Environmental skepticism

Climate Change Crooks inventing new frauds

Embed from Getty Images

Will these climate change crooks never give up robbing the taxpayers, what about a research grant for doing something useful for a change not something that is fashionable.

Environmental scientists want to introduce a new system to prove that adverse weather events are directly linked to climate change to counter global warming sceptics.

Under the new plan, a heatwave or major storm will be linked scientifically to man made climate change immediately after the event to prevent critics from blaming it on natural variations in the weather.

Scientists want to be able to provide proof of whether an event was caused by climate change within three day rather than the current system which can take up to a year. ?? Read more »

A reader emails about Climate Change

I received this polite email about climate change yesterday.

Hi Cameron,

I have been a regular reader of your blog for a number of years, and while your attitude can be at times combative, I appreciate the straight-up, “no bullshit” approach you take to both your content and your readers, and your emphasis on facts over rhetoric is refreshing, particularly in an environment where many of your peers in the information industry cannot be relied on to get things right. Unfortunately, there’s one subject on which I feel you have failed to meet your own high standards. That subject is climate change.

I have no doubt that your position on climate change was based on what you believed to be legitimate information at the time you formed your current views, but I do think that it’s an area you have neglected to look at again after making up your mind, and continuing to promote this position without ensuring that it can be reconciled with the actual state of the planet is doing both yourself and your readers a disservice. Every time you publish a post along the lines of “colder than average / coldest event ever, therefore global warming is a con”, you’re ignoring the fact that climate change / global warming on a planetary scale doesn’t mean that every part of the planet is warmer 100% of the time, nor that the warming of Earth’s climate as a whole can actually cause cooling in some areas. You’re also ignoring a very large body of evidence that the planet is in fact warming considerably.

I would like to respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue, openly, and from a neutral perspective. If you still feel that the evidence supports your position after genuinely researching the topic, I will be very much surprised.

I am fully aware you are more than capable of doing your own research, and finding your own sources which you believe to be trustworthy. Noting how busy you are though, I would like to point you in the direction of one resource I feel you may find useful if you’re pressed for research time – Ramez Naam’s book “The Infinite Resource – The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet” (I am happy to purchase an ebook copy for you if that would be useful). If you do nothing else, please at least read chapter five of this book – it’ll point out more than a few holes in your current position. All conclusions drawn or facts provided are fully cited, with an extensive bibliography of sources should you wish to follow up further. I should also point out that the book’s style alternates positive / negative perspectives, so if you do not read any part of the book other than chapter five, you’re only seeing a part of what the author’s trying to get across.

I have every faith that you will act with integrity and have the courage to change your currently held beliefs on climate change once you are in possession of the relevant facts – I only ask that you are open enough to take another look.

Read more »

Calls to jail climate sceptics for daring to challenge the science

The armists are showing their true colours and chancing their arm with totalitarianism, all in order to silence people’s right to freedom of speech and expression.

James Delingpole at Breitbart.com explains the latest call to jail climate sceptics:

Scientists who don’t believe in catastrophic man-made global warming should be put in prison, a US philosophy professor argues on a website funded by the UK government.

Lawrence Torcello – assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, writes in an essay at The Conversation that climate scientists who fail to communicate the correct message about “global warming” should face trial for “criminal negligence”. (H/T Bishop Hill)

The Conversation – no relation of Breitbart’s blogging chatroom – is a website promoting articles by academics and funded by nineteen of Britain’s leading universities, as well as several government agencies, including the Higher Education Funding Council For England (HEFCE) and the Higher Education Funding Council For Wales (HEFCW) and Research Council UK.

Its motto is “Academic rigour, journalistic flair” – both qualities which are mysteriously absent from Torcello’s essay, titled “Is Misinformation About The Climate Criminally Negligent?”

Torcello notes that after the earthquake that devastated l’Aquila, Italy in 2009, six Italian seismologists were jailed for six years for having failed properly to communicate the nature of the threat to the public. The same fate should befall climate denialists, he suggests, because they stand in the way of the “meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.”? Read more »

Over-the-top ?catastrophism.?

Richard Lindzen brings some clarity to the “over-the-top ?catastrophism? of the politicians and green taliban pushing the global warming/climate change agenda.

Though Lindzen is a warmist…it looks like he has had enough of the machinations, manipulations and out-right deceptions of politicians and green taliban.

A leading climate change figure has come out against the government?s continued and ridiculous climate change hysteria.

Speaking in regards to Massachusetts? new $50 million climate change proposal, MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, a leading figure in the climate change movement, pointed out the absurdity of blaming every weather event on global warming and climate change. ? Read more »

Ken Ring makes it to the Gallery of Wackos

Ken Ring has made it to the auspicious company of other charlatans, quacks and wackos.

His citation reads:

Ken Ring is notable for his (claimed to be) amazing predictions of weather and earthquakes. From his website PredictWeather.com, he sells all sorts of weather prediction reports.

His primary obsession is the Moon, and he believes its cycles are the best way to predict earthquakes. In fact the Moon has never been shown to have anything to do with earthquakes, and centuries of data back that up. But that doesn’t deter Ken. Despite its having been proven wrong, he still insists that it’s right.? Read more »

Consensus? What consensus?

The warmists all bang on about consensus in the scientists and amongst the scientists. Consensus, despite empirical evidence to the contrary, that the earth is warming, catastrophically, and it is all our fault.

Well how about that consensus eh?

Contrary to reports, global warming studies don?t show 97% of scientists fear global warming

Apart from a handful of eccentrics, everyone believes in the reality of manmade climate change. That?s the message of a recent paper in the journal?Environmental Research Letters, the latest in a series of similar efforts that have been used as a stick with which to beat policymakers. But scratch at the surface of any of these publications and you find that there is considerably less to them than meets the eye.

The earliest paper in this series, by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois, reported the results of an opinion poll of climate scientists that Zimmerman had prepared for her MSc thesis. The headline conclusion ? that 97% of climatologists thought that mankind was having a significant impact on the climate ? was widely reported at the time.

However, although the survey was sent to over 10,000 scientists, there were actually only 79 responses from climatologists, so the 97% figure represented just 75 individuals. And what was not reported in the paper or in any of the ensuing publicity was that many participants were appalled by the survey and recorded their feelings at the time, calling it simplistic and biased, and suggesting that it was an attempt to provide support for a predetermined view.? Read more »

Climate change liar concerned about climate change denier

Jim Salinger has a great big knot in his undies about Tony Abbott winning in Australia

Climate change scientist Jim Salinger says Tony Abbott’s election as Australian Prime Minister is bad news for the environment of the whole Pacific region.

The Liberal leader is a climate change denier.

Dr Salinger says having someone who denies the science in charge is terrible news for small Pacific nations facing being inundated by rising sea levels.? Read more »

Krauthammer: The Idea That Climate Change Is A Closed Issue Is “Arrogant And Anti-Scientific”

Syndicated Columnist Charles Krauthammer weighs in with his perspective on the comments issued by ?Interior Secretary?Sally Jewell regarding her position on climate change.

She said:

?”I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior.”

Krauthammer’s response is brilliant. I hope Peter Gluckman is reading and watching this. Read more »

The silliest speech ever

James Delingpole writes about the silliest speech ever:

Oh dear. I’ve just read the speech Ed Davey delivered yesterday at the Met Office and the best thing you could say about it is that was worthy of its host venue: which is to say short on science, shamelessly parti-pris, and completely out of touch with what is going on in the real world.

In the real world, as we know, global warming paused in 1997 and shows little sign of starting up any time soon. If it did it would be good news for almost all of us, for it would make our climate more pleasant, crops would be more abundant and attractive young women would parade themselves in skimpier outfits for longer stretches of the year. But what it increasingly looks like is that the opposite is going to happen. We appear to be entering a period of solar minima ? that’s an era of low sun-spot activity ? which could, if we’re unlucky, recall the miseries of the Little Ice Age (ice fairs on the Thames; the Year Without A Summer; etc) bringing famine, pestilence and war.? Read more »

Forget Global Warming, now it is Global Cooling

There is a reason why the corrupt global warming industry started referring to the?phenomenon?as “climate change”…to cover themselves when things started going backwards with global cooling. In?the?70s it was cooling that was the main issue, then they flip flopped to warming, and now back to cooling and it is all oh so inconvenient for the professional charlatans like Al Gore.

Peter Ferrera writes in Forbes:

As?The Economist?magazine reported in March, ?The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.? Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA?s?Science News?report for January 8, 2013 states,? Read more »

×