Application Change Conditions Extend My Or Remain In Canada 2010-2019: Fill & Download for Free

MY ANSWER: Everything.Climategate 2.0: Medieval Warm Period tough to eraseHow does one erase 300 years of inconvenient warming?From the Climategate 2.0 e-mail collection, someone named Pollack (possibly alarmist Henry Pollack)But it will be very difficult to make the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] go away in Greenland.The chart below from the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990 shows why alarmists want to erase the MWP.Read Climategate 2.0.Michael Mann erased almost 1000 years of accepted climate history by rubbing out the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Reason to scare the public about so called global warming that was not happening.It means an objective review of alarmism by independent judges proves in law that the scientists tampered with data to fake a climate crisis that does not in fact exist.The alarmist claims of unprecedented global warming becoming catastrophic is based on fast rising temperatures that are unusual in climate history.But reality does not cooperate as for example the Medieval Warming Period was clearly warmer than any current warming. To cover up reality some rogue junior scientists like Michael Mann and his colleagues decided to resolve the problem by removing the history of warmer temperatures during the Medieval time.To really make the data fudge work they also removed the temperature data of the Little Ice Age history with the result of a fine ‘hockey stick graph’ showing sharp and fast increase in temperatures since industrialization.This tampering was primarily the work of junior scientist Michael Mann.The fake graph was used in reports of the UN until at least 2007 when it was removed.The tampered data of the hockey stick featured prominently in the Inconvenient Truth video of Al Gore. This video became the cool aid for much of the public who fell under the spell of group think and continue to this day to support the scam.According to the leftist The Guardian newspaper (Feb, 09, 2010), the wider importance of Mann’s graph over the last 20 years is massive:“Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics.”REFERENCESHere are the two graphs first reality and secondly the Orwellian fudge erasing history.Correction after McIntyre found the tampering by Mann with Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age.Breaking News: Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann’s Climate Lawsuit!Published onAugust 23, 2019Written by John O'SullivanSupreme Court of British Columbia dismisses Dr Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit versus Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball. Full legal costs are awarded to Dr Ball, the defendant in the case.The Canadian court issued it’s final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball’s libel lawyers.The plaintiff Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed an “unprecedented” spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability.Skeptics have long claimed Mann’s graph was fraudulent.On Friday morning (August 23, 2019) Dr Ball sent an email to WUWT revealing:“Michael Mann’s Case Against Me Was Dismissed This Morning By The BC Supreme Court And They Awarded Me [Court] Costs.”A more detailed public statement from the world-renowned skeptical climatologist is expected in due course.Professor Mann is a climate professor at Penn State University. Mann filed his action on March 25, 2011 for Ball’s allegedly libelous statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” The final court ruling, in effect, vindicates Ball’s criticisms.Previously, on Feb, 03, 2010, a self-serving and superficial academic ‘investigation‘ by Pennsylvania State University had cleared Mann of misconduct. Mann also falsely claimed the NAS found nothing untoward with his work.But the burden of proof in a court of law is objectively higher.Not only did the B.C. Supreme Court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the 8-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball.This extraordinary outcome will likely trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to alarmist climate science claims that modern temperatures are “unprecedented.”According to the leftist The Guardian newspaper (Feb, 09, 2010), the wider importance of Mann’s graph over the last 20 years is massive:“Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics.”Under court rules, Mann’s legal team have up to 30 days to file an appeal. For readers interested in accessing the court website directly, use this link.“IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIACitation: Mann v. Ball,2019 BCSC 1580Date: 20190822Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice GiaschiOral Reasons for JudgmentBall:M. ScherrD. Juteau Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C.May 27 and August 22, 2019Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. August 22, 201[1] THE COURT: I will render my reasons on the application to dismiss. I reserve the right to amend these reasons for clarity and grammar, but the result will not change.[2] The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay.[3] The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences. It is sufficient that one believes climate change is man-made and the other does not. As a result of the different opinions held, the two have been in near constant conflict for many years.[4] The underlying action concerns, first, a statement made by the defendant in an interview conducted on February 9, 2011. He said, “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the state pen, not Penn State.” This statement was published on a website and is alleged to be defamatory of the plaintiff. The notice of civil claim also alleges multiple other statements published by Mr. Ball are defamatory. It is not necessary that I address the many alleged defamatory statements.[5] 0690860 Manitoba Ltd. v. Country West Construction, 2009 BCCA 535, at paras. 27-28, sets out the four elements that need to be considered on a motion to dismiss. They are:a) Has there been inordinate delay in the prosecution of the matter?;b) If there has been inordinate delay, is it excusable in the circumstances?;c) Has the delay caused serious prejudice and, if so, does it create a substantial risk that a fair trial is not possible?; andd) Whether, on balance, justice requires that the action be dismissed.[6] I turn first to whether there has been inordinate delay. Some key dates in the litigation are:a) March 25, 2011, the action was commenced;b) July 7, 2011, the notice of civil claim was amended;c) June 5, 2012, the notice of civil claim was further amended;d) From approximately June of 2013 until November of 2014, there were no steps taken in the action;e) November 12, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of intention to proceed;f) February 20, 2017, the matter was initially supposed to go to trial, but that trial date was adjourned;g) July 20, 2017, the date of the last communication received from Mr. Mann or his counsel by the defendant. No steps were taken in the matter until March 21, 2019 when the application to dismiss was filed;h) April 10, 2019, a second notice of intention to proceed was filed; andi) August 9, 2019, after the first day of the hearing of this application, a new trial date was set for January 11, 2021.[7] There have been at least two extensive periods of delay. Commencing in approximately June 2013, there was a delay of approximately 15 months where nothing was done to move the matter ahead. There was a second extensive period of delay from July 20, 2017 until the filing of the application to dismiss on March 21, 2019, a delay of 20 months. Again, nothing was done during this period to move the matter ahead. The total time elapsed, from the filing of the notice of civil claim until the application to dismiss was filed, was eight years. It will be almost ten years by the time the matter goes to trial. There have been two periods, of approximately 35 months in total, where nothing was done. In my view, by any measure, this is an inordinate delay.[8] I now turn to whether the delay is excusable. In my view, it is not. There is no evidence from the plaintiff explaining the delay. Dr. Mann filed an affidavit but he provides no evidence whatsoever addressing the delay. Importantly, he does not provide any evidence saying that the delay was due to his counsel, nor does he provide evidence that he instructed his counsel to proceed diligently with the matter. He simply does not address delay at all.[9] Counsel for Dr. Mann submits that the delay was due to his being busy on other matters, but the affidavit evidence falls far short of establishing this. The affidavit of Jocelyn Molnar, filed April 10, 2019, simply addresses what matters plaintiff's counsel was involved in at various times. The affidavit does not connect those other matters to the delay here. It does not explain the lengthy delay in 2013 and 2014 and does not adequately explain the delay from July 2017. The evidence falls far short of establishing an excuse for the delay.[10] Even if I was satisfied that the evidence established the delay was solely due to plaintiff's counsel being busy with other matters, which I am not, I do not agree that this would be an adequate excuse. Counsel for the plaintiff was unable to provide any authority establishing that counsel's busy schedule is a valid excuse for delay. In contrast, the defendant refers me to Hughes v. Simpson Sears, [1988] 52 D.L.R. (4th) 553, where Justice Twaddle, writing on behalf of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, stated at p. 13 that:...Freedman, J.A. said that the overriding principle in cases of this kind is “essential justice”. There is no doubt that that is so, but it must mean justice to both parties, not just to one of them.In Law Society of Manitoba v. Eadie (judgment delivered on June 27, 1988), I stated my preference for a one-step application of the fundamental principle on which motions of this kind should be decided. The fundamental principle is that a plaintiff should not be deprived of his right to have his case decided on its merits unless he is responsible for undue delay which has prejudiced the other party. A plaintiff is responsible for delays occasioned by his solicitors. I have already dealt with the consequence of the solicitors' conduct being negligent. Once it is established that the delay is unreasonable having regard to the subject matter of the action, the complexity of the issues, and the explanation for it, the other matter to be considered is the prejudice to the defendant. It is in the task of balancing the plaintiff's right to proceed with the defendant's right not to be prejudiced by unreasonable delay that justice must be done.[Emphasis added][11] Additionally, based upon the evidence filed, the plaintiff and his counsel appear to have attended to other matters, both legal matters and professional matters in the case of the plaintiff, rather than give this matter any priority. The plaintiff appears to have been content to simply let this matter languish.[12] Accordingly, I find that the delay is inexcusable.[13] With respect to prejudice, such prejudice is presumed unless the prejudice is rebutted. Indeed, the presumption of prejudice is given even more weight in defamation cases: Samson v. Scaletta, 2016 BCSC 2598, at paras 40-43. The plaintiff has not filed any evidence rebutting the presumption of prejudice.[14] Moreover, the defendant has led actual evidence of actual prejudice. The evidence is that the defendant intended to call three witnesses at trial who would have provided evidence going to fair comment and malice. Those witnesses have now died. A fourth witness is no longer able to travel. Thus, in addition to finding that presumption of prejudice has not been rebutted, I also find that there has been actual prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay.[15] Turning to the final factor, I have little hesitation in finding that, on balance, justice requires the action be dismissed. The parties are both in their eighties and Dr. Ball is in poor health. He has had this action hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for eight years and he will need to wait until January 2021 before the matter proceeds to trial. That is a ten year delay from the original alleged defamatory statement. Other witnesses are also elderly or in poor health. The memories of all parties and witnesses will have faded by the time the matter goes to trial.[16] I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay.[17] Before concluding, I wish to note that the materials that have been filed on this application are grossly excessive in relation to the matters in issue. There are four large binders of materials filed by the plaintiff on the application to dismiss, plus one additional binder from the defendant. The binders contain multiple serial affidavits, many of which are replete with completely irrelevant evidence. In my view, this application could have been done and should have been done with one or two affidavits outlining the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice.[18] Those are my reasons, counsel. Costs?[19] MR. SCHERR: I would, of course, ask for costs for the defendant, given the dismissal of the action.[20] MR. MCCONCHIE: Costs follow the event. I have no quarrel with that.[21] THE COURT: All right. I agree. The costs will follow the event, so the defendant will have his costs of the application and also the costs of the action, since the action is dismissed.[22] The outstanding application, I gather there is no reason to proceed with it now.[23] MR. MCCONCHIE: It is academic, in light of –[24] THE COURT: It is academic.[25] MR. MCCONCHIE: – Your Lordship's ruling today.[26] THE COURT: Right. Thank you, gentlemen. Anything else?[27] MR. SCHERR: No, Your Honour.[28] THE COURT: All right.[29] MR. SCHERR: No, My Lord.[30] THE COURT: Then, we are concluded and you shall have your materials back, which are these binders. Thank you, gentlemen.“Giaschi J.”2019 BCSC 1580 Mann v. Ball}‘Hockey Stick’ Discredited by Statisticians in 2003In 2003 a Canadian study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century.So, the graph was junk science. You could put baseball scores into Mann’s Climate Model and it would create the Hockey Stick.But the big question then became: did Mann intentionally falsify his graph from motivation to make profit and/or cause harm (i.e. commit the five elements of criminal fraud)?No one could answer that question unless Mann surrendered his numbers. He was never going to do that voluntarily – or face severe consequences for not doing so – that is, until Dr Ball came into the picture!Evidence in Legal Discovery and the Truth DefenseDr Ball’s legal team adroitly pursued the ‘truth defense’ such that the case boiled down to whether Ball’s words (“belongs in the state pen, not Penn State”) after examining the key evidence (Mann’s R2 regression numbers) fairly and accurately portrayed Mann.The aim was to compel the plaintiff (Dr. Mann) to show his math ‘working out’ to check if he knowingly and criminally misrepresented his claims by resorting to statistical fakery (see: ‘Mike’s trick‘ below).In the pre-trial Discovery Process the parties are required to surrender the cited key evidence in reasonable fashion, that they believe proves or disproves the Claim.Despite Ball’s best efforts over 8 years, Mann would not agree to surrender to an open court his math ‘working out’ – those arcane R2 regression numbers for his graph (see Mann’s latest obfuscating Tweet in the ‘update’ at foot of this article).But throughout 2017 and 2018 any reasonable observer could see through such endless delays from the plaintiff – all just attritional tactics.The Penn State professor had persistently refused to honor the binding “concessions” agreement he made to Ball which ultimately gave his legal team the coup de grace to win the case for the defendant due to Mann’s ‘Bad Faith’ (see: legal definition here).Dr. Ball always argued that those numbers, if examined in open court, would have conclusively proved Mann was motivated to commit a criminal fraud. It was at this point legal minds could discern Ball was closing in on victory – a triumph for ‘David over Goliath.’And Mann certainly is a science ‘Goliath.’ Ever since featuring so famously in the UN IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) Mann’s graph has been an iconic image cited relentlessly by environmentalists clamoring for urgent action on man-made global warming.For the past two decades the biased mainstream media has acclaimed Mann as “a world-leading climate scientist” and last year he was heralded as their champion to help dethrone “climate denier” President Trump.Indeed, not just a fawning MSM, but many hundreds of subsequent climate studies have relied on Mann’s findings. Mann’s reputation was such, that most climate researchers merely accepted his graph, a typical example of groupthink.Dr Ball has long warned that if the world was permitted to see behind the secrecy they would be shocked at just how corrupt and self-serving are those ‘scientists’ at the forefront of man-made global warming propaganda.As anyone can tell by contrasting and comparing the graphs below (Mann’s version top, Ball’s below) it is obvious there exists a massive discrepancy in the respective findings.Richard Muller castigates Michael MannHockey Stick to the HeadAbove: contrast and compare Dr Mann’s dodgy graph with Dr Ball’s more reliable version (based on that of the renowned H. H. Lamb) and see how Mann fraudulently altered the proxy climate date with a ‘hockey stick’ shape to falsely show the dramatic uptick with modern temperatures rising ‘catastrophically’ to fit the fake UN IPCC doomsaying narrative.Have Skeptics Ever Proven that Mann’s Graph was Deliberately Faked?Answer: No. This is because Mann has always refused to release his R2 regression numbers for independent examination.He claimed his secrecy was justified because he held “proprietary rights” over them (i.e. personally valuable intellectual work product, you see). So “valuable” to Mann was the secrecy of his metadata that losing a multi-million dollar lawsuit and his reputation was the ultimate price he was prepared to pay.While steep, I guess, that’s preferable to serving a long federal prison stretch, right?Before Ball’s glorious court victory, little more could be conclusively proven other than the hockey stick graph uptick stupidly (and unscientifically) relies on the proxy evidence from the tree rings ofa single Yamal larch!Mann could thus sleep safe in the knowledge that as long as statistical experts remain deprived of any conclusive proof of his intent to defraud, they could only find him guilty of incompetence.Putting Mann’s Fraudulent Graph Under the MicroscopeFor an easy-viewing summary by Tim Ball please watch the video:Mann’s goal was to make the Little Ice Age (LIA) disappear, as we explained in our previous article on this issue. The LIA was an especially cold era that ended around 1840 and since then global temperatures have gradually risen. But government ‘experts’ like Mann have sought to use statistical trickery to make such natural variation appear as ‘man-made’ warming.Apart from playing with statistics Mann made his proxy fit the thermometer data by adding thermometer values to the proxy values known as “Mike’s trick” in the climate gate email scandal.From the emails released during the Climategate scandal Professor Phil Jones, Britain’s top climate scientist at the University of East Anglia was shown to have written the following to his alarmist colleagues (some analysis here).The email, sent by Prof Phil Jones of the CRU in 1999, states:Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today orfirst thing tomorrow.I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real tempsto each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annualland and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH landN of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 withdata through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.Thanks for the comments, Ray.CheersPhilThis has the Hockey Stick Graph showing the same cooling from 1942 to 1975 as the HadCRUT3 data as posted in the IPCC 2001 AR3In 1942 there was just 4.0Gt of emissions increasing to 17.1Gt by 1975 but since this 425% increase in CO2 emissions didn’t cause any global warming during this 33 year period; the conjecture of CO2 emissions induced (catastrophic) global warming was proven false.Readers interested in gaining a deeper understanding of what is likely to eventually be exposed as a criminal conspiracy between Mann and other ‘elite’ researchers should see “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford.The Guardian newspaper (above) expressing doubts over ‘(Michael) Mann-made’ global warming.Victory that Comes at Great Personal CostBehind the scenes, gathering the resources, mental, scientific and financial, there is an untold burden of defending these cynical SLAPP suits.Lest readers forget, it is mostly in the service of misguided public policy, with massive funding and connivance from political operators in play, that fake scientists like Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver acquired such esteemed public positions.They are not only despicable human beings they are a disgrace to all decent scientists.Readers will be aware that this author has been a staunch friend and ally to Tim throughout the hardships of this protracted 8-year legal battle.Our reputations were routinely trashed by our enemies, so it is sweet justice that the court has now given legal credence to Tim’s famous words that Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State,” a comical reference to the fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph that knowledgeable scientists knew to be fakery.[Author Note: Being very much a party to these legal proceedings (having provided Dr Ball with the financial security of a legally-binding indemnity in the event Tim lost) it is a monumental vindication of my faith in Tim’s cause. In effect, I ‘bet the farm’ on Tim winning, as graciously reported by Jo Nova (below)]Knowingly Fraudulent and CorruptDuring 2018, while Tim Ball’s hard work was winning “concessions” from Mann’s legal team in Canada, south of the border, (on April 20) a shameless Mann wrote in Scientific American this utter nonsense:“Yet, in the 20 years since the original hockey stick publication, independent studies, again and again, have overwhelmingly reaffirmed our findings, including the key conclusion: recent warming is unprecedented over at least the past millennium.”Gullible and brainwashed greens and the many self-serving politicians swallowed up this garbage.Dr Ball Expresses Gratitude to Principia Scientific InternationalSpeaking in this 2018 video on the gravity of what some scientists have called “The science trial of the Century,” Dr Ball revealed his gratitude to his colleagues at Principia Scientific:Dr Tim Ball:I know John O’Sullivan who set up the Principia site and I know I wrote a foreword and a chapter in one of the books they produced called Slaying the Sky Dragon.John O’Sullivan comes from his anti-government [stance], very legitimately and unfortunately, it’s not until you’ve actually directly personally experienced that; challenging the government – that you realize how nasty they can get. So John knows very well how nasty these things can get – that anyone that dares to challenge the authorities.And so, Principia was set up for that reason, and John was the one that helped me set up the PayPal so people could help me financially so, that’s my disclaimer with that.”As Jo Nova reported on the joannenova.com.au blog:“John O’Sullivan is putting in above and beyond what any single skeptical soul ought to.He’s already been a key figure helping Tim Ball in the legal fight with the UVA establishment, which has spent over a million dollars helping Michael Mann to hide emails. The case was launched by Michael Mann, but could turn out to do a huge favor to skeptics — the discovery process is a powerful tool, and we all know who has been hiding their methods, their data, and their work-related correspondence.Tim Ball and John O’Sullivan are helping all the free citizens of the West. The burden should not be theirs alone. There are many claims for help at the moment, but that is a sign that the grand scam is coming to a head. Jo”Two out of Two Major Court Wins By Ball Versus Junk IPCC ScientistsDr Ball, now affirmed as a courageous champion of honest science, has assured his place in the annals of real climate science. His gift to the world was sacrificing eight of his senior years, when he could have been enjoying his retirement, to exposing key players in the biggest science fraud of all time.People too easily forget Dr Ball has defeated in expensive legal battles not just one top UN IPCC climate scientists, but two!This latest victory is the second this champion of climate skepticism has enjoyed in the last 18 months in this same jurisdiction – both for “defamation,” both multi-million dollar climate science claims.We reported (February 15, 2018) on Dr Ball’s first crucial courtroom win against Dr Andrew Weaver (photo, above), another elite junk scientist (a UN IPCC Lead Author in climate modeling) and British Columbia Green Party Leader.Pointedly, at the time, Dr Ball wanted to emphasize an extremely salient fact:“While I savor the victory, people need to know that it was the second of three lawsuits all from the same lawyer,Roger McConchie, (photo, left) in Vancouver on behalf of members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”In effect, there is more than mere coincidence that Dr Ball, a world-leading skeptical climatologist, was systematically targeted for legal retribution time and again by political groups such as the unscrupulous Climate Science Legal Defense Fund .As a retired scientist in his 80’s, Tim was a ‘soft target’ and the stress of these lawsuits put an enormous toll on his health.Not to be outdone, Tim has used his time wisely to write a damning book of the 30-year back story of the great climate fraud titled ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’ and I heartily recommend that interested readers buy it.It is also not often reported that the funding in Canada for these extravagant SLAPP lawsuits is believed to be from the David Suzuki Foundation, a hot house for extreme environmental advocacy and Big Green policy promotion.What is a ‘Strategic lawsuit against public participation’ (SLAPP Suit)?Wikipedia offers a fair definition:“A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.In the typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization’s ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.”Update (August 24, 2019):Dr Mann Has Posted On Twitter In Reply To This Article:Mann’s statement is here: Michael E. Mann on TwitterIn short, Mann’s ugly responsive legal statement is (a) stark admission he lost fair and square, and (b) a disingenuous argument that the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann’s “delay” in not submitting his R2 numbers in timely fashion.Well, Mikey, You Are The Plaintiff And Tim Gave You Over 8 YEARS To Get Your Case Together!On that point, this is where readers may wish to refer to the article ‘Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann‘ (July 4, 2017). In it we offered analysis as to Mann’s fatal legal error. As Dr Ball explained at that time:“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”As I explained in the article, Mann (and his crooked lawyer) had shown bad faith, thereby rendering his case liable for dismissal. I urged Tim to pursue that winning tactic and thankfully he did.Breaking News: Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann's Climate Lawsuit! | PSI IntlAN APPEALAssisting Dr Ball has been a huge honor for me and probably one of the greatest achievements of my life. But Tim only won this famous courtroom battle thanks to massive worldwide grassroots support.PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.Historians see Alexander the Great’s world wide successful conquests as leverage by horses in battle and the warmer Medieval climate globally.FLAT WHITEBig data finds the Medieval Warm Period – no denial hereJennifer MarohasyJennifer Marohasy22 August 20177:49 AMAccording to author Leo Tolstoy, born at the very end of the Little Ice Age, in quite a cold country:The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.So, our new technical paper in GeoResJ (vol. 14, pages 36-46) will likely be ignored. Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.Over the last few years, I’ve worked with Dr John Abbot using artificial neural networks (ANN) to forecast monthly rainfall. We now have a bunch of papers in international climate science journals showing these forecasts to be more skilful than output from general circulation models.During the past year, we’ve extended this work to estimating what global temperatures would have been during the twentieth century in the absence of human-emission of carbon dioxide.We began by deconstructing the six-proxy series from different geographic regions – series already published in the mainstream climate science literature. One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes.Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. In between, is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out in 1650 AD. (Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.)Ignoring for the moment the MWP and LIA, you might want to simply dismiss this temperature series on the basis it peaks in 1980: it doesn’t continue to rise to the very end of the record: to the year 2000?In fact, this decline is typical of most such proxy reconstructions – derived from pollen, stalagmites, boreholes, coral cores and especially tree rings. Within mainstream climate science the decline after 1980 is referred to as “the divergence problem”, and then hidden.In denial of this problem, leading climate scientists have been known to even graft temperature measurements from thermometers onto the proxy record after 1980 to literally ‘hide the decline’. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, aptly described the technique as a ‘trick’.Grafting thermometer data onto the end of the proxy record generally ‘fixes’ the problem after 1980, while remodelling effectively flattens the Medieval Warm Period.There are, however, multiple lines of evidence indicating it was about a degree warmer across Europe during the MWP – corresponding with the 1200 AD rise in our Northern Hemisphere composite. In fact, there are oodles of published technical papers based on proxy records that provide a relatively warm temperature profile for this period. This was before the Little Ice Age when it was too cold to inhabit Greenland.The modern inhabitation of Upernavik, in north west Greenland, only began in 1826, which corresponds with the beginning of the industrial age. So, the end of the Little Ice Age corresponds with the beginning of industrialisation. But did industrialisation cause the global warming? Tolstoy’s ‘intelligent man’ would immediately reply: But yes!In our new paper in GeoResJ, we make the assumption that an artificial neural network – remember our big data/machine learning technique – trained on proxy temperatures up until 1830, would be able to forecast the combined effect of natural climate cycles through the twentieth century.Using the proxy record from the Northern Hemisphere composite, decomposing this through signal analysis and then using the resulting component sine waves as input into an ANN, John Abbot and I generated forecasts for the period from 1830 to 2000.Our results show up to 1°C of warming. The average divergence between the proxy temperature record and our ANN projection is just 0.09 degree Celsius. This suggests that even if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980, and of almost 1°C.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, relying on General Circulation Models, and giving us the Paris Accord, also estimates warming of approximately 1°C, but claims this is all our fault (human caused).For more information, including charts and a link to the full paper read Jennifer Marohasy’s latest blog post.Illustration: Detail from Peasants before an Inn, Jan Steen, The Mauritshuis Royal Picture Gallery, The Hague.MEDIA IGNORES MICHAEL MANN’S COURT LOSS — IT DOESN’T FIT THE WARMIST AGENDADate: 30/08/19Last week, a Canadian court tossed out a lawsuit in which Michael Mann, the researcher who published the idolized hockey stick temperature chart, had sued another researcher for libel. Did the mainstream media run with this story? Of course not. That would ruin the narrative.Mann became famous for the chart, which showed temperatures running along in a horizontal fashion before spiking at the beginning of the 20th century. It was the “evidence” the global warming alarmists had been waiting for — “science” that showed human activity was overheating Earth. It was included in at least one United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.Not all were convinced, however. There were questions about the data he used to create the stick, which he wouldn’t release. It has been called “100% fraudulent,” an “artifact of poor mathematics,” and a violation of “of scientific standards.”Mann has been accused of engaging in “data manipulation,” and “academic and scientific misconduct.”Some years after the stick was constructed, Canadian statisticians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick challenged Mann’s work. They argued the “recent paleoclimate reconstruction by Mann et al. does not provide reliable evidence about climate change over the past millennium, because their data are inconsistent and their confidence intervals are wrong.”Climate researcher Tim Ball even went so deep as to say that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State,” where Mann conducts research. Ball found out that was the wrong thing to say. Mann sued him in Canada.Ball, however, beat Mann in court. The case was dismissed Friday. Almost immediately, Ball wrote to Anthony Watts of the wattsupwiththat website, telling him “Mann’s case against me was dismissed this morning by the (British Columbia) Supreme Court and they awarded me (court) costs.” According to John Hinderaker, an attorney and PowerLine blog contributor, the case was thrown out “with prejudice.”What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it,” Hinderaker wrote. “Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.”John O’Sullivan at Principia Scientific International believes the “extraordinary outcome will likely trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr. Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to alarmist climate science claims that modern temperatures are ‘unprecedented.’”Big news, right? Not in the U.S. The media that acts as the climate hysterics’ public relations arm has ignored the case.So it’s just a Canadian story, then? Not hardly. The U.S. media played the hockey stick as an American/Western/global story. What happens to its author in a courtroom should be U.S. news.It’s plausible that the media have deserted Mann. Several mainstream outlets sided with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review, which the litigious Mann had sued for defamation. They were concerned that allowing the lawsuit to go forward would be a threat to First Amendment freedoms.But the lack of coverage would be the same if any climate alarmist had suffered a legal loss.Media Ignores Michael Mann’s Court Loss — It Doesn’t Fit The Warmist Agenda - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)The famous “Hockey Stick” graph used illegitimate statistical methods and inaccurate data.RESEARCH Conclusions· ·Southern Alps cirque glacier palaeoequilibrium lines have provided the Little Ice Age LIA temperature reconstructions for 22 alpine sites across the South Island of New Zealand. Collectively, these reconstructions suggest a median austral summer temperature depression of *0.56 °C (±0.29 °C) for the LIA. Full research below.·Franz Josef Glacier, 2005. Photo: Andrew Mackintosh.MICHAEL MANN and the UN IPCC in 2001 revised the accepted climate history by removing the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age. The reason was to mislead that public by showing with the industrial revolution the earth is suddenly in unprecedented warming when it is not. This is the HOCKEY STICK CHART scandal.The UN later removed the fudged chart. But Mann defends ignoring 100s of past research studies providing evidence world wide of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period, “because these climate extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena."https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/There is a data confirming that Mann erred and his refusal to disclose his data must mean his deceptions were deliberate in a world wide mapping project.Project: Mapping the Medieval Warm Period4. Januar 2016 von Kalte SonneProjektbeschreibung auf deutsch HIERProjectCartography of the Medieval Warm Period: Online atlas of a poorly understood warm phaseAbout 1000 years ago, large parts of the world experienced a prominent warm phase which in many cases reached a similar temperature level as today or even exceeded present-day warmth. While this Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been documented in numerous case studies from around the globe, climate models still fail to reproduce this historical warm phase. The problem is openly conceded in the most recent IPCC report from 2013 (AR5, Working Group 1) where in chapter 5.3.5. the IPCC scientists admit (pdf here):The reconstructed temperature differences between MCA and LIA […] indicate higher medieval temperatures over the NH continents […]. . The reconstructed MCA warming is higher than in the simulations, even for stronger TSI changes and individual simulations […] The enhanced gradients are not reproduced by model simulations … and are not robust when considering the reconstruction uncertainties and the limited proxy records in these tropical ocean regions […]. This precludes an assessment of the role of external forcing and/or internal variability in these reconstructed patterns.The main questions therefore are: How could it have been so warm one thousand years ago when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were on a low pre-industrial level? Which climate drivers could have triggered the MWP warming, that seem to be underrepresented in the current climate models? How would temperature prognoses change when climate models are used that fully account for the MWP warming?A robust documentation of the MWP forms the basis of this overdue discussion. Unfortunately, there are still voices in the debate that describe the MWP as a local phenomenon, or as a warm phase that globally was much colder than the Modern Warm Period of the 20th and early 21st centuries. There are still press releases written on papers that seem to disprove the MWP concept, even though these studies are outliers or may fit very well into the MWP scheme when considering the full context.The current MWP mapping project aims to fully evaluate and provide reference access to the existing literature on the global climate history of the past 1500 years. The seed point is provided by the MWP summaries provided by the Medieval Warm Period Project by CO2 Science. Meanwhile, a large amount of additional, new literature has been identified. The data is visualized on a zoomable Google Maps platform which provides userfriendly access. A click on the respective datapoint opens an information panel which summarizes the results of the study using a common, simplifying scheme. Links to the journal abstract and key figure allow quick access to the data. If you like, try it out youself and open the MWP Online Map.The MWP Mapping Project will help to shed new light on a number of controversial issues: In which regions of the world has MWP warming been documented, in which areas is the MWP warmth missing? Are there regional trends with regards to the onset and termination of the warm phase? What shifts in rainfall did occur? The map is freely accessible on the internet in order to allow maximum distribution among all participants of the climate change debate. The MWP synthesis aims to serve as a neutral facts platform for discussions on the MWP and to provide important paleoclimatological context for modern climate change developments.Current Status (1 November 2018)The project has started in late 2015 and since then has made good progress. Initially, the focus was on regions with limited existing data to cover as much area as possible. A synthesis paper on the MWP temperatures in Africa has been published in 2017 in Paleoceanography. A paper on the MWP African hydroclimate came out in Palaeo3 in February 2018. The South America MWP temperature synthesis was published in Octover 2018 in Quaternary International.During the project startup phase MWP blogposts on Australia/Oceania, Antarctica and a review of the Young et al. 2015 paper on Baffin Island have been published on WUWT. It quickly became clear that in hot regions of the world, the palaeoclimatological reconstructions focus more on precipitation changes (arid vs. humid), rather than on temperature changes. When you click on the MWP online map you see five colours:red: MWP warmingblue: MWP cooling (very rare)yellow: MWP more aridgreen: MWP more humidgrey: no trend or data ambiguousMost of western North America and Africa were experiencing drought conditions during the MWP (except some areas in Southwest Africa). In contrast, Australia and the Carribean was more humid. Globally, the majority of all paleoclimatic temperature studies compiled in the map so far show a prominent warming during the MWP. This includes Antarctica and the Arctic.Project: Mapping the Medieval Warm PeriodMANN IS VERY WRONG AS ANALYZING > 900 RECENT STUDIES SHOWIn this article I pose the following questions:Was the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) a global event?Where the MWP temperatures higher than recent times?The reasons for asking these questions are that climate establishment have tried to sideline the MWP as a purely local North Atlantic event. They also frequently state that current temperatures are the highest ever.I attempt to answer these questions below.Mapping Project for the Medieval Warm PeriodI use the mapping project for the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) developed by Dr Sebastian Luening and Fritz Vahrenholt to establish the global extent of the MWP. This project is a considerable undertaking and I commend the authors for their work.Luening states on Research Gate that,“The project aims to identify, capture and interpret all published studies about the Medieval Climate Anomaly (Medieval Warm Period) on a worldwide scale. The data is visualized through a freely accessible online map: http://t1p.de/mwp.”(Note – The Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps URL given may or may not be reachable by some viewers as it’s one of those mangled “URL shorteners” that may or may not work. It does not work for me. The author claims the URL is valid, and offered no alternate, I independently found this link to a Google maps document which might work better for some readers – Anthony)Anthony)fig-1-screenshot-of-mwp-project key-to-figure-1Figure 1: Screenshot of MWP Mapping Project (Source: Luening Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps downloaded 27-Dec-2016)A cursory inspection of Figure 1 indicates that there are a large number of warm study locations dispersed throughout the world. However, to determine the global numbers for the Warm-Cold-Neutral-Dry-Wet studies, I downloaded the mapped data for the 934 studies that were available on 30 December 2016 and these are summarised in Figure 2.Figure 2: Results from MWP Mapping Project (Source: Luening http://t1p.de/mwp downloaded 30-Dec-2016)The following observations are evident from Figure 2;a. The number of Warm studies (497) greatly exceed the other studies, namely, 53% of the studies when temperature and hydroclimate date is used and 88% when temperature only data is used.b. The number of Cold studies (18) is very small, at 2-3% of the overall studies.c. The number of Neutral studies (53) is comparatively low, at 6-9% of the overall studies.d. The number of studies that report only Hydroclimatic data is not insignificant. The number of Dry studies (184) and the number of Wet studies (182) are 20% and 19% of the overall studies respectively.In summary, the overwhelming evidence from the Luening MWP Mapping Project to date is that the MWP was globally warm but it is not immediately obvious what the definition of warm is?Descriptions of warm or cold are given the individual studies. For example, Kuhnert & Mulitza (2011: GeoB 9501) (extracted from Luening) states that the,“Medieval Warm Period 800-1200 AD was about 1.1°C warmer (50 years mean) than subsequent Little Ice Age.”Now, whilst this description is useful, it does not allow us to compare MWP temperatures with modern warming. Therefore, I compare modern temperatures with the MWP below.fig-2a-temperature-hydroclimate-data-1fig-2b-temperature-data-onlyFigure 2: Results from MWP Mapping Project (Source: Luening Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps downloaded 30-Dec-2016)The following observations are evident from Figure 2;a. The number of Warm studies (497) greatly exceed the other studies, namely, 53% of the studies when temperature and hydroclimate date is used and 88% when temperature only data is used.b. The number of Cold studies (18) is very small, at 2-3% of the overall studies.c. The number of Neutral studies (53) is comparatively low, at 6-9% of the overall studies.d. The number of studies that report only Hydroclimatic data is not insignificant. The number of Dry studies (184) and the number of Wet studies (182) are 20% and 19% of the overall studies respectively.In summary, the overwhelming evidence from the Luening MWP Mapping Project to date is that the MWP was globally warm but it is not immediately obvious what the definition of warm is?Descriptions of warm or cold are given the individual studies. For example, Kuhnert & Mulitza (2011: GeoB 9501) (extracted from Luening) states that the,“Medieval Warm Period 800-1200 AD was about 1.1°C warmer (50 years mean) than subsequent Little Ice Age.”Documenting the Global Extent of the Medieval Warm PeriodThe Little Ice Age and 20th-century deep Pacific coolingG. Gebbie1,*,P. Huybers2See all authors and affiliationsScience04 Jan 2019:Vol. 363, Issue 6422, pp. 70-74DOI: 10.1126/science.aar8413https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6422/70PDFDeep Pacific coolingEarth's climate cooled considerably across the transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age about 700 years ago. Theoretically, owing to how the ocean circulates, this cooling should be recorded in Pacific deep-ocean temperatures, where water that was on the surface then is found today. Gebbie and Huybers used an ocean circulation model and observations from both the end of the 19th century and the end of the 20th century to detect and quantify this trend. The ongoing deep Pacific is cooling, which revises Earth's overall heat budget since 1750 downward by 35%.Science, this issue p. 70AbstractProxy records show that before the onset of modern anthropogenic warming, globally coherent cooling occurred from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age. The long memory of the ocean suggests that these historical surface anomalies are associated with ongoing deep-ocean temperature adjustments. Combining an ocean model with modern and palaeoceanographic data leads to a prediction that the deep Pacific is still adjusting to the cooling going into the Little Ice Age, whereas temperature trends in the surface ocean and deep Atlantic reflect modern warming. This prediction is corroborated by temperature changes identified between the HMS Challenger expedition of the 1870s and modern hydrography. The implied heat loss in the deep ocean since 1750 CE offsets one-fourth of the global heat gain in the upper ocean.Deep Pacific coolingEarth's climate cooled considerably across the transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age about 700 years ago. Theoretically, owing to how the ocean circulates, this cooling should be recorded in Pacific deep-ocean temperatures, where water that was on the surface then is found today. Gebbie and Huybers used an ocean circulation model and observations from both the end of the 19th century and the end of the 20th century to detect and quantify this trend. The ongoing deep Pacific is cooling, which revises Earth's overall heat budget since 1750 downward by 35%.Science, this issue p. 70AbstractProxy records show that before the onset of modern anthropogenic warming, globally coherent cooling occurred from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age. The long memory of the ocean suggests that these historical surface anomalies are associated with ongoing deep-ocean temperature adjustments. Combining an ocean model with modern and palaeoceanographic data leads to a prediction that the deep Pacific is still adjusting to the cooling going into the Little Ice Age, whereas temperature trends in the surface ocean and deep Atlantic reflect modern warming. This prediction is corroborated by temperature changes identified between the HMS Challenger expedition of the 1870s and modern hydrography. The implied heat loss in the deep ocean since 1750 CE offsets one-fourth of the global heat gain in the upper ocean.This research further exposes the scandal of the Michael Mann Al Gore HOCKEY STICK FUDGE where the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were given an Orwellian erase.Wrong. New and past climate research from across the Southern Hemisphere demolishes Mann’s HOCKEY STICK data trick.Here are a selected number of peer reviewed science ABSTRACTS with their full texts below covering the Southern Hemisphere.· ABSTRACT: The Little Ice Age climate of New Zealand reconstructed from Southern Alps cirque glaciers: a synoptic type approach, 2014.· ABSTRACT: Tropical rainfall over the last two millennia: evidence for a low-latitude hydrologic seesaw, 2017.· ABSTRACT: Cold conditions in Antarctica during the Little Ice Age — Implications for abrupt climate change mechanisms 2017· ABSTRACT: Little Ice Age Climate near Beijing, China, Inferred from Historical and Stalagmite Records· ABSTRACT: Evidence for Little Ice Age in Antarctica, 2017.· ABSTRACT: How climate change impacted the collapse of the Ming dynasty Nov. 2014· ABSTRACT: Extreme cold winter events in southern China during AD 1650–2000, 2012.· ABSTRACT:Climate extremes revealed by Chinese historical documents over the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River in winter 1620Michael Mann is uniformly repudiated by the science community as “a disgrace to the profession” because of his fudged data shart.Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generationOur hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December Photo: GettyBy Christopher Booker6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.Related ArticlesEuro 2012 11 Jun 2012'Climategate' university performs data U-turn 28 Nov 2009Climategate won't make global warming go away 29 Nov 2009Copenhagen climate summit: Doors open on summit 07 Dec 2009Climate emails sweep America 29 Nov 2009BBC weatherman was sent climate change emails 30 Nov 2009Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?

Coal power is plentiful, cheap and reliable unlike wind and solar that never stand alone without support from fossil fuels. India and China are increasing investments in long term coal power plants for these reasons. They realize the false economics of following the political only goals of the Paris Accord lacking scientific validity.China and India big coal powered countries also read the science studies and books that increasingly debunk any climate crisis from more CO2 plant food in the atmosphere. For example, this paper just in -Physicists’ Lab Experiment Shows A CO2 Increase From 0.04% To 100% Leads To No Observable WarmingTwo University of Oslo physicists designed several variations of a tabletop experiment trying to confirm the IPCC’s claimed CO2-forcing capacity. Instead they found (a) 100% (1,000,000 ppm) CO2 “heats” air to about the same temperature that non-greenhouse gases (N2, O2 [air], Ar) do, and (b) no significant temperature difference in containers with 0.04% vs. 100% CO2. Observations, experiments do not support a large forcing effect for CO2 Real-world outdoor observations indicate that even a massive variance in the CO2 concentration, from 0.1% to 75% during a 24-hour period over a mofette field , has no detectable effect in stimulating changes to the surface temperature. Instead, the CO2 concentration changes in response to the temperature. Indoor tabletop experiments also demonstrate there is a very small temperature difference when adding 100% CO2 to a container . And even this tiny temperature change can be attributed to the reduction in convective cooling effect of adding CO2 molecules, not the radiative or “greenhouse” effect of CO2. There is also no temperature difference detected when comparing CO2’s “heating” capacity to that of a non-greenhouse gas like Argon ( Wagoner et al., 2010 ), as the “ temperature rose by approximately the same amount and at the same rate as for CO2 ” when 100% Argon was used. Another study questions claims of CO2’s temperature-forcing effect And now a recently published study ( Seim and Olsen, 2020 ) further affirms these experimental observations. The authors tested the forcing effects of increased IR radiation on temperature using a specially-designed meter-long chamber, a 500 watt halogen bulb, and IR radiation detectors. The fundamental assumption of the greenhouse theory is that increasing the CO2 concentration by a factor of 2 or more (i.e., from 0.03% to 0.06%) leads to 2 to 4 degrees of additional warming (at least), aligning with expectations from the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Instead of observing these strong temperature responses to increasing CO2 concentrations, Seim and Olsen found there is almost no effect at all – perhaps an additional 0.15 ° C at most – when adding pure (100%) CO2 to a halogen-heated chamber (+30°C). There isn’t even a detectable difference in temperature when comparing the temperature effects of CO2 to a non-greenhouse gas like Argon. The results of these experiments led the authors to “ question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC .” Notable quotes from the Seim and Olsen, 2020 study: • “[T]he idea that backscatters from CO2 is the main driver of global temperatures might be wrong.” • “[T]he temperature [in a thermophile] with [100%] CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5% [an additional 0.15°C for a container heated from 20°C to 50°C].” • “We do not observe any significant difference in the two curves due to the increase in the CO2 concentration from ca. 400 ppm to about 100% in the front chamber.” • “The results of our study show the near-identical heating curves when wehttps://notrickszone.com/2021/04/01/physicists-lab-experiment-shows-a-co2-increase-from-0-04-to-100-leads-to-no-observable-warming/By Kenneth Richard on1. April 2021Two University of Oslo physicists designed several variations of a tabletop experiment trying to confirm the IPCC’s claimed CO2-forcing capacity. Instead they found (a) 100% (1,000,000 ppm) CO2 “heats” air to about the same temperature that non-greenhouse gases (N2, O2 [air], Ar) do, and (b) no significant temperature difference in containers with 0.04% vs. 100% CO2.Observations, experiments do not support a large forcing effect for CO2Real-world outdoor observations indicate that even a massive variance in the CO2 concentration, from 0.1% to 75% during a 24-hour period over a mofette field, has no detectable effect in stimulating changes to the surface temperature. Instead, the CO2 concentration changes in response to the temperature.Indoor tabletop experiments also demonstrate there is a very small temperature difference when adding 100% CO2 to a container. And even this tiny temperature change can be attributed to the reduction in convective cooling effect of adding CO2 molecules, not the radiative or “greenhouse” effect of CO2.There is also no temperature difference detected when comparing CO2’s “heating” capacity to that of a non-greenhouse gas like Argon (Wagoner et al., 2010), as the “temperature rose by approximately the same amount and at the same rate as for CO2” when 100% Argon was used.Another study questions claims of CO2’s temperature-forcing effectAnd now a recently published study (Seim and Olsen, 2020) further affirms these experimental observations. The authors tested the forcing effects of increased IR radiation on temperature using a specially-designed meter-long chamber, a 500 watt halogen bulb, and IR radiation detectors.The fundamental assumption of the greenhouse theory is that increasing the CO2 concentration by a factor of 2 or more (i.e., from 0.03% to 0.06%) leads to 2 to 4 degrees of additional warming (at least), aligning with expectations from the Stefan-Boltzmann law.Instead of observing these strong temperature responses to increasing CO2 concentrations, Seim and Olsen found there is almost no effect at all – perhaps an additional 0.15°C at most – when adding pure (100%) CO2 to a halogen-heated chamber (+30°C). There isn’t even a detectable difference in temperature when comparing the temperature effects of CO2 to a non-greenhouse gas like Argon.The results of these experiments led the authors to “question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC.”Image Source: Seim and Olsen, 2020Notable quotes from the Seim and Olsen, 2020 study:• “[T]he idea that backscatters from CO2 is the main driver of global temperatures might be wrong.”• “[T]he temperature [in a thermophile] with [100%] CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5% [an additional 0.15°C for a container heated from 20°C to 50°C].”• “We do not observe any significant difference in the two curves due to the increase in the CO2 concentration from ca. 400 ppm to about 100% in the front chamber.”• “The results of our study show the near-identical heating curves when we change from air [N2, O2] to 100% CO2 or to Argon gas with low CO2 concentration.”• “The warming of the Al-plate was also measured, but no extra heating was found by filling CO2 in the front chamber.”• “These findings might question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC.”There is a third option for climate action that accomodates increasing cheap and efficient coal powered electricity and the evidence is that China is on this path.Climate change: China's forest carbon uptake 'underestimated'By Jonathan AmosBBC Science CorrespondentPublished28 October 2020Climate change - BBC NewsIMAGE COPYRIGHTSPLimage captionSome tree planting has come from a desire to establish vibrant timber and paper industriesChina's aggressive policy of planting trees is likely playing a significant role in tempering its climate impacts.An international team has identified two areas in the country where the scale of carbon dioxide absorption by new forests has been underestimated.Taken together, these areas account for a little over 35% of China's entire land carbon "sink", the group says.The researchers' analysis, based on ground and satellite observations, is reported in Nature journal.Norway funds satellite map of world's tropical forestsClimate change: older trees loss continue around the worldA carbon sink is any reservoir - such as peatlands, or forests - that absorbs more carbon than it releases, thereby lowering the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.China is the world's biggest source of human-produced carbon dioxide, responsible for around 28% of global emissions.But it recently stated an intention to peak those emissions before 2030 and then to move to carbon neutrality by 2060…The specifics of how the country would reach these goals is not clear, but it inevitably has to include not only deep cuts in fossil fuel use but ways also to pull carbon out of the atmosphere… more below.Please review this related post that helps explain why China is building so many more coal fired power plants.James Matkin's answer to Why does China have so many coal plants?This is a most pressing question with implications far beyond coal in my opinion. Is the West being blind sided by China’s expansions of coal fired energy at “insane levels” around the world and at home? Does China privately understand from its scientists that natural forces not minute amounts of CO2 from coal are the driving forces of climate change giving China confidence to go it alone on coal power expansions? There is evidence that they do. See NATURE STUDY below.Coal power does not make the climate too hot if anything it can cause localized cooling by the aerosols hiding the sun. No observed experiments since the flawed experiment of John Tyndal used by the old Svante Arrhenius in the 1800’s to hypothesize that CO2 has a climate impact.“Andrew Bolt: Well, China, I don’t actually believe that China believes in this global warming stuff, right? They’ve had a lot of scientists say, “Hey, listen, this is not a real issue.” I just think they’re just playing the West though. They think oh the West is stupid enough to de-industrialise while we get richer. Fine….“People recognize that they’ve got to have cheap power. And the cheapest power for most countries is coal. It’s certainly the cheapest. We have the best coal in the world, the cheapest in the world. We should have the lowest cost of electricity in the world, we did until recently”.Climate Warriors Furious Over India & China’s Insatiable Thirst for Coal-Fired PowerThe Speech Erin O’Toole Could Have GivenGwyn MorganApril 5, 2021Gwyn Morgan is a contributing writer for The Globe and Mail. He has become one of Canada’s foremost business leaders and ardent champion of the importance of Canadian-headquartered international enterprises. Gwyn has served on the board of directors of five global corporations. He serves as a trustee of the Fraser Institute, the Manning Centre for Building Democracy and the Dalai Lama Center for Peace and Education.While China’s industry continues to profit from rapidly-growing, low-cost coal-fired electricity, Canada imposes a carbon tax and pours money into high-priced, inefficient alternative energy – while becoming ever-more tied to Chinese manufactured imports. (Sources clockwise from upper-left: Mike Mareen/ Shutterstock; Ian D, licensed under CC BY 2.0; Adam Melnyk/ Shutterstock; Frame China/ Shutterstock)Today, coal-burning electric generating plants make China the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. China has pledged to turn itself into a green energy champion by replacing those coal-fired plants with wind and solar power. But a recent joint report by the U.S.-based Global Energy Monitor and the Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air found that China last year added three times more coal-fired electrical capacity than the rest of the world combined. Many more plants are still under construction, and those new plants alone will soon be producing more than Canada’s national total of greenhouse gas emissions. Canada’s manufacturers have a much lower carbon footprint than China, partly because we have converted nearly all our coal-burning plants to much lower-emitting natural gas.In modern-day China, the Communist regime is exercising a classic example of Sun Tzu’s ancient art of strategic deception. What better way to ‘subdue the enemy without battle’ than to trick Canada into implementing carbon taxes on Canadian-made goods, all while further driving up electricity costs by building more of the wind and solar facilities that have already hollowed-out Ontario’s industrial heartland.President Xi knows we in Canada are addicted to China’s cheap manufactured goods, and he must be overjoyed to see our government’s carbon taxes and costly green power plans further tighten the financial noose on our hard-pressed manufacturers. He has us exactly where he wants us.Share a link on TwitterThose new alternative energy facilities in Canada will largely be equipped with panels and components made at a handsome profit in China – whose manufacturers benefit from the low energy costs of largely coal-fired electricity. Meanwhile, as we continue to kill our manufacturers with carbon taxes, all those higher-carbon-footprint goods we import from China drive up global emissions.In his approach to Canada, Chinese President Xi Jinping (above) seems to be employing Han Dynasty general Sun Tzu’s (below) principle to “subdue the enemy without battle.” (Source of upper image: Paul Kagame, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0President Xi knows we in Canada are addicted to China’s cheap manufactured goods, and he must be overjoyed to see our government’s carbon taxes and costly green power plans further tighten the financial noose on our hard-pressed manufacturers. He has us exactly where he wants us, and no amount of indignation over hostage diplomacy, Uyghur forced-labour camps or his other outrageous behaviour will change that.Addiction to Chinese goods represents the most existential threat to the West since the Cold War with the Soviet Bloc. But while the Soviet threat included mutual nuclear destruction, Chinese President XI has adopted Sun Tzu’s strategy ‘to contest for world supremacy’. Xi’s words, ‘the East is rising – the West is declining’ couldn’t be clearer. Yet the Trudeau government continues to accept his green assurances.So what would a new Conservative government do? We will encourage manufacturing of our own goods by eliminating carbon taxes and we’ll transfer those carbon taxes to those high-emission Chinese imports. And we’ll work with the provinces to streamline regulations and remove internal trade barriers upon manufacturers. We’ll build jobs not in China – but here at home!It’s time for a Prime Minister who refuses to be a pawn in Xi’s grasping hand.Thank you all very much. And God Bless the great country of Canada and all its people.”Gwyn Morgan is the retired founding CEO of EnCana Corp., formerly Canada’s largest producer of natural gas.CHINA SCIENTIST FIND THE DRIVING FORCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT GREENHOUSE GASESMmm how does this figure in to the Xi plan?Here is a powerful science paper published by the famous NATURE JOURNAL by China scientists working in Beijing answering the key issue what causes climate change? The answer is the driving forces are ‘the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.’Greenhouse gases are not the driving forces of climate change therefore.Do you think China politicians like Xi would know about this study and therefore knew that the whole Paris Accord therefore is a deck of cards only? Are we being blindided by China? Yes.Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordIdentification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordGeli Wang,Peicai Yang &Scientific Reports volume 7, Article number: 46091 (2017) Cite this article2488 Accesses9 Citations50 AltmetricIdentification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordAbstractThe 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. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.IntroductionCausality analysis in climate change is an active and challenging research area that remains highly uncertain. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)1 advocates that human activity is the most important driving force of climate change, while some researchers have argued that natural forces might be the main cause. These different views are mainly due to a lack of methods to address the complexity of climate system and insufficiency in observational climate data.Global circulation model (GCM) simulations are generally used to investigate the causality of climate change. However, due to the limited knowledge of the climate system, large uncertainties are still associated with GCMs; therefore, the improvement of current GCMs to meet the requirements for causality analysis is still an urgent issue. An alternative method to GCMs is to use long-term observational climate data to study the driving forces of climate change, a method that has recently benefited from the great progress made by physical and biological scientists in studying the driving forces in non-stationary time series. The main advantage of this approach is that observational data can be used to directly extract the driving forces of an unknown dynamical system. This can be achieved by two techniques. The first technique involves finding the driving forces by studying the connections among different physical factors. These types of relations cannot be established using general correlation analysis, but only in dynamical directional influences. Granger causality2 is a pioneering approach for achieving this task. Mutual information and transfer entropy3 are used to identify cause-effect relationships between components which is equivalent to Granger causality in the linear case and some attempts have been made to extend Granger causality to the nonlinear case4,5. Recently, Sugihara et al.6 presented another effective method known as convergent cross-mapping (CCM) to justify causality in some biological complex systems. Tsonis et al.7 used CCM to identify a causal relationship between cosmic rays and interannual variation in global temperature.The second technique is to directly extract the driving force information behind the observational data. For example, cross-prediction error8 and slow feature analysis (SFA)9 have been successfully applied to extract slowly changing driving forces from non-stationary time series. To evaluate SFA, a modified logistic map has been used to test the ability of SFA to construct the driving forces from an observational time series, and the results showed that there is a good agreement between the constructed and the true driving forces with a correlation coefficient of 0.99810. This suggests that SFA is suitable for extracting the driving force from observational time series…Figure 1: The Driving force constructed using CET dataset and SFA with embedding dimension m = 13.Discussion and ConclusionsA new investigation on climate change causality is given using the longest instrumental temperature record — the CET dataset— which was analyzed using SFA and wavelet analysis. This investigation into the driving forces of climate change reproduces a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which may be connected to the ENSO cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. Other beats from interdecadal to centennial components were also reproduced at 7.5, 14.5, 67.7, 90.4, 113.9 and 215 years, which could also be induced by ENSO and the Hale sunspot cycle as they are harmonics of the two basic frequencies. They are all strongly amplitude and phase modulated, and the modulating signals acting on the scale components are oscillations with a period of about 1000 years, which represent the impacts of GHGs as presented using the surface air temperature time series in the Northern Hemisphere in Yang16.Tung and Zhou25 presented an interesting analysis result for the scale structure of the CET time series and found a scale component with a spectrum band from 50 to 90 years that propagates through the phase space of the indices considered as the AMO, due to the large thermal inertia associated with slow oceanic processes. This scale signal is reflected in the Northern Hemisphere area-averaged surface temperature signal and the CET dataset, which explains, by inference, a large fraction of the multidecadal non-uniformity of the observed global surface temperature warming in the twentieth century. However, the relationship between the 67.7 years found in this paper and the solar scales suggests that this climate component plays a key role in multidecadal variability26. This scale signal that has a period of 67.7 years in the CET dataset is regarded as a harmonic of the solar cycle because of the harmonic relationship with the Hale sunspot cycle. Note that a quasi-millennial cycle could also be forced on the Sun by the rotation of the Trigon of the great conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn18. These results clearly indicate that both solar and climate oscillations are linked to planetary motion.Identifying causality in complex climate systems can be difficult; therefore, this study is a further attempt to better understand causality using the longest instrumental time series of temperature based on observed climate data associated with climate change. Such an approach may provide another method to study causality in climate change. As an alternative approach to GCMs, the technique directly utilizes the observed nonstationary data to directly construct the driving forces, referred to as the ‘inverse problem’ in mathematics.It has been shown in a number of other fields27,28,29 that SFA can be applied to nonstationary time series to estimate a single underlying driving force with high accuracy. However, application in the climate sciences, which involves nonlinear and complex systems, is at a preliminary stage. There are uncertainties related to observational limitations, as well as missing or uncertain external forces. In particular, SFA may not account for possible nonlinear interactions between the different scales. In addition, this study used the longest instrumental record in central England, in which different sources of uncertainty may exist. Further work to evaluate this source of uncertainty is therefore desirable. These issues, among others, will be considered in forthcoming studies.Published commentsJames Matkin 4 years agoThis 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…−James Matkin jack dale 4 years agoYou unfairly take a swipe at Judith Curry as the link in her blog did not ignore or leave out the reference to the "long period cycle of GHGs" as you suggest. Leaving out relevant scientific data is the preserve of rogue scientists like Michael Mann author of the infamous and fudged "hockey stick" graph. The Chinese study focused on the simple question: is climate change natural or artificially caused by fossil fuel emissions as believed by the IPCC and some scientists? The study concludes the "driving forces" are natural climate variation. The study using real data rather than computer models refers to anthropogenic warming and does not identify it as a driving force. You focus one the "long period signals of 1000 years for GHGs does not suggest GHGs are driving forces, particularly the small amount of GHGs emitted by humans. Yes, the natural solar driving forces are "modulated in amplitude by GHGs on a millennial time scale." But this does not make GHGs the driving forces of climate change. I suggest the analogy is GHGs are like turning on the bright lights of a car. The bright lights modulates the amplitude of the lights, but surely they are not the driving force of the headlights. The importance of the Chinese study is that climate change cannot be stopped because the driving forces are natural and will not yield to fiddling with Co2 levels as the Paris Climate Accord attempts to do.Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordThis just in confirming the observed driving forces of climate change in the Chinese study.WRITTEN BY DAVID WHITEHOUSE ONAPR 6, 2021. POSTED IN LATEST NEWSThe Climate Role Of Our Sun ConfirmedIf you ask most climate scientists, they will tell you that the Sun’s small variability is unimportant when it comes to influencing climate.They may have to change their minds if a new line of research holds up.It seems that solar variability can drive climate variability on Earth on decadal timescales (the decadal climatic variability that Michael Mann recently ‘proved’ doesn’t exist).That’s the conclusion of a new study showing a correlation between the end of solar cycles and a switch from El Nino to La Nina conditions in the Pacific Ocean.Top: Six-month smoothed monthly sunspot number from SILSO. Bottom: Oceanic El Niño Index from NOAA. Red and blue boxes mark the El Niño and La Niña periods in the repeating pattern. Source: Climate Etc, September 2019It’s a result that could significantly improve the predictability of the largest El Nino and La Nina events, which have several global climate effects.Energy from the Sun is the major driver of our entire Earth system and makes life on Earth possible,” said Scott McIntosh, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a co-author of the paper. “Even so, the scientific community has been unclear on the role that solar variability plays in influencing weather and climate events here on Earth. This study shows there’s reason to believe it absolutely does and why the connection may have been missed in the past.”The approximately 11-year solar cycle – the appearance (and disappearance) of spots on the Sun – has been known for hundreds of years.In this new study, the researchers use a 22-year “clock” for solar activity derived from the Sun’s magnetic polarity cycle, which they consider a more regular alternative to the 11-year solar cycle.This research was published last year.‘Coincidence Unlikely‘Applying this to climate studies the researchers found that the five estimates of the end of a solar cycle that occurred between 1960 and 2010-11 all coincided with a flip from an El Nino (when sea surface temperatures are warmer than average) to a La Nina (when the sea surface temperatures are cooler than average).The end of the most recent solar cycle – happening now – is also coincident with the beginning of a La Nina event. Robert Leamon of the University of Maryland/Baltimore County said, “Five consecutive terminators lining up with a switch in the El Nino oscillation is not likely to be a coincidence.”In fact, only a 1 in 5,000 chance or less (depending on the statistical test) that all five terminator events included in the study would randomly coincide with the flip in ocean temperatures.Now that a sixth terminator event — and the corresponding start of a new solar cycle in 2020 — has also coincided with a La Nina event, the chance of a random occurrence is even more remote.The paper does not delve into what physical connection between the Sun and Earth could be responsible for the correlation, but the authors note that there are several possibilities that warrant further study, including the influence of the Sun’s magnetic field on the number of cosmic rays that escape into the solar system and ultimately bombard Earth.However, a robust physical link between cosmic ray variations and climate has yet to be determined.If further research can establish that there is a physical connection and that changes on the Sun are truly causing variability in the oceans, then we may be able to improve our ability to predict El Nino and La Nina events,” McIntosh said.Read more at the GWPFClimate Warriors Furious Over India & China’s Insatiable Thirst for Coal-Fired PowerApril 5, 2021 by stopthesethings Leave a CommentFor years now, we’ve been told that “coal is dead” and that India and China will plump for wind and solar, instead of coal-fired power. Well, that’s the line being run by renewable energy rent seekers and wind and solar zealots around the globe.It is, of course, complete bunkum.With hundreds of millions still in abject poverty, both China and India haven’t got time to muck around with expensive, part-time power. Industrialisation requires cheap and reliable power, not stuff that’s delivered in chaotic fits and spurts and, when it is, is insanely expensive, anyway.Don’t forget, we wouldn’t be talking about wind or solar ‘industries’ in the absence of massive subsidies, guaranteed Feed in Tariffs, government mandates, targets or tax credits.Australia is one of the world’s largest coal exporters, has abundant, high-quality reserves, and yet is faced with suicidal energy policies, which demonizes reliable and affordable coal-fired power and promotes chaotically intermittent wind and solar, with a raft of subsidies doled out under the Federal government Renewable Energy TargetThe RET will cost power consumers more than $60,000,000,000 over the life of the scheme.Where Australia’s political leadership seems hell-bent on destroying our economic competitiveness, both China and India have directed their efforts and resources at building phenomenal coal-fired power generation capacity.Whatever lipservice might be paid by China’s wolf warriors and Indian diplomats in international forums about ditching coal-fired power plants, the reality is that both countries are building coal-fired power plants, hand over fist. And have absolutely no intention of slowing down that process.In the first piece Andrew Bolt interviews energy market economist, Alan Moran, who, quite rightly, remains dumbfounded at Australia’s suicidal energy policies.In the second, Bloomberg Green – a propaganda outlet for the climate industrial complex and renewable energy rent seekers – is simply dumbfounded by the fact that coal-fired power accounts for over 65% of India’s energy needs and that India is all set to expand that proportion by placing its coalmines in the hands of private entrepreneurs – with a view to improving productivity and output.Steps which sound like a country that needs more reliable and affordable power, not less; and one which is unlikely to chase the wind and solar pipe dream being peddled by the likes of Bloomberg Green.‘Going broke by being woke’: Not embracing coal ‘undermines our economic superiority’Sky NewsAndrew Bolt and Alan Moran30 March 2021Energy economist Alan Moran says Australia is “going broke by being woke” for not “embracing” coal as the cheapest form of electricity – unlike China, we are negating any chance of once again becoming an “economic superpower”.“We are being forced to reduce our competitiveness … at a time when China is becoming more and more affluent as a result of its uses of coal or the cheapest forms of electricity – and we are going broke by being woke,” he told Sky News host Andrew Bolt.“The cheapest power for most countries is coal.“We have the best coal in the world – the cheapest in the world. We should have the lowest cost of electricity in the world – we did until recently – but we have basically undermined this through our domestic policies.“Basically, coal is the cheapest form of electricity we have and we can be again an economic superpower – but only if we embrace this.”TranscriptAndrew Bolt: Joining me is Alan Moran of Regulation Economics, which looks at the economics of green energy. Alan here we are in the West, we’re cutting our coal-fired power stations, China ramping it up. It’s preaching global warming. We’re doing… We’re making ourselves weaker. They’re making themselves stronger. Is it a game to them?Alan Moran: Well it’s not a game. They’ve got a colossal amount of coal. I mean seven times the amount of coal that we produce is produced in China and they unabashedly use that to produce power cheaply. Indeed, if you look at the cost of electricity, then they’re basically coal generated as ours is. But in their case, the cost of electricity is less than half our cost. They have a lot… They do have some wind, less than half, as much as we have per capita, much less than half as much, but they basically use this low cost energy to be the backbone of their booming economy.And we’ve benefited from this, of course, as 35% of our exports are to China and they dominate our steel and our iron ore. But we benefited from it, but its made us part of their, I guess, part of their economy, really. We were a junior partner to China and it’s very difficult to see how we get out of this or whether we should get out of it. There aren’t any alternative markets for us. And yet we are now wedded, as you say to, in a dangerous situation in the world to a power which is partly democratic-Andrew Bolt: Look it’s not just the fact that we are sending our coal to help make them richer and stronger. My point is with global warming, they pay lip service to the theory, they’ve been allowed under the Paris Agreement, they can increase their emissions to double. They’re saying, yes, get on board the global warming thing, which means we de-industrialise. We get weaker. We get less rich.Alan Moran: Exactly so.Andrew Bolt: They meanwhile exploit coal and get more rich. This is a game.Alan Moran: They make a statement that, oh, by 2060 or something like that-Andrew Bolt: 2060!Alan Moran: They’re going to be carbon neutral or something like it. Meanwhile, we are actually acting in terms of reducing the efficiency of our energy by implementing more and more wind and solar at the behest of the United States. And this is one reason why it’s a dangerous world because we are being forced to reduce our competitiveness. Maybe we want to do it anyway. There are people in Australia like Mr Turnbull who do want to do that anyway, but we’re being forced to do it at a time when China is becoming more and more affluent as a result of its usage of coal, the cheapest form of electricity. And we are going broke by being woke if you like-Andrew Bolt: Well, China, I don’t actually believe that China believes in this global warming stuff, right? They’ve had a lot of scientists say, “Hey, listen, this is not a real issue.” I just think they’re just playing the West though. They think oh the West is stupid enough to de-industrialise while we get richer. Fine. There’s one other thing in this Alan, we’ve had the greens push this idea that coal is dead, right? Coal is dead. If you build a new coal fired power station or a mine, it’s a stranded asset. The world’s moving. China’s proving this completely wrong. Isn’t it?Alan Moran: Oh, yes. They’re building lots and lots of new power stations all the time. As are the other developing countries like Vietnam and Indonesia, India, of course, too. People recognise that they’ve got to have cheap power. And the cheapest power for most countries is coal. It’s certainly the cheapest. We have the best coal in the world, the cheapest in the world. We should have the lowest cost of electricity in the world, we did until recently. But we basically undermine this through our domestic policies and they’re paying lip service, more than paying lip service, they’re actuated by a general consensus if you like that, that the Flannerys in this world have told us that coal is the thing of the past. That it’s dearer anyway, but we have to subsidise renewables just to get them over this hump. It’s all rubbish. Basically coal is the cheapest form of electricity that we have. And we can be an economic superpower, again, but only if we embrace this.Andrew Bolt: Honestly, we are such fools and China is exploiting our weaknesses. This is a dictatorship. This is the world’s biggest emitter by far. This is the world’s biggest user of coal-fired power, bigger than the rest of the world combined. And they’re preaching to us about global warming. So would I, if you had an idiot at the other end, that was meanwhile buying Chinese built wind turbines.Alan Moran: Exactly.Andrew Bolt: Oh my God. Just to make our idiocy even more… Oh gosh. Alan Moran. Thank you so much indeed for your time.Alan Moran: You’re welcome.Sky NewsIndia to Double Down on Coal Projects Amid Climate WarningsBloomberg GreenRajesh Kumar Singh26 March 2021India has set in motion the biggest ever auction of coal mines in the country despite the fossil fuel’s key role in contributing to global warming.The country will put 67 mines on the block, the most in a single auction. Winners will be allowed to produce and sell the fuel, a reform meant to dislodge state monopoly over the domestic coal market and open it up to private firms. The deadline for submitting technical bids is May 27 and electronic auctions have been scheduled from June 28 to July 28, the coal ministry said on Thursday.The auction sends mixed signals at a time when the world’s third-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases needs to shed its dependence on coal. India is under growing pressure to improve its climate commitments, which have forced government officials to debate a possible net-zero emissions target. The country is one of the most vulnerable to climate impacts, and coal mining and burning also contributes to deadly air pollution.To be sure, the country has set aggressive goals to expand its renewable power portfolio, but coal still accounts for around 65% of its electricity generation.“India can’t just stop using coal overnight, it will take a decade or two to do that,” according to Tim Buckley, director of energy finance studies for Australia and South Asia at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, or IEEFA. “It’s still a necessary evil for the country for the medium term.”King CoalFossil fuel remains India’s biggest source of electricityThe government also sees private coal mining as a way to create jobs in an economy devastated by the pandemic. Mining projects will bring in new investments and boost socio-economic development in mining regions, according to the ministry’s statement.“In this tranche of auction special emphasis has been given on protection of the environment,” the coal ministry’s statement said Thursday. “Coal blocks have been selected in those areas where forest cover is low, coal quality is good, mines are close to the infrastructure facilities and resettlement and rehabilitation has to be done at the minimum.”The government began liberalization of the coal market last year. But after opposition from some states and a lack of investor interest, it whittled down the list of mines to be auctioned from 41 to 19. As the government prepared for the bids then, United Nations’ Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cautioned against investments in fossil fuels, calling such projects “a human disaster and bad economics.”Bloomberg GreenClimate Warriors Furious Over India & China’s Insatiable Thirst for Coal-Fired PowerClimate change: China's forest carbon uptake 'underestimated'By Jonathan AmosBBC Science CorrespondentPublished28 October 2020"Achieving China's net-zero target by 2060, recently announced by the Chinese President Xi Jinping, will involve a massive change in energy production and also the growth of sustainable land carbon sinks," said co-author Prof Yi Liu at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China."The afforestation activities described in [our Nature] paper will play a role in achieving that target," he told BBC News.China's increasing leafiness has been evident for some time. Billions of trees have been planted in recent decades, to tackle desertification and soil loss, and to establish vibrant timber and paper industries.The new study refines estimates for how much CO2 all these extra trees could be taking up as they grow.IMAGE COPYRIGHTGETTY IMAGESimage captionChina is engaged in large programmes to conserve and expand its forestsThe latest analysis examined a host of data sources. These comprised forestry records, satellite remote-sensing measurements of vegetation greenness, soil water availability; and observations of CO2, again made from space but also from direct sampling of the air at ground level."China is one of the major global emitters of CO2 but how much is absorbed by its forests is very uncertain," said the IAP scientist Jing Wang, the report's lead author."Working with CO2 data collected by the Chinese Meteorological Administration we have been able to locate and quantify how much CO2 is absorbed by Chinese forests."https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47210849https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53613336The two previously under-appreciated carbon sink areas are centred on China's southwest, in Yunnan, Guizhou and Guangxi provinces; and its northeast, particularly Heilongjiang and Jilin provinces.The land biosphere over southwest China, by far the largest single region of uptake, represents a sink of about -0.35 petagrams per year, representing 31.5% of the Chinese land carbon sink.A petagram is a billion tonnes.The land biosphere over northeast China, the researchers say, is seasonal, so it takes up carbon during the growing season but emits carbon otherwise. Its net annual balance is roughly -0.05 petagrams per year, representing about 4.5% of the Chinese land carbon sink.To put these numbers in context, the group adds, China was emitting 2.67 petagrams of carbon as a consequence of fossil fuel use in 2017.Prof Paul Palmer, a co-author from Edinburgh University, UK, said the size of the forest sinks might surprise people but pointed to the very good agreement between space and in situ measurements as reason to have confidence in the analysis."Bold scientific statements must be supported by massive amounts of evidence and this is what we have done in this study," the NERC National Centre of Earth Observation scientist told BBC News."We have collected together a range of ground-based and satellite data-driven evidence to form a consistent and robust narrative about the Chinese carbon cycle."IMAGE COPYRIGHTESAimage captionArtwork: The Biomass satellite is one of several new mission to refine understanding of Earth carbon budgetsProf Shaun Quegan from Sheffield University, UK, studies Earth's carbon balance but was not involved in this research.He said the extent of the northeast sink was not a surprise to him, but the southwest one was. But he cautioned that new forests' ability to draw down carbon declines with time as the growth rate declines and the systems move towards a more steady state."This paper clearly illustrates how multiple sources of evidence from space data can increase our confidence in carbon flux estimates based on sparse ground data," he said."This augurs well for the use of the new generation of space sensors to aid nations' efforts to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement."Prof Quegan is the lead scientist on Europe's upcoming Biomass mission (UK wins satellite contract to 'weigh' Earth's forests), a radar spacecraft that will essentially weigh forests from orbit. It will be able to tell where exactly the carbon is being stored, be it in tree trunks, in the soil or somewhere else.Another future satellite project of note in this context is the planned EU Sentinel mission (currently codenamed CO2M) (European Sentinel satellites to map global CO2 emissions) to measure CO2 in the atmosphere at very high resolution.Richard Black is director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), a non-profit think-tank working on climate change and energy issues.He commented: "With China setting out its ambition for net zero, it's obviously crucial to know the size of the national carbon sink, so this is an important study."However, although the forest sink is bigger than thought, no-one should mistake this as constituting a 'free pass' way to reach net zero. For one thing, carbon absorption will be needed to compensate for ongoing emissions of all greenhouse gases, not just CO2; for another, the carbon balance of China's forests may be compromised by climate change impacts, as we're seeing now in places such as California, Australia and Russia."Climate change: China's forest carbon uptake 'underestimated'

I do not know anyone who is afraid. I know people who rationally think it is a poor idea. And, apparently, there are many people on Quora who find a way to ask the same question fifty different ways.I always suspect that people who do not bother to research (and this question has already been answered on many different threads), are not really interested in answers.David Grant's answer to Why is the US apparently not able to afford universal health care while every other developed country in the world finds a way to afford it?David Grant's answer to The U.S. spends 18% of its GDP on healthcare. However, other developed nations only spend around 10% of their GDP on medical care. Why do Americans pay so much more for their healthcare and receive worse outcomes?David Grant's answer to What are your thoughts on paying higher taxes in order for everyone to have health coverage?https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-healthcare-from-a-medical-professional-point-of-view/answer/Rufus-H-Holbrook-MD/comment/114026303David Grant's answer to Would single-payer healthcare work in the US?There are many more threads, just on Quora, answering this question over, and over, and over again. I suppose many people are like my wife’s daughter, if they do not like information that does not conform to their preconceived conclusion, they just dismiss the source as biased.One of my favorite truths is medical innovation. As I have said before, it mystifies me that people demand the latest technology for thie phones but have no clue that “universal” and “single-payer” systems reduce medical innovation. They just do not seem to care.Find Out How Much Your Country Spends on Research & DevelopmentU.S. Medical Research Spending Drops While Asia Makes Gainshttps://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/01/02/us-medical-research-spending-drops-while-asia-makes-gainsALTHOUGH THE UNITED States once accounted for more than three-quarters of the world's research spending, its share has continued to drop in recent years, while countries in Asia saw a dramatic increase.In a study published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found the United States comprised 51 percent of global research spending, at $131 billion in 2007. But by 2012, that number dropped to $119 billion, or 45 percent of the world's biomedical research spending. By comparison, Japan and China increased their spending by $9 billion and $6.4 billion, respectively, during the same time. In 2012, Japan and China accounted for 13.8 percent and 3.1 percent of the world's total research spending.Though The U.S. Is Healthcare's World Leader, Its Innovative Culture Is ThreatenedThe United States remains the world leader in medical innovation, having produced more than half of the world’s new medicines over the last decade. But our edge is slipping away because of crippling domestic regulatory and tax policies.Delays in Drug Approval Are Deadly, Highlighting the Need for Improved Regulatory Efficiency… Worldwide, steadily increasing regulatory complexity has driven up the cost of drug development much faster than the rate of inflation, and this contributes directly to high health-care costs. There has been a minimal demonstrable impact on clinical trials safety, and the slowed progress leads to increased suffering and premature death, according to Dr. Stewart…U.S. Health Outcomes Compared to Other Countries Are Misleading… Tim had a knee replacement himself in May and enjoys far greater mobility. He also has a tennis friend in Connecticut who in the past year had both knees replaced and is back to playing tennis three times a week. His age: 90! We suspect that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for a 90-year-old to receive two knee replacements in any of the other countries and in a very timely fashion. However, much of America prides itself on physical fitness and quality of life at every age. The price of this is certainly reflected in our higher healthcare costs.Papanicolas et al also call attention to the fact that the U.S. performed the second highest number of MRI scans per capita (behind Japan) and the most CT scans….… Finally, when discussing or comparing U.S. healthcare costs with those in other countries, the cost of pharmaceuticals must be considered. Among the eleven countries listed, as mentioned by Papanicolas et al, the U.S. had the highest pharmaceutical spending per capita at $1,443, with a mean of half of that ($749) for all eleven countries. Regarding a “measure of innovation,” the U.S. and Switzerland had the highest number of “new chemical entities” at 111 and 26 respectively. All this said, it’s noteworthy that one of the virtues of our healthcare system is that its citizens have access to break-through brand-name drugs sooner than other nations.International comparison of health care systems using resource profileshttp://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/78(6)770.pdf… access to advanced medical technology was far greater in the USA than WHO 00198 Fig. 1a–f. Spider-web diagrams for the six study countries showing selected health care expenditures and resource measures for 1986, 1991, and 1996, normalized by the group maximum (% GDP = % gross domestic product; Exp/cap = expenditures per capita; Drugs/cap = drug expenditures per capita; MRIs = MRI units per capita; CT Scanners = CT scanners per capita; Beds/cap = no. of hospital beds per capita; Emp/cap = health care employment per capita; Phys/cap = No. of physicians per capita; Nurses/cap = no. of nurses pers capita; % Emp = health care employment as % of total employment) International comparison of health care systems Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2000, 78 (6) 775 in the other countries, and this gap appears to be increasing in absolute terms. It would appear that relative differences in staff wages and access to medical technology may explain a substantial part of the difference between US and European expenditures……”The USA stands out for its use of technology as measured by drug expenditures per capita, MRI units per capita, and CT scanners per capita. Though France had higher drug expenditures per capita in 1986 and 1991 and Germany did in 1986, expenditure growth has been higher in the USA and a gap had emerged by 1996. Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have had considerably lower outlays on pharmaceuticals. However, the other countries, particularly Sweden, have begun to close the gap in MRI units and CT scanners in relative, if not in absolute, terms. “Conceptual frameworks for comparing healthcare politics and policy… Few comparative studies have concentrated on health policy results other than health expenditures or levels of healthcare provision. But contemporary policy conflicts go far beyond this narrow focus. Universal access to medical care, patients’ choice, and equity and solidarity are all issues on the health policy agenda . Comparing Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, Maarse and Paulus argue that the political culture of European welfare states remains powerful. Market principles, they contend, have not sharply reduced solidarity. Analyzing the dimensions of “risk solidarity,” “income solidarity,” and “scope,” Maarse and Paulus found evidence that solidarity has even increased and remains a key principle in European social health insurance. Addressing earlier British and Swedish health policy reform, Saltman showed that state regulation increased to safeguard solidarity in healthcare systems in which market principles appeared to gain importance. …… The challenge of drawing defensible policy lessons from comparative scholarship remains daunting. The problem is not only that findings come from different methodological frameworks but that accurate characterization is a precondition for sensible lesson-drawing. Klein, emphasizes that “the challenge to improving our capacity to learn from the experience of other countries is to deepen our understanding of the respects in which they differ or are similar.”Is U.S. Health Care Less Efficient than Other Countries’ Systems?https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2012/8/v35n2-8.pdf… Hidden costsIn most other developed countries, health care prices are controlled below the level necessary to clear the markets. This is especially common in single-payer systems like those of Canada and Japan. The result is a great deal of nonprice rationing. Some of the nonprice rationing is based on professional judgment, roughly similar to that occurring in competing managed care plans in the United States. It is probably reasonably efficient. But much of the rationing is accomplished by consumers waiting for services, which leads to large hidden costs of health care. This general point has been made before and has even become a political and legal issue in some countries. Atlas documents this in valuable micro detail. For example, the wait time for cataract surgery in the United States is essentially zero, but the mean wait time in Europe is 3.5 months. Waiting causes direct harm to consumers’ well-being and raises medical risks, including the risk of permanent vision loss. These waiting time costs of health care systems are not on any budget. They are difficult to track accurately because some patients never go on formal waiting lists, either because the waiting is not formalized or because they are discouraged from obtaining the care at all.… Unlike Medicaid, the nonprice rationing problem is system-wide in some other counties. Atlas shows that for many different diagnoses, Americans obtain appropriate care more often than those in many other countries. The delay and poor access to care resulting from rationing by waiting harms health outcomes, but delay and poor access tend to be concentrated on issues that are not life threatening; therefore, they do not seem to have large effects on mortality.Perspectives on the European Health Care Systems: Some Lessons for America… Some LessonsFor Members of Congress and state legislators, there are some valuable lessons from the European experience that should be less surprising.If you insist on government management of the health care system, do not expect freedom from waste, inefficiency, or inequity in the delivery of care (look at France).If you want to promise citizens a national or state program of universal insurance coverage, don't expect that you will be able to deliver universal access to high-quality health care. You won't and you can't (look at Britain).If you want to fix prices for medical services, prescription drugs, or other medical devices, don't expect demand for these goods and services to be met or investment in research and development to continue apace. It won't (look anywhere).If you insist, with a straight face, that in a government-run health care system, all of your fellow citizens will be treated equally -- regardless of their class, station in life, or disease condition -- you are not merely enthusiastic or well intentioned. You are lying…… When Costs Override CareAs the financial burden on the young has become intolerable, European governments have chosen the option of cutting back the quality of health care. Certain medical treatments or drugs are no longer available to persons above a certain age or to persons who are considered to be too sick, or they are not made available at all, at least for a certain period.Gradually, health care in Europe is becoming a horror story. This is not an exaggeration. Many people, even in Europe, do not realize what is happening, because they are confronted with this problem only when they get sick or when they have become old and frail. At that time, one is often in a weak position, and it is too late to raise one's voice.Denial or Restriction of TreatmentAnother method currently used to cut costs is to restrict the access of patients to costly health care services. Sometimes these services are denied to all patients; sometimes, only to certain categories -- for example, the elderly.I have experienced the impact of this policy in my own family when, several years ago, my grandfather needed an operation. Because he was over 80 years old, my grandfather was given an old antibiotic that has drastic side effects: It causes deafness. Though there were other, but costlier, treatments available, the hospital gave the old drug to my grandfather because of his age. They knew about the side effects, but it did not strike them as unreasonable or unjust to reserve the modern treatments for people of a younger age group and to give old rubbish to the elderly.A recent study shows that while over 50 percent of patients in the United States receive the latest, most effective pharmaceuticals for arthritis, they are available to only 15 percent of patients in Germany and the United Kingdom. The same trend is revealed with regard to cardiovascular medicine. In Italy and Belgium, the threshold condition for receiving the most innovative and effective therapy is having a cholesterol level of about 290 as well as proof of a family history of heart trouble, even though established medical opinion holds that a cholesterol level of 190 is the appropriate threshold for treatment.New medications are a critical component of health care, yet patients in many European Union countries have to wait years before they become available. In most European countries, pharmaceutical companies must not only get approval from the national departments of health, but must also obtain pricing and reimbursement approvals before they can introduce a new drug into the market. Because this can result in delays averaging 18 months, many breakthrough medications are simply unavailable for extended periods of time. A study conducted by Europe Economics revealed that, from 1995 to 1997, more than half of the new medications surveyed were unavailable through pharmacies in Portugal, Italy, and Greece. More than one-third were unavailable in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands…… There is another aspect of the problem that is seldom discussed but has broader implications. This is the fact that the health care sector is, in many countries, the largest single employer and the source of some of the most satisfying and rewarding jobs in our society. From high-tech careers to the caring professions, from research and development to the simplest nursing tasks, the health care sector is one of the key elements contributing to the economic prosperity of our countries; and as the population ages, even more economic activity will reside in this sector.Ordinarily, the prospect of future economic growth of this kind would be a source of great exuberance. However, because health care in the Western welfare states is organized as a function of government, the cost of providing it is viewed as a problem. Indeed, with the current systems in place, and with the current sources of funding, and given the aging of the population, there is an enormous shortfall in health care funding which is constantly growing.The present government policies to cut health care spending are wrong because they block the most important source of economic growth that can be anticipated from the changing structure of the population and the resulting changes in the life-cycle structure of economic demand. The present policies are also self-defeating. The attempts to choke off a natural development and expression of consumer needs will lead to an increasing pursuit of health care options outside the official national system…… What's most important is for Europe to change its perspective regarding the economics of health care. Traditionally, European politicians frown on any move toward the free market and declare that health care must be strictly rationed. They are afraid of over-consumption. They're afraid of new expensive drug therapies.From the perspective of most European governments, a successful year is one in which there was a zero increase in health care costs. Very seldom do these politicians relate costs with outcome, as any business would.Health Care Reform: The European ExperienceThe fear of liability for malpractice and related defensive medicine did not significantly contribute to the introduction of quality assurance mechanisms in Europe, but partly explains the substantial lag in implementation of quality monitoring and improvement compared with that in the United States. Attitudes regarding advances in medicine in particular and science in general are ambivalent, notably when human dignity is at stake. Admiration and zero-risk expectations are mixed with accusations of pointless therapeutic assault. This in turn explains the reluctance of health professionals to expose their decision-making to peer review and scrutiny by members of the public…Why is Finland’s healthcare system failing my family? | Ed DuttonImagine going to your nearest doctors’ surgery at 9am on a weekday with your sick six-year-old daughter because you cannot make an appointment over the phone. After your drive to another part of the city, you can’t simply book a time with the receptionist. There isn’t one. Instead, you must swipe your daughter’s national insurance card through a machine, which gives you a number. Then you and your feverish child simply sit and wait. Or rather, you stand, because the room is so crowded that people are sitting on the floor, on steps, or leaning against walls. The numbers come up on a screen every 10 minutes or so, in no particular order so you’ve no idea how long your wait will be as your daughter complains of feeling cold then hot and then cold again.You see, you are not even waiting to see a GP. You’re waiting to a see a nurse in order to justify to her how quickly your child needs to see a GP or whether she needs to see one at all. At 11.30, you give up and take your daughter to see a private doctor as well, forking out £50 for the privilege.This isn’t some nightmare vision of the NHS after 10 years of Tory cuts. This happened to me recently in a country I have moved to from Britain that is normally lauded as the shining example of a successful welfare state…… Finland’s health service has been in a parlous state for decades and it is getting worse.According to an OECD report published in 2013, the Finnish health system is chronically underfunded. The Nordic nation of five million people spent only 7% of GDP on its public health system in 2012, compared with 8% in the UK. In 2012, the report found, 80% of the Finnish population had to wait more than two weeks to see a GP. Finland’s high taxes go on education and daycare…… In Helsinki there are reports of huge queues at health centres (GP surgeries), waits for appointments of many weeks, and greater and greater demands with less and less funding. In south-eastern Finland it takes about a month to see a GP. Back in December 2013, it was reported that Finns were increasingly using private doctors in neighbouring Estonia to save time and money.What makes the US healthcare system so expensive? Why is the US so expensive compared to Canada?https://www.quora.com/What-makes-the-US-healthcare-system-so-expensive-Why-is-the-US-so-expensive-compared-to-Canada/answer/Lily-Lin-2… I now live in Holland, and they are very proud of their national health insurance but it is far from being perfect. And how do they keep the costs down…· There is only one hospital per area that has radiation treatment equipment.· There is only one highly skilled medical specialist team per geographical region. E.g., my colleague's daughter suffered a ruptured brain aneurysm and had to wait for 12 hours for an operation because the same team had 3 other life-threatening operations before her.· On the other hand, the government controls medical and dental costs and therefore, the medical costs are considerable lower.Health Care Around the World: Norway… Waiting Times. There are significant waiting times for many procedures. Many Norwegians go abroad for medical treatments. The average weight for a hip replacement is more than 4 months. “Approximately 23 percent of all patients referred for hospital admission have to wait longer than three months for admission.” Also, care can be denied if it is not deemed to be cost-effective.The Truth About SwedenCare | Klaus Bernpaintner… It is impossible to put a number on it, but it is obvious that the level of energy in the medical professions in Sweden is low compared to America. It can be seen on several levels, from doctors and even down to students. An American medical student and friend of mine spent a year at a major Swedish hospital. He was shocked when he realized that students never spent any of their spare time in the operating room; there was no drive to become the best. There are of course enthusiasts who love their work regardless, and do a fantastic job, but the system is not conducive to this attitude.Planning always fails. The planners come to realize that the market is superior but they will not back off. Rather they will try to mimic a market, using trendy techniques such as “New Public Management,” voucher systems, or healthcare exchanges. The results of these solutions are usually even more disastrous than outright planning. In order to work, they will have to reduce every medical condition to a code, every patient to an ID number, and every procedure to planned (arbitrary) cost and income numbers.It was recently revealed in one of the major newspapers that doctors were told to prioritize patients based on their value as future taxpayers. Old people naturally have a low future-taxpayer-value, so they naturally became low priority in the machine and less likely to receive proper treatment. In a private healthcare system you can make your own priorities, you can for example sell your house and spend the proceeds on becoming well. In a socialized system somebody else sets the priorities. …… When I moved to the U.S., our family health insurance took three months to kick in. One of my family members broke a leg in this period. We found a “five-minute clinic” half an hour away, had the leg X-rayed, straightened and casted, with no waiting time — all for $200 cash. That kind of service is non-existent in Sweden. It is an example of how a market, not yet totally destroyed by the state, can create affordable and high quality services.US vs UK: Comparing Medical and Allied Healthcare ServicesAvailability of CareGetting care when you need it is universally important. Speedy care in the emergency room is essential. The UK healthcare system target is to have a patient wait time of four hours or less for 95% of its patients…… The average wait time for emergency and accident care in a US emergency room is 58 minutes.Baby Oliver saved in U.S. after UK doctors said his heart couldn't be fixedBritish baby’s rare tumor confounds NHS, cured in USANHS to pay £150k for baby's US heart surgery so they can learn ‘how Americans do it’Poor U.S. Scores in Health Care Don’t Measure Nobels and InnovationReport shows United States leads in science and technology as China rapidly advancesHow Other Countries Freeload on U.S. Drug Research… The U.S. is the world leader in producing new medicines. The country’s strong intellectual-property laws, coupled with a comparatively free-market pricing system, encourage firms to research new treatments. Companies wouldn’t take on the enormous cost of developing a new drug without a solid chance of recouping their investment. On average, a new medicine takes 10 years and costs $2.6 billion to develop, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development…… Because foreign countries can import new U.S. drugs and price them however they see fit, many have largely checked out of the innovation business themselves. The U.S. produced 57% of the world’s new medicines between 2001 and 2010, up from less than a third in the 1970s, the Milken Institute reported in 2011.The bottom line is that foreign countries freeload off American medical innovation, enjoying the fruits of U.S. ingenuity while forcing American consumers to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of funding research.List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine - WikipediaThrough 2019The Nobel Prize for Medicine has been awarded 204 times. The U.S. has won or shared 106 Times. The EU (counting Nazi Germany’s 3) has contributed 107. Since 1970, the U.S. has won or shared 68 Times. The EU has contributed 49. 2020 U.S. population: 330,649,603; EU population: 446,786,293.7 Countries that Produce the Best Doctors in the WorldMuhammad Asif's answer to Which country has the best doctors?Top 10 Countries with the Best Doctors in the World | MyVessyl… How do you rank the doctors in each country? Do you rank them according to test scores? Do you rank them based on a country’s low mortality rate due to illness? Do you rank them based on the overall quality of healthcare in a country?For this top 10 list, we looked into the past and ranked which countries have produced the most doctors who have made significant contributions and breakthroughs in the field of medicine. We checked the most popular doctors in the world at The Famous People and listed down which countries had the most representatives.Basically, it’s a popularity contest. It’s not the most accurate way to approach the list. But considering the broadness of the topic, we couldn’t think of any other way to rank which countries have the best doctors in the world.The U.S. healthcare system welcomes Denmark to the Twentieth-Century. Not many “universal” or “single-payer” systems have made it that farArtificial heart transplanted in Denmark for the first time - The PostMay 25th, 2020 1:04 pm… Denmark is just the third country in the world to undertake the artificial heart transplant, and the doctors behind the effort hailed the milestone as a paradigm shift.Artificial heart - Wikipedia… First clinical implantation of a total artificial heartOn 4 April 1969, Domingo Liotta and Denton A. Cooley replaced a dying man's heart with a mechanical heart inside the chest at The Texas Heart Institute in Houston as a bridge for a transplant…… First clinical applications of a permanent pneumatic total artificial heartThe first clinical use of an artificial heart designed for permanent implantation rather than a bridge to transplant occurred in 1982 at the University of Utah…… On 27 October 2008, French professor and leading heart transplant specialist Alain F. Carpentier announced that a fully implantable artificial heart would be ready for clinical trial by 2011 and for alternative transplant in 2013. It was developed and would be manufactured by him, biomedical firm CARMAT SA,[47] and venture capital firm Truffle Capital. The prototype used embedded electronic sensors and was made from chemically treated animal tissues, called "biomaterials", or a "pseudo-skin" of biosynthetic, microporous materials.According to a press-release by Carmat dated 20 December 2013, the first implantation of its artificial heart in a 75-year-old patient was performed on 18 December 2013 by the Georges Pompidou European Hospital team in Paris (France).[49] The patient died 75 days after the operation.