The Official Journal Of The Toronto Construction Association: 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.

There are plenty of untrue misconceptions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.That there is no segregation:https://visualizingpalestine.org/visuals/segregated-roads-west-bank#%26gid%3D1%26pid%3D1That people are treated equally:The One State RealityThat there was no ethnic cleansing:Anatomy of InequalityThat it’s not Apartheid:Identity Crisis: The Israeli ID SystemAnother recent example of Apartheid:Palestinians left waiting as Israel is set to deploy vaccine“Israel's vaccination campaign will include Jewish settlers living deep inside the West Bank, who are Israeli citizens, but not the territory's 2.5 million Palestinians.”“Complicating matters is the fact that the Palestinians have only one refrigeration unit — in the oasis town of Jericho — capable of storing the Pfizer vaccine. They are among nearly 3 billion people worldwide for whom lack of adequate refrigeration capacity could pose a major obstacle.”Someone who understood Apartheid well - Nelson Mandela:From Mandela’s address at The International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (4 December 1997)"Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians "Nelson Mandela’s harsh attack on Israel at the start of his three-day visit to Australia.“The deputy president of the African National Congress likened Israel to a “terrorist state”.”“We identify with them because we do not believe it is right for the Israeli government to suppress basic human rights in the conquered territories.” Mandela declared.”"If one has to refer to any of the parties as a terrorist state, one might refer to the Israeli government, because they are the people who are slaughtering defenseless and innocent Arabs in the occupied territories, and we don’t regard that as acceptable.””"My view is that talk of peace remains hollow if Israel continues to occupy Arab lands””Analysis by International Legal Team . This hyperlink is cited belowIn 2009, a comprehensive 18-month independent academic study was completed for the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa for the South African Department of Foreign Affairs on the legal status of Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[62] The specific questions examined in the study were whether Israeli policies are consistent with colonialism and apartheid, as these practices and regimes are spelled out in relevant international legal instruments. The second question, regarding apartheid, was the major focus of the study. Authors and analysts contributing to the study included jurists, academics and international lawyers from Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, South Africa, England, Ireland and the United States. The team considered whether human rights law can be applied to cases of belligerent occupation, the legal context in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and related international law and comparative practices. The question of apartheid was examined through a dual approach: reference to international law and comparison to policies and practices by the apartheid regime in South Africa. Initially released as a report, the report was later edited and published in 2012 (by Pluto Press) as Beyond Occupation: Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.Regarding international law, the team reported that Israel's practices in the OPT correlate almost entirely with the definition of apartheid as established in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. (The exception was the Convention's reference to genocidal policies, which were not found to be part of Israeli practices, although the team noted that genocide was not the policy in apartheid South Africa either.) Comparison to South African laws and practices by the apartheid regime also found strong correlations with Israeli practices, including violations of international standards for due process (such as illegal detention); discriminatory privileges based on ascribed ethnicity (legally, as Jewish or non-Jewish); draconian enforced ethnic segregation in all parts of life, including by confining groups to ethnic "reserves and ghettos"; comprehensive restrictions on individual freedoms, such as movement and expression; a dual legal system based on ethno-national identity (Jewish or Palestinian); denationalization (denial of citizenship); and a special system of laws designed selectively to punish any Palestinian resistance to the system.Thematically, the team concluded that Israel's practices could be grouped into three "pillars" of apartheid comparable to practices in South Africa:The first pillar "derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews".The second pillar is reflected in "Israel's 'grand' policy to fragment the OPT [and] ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. This policy is evidenced by Israel's extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians".The third pillar is "Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement [to] mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group."That there was no Nakba:Shrinking Palestine, Expanding IsraelThe misconception that there was no Nakba, part 2 - Accounts of Settler Colonialism: A Comparative Study of the Dakota & Palestinians’ Plight Baligh Ben Taleb University of Nebraska-Lincoln - https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=historydiss“The Israeli forces assembled under the overall command of Yigal Allon, the Palmach 144 commander—two Palmach brigades (Yiftach and Harel, the latter under the command of Yitzhak Rabin), the Eighth Armored Brigade, the second Battalion Kiryati Brigade, the Third Battalion Alexandroni Kiryati and several units of the Kiryati Garrison Troops, making a total of 8,000 Israeli soldiers. On the other hand, the Arab Legion (defending Lydda and Ramle) was a minuscule 125 men—the Fifth Infantry Company of the Transjordanian Arab Legion.145Fierce combat broke out on all fronts around Lydda and Ramle in the night of 9-10 July resulting in the killing of 250 civilians in an “orgy of indiscriminate killing.”146 The 8th Brigade of Israel Defense forces took the northern parts of the Lydda valley, including the villages of Deir Tarif and Haditha, and the international airport near Tel Aviv. The elite of the Yiftach Brigade took the southern parts: the villages of Inaba, Gimzu, Daniyal and Dahiriya. Within twenty-four hours, all villages in Lydda were occupied.147 On July 11th, along with the expulsion of the inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle, the IDF expelled the populations of some twenty-five villages conquered during Operation Dani, making a total of some 80,000 expellees—the largest single instance of deliberate mass expulsion during the 1948 war.148 From the start, the military operations against the two towns were designed to induce civilian panic and flight. The Israeli air force showered Ramle and Lydda with leaflets stating: “You have no chance of receiving help. We intend to conquer the towns. We have no intention of harming persons or property. [But] whoever attempts to oppose us—will die. He who prefers to live must surrender.”149 Bombings from the air and shelling of artillery of Lydda and Ramle, in the words of Yiftah Brigade’s intelligence officer “caused flight and panic among the civilians [and] a readiness to surrender.”150 Many Lydda inhabitants feared that a massacre would take place by Third Battalion troops and so, many rushed to the streets, only to be pushed back by Israeli fire. Yeruham Cohen, an intelligence officer at Operation Dani HQ, later described the bedlam: “The inhabitants of the town became panic-stricken. They feared that … the IDF troops would take revenge on them. It was a horrible, earsplitting scene. Women wailed at the tops of their voices and old men said prayers, as if they saw their own deaths before their eyes…”151.The panic-stricken disorder forced thousands of Lydda’s inhabitants to flee.On the Palestinian side, Spiro Munnayar was one of those few allowed to stay in his hometown while 49,000 of Lydda’s 50,000 inhabitants were forcefully expelled.152 Although he was not in a political or military position, Munnayar was actively involved as a volunteer paramedic, organizing the telephone network between sectors of Lydda’s front lines. On duty, he saw wounded, dead bodies and a city in carnage. Children, women and elderly people were teemed, marching hands up to the grand mosque. “People were being rounded up and herded under guard into the mosque in an endless stream,” he narrates:It was July and terribly hot; the air was stifling. The only water was in the fountain for performing ablutions, but we could not reach it. People started passing water vessels from hand to hand. There was a tremendous crush, bodies squeezed against each other with no room to sit; movement was almost impossible. Many fainted from heat, thirst, and fear. To top it all, soldiers were firing over our heads to intimidate us and keep us quiet.153Israeli military forces (the erstwhile Haganah and Palmach) engaged in a wide variety of repressive tactics and forms of collective punishment aimed at putting down the “uprising” of Lydda. The collective nature of the Israeli military incursions imposed by the settler colonial strategy is characterized by the sensational atrocities typically associated with the dismantlement of Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish State.On July 12th, 300-400 Israeli troops were dispersed in the midst of tens of thousands of furious townspeople, who felt threatened and vulnerable. Third Battalion commander Moshe Kalman ordered his troops to suppress the local “uprising” with utmost severity. The troops were ordered to shoot at “any clear target” or, alternatively, at anyone “seen on the streets.”154 The curfew shut local inhabitants up in their houses while Israeli soldiers lobbed grenades into houses from which they suspected snipers to be operating. In such mayhem, some of them attempted to escape while many unarmed detainees in town, mosques, and church compounds were shot and killed.155 The IDF, for that matter, conducted a massacre of defenseless prisoners of war (POWs) in the al-‘Umari Mosque on July 12, 1948, after Lydda had surrendered.156 Israeli troops looted vacant properties and conquered areas. Yiftach Brigade Commander Mula Cohen summarized the scene: “There is no doubt that the Lydda-Ramle affair and the flight of the inhabitants, the uprising [in Lydda] and the expulsion [geirush] that followed cut deep grooves in all who underwent [the experiences].”157On July 13th, a massive exodus from Ramle and Lydda took place as inhabitants by and large were trucked and bussed out by Kiryati Brigade units to nearby villages like Al- Qubab, from where they made their walking journey to Arab Legion lines. “The streets were filled with people,” said Munnayer, “setting out for indeterminate destinations. The important thing was to get out of the city.”158 Fierce fighting continued as Israeli forces proceeded with their policy of expelling the entire local population, “entering the houses and dragging out the inhabitants, ordering them out of the city and on to Ramallah and al- Bireh. The flood of displaced persons clogged the roads, a seemingly endless stream flowing east, with enemy soldiers firing over their heads every now and then.”159 At sunset, firing of automatic weapons continued to be heard until nightfall, “when silence descended on the city. We no longer could hear shooting nor the crying of children nor the lamentations of women. It was as though the city itself had died.”160Lydda and other cities were emptied as inhabitants were forced to flee.161On July 14th, having emptied both Ramle and Lydda of its inhabitants, Israeli soldiers (the erstwhile Haganah and Palmach) plundered Lydda’s shops and left their doors wide open.162Relying exclusively on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) documents, Elhanan Oren and Benny Morris argued that the occupation and the expulsion of the Arab inhabitants in Operation Dani, especially from Lydda, was “pre-planned and deliberate,” owing to “strategic necessity and [as] a goal in itself.”163 From the beginning, there was a substantial need to conquer Lydda since the latter was an obstacle blocking the road to a Jewish State. If the young State of Israel “was to exist,” explains Ari Shavit, “Lydda could not exist.”164 In doing so, settlers conducted, in the words of Benny Morris, “the largest operation of its kind in the first Israeli-Arab war.”165 Indeed, the July 1948 war encapsulates a microcosm of the wider features of settler colonialism—territorial expansion and fierce violence—during the conquest of Latrun, Lydda and Ramle—the very epicenter of the Arab-Israeli war. This war helped create an entirely new society in place of an existing one. To appropriate settler advance and land-allocation episodes, it is axiomatic that the history of the Lydda massacre is written and conceptualized by the settler colonial winner. The history of the 1948 war is a case in point.”142 Shapira. “Historiography and Memory: Latrun, 1948,” 33-36.143 Munayyer, 81.144 The Palmach (Plugot Machats) were the elite fighting force of the Haganah, the underground army of the Yishuv during the period of the British Mandate for Palestine, also known the crushing battalions. By 1948, this force was made up of three brigades (Yiftach, Harel and HaNegev) numbering just above 8,000 men. See Walid Khalidi, From Haven to Conquest. (Washington: Institute of Palestine Studies, 1987): 861. 145 Munayyer. “The Fall of Lydda,” 81.146 “Comprehensive Report of the Activities of the Third Battalion from 9 July until 18 July,” Sefer Hapalmach, Vol. II, p. 565 and PA 142-163, Third Battalion/Intelligence, July 19, 1948.147 Ari Shavit. “Lydda, 1948: A city, a Massacre, and the Middle East Today”. The New Yorker. (October 21, 2013), 42.148 Munayyer. 81.149 KMA-PA 142-120, “To the Inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle and All Bearers of Arms,” Operation Dani HQ, July 11, 1948. See Benny Morris, “Operation Dani and the Palestinian Exodus from Lydda and Ramle in 1948,” Middle East Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Winter 1986), 87.150 Morris, “Operation Dani and the Palestinian Exodus from Lydda and Ramle in 1948,” 86.151 Yeruham Cohen, During the Day and the Night (Le’or Hayom U’bamach’ shach). (Tel Aviv: Amikan, 1969), 160.152 Munayyer. 80.153 Ibid., 93.154“Comprehensive Report of the Activities of the Third Battalion from 9 July until 18 July,” Third Battalion/Intelligence, July 19, 1948. Quoted in Neville J, Mandel. The Arabs and Zionism before World War I. (University of California: Berkeley, 1976): 31.155 Elhannan Oren, On the Road to the City: Operation Dani, July 1948, [Ba-Derekh el ha- 'Ir: Mivtza ' Dani Yuli 1948]. (Tel Aviv: Ma’arachot, 1976), 110.156 Ibid., 102-106.157 Morris, “Operation Dani and the Palestinian Exodus from Lydda and Ramle in 1948,” 87. & Oren, On the Road to the City, 125.158 Munayyer, 94.159 Munayyer, 96.160 Ibid.161 Ari Shavit. “Lydda, 1948: A city, a Massacre, and the Middle East Today”. The New Yorker. (October 21, 2013), 42.162 Tom Segev. The First Israelis (New York and London: Free Press and Collier Mac-Millan Publisher, 1986), 69.That ethnic cleansing isn’t continuing:A Policy of Displacement: Israeli House Demolitions in Gaza and the West BankThat Palestinians are the prime users of terror and terrorism:Palestinian and Israeli Deaths: Timeline of Violence Since September 2000That the law is applied equally:A Guide to Administrative DetentionUnder attack: how medics died trying to help Gaza's casualties“In a report released yesterday, Physicians for Human Rights Israel said there was "certainty" that Israel had violated international humanitarian law, with attacks on medics, damage to medical buildings, indiscriminate attacks on civilians and delays in medical treatment for the injured."We have noticed a stark decline in IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] morals concerning the Palestinian population of Gaza, which in reality amounts to a contempt for Palestinian lives," said Dani Filc, the chairman of the pressure group. On one day – 4 January – four medics were killed in two separate incidents.The first saw paramedics Khaled Abu Saada and Arafa Abdel Daym hit by an Israeli tank shell packed with 8,000 flechettes ‑ dart-like nails ‑ as they moved one of three wounded civilians into their ambulance.The patient died instantly; the paramedic died on the way to hospital.Saada was thrown to the ground with three flechettes in the back of his head. "I picked myself up and found Arafa kneeling down with his hands up in the air and praying to God, his body was riddled with darts," he said. "The patient was in pieces, his head was missing. I was hysterical."In the second incident, two ambulances called out to rescue injured men from a field in the Tel al Hawa district of Gaza City were hit by Israeli helicopter fire.Three medics and a 12-year-old boy, Omar, who was guiding them, were killed.”“Medics have also said their ambulances were used as human shields by the Israeli army. Ambulance driver Hassan Kalhout described one such ordeal: "They were firing mortars and phosphorus bombs at the houses. They placed our vehicles in front of them while they continued to fire. They made us stay in the ambulances and used us as cover as they fired on civilians."”That Palestinians are the prime instigators of ceasefire violations:Ceasefire ViolationsThat collective punishment is uncommonBorn at Qalandia CheckpointThat children are not specifically targetedStone Cold Justice - Australia Broadcasting CorporationThis program is the Investigative Journalism Walkley Award winner for 2014.“The United Nations children's agency (UNICEF) has been investigating these claims and last year released a scathing report finding that "children have been threatened with death, physical violence, solitary confinement and sexual assault."As Four Corners discovered, though, Palestinian children have more to fear than the Israeli army. Reporter John Lyons shows clear evidence that Israeli settlers in the West Bank regularly attack Palestinian school children, knowing the authorities will not intervene. He also discovers there are two legal systems operating. One for Israeli children and one for young Palestinians. It's an impossible situation that may provide temporary security for Israel, but in the long term may well breed a new generation of Palestinians prepared to do anything to gain retribution.”That racism isn’t rampantIsraeli press review: New poll shows rampant racism in Israel“New poll shows racism rife amongst IsraelisA new poll by Israeli Channel 10 TV revealed that deep prejudice against Palestinians, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, is still the norm amongst Israeli Jews.Over three-quarters of respondents said they would object to their child forming friendships with Palestinian youth of the opposite sex, and more than half of Israeli Jews in the study said they would be disturbed if their child formed friendships with Palestinian youth of the same sex.Forty-three percent of respondents said that they were disturbed or very disturbed to hear people conversing in Arabic in a public space, and 42 percent said they believe that Jews should be hired for work over Arabs.Exactly 50 percent of respondents said it would bother them to have a Palestinian neighbour; half of respondents also said they would not rent an apartment to a Palestinian citizen of Israel.Some of Channel 10’s questions were designed to replicate those asked in a CNN poll and published in November in an attempt to measure levels of anti-Jewish racism amongst non-Jewish Europeans in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.”Israeli poll finds majority would be in favour of 'apartheid' policies“Israeli poll finds majority would be in favour of 'apartheid' policiesTwo-thirds say Palestinians should not be allowed to vote if West Bank was annexed, while three in four favour segregated roadsIsraeli soldiers walk past a settlement in the West Bank. Almost six in 10 Israeli Jews said the country already practised apartheid. Photograph: Majdi Mohammed/APMore than two-thirds of Israeli Jews say that 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank should be denied the right to vote if the area was annexed by Israel, in effect endorsing an apartheid state, according to an opinion poll reported in Haaretz.Three out of four are in favour of segregated roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank, and 58% believe Israel already practises apartheid against Palestinians, the poll found.A third want Arab citizens within Israel to be banned from voting in elections to the country's parliament. Almost six out of 10 say Jews should be given preference to Arabs in government jobs, 49% say Jewish citizens should be treated better than Arabs, 42% would not want to live in the same building as Arabs and the same number do not want their children going to school with Arabs.”That the far-right are not fans of the Israeli ethnostate modelPro-Zionism and antisemitism are inseparable, and always have been“Arming neo-Nazi militiasThis began with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s adoption of a working definition of antisemitism in 2016, which included “manifestations … targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”. When the EU adopted a measure last December defining antisemitism as including anti-Zionist positions and positions critical of Israel, it was the right-wing Austrian government, which includes members of a neo-Nazi party, that pushed for its adoption.In Hungary, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went so far as to rebuke the Israeli ambassador in Budapest for a statement expressing mild concern over Orban’s anti-Jewish racism. On Netanyahu’s orders, the Israeli foreign ministry retracted the statement.Azov Battalion recruits take part in a competition in Kiev in 2015 (AFP)In the Ukraine, Israel is arming neo-Nazi militias, especially the Azov Battalion. Azov leader Andriy Biletsky declared in 2014 that “the historic mission of our nation … is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade for their survival. A crusade against the Semite-led untermenschen.”In Germany, the party Alternative for Germany (AFD) is a far-right organisation that won almost 100 seats in Germany’s general election last September and whose critics say it promotes neo-Nazi ideas, alarmed the country’s Jewish community. Alternative for Germany also supports Israel; deputy leader Beatrix von Storch, granddaughter of Hitler’s last finance minister, told The Jerusalem Report that “Israel could be a role model for Germany” as a country that “makes efforts to preserve its unique culture and traditions”.This echoes the line of US neo-Nazi demagogue Richard Spencer, who referred to his mission as a “sort of white Zionism”. Israel, he added, is “the most important and perhaps most revolutionary ethno-state, and it’s one that I turn to for guidance”. Israel and its leaders have not responded to his declarations. ”Keir Starmer under fire for failing to challenge radio caller's racism“Keir Starmer has been criticised for failing to challenge a caller to a radio phone-in who advanced a racist conspiracy theory and hailed Israel as an ethnonationalist utopia.The caller to his LBC phone-in said she opposed footballers taking a knee in solidarity with antiracism “because if anything the racial inequality is now against the indigenous people of Britain, because we are set to become a minority by 2066”.The claim is a feature of the “great replacement” conspiracy theory that claims elites are using migration to make white people an ethnic minority in Europe.“We just have to look across to the Middle East,” the caller continued. “Israel has a state law that they are the only people in that country to have self-determination. Well why can’t I as a white British female have that same right?”A controversial law was passed by Israel’s government in 2018 declaring that only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country. It has been criticised by the EU and Israeli civil rights groups, and denounced by Arab Israeli politicians as “the death of our democracy”.”That Zionism's links with Fascism has no historical evidenceJabotinsky set up the party's youth movement, Betar, which was characterized by militaristic, almost fascist, appearance including dark brown uniforms. Jabotinsky admired Mussolini. His movement repeatedly sought affiliation with and assistance from Rome. As quoted from Lenni Brenner in The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir, Jabotinsky said“the source of national feeling … lies in a man’s blood … in his racio-physical type, and in that alone … a man’s spiritual outlooks are primarily determined by his physical structure … For that reason we do not believe in spiritual assimilation. It is inconceivable, from the physical point of view, that a Jew born to a family of pure Jewish blood … can become adapted to the spiritual outlooks of a German or a Frenchman … He maybe wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish”“A Jew brought up among Germans may assume German custom, German words. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his physical-racial type are Jewish. ... It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different from his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. ... There can be no assimilation as long as there is no mixed marriage. ... An increase in the number of mixed marriages is the only sure and infallible means for the destruction of nationality as such. ... A preservation of national integrity is impossible except by a preservation of racial purity, and for that purpose we are in need of a territory of our own where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority”He stated in 1923:"The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural ..... There was no misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. .... No Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an 'iron wall,' when they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p.90)”In the book, “One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate By Tom Segev” on page 407, referenced Jabotinsky's just before his death in 1940:"The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has become fond of them." He later added, "Hitler--- as odious as he is to us---has given this idea a good name in the world."Now, forcible expulsion/transfer was among the charges against Adolf Eichmann, one the architects of the Nazi Holocaust.On page 151 of the same book, Jabotinsky claims“We Jews have nothing in common with what is called the 'Orient,' thank God. To the extent that our uneducated masses have ancient spiritual traditions and laws that call the Orient, they must be weaned away from them, and this is in fact what we are doing in every decent school, what life itself is doing with great success. We are going in Palestine, first for our national convenience, [second] to sweep out thoroughly all traces of the 'Oriental soul.' As for the [Palestinians] Arabs in Palestine, what they do is their business; but if we can do them a favor, it is to help them liberate themselves from the Orient.”Here is Daniel Kupfert Heller is assistant professor of Jewish studies at McGill University. His bio states that Dr. Heller received his PhD from Stanford University and his undergraduate degree from the University of Toronto. In his book - Jabotinsky’s Children: Polish Jews and the Rise of Right-Wing Zionism (Princeton University Press, 2017). In the second chapter, Kupfert states:“Prior to Jabotinsky’s split with the Zionist Organization, he told Weizmann during a trip to Italy in 1922 that Zionists would be able to find a “common language” with several Italian Fascist leaders. Perhaps bearing in mind his comments to Weizmann, he wrote to Mussolini that very same day and explained Zionist behavior in the following way: “If you want to understand our level of vitality, please study your own fascists and add only some tragedy, some tenacity—perhaps more experience.”Even if Jabotinsky’s comments were designed to impress Mussolini, rather than accurately describe the Zionist movement, many of his acolytes took seriously the claim that fascism and Zionism had much in common… ”These links with fascism were also noted by Einstein and other Jewish intellectuals in their letter to the New York TimesLetter to the New York Times from Albert Einstein and his fellow thinkers written in 1948:“Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority”“ Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement”That is Palestinian population is only a small minorityJews, Arabs nearing population parity in Holy Land: Israeli officials“Taking the higher end of the Israeli figures cited and adding them to the 1.84 million Arabs living inside Israel, according to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), would bring the total number of Arabs in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories to around 6.5 million.This is around the same number of Jews living between the Jordan Valley and Mediterranean, according to the CBS.”That there’s a free pressIsraeli military still silent over journalist shooting“Rashed Rashid was covering a protest near Gaza’s northern border with Israel on Nov. 19 when he was shot in the left ankle, apparently by Israeli fire. Rashid was wearing protective gear that clearly identified himself as a journalist and standing with a crowd of other journalists some 600 meters (660 yards) away from the Israeli border when he was hit.”And again, the shooting journalist in the eye, US police style:Palestinian journalist shot in head by rubber bullet while covering Gaza protest“ Safinaz Allouh was covering the ongoing Great March of Return campaign along the Gaza-Israel border fence when she was hit in the head and injured.”Finally, that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism:Debunking the myth that anti-Zionism is antisemitic | Peter Beinart“The argument that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic rests on three pillars. The first is that opposing Zionism is antisemitic because it denies to Jews what every other people enjoys: a state of its own. “The idea that all other peoples can seek and defend their right to self-determination but Jews cannot,” declared US Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer in 2017, “is antisemitism.”As David Harris, head of the American Jewish Committee, put it last year: “To deny the Jewish people, of all the peoples on earth, the right to self-determination surely is discriminatory.”All the peoples on earth? The Kurds don’t have their own state. Neither do the Basques, Catalans, Scots, Kashmiris, Tibetans, Abkhazians, Ossetians, Lombards, Igbo, Oromo, Uyghurs, Tamils and Québécois, nor dozens of other peoples who have created nationalist movements to seek self-determination but failed to achieve it.Yet barely anyone suggests that opposing a Kurdish or Catalan state makes you an anti-Kurdish or anti-Catalan bigot. It is widely recognised that states based on ethnic nationalism – states created to represent and protect one particular ethnic group – are not the only legitimate way to ensure public order and individual freedom. Sometimes it is better to foster civic nationalism, a nationalism built around borders rather than heritage: to make Spanish identity more inclusive of Catalans or Iraqi identity more inclusive of Kurds, rather than carving those multiethnic states up.You’d think Jewish leaders would understand this. You’d think they would understand it because many of the same Jewish leaders who call national self-determination a universal right are quite comfortable denying it to Palestinians.”Noam Chomsky: On the weaponisation of false anti-Semitism charges against radical progressive movements - Noam Chomsky: On the weaponisation of false anti-Semitism charges against radical progressive movementsNoam ChomskyJuly 31, 2020. DiEM25.“Fifty years ago, the distinguished Israel statesman Abba Eban wrote that “One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism.”As the examples he gives make crystal clear (e.g., the committed Zionist I.F. Stone), by “anti-Zionism” he means criticism of the policies of the government of Israel and some sympathy for Palestinians.That principle has become a last-ditch defense of apologists for Israel crimes under the occupation. Any critic, any proponent of Palestinian rights, can be tarred as an anti-Semite. This weapon has recently been wielded to great effect against Jeremy Corbyn in a campaign of vulgar deceit and slander that is shocking even beyond the disgraceful norm.It would not be surprising if DiEM25 is soon subjected to the same treatment as its success increases and its outreach grows. Be prepared.”

The UN has not helped rather it has misused the wicked problem of the climate by advancing many deceptions and false claims. It has revealed an alternative agenda to redistribute wealth under One World Government. UN climate predictions fail in reality. Neglecting the dominate role of solar radiation and solar cycles the UN IPCC has falsely demonized non polluting Co2 vital plant food. The UN hypothesis is unproven yet many are deceived vainly abandoning fossil fuel in favour of intermittent and unreliable wind and solar. Governments are wasting funds subsidizing these renewables. The UN is the primary culprit of this Frankenstein mess causing heat poverty and many fatalities.Environmentalism: Evidence Suggests it Was Always and Only About Achieving World GovernmentGuest Blogger / 11 hours ago May 27, 2019Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim BallIt is common sense to protect our environment, but what has occurred for 50 years is exploitation of that idea for a socialist agenda. We wasted 50 years believing that humans are not natural, and everything they do is destructive. We wasted and continue to waste trillions of dollars on unnecessary policies and useless technologies, all based on false assumptions, pseudoscience, and emotional bullying.We now know 50 years later that every single prediction concerning the environmental demise of the Earth and the people made in the original Earth Day Report was wrong. We also know that every additional claim, such as overpopulation, global warming, sea level rise, desertification, deforestation, and sea ice collapse, among many others, were wrong. I challenge anyone to produce empirical evidence that proves anything happening today is outside any long-term record of natural activity.Convince the people that the entire world is threatened, and you can convince them that no nation can save it. It is then easy to convince them that a world government is the only way to save the planet. The trouble is that none of it is true. The World is in good shape, and people are living longer and healthier lives in every nation.Like the majority of people, Elaine Dewar assumed environmentalists were commendable even heroic people. She began research for a book singing their praises. It didn’t take long to learn the basic premise was wrong. Following the traditional and proper methodology, rarely seen these days, Dewar identified the duplicitous characters involved in the Canadian environmental movement and laid them out in her book Cloak of Green. She spent five days at the UN with Canadian Maurice Strong arguably the world architect of official environmentalism. He was praised excessively, as in this article, “The World Mourns One of its Greats: Maurice Strong Dies, His Legacy Lives On.” Another article recognized the evil he personified, “Who is Global Warming Propagandist Maurice Strong?” After the five days, Dewar concluded,“Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”The environmental movement as the basis for a socialist world government was in the minds of people like Strong and fellow members of the Club of Rome in the late 1960s. However, it was launched on the world on April 22, 1970, by a small group centered at Stanford University. The date is critical because it was the first Earth Day. It is also very important to know the choice was deliberate because it is the birthday of Vladimir Lenin. The environmental movement was a deliberate program to impose communism on the world.The underlying theme of the environmental movement makes the following false assumptions.That almost all change is a result of human activity. The UN claim, using computer models, that 95%+ of temperature increase since 1950 is due to human-produced CO2. This works because they don’t consider most natural causes.That humans are unnatural. The 1990 “Greenpeace Report on Global Warming” says CO2 is added to the atmosphere “naturally and unnaturally.” Yes, that unnatural production is from humans.That we are not part of nature. Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) comment explains.“Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” “If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”That we should be eliminated or dramatically reduced in number. In May 2015, the Pope produced Laudate Si an Encyclical about his view of the state of the Earth. It is a socialist diatribe, but that is not surprising since the main contributor was Hans Schellnhuber, a pantheist. This group believes the world population should be below 1 billion people.That if the western world reduces levels of CO2 production, the rest of the world will follow. China has 2,363 coal plants and is constructing 1,171 more. The US has 15 and is not constructing any.The US can build as many clean-burning coal plants as they want and burn coal pollution free. They don’t have to worry about CO2 because it is not a pollutant and is not causing climate change. No significant environmental problems are threatening the world. All the stories about impending environmental doom are fictions deliberately created to make people surrender control to the government. It is time to break the emotional stranglehold of those who used the environment to create global socialism."Cloak of Green probed the dark underbrush of environmental politics..." (Publishers Weekly)"Cloak of Green is often fascinating reading, and for those who have invested money or effort in the environmental movement, it is sure to be an eye-opener." (Brian Flinn Daily News)"Dewar spent more than five years researching this complex and troubling work. In turns both fascinating and irritating, it's bound to raise eyebrows and controversy...this is a rare and important piece of journalism. No one else has dared rip the veil of good intentions off the green movement, or meticulously traced\ its personal and financial ties to powerful elite -- the very people environmentalists so often vilify... as the book peels back layers of intrigue like old paint, it shows how far removed church-basement fund-raisers are from the centres of power." (Ted Wakefield Winnipeg Free Press)"Dewar's book does raise some intruiging questions about the activities of nongovernmental organizations and some environmental groups." (Mark Nichols Maclean's)"Perhaps one of the most intruiging political books of the year." (Thomas Walkom Toronto Star)"Cloak of Green ... is a devastating expose of the shady finances of the international environmental movement... if you've been snookered into supporting the groups that raise money to prevent environmental doomsdays, this book just might help save your money for real causes." (Rogelio A. Maduro 21st Century Science and Technology)"Dewar can't be accused of leaving many stones unturned. She asks questions, then questions the answers people give her.The case she presents is methodical and detailedDewar's revelations about behind-the-scenes manipulation in the environment movement should make all of us look just a little more carefully before we dig out the charge card in the name of saving another South American tree." (Heidi Greco Vancouver Sun)Abstract : THE SUN IS COMPLETELY BLANK WITH NO SUN SPOTS – harbinger of global cooling. SNOW IN HAWAII TODAY? IN JUNE! Scientific American article.A major criticism of the UN IPCC is its obsession with research of an unproven theory of global warming from trace amounts < 0,03 % AGW. Dr. Judith Curry is a leading climate scientist and outspoken critic of the obsession as she sees the need for research into the more powerful natural variables of solar, cloud formation an wind. A dramatic solar event is unfolding with the going blank without any sunspots.‘The sun has gone completely blank. This may not last too long, but at least for now, there are no visible sunspots – a sure sign of an approaching solar minimum - and this is the first spotless day on the sun since 2014. In fact, there has been only one spotless day on the sun since 2011 – until today that is. The current solar cycle is the 24th since 1755 when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. Solar cycle number 24 is the weakest solar cycle in more than a century with the fewest sunspots since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906.3:00 PM | *The sun has gone completely blank*Meteorologist Paul Dorian shares some thought on the impact when spots vanish, the potential for a grand minimum.Finally, if history is any guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere – and where we all live. There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830 (above).Both of these historical periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures in an era that is now referred to by many scientists as the “Little Ice Age”. One of the reasons prolonged periods of weak solar activity may be associated with colder global temperatures has to do with a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth. Research studies in recent years have found that in times of low solar activity – where solar winds are typically weak – more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth.Paul Dorian’s conclusion:This historically weak solar cycle continues the recent downward trend in sunspot cycle strength that began over thirty years ago during solar cycle 22. If this trend continues for the next couple of cycles, then there would likely be increasing talk of another “grand minimum” for the sun which correlates to an extended decades-long period of low solar activity. Some solar scientists are already predicting that the next solar cycle will be even weaker than this current one which has been historically weak. However, it is just too early for high confidence in those predictions since many solar scientists believe that the best predictor of future solar cycle strength involves activity at the sun’s poles during a solar minimum phase – something we are now rapidly approaching – and the current blank look to the sun is liable to become more and more frequent in the months to come.Evidence from sunspots shows the natural variability of total solar irradiance that swings dramatically between hot and cold. There is a rough solar cycle of 11 years confirmed by temperature data. See this graph.Grand Solar Minimum Ahead?Apr 1, 2018 | Written by Pam KnoxHere’s an excellent discussion of recent solar activity and the grand solar minimum which will be occurring shortly from my friend John Feldt of Blue Water Outlook, who has given me permission to share it.Solar activity has been rapidly decreasing since around 1980. The current cycle, Solar Cycle 24, has been marked by the lowest activity in over 100 years.The Maunder Minimum, also known as the “prolonged sunspot minimum”, is the name used for the period starting around 1645 and continuing to about 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare.During the Maunder Minimum, observations revealed fewer than 50 sunspots. This contrasts with the typical 40,000–50,000 sunspots seen in modern times.Within the Maunder Minimum, the Little Ice Age, between 1350 and 1860, Northern Hemisphere winters were unusually severe and glaciers expanded in extent.Some solar/atmospheric scientists relate a relationship between reductions in solar activity and periods of global cooling. While global temperatures were still above the historical normal — February global average temperatures were the coolest since February of 2014.Could this large reduction in solar activity result in a slow down in the decades-long warming trend?And, as quiet as cycle 24 is, some scientists expect future cycles may be even lower possibly leading to a Grand (Super) Solar Minimum and much harsher winters followed by very short summers perhaps in the 2020 – 2070 time frame.However, there are a number of complications involved in any change to the earth’s weather due to a significant reduction in solar activity. Some include:– There is only a limited amount of research that shows a direct correlation between a reduction in solar activity and specific impacts on weather. And, there are other studies that downplay any significant linkage.– A few studies indicate a relationship between low solar activity and an increase in volcanic activity. This combination could further enhance prospects for cooling. (More on this in the future BWO post).– Though a new decades-long dip in solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn’t be by much, recent research indicates. And by the end of the incoming cooling period, temperatures would have bounced back from the temporary cool down.Late this week, with temperatures as much as 20 degrees below normal over parts of the Plains and Midwest, the current reduction in solar activity might pop into mind.However, while the U.S. will be experiencing significantly-below normal readings (blue), keep in mind that much of the globe will remain above historical normals (red).Maurice Strong was a Canadian and the reputed founder of the UN environment and climate change effort. He had close ties to China where he died after concerns of corruption.Bernie Sanders said that we should listen to the scientists who advise to aggressively combat climate change. Is he right?Bernie Sanders on TwitterJames Matkin, EDITOR Academia.edu - Share research BLOG (2019-present)Updated Mar 13No. Scientists do not say we should ‘combat climate change.’ They say there is no scientific evidence humans are having any effect on the climate.The best evidence is that anthropogenic global warming is modest and benign, and rising CO2 levels are beneficial, rather than harmful, for both mankind and most natural ecosystems. That’s why over 30,000 American scientists (including me DAVE BURTON) have signed the “Global Warming Petition” attesting to the fact that:“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”Dave Burton, IPCC AR5 WGI expert reviewerSanders is a left wing politician and this group sadly have a reputation of not telling the truth about the science.– Christine Stewart,former Canadian Minister of the Environment“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity tobring about justice and equality in the world.”– Christine Stewart,The truth is the science of human caused global warming is just as Christine Stewart said ‘mostly phony.’Some famous left intellectuals like CAMILLE PAGLIA are embarrassed by the Bernie Sanders lack of scientific erudition.I too grew up in upstate New York. I am an environmental groundwater geologist (who almost majored in fine arts). Your take on the Al Gore/global warming pseudo-catastrophe was right on target. Anyone can read up on Holocene geology and see that climate changes are caused by polar wandering and magnetic reversals. It is entertaining, yet sad to read bloviage from Leonardo DiCaprio, who is so self-centered that he thinks the earth's history and climate is a function of his short personal stay on this planet. Still he, Al Gore, Prince Charles and so on, ad nauseam, continue with their jet-set lifestyles. What hypocrisy!Thank you for your input on the mass hysteria over global warming. The simplest facts about geology seem to be missing from the mental equipment of many highly educated people these days. There is far too much credulity placed in fancy-pants, speculative computer modeling about future climate change. Furthermore, hand-wringing media reports about hotter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rarely balanced by acknowledgment of the recent cold waves in South Africa and Australia, the most severe in 30 years. [Empasis added]Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.https://www.salon.com/2007/10/10...Camille PagliaCamille Paglia is a second-wave feminist and an American academic specializing in literature and culture, particularly topics around gender, sex, and sexuality. She has taught at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia since 1984, but is better known for her books and journalism. In 2005 she was voted #20 on a list of top public intellectuals by Prospect and Foreign Policy magazines.I think we underestimate the size of the atmosphere and the complexity of natural forces. We have a greatly exaggerated view of our place. We fail to see the atmosphere in perspective. As this chart shows both natural and industrial Co2 are too little to control the climate.MANY ESTEEMED SCIENTISTS ARE SKEPTICAL OF THE CLIMATE APOCALYPSE LIKE CAMILLE PAGLIA. HERE ARE BRIEF QUOTES AND REFERENCES FROM THEM.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.“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark.Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds. [EMPHASIS ADDED]When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.Correlation between variations in cosmic ray flux (red) and change in sea temperature (black).Climate science violates the basic precepts of scienceMay 9, 2019, 11:03 AM IST Sanjeev Sabhlok in Seeing the Invisible | India | TOIThere are two key pillars of science. First, it doesn’t matter how many “scientists” believe something. All of them could be proven wrong by a single new scientific theory or experiment. Science is always tentatively proven, and it is incumbent on everyone who calls himself a scientist to ask questions even about things that are “settled”. The great physicist Richard Feynman rightly said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”. Scientists must continually question everything and everybody.Second, science must necessarily make accurate predictions. The global positioning system (GPS) in our mobile phones works only because Einstein’s theories of relativity are accurate to the last possible decimal. Science must not just predict the future: it must predict backwards. Our scientific understanding of cosmic microwave background radiation allows us to literally see the universe as it existed a few thousand years after the Big Bang.With climate change, things are dramatically unclear and unsettled. Even converting the basic logic of the greenhouse effect into actual estimates for planet Earth is not settled. The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report notes that &quot;If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously … the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2 degrees, in the absence of other changes”. However, some scientists calculate that its impact would be much lower.Even if we accept this figure of 1.2 degrees, the key question is about these “other changes”, or the feedbacks. IPCCs tells us that positive feedback loops (e.g. from water vapour) from doubling of CO2 will overwhelm negative feedback loops (e.g. from clouds) to lead to a much higher overall temperature in a hundred years. But the IPCC’s approved models have too much variance and the actual, measured temperatures over the past forty years have been much lower than the predicted average of the IPCC-approved climate models. In fact, the list of failed predictions by climate “scientists” over the past 100 years could form a large book in itself.Climate science is more like “diet science”, in which every second doctor has his own ideas about a good diet. It is a very immature science at best, and most of its current conclusions will be totally rejected with time.What is global temperature anyway? How is it measured? Why are we looking at the last fifty years and not the last fifty million years? Even simple things like the measurements of temperature are subject to huge disagreements because of complexities like the urban heat island effect. And the fact is that the world has seen much higher levels of CO2 in the past even during ice ages. Until climate science can make accurate predictions of past ice ages and temperatures, will not be ready to be called a science.Among the books that supported me in answering some of my questions on this topic were Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth and Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert. Ian Plimer is professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne. Scientists like Judith Curry (the former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) have raised major concerns about climate science including concerns about fraudulent temperature data manipulation. Ivar Giaever, the Nobel prize winner in physics has studied the methods of climate science and considers it to be pseudo-science. Vernon Smith, an electrical engineer who later moved to economics and won a Nobel prize, has very strong concerns about the methodology of climate science.The fact that there is an attempt by some people to bulldoze others into “believing” their views itself confirms that this is not a science. Moreover, there are strong reasons to believe that this field has been fully captured by commercial interests. The great economist George Stigler raised the issue of regulatory capture in the 1970s to describe the situation when a regulator is no longer independent and unbiased because of commercial conflicts of interest. As Mark Lynas has pointed out, “The renewables industry stands to be the main beneficiary of any change in government policies based on the IPCC report’s conclusions”. I believe that an even greater conflict of interest comes from politically inspired group think in government which means that those “scientists” who can successfully create more panic receive more money to help them expand their empire. Real scientists, who want to explore questions that might disprove the “findings” of climate science, are being refused research funding and even being ousted from universities.Alleged scientists like Tim Flannery who have repeatedly made false predictions enjoy cult status in the media which loves their bold (and panicky) predictions. Good, cautious scientists are not loved since they are boring. And this “science” is extremely corrupt. The Climategate emails were just the tip of the iceberg. Fraudulent studies have formed part of IPCC reports (such as the one about the melting by 2035 of all Himalayan glaciers). And unproven reports by wildlife advocacy groups have been extensively used as “evidence” by IPCC. Calling this commercially and politically driven projecta science hugely stretches the meaning of the word.We know that plants evolved to flourish when the earth had much higher levels of CO2. Advanced farmers even today pump CO2 for plants under controlled conditions to achieve higher yields. CO2 is immensely beneficial for life and a slight increase in its levels over the past fifty years has made our planet more green.If CO2 were a pollutant, then carbon emissions trading would be a useful solution. But my personal conclusion is that climate science is too primitive to be of any use in making policy. Let it first get its predictions right and become a genuine science. In the meanwhile we know for sure that the modest increase in CO2 over the past fifty years has been enormously beneficial. India should not spend even a minute thinking about this issue and focus instead on abolishing socialism.https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/seeing-the-invisible/climate-science-violates-the-basic-precepts-of-science/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=170d24dce8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_13_03_55&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-170d24dce8-36410041&fbclid=IwAR3LJ4RsV46guS8U7zsi7YpaDud-YAAiDPLsn8p4-bJAdfQ-d1AvXCEWoPsGERMAN CLIMATE RESEARCH PAPER