Climate Change: An Expensive Hoax

Activists Live in a Neverland of Climate Prediction

For many, 2015 was the year the United Nations and governments around the world abandoned rational thought about climate change. Rather than focus on preparing for the very real problems of a continually changing climate, they concentrated instead on the politically correct, but scientifically impossible goal of “stopping climate change.” The whole lot of them seem to have been transported to Neverland.

Peter Pan author J. M. Barrie tells us that Neverlands are found in the minds of children. There, with the assistance of fairy dust, Peter Pan can fly and teach children to ignore their common sense and soar as well. Peter claims greatness, is able to feel danger when it is near, and can even imagine things into existence. There is almost nothing the hero of Neverland cannot do, provided he stays childlike and forgets everything he learned about the real world.

Reality for the UN and most politicians is now more determined by what Al Gore and other equally imaginative climate activists say than what real world science and observational evidence actually shows. December’s United Nations climate conference in Paris is a case in point.

Sounding more like an episode out of Barrie’s fairy tale than a serious meeting of world leaders, politicians pledged to prevent “global temperature” from rising more than two degrees Celsius. That we are as yet unable to meaningfully forecast climate decades in advance, let alone control it, didn’t matter. They simply ignored the fact that every climate prediction the UN has ever made has turned out to be wrong. Humankind has a global thermostat, they imagine.

Delegates believed that scientists have Peter Pan–like powers to sense climate danger decades in advance. They dream that today’s global climate models (GCM), simulations that utterly failed to forecast the current 18-year “pause” in warming, provide lawmakers with the “unequivocal” knowledge they need to enact trillion-dollar energy policies.

To back up their extraordinary claims, we are told that there is an “overwhelming consensus” of scientists who agree with the UN’s position. Thousands of well-qualified skeptics are simply imagined out of existence.

On December 7, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released the report “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming.” Authored by climatologist Dr. Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Arizona, geologist Dr. Robert Carter, former head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia, and physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and NIPCC founder, the new report totally refutes the claims of climate alarmists. For example, the NIPCC report states:

• “There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate.”

• “Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late-20th-century surface warming lay outside normal natural variability.”

• “No evidence exists that … [a future warming of 2°C] would be net harmful to the global environment or to human well-being.”

• “No close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.”

• “GCMs systematically over-estimate the sensitivity of climate to CO2.”

• “Significant correlations exist between climate … and solar activity over the past few hundred years…Forward projections of solar cyclicity imply the next few decades may be marked by global cooling rather than warming, despite continuing CO2 emissions.”

• “Melting of Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps is not occurring at ‘unnatural’ rates.”

• “Sea-level rise is not accelerating.”

• “No convincing relationship has been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in extreme weather events.”

The naïve crusade to stop the world’s climate from changing would be laughable were it not for the cost. The November 2015 report of the San Francisco-based Climate Policy Initiative shows that $395 billion was spent in 2014 on climate finance. Of this, only 6 percent went to adaptation, helping vulnerable people adapt to real climate change today. The rest of the over $1 billion a day was spent on mitigation, trying to affect events that may, or may not, someday happen. Opinion leaders from across the political spectrum are beginning to regard letting people suffer today so as to possibly help those yet to be born as immoral.

After drinking the poison Captain Hook had intended for Peter Pan, Tinker Bell survived only because children across the world clapped loudly to show their belief in fairies. Activists clearly believe that the climate scare will also survive as long as politicians keep clapping. Its time they stopped and let this, the most expensive hoax in the history of science, die.

Monday, January 4, 2016

by TOM HARRIS

Tom Harris is executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition. The NIPCC reports may be viewed at climatechangereconsidered.org.

Reproduced from:  https://www.independent.com/news/2016/jan/04/climate-change-expensive-hoax/

The world of science deceivers

“Half the work done in the world is
to make things appear what they are not.”
E.R. Beadle

Motive

It is difficult and dangerous to impute motive. How and why a person acts in a certain way is usually difficult to determine. A particular course of action may be taken with the best of intentions yet cause considerable problems. However, certain actions although not definitive may expose the motive.
Critical Evidence
Two pieces of evidence dominated recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports. They were instrumental in convincing the world global warming due to humans was a scientifically indisputable fact.  One was the graph known as the “hockey stick” because it purported to show little temperature change for approximately 1000 years then a sudden rise in the 20th century.  The second was a global temperature increase of 0.6°C (1°F) in over 100 years, a rate claimed to be beyond any 'natural' increase.
The first is now fully discredited thanks primarily to the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They carried out the standard scientific test of trying to reproduce the results obtained in the original work. They showed the almost flat line temperature of the hockey stick handle was artificially contrived.  The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did exist but was eliminated by the tree ring samples and the statistical analytical technique chosen.
It appears this was done to eliminate the troublesome MWP that contradicted that current global temperatures were the highest ever. It achieved what a climate scientist told Professor David Deming in an email was necessary as Deming explains: “With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of cli-mate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
The second piece of evidence, the claim of temperature increase, continues to dominate and is presented in many places as the truth.
The person primarily responsible for the number is P.D. Jones. He is currently Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England. In order to verify the number Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate resear-cher asked Jones how it was derived. He received the following reply on 21, February 2005. “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” Since then Jones has stonewalled every effort to obtain the information. But why is it so important? Surely, the raw data is available and all you have to do is use it to recreate the number.
Global Temperature
The first problem is the original temperature increase was actually given as 0.6°C ± 0.2°C or a 66 percent error factor. It is a virtually meaningless number but still used to argue for warming. The raw data is retained by the originating country, which then submits modified data to central agencies such as the Global Historical Climamtology Network
Each year different groups calculate an annual global average including NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). There are also the data sets maintained jointly between the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit called HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3.
When an annual average temperature is created each agency chooses different stations and modify the data for a variety of factors. The result is each produce different graphs as in Figure 1. In this case results from two satellite studies are included.

So what we need to know is which stations Jones used and how he adjusted the data to achieve his result. We need to be able to carry out the standard reproducible results test applied to the hockey stick data. He continues to refuse to provide the information.
Withholding Information
In recent attempts to obtain the information the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) has become involved. As Steve MeIntvre writes a bureaucrat was required to write the following in denying the information; Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept.
They are talking about data obtained by weather stations funded by the public. How that can be limited in its availa-bility to anyone is impossible to understand. It is weather data so what possible strategic or national security risk can possibly be compromised? The data providers are other nations who provide it under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that require open access.
Is there some proprietary right to how Jones has adjusted the data? Possibly, but surely that is offset by the fact that scientific work must be available to testing and confirmation by other scientists. It is the promoters of human induced global warming who have championed the need for peer review. I have spoken often about the two responsibilities with climate research. First is the scientific responsibility and Jones fails that by not revealing how the results were achieved.
Then there is the social responsibility when you take your scientific findings public and they become the basis of policy. Jones fails that because his claimed temperature increase remains pivotal in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) argument.
Now there is more disturbing evidence that Jones' original data doesn't bear examination.  One of the major adjust-ments that vary considerably from station to station is for the urban heat island effect (UHIE). The IPCC refers to Jones et al. (1990) for its claim that the non-climatic bias due to urbanization is less than one-tenth of the global trend.
In other words they have rejected what everyone has known for a long time. More important, if urban stations domi-nate those used the false warming signal is enhanced. Now Jones is acknowledging the UHIE is greater than he allowed at least in China. As Warwick Hughes notes, “Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1 degree per decade, hey that equates to a degree per century. Huge.”
The Damage is Done
If the UHIE is even half of this value for the rest of the world stations chosen by Jones then his claim of a 0.6°C increase virtually disappears. And so does the claim that human produced CO2 is causing warming because there is virtually no warming over the post-industrial period. We can speculate on Jones' motive without resolution, however, we know to which half of the world's work it belongs. It is more important to question how and why Jones has been able to deny access to information for so long. Who is to hold him to account? A world threatened with draconian and unnecessary energy and economic policies because of his silence should ask questions. We should also reject his claims and the IPCC reports based on his findings because we are unable to verify his results with standard scientific measures.

---

Author:
“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.  Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other related fields

Climate change
Scientific uncertainties manipulated to create political certainties
Danilo Antón

At the international level, multilateral agencies have agreed on a series of measures, supposedly to combat climate change, through the reduction of carbon emissions. They also include other measures to limit the type of activities contributing to climate change produced by the CO2 increase in the air.

It is noteworthy that climate change is a phrase without real content because "climate change" has always existed and will continue to exist. Those of us who work in geology know this very well. You can not imagine the Earth's atmosphere without climate change.
More complex is to confirm the type of climate change that there is or will be ..
The strategies developed in the context of the Paris agreement assume that we know what is going to happen in climate, and this belief is at least risky. The data (raw unfiltered data) on which these promised strategies are based do not have definitive confirmation.
In any case, it would be worthwhile to implement them as a precautionary principle.
Of course there is always some risk, global warming, which is spoken with total certainty, is not proven by the information available.There are possibilities that, in the medium and long term, the tendency mightbe, not to increase the global temperature, but to decrease it. In that case we could be helping "global cooling".

I think that the emission of carbon dioxide, which is considered an element of risk (because it is a greenhouse gas), does not really seem to pose any danger to humans, because carbon dioxide is the "gas of life". It is the gas that allows plants to grow, and indirectly sustains animal life, and, of course, our own life.
However, reducing carbon dioxide-producing activities also reduces emissions of other harmful substances, such as sulfur gases, nitrogen oxides, or aerosol particles (soot). That is why I believe that these agreements can have positive effects on air pollution, although it is not so clear what kind of consequences they will have in relation to "climate change"
Unfortunately. US President Donald Trump has generated a lot of media noise in deciding that the US will withdraw from the Paris agreement because, he said, he is an enemy of the measures taken to combat climate change which, according to him, also affect The economy and the sources of labor in the United States.
Obviously he does not care if there is climate change or global warming or whatever, what matters is that it will not prevent a series of corporate billions projects that for various environmental reasons are locked.
But to me personally, I do not care what Donald Trump thinks or says,
Until we prove it to the contrary we will have to continue investigating a few things that arouse many uncertainties:
1) What role do the variations of solar radiation play in climate changes (heating, cooling, rain, storms, etc.)?
2) What role does CO2 play, and in particular anthropogenic CO2 emissions in atmospheric dynamics?
3) What role does water vapor play in thermal balance and atmospheric dynamics?
3) What role do aerosols play in thermal balances and in atmospheric dynamics?
4) What is the long-term trend of ocean levels?
5) What is the long-term trend of ocean temperature (and concomitantly, tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures)?
These questions have not been settled. At the official level it is insisted on holding that everything is resolved and that there is scientific unanimity. But it's not like that. Neither everything is resolved nor is there scientific unanimity.
Therefore it is not appropriate to approach the issue with militant dogmatism. Especially because we can be wrong ..
Finally, I'm not interested in what President Trump thinks or says about it. It can be intuited that this gentleman will last little at the front of the system of corporate megacapitalism and will stop being a protagonist in the environmental pseudo-politics of the elites ..
But we can not freely transform scientific uncertainties into political certainties. The future may end up passing the bill ...

Global warming is pseudoscience

Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Ivar Giaever analizes the climate change- global warming scare and define it as pseudoscience.[i]

Danilo Anton

Measuring mean atmospheric temperature change as a climatic parameter requires a very sophisticated and dense stable and trustable network of observation stations, which does not exist worldwide, not even in developed countries, and at least 30 years of records. Well, 30 years show how local climate IS, but you may need another 30 years to check if indeed it has changed.

It is possible also to get temperature records from satellites. There has been temperature measuring satellites for about 40-56 years and the results are mixed. There were some temperature changes at different tropospheric-stratopheric levels, but it is difficult to integrate these results into a single global mean temperature number.

In addition is should be remembered that air temperature changes are mainly the results of oceanic temperature changes. However, measured oceanic  temperatures have increased or decreased but there is not a well defined trend.

In some places of Antarctica and Greenland there has been melting of ice, however, there are many data that show that in both places the volume of ice has increased.

So why are some scientists, and specially politicians insist in something that has not been proved?

Of course there are economic interests. The sale of carbón credits giving the right to emit one tonne of carbón dioxide  each is big business. There is also plenty of money in projects to study global warming or climate change. So some scientists do not dare to deny something that is giving them a good income.

This new «climate change religión», as it has happened in the past, does not need justification.  It is based on propaganda and publicity. People are scared of this horrible future and politicians will award money for whatever project deals with this global scurge.

Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever explains the whole thing very clearly. 

Here there is a reproducton of an article dealing with this issue.

   

"Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.

“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.”

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize. Giaever is also featured in the new documentary “Climate Hustle”, set for release in Fall 2015.

Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined  over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part:

“The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”

But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”

“That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)

“How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.

“Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [Note: Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change. See: Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming]

The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears.

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment  then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.

Global Warming ‘a new religion’

Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.

“Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

Concern Over ‘Successful’ UN Climate Treaty

“I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November. I really worry about that. Because the [2009 UN] conference was in Copenhagen and that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position,” Giaever said.

“The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.

Silencing Debate

Giaever accused Nature Magazine of “wanting to cash in on the [climate] fad.”

“My friends said I should not make fun of Nature because then they won’t publish my papers,” he explained.

“No one mentions how important CO2 is for plant growth. It’s a wonderful thing. Plants are really starving. They don’t talk about how good it is for agriculture that CO2 is increasing,” he added.

Extreme Weather claims

“The other thing that amazes me is that when you talk about climate change it is always going to be the worst. It’s got to be better someplace for heaven’s sake. It can’t always be to the worse,” he said.

“Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said.

“For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm — but for the previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level,” Giaever said.

“If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued.

“You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added.

“Same thing is for tornadoes. We are in a low period on in U.S.”

Here is a speech given by Dr. Ivar Giaever on this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

[i] From:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/07/deniers-in-their-midst-all-is-not-well-in-nobel-prize-land/