong hurricanes once in a while,” Walcek said. “We are over-due for an ice-age if you look at the geological records, we have had a period of not having a thousand feet of ice sitting here in Albany” New York, he added.Atmospheric scientist and hurricane expert Dr. Christopher W. Landsea NOAA’s National Hurricane Center who served as a UN IPCC as both an author and a reviewer and has published numerous peer-reviewed research noted that recent hurricane activity is not linked to man-made factors. According to an article in Myrtle Beach Online, Landsea explained that “the 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years and 1900-1905 was almost as bad.” Landsea asserted that it is therefore not true that there is a current trend of more and stronger hurricanes. “It’s not a trend, it’s a cycle: 20-45 years quiet, 20-45 years busy,” Landsea said. He did say that a warming world would only make hurricanes “5 percent stronger 100 years from now. We can’t measure it if it’s that small.” The article said Landsea blamed Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, for “persuad[ing] some people that global warming is contributing to hurricane frequency and strength.” Landsea, who was both an author and a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after becoming charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns,” Landsea wrote in a public letter. “My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy,” he continued. “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.Meteorologist Justin Berk asserted that the “majority of TV meteorologists” are skeptical of dire man-made global warming claims. Berk said in an article in The Jewish Times, “I truly believe that global warming is more political than anything else. It’s a hot topic. It grabs people’s interest. As a meteorologist, I have studied this a lot and I believe in cutting down pollution and in energy efficiency. But I have a hard time accepting stories how we as individuals can stop climate change. It has happened on and off throughout history. We produce pollution but that is a small piece of the entire puzzle.” Berk continued: “There are cycles of hurricanes and we had a 30-year cycle from the 1930s to the 1950s. Then from the mid-1960s to the 1990s there was low hurricane activity. We knew there would be another round of higher activity in hurricanes and now it’s happening. [But people have] latched onto this topic and it’s been distorted and exploited. I know that a lot of scientists, including the majority of TV meteorologists, agree with me. In the mid-1970s, climate experts said we were heading for an ice age. Thirty years later, they’re saying global warming. If you look at the big picture, we’ve had warming and cooling throughout history. It’s a natural cycle. We haven’t created it and it’s not something we can stop.”CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano compared Gore’s film to “fiction” in an on air broadcast. When a British judge ordered schools that show Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to include a disclaimer noting multiple errors in the film, Marciano applauded the judge saying, “Finally, finally.” Marciano then added, “The Oscars, they give out awards for fictional films as well.” Marciano specifically critiqued Gore for claiming hurricanes and global warming were linked.Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review:Briggs, a visiting Mathematics professor at Central Michigan University and a Biostatistician at New York Methodist Hospital, has a new paper coming out in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate which finds that hurricanes have not increased in number or intensity in the North Atlantic. Briggs, who has authored numerous articles in meteorological and climatological journals, has also authored another study looking at tropical cyclones around the globe, and finds that they have not increased in number or intensity either. Briggs expressed skepticism about man-made global warming fears in 2007. “There is a lot of uncertainly among scientists about what’s going on with the climate,” Briggs wrote to EPW. “Most scientists just don’t want the publicity one way or another. Generally, publicity is not good for one’s academic career. Only, after reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet,” Briggs explained. “It is well known that weather forecasts, out to, say, four to five days, have skill; that is, they can beat just guessing the average. Forecasts with lead times greater than this have decreasing to no skill,” Briggs wrote. “The skill of climate forecasts—global climate models—upon which the vast majority of global warming science is based are not well investigated, but what is known is that these models do not do a good job at reproducing past, known climates, nor at predicting future climates. The error associated with climate predictions is also much larger than that usually ascribed to them; meaning, of course, that people are far too sure of themselves and their models,” he added. Briggs also further explained the inadequacies of climate models. “Here is a simplified version of what happens. A modeler starts with the hypothesis that CO2 traps heat, describes an equation for this, finds a numericalapproximate solution for this equation, codes the approximation, and then runs the model twice, once at ‘pre-industrial’ levels of CO2, and once at twice that level, and, lo!, the modeler discovers that the later simulation gives a warmer atmosphere! He then publishes a paper which states something to the effect of, ‘Our new model shows that increasing CO2 warms the air,’” Briggs explained. “Well, it couldn’t do anything *but* show that, since that is what it was programmed to show. But, somehow, the fact the model shows just what it was programmed to show is used as evidence that the assumptions underlying the model were correct. Needless to say—but I will say it—this is backwards,” he added.Meteorologist and hurricane expert Boylan Point, past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s broadcast board, a retired U.S. Navy Flight meteorologist with Hurricane Hunters and currently a forecaster with WSBB in Florida, dissented from the view that man-made CO2 is driving a climate disaster. “A lot of folks have opinions in which they have nothing to back them up with. Mr. [Al] Gore I think may well fit into that category,” Point said in an interview on WeatherBrains. “To lay the whole thing [global warming] at one doorstep [CO2] may be a bit of a mistake,” Point explained. Point is a pioneer in the study of hurricanes, having logged thousands of hours flying through the storms taking critical measurements during his U.S. Navy career.http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-in-new-report-not-a-valid-representation-of-reality-totally-inconsistent-with-credible-temperature-data_07142017RECENT PETITION BY 90 LEADING ITALIAN SCIENTISTS TELLING GOVERNMENTS THERE IS NO HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING CLIMATE CRISIS - STAND BACK“However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.”The full terms of the Italian petition follows -90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”By P Gosselin on4. July 2019In 1517, a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. Source. The same is happening today in Italy concerning climate science as dogma.90 Italian scientists sign petition addressed to Italian leadersTo the President of the RepublicTo the President of the SenateTo the President of the Chamber of DeputiesTo the President of the CouncilPETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming)The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by a intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control and, therefore, the “rescue” of the planet.However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle.For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1° C to a maximum of 5° C.This uncertainty is enormous.In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory .In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature, not the activity of Man governs the climate”.In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE.PROMOTING COMMITTEE:1.Uberto Crescenti, Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, formerly Rector and President of the Italian Geological Society.2.Giuliano Panza, Professor of Seismology, University of Trieste, Academician of the Lincei and of the National Academy of Sciences, called of the XL, 2018 International Award of the American Geophysical Union.3.Alberto Prestininzi, Professor of Applied Geology, La Sapienza University, Rome, formerly Scientific Editor in Chief of the magazine International IJEGE and Director of the Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center.4.Franco Prodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Ferrara.5.Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Galileo Movement 2001.6.Mario Giaccio, Professor of Technology and Economics of Energy Sources, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, former Dean of the Faculty of Economics.7.Enrico Miccadei, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.8.Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oceanography, Federico II University, Naples.9.http://www.opinione.it/…/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-…/…718 views · View Upvoters

The most popular misconceptions about climate change come from false evidence from scientists and politicians urging public concern about fossil fuels. For example, the former President of the United States, Obama liked to call Carbon Dioxide (CO2) pollution. It is appropriate that the courts corrected this false evidence and anti-science misconception.Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant and the global warming debate has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current global warming debate is about - greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution.People are confusing smog, carbon monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere - carbon dioxide (CO2). Real air pollution is already regulated under the 1970's Clean Air Act and regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner".They are also misled to believe that CO2 is polluting the oceans through acidification but there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about current measurements of ocean water pH and a future rise in pCO2 will likely yield growth benefits to corals and other sea life.Thus, regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'carbon taxes', 'cap and trade' or the EPA will cause all energy prices (e.g. electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil) to skyrocket."CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality."- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, MIT"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These 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. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet."- John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science."- Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction."- S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia"To state in public that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is a public advertisement of a lack of basic school child science. Pollution kills, carbon dioxide leads to the thriving of life on Earth and increased biodiversity. Carbon dioxide is actually plant food."- Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned."- Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant."- Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet."- Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product."- Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land."- David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth."- Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)."- Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants."- Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistryhttp://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.htmlFALSE EVIDENCE ABOUT CLIMATE HISTORYThe infamous fudged hockey stick of Michael Mann devised by erasing the climate history of the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age has had the most impact of any of the public misconceptions about the climate.FALSE EVIDENCE OF NASAIt truly is surprising, but NASA has published a recent article brought to my attention justifying the widely published hypothesis of the UN IPCC that the climate is changing because of rising emissions of Co2 from fossil fuels. Co2 as a Green House Gas GHG is blamed for an alleged warming of the climate that is predicted to become catastrophic by 2100. NASA presents ‘FACTS’ in this article to support the the theory demonizing human Co2 emission.Both the GHG hypothesis and the facts that are untrue or misleading causing public misconceptions about climate change. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/GHG Co2 climate hypothesis has “has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.”http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".Timothy Casey http://B.Sc. (Hons.)Consulting GeologistFirst Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13Revision 5 ISO: 2011-Dec-07http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/Some former elements of this article such as the laser experiment, radiation budget commentary, and the UHI implications are to be later reproduced in an additional article concerning the mid-20th century revival of the "Greenhouse Effect". This notice will be removed when the new article is uploaded.AbstractThis article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.The NASA article presents 10 misleading facts as follows -Atmospheric Co2 above 310 ppm is unprecedentedGlobal temperatures are risingOceans are warmingice sheets are shrinkingGlacial retreatDecreased snow coverAccelerated sea level riseDeclining Arctic sea iceExtreme weather events increasingOcean is harmed by Co2 acidification********************************************************************************Detailed analysis of so called NASA ‘FACTS’Surely NASA’s errors of fact and or misleading data are a key reason the public are much confused about the veracity of global warming or climate change.***** Atmospheric Co2 ppm. historyThe NASA introductory graph purports to show that atmospheric Co2 has been low for the past 400,000 years < 400ppm and is rising because of human industrialization. This data claim about Co2 is very dubious. “There is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century” according to Professor Les Woodcock, a former NASA scientist.Wookcock has described global warming as "nonsense" saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity."It's absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change, as I read the Prime Minister did recently. I don't blame the politicians in this case, however, I blame his so-called scientific advisors."Professor Woodcock dismissed evidence for global warming, such as the floods that deluged large parts of Britain this winter, as "anecdotal" and therefore meaningless in science."Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and it's completely unpredictable beyond around five days," he said.Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people. [Emphasis Added]"The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the 'greenhouse gas' causes 'global warming' - in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent, Professor Woodcock told the Yorkshire Evening Post, adding "Even the term 'global warming' does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it's nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it's not permanent and it's not caused by us."Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation.According to him, the only reason we regularly hear that we have had the most extreme weather "since records began" is that records only began about 100 years ago.https://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2014_04_29/Climate-change-is-meaningless-global-warming-is-nonsense-former-NASA-scientist-2998/The NASA chart showing dramatic increase in Co2 is a sad example of how to lie or mislead with statistics (a famous book by the way) not only is the data non reproducible with no way to know what part of any increase comes from humans but such a small increase is immaterial based on climate history. If you look back a few million years the levels of Co2 ppm are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT many times higher.There is a key reason. CO2 is a life engine. Without it almost no life would exist. This is its prime purpose, rather than being a greenhouse gas. This purpose makes CO2 one of the most critical gases in the Earth's atmosphere. Here the atmospheric concentration of CO2 becomes significant, because the Earth's ecological environment is presently severely CO2 deficient. Yes, the global ecology is suffering from a critical CO2 starvation. There is not enough of it in the atmosphere to adequately nourish the plants.As I had laid out before, during most of the history of life on our planet the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been 10 to 50 times greater than it is today, but has been gradually declining towards today's starvation level of 300-400 parts per million. It is no secret in our age that every plant needs CO2 to live. It breathes CO2; it breaks it down with its chlorophyll molecules, powered by sunlight; it releases the oxygen and uses the carbon for its own construction.Co2 has averaged over all time > 1000 ppm and for millions of years as the planet greened and thrived was 20 times that number. Here is the more accurate history going back only 600 million years. Note: there is no correlation of Co2 with temperatures.“The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.”Effects of increased CO2 on plants and cropsA 1993 review of scientific greenhouse studies found that a doubling of CO2concentration would stimulate the growth of 156 different plant species by an average of 37%. Response varied significantly by species, with some showing much greater gains and a few showing a loss. For example, a 1979 greenhouse study found that with doubled CO2 concentration the dry weight of 40-day-old cotton plants doubled, but the dry weight of 30-day-old maize plants increased by only 20%. [70 [71]In addition to greenhouse studies, field and satellite measurements attempt to understand the effect of increased CO2 in more natural environments. In free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) experiments plants are grown in field plots and the CO2 concentration of the surrounding air is artificially elevated. These experiments generally use lower CO2 levels than the greenhouse studies. They show lower gains in growth than greenhouse studies, with the gains depending heavily on the species under study. A 2005 review of 12 experiments at 475-600 ppm showed an average gain of 17% in crop yield, with legumes typically showing a greater response than other species and C4 plants generally showing less. The review also stated that the experiments have their own limitations. The studied CO2 levels were lower, and most of the experiments were carried out in temperate regions.[72]Satellite measurements found increasing leaf area index for 25% to 50% of Earth's vegetated area Earth over the past 35 years, providing evidence for a positive CO2 fertilization effect.[73] [74] W.The first NASA chart is a misconception suggesting that if Co2 levels go from 310 ppm to 400 ppm this is major. No, we are talking about miniscule amounts that are imperceptible. In issue are two sources of Co2 : natural sources and fossil fuel emissions and the latter are only 4% of the total Co2!Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). 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.Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.htmlThis short 3 minute Youtube Rice Video from Australia helps see the right perspective.Here is another graphic that helps see how de minimus C02 is: “Over the past century, atmospheric CO2 has increased by one part per ten thousand. That is equivalent to packing an extra ten people into the Rose Bowl.”https://realclimatescience.com/2...It is beyond imagination that this minuscule amount of non-toxic life giving through photosynthesis gas is having any effect on the climate.If you live in Vancouver there is only one molecule of C02 from fossil fuels statistically from the city to Hope an hour away and that molecule is a climate control knob??? Here is another view of the minuscule amount of C02 in answer to a QUORA question about how long it would take to find a C02 molecule?Jeff Juel, former Environmental EngineerThis sort of statistic can usually be obtained using the binomial distribution function which is available in MS Excel.The odds of picking a molecule at random and getting a CO2 are 410 in a million or one in 2,439. This is a 0.041 percent chance.Plugging these numbers into Excel and solving by trial and error doesn’t work. I think the probability is so minuscule, that the algorithm doesn’t work.I found an internet site that solves the binomial distribution function, but it has limits on the inputs.I determined that after 5 hours of picking molecules, you’d have about a 10% chance of getting one CO2 molecule.Conclusion, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is something close to nothing.***** False evidence of rising Global TemperaturesNo. Temperatures are falling now.NASA argues that 2016 was the warmest year on record. This is a statistical lie and worse because the alleged increase is so small it is within the range of statistical error. More importantly a single year of temperature is irrelevant in terms of climate change. The time period must be many decades, centuries or thousands of years to be relevant.Further there is no global temperature. It is a statistical fiction. Think about it, would you ever ask anyone what was the temperature last year in Canada, US or Germany? Of course not, it would be a ridiculous average without meaning. Likewise there is no global weather. There are 5 climate zones around the earth but none have a single temperature. They have a temperature field showing highs and lows, but there is no statistically valid average of the temperature fields.Further, climate change is measured in decades or centuries never in a single year.AbstractPhysical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed. Short title: Global Temperature?https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/860c/5a03ace0f1df81a6423b4494dcda4c024ee0.pdfTAKEN BY STORM“ But people who talk about climate change want to focus on temperature, to the exclusion of just about everything else. They talk of some temperature number instead of the temperature field. The irony is that the only world in which you could talk about climate in terms of a single temperature is one in which there could never be climate change!To restate one of Professor Thermos's points from chapter 3, temperature is not a single value in any physical system except one in "thermodynamic equilibrium." That is a state of the system where all processes that are going to happen have happened. Everything is played out and nothing changes anymore. The Earth is not in that state at all. If it were, we couldn’t have climate change at all, and there would be nothing to talk about in this book. So on Earth there is no single value for temperature. That is why ice pcllets could be formed even when the air temperature was 6"C. They were formed where it was colder and transported to where it was warm, just outside of Chris's windshield.There aren’t just a few temperatures either. There are more temperatures than there is room for thermometers. At every point there is a tcmperature for the material in that spot. It gets even more complicated if wc talk about the atmospheric radiation field, so we won't. There are infinitely many temperatures to be measured because there are infinitely many temperatures around us. There are infinitely many in the mountains and in the clouds and at the bottom of the ocean. There are temperatures everywhere. They are always changing, and any particular place does not need to have the same temperature as any other particular place, even if two differ terribly much from each other. Temperature is a field and not a single value. It is not the only physically relevant field. It really isn’t special. But temperature is the only quantity that most people talk about on the subject of climate, so we have to talk about it as if it was special.To specify, the temperature field, you need to know what all the temperatures are, at every place on Earth (in the ground, sky, and water), particular instant. That is a lot of information to hold, but it is still not enough to tell you what the temperature field will be in 10 seconds, or months. The temperature field does not contain the information to tell you what it will be at the next instant.”See: Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming book by Essex and McKitrick.The obsession with global temperatures notwithstanding the facts are temperatures are falling globally. See -“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark.A brilliant Danish scientist PROF HENRIK SVENSMARK explained this reality as follows:Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”Anthony Watts / September 10, 2009UPDATED: This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th 2009 in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Originally the translation was from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. Now as of Sept 12, the translation is by Nigel Calder. Hat tip to Carsten Arnholm of Norway for bringing this to my attention and especially for translation facilitation by Ágúst H Bjarnason – AnthonyWhile the sun sleepsTranslation approved by Henrik SvensmarkHenrik Svensmark, Professor, Technical University of Denmark, CopenhagenThe star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, “It is likely that the current year’s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.” Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth….The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result…But after about 1300, solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger."The March across the Belts was a campaign between January 30 and February 8, 1658 during the Northern Wars where Swedish king Karl X Gustav led the Swedish army from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt and the Great Belt to reach Zealand (Danish: Sjælland). The risky but vastly successful crossing was a crushing blow to Denmark, and led to the Treaty of Roskilde later that year...." - Click for larger image.It’s important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a “grand minimum” such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds. [EMPHASIS ADDED]So in many ways we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting. I think it is important to accept that Nature pays no heed to what we humans think about it. Will the greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different from the greenhouse theory’s predictions. Perhaps it will become fashionable again to investigate the Sun’s impact on our climate.Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book The Chilling Stars has also been published in Danish as Klima og Kosmos Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)Principia Scientific International...***** False evidence of Warming oceansWrong, another misconception. Oceans are cooling.Where’s The Warming! Summer Snow Blankets Poland/Ukraine…27 ‘Summer’ Camp Children Evacuated!By P Gosselin on 24. June 2018Winter refuses to die as large parts of the northern hemisphere like Labrador and Eastern Europe get blanketed by unusual summer snow. Arctic ice volume reaches 13-year high, Greenland snow mass balance explodes, and tropical Atlantic is “coldest on record”.Where’s the warming!The Arctic and North Atlantic have suddenly turned surprisingly cold. First, according to Weatherbell meteorologist Joe Bastardi, the northern Atlantic has turned cold; so cold in fact that Bastardi called it “impressive”:Source: cropped from Weatherbell“impressive”…coldest Atlantic on record (since 1982)All the Atlantic cold could have a big (positive) impact on the upcoming hurricane season, says hurricane expert Philip Klotzbach. One week ago Klotzbach tweeted:Tropical Atlantic sea surface temps (SSTs) (10-20°N, 60-20°W) remain at record cold levels (since 1982) for mid-June. About 0.2°C colder than prior coldest (1985) and nearly 1.7°C cooler than last year at this time. Colder SSTs typically mean quieter Atlantic hurricane seasons.”***** False evidence of Shrinking Ice SheetsWrong again. The opposite.Global Sea Ice Rebounds – One Million Square Kilometre Higher Than Last Year at this same time June 28, 2018.Greenland ice mass explodesFinally, Schneefan here, citing data from the Danish Meteorological Institute, reports that the Greenland ice mass balance has grown well above average this year.Source: DMI.Schneefan reports that mass balance has has exploded “to over 600 billion tonnes since September 1, 2017” and is 50 billion tonnes over the mean and 100 billion tonnes above the 2012 level at this time.Where’s The Warming! Summer Snow Blankets Poland/Ukraine…27 ‘Summer’ Camp Children Evacuated!***** False evidence of Glacial retreatNo. Glaciers are expanding at both poles.The Arctic ice extent is now at its highest for this date in 10 years according to the Danish Meteorological Institute. It will be interesting to see how NSIDC and other Arctic propagandists attempt to cover this up, but the Arctic ice scam is a freight train headed for a cliff – with only about 30 days until they go off the edge.That black line shows quite clearly that global warming has been turned upside down at the North Pole.What we are seeing are temperatures as much as 30-50 degrees below normal across the Rockies and Plains this week, from Wyoming and Colorado all the way south into Texas."This is exceptional cold," AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist Henry Margusity said. "It's the coldest air we've seen in decades during November."What is happening outside is that temperature records are falling left and right across the northern hemisphere.Temperatures at the Boise Airport bottomed out at 6 degrees Monday morning, breaking a 134-year-old record of 7 degrees set on Nov. 17, 1880. Record lows from Idaho to Nebraska and Iowa south to Texas and east through the Great Lakes.The eastern 2/3 of the US will shatter decades long and in some cases, century-long records.The cold will reach down into areas that rarely see this kind of cold even in the dead of winter. What we are seeing in the United States is sub-freezing temperatures all the way down to the 30°N range.***** False evidence of Decreased snow coverNo. Massive increase in snow cover.Canada shivers, “unprecedented” this late in JuneAlso much of Canada has been cold and the forecast for the next 15 days shows little warming. Labrador was hit severely by a winter storm just days ago.According to the CBC: “6 feet of snow around Labrador lodge ‘unprecedented’ this late in June. This is the latest in the season to have this much snow at Igloo Lake Lodge, says operator.”As the following chart shows, there’s no relief from the cold there in sight:Source: Cropped at Weatherbell.Labrador may not get a summer, most snow in 50 yearsAt Friday’s Weatherbell Daily Update, Joe Bastardi said: “Boy, I’ll tell you what. Canada is just not getting a break. There it’s just really cold. And it’s still plenty cold up here in Labrador where they haven’t had a summer at all, and they may not!”Just days ago the Weather Channel here reported that there was still six feet of snow: The headline: “Labrador, Canada, Hasn’t Seen This Much Snow in June in 50 Years.”Summer snow falls in summer…in Poland/Ukraine!Yesterday, on the second day of summer, snow fell in Poland! according to Severe Weather Europe at Facebook.In Ukraine in the Karpaten 27 children had to be rescued from summer camp by emergency crews as “several centimeters of snow fell and temperatures dropped near freeing,” the German Weser Kurier here reports.***** False evidence of accelerated Sea level riseAt least NASA is not making wildly exaggerated sea level predictions like Al Gore does. No. Sea levels have stopped the accelerated but minuscule rise of 3.2,mm per year as of 2010 and now show a declining trend.There are many historical photos showing no visible sea rise over the past century around the world.NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackoutby Tyler DurdenJul 27, 2017 3:25 PMMost media outlets cannot be bothered to report something that dramatically deflates their narrative. So it goes without saying that when NASA confirmed that ocean levels have actually been falling for the past few years, the media would be more than silent.As the global warming narrative quickly unravels, and leftists scramble to throw accusations at those who dare question the false data, the media brushes facts under the rug. Amidst revelations of scientific fraud, data alteration and faked “hockey stick” data models, the fake news media remains suspiciously silent over the fact that NASA now confirms ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years.On a NASA page intended to spread climate alarmism (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/), NASA’s own data reveal that worldwide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm.This data clearly contradicts the false narrative of rapid, never-ending rising ocean levels that flood continents and drown cities. The narrative is climate alarmists key element of the climate change fear mongering fiction that’s used to scare gullible youth into making Al Gore rich.Global warming alarmists might say this is only a “pause” in the rising ocean levels, and that the long-term trend is clearly in the direction of rising oceans. However, these people wildly exaggerate the degree of ocean level increases to the point of absurdity and have been caught red-handed completely fabricating data to continue scaring the public into supporting a non-issue.Even in a worse case scenario, sea levels will rise only about a foot over the next 100 years. That amount is far short of what climate alarmists would need to create an apocalyptic event based solely on the weather. Even a warmer planet would be more hospitable to plants. But again, warmth as a benefit for plant life is not something climate alarmists want to hear. They need their backsides patted by the same lies.http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-27/nasa-confirms-falling-sea-levels-two-years-amidst-media-blackout?page=1Huge snowfall increases over Antarctica could counter sea level rise, scientists sayScientists have found large increases in snow accumulation in a vast region of eastern Antarctica, a trend that, if it continues or becomes more widespread, could lessen the ice sheet’s contribution to sea level rise and mitigate one of the most feared consequences of climate change.The study, conducted by scientists from NASA and several other institutions, examined snowfall in western Queen Maud Land, an area due south of the southern tip of Africa that is warming rapidly and contains 7 percent of Antarctica’s ice.Based on a more than 500-foot-long ice core extracted from the thick sheet and containing a snowfall record dating back 2,000 years, the researchers found snow accumulation levels had been rising since around 1900. And the increase is most marked in recent decades, up through the year 2010. It’s a finding that aligns with the notion that climate change, by increasing the atmosphere’s retention of water vapor, is increasing precipitation.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/01/03/large-antarctic-snowfall-increases-could-counter-sea-level-rise-scientists-say/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.9cd8e80b2a02Al Gore Humiliation: NASA Study Confirms Sea Levels Are FALLINGJoshua Caplan Jul 25th, 2017 8:23 pm 259 CommentsWhen we look back on this period of history, we’ll say climate change was one of the greatest hoaxes. Politician-turned-environmental activist, Al Gore has become wealthy beyond his wildest dreams (and intelligence) thanks to pushing the “big lie.”A new study from NASA confirms sea levels are falling — not rising.iceagenow.info reports:***** False evidence of Declining Arctic sea iceNo. This is a misconception.Actic ice and snow sees impressive reboundLooking at the Arctic, Japanese skeptic blogger Kirye tweeted here that the sea ice volume remains strong, and is even a bit above the 2004-2013 mean.Chart source: dmi.dk.All of this is much to the detriment of the latest Ship of Fools episode, where activists have chartered Russian ship “Akademik Ioffe“ with the aim of carrying out another climate-change publicity stunt later this summer. There’s a real risk the mission might produce the opposite of what they intend. We’re all watching.Arctic ice volume 13-year high!Prominent climate skeptic Tony Heller also posted here the following chart showing that Arctic ice volume has rebounded over the past years and stands at a thirteen year high, the prominent climate critic and skeptic .Source: Tony Heller, Real Climate Science.AThis recent photo April 2018 does not show any glacial decline.***** Extreme eventsCalifornia’s long draught is prime example of false analysis by alarmist scientists.Analysis: It’s not just droughts, but nearly all-extreme weather is declining or at or near record lowsOn Eve of DC climate march, drought drops to record lows in U.S. as nearly all extreme weather is either declining or at or near record lows (See: Climate Bullies Take to the Streets for ‘People’s Climate March' in DC on April 29th’)"It is not just droughts that are at or near record levels. On almost every measure of extreme weather, the data is not cooperating with the claims of the climate change campaigners. Tornadoes, floods, droughts, and hurricanes are failing to fit in with the global warming narrative."Even Warmist Fed Climate Report Reveals Extreme Weather Declining/No TrendsMarc MoranoNOVEMBER 16, 2017Dr. Roger Pielke on The US National Climate Assessment and Weather Extremes:Drought: “drought statistics over the entire CONUS have declined … no detectable change in meteorological drought at the global scale”Hurricanes: “there is still low confidence that any reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) increases in TC activity are robust”“IPCC AR5 did not attribute changes in flooding to anthropogenic influence nor report detectable changes in flooding magnitude, duration, or frequency”In the US “”increasing & decreasing flooding magnitude but does not provide robust evidence that these trends are attributable to human influences… no formal attribution of observed flooding changes to anthropogenic forcing has been claimed"The data says what it says. There is precious little evidence that extremes have become worse in the US since at least 1900, with the exception of more winter storms since 1950 and overall fewer cold spells. Attribution is weak to nonexistent.November 30, 2017 1:54 PM with 0 commentsVia: https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2017/11/16/pielke-on-climate-7/***** False evidence of Ocean acidification from rising Co2Ocean acidification is like the Castle Ghost – everyone is scared of it but no one has seen it. However a close look at the chemistry of the oceans and the evidence provided by past records and present observations reveals that the open ocean is alkaline and never acidic, Corals evolved during the Cambrian era with CO2 levels at 6,000-7,000 ppm, around 4,000% or 20 times higher than today’s “CO2-starved” environment of 400 ppm.Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmismA paper review suggests many studies are flawed, and the effect may not be negative even if it’s realJames Delingpole30 April 2016There was a breathtakingly beautiful BBC series on the Great Barrier Reef recently which my son pronounced himself almost too depressed to watch. ‘What’s the point?’ said Boy. ‘By the time I get to Australia to see it the whole bloody lot will have dissolved.’The menace Boy was describing is ‘ocean acidification’. It’s no wonder he should find it worrying, for it has been assiduously promoted by environmentalists for more than a decade now as ‘global warming’s evil twin’. Last year, no fewer than 600 academic papers were published on the subject, so it must be serious, right?First referenced in a peer-reviewed study in Nature in 2003, it has since been endorsed by scientists from numerous learned institutions including the Royal Society, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the IPCC. Even the great David Attenborough — presenter of the Great Barrier Reef series — has vouched for its authenticity: ‘If the temperature rises up by two degrees and the acidity by a measurable amount, lots of species of coral will d ie out. Quite what happens then is anybody’s guess. But it won’t be good.’No indeed. Ocean acidification is the terrifying threat whereby all that man-made CO2 we’ve been pumping into the atmosphere may react with the sea to form a sort of giant acid bath. First it will kill off all the calcified marine life, such as shellfish, corals and plankton. Then it will destroy all the species that depend on it — causing an almighty mass extinction which will wipe out the fishing industry and turn our oceans into a barren zone of death.Or so runs the scaremongering theory. The reality may be rather more prosaic. Ocean acidification — the evidence increasingly suggests — is a trivial, misleadingly named, and not remotely worrying phenomenon which has been hyped up beyond all measure for political, ideological and financial reasons.Some of us have suspected this for some time. According to Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, long one of ocean acidification theory’s fiercest critics, the term is ‘just short of propaganda’. The pH of the world’s oceans ranges between 7.5 and 8.3 — well above the acid zone (which starts below ‘neutral’ pH7) — so more correctly it should be stated that the seas are becoming slightly less alkaline. ‘Acid’ was chosen, Moore believes, because it has ‘strong negative connotations for most people’.Matt Ridley, too, has been scathing on the topic. In The Rational Optimist he wrote, ‘Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm.’ I agree. That’s why I like to call it the alarmists’ Siegfried Line — their last redoubt should it prove, as looks increasingly to be the case, that the man-made global warming theory is a busted flush.The ABC used a photo of reef bleaching on Flowerpot Rock in American Samoa in stories about the Great Barrier Reef.ABC FAKE, FAKE NEWS…See the fake Greenpeace picture (above) used here by the ABC: New national taskforce to help scientists prepare for predicted Barrier Reef coral bleaching – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”!His crime was to encourage questioning of two of the nation’s leading reef institutions, the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on whether they knew that photographs they had published and claimed to show long-term collapse of reef health could be misleading and wrong.” Graham Lloyd – The Australian – 11 June 2016Recovery of an Isolated Coral Reef System Following Severe Disturbance*• THE Great Barrier Reef is thriving, not dying! (local experts / dive-boat operators) | Climatism• Great Barrier Reef in near pristine condition: dive boat operators | Climatism• “Dying” Reef Actually Growing | Climatism• UNESCO ‘Green’ Lights The Reef – Activists Exposed As Liars And Frauds | Climatism• Not Dead Yet: Great Barrier Reef Coral Cover Up 19 Per Cent In Three Years | ClimatismProfessor Ridd :• Great Barrier Reef Expert : Don’t Trust Climate Alarmists | Climatism• Science or silence? My battle to question doomsayers about the Great Barrier Reef | Fox NewsFlannery GBR and Alarmism related :• PROFESSIONAL Climate Alarmists Threatening Australia’s Billion Dollar Tourism Industry | Climatism• CLIMATE Alarmism Has Cost Far More Than Any Global Warming Ever Could | Climatism•TIM FLANNERY – Professor of Dud Predictions and Climate Falsehoods | ClimatismA GBR Must Read :• Falling Sea Level: The Critical Factor in 2016 Great Barrier Reef Bleaching! | Climatism (MUST READ)Great Barrier Reef Scare related :• THE Great Barrier Reef Lie – Climate Scientists’ Scaremongering Trashed By Mother Nature | Climatism• Great Barrier Reef Scaremongers Risk 10,000 Jobs | Climatism• Expert: Scientists exaggerated coral bleaching story | Climatism• Flannery Plumbs Fresh Depths Of Doom On Australia’s Great Barrier Reef | Climatism• Climate Change Australia – The Great Barrier Reef Is Dead? What Warmist Writes This Falsehood? | Climatism• Where’s The Sorry For That Great Barrier Reef Scare? | Climatism• climate science: MARINE SCIENTIST CENSURED FOR QUESTIONING MISLEADING CLAIMS BY COLLEAGUEA major public misconception advanced by the climate alarmists from the beginning is that the science of GHG hypothesis is settled.The belief that human activity may be causing our planet dangerously to warm. (the power of groupthink)IT JUST TAKES ONE BRILLIANT MIND TO BREAK WITH THE CONSENSUS.Galileo - Darwin - Einstein"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. HarvardSee ‘statistically questionable” fact that there is no statistical global warming – only natural variation.A false scientific consensus has included many ridiculous gems.Earth is center of the UniverseContinents can’t moveCanals on MarsEugenics and the Master RaceLose weight by eating pastaBloodletting to cure diseaseCO2 controls the climateStrong evidence of a counter consensus is documented by Dr. Alan Longhurst in his tour de force book Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science.I think the following insight by Alan Longhurst unravels the alarmist’s failed predictions, as their models are too simple like a one trick pony in a big complex circus -I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects, rather than as a highly complex system having several dominant states, each having a characteristic return period imposed on gradual change at millennial scale.“Precisely the very unscientific folly and bias of the climate-change crowd.Free pdf book is available here -https://www.academia.edu/35571845/DOUBT_AND_CERTAINTY_IN_CLIMATE_SCIENCE_https_curryja.files.wordpress.com_2015_09_longhurst-print.pdfPartial list of 150 + scientists who do NOT support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Scam:(includes ~60 Nobel Prize winners)Sceptical list provided by David Harrington of leading scientists. They all have many excellent published papers on the AGW subject.A.J. Tom van Loon, PhDAaron Klug, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Abdus Salam, Nobel Prize (Physics)Adolph Butenandt, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Al Pekarek, PhDAlan Moran, PhDAlbrecht Glatzle, PhDAlex Robson, PhDAlister McFarquhar, PhDAmo A. Penzias, Nobel Prize (Physics)Andrei Illarionov, PhDAnthony Jewish, Nobel Prize (Physics)Anthony R. Lupo, PhDAntonino Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists.Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Prize (Physics)Arthur Rorsch, PhDAustin Robert, PhDAsmunn Moene, PhDBaruj Benacerraf, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bert Sakmann, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bjarne Andresen, PhDBoris Winterhalter, PhDBrian G Valentine, PhDBrian Pratt, PhDBryan Leyland, International Climate Science CoalitionCesar Milstein, Nobel Prize (Physiology)Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize (Physics)Chris C. Borel, PhDChris Schoneveld, MSc (Structural Geology)Christian de Duve, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Christopher Essex, PhDCliff Ollier, PhDCurry Judith PhDSusan Crockford PhDDaniel Nathans, Nobel Prize (Medicine)David Deming, PhD (Geophysics)David E. Wojick, PhDDavid Evans, PhD (EE)David Kear, PhDDavid R. Legates, PhDDick Thoenes, PhDDon Aitkin, PhDDon J. Easterbrook, PhDDonald A. Glaser, Nobel Prize (Physics)Donald Parkes, PhDDouglas Leahey, PhDDudley R. Herschbach, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Edwin G. Krebs, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Erwin Neher, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Frank Milne, PhDFred Goldberg, PhDFred Michel, PhDFreeman J. Dyson, PhDGarth W. Paltridge, PhDGary D. Sharp, PhDGeoff L. Austin, PhDGeorge E. Palade, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Gerald Debreu, Nobel Prize (Economy)Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhDHans Albrecht Bethe, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hans H.J. Labohm, PhDHarold E. Varmus, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Harry M. Markowitz, Nobel Prize (Economics)Harry N.A. Priem, PhDHeinrich Rohrer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hendrik Tennekes, PhDHenrik Svensmark, physicistHerbert A. Hauptman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Horst Malberg, PhDHoward Hayden, PhDI. Prigogine, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ian D. Clark, PhDIan Plimer, PhDIvar Giaever, Nobel Prize (Physics)James J. O’Brien, PhDJean Dausset, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Jennifer Marohasy, PhDJerome Karle, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Joel M. Kauffman, PhDJohan Deisenhofer, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Charles Polanyi, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Maunder, PhDJohn Nicol, PhDJon Jenkins, PhDJoseph Murray, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Julius Axelrod, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Kai Siegbahn, Nobel Prize (Physics)Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of SciencesKlaus Von Klitzing, Nobel Prize (Physics)Gerhard Kramm: PhD (meteorology)L. Graham Smith, PhDLee C. Gerhard, PhDLen Walker, PhDLeon Lederman, Nobel Prize (Physics)Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize (ChemistryLord Alexander Todd, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Lord George Porter, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Louis Neel, Nobel Prize (Physics)Lubos Motl, PhDAnthony Lupo, PhDMadhav Khandekar, PhDManfred Eigen, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Marcel Leroux, PhDMarshall W. Nirenberg, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Max Ferdinand Perutz, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ned Nikolov PhDNils-Axel Morner, PhDOlavi Kärner, Ph.D.Owen Chamberlain, Nobel Prize (Physics)Pierre Lelong, ProfessorPierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel Prize (Physics)R. Timothy Patterson, PhDR. W. Gauldie, PhDR.G. Roper, PhDRaphael Wust, PhDReid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Page on Shave and Grooming Made Simple. D.Engr.Richard Laurence Millington Synge, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard Mackey, PhDRichard R. Ernst, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard S. Courtney, PhDRichard S. Lindzen, PhDRita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Roald Hoffman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert H. Essenhigh, PhDRobert Huber, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert M. Carter, PhDRobert W. Wilson, Nobel Prize (Physics)Roger Guillemin, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Ross McKitrick, PhDRoy W. Spencer, PhDS. Fred Singer, PhDSallie Baliunas, astrophysicist HarvardSalomon Kroonenberg, PhDScafetta Nicola, PhDSherwood B. Idso, PhDSimon van der Meer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir James W. Black, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Kendrew, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir John R. Vane , Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Warcup Cornforth, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir. Nevil F. Mott, Nobel Prize Winner (Physics)Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhDStanley Cohen, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Stephan Wilksch, PhDStewart Franks, PhDSyun-Ichi Akasofu, PhDTadeus Reichstein, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas Huckle Weller, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas R. Cech, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Timothy F. Ball, PhDTom V. Segalstad, PhDTorsten N. Wiesel, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Vincent Gray, PhDWalter Starck, PhD (marine science; specialization in coral reefs and fisheries)Wibjorn Karlen, PhDWillem de Lange, PhDWilliam Evans, PhDWilliam Happer, physicist PrincetonWilliam J.R. Alexander, PhDWilliam Kininmonth Page on http://m.sc., Head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for ClimatologyWilliam Lindqvist, PhDWilliam N. Lipscomb, Nobel Prize Winner (Chemistry)Willie Soon, astrophysicist HarvardYuan T. Lee, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhDKarl ZellerZichichi, PhDTESTsays:Comment ID: 3716166July 16, 2017 at 9:20 am“Unfortunately, climate science has become political science…: “It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best.”” Award-winning Princeton physicist Dr. Robert Austin, member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, speaking to Senate minority staff March 2, 2009.Dr. Willam Gray, Colorado State Univ. noted AGW is “the greatest scientific hoax of all time.”“Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.” Prof. Martin Keeley, University College of London, cited from Newsmax Magazine March, 2010, p. 52Dr. Patrick Moore, an ecologist and the co-founder of Greenpeace, also has said “We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” while Dr. Will Happer physicist at Princeton Univ, who has stated “Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense,” at a Texas Public Policy Foundation meeting. Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and others at this meeting said claims of the hottest year on record are “nonsense” because there’s so much uncertainty surrounding surface temperature readings — especially since scientists often make lots of adjustments to weather station readingsIn 2014, famed astronaut Walt Cunningham went to that year’s global warming UN climate Summit and called the whole AGW gambit “one of the biggest frauds in the field of science.”Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist, withdrew from membership in the Global Warming Policy Foundation, citing unbearable group pressure to conform to the AGW hypothesis, which threatened his ability to work and even his safety. Similarly, climate statistics professor Dr. Cliff Rossiter wrote in the WSJ that global warming was “unproved science,” he was terminated form his 23 year fellowship at the liberal Inst. for Policy Studies (see article by Climate Depot, http://tinyurl.com/p6otgd9.NASA and NOAA, which get a half billion dollars a year from the government, “have been systematically fiddling the worldwide temperature for years, making ‘global warming; look worse than it is.: Joe D’Aleo, American Meteorology Society fellow, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/noaa_2010_report.pdfDr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said the global temperature “has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift toward cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.”“The difference between a scientist and propagandist is clear. If a scientist has a theory, he searches diligently for data that might contradict it so that he can test it further or refine it. The propagandist carefully selects only the data that agrees with his theory and dutifully ignores any that contradicts it. The global warming alarmists don’t even bother with data! All they have are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with reality and have already been proven to be false.” Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry“If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories.” Dr. Nicola Scafetta, Duke University Heartland Inst. confirms this by noting “The IPCC’s climate science assessment is dominated by a small clique of alarmists who frequently work closely with each other outside the IPCC process.”“ Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized things are far more complicated than the story told to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.” Dr. Nir Shariv who also notes that “solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th century global warming” and greenhouse gases are largely irrelevant to the climate, stating if the amount of C02 doubled by 2100, it “will not dramatically increase the global temperature….” And “Even if we havle the C02 output, and the CO2 increates by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant” Dr. Nir, Shariv, top astrophysicist and assoc. professor at Hebrew Univ.“Dr. Harold Lewis, on resigning from the American Physical Society stated about ClimateGate (exposing the outright fraud behind AGW), said he “found fraud on a scale I have never seen” and stated the money flood has become the raison d’etre of much of physics research. He concluded “The global warming scam with the (literally) millions of dollars driving it… has carried the APS before it like a rogue wave.” http://tinyurl.com293enhl“‘There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,’ John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. ‘We can’t ignore it.’ And echoing this in a related blog post, “‘Reality has deviated from our expectations – it is perfectly normal to try and understand this difference,’ Ed Hawkins, co-author of the study and United Kingdom climate scientist”“I do not accept the premise of anthropogenic climate change, I do not accept that we are causing significant global warming and I reject the findings of the IPCC and its local scientific affiliates….I would happily debate the science with any member opposite but I know they are too gutless to take me on.”– Dr. Dennis Jensen, only science Ph.D. in Australian parliament(Note: William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology also disagrees with the global warmers)“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”– Former Czech president Vaclav Klaus, in Blue Planet in Green Shackles“I want to …talk about … the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. … “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results…“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. … .” … Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”– Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology, cited from http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/10/05/the-corruption-of-science/– Atmospheric scientist Dr. Chris Walcek is a professor at the University at Albany in NY and a Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center who studies the relationship of pollutants within the atmosphere. Walcek is also a skeptic of man-made global warming fears. “10,000 years ago we were sitting under 2,000 feet of ice right here. It looked like Antarctica right here. And then over a one to two thousand year period, we went into today’s climate and the cause of that change is not, well, nobody has a definitive theory about why that happened,” Walcek said according to an article. In a separate interview, Walcek expanded on his climate skepticism and accused former Vice President Al Gore of having “exaggerated” part of his film. “A lot of the imagery like hurricanes and tornados. And as far as tornados go, there is no evidence at all that tornados are affected. And a recent committee of scientists concluded that there isn’t a strong correlation between climate change and hurricane intensity. A lot of people are saying we’re going to see more Katrina’s and there’s just not much evidence of that. We have had strong hurricanes throughout the last hundred years and we’re probably going to have strong hurricanes once in a while,” Walcek said. “We are over-due for an ice-age if you look at the geological records, we have had a period of not having a thousand feet of ice sitting here in Albany” New York, he added.Atmospheric scientist and hurricane expert Dr. Christopher W. Landsea NOAA’s National Hurricane Center who served as a UN IPCC as both an author and a reviewer and has published numerous peer-reviewed research noted that recent hurricane activity is not linked to man-made factors. According to an article in Myrtle Beach Online, Landsea explained that “the 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years and 1900-1905 was almost as bad.” Landsea asserted that it is therefore not true that there is a current trend of more and stronger hurricanes. “It’s not a trend, it’s a cycle: 20-45 years quiet, 20-45 years busy,” Landsea said. He did say that a warming world would only make hurricanes “5 percent stronger 100 years from now. We can’t measure it if it’s that small.” The article said Landsea blamed Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, for “persuad[ing] some people that global warming is contributing to hurricane frequency and strength.” Landsea, who was both an author and a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after becoming charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns,” Landsea wrote in a public letter. “My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy,” he continued. “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.Meteorologist Justin Berk asserted that the “majority of TV meteorologists” are skeptical of dire man-made global warming claims. Berk said in an article in The Jewish Times, “I truly believe that global warming is more political than anything else. It’s a hot topic. It grabs people’s interest. As a meteorologist, I have studied this a lot and I believe in cutting down pollution and in energy efficiency. But I have a hard time accepting stories how we as individuals can stop climate change. It has happened on and off throughout history. We produce pollution but that is a small piece of the entire puzzle.” Berk continued: “There are cycles of hurricanes and we had a 30-year cycle from the 1930s to the 1950s. Then from the mid-1960s to the 1990s there was low hurricane activity. We knew there would be another round of higher activity in hurricanes and now it’s happening. [But people have] latched onto this topic and it’s been distorted and exploited. I know that a lot of scientists, including the majority of TV meteorologists, agree with me. In the mid-1970s, climate experts said we were heading for an ice age. Thirty years later, they’re saying global warming. If you look at the big picture, we’ve had warming and cooling throughout history. It’s a natural cycle. We haven’t created it and it’s not something we can stop.”CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano compared Gore’s film to “fiction” in an on air broadcast. When a British judge ordered schools that show Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to include a disclaimer noting multiple errors in the film, Marciano applauded the judge saying, “Finally, finally.” Marciano then added, “The Oscars, they give out awards for fictional films as well.” Marciano specifically critiqued Gore for claiming hurricanes and global warming were linked.Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review:Briggs, a visiting Mathematics professor at Central Michigan University and a Biostatistician at New York Methodist Hospital, has a new paper coming out in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate which finds that hurricanes have not increased in number or intensity in the North Atlantic. Briggs, who has authored numerous articles in meteorological and climatological journals, has also authored another study looking at tropical cyclones around the globe, and finds that they have not increased in number or intensity either. Briggs expressed skepticism about man-made global warming fears in 2007. “There is a lot of uncertainly among scientists about what’s going on with the climate,” Briggs wrote to EPW. “Most scientists just don’t want the publicity one way or another. Generally, publicity is not good for one’s academic career. Only, after reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet,” Briggs explained. “It is well known that weather forecasts, out to, say, four to five days, have skill; that is, they can beat just guessing the average. Forecasts with lead times greater than this have decreasing to no skill,” Briggs wrote. “The skill of climate forecasts—global climate models—upon which the vast majority of global warming science is based are not well investigated, but what is known is that these models do not do a good job at reproducing past, known climates, nor at predicting future climates. The error associated with climate predictions is also much larger than that usually ascribed to them; meaning, of course, that people are far too sure of themselves and their models,” he added. Briggs also further explained the inadequacies of climate models. “Here is a simplified version of what happens. A modeler starts with the hypothesis that CO2 traps heat, describes an equation for this, finds a numericalapproximate solution for this equation, codes the approximation, and then runs the model twice, once at ‘pre-industrial’ levels of CO2, and once at twice that level, and, lo!, the modeler discovers that the later simulation gives a warmer atmosphere! He then publishes a paper which states something to the effect of, ‘Our new model shows that increasing CO2 warms the air,’” Briggs explained. “Well, it couldn’t do anything *but* show that, since that is what it was programmed to show. But, somehow, the fact the model shows just what it was programmed to show is used as evidence that the assumptions underlying the model were correct. Needless to say—but I will say it—this is backwards,” he added.Meteorologist and hurricane expert Boylan Point, past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s broadcast board, a retired U.S. Navy Flight meteorologist with Hurricane Hunters and currently a forecaster with WSBB in Florida, dissented from the view that man-made CO2 is driving a climate disaster. “A lot of folks have opinions in which they have nothing to back them up with. Mr. [Al] Gore I think may well fit into that category,” Point said in an interview on WeatherBrains. “To lay the whole thing [global warming] at one doorstep [CO2] may be a bit of a mistake,” Point explained. Point is a pioneer in the study of hurricanes, having logged thousands of hours flying through the storms taking critical measurements during his U.S. Navy career.http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-in-new-report-not-a-valid-representation-of-reality-totally-inconsistent-with-credible-temperature-data_07142017Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: “Not A Valid Representation Of Reality… Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data”Mac SlavoJuly 14th, 2017SHTF Plan - When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn YouComments (140)Read by 14,397 peopleAccording to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk.Climate Change: Is the Science Settled?Arthur Viterito*College of Southern Maryland, 8730 Mitchell Road, La Plata, Maryland, USAWith regard to natural variability, the skeptics point to a number of drivers: solar variability, geothermal forcing, oceanic and atmospheric oscillators, and changes in cloud cover are the most important. All of these drivers have operated in the past, and are having an impact at present. Needless to say, they will also continue to operate in the future. These arguments are summarized at length in Climate Change Reconsidered II, Physical Science [3] and through a numbrr of popular web sited such as Co2, and Climate Depot, Climate Etc. Watts Up With at and Principia Scienti c.In the political arena, the Republican Party is decidedly committed to the skeptical position on climate change. their platform reads [4]:“Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data... the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is rejected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy.”The question then becomes: whose vision is correct, and which path should we take on this all-important issue? Alarmists are quick to cite a number of studies that establish an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists (97%) and point to this as de nitive proof that they are on the right side of the argument. However, the “97% consensus” that global warming is anthropogenically driven is somewhat suspect. A quick perusal of a recent American Meteorological Society survey concludes that only 67% of professional atmospheric scientists subscribe to the theory that humans are mostly or entirely responsible for the recent warming [5]. Additionally, the “97%” figure contains a large number of studies that address the issue: “assuming that we will experience warming in the future, how will it a affect fisheries/farms/urban areas/monsoons/sea level/ forests/biodiversity/extinction rates/severe storms/energy usage” etc.? This amounts to compounded Groupthink, a dangerous conflation that should be approached cautiously.This type of thinking is not unique to the climate sciences. The gruesome practice of bloodletting was popular in ancient Egypt and was not abandoned until Pasteur’s time. Medical researchers, Kerridge and Lowe [6] state “that bloodletting survived for so long is not an intellectual anomaly—it resulted from the dynamic interaction of social, economic and intellectual pressures, a process that continues to determine medical practice.” In my opinion, this dynamic is still found in most areas of scientific research, climate science included.It appears that the most prudent course is to assume that the science on climate change is not “settled” and that, in light of numerous uncertainties, much work remains to be done. In particular, each of the ideas proposed by the skeptics must be fully assessed through careful, exhaustive research, and then either embraced or debunked on the weight of the empirical evidence. I think the ideas of Alfred Wegner, the trailblazer of modern tectonic theory, should guide our actions on this all-important problem [7]. To quote: “Scientists still do not appear to understand succiently that all earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet...It is only by combing the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine ‘truth’ here...Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw.”Wise advice, indeed.How do otherwise intelligent people come to believe such arrant nonsense despite its implausibility, internal contradictions, contradictory data, evident corruption and ludicrous policy implications?The belief that human activity may be causing our planet dangerously to warm is the result of GROUPTHINK.GLOBAL WARMING A case study in groupthinkHow science can shed new light on the most important ‘non-debate’ of our time Christopher Bookerhttps://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdfForewordBy Professor Richard LindzenThe bizarre issue of climate catastrophism has been around sufficiently long that it has become possible to trace its history in detail, and, indeed, several excellent recent books do this, placing the issue in the context of a variety of environmental, economic and political trends. Darwall’s Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex and Lewin’s Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deserve special mention in this connection. Booker’s relatively brief monograph asks a rather different but profoundly important question. Namely, how do otherwise intelligent people come to believe such arrant nonsense despite its implausibility, internal contradictions, contradictory data, evident corruption and ludicrous policy implications. Booker convincingly shows the power of ‘groupthink’ to overpower the rational faculties that we would hope could play some role. [Emphasis added] The phenomenon of groupthink helps explain why ordinary working people are less vulnerable to this defect. After all, the group that the believers want to belong to is that of the educated elite. This may have played a major role in the election of Donald Trump, which depended greatly on the frustration of the non-elites (or ‘deplorables’, as Hillary Clinton referred to them) with what they perceived to be the idiocy of their ‘betters’. Booker’s emphasis on the situation in the UK is helpful insofar as there is nowhere that the irrationality of the response to this issue has been more evident, but the problem exists throughout the developed world. The situation everywhere has been reinforced by the existence of numerous individuals and groups that have profited mightily from the hysteria (including academia, where funding predicated on supporting alarm has increased by a factor of about 15–20 in the US), but why so many others have gone along, despite the obvious disadvantages of doing so, deserves the attention that Booker provides.Professor Lindzen was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Masschusetts Institute of Technology until his retirement in 2013. He is a member of the Academic Advisory Council of GWPF. viiExecutive summaryBy any measure, the belief that the earth faces an unprecedented threat from ‘human induced climate change’ has been one of the most extraordinary episodes in the history of either science or politics. It has led scientists and politicians to contemplate nothing less than a complete revolution in the way mankind sources the energy required to keep modern industrial civilisation functioning, by phasing out the fossil fuels on which that civilisation has been built. But for 30 years the way this has all come about has given expert observers cause for increasing puzzlement. In particular they have questioned: • the speed with which the belief that human carbon dioxide emissions were causing the world dangerously to warm came to be proclaimed as being shared by a ‘consensus’ of the world’s climate scientists; • the nature and reliability of much of the evidence being cited to support that belief; • the failure of global temperatures to rise in accordance with the predictions of the computer models on which the ‘consensus’ ultimately rested. But there was also the peculiarly hostile and dismissive nature of the response by supporters of the ‘consensus’ to those who questioned all this, a group that included many eminent scientists and other experts. The purpose of this paper is to use the scientific insights of a professor of psychology at Yale back in the 1970s to show the entire story of the alarm over global warming in a remarkable new light. The late Professor Irving Janis analysed what happens when people get caught up in what he termed ‘groupthink’, a pattern of collective psychological behaviour with three distinctive features, that we can characterise as rules. • A group of people come to share a particular view or belief without a proper appraisal of the evidence. • This leads them to insist that their belief is shared by a ‘consensus’ of all rightminded opinion. • Because their belief is ultimately only subjective, resting on shaky foundations, they then defend it only by displaying an irrational, dismissive hostility towards anyone daring to question it. This paper begins by showing how strongly all these three symptoms were in evidence, right from the start, when, in the late 1980s, the belief that a rise in carbon dioxide levels was causing the earth dangerously to warm was first brought to the world’s attention. [Emphasis added] It shows how the rules of groupthink continued to be in evidence when, during the period around the first report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate xi Change (IPCC) in 1990 and the Rio ‘Earth Summit’ of 1992, global warming became adopted as an international scientific and political ‘consensus’. The presence of groupthink was confirmed at Kyoto in 1997, when practical steps were first agreed to slow down the rise in world temperatures, by means that would require the richer, developed nations of the West to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, while allowing the still ‘developing’ nations, such as China and India, to continue increasing them until their economies had caught up with the West. Eventually, as the paper will show, this division between the West and the rest of the world would turn out to be the crux of the whole story, For some years the ‘consensus’ theory continued to seem plausible, as carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures continued to rise together, just as the computer models on which the ‘consensus’ relied had predicted. In 1998 temperatures were the highest on record, coinciding with an unusually strong El Niño event in the Pacific. But then came the ‘hockey stick’ controversy, which first drew charges that, to make their case seem more plausible, supporters of the ‘consensus’ – strongly endorsed by the IPCC – were having to manipulate crucial scientific evidence. Their response to these allegations was further evidence of Janis’s third rule, that any attempt to challenge the ‘consensus’ must be ignored, rejected and suppressed. Between 2004 and 2007, the ‘consensus’ still seemed to carry all before it, as its claims for the threat posed to the planet by global warming became ever more exaggerated and extreme, as exemplified in Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. But it was at this time that more serious cracks began to appear in the ‘consensus’ case. There had been the continuing failure, since the El Niño year of 1998, of global temperatures to rise as the computer models had predicted: this was what became known as ‘the hiatus’ or ‘the pause’. There were telling examples of how irrationally supporters of the ‘consensus’ had reacted when they were, for the first time, confronted by world-ranking scientists who were outside the groupthink. Even more important, there was the emergence through the internet of a new ‘counter-consensus’, led by technical experts qualified to challenge every scientific claim on which the ‘consensus’ relied. It was this which, in accordance with Janis’s third rule, prompted supporters of the ‘consensus’ to vilify anyone daring to disagree with them as just ‘climate deniers’ who were ‘anti-science’. In 2009/2010, the ‘consensus’ suffered its three most damaging blows yet: • the release of the Climategate emails between the little group of scientists at the heart of the IPCC establishment; • the collapse in Copenhagen of the long-planned bid to agree a new global climate treaty, again essentially because of a division between developing nations and the West; xii • a series of scandals that revealed that the most widely-quoted and alarming claims in the 2007 IPCC report had not been based on science at all, but on claims made in press releases and false reports put out by climate activists. On both the Climategate emails and the IPCC scandals the ‘climate establishment’ did all it could to hold the line, with a series of supposedly ‘independent’ inquiries staged by its supporters. But the damage had been done. Between 2010 and 2014, despite efforts by supporters of the ‘consensus’, such as the BBC and the UK Met Office, to keep the alarm going, it became clear that it was no longer possible to sustain the hysteria that had reached its climax in the years before Copenhagen. But then, as this paper shows, came what amounted to a last throw by the ‘consensus’, with the approach of yet another major global climate conference in Paris in 2015. The prelude to this, coinciding with another record El Niño event in 2015/2016, was such a rise in global temperatures as to prompt claims that ‘the pause’ had ended. But expert analysts across the world found that wholesale ‘adjustments’ had been made to the figures in the main surface temperature records, giving an impression that the global temperature trend had been rising much more than was justified by the original recorded data. Then came an event as significant as any since the alarm over global warming had first arisen. Documents supplied by every country before the Paris conference, known as INDCs, or ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’, set out their intended future energy policies. Buried in technical details, these made clear that, however much the countries of the West might be planning to reduce their ‘carbon’ emissions, the rest of the world, led by China and India, was planning by 2030 to build enough fossil-fuel power stations to increase global emissions by almost 50 percent. China was intending to double its emissions, India to triple theirs. In other words, the rest of the world had no intention of going along with the declared aim of Paris, to agree on the wholesale ‘decarbonisation’ of the world’s economy. Yet astonishingly, so lost were developed countries in the groupthink that the Western media failed to recognise what was happening. One person who did was President Trump who, to the fury of all those still blinded by the groupthink, gave the refusal of the rest of the world to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions as his reason for pulling the US out of the Paris Accord (although even now this was not picked up by those reporting on his decision in the West). Before coming to its conclusions, this paper will briefly summarise some of the immense political consequences of the alarm over global warming: the costs and futility of the steps being taken, chiefly in the West, to switch from fossil fuels to ‘lowcarbon’ sources of energy. The conclusions then follow, under three headings. The first summarises the nature of the groupthink that has for 30 years come to dominate virtually all public discussion of global warming in the West. The second considers the factors that will xiii make it so difficult for the West to escape from this intellectual straitjacket. But the final section highlights how the events of the past two years, culminating in Trump’s rejection of Paris, have in fact been the crux of the whole story. The rest of the world, led by the fast-growing economies of China and India, has made clear that, whatever the West may continue to believe or do, it is carrying on regardless. This was what Trump recognised when, in July 2017, he finally called the bluff of one of the most damaging examples of groupthink the world has ever known. From now on, the story can never be the same again.https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdfNew Papers Dismantle The CO2 Greenhouse Effect ‘Thought Experiment’as “meritless conjectures.” Earlier research also discredits the relevance of the alarmist use of Green House Gases hypothesis.Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactDOI: 10.4236/ns.2011.312124 15,065 Downloads 36,460 Views CitationsGerhard Kramm, Ralph DlugiABSTRACTIn this paper, we scrutinize two completely different explanations of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect: First, the explanation of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (W?MO) quantifying this effect by two characteristic temperatures, secondly, the explanation of Ramanathan et al. [1] that is mainly based on an energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system. Both explanations are related to the global scale. In addition, we debate the meaning of climate, climate change, climate variability and climate variation to outline in which way the atmospheric greenhouse effect might be responsible for climate change and climate variability, respectively. In doing so, we distinguish between two different branches of climatology, namely 1) physical climatology in which the boundary conditions of the Earth-atmosphere system play the dominant role and 2) statistical climatology that is dealing with the statistical description of fortuitous weather events which had been happening in climate periods; each of them usually comprises 30 years. Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and WMO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures. [Emphasis added]KEYWORDSPhysical Climatology; Statistical Climatology; Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect; Earth-Atmosphere SystemCite this paperKramm, G. and Dlugi, R. (2011) Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact. Natural Science, 3, 971-998. doi: 10.4236/ns.2011.312124.Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordThe authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are“the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.”The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordhttps://www.nature.com/articles/srep46091Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NATURALThe “driving forces” of climate change are natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming.AbstractThe identification of causal effects is a fundamental problem in climate change research. Here, a new perspective on climate change causality is presented using the central England temperature (CET) dataset, the longest instrumental temperature record, and a combination of slow feature analysis and wavelet analysis. The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. [Emphasis added]. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.James Matkin 
This research is very relevant and should make climate alarmists pause in their crusade against Co2 emissions from fossil fuels. Far too much focus on Co2 like a one trick pony in a big tent circus where solar radiation is a more compelling show. The thrust of recent research has demonstrated that climate changes continually and is determined by natural forces that humans have no significant control over. Many leading scientists have presented research of other "driving forces" and cautioned against the arrogance of many that "the science is settled." See Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and blogger at Climate Etc. talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about climate change. Curry argues that climate change is a "wicked problem" with a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the expected damage as well as the political and technical challenges of dealing with the phenomenon. She emphasizes the complexity of the climate and how much of the basic science remains incomplete. The conversation closes with a discussion of how concerned citizens can improve their understanding of climate change and climate change policy.
http://www.econtalk.org/arc...https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46091JAMES MATKIN•2017-08-23 10:03 PMThe great failure of the Paris accord is the failure to accept that the IPCC Al Gore hypothesis of anthropogenic warming is not settled science. Indeed, none of the predictions of doom have occurred. New research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy.The “driving force” of climate change is natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming. The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院 Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NOT ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are “the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.” The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record.Solar radiation is the major driving force of climate.This means that climate change cannot be stopped as Paris attendees believed. Co2 is very beneficial plant food and we need more not less. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/# It is good news for civilization that the Paris targets are not being met around thttps://www.nature.com/news/prove-paris-was-more-than-paper-promises-1.22378