Notice Of Budget Hearing Form - Washington County - Co Washington Or: Fill & Download for Free

BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING is on pause and never was never more than the natural swings of inter-glaical warming in an ice age. .The warmists have been fooled by the randomness of our chaotic nonlinear climate with weather changing in seesaw fashion hot or cold. Yes the weather is cold and snowy in California now and we cannot predict for how long.Here's how California's 6 feet of snow in 24 hours compares to other snowfall extremes:https://wxch.nl/2BhOn1 24:05 PM - 4 Feb 2019What this means is that the climate alarmist hypothesis that human emissions of Co2 are creating a climate crisis of catastrophic warming is false. The hypothesis is pseudo - science.While the science of climate change is not valid for short time periods massive winter snow in California has a special relevance to the global warming hypothesis of the alarmists.The UN and alarmist scientists put the state of winter weather in play. They predicted moderate winters without snow would be the key evidence validating their hypothesis denying Mother Nature controls the climate.Snowfall will become “A very rare and exciting event…Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)The prediction that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is” was made by Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, in the year 2000.Early snowfall stokes Colorado skiers, clouds climate debateClimate activists claimed for years that 'snow was 'a thing of the past ... but snow has not cooperated'A skier makes a turn in fresh snow on Breckenridge Ski Resort’s opening day Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2018, in Breckenridge, Colo. The resort opened early after receiving more than 5 feet of snow already this season. (Hugh Carey/Summit Daily News ... more >By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Wednesday, November 14, 2018DENVER — A heavy autumn snowfall has ski resorts across Colorado holding some of their earliest opening days in a decade or more, stoking skiers and fueling another snowball fight over climate change.Vail Mountain and Beaver Creek plan to open this week, shaving several days off their anticipated starts to the ski season and marking the first time that both resorts have launched ahead of time in 10 years, said Vail chief operating officer Doug Lovell.The resorts credited a “combination of some of the best early-November snowmaking conditions and more than four feet of natural snowfall last week.”Ski Cooper plans to open Nov. 23, 10 days earlier than scheduled, while Monarch Mountain in Salida announced Monday that it would invite skiers and snowboarders Friday, its earliest first-day-of-the-ski-season since 1996, after receiving a hefty 34 inches of powder.“We couldn’t be more thrilled for an early opening this year,” said Randy Stroud, general manager of Monarch Mountain, in a Monday press release. “We did our snow dances and Mother Nature delivered.”So much, then, for “settled science” of climate change. Notice, also, how the term “extreme” weather is routinely used now to explain away - if you’ll pardon the expression - the inconvenient truth that winters are horrible.The point is not that winter weather is climate change - of course not - the point is winter weather is evidence either for or against the unusual claims of the United Nations that humans control the climate now because of fossil fuels and a catastrophe will hit us by the year 2000.In fact there is truly a ton of evidence in leading scientific papers about INCREASING SNOWFALL ALBEDO as weather and why it matters to temperature and climate. YES, as a matter of science record colder winters with increasing massive snowfall matter.Observed weather increasing snowfall and record cold winters contradicts the repeated prediction by the UN and other alarmists that winters would ‘moderate’ without snow.ALBEDO of massive snowfall weather is shown by peer reviewed papers to cause climate change even an ice age and worse.Winter snow is different than other weather as to whether there is dangerous global warming because the cooling effect of a continuing snow albedo would halt any runaway catastrophic warming . This is the science.This just in - LIVERMORE, CA SUFFERED ITS COLDEST DAY IN 110 YEARSNational Weather Service statistics reveal last week was historically cold across swathes of California.Livermore tied its record low temperature of 30F (-1.1C) on Tuesday — it hasn’t been that cold since the year 1911 (solar minimum of cycle 14, within the Centennial Minimum).Both the Winter Storm Warning & Winter Weather Advisory are in effect from 10pm tonight until 10pm Monday.And Livermore wasn’t the only CA city to suffer record lows.Redwood City tied its old benchmark of 35F (1.6C) from 1950.While Oakland set a new record at 40F (4.4C) — one degree F colder than its previous record, set just last year.In the United States, 2021 (to March 20) has delivered 202 new all-time record low temperatures versus the big fat ZERO for record warmth (NOAA).NOAA: California Storm Upgraded | Up to 2-FEET of Snow Forecast Today & TomorrowWeatherBrains |November 1, 2015Hopefully the Alpine Meadow sign looks like this real soon.The storm hitting California today and tomorrow is going to be stronger than previously forecast, according to NOAA. The Winter Storm Watch on the west slope & crest of the Sierra Nevada has been upgraded to a Winter Storm Warning. There were no advisories on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada nor the Tahoe Basin as of yesterday, but today there’s a Winter Weather Advisory for the east slope of the Sierra and the Tahoe Basin.NOAA: California Storm Upgraded | Up to 2-FEET of Snow Forecast Today & Tomorrow - SnowBrainsThis cartoon debunks the very heart of the global warming scare the end of snow and winter central to the radical hypothesis ignoring the sun putting humans in the drivers seat of the climate.The UN IPCC and other alarmists knew that if winter did not moderate as they predicted there could be no climate crisis or catastrophe that would create a runaway warming.Snowfall will become “A very rare and exciting event…Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)2007 : Die Zeit…“First the snow disappears, and then winter.”2014 : the global warming theory-obsessed New York Times touted “The End of Snow?”…“The truth is, it is too late for all of that. Greening the ski industry is commendable, but it isn’t nearly enough. Nothing besides a national policy shift on how we create and consume energy will keep our mountains white in the winter — and slow global warming to a safe level.VERY WRONGCALIFORNIA HAS HAD SO MUCH SNOW LATELY IT BURIES CARS.SKI RESORTS ARE BURIES IN SNOW AND THIS IS GREAT FOR BUSINESS.Will The Snowiest Decade Continue? « CBS Boston“Interestingly, some scientists have stated that increasing snow is consistent with climate change because warmer air holds more moisture, more water vapor and this can result in more storms with heavy precipitation. The trick, of course, is having sufficient cold air to produce that snow. But note that 93% of the years with more than 60″ of snow in Boston were colder than average years. The reality is cooling, not warming, increases snowfall.”THE problem with lying or perpetuating a scam is that you have to be aware of the spin you’ve spun to get you there.This view OF THE END OF SNOW was not just idle talk it was the whole business in the minds of alarmists like the UN, David Viner and big media like Die Zeit in Germany. If the Albedo snow effect did not end then evidence of runaway warming would end and the UN and others would lose the political leverage necessary for their real agenda ending capitalism and establishing One World Government under the UN.THE motives of the UN and its affiliates are no different from those of the radical eco-zealots of the 1970’s. They despise capitalism, development, growth and freedom, with the misguided fear of overpopulation, a principle driver.THEIR solution is to use the emotive issue of ‘Climate Change’ to pursue a radical transformation in cultural, economic and political structures across the globe through their various unelected, taxpayer funded global(ist) bodies…UNFCCCUN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | Climatism“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres, fmr executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (Feb 2015, Brussels)FIGUERES even went so far as to affirm that “Communism is the best model to fight global warming.“IN other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.GLOBAL Warming theory has long abandoned any connection it has with actual science. It is has become as ideology. A new religion. Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott likening it to, “socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.SEE : The UN’s Real Agenda Is A New World Order Under Its Control | ClimatismNOAA Predicted an ice free summer Arctic 2085.Here is a key graph by NOAA, a government agency, how the future global warming should impact the Arctic. Arctic melting buying the false hype a model simulation showing the Arctic future according to the alarmists. First in 1885 showing Aug, Sept and Oct average ice concentration and concluding in 2085 with NO SNOW left after the expected summer melt. WRONG WRONG WRONG. This is amazingly bad science for a government agency. It is the most relevant evidence of how the weather mattered if it was SNOW to alarmism.It gets worse when the actual climate fails to cooperate with the radical alarmism denying nature and climate variability. For example, the warming historically of the Medieval Warm period rebutted the claim that current warming is unprecedented. The Orwellian solution from junior scientist Michael Mann is get rid of history.James Hansen was a leading alarmist scientist who regularly changed historical temperature data to make current data warmer than it was.The cheating and fudging of the truth has been aimed in one direction every-time - to hide the fact the warming is not happening. This motive is understandable when the goal is to scare the public into thinking believe the earth is burning up with end of winters and snow.BUT MOTHER NATURE REFUSED TO GO ALONG WITH THE HOAX.PHOTOS OF THE ARCTIC 1979, 2012 AND 2017 COMPARED TO 79 LEVELS.Largest Increase In November 2018 Sea Ice Volume On RecordPosted on December 13, 2018 by tonyhellerThe increase in Arctic sea ice volume during November was the largest on record.Understanding the relevance of the snow albedo is keyThe alarmists have distorted the meaning of ‘climate change’ saying it is a short hand for global warming. This is very misleading. The accepted definition of ‘climate change’ was a useful statistical concept that identified climate trends over the long haul.“Climate change occurs when changes in Earth's climate system result in new weather patterns that last for at least a few decades, and maybe for millions of years.”Wikipedia.But when the alarmists came to town they needed a substitute for ‘global warming’ because it wasn’t happening. They bastardized the meaning of climate change to cover short term global warming or severe weather. This mistake has led to a much bigger mistake with sad consequences as the UN has pushed global warming when the real danger is lower temperatures from cooling. The rush to judgment has harmed the integrity of climate science.With the longer view it is possible we have not recovered from the Little Ice Age that continues apace. We say there was a PAUSE in warming but another view is there was a PAUSE in cooling and the record colder winter temperatures recently mean we continue in the grip of the Little Ice Age.Brutal Arctic Blast in Chicago breaking all winter records January, 2019.The reason any shorter view of climate change is a mistake is the fact the chaotic nonlinear seesawing of weather will fool you in the short term with the randomness of a chaotic non-linear complex system. The science will suffer error from the fact that short term weather trends and short term changes of the earth’s is not meaningful.Obama made himself look very foolish when he called the 3 years of severe drought starting in 2015 in California climate change or global warming. He was very wrong as were many scientists who started predicting 200 more years of drought.The cracked-dry bed of the Almaden Reservoir near San Jose shows the strain of California's megadrought. The governor has declared a drought "state of emergency."PHOTOGRAPH BY MARCIO JOSE SANCHEZ, APCould California's Drought Last 200 Years?Clues from the past suggest the ocean's temperature may be a driver.BY THOMAS M. KOSTIGEN, FOR NATIONAL GEOGRAPHICPUBLISHEDFEBRUARY 13, 2014Two years into California's drought, Donald Galleano's grapevines are scorched shrubs, their charcoal-colored stems and gnarled roots displaying not a lick of life. "I've never seen anything like this," says Galleano, 61, the third-generation owner of a 300-acre vineyard in Mira Loma, California, that bears his name. "It's so dry ... There's been no measurable amount of rain."California is experiencing its worst drought since record-keeping began in the mid 19th century, and scientists say this may be just the beginning. B. Lynn Ingram, a paleoclimatologist at the University of California at Berkeley, thinks that California needs to brace itself for a megadrought—one that could last for 200 years or more.Could California's Drought Last 200 Years?NO , the National Geographic story above fooled by randomness and misuse of climate history and climate change.A nearly full Nicasio Reservoir on March 14 in Nicasio, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)By Mike BranomMarch 19 at 11:12 AMThe past week has been lovely for enjoying California’s outdoor splendor, with warm temperatures and clear, blue skies ushering in a welcome change from such a wet, dreary winter. Bring on spring!But while the Golden State might be through with winter, winter is not through with the Golden State. Forecasts are calling for precipitation, widespread and light — save for scattered cloudbursts — and cooler conditions starting Wednesday. A second round of unsettled weather, perhaps a little weaker and quicker, is coming late Friday into Saturday.Looking beyond that, how about another atmospheric river to go atop the 20-plus that already have struck the state?Once this winter ends — if it ever does — we can get an assessment of what an amazing run it’s been. Consider just one pinpoint on the map: Squaw Valley ski resort, where this season’s snowfall measures an astounding 618 inches (better than one-third above its annual average) and the current base is around 220 inches. An Independence Day skiing holiday, anyone?A roof, buried in snowdrifts, peeks out in the Donner Pass area of the Sierra Nevada just west of Truckee, Calif., in late February. (California Highway Patrol/AP)In another corner of the state — near Lake Elsinore, on the opposite side of the Santa Ana Mountains from Orange County — rainfall has produced a “super bloom” of wildflowers that are getting loved to death by a super-stampede of tourists.A butterfly flies over wildflowers during a "super bloom" in Borrego Springs, Calif. (Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg News)Looking at the big picture, it doesn’t get much bigger than having one wet winter (and two in the past three years) end the drought everywhere in California. After all, this is one of the world’s most important hubs of agriculture, so water is precious — and had been in short supply.The U.S. Drought Monitor declared the state drought-free last week for the first time since 2011.Water cascades down a waterfall on March 14 in Malibu, Calif. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)Even better, the ground’s thirst was slaked without too much flood damage.Climate change is a statistical fiction of weather hidden from us and only observed by proxy as no one I repeat no one has actually observed climate change in their life times. In their classic text Essex and McKitrick help us understand climate change by comparing it to the hidden atomic world.As the text explains human lives are lived in a middle realm between these two hidden world. We know the the structures and theory for the small hidden world so very well that we can boldly attempt to construct our middle realm from it. We use averaging to do this… But if we use the wrong averages we have useless results.As The whole global warming scare from the UN left wing politicians like Al Gore is falsified when you treat the meaning of ‘climate change’ properly. Let’s see if the climate is warming based on the long view.; Also with the long view we confirm that there is no correlation between Co2 and temperature.Watch the historical climate graphs and you will see there has been and is not now any ‘climate change’ from cold to global warming going back to the earliest proxy history.No climate change to global warming going back to the earliest history.Temperatures are falling today when you get back 542 million years.The downward curve gets steeper the closer we get to current times.More seesawing of temperatures but no evidence of warming today?Big lift in temperature after last glaciation until 7000 years ago and then decline trend line continues.Big lift in temperature after last glaciation until 7000 years ago and then decline trend line continues.THE above chart is based on data from GISP2 (Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2). GISP2 drilled cores into the Greenland ice more than 3000 meters (almost 2 miles) deep, allowing scientists to study climate variability for the past 125,000 years.IF the downward trend in temperature of the past 3,300 years continues, we could be in a heap of trouble. While our leaders keep on wringing their collective hands over global warming, we could be blindsided by an ice age.ALL this talk about human-caused global warming is sheer nonsense, if not downright fraud. The record shows that both periods of warmth – and periods of cold – hit our planet with almost consistent regularity.*This graph at 2000 years is scary as the warming after the Little Ice Age may just be more seesawing of our non-linear weather patterns.This graph for the past 20 years shows no evidence of global warming . The reason is obvious - One degree rise in temperature spread over 140 years does not Global Warming make. That is less than 0.007 degrees per year.Why correlation does not prove causation lack of correlation demolishes the hypothesis that Co2 effects the climate.No correlation of Co2 and temperature going back 600 million years.Compare the lack of correlation for Co2 with the very sharp correlation of temperature and Solar Cycles. Is this not a hint at the real climate driver?HOW DID THE UN AND OTHER ALARMISTS GET IT SO WRONG?They failed to look back in climate history far enough to justify making projections and finding ‘climate change’ in the form of global warming.They relied on defective models for projections with insufficient data from the complexity of the earth’s weather and climate.Further they ignored the sun and the proven SOLAR CYCLES of weather and climate changes.Their AGW hypothesis was not about natural cycles. It said, basically, back in the 90s, assume that the entire rise in temperature over the last 18 decades since the start of the Industrial Revolution (and coincidentally, the end of the Dalton Minimum) is caused by carbon dioxide released by man. What then can we expect?The last chart above marks what we could expect, a temperature jump up to the point marked 2004. Some even predicted that feedback mechanisms would turn that into a “hockeystick of heat”:Well, it’s absurd to assume that all of the increase in carbon dioxide since the Dalton Minimum owed to man or that the increasing temperature owed entirely to such a rise. That is synonymous with claiming that had the Industrial Revolution not started, the Holocene chart above would have quit oscillating and simply extended in a line to the right. What on Earth would account for such a departure?The simple answer is they relied on computer models that failed to mimic the real world and spewed out false projections.Charles Tips, Former Science Editor at the University of Texas PressA smart way to understand how the alarmists went so wrong is to look at why so many scientists who once followed alarmism now reject it? A powerful example is Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt of Germany.In a recent interview Prof. Vahrenholt explained his change of mind.German Professor: IPCC in a serious jam... "5AR likely to be last of its kind"P GosselinNo Tricks ZoneMon, 16 Sep 2013 16:59 UTC© Warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindetProf. Fritz VahrenholtAnd: "Extreme weather is the only card they have got left to play."So says German Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, who is one of the founders of Germany's modern environmental movement, and agreed to an interview with NoTricksZone. He is one of the co-authors of the German skeptic book "Die kalte Sonne", which took Germany by storm last year and is now available at bookstores worldwide in English under the title: The Neglected Sun.In Germany Prof. Vahrenholt has had to endure a lot heat from the media, activists, and climate scientists for having expressed a different view. But as global temperatures remain stagnant and CO2 climate sensitivity is being scaled back, he feels vindicated.Here's the interview:NTZ: You were once a believer in the man-made CO2 climate disaster. What changed your mind?FV: I was Environmental Senator of Hamburg until 1998 and had had absolutely no doubts about the AGW hypothesis because global temperatures indeed had been running parallel with CO2 emissions. My first doubts over the IPCC's science arose after the dramatic errors of the 2007 4th Assessment Report came to light. On German public television PIK Director Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber said the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by the year 2035. Then as a CEO of Shell Repower Systems, and later RWE Innogy, where I was responsible for the development of renewable energies and discovered that natural factors were impacting our climate. We saw that the wind strength in Northwest Europe had been in decline year after year. Yet, climate scientists had told us just the opposite was supposed to occur, i.e. that wind strength would increase. So I looked at the literature in detail and was able to find there was a relationship with the North Atlantic Oscillation, whose 60-year cycle had entered a weak phase. I wrote articles about this in leading German dailies, and I was immediately branded as a "climate denier" by Stefan Rahmstorf. His reaction led me to look even deeper into the literature. In the end it was Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf who turned me into a skeptic.NTZ: Your climate science critical book Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun) was released early last year in Germany. It remained on the Spiegel bestseller list for 3 weeks. Has it changed the discussion in Germany? Were you surprised by the public's reaction?FV: The leftist, liberal media labeled me an "eco-reactionary" who represented obsolete positions. That was to be expected. What truly surprised me the most was the harsh reaction from German climate scientists who were not even willing to discuss the topics addressed in the book. And the longer our book remained on the bestseller list, and the longer the warming stop became, the more our adversaries' tactics ran aground. First they ignored us and then they tried to isolate us through personal defamation. Die kalte Sonne became the symbol of resistance against a politically indoctrinated science which denied natural processes and spread fear in order to promote a particular energy policy - one that threatened the prosperity and growth of the German industrial base. So to me it was a sort of an accolade when former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt invited me to a personal audience to find out more about Die kalte Sonne. Now I'm permitted to quote him: "Lüning's and Vahrenholt's assertions are plausible". The [former] UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson invited me to London and encouraged me to publish the book in English. Now it is appearing this week as The Neglected Sun. It's the Die kalte Sonne in English, and it's been updated.NTZ: CO2 is supposed to be trapping heat in the atmosphere, yet global atmospheric temperatures haven't risen in 200 months (over 16 years). Where has all the "trapped heat" gone? Some leading scientists are frustrated that they cannot find it. What do you think is happening?FV: It's now obvious that the IPCC models are not correctly reflecting the development of atmospheric temperatures. What's false? Reality or the models? The hackneyed explanation of a deep sea warming below 700 meters hasn't been substantiated up to now. How does atmospheric warming from a climate gas jump 700 meters deep into the ocean? If you consider the uncertainties in the Earth's radiation budget measurements at the top of the atmosphere, and those of the temperature changes at water depths below 700 meters, where we are talking about changes of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over many years, such a "missing heat" cannot be ascertained today. The likelihood is that there is no "missing heat". Slight changes in cloud cover could easily account for a similar effect. That would mean the end of the alarmist CO2 theory. Perhaps this is why we've been hearing speculation about the deep ocean. On the other hand, perhaps this discussion tells us that the alarmist faction needs to deal more with oceanic cycles. It is possible that this is a step in recognizing the central impacts of the PDO and AMO on our climate.NTZ: Hans von Storch confirms that 98% of the climate models have been wrong so far. Do you think the directors of world's leading climate research institutes risk damaging the once sterling reputations of their institutes if they do not soon admit there's a problem with climate science?FV: They certainly find themselves in a serious jam. That's why they are now trying to gain time by claiming that the models first become falsified if there has been no warming over a period of 30 years - never mind that the warming of 1977 to 1998 was only 22 years and deemed to be long enough to "prove" the CO2 theory. A few years ago climate scientist Ben Santer said only 17 years were necessary before we could talk about a real climate trend. Now that reality is pulling the rug from under models, some scientists are having misgivings. Some are praying for an El Nino year, which would allow them to beat the drums of fear again. They'll hype up every single weather effect to get attention.NTZ: Some prominent climate experts have been expressing second thoughts about the seriousness of man-made climate change, e.g. Hans von Storch, Lennart Bengtsson. Do you expect more scientists to follow as more data come in?FV: Certainly. That's what's so fascinating about science. It proposes theories. And when they don't fit reality, they get changed. The chaff gets separated from the wheat.NTZ: Spiegel for example has been publishing some articles critical of alarmist climate science. Do you expect the rest of Germany's media to soon follow and to start taking a more critical look?FV: This process is fully under way. But it's going to take a long time because an entire generation has been convinced that CO2 is a climate killer. But the shrill tones have been quieting down.NTZ: What danger does Germany face should it continue down its current path of climate alarmism and rush into renewable energies?FV: Twenty billion euros are being paid out by consumers for renewable energies in Germany each and every year. Currently that amounts to 250 euros per household each year and it will increase to 300 euros next year.Worse, it's a gigantic redistribution from the bottom to top, from the poor who cannot afford a solar system to rich property owners who own buildings with large roof areas. The German Minister of Environment fears a burden of 1000 billion euros by 2040.It is truly outrageous that 1) 40% of the world's photovoltaic capacity is installed in Germany, a country that sees as much sunshine as Alaska, 2) we are converting wheat into biofuel instead of feeding it to the hungry, and 3) we are covering 20% of our agricultural land with corn for biogas plants and thus adversely impacting wildlife. We are even destroying forests and nature in order to make way for industrial wind parks.On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don't even deliver. And when the wind really blows, we "sell" surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices. And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive.The agitators in climate science here in Germany have done us no favors. Renewable energies do have a big future, but not like this. It's been a run-away train and it's too expensive. We are putting Germany's industry in jeopardy. In reality there really isn't any urgency because the solar cycles and nature are giving us time to make the transition over to renewable energies in a sensible way.NTZ: Has the weather become more extreme? Why are we getting bombarded by scary reports from the media - even after a normal thunderstorm with hail?FV: Extreme weather is the only card they have left to play. We see that Arctic sea ice extent is the highest since 2007. At the South Pole sea ice is at the highest extent in a very long time, hurricanes have not become more frequent, the same is true with tornadoes, sea level is rising at 2-3 mm per year and there's been no change in the rate, and global temperature has been stagnant for 15 years. Indeed we are exposed to bad weather. And when one is presented with a simplistic explanation, i.e. it's man's fault, it gladly gets accepted. CO2 does have a warming effect on the planet. However, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. The climate impact of CO2 is less than the half of what the climate alarmists claim. That's why in our book, The Neglected Sun, we are saying there is not going to be any climate catastrophe.NTZ: What do you expect from the soon-to-be-released IPCC 5thAssessment Report?FV: It is truly remarkable that some countries are urging IPCC 5AR authors to address the reasons for the temperature hiatus in the summary for policymakers. Dissatisfaction with the IPCC's tunnel vision is growing. But let's not kid ourselves: In the coming days and weeks the media are not going to be able to refrain from the IPCC catastrophe-hype. However, what will be different from the previous four reports is that the hype will die off much more quickly. Those who ignore nature and its fluctuations will end up on the sidelines soon enough. I think this is going to be the last report of this kind.Professor Dr Fritz Vahrenholt is a German scientist, environmentalist, politician and industrialist. With his initial Doctorate in chemistry, Prof Vahrenholt has researched at the Max Planck Institute for Carbon Research at Mulheim. A former Senator and Deputy Environmental Minister for Hamburg, he has served on the Sustainable Advisory Board successively for Chancellors Gerhard Schroeder and Angela Merkel.I have learned by much be reading his text in detail.This book written by FRITZ VAHRENHOLT and SEBASTION LUNING is a great example of science research demolishing the alarmism view denying the role of the Sun in >400 pages and 1000 references from peer reviewed science papers.The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.AMAZONThis comment on the book is worth reading.Randy A. StadtWith Climate Change, the Past is the key to the Present and to the FutureNovember 1, 2017The words “climate change” can technically mean a number of things, but usually when we hear them, we understand that they are referring to something in particular. This would be a defined narrative, an idea which has been repeated so often in the media that it is taken as almost axiomatic. This narrative goes something like this:“Carbon dioxide produced by mankind is dramatically changing the climate and is leading to unprecedented temperature extremes, storms, floods, and widespread death. If we fail to apply the emergency brake now, and hard, then the climate will be irreparably damaged and there will be little hope for averting the approaching cataclysm. In just a few more years it may be too late. The measures proposed for averting disaster are costly, very costly, but the anticipated damage from climate change will be even more expensive, so there is little alternative but to act quickly and decisively.”Furthermore, we are told, the science is settled, it represents a scientific consensus, and opponents are rightfully called “climate deniers,” deserving the rhetorical connotations and stigma attached to the label because they might as well be denying the reality of the Holocaust.Now is this true? Are we even allowed to ask the question? If it is not true, how could we tell? The authors, coming from different backgrounds and having different reasons for developing suspicions of the received narrative, present a detailed, 400-page argument which carefully (and I think persuasively) makes the case that the sun, and only secondarily human activities, are the primary driver for climate change.This book gives public exposure to the work of many, many climate scientists whose conclusions are deemed politically incorrect and are thus ignored. In the authors’ own words, “We were able to cite hundreds of scientific studies showing that the changes in the sun’s activity and oceanic decadal oscillations are responsible for at least half of the recent warming, which means that the contribution of CO2 is at most half.”Most of us have no way of evaluating the computer models which predict, to varying degrees, catastrophic future warming with CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning being the sole culprit.The authors maintain, however, that “the past is the key to the present and to the future,” meaning that it is better to gather data on how the climate has acted in the past, and use this to calibrate projections into the future, than it is to create models calibrated to agree with a pre-ordained conclusion.This approach reveals a few surprises. First, neither the degree nor the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is unprecedented. Second, warming in the past was not caused by rising CO2 levels. Third, cycles of warming and cooling occurred at regularly repeating intervals over the past several thousand years and beyond, and closely match cycles of increased and decreased solar activity. Fourth, currently accepted climate models which are centered on CO2 cannot reproduce these past warming and cooling events. And finally fifth, the current halt in global warming since the year 2000 was not anticipated by these models, but it is completely consistent with a sun-centered approach which takes into consideration not only CO2 but also solar cycles and ocean oscillations.So here I, the average Joe, the taxpayer who doesn’t have in-depth scientific knowledge of the issues, is being asked to adjudicate between two opposing claims. And it does matter, because the choice I and the rest of society make will have a significant impact on the world our children inhabit. If the alarmists (if I may use that pejorative label for the sake of simplicity) are right, we have a moral obligation to give up our financial prosperity in order to maintain a world that is inhabitable for future generations.And it just so happens that it is this position (that of the alarmists) that “holds the microphone,” so to speak. We are bombarded with claims that the “science is settled” and only the ignorant and those with financial interests in maintaining the status quo would disagree.It seems to me that if this boils down to a matter of trust, and to some degree it does, then we are entitled to see if that trust is earned. And we can do that in a few ways. One is by listening carefully to the alarmists and trying to see if they are telling us the whole story, or are they selectively publicizing information that furthers their cause on the one hand, while withholding information that does not, on the other hand.One testable example that leaps to mind is Al Gore’s new book, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” Early in the book he prominently displays a graph of increasing temperatures over the past number of decades. No comment is given to the stagnating temperatures between the years 2000 and 2014, but we see an apparent resumption in the warming in the final two years, 2015 and 2016.So here Mr. Gore has told us part of the story. But has he told us the whole thing? No. He has utterly ignored the vast literature cited in “The Neglected Sun” which carefully shows how natural climate oscillations, and particularly an unusually active sun, have contributed, not only to recent temperature fluctuations, but also to those seen throughout the historic temperature record.And second, he has neglected to mention what our authors have made clear, namely, that it is inappropriate to include El Niño years in long-term projections, because these phenomena, which can produce remarkable short-term increases in global temperatures, are just that: they are short-term blips that vanish after a couple of years. Al Gore leaves us with the impression that these two years are further evidence of man-made global warming when the reality is nothing more than they are in fact El Niño years.Another way the average Joe can navigate this confusing terrain is to spend some time reading “The Neglected Sun.” It is not hard to read, the citations to peer-reviewed literature are numerous, and as it does give a place, albeit a secondary one, for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, it gives a feeling of balance, and also an admission of the infancy of much of our knowledge, an admission that is entirely missing from popular presentations from the other side, in particular from Al Gore.Spend some time reading the book and it will become clear that the claims of scientific consensus and that the science is settled are false. And it seems to me that when what we can test is found to be wanting, this gives us reason to be suspicious of that which we cannot test. In other words, it looks sneaky and it looks like they haven’t got the goods.Now the authors make it clear that they are not denying that we need to move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, but they are arguing that because projections based on solar activity are actually going to give us a few decades of cooling, we can make the change in a rational, rather than a panicked, way.The stakes are high, as we are on the verge of decisions that can dramatically alter the prosperity of not only our children and grandchildren, but of those in developing countries that need at least short-term access to fossil fuels in order to keep from sliding further backwards in poverty.Al Gore and the alarmists are right about one thing: the climate debate is a moral issue, but just not in the way they see it. Because if our authors are right, then we are faced with the following reality: as much of an economic inconvenience that an abrupt shift away from fossil fuels would be for those of us in the wealthy West, it is actually a life-and-death situation for those in the developing world whose ability to move out of poverty would be taken away from them.And that is immoral.STATE OF THE CLIMATE REPORT - CLIMATISMCONTRARY to popular thinking and clever marketing, there is no “consensus” on the theory of dangerous man-made climate change. Too many variables exist within the climate system to allow for certainty of future scenarios.THIS doesn’t deter the $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) Climate Crisis Industry who manufacture catastrophic climate scenarios (pushed far enough into the distant future as to not be held accountable) with a guarantee of climate calamity unless their utopian ‘green’ dreams are realised.CLIMATISM : 2019 State Of The Climate ReportThis 97% meme gets far too much attention when the real issue is why have leaders like Al Gore lied about the support of the 2000 scientists employed in the IPCC Working Group failure to ‘detect’ evidence of human caused warming.From a Charlie Rose interview (4 November 2009):[2]AL GORE: And even though it has gone through this exhaustive 20-year peer review process with the 3,000 best scientists in the world unanimously endorsing it, every national academy of sciences in a developed country on this planet endorsing it, still, based on some radio talk show host or some odd orthogonal argument...[Note: I was the Alternate Canadian Delegate to the UN ILO meetings in Geneva in 1978 and witnessed first hand the artful and misleading machinations of this organization.]THE UN IPCC IS BUSTEDThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the IPCC – is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important policy changes in the history of industrial society. It is therefore probably the most influential scientific body in the world.UN CONSIDERED DISMISSING THE IPCC SCIENCE BODY!Did you know the UN almost dismissed the IPCC because their ‘best scientists’ as Gore says did not find human caused global warming after extensive research in 1990? After 5 years of research and discussion those 3000 best scientist concluded as follows -In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”The story of the failure of the IPCC science to support the UN General Assembly is reported in detail by Bernie Lewin in the above recent book.However, in the rush towards a climate treaty, IPCC scientists continued to report that evidence of manmade climate change was scarce and that confirmation of a manmade effect should not be expected for decades. Without a `catastrophe signal' that could justify a policy response, the panel faced its imminent demise. (less)