Work Study Model Time Sheet - University Of Delaware: Fill & Download for Free

Not strong as the very scientists working for the UN who are supposedly the authors of this claim in fact have serious doubts there is any science case for man-made global warming. The key problem is the difficulty separating out any human influence from the many forces with significant climate effects including of course the sun, the clouds and the oceans from the unproven and radical idea that non polluting minute amounts of CO2 are the control knob of run away global warming."The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific BasisThis statement reflects the skepticism of the UN IPCC about nailing down any man-made global warming. What follows is more detail on the internal doubts about climate change by the organization used by lefty politicians like Al Gore to make their alarmist campaign.Original articleDr. Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas | Europe Reloaded·Newly Published Scientific Paper tears Global Warming and the IPCC to ShredsArticlesNEWLY PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPER TEARS GLOBAL WARMING AND THE IPCC TO SHREDSDECEMBER 11, 2019 CAP ALLONA scientific paper entitled “An Overview of Scientific Debate of Global Warming and Climate Change” has recently come out of the University of Karachi, Pakistan. The paper’s author, Prof. Shamshad Akhtar delves into earth’s natural temperature variations of the past 1000 years, and concludes that any modern warming trend has been hijacked by political & environmental agendas, and that the science (tackled below) has been long-ignored and at times deliberately manipulated.The published paper –available in full HERE— sets out its intent:Climate change is NOT a new phenomenon. The palaeo-climatic studies reveal that during the Pleistocene and Holocene periods several warm and cold periods occurred, resulting in changes of sea level and in climatic processes like the rise and fall of global average temperature and rainfall.The United Nation’s politicizing of global warming/climate change (via the media and summits) has made it difficult to take another look at the subject’s scientific and academic status. But in this paper an attempt has been made to examine the complexity of the problem in the light of available facts related to the atmosphere and climate system:ENERGY SOURCES FOR THE HEATING OF THE ATMOSPHEREThe ultimate source of energy for the heating of earth’s surface and atmosphere is the Sun.Out of the total solar radiation that reaches the top of atmosphere, about 49% reaches the earth’s surface (insolation). 31% is reflected back to space, while 20% is absorbed by atmosphere.This shows atmosphere absorbs only 20% of solar radiation directly while earth’s surface is the major source of energy for the heating of atmosphere.WATER VAPOUR IS THE SINGLE LARGEST ATMOSPHERIC GAS RATHER THAN CARBON DIOXIDEPro human induced global warming scientists exaggerate the contribution of carbon dioxide as a major greenhouse gas in absorbing long wave earth’s radiation. The fact is water vapor is the single largest atmospheric greenhouse gas (2% by volume), Carbon dioxide is second (0.0385% by volume).Water vapor contributes 95% to the greenhouse effect, all other greenhouse gases combined contribute only 5%. Furthermore, the man-made portion of carbon dioxide contributes only 0.117% to the greenhouse effect.The IPCC does not consider water vapor a greenhouse gas in its reports.In addition, water vapor absorbs in a much wider band of long wave radiation (4-8 micrometer and 12-70 micrometer bands), whereas Carbon dioxide absorbs in narrow bands (13-16 micrometer) and ozone absorbs in a much smaller narrow band (9-10 micrometer). Thus, water vapor absorbs in a much wider wave length band, it has the single largest greenhouse effect among all the greenhouse gases.EARTH’S TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS DURING LAST 1000 YEARSEarth’s temperature was never constant.Instead, its past temperatures varied in cyclical patterns. Earth’s temperatures for the past 1000 years have been constructed on the basis of historical records, measured temperature data and several proxy data (ice core data, tree ring analysis, pollen analysis).Earth’s temperature pattern in the past 1000 years shows two relatively long cycles:·The Medieval warm period from 950 AD to 1350 AD, followed by:·The Little Ice Age from 1400 to 1900 ADAccording to Dr. Steffensen of Neil Bohr Institute of Geophysist, university of Copenhagen —who conducted 3km deep ice core study in Greenland— the Little Ice Age marked the lowest temperature in the last 8000 years of earth’s history, while the Medieval Warm period was about 1.5C warmer than the present day (needless to say, without the extensive burning of fossil fuels).SCIENTIFIC FACTS CONTRADICTING IPCC’S CLAIMS OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGEThere is a large group of scientists who strongly oppose IPCC’s claims of global warming caused by human activity.Some of the contradictions and neglecting factors are discussed further in Prof. S. Akhtar’s full paper, which can be downloaded HERE, but I’ve created a succinct snapshot of the topics below:COMPLEXITY OF THE EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEMEarth’s climate system consists of several interactive components — lithosphere (rocks), hydrosphere (water), cryosphere (sphere of ice), biosphere (living organism) and atmosphere (sphere of air). There are several subsystems of these spheres which interact and develop a complex system of climate system of the earth. Therefore, any forecast of climate system based upon selected parameters of stimulated computer model as used by IPCC for future projection and estimation can never give a real and correct picture of global warming/climate change.RECENT GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE IS BECAUSE OF NATURAL FACTORSIPCC reports were not allowed to consider natural factors of climate change — even though evidences on the basis of ice cores, tree rings and historical data confirm the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age which were caused by natural processes, like these:·Change in Earth-Sun orbit shape and angle of earth’s axis·Variations in solar radiation and activities, such as flares or sunspotsEFFECT OF URBANIZATION AND URBAN HEAT ISLANDUrban areas are much warmer than the surrounding open/rural areas because of the building materials, high density of buildings, high rise buildings, large number of vehicles and heat emissions. Since the 1970s, urban areas have grown rapidly in number and size all over the world. Very importantly, almost all the weather stations are located in cities. So rapid growth in urbanization has created a bias toward warmer temperature. This factor was also not considered by the IPCC.Even more telling, Prof. John Christi, an astrophysics of the university of Albama, studied ground recorded temperature and found temperature is rising while the weather satellite temperature data and air balloon recorded temperature show little change.GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF CLIMATIC STATIONS AND DATA BIASOnly 100 weather stations existed in 1875, all of which were located in Europe and North America. This number increased to 1,700 in 1975, and since then the number of stations has increased dramatically to 10,000 at present. Therefore, most of the stations did not exist prior to mid -1970s.Also, the majority of the stations are located on the continents of the northern hemisphere, in the mid-latitudes and in urban areas — meaning our climate data set is biased towards landmass.CREDIBILITY OF IPCC IS QUESTIONEDA major blow to IPCC credibility came on October 19, 2009 when thousands of documents and emails were leaked out by some computer hackers from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of UK’s East Anglia University. This leak came to be unimaginatively known as Climate Gate.The documents reveal misconduct of the top IPCC climate scientists in the UK and USA in creating manufactured data about the release of carbon dioxide through burning of fossil fuels and industries causing global warming. Some of the US governmental agencies like US National Climate Data Centre and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies were also involved in data manipulation.THE HOCKEY STICK GRAPHMichael Mann’s infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph has two major flaws.First, it shows that earth’s temperatures were below normal for a long period –1000AD to 1970s– then temperatures increasing dramatically since 1980s. And secondly, it also alters the long-accepted Medieval Warm Period (950 AD to 1350AD) so as to seem as colder than originally thought.It was found out that Mann’s graph was drawn on the basis of a very small ring samples (10 out of 85 samples) and by data manipulation and statistical exaggeration.Despite these shocking revelations, the ‘Hockey Stick’ is still used in all IPCC reports. Since the IPCC’s third report in the 2007, Mann’s graph has replaced the original one (which clearly identified the MWP) used in first and second reports — a change strongly criticized by many climate scientists.IPCC fraud revealed in two graphs.ASSESSMENTS OF IPCC ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING IMPACTS ON SEA LEVEL RISE AND GLACIER MELTING ARE INCORRECT AND OVERSTATEDAccording to IPCC reports issued 2007, global mean surface air temp has increased by 0.3C to 0.6C since the late 19th century. As a result of melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets, global sea level has risen by 15 to 20 cm over the past 100 years, and if this trend continues sea level will rise up to 50 to 80 meters by the end of 2100. Low land areas and islands like Maldives will submerge into sea water…Professor Nelis Axil of Stockholm University, and president of International Organization of Sea level change and coastal evolution, conducted several studies on the beaches of Maldives. He concluded that during last 50 years there has no permanent rise of sea level in the area…For a read of Prof. Akhtar‘s full —and published!— paper, click HERE.Akhtar gained a http://B.Sc. (Hons) in 1989, http://M.Sc (Geography) in 1990, and a Ph.D (Urban Geography) in 2004.Newly Published Scientific Paper tears Global Warming and the IPCC to Shreds - Electroverse46 STATEMENTS By IPCC Experts Against The IPCCPosted: March 7, 2020 | Author: Jamie Spry ||9 CommentsU.N. IPCC“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,we will be doing the right thing in terms ofeconomic and environmental policy.“– Timothy WirthFmr President of the UN Foundation***46 ENLIGHTENING statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC :Dr Robert Balling: The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”Dr Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”Via : 46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC | grumpydenier*BIOGRAPHIES of IPCC SCIENTISTSDr Robert C Balling, Jr. is a professor of geography at Arizona State University, and the former director of its Office of Climatology. His research interests include climatology, global climate change, and geographic information systems. Balling has declared himself one of the scientists who oppose the consensus on global warming, arguing in a 2009 book that anthropogenic global warming “is indeed real, but relatively modest”, and maintaining that there is a publication bias in the scientific literature.Dr Lucka Bogataj (Kajfež Bogataj Lučka)The joint recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, she is one of Slovenia’s pioneers in researching the impact of climate change, and she regularly informs the general public of her findings.She is a full professor and teaches at the Biotechnical Faculty, while also lecturing at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics and at the Faculty of Architecture. More…Dr John Christy John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satelliteremote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record.He is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama‘s state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA‘s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society‘s “Special Award.” In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.Dr Rosa Compagnucci : Retired but she continue advancing in her past line of research. Four years ago he worked at the Department of Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences, Universidad de Buenos Aires and was Principal Research in the Argentina Research Council CONICET. Rosa does research in Climatology, Meteorology and Paleoclimatology. Their most recent publication is ‘RELATIONSHIP AMONG A SUPERNOVA, A TRANSITION OF POLARITY OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD AND THE PLIO-PLEISTOCENE BOUNDARY’.Dr Richard Courtney is a Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry) who lives in Epsom, Surrey (UK). In the early 1990s Courtney was a Senior Material Scientist of the National Coal Board (also known as British Coal) and a Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management. [3]. Member of the European Science and Environment Forum. Acting as a technical advisor to several U.K. MPs and mostly-U.K. MEPsDr Judith Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee. After publishing over a hundred scientific papers and co-editing several major works, Curry retired from academia in 2017.Dr Robert Davis is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Virginia‘s Department of Environmental Sciences.Davis received his Ph.D. in 1988 from the University of Delaware. His research contributions include the development of a system for measuring the power of Nor’easters. In his studies of global warming, he has suggested that it may manifest more by milder winters than by hotter summers, and predicted that its effects on human population will not be severe.Dr Willem de Lange Position: Senior Lecturer, Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Waikato.Field: Earth and ocean sciences, focus on coastal oceanography. An earth scientist and lecturer at the University of Waikato, was born in the Netherlands and moved with his family to New Zealand when he was 18 months old. Since then, he has stayed put in Hamilton. He did his Bachelor of Science, master’s and PhD at the University of Waikato and is now a Senior Lecturer in the Earth and Ocean Sciences Department there.Dr Chris de Freitas New Zealand climate scientist. He was an associate professor in the School of Environment at the University of Auckland. De Freitas, born in Trinidad, received both his Bachelor’s and his Master’s at the University of Toronto, Canada, after which he earned his PhD as a Commonwealth Scholar from the University of Queensland, Australia. During his time at the University of Auckland, he served as deputy dean of science, head of science and technology, and for four years as pro vice-chancellor. He also served as vice-president of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand and was a founding member of the Australia–New Zealand Climate Forum.Dr Oliver Frauenfeld My research activities include a broad range of topics in climate variability and climate change. I focus primarily on surface-atmosphere interactions, over both the land and the oceans. One of these research areas investigates changes in Arctic and high-altitude environments; specifically, the interactions between frozen ground (permafrost and seasonally frozen areas) and other cryospheric variables in the high latitudes of Eurasia, with the overlying atmosphere.Dr Peter Dietze Independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller; official reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Bavaria, Germany.Independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller; official reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Bavaria, Germany.Dr John Everett is a marine biologist who has worked with NOAA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and manages the UN Atlas of the Oceans; he is currently president of the consulting firm Ocean Associates, Inc.”I was a Member of the Board of Directors of the NOAA Climate Change Program from its inception until I left NOAA. I led several impact analyses for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1988 to 2000, while a NOAA employee. The reports were reviewed by hundreds of government and academic scientists as part of the IPCC process.”Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen Friis-Christensen received a Magisterkonferens (Ph.D. equivalent) in Geophysics from University of Copenhagen in 1971. In 1972, he was a geophysicist at the Danish Meteorological Institute. His interest in solar activity began in August, in his tent, when he experienced an extreme solar storm:Dr Lee Gerhard is a retired geologist from the University of Kansas. His profile at Thomasson Partner Associates, Inc. describes him as as an Honorary Member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, past president and Honorary Member of that society’s Division of Environmental Geosciences, an Honorary Member of the Association of American State Geologists, and an Honorary Member of the Kansas Geological Society.Dr Indur Goklany is a science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy.He has represented the United States at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and during the negotiations that led to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He was a rapporteur for the Resource Use and Management Subgroup of Working Group III of the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990, and is the author of Clearing the Air (1999), The Precautionary Principle (2001), and The Improving State of the World (2007).Dr Vincent Gray (24 March 1922 – 14 June 2018) was a New Zealand chemist, and a founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Gray was awarded a PhD in physical chemistry by the University of Cambridge. He commented on every publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with 1,898 comments on the 2007 Report.Dr Mike Hulme Professor of Human Geography in the Department of Geography at the University of Cambridge. He was formerly professor of Climate and Culture at King’s College London (2013-2017) and of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA). Hulme served on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) from 1995 to 2001.[5] He also contributed to the reports of the IPCC.Dr Kiminori Itoh Japanese award winning environmental physical chemist who contributed to the U.N. IPCC AR4 climate report. Itoh on the man-made global warming theory: Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” Received his Ph.D. in industrial chemistry from University of Tokyo in 1978. “I have written (or participated in) four books (in Japanese, unfortunately) on this issue including the present one. I also took a patent on sunspot number anticipation, and did some contribution to the IPCC AR4 as an expert reviewer.”Dr Yuri Izrael was a vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until September 2008, when the new bureau was elected. zrael was former chairman of the Committee for Hydrometeorology. He also served as director of the Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, which is a part of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He was a first vice-president of the World Meteorological Organization and helped develop the World Weather Watch.Dr Steven Japar a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.Dr Georg Kaser is a South Tyrolean glaciologist and is considered one of the most influential climate researchers worldwide. He worked twice as lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations‘ World Council of Nations.Dr Aynsley Kellow is a climate skeptic at the School of Governement University of Tasmania. Aynsley Kellow was an IPCC reviewer to Working Group II of AR446 STATEMENTS By IPCC Experts Against The IPCCClimate alarmists working for the UN have also been guilty of tampering with data to change reality by erasing or misrepresenting historical data with the infamous and impugned hockey stick graph of Michael Mann prime evidence. He erased the history of the past Medieval Warming and the LIttle Ice Age to make current warming seem unusual when it was not.This was accepted science of the past until Mann erased key points with this result.I remember a lecture at Harvard Law School in 1968 by a famous Boston litigator who to my surprise said the little book ‘How to lie with statistics’ should be in the tool kit of all well prepared counsel.http://faculty.neu.edu.cn/cc/zhangyf/papers/How-to-Lie-with-Statistics.pdfHere is a detailed analysis of how alarmist scientists have misused statistics to fool the public.My Gift To Climate Alarmists571,950 views•Premiered on 20 Sep 2019I will present a number of major papers that show the theory of anthropogenic global warming is at best shoddy science at at worst a hoax.PEER REVIEWED CLIMATE RESEARCH SHOWS NO ISSUE OF GLOBAL WARMING350 Papers Published Since 2017 Subvert The Claim That Post-1850s Warming Has Been Unusual, GlobalBy Kenneth Richard on26. December 2019In the last 35 months, 350 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published containing documented evidence that undermines the popularized conception of a slowly-cooling Earth followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped recent uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.During 2017 and 2018, there were over 250 papers published in scientific journals documenting the lack of any unusual warming in the modern era.253 Non-Global Warming Papers (2017 & 2018)Though research is still ongoing, there have been 100 more papers added thus far in 2019.100 Non-Global Warming Papers (2019)To clarify, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 150 years.Some regions have also been cooling for decades at a time.And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few decades to hundreds to thousands of years.Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly provided documentation that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.A tiny sample of the 2019 list is shown below.Klippel et al., 2019“[A]n analysis of instrumental temperatures for the period 1955–2013 shows that in northwestern Greece, statistically significant trends in summer temperature are absent (Feidas, 2016). The cooling trend from 1950–1976, previously reported throughout the Mediterranean basin, was followed by an, so far, insignificant warming (Piervitali et al., 1997; del Río et al., 2011). Our reconstruction mirrors this absence of a clear positive trend at decadal scale. … In total, 110 cold and 48 warm extremes appear in the 100SP reconstruction, and 105 cold and 57 warm extremes in the 10SP reconstruction (Figure 5 and Table S1). The year 1240 was the warmest summer, with reconstructed anomalies of +3.13 °C and +2.64 °C in the 100SP and 10SP reconstructions, respectively. The two coldest summers in the 100SP reconstruction are 1217 and 1884 with anomalies of –3.71 °C and –3.61 °C, respectively. The two coldest summers in the 10SP reconstruction occurred in different years, 1035 and 1117, with anomalies of –3.11 °C and -3.14°C, respectively. The third coldest summer in the 100SP and fourth coldest summer in the 10SP reconstructions, is 1959, which is the second coldest year in the instrumental EOBS v.15 record. The coldest decade is 1811–1820 (–0.73°C) and the warmest decade 1481–1490 (+0.88°C; calculated only for 100SP reconstruction). The elimination of decadal trends in the 10SP reconstruction causes events to appear more evenly distributed. However, over the past 450 years the occurrence of warm temperature extremes is substantially less frequent compared to preceding centuries.”Booker et al., 2019“Warm Period 1 (~1924–2006 CE) was characterized by Tcal from 23 to 34°C (average 28.3 ± 0.96 °C), which is similar to the current seawater temperature for Grand Cayman and significantly warmer than CP 2. During this period there were two warm intervals (WI 2: ~1924–1932, WI 3: ~1972–1993) and two cool intervals (CI 3: ~1960–1972, CI 4: ~1993–2006). The warm intervals are characterized by an increase in Tcal of ~5–7 °C. The cool intervals are characterized by a decrease of ~4–5 °C. … • Mild Period 1 (~2006–2014 CE) was characterized by Tcal of 25 to 33 °C (average 27.5 ± 0.96 °C) which is similar to the current average seawater temperature for Grand Cayman (t-test: p b 0.01; Fig. 14).”Fröb et al., 2019“The container vessel M/V Nuka Arctica, owned by Royal Arctic Line, operates between Ilulissaat, Greenland and Aalborg, Denmark. … The SST measurements on Nuka Arctica show a substantial cooling during winters between 2004 and 2017 (Figures 2c and S6). From the IRM-W through the ICE-W box, the SST trend varies between -0.084±0.020 and -0.096±0.018 ◦C yr−1. Towards the east, thecooling is less pronounced, and in the FB box, the SST trend is only -0.045±0.016 ◦C yr−1. Averaged over all boxes, SST decreased by 0.78±0.19◦C per decade.”Watanabe et al., 2019“[P]revious studies have observed that global surface air-temperatures remained relatively constant between the late-1990s and 2015, although climate models predicted continued anthropogenic warming. This so-called global-warming hiatus has received considerable attention [Kosaka et al., 2013]. Satellite-based SST data suggest that the main cause of the global-warming hiatus is the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), which is the dominant mode of atmosphere-ocean interactions in the subtropical Pacific. The IPO reversed from a positive to a negative phase in the late 1990s, i.e. the timing of the IPO phase change coincides with the onset of the global-warming hiatus. The negative IPO led to anomalous cooling in the eastern Pacific and this is thought to be a major cause of the global-warming hiatus. … The 26-year SSTanom record shows a significant regime shift in October 1996 (peak: 0.202; P < 0.01: Fig. 2b). The mean (range) of SSTanom is 0.73 ± 2.59 °C (10.96 °C) before 1996 and −0.46 ± 2.71 °C (11.72 °C) after 1996 (Fig. 2b). SST anom (δ18OSW-anom) shows a gradual cooling (decrease) over the past-26 years (−0.03 ± 0.01 °C/year and −0.02 ± 0.00‰VSMOW/year, respectively).”350 Papers Published Since 2017 Subvert The Claim That Post-1850s Warming Has Been Unusual, GlobalLEO VS. SCIENCE: VANISHING EVIDENCE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.By Tom Harris and Bob Carter Sept. 14, 2014http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/Was it "Titanic" that made him an expert? Leonardo DiCaprio speaks at the State Department's "Our Ocean" conference earlier this year.In the runup to the Sept. 23 UN Climate Summit in New York, Leonardo DiCaprio is releasing a series of films about the “climate crisis.”The first is “Carbon,” which tells us the world is threatened by a “carbon monster.” Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are causing dangerous climate change and must be turned off as soon as possible, DiCaprio says.But he has identified the wrong monster. It is the climate scare itself that is the real threat to civilization.DiCaprio is an actor, not a scientist; it’s no real surprise that his film is sensationalistic and error-riddled. Other climate-change fantasists, who do have a scientific background, have far less excuse.Science is never settled, but the current state of “climate change” science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.Yes, the “executive summary” of reports from the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change continues to sound the alarm — but the summary is written by the politicians. The scientific bulk of the report, while still tinged with improper advocacy, has all but thrown in the towel.And the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change lists thousands of scientific papers that either debunk or cast serious doubt on the supposed “consensus” model.Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”Consider:According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.The climate scare, Fulks sighs, has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.” He’s right — and DiCaprio’s film is just another vector for spreading the virus.The costs of feeding the climate-change “monster” are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change, plus $176 billion for breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives.Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013.Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, calculates that the European Union’s goal of a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, currently the most severe target in the world, will cost almost $100 billion a year by 2020, or more than $7 trillion over the course of this century.Lomborg, a supporter of the UN’s climate science, notes that this would buy imperceptible improvement: “After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.”Al Gore was right in one respect: Climate change is a moral issue — but that’s because there is nothing quite so immoral as well-fed, well-housed Westerners assuaging their consciences by wasting huge amounts of money on futile anti-global-warming policies, using money that could instead go to improve living standards in developing countries.That is where the moral outrage should lie. Perhaps DiCaprio would like to make a film about it?Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition. Bob Carter is former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia.The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' EverBy Mike Van BiezenHere are 10 of the many scientific problems with the assumption human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change”:1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.The all-time high temperature record for the world was set in 1913, while the all-time cold temperature record was set in 1983. By continent, all but one set their all-time high temperature record more recently than their all-time cold temperature records. In the United States, which has more weather stations than any other location in the world, more cold temperature records by state were set more recently than hot temperature records. When the temperature records for each state were considered for each month of the year, a total of 600 data points (50 states x 12 months), again cold temperature records were set in far greater numbers more recently and hot temperature records were set longer ago. This is directly contradictory to what would be expected if global warming were real.2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly:Starting at the end of 1978, satellites began to collect temperature data from around the globe. For the next 20 years, until 1998, the global average temperature remained unchanged in direct contradiction to the earth-bound weather station data, which indicated “unprecedented” temperature increases. In 1998 there was a strong El Nino year with high temperatures, which returned to pre-1998 levels until 2001. In 2001 there was a sudden jump in the global temperature of about 0.3 degrees centigrade which then remained at about that level for the next 14 years, with a very slight overall decrease in the global temperatures during that time.3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years:If the current temperatures are compared to those of the 1930’s one would find nothing remarkable. For many places around the world, the 1930’s were the warmest decade of the last 100 years, including those found in Greenland. Comparing today’s temperatures to the 1980’s is like comparing our summer temperatures to those in April, rather than those of last summer. It is obvious why the global warming community does this, and very misleading (or deceiving).4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980:Many places around the world experienced a quite significant and persistent cooling trend to the point where scientists began to wonder if the world was beginning to slide into a new ice age period. For example, Greenland experienced some of the coldest years in 120 years during the 1980’s, as was the case in many other places around the world. During that same 40-year period, the CO2 levels around the world increased by 17%, which is a very significant increase. If global temperatures decreased by such a significant amount over 40 years while atmospheric CO2 increased by such a large amount we can only reach two conclusions: 1. There must be a weak correlation, at best, between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, 2. There must be stronger factors driving climate and temperature than atmospheric CO2.5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations:It has been shown that nighttime temperatures recorded by many weather stations have been artificially raised by the expulsion of radiant heat collected and stored during the daytime by concrete and brick structures such as houses, buildings, roads, and also cars. Since land area of cities and large towns containing these weather stations only make up a very small fraction of the total land area, this influence on global average temperature data is significant. Since the daytime and nighttime temperatures are combined to form an average, these artificially-raised nighttime temperatures skew the average data. When one only looks at daytime temperatures only from larger urban areas, the “drastic global warming” is no longer visible. (This can also be seen when looking at nearby rural area weather station data, which is more indicative of the true climate of that area).6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels:Contrary to what would be assumed when listening to global warming banter or while watching An Inconvenient Truth, higher temperatures increase atmospheric CO2 levels and lower temperatures decrease atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around. Any college freshman chemistry student knows that the solubility of CO2 decreases with increasing temperatures and thus Earth’s oceans will release large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere when the water is warmer and will absorb more CO2 when the water is colder. That is why the CO2 level during the ice ages was so much lower than the levels today. That doesn’t take away the fact that we are artificially raising the atmospheric CO2 levels, but just because we do, that doesn’t mean that this will cause temperatures to increase in any significant way. The 40-year cooling period between 1940 and 1980 appear to support that premise. What we can conclude is that the ice ages were not caused by changes in the atmospheric CO2 levels and that other stronger factors were involved with these very large climate changes.7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface. The three main wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 are 4.26 micrometers, 7.2 micrometers, and 15.0 micrometers. Of those 3, only the 15-micrometer is significant because it falls right in range of the infrared frequencies emitted by Earth. However, the H2O molecule which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, thus having many more vibrational modes, absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth, including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO2. It turns out that between water vapor and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2 levels should have very minimal impact on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth. That explains why there appears to be a very weak correlation at best between CO2 levels and global temperatures and why after the CO2 levels have increased by 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution the global average temperature has increased only 0.8 degrees centigrade, even if we want to contribute all of that increase to atmospheric CO2 increases and none of it to natural causes.8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:Even in the 1990 IPCC report a chart appeared that showed the medieval warm period as having had warmer temperatures than those currently being experienced. But it is hard to convince people about global warming with that information, so five years later a new graph was presented, now known as the famous hockey stick graph, which did away with the medieval warm period. Yet the evidence is overwhelming at so many levels that warmer periods existed on Earth during the medieval warm period as well as during Roman Times and other time periods during the last 10,000 years. There is plenty of evidence found in the Dutch archives that shows that over the centuries, parts of the Netherlands disappeared beneath the water during these warm periods, only to appear again when the climate turned colder. The famous Belgian city of Brugge, once known as “Venice of the North,” was a sea port during the warm period that set Europe free from the dark ages (when temperatures were much colder), but when temperatures began to drop with the onset of the little ice age, the ocean receded and now Brugge is ten miles away from the coastline. Consequently, during the medieval warm period the Vikings settled in Iceland and Greenland and even along the coast of Canada, where they enjoyed the warmer temperatures, until the climate turned cold again, after which they perished from Greenland and Iceland became ice-locked again during the bitter cold winters. The camps promoting global warming have been systematically erasing mention of these events in order to bolster the notion that today’s climate is unusual compared to our recent history.9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 yearsThe notion of melting glaciers as prove positive that global warming is real has no real scientific basis. Glaciers have been melting for over 150 years. It is no secret that glaciers advanced to unprecedented levels in recent human history during the period known as the Little Ice Age. Many villages in the French, Swiss, and Italian Alps saw their homes threatened and fields destroyed by these large ice masses. Pleas went out to local bishops and even the Pope in Rome to come and pray in front of these glaciers in the hope of stopping their unrelenting advance. Around 1850, the climate returned to more “normal” temperatures and the glaciers began to recede. But then between 1940 and 1980, as the temperatures declined again, most of the glaciers halted their retreat and began to expand again, until warmer weather at the end of the last century caused them to continue the retreat they started 150 years earlier. Furthermore, we now know that many of the glaciers around the world did not exist 4000 to 6000 years ago. As a case in point, there is a glacier to the far north of Greenland above the large ice sheet covering most of the island called the Hans Tausen Glacier. It is 50 miles long ,30 miles wide and up to 1000 feet thick. A Scandinavian research team bored ice cores all the way to the bottom and discovered that 4000 years ago this glacier did not exist. It was so warm 4000 years ago that many of the glaciers around the world didn’t exist but have returned because of the onset of colder weather. Today’s temperatures are much lower than those that were predominant during the Holocene era as substantiated by studying the many cores that were dug from Greenland’s ice sheet.10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:For the first several years of my research I relied on the climate data banks of NASA and GISS, two of the most prestigious scientific bodies of our country. After years of painstaking gathering of data, and relentless graphing of that data, I discovered that I was not looking at the originally gathered data, but data that had been “adjusted” for what was deemed “scientific reasons.” Unadjusted data is simply not available from these data banks. Fortunately I was able to find the original weather station data from over 7000 weather stations from around the world in the KNMI database. (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute). There I was able to review both the adjusted and unadjusted data as well as the breakout of the daytime and nighttime data. The results were astounding. I found that data from many stations around the world had been systematically “adjusted” to make it seem that global warming was happening when, in fact, for many places around the world the opposite was true. Following will be a few of the myriad of examples of this data adjustment. When I present my material during presentations at local colleges, these are the charts that have some of the greatest impact in affecting the opinion of the students, especially when they realize that there is a concerted effort to misrepresent what is actually happening. Another amazing result was that when only graphing the daily highs from around the country, a very different picture arises from the historical temperature data.There are many more specific areas that I have researched and for which I have compiled data and presentation material, equally compelling regarding at exposing the fallacies of global warming. A new twist has swept the global warming movement lately, especially since they had to admit that their own data showed that there was a “hiatus” on the warming, as illustrated in the 2014 IPCC report; their data showed an actual cooling over the last 10 years. The new term: “climate change” is now taking over, such that unusual events of any kind, like the record snowfall in Boston, can be blamed on the burning of fossil fuels without offering any concrete scientific data as to how one could cause the other.Mike van Biezen is adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science.https://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezenNO CLIMATE CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE.Temperature increases over the past 140 years at 0.8*C are too small and within the range of natural variability to constitute human made global warming.NASA Goddard Institute finds warming of 0.8* Celsius (1.4* Fahrenheit) since 1880. This means an average of only 0.0175 degree Celsius temperature increase annually. This minute amount is within the statistical error of data.Weather by itself cannot be evidence of global warming/ climate unless there is statistical record stretching far enough back to account for thousands of years or at least for centuries.If for example we have declining temperatures from the past 7000 years then the onus to rebut this cooling and declare a new weather pattern of warming that amounts to ‘climate change’ is high and has not happened since our industrialization.Holocene climatic optimum - WikipediaThis graph is taken from Wikipedia. It shows eight different reconstructions of Holocene temperature. The thick black line is the average of these. Time progresses from left to right.On this graph the Stone Age is shown only about one degree warmer than present day, but most sources mention that Scandinavian Stone Age was about 2-3 degrees warmer than the present; this need not to be mutually excluding statements, because the curve reconstructs the entire Earth's temperature, and on higher latitudes the temperature variations were greater than about equator.Some reconstructions show a vertical dramatic increase in temperature around the year 2000, but it seems not reasonable to the author, since that kind of graphs cannot possibly show temperature in specific years, it must necessarily be smoothed by a kind of mathematical rolling average, perhaps with periods of hundred years, and then a high temperature in a single year, for example, 2004 will be much less visible.The trend seems to be that Holocene's highest temperature was reached in the Hunter Stone Age about 8,000 years before present, thereafter the temperature has generally been steadily falling, however, superimposed by many cold and warm periods, including the modern warm period.Currently, what fraction of academic scientists believe climate change is being caused by humans?James Matkin, EDITOR Academia.edu - Share research (2019-present)Updated Mar 24Any scientist worth his salt does not engage in climate change ‘belief’ that is for religion and politicians and they are well represented. Scientist look for evidence and never say the science is settled as long as questions arise. Today the major question is whether there is any global warming or just a blip in the long decline in temperatures over the past 7000 years.The evidence shows many more credentialed scientists who disagree than those who support human caused global warming - a radical unproved claim denying Mother Nature and natural variability. The lists following are in the thousands and verified. But first science is not like politics or religion it is not a consensus business.IT JUST TAKES ONE BRILLIANT MIND TO BREAK WITH THE CONSENSUS.Galileo - Darwin - Einstein"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. HarvardHarvard / MIT scientist Dr. Willie Soon is one highly credentialed investigator that happens to be right pointing out that the UNIPCC alarmists are wrong.Dr. Willie Soon versus the Climate ApocalypseMore honesty and less hubris, more evidence and less dogmatism, would do a world of goodDr. Jeffrey Foss“What can I do to correct these crazy, super wrong errors?” Willie Soon asked plaintively in a recent e-chat. “What errors, Willie?” I asked.“Errors in Total Solar Irradiance,” he replied. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change keeps using the wrong numbers! It’s making me feel sick to keep seeing this error. I keep telling them – but they keep ignoring their mistake.”Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon really does get sick when he sees scientists veering off their mission: to discover the truth. I’ve seen his face flush with shock and shame for science when scientists cherry-pick data. It ruins his appetite – a real downer for someone who loves his food as much as Willie does.You have got to love a guy like that, if you love science – and I do. I’m a philosopher of science, not a scientist, but my love for science runs deep – as does my faith. So I cannot help but admire Willie and his good old-fashioned passion for science.Willie Soon may one day be a household name. More and more he appears at the pointy end of scientific criticism of Climate Apocalypse. In two recent lawsuits against Big Oil, one by New York City and the other by San Francisco and Oakland, Dr. Soon is named as the “paid agent” of “climate change denialism.” As the man who – Gasp! – single handedly convinced Big Oil to continue business as usual.Can you even imagine that? I can’t: Big Oil couldn’t turn off its taps in big cities even if it wanted to.Putting such silly lawsuits aside, it is a big honor, historically speaking, for Dr. Soon to be the face of scientific rebuttal of Climate Apocalypse, since feeding the developed world’s apocalypse addiction is the main tool of a powerful global political agenda.The IPCC – along with the United Nations and many environmentalist organizations, politicians, bureaucrats and their followers – desperately want to halt and even roll back development in the industrialized world, and keep Africa and other poor countries permanently undeveloped, while China races ahead. They want Willie silenced. We the people need to make sure he is heard.Dr. Soon never sought the job of defending us against the slick, computer model-driven, anti-fossil fuel certainties of Climate Apocalypse. Willie just happened to choose solar science as a career and, like many solar scientists, after nearly three decades of scientific research in his case, came to believe that changes in the sun’s brightness, sunspots and energy output, changes in the orbital position of the Earth relative to the sun, and other powerful natural forces drive climate change. In brief, our sun controls our climate.Even the IPCC initially indicated agreement with him, citing his work approvingly in its second (1996) and third (2001) Assessment Reports. That later changed, significantly. Sure, everyone agrees that the sun caused the waxing and waning of the ice ages, just as solar scientists say. However, the sun had to be played down if carbon dioxide (CO2) was to be played up – an abuse of science that makes Willie sick.Unfortunately for the IPCC, solar scientists think solar changes also explain Earth’s most recent warming period which, they point out, began way back in the 1830s – long before we burned enough fossil fuels to make any difference. They also observed the shrinking of the Martian ice-caps in the 1990s, and their return in the last few years – in perfect time with the waning and waxing of Arctic ice caps here on Earth.Only the sun – not the CO2 from our fires – could cause that Earth-Mars synchronicity. And surely it is no mere coincidence that a grand maximum in solar brightness (Total Solar Irradiance or TSI) took place in the 1990s as both planets’ ice caps shrank, or that the sun cooled (TSI decreased) as both planets’ ice caps grew once again. All that brings us back to Dr. Soon’s disagreements with the IPCC.The IPCC now insists that solar variability is so tiny that they can just ignore it, and proclaim CO2 emissions as the driving force behind climate change. But solar researchers long ago discovered unexpected variability in the sun’s brightness – variability that is confirmed in other stars of the sun’s type. Why does the IPCC ignore these facts? Why does it insist on spoiling Willie’s appetite?It sure looks like the IPCC is hiding the best findings of solar science so that it can trumpet the decreases in planetary warming (the so-called “greenhouse effect”) that they embed in the “scenarios” (as they call them) emanating from their computer models. Ignoring the increase in solar brightness over the 80s and 90s, they instead enthusiastically blame the warmth of the 1990s on human production of CO2.In just such ways they sell us their Climate Apocalypse – along with the roll-back of human energy use, comfort, living standards and progress: sacrifices that the great green gods of Gaia demand of us if we are to avoid existential cataclysms. Thankfully, virgins are still safe – for now.Surely Willie and solar scientists are right about the primacy of the sun. Why? Because the observable real world is the final test of science. And the data – actual evidence – shows that global temperatures follow changes in solar brightness on all time-scales, from decades to millions of years. On the other hand, CO2 and temperature have generally gone their own separate ways on these time scales.Global temperatures stopped going up in the first two decades of this century, even though CO2 has steadily risen. The IPCC blames this global warming “hiatus” on “natural climate variability,” meaning something random, something not included in their models, something the IPCC didn’t see coming.This confirms the fact that their models do not add up to a real theory of climate. Otherwise the theory would be falsified by their incorrect predictions. They predicted a continuous increase in temperature, locked to a continuous increase in CO2. But instead, temperature has remained steady over the last two decades, while CO2 climbed even faster than before.IPCC modelers still insist that the models are nevertheless correct, somehow – that the world would be even colder now if it weren’t for this pesky hiatus in CO2-driven warming. Of course, they have to say that – even though they previously insisted the Earth would not be as cool as it is right now.Still, their politically correct commands stridently persist: stay colder in winter, stay hotter in summer, take cold showers, drive less, make fewer trips, fly less, don’t eat foods that aren’t “local,” bury your loved ones in cardboard boxes, turn off the lights. Their list of diktats is big and continuously growing.Unlike the IPCC, Willie and I cannot simply ignore the fact that there were multiple ice ages millions of years ago, when CO2 levels were four times higher than now. And even when CO2 and temperature do trend in tandem, as in the famous gigantic graph in Al Gore’s movie, the CO2 rises followed temperature increases by a few centuries. That means rising CO2 could not possibly have caused the temperature increases – an inconvenient truth that Gore doesn’t care about and studiously ignores.Unfortunately, through their powerful political and media cadres, the IPCC has created a highly effective propaganda and war-on-fossil-fuels vehicle, to herd public opinion – and marginalize or silence any scientist who dares to disagree with it. For better or worse, richer or poorer, my dear, passionate Dr. Soon is one scientist who is always ready to stand in the path of that tank and face it down: anytime, anywhere.I’m frightened by the dangers to Willie, his family and his career, due to his daily battles with the Climate Apocalypse industry. I can’t get it out of my mind that the university office building of climatologist John Christy – who shares Willie’s skepticism of Climate Apocalypse – was shot full of bullet holes last year. But let’s not let a spattering of gunfire spoil a friendly scientific debate. Right?Willie’s courage makes me proud to know him, and to be an aficionado of science like he is. When it comes to the long game, my money is on Dr. Willie Soon. We the people hunger for truth, as does science itself. And that hunger will inevitably eclipse our romantic dalliance with the Climate Apocalypse.Dr. Jeffrey Foss is a philosopher of science and Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, CanadaDr. Willie Soon versus the Climate Apocalypse“Dr. Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse GasSeptember 14, 2018 Pam Barker ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT, Tyranny 0Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse GasDR. TIM BALL“The CO2 error is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators. In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into a collective trust to be managed by them. ⁃ Technocracy News EditorThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of human-caused global warming (AGW) is built on the assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claim is what science calls a theory, a hypothesis, or in simple English, a speculation. Every theory is based on a set of assumptions. The standard scientific method is to challenge the theory by trying to disprove it. Karl Popper wrote about this approach in a 1963 article, Science as Falsification. Douglas Yates said, “No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”Thomas Huxley made a similar observation.“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”In other words, all scientists must be skeptics, which makes a mockery out of the charge that those who questioned AGW, were global warming skeptics. Michael Shermer provides a likely explanation for the effectiveness of the charge.“Scientists are skeptics. It’s unfortunate that the word ‘skeptic’ has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it’s just thoughtful inquiry.”The scientific method was not used with the AGW theory. In fact, the exact opposite occurred, they tried to prove the theory. It is a treadmill guaranteed to make you misread, misrepresent, misuse and selectively choose data and evidence. This is precisely what the IPCC did and continued to do.A theory is used to produce results. The results are not wrong, they are only as right as the assumptions on which they are based. For example, Einstein used his theory of relativity to produce the most famous formula in the world: e = mc2. You cannot prove it wrong mathematically because it is the end product of the assumptions he made. To test it and disprove it, you challenge one or all of the assumptions. One of these is represented by the letter “c” in the formula, which assumes nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Scientists challenging the theory are looking for something moving faster than the speed of light.The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are, how did the false assumption develop and persist?The answer is the IPCC needed the assumption as the basis for their claim that humans were causing catastrophic global warming for a political agenda. They did what all academics do and found a person who gave historical precedence to their theory. In this case, it was the work of Svante Arrhenius. The problem is, he didn’t say what they claim. Anthony Watts’ 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius. The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work. They wrote,Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate.The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence of the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero. This means Arrhenius’ colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.The IPCC through the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were able to predetermine their results.a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.This allowed them to only examine human causes, thus eliminating almost all other variables of climate and climate change. You cannot identify the human portion if you don’t know or understand natural, that is without human, climate or climate change. IPCC acknowledged this in 2007 as people started to ask questions about the narrowness of their work. They offered the one that many people thought they were using and should have been using. Deceptively, it only appeared as a footnote in the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), so it was aimed at the politicians. It said,“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”Few at the time challenged the IPCC assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claimed it was true because, when they increased CO2 in their computer models, the result was a temperature increase. Of course, the computer was programmed for that to happen. These computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature change. This probably explains why their predictions are always wrong.An example of how the definition allowed the IPCC to focus on CO2 is to consider the major greenhouse gases by name and percentage of the total. They are water vapour (H20) 95%, carbon dioxide (CO2) 4%, and methane (CH4) 0.036%. The IPCC was able to overlook water vapor (95%) by admitting humans produce some, but the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume of water vapour. The human portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 3.4% of the total CO2 (Figure 1). To put that in perspective, approximately a 2% variation in water vapour completely overwhelms the human portion of CO2. This is entirely possible because water vapour is the most variable gas in the atmosphere, from region to region and over time.Figure 1In 1999, after two IPCC Reports were produced in 1990 and 1995 assuming a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase, the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared. Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of levels of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000 years. It appeared the temperature and CO2 were rising and falling in concert, so the IPCC and others assumed this proved that CO2 was causing temperature variation. I recall Lorius warning against rushing to judgment and saying there was no indication of such a connection.Euan Mearns noted in his robust assessment that the authors believed that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase:In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.Lorius reconfirmed his position in a 2007 article.“our [East Antarctica, Dome C] ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling [with radiative forcing]”Despite this, those promoting the IPCC claims ignored the empirical evidence. They managed to ignore the facts and have done so to this day. Joanne Nova explains part of the reason they were able to fool the majority in her article, “The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed.” when she wrote confirming the Lorius concern.“It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years, so I have regraphed the data from the original sources…”Nova concluded after expanding and more closely examining the data that,The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.Al Gore knew the ice core data showed temperature changing first. In his propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth, he separated the graph of temperature and CO2 enough to make a comparison of the two graphs more difficult. He then distracted with Hollywood histrionics by riding up on a forklift to the distorted 20th century reading.Thomas Huxley said,“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a lovely hypothesis by an ugly fact.”The most recent ugly fact was that after 1998, CO2 levels continued to increase but global temperatures stopped increasing. Other ugly facts included the return of cold, snowy winters creating a PR problem by 2004. Cartoons appeared (Figure 2.)Figure 2The people controlling the AGW deception were aware of what was happening. Emails from 2004 leaked from the University of East Anglia revealed the concern. Nick at the Minns/Tyndall Centre that handled publicity for the climate story said,“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”Swedish climate expert on the IPCC Bo Kjellen replied,“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”The disconnect between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures continued after 1998. The level of deliberate blindness of what became known as the “pause” or the hiatus became ridiculous (Figure 3).Figure 3“The assumption that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature was incorrectly claimed in the original science by Arrhenius. He mistakenly attributed the warming caused by water vapour (H2O) to CO2. All the evidence since confirms the error. This means CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. There is a greenhouse effect, and it is due to the water vapour. The entire claim that CO and especially human CO2 is absolutely wrong, yet these so-called scientists convinced the world to waste trillions on reducing CO2. If you want to talk about collusion, consider the cartoon in Figure 4.Figure 4″************THE LAST WORDPatrick Moore@EcoSenseNow·Replying to@erskinedaniel@thinks_about_ithttps://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1227949696905351169/peopleIf there is any human-caused warming, it’s too small to tweeze out from all the other factors: solar radiation, ocean circulation, cosmic rays, etc. I believe the two main impacts of human civilization are agriculture, urban culture, and greening the Earth with CO2.

What are the Pentagon's plans for impending sea level rise?Sea level has been stable, at current levels, throughout recorded history for 5,000 years. That’s about to change. Still, it’s very difficult for people to imagine a change in sea level after 5,000 years of rock solid stability.A new Policy Brief from The Heartland Institute shows there is no evidence of acceleration in the rise of global sea levels since the 1920s and concludes the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) concerns over this issue is “without merit.”The Policy Brief, titled “Global Sea Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data,” authored by Dr. Craig Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Dr. David Legates, professor of climatology in the Department of Geography at the University of Delaware, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, is taken from a chapter of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, a report fromthe Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).According to IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, “it is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 21st century will exceed the rate observed during 1971–2010 for all Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios due to increases in ocean warming and loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.”However, Idso, Legates, and Singer argue “sea-level rise is a research area that has recently come to be dominated by computer models. Whereas researchers working with datasets built from long-term coastal tide gauges typically report a slow linear rate of sea-level rise, computer modelers assume a significant anthropogenic forcing and tune their models to find or predict an acceleration of the rate of rise.”They note local sea-level trends “vary considerably because they depend not only on the average global trend, but also on tectonic movements of adjacent land. In many places vertical land motion, either up or down, exceeds the very slow global sea-level trend. Consequently, at some locations sea level is rising much faster than the global rate, and at other locations sea level is falling.”For example, in Stockholm, Sweden, sea-level rise is “negative due to regional vertical land motion.” The water intrusion problems around the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia and Maryland are also not due to sea-level rise, but instead to land subsidence (the sinking of the land surface) from human activity such as groundwater depletion.Instead of accelerated sea-level rises, the authors find “the best available data” shows “evidence is lacking for any recent changes in global sea level that lie outside natural variation.” They point out that if the negative effects of the claimed accelerated rise in sea level, such as a loss of surface area, were to be visible anywhere, it would most likely be in the small islands and coral atolls in the Pacific Ocean. However, research indicates many of these islands and atolls are actually increasing in size. Simply, they are “not being inundated by rising seas due to anthropogenic climate change.”Fears of an accelerated rise in sea levels caused by anthropogenic climate change are misplaced and overblown. Further, this fearmongering should not be used by policymakers in coastal states and cities to advocate for policies that would seek to limit or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions.The following documents provide more information about land subsidence, sea-level rise, and climate change.What do you want the Pentagon to do?In his 2015 State of the Union Address on 20 January, US President Barack Obama said that climate change is the greatest threat to future generations. He also said that last year’s climate change announcements by China and the US provide hope that the world will reach agreement to protect the planet in Paris this year. Excerpts from the speech related to climate change:He was wrong, and I am so glad that Trump won instead of Hillary who would have gone on to push the Paris Accord on us which was nothing more than a gigantic wealth transfer from America to the undeveloped countries of the world. CO2 is not the driver of the earth’s temperature, the sun is.NASA: Extremely Low Sunspot Counts Indicate Global Cooling OnsetPublished onFebruary 7, 2019Written by Chriss StreetNASA space weather observations, extremely low sunspot counts, and a severe Polar Vortex are consistent with cyclical global cooling onset.The complex flows of ions and electrons inside the sun produce sunspots that average about ten times the size of Earth and have magnetic fields that are ten thousand times stronger than the Earth’s magnetic field.Sunspots were first observed by Galileo in the early 1600s and have been scientifically tracked as 11-year cycles since 1755.The U.S. National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration’s Space Weather Prediction Center uses NASA’s Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics satellite conducts Sunspot Number Progression counts, measures F10.7cm Radio Flux and the ApIndex geomagnetic activity, and its SABER carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO) instruments gage infrared solar output in Earth’s top atmospheric level.As the Earth was completing Solar Cycle 24, sunspot counts and magnetic activity were expected cyclically fall from its high of over 100 in 2014 to a low of zero in 2022. But the sunspot count plunged to zero in mid-2018 and has remained substantially lower than forecast for Solar Cycle 25.The data could indicate the onset of a super cycle ‘Maunder Minimum.’ The last Maunder Minimum period from 1645 to 1715 was a period with 7 percent fewer sunspots and global cooling, referred to as the ‘Little Ice Age.’The Little Ice Age altered atmospheric circulation patterns across northern Europe, resulting in widespread crop failures, famine, disease, and increased child mortality. London’s Thames River froze over most years during the period.Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center reported in September: “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”The Swiss National Science Foundation also published in early 2017 a research paper by the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, ETH Zurich, and the University of Bern that warned that particle and electromagnetic “radiative forcing” could cause Maunder Minimum low temperatures in “in 50 to 100 years’ time.”The United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change has been the major “denier” of cyclical solar activity “forcing” climate change because it directly challenges the supposedly settled science that “anthropogenic” releases of fossil fuel CO2are the exclusive cause of global warming that threatens the destruction of all living creatures.As the evidence of solar forcing has mounted, the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change argues that climate model simulations of the period suggest that multiple factors, “particularly volcanic activity in the northern hemisphere” caused the Little Ice Age.But the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction issued an October warning that the Ring of Fire’s 452 volcanos along the edge the Pacific Ocean edge that causes 90 percent of earthquakes and tsunamis had entered its 100-year active phase.The Polar Vortex is a center of low pressure that typically spins near the North Pole. But in January it dipped down to cause 22 hypothermia deaths in the U.S. and at least 10 in Poland.Eleven U.S. states and Poland recorded temperatures lower than minus 14 degrees Fahrenheit. Chicago reported frostbite cases after just 60 seconds exposure.Winter Storm Lucien that brought freezing rainfall and flooding across California, then dumped three feet of snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, is forecast to dump another 12 to 18 inches of freezing rain and sleet across the Midwest over the next three days.Dr. Robert Hartwig, president of the International Insurance Institute “Severe winter weather is the third-largest cause of insured catastrophe losses, after hurricanes and tornadoes.Based on a similar Polar Vortex experience, he warns that U.S. insured losses from severe 2018-2019 winter will likely exceed $2.5 billion by year’s end.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was sworn in as President on March 4, 1933, a quarter of Americans were unemployed and multitudes were living in shanty-towns. By the end of his first 100 days in office, he had pushed 15 bills through Congress, revamped the financial and agricultural systems, expanded unemployment relief and laid the foundation for economic recovery.Nine decades later, another Democrat, Joseph R. Biden Jr., ascends to the White House at a time of extraordinary crisis. A once-in-a-century pandemic has killed more than 400,000 Americans and erased nearly 10 million jobs. The new President has to contend with climate change, a national reckoning on racial justice and a bitterly divided electorate.As he plots his first months in office, President Biden has been studying Roosevelt’s model. “We are coming to this with a determination to meet these challenges with solutions as big as the problems are,” White House chief of staff Ron Klain tells TIME. “Our goal is to rally the country behind that, mobilize the Congress behind that, start to make the changes we need to make to tackle these horrible problems.”That mission was reflected in Biden’s opening flurry of executive actions. Within hours of his Inauguration, Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization and rescinded the Trump Administration’s so-called Muslim ban, which restricted immigration from a host of Muslim-majority countries. The moves were intended to telegraph that his presidency would eschew the isolationist tendencies of his predecessor.Biden’s first three months in office will be about far more than just signaling a shift in tone. Interviews and briefings with more than a dozen aides and outside advisers to the Administration make clear that the new President will be focused on two primary objectives: curbing the spread of COVID-19 and delivering economic assistance to families in need. By April 30, Biden’s 100th day in office, the Administration hopes to have vaccinated 100 million Americans, authorized the Defense Production Act to increase the vaccine supply, and safely reopened the majority of elementary and middle schools.Distributing Thanksgiving meal boxes in Arlington, TexasYffy Yossifor—Star-Telegram/APBiden’s aides and policy wonks—most working remotely, gathering over Google Meet—have been scrambling to line up a battery of policies, regulatory changes and legislative language to roll out within the first week. Programs that Biden can run out of the West Wing, like overseeing orderly vaccine distribution and encouraging Americans to get vaccinated, will require a level of discipline and organization that the White House has not seen in four years.There are also challenges outside its control. The Biden Administration will be dependent on a fractious Congress to authorize funding for both its vaccine distribution and economic stimulus plans. Biden has urged lawmakers to act quickly to pass a version of the $1.9 trillion relief package he proposed on Jan. 14. But it is not yet clear how much Republican support he can muster. And even with narrow Democratic control of both chambers, the pace of the negotiations may be slowed by the Senate’s impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump.The Administration hopes to leverage broad support for economic stimulus to push a progressive agenda, including raising the national minimum wage to $15 and more funding for community health clinics—-policies it says will usher in a long-term recovery. “It is the domestic equivalent of the domino theory,” says former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who served in the role when President Barack Obama took office amid the Great Recession in January 2009.“If you get COVID under control, you’re gonna get an economy that flips a switch.”The goal, Klain says, is to manage the multiple crises facing the U.S. in such a way that the nation emerges from a troubled period stronger and more unified. Here’s a cheat sheet on what to expect from the Biden Administration over its first 100 days.Curbing the PandemicThe COVID-19 vaccine is rolling out more slowly than expected, infection rates are worsening, and some experts predict that as many as 700,000 Americans could die from the disease before it is contained. Biden intends to change that by speeding vaccine distribution and reducing new infections in the meantime. “You can’t do it with half measures,” says Klain. “You need to throw everything you have at it.” The vaccine rollout plan hinges on a $20 billion federal program that would provide direct assistance to local officials. Whereas the Trump Administration saw its role as getting vaccines to the states, then allowing them to figure out how to dispense doses, Biden’s team will be involved in distributing vaccine supplies to priority populations. “We want to see the federal government coordinating more doses between states and even within states between nursing homes and the general public, so that we’re not allowing inventory to sit unused in areas where there’s lower demand,” says Dr. Howard Forman, a professor of public health and ­management at Yale University who has advised Biden’s campaign.To run this federal program, the new Administration has tapped a team of public-health experts, including a former commissioner of Chicago’s health department, Dr. Bechara Choucair, who will be the White House vaccinations coordinator, and Dr. David Kessler, a former head of the Food and Drug Administration. Kessler will work with the Department of Health and Human Services to increase vaccine supplies, while Choucair will run the response from the West Wing. The Administration plans to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies and protective equipment. The Biden Administration will also push to make it easier for working Americans to receive the vaccine.The proposed relief bill would fund sick days for low-income workers who may need to take time off to get vaccinated or to recover from any side effects.The Dodger Stadium COVID-19 testing site, which is the largest in the U.S., on Jan, 4, 2021Al Seib—Los Angeles Times/Getty ImagesIn the months before vaccinations become ubiquitous, President Biden will launch a campaign to depoliticize mask wearing. He plans to call on business and religious leaders—­including pastors, rabbis and imams—to normalize face coverings. Biden will also appeal directly to Americans to take a 100-day mask “challenge,” in which they agree to cover their noses and mouths in public for at least the first three months of his presidency.Administration officials put some of the blame on their predecessors for the magnitude of the challenges they’ve inherited. “The Trump Administration has never had a federal comprehensive strategy. They’ve never put the infrastructure in place to ensure vaccinations make it into the arms of the U.S. population,” says Jeffrey Zients, who is coordinating the Biden Administration’s response to the pandemic. And health experts say convincing skeptics to don masks almost a year into the pandemic will be no small feat, especially after Trump made them a cultural fault line. “There has been nearly a year of disinformation around the pandemic, and to repair that is going to be an ­extraordinary task,” says Dr. Leana Wen, a former health commissioner of Baltimore and current visiting professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health. Biden’s “major problem is going to be winning hearts and minds of half the country that not only did not vote for him but may actively distrust what he has to say.”Reviving the EconomyMost economists believe that as soon as the threat of COVID-19 abates through mass vaccinations and herd immunity, the economy will begin to rebound on its own. But the timeline is tough: even if Biden’s plans to speed up vaccine distribution are successful, the country is not expected to achieve this milestone until summer or fall. The economic stimulus proposal Biden released Jan. 14 is largely focused on easing the pain until then.The proposal would extend weekly enhanced unemployment insurance through September, increasing the allotted amount from $300 to $400, and send $1,400 in direct payments to most Americans. The plan would also funnel $130 billion to schools to help them reopen safely as well as $15 billion in grants to small businesses to help supplement lost revenue. (Biden says he will propose a second round of legislation in February focusing on job creation.)To pass such legislation in an evenly divided Senate, Biden will need not only unified Democratic support but also the votes of at least 10 Republicans, several of whom have already expressed sticker shock. Democrats could dodge the 60-vote requirement by employing an arcane budget procedure known as reconciliation, but doing so would likely restrict the scope of the package and could undermine Biden’s message of bipartisan cooperation.Kennia Viera, of Los Angeles, center, who is a single mom, unemployed and in danger of being evicted at the end of January, hugs her kids, Florisabella Houston-Viera, 7, and Enrique Houston-Viera, 9, after speaking at a protest for tenants in danger of eviction because of the financial fallout of the coronavirus pandemic in in Lakewood, Calif. on Dec. 16, 2020.Allen J. Schaben—Los Angeles Times/Getty ImagesKlain, the incoming chief of staff, is cognizant of these challenges. ­Republican Senators who have been briefed about Biden’s plans, he says, are skeptical. “Many of them have said they think the price tag is big,”he says. “Our response is the challenges are big.”Delaware Senator Chris Coons, a Biden protégé and close adviser who helped broker last December’s $900 billion bipartisan relief deal, says he is cautiously optimistic, particularly in the wake of the Jan. 6 ­insurrection at the Capitol. “Leaders of both parties are looking hard at just how divided we are and recognizing we need to show the American people that Congress can work and can get things done,” he says.Not all of Biden’s economic agenda hinges on Congress. He has asked the requisite agencies to extend the federal moratorium on evictions and foreclosures through March 31, and the pause on federal student loan payments through Sept. 30. But there’s ultimately a limit to what the Executive Branch can do on its own. “There’s no set of buttons and levers the President can push and pull to generate the optimum mix of economic growth, unemployment and inflation,” says Kenneth Mayer, a University of Wisconsin–Madison professor who studies Executive Orders.Climate and RacismThe dual crises of racial justice and climate change also loom large in the President’s mind, advisers say. On Jan. 20, he became the first President in history to explicitly condemn white supremacy in an Inauguration speech. The Administration’s proposed stimulus plan also addresses several items raised by the Black Lives Matter movement. That includes assistance for communities of color hit disproportionately hard by the pandemic, funding to expand community health centers and prioritizing relief for minority-­owned small businesses.Biden has tasked Susan Rice, the head of the Domestic Policy Council, with overseeing the Administration’s racial-equity initiatives, which will assess how the government can maximize resources for minority communities and ensure diversity within its own ranks. And Biden is launching initiatives to expand access to health care for women of color and reform the criminal justice system.Another raft of early moves will reposition the U.S. response to a warming planet. In addition to rejoining the Paris Agreement, Biden rescinded the Keystone Pipeline permit and ordered federal agencies to reinstate environmental regulations his predecessor had rolled back, like rules on methane emissions in oil and gas production. And Biden has previously said he would use the federal government’s purchasing power to drive demand for green products, a move experts expect him to do early on by mandating federal agencies to buy low-emission vehicles and other eco-friendly goods.A crowd raises their fists around Karissa Hill during a candlelight vigil for her father Andre Hill, an unarmed Black man who was shot and killed by a Columbus police officer, in Columbus, Ohio on Dec. 26, 2020.Stephen Zenner—AFP/Getty ImagesThe Administration also plans to reverse a slew of Trump-era policies on immigration. Already, Biden has put forward a bill that would create a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants and boost development aid to Central American countries. He plans to create a task force to try to reunite more than 600 children separated from their parents after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border under Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy. Biden is also expected to reverse Trump’s policy that tried to exclude undocumented immigrants from the Census.While Biden’s top aides and advisers emphasize that none of America’s interlocking crises will be solved in the first 100 days, they also know that a honeymoon period may be the new President’s best chance to make a mark. “What we’re promising the American people is progress in those 100 days, a lot of hard work, getting things from moving in the wrong direction to moving in the right direction,” says Klain. “That’s going to be the measure of our success.”