Tag Archives: anthropogenic global warming

State of the Climate: 10 years after Al Gore declared a ‘planetary emergency’

Top 10 reasons Gore was wrong

By via Watts Up With That?

global-warming-Gore_200pxAs I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, ten years ago today, Al Gore said we had only a decade left to save the planet from global warming. But Earth and humanity has been doing just fine since then.

People that know money over at Investor’s Business Daily, said that “We Know Al Gore’s Been Running A Global Warming Racket” and listed five ways they ascertain this, I’m going to list those, embellish them, and add a few of my own. IBD writes:


While preening at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2006 during the premiere of his “An Inconvenient Truth” fib-umentary, Gore made his grand declaration. The former vice president said, in the words of the AP reporter taking down his story, that

“unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” In Gore’s own words, he claimed we were in “a true planetary emergency.”

Ten years later, he’s probably hoping that everyone has forgotten about his categorical statement…


Meanwhile he’s been busy turning his gloom and doom predictions into cash and assets. here is their list (first 5, with my embellishments), and 5 more items -Anthony

1 – Satellite data says that Earth hasn’t warmed in nearly 20 years. Yes, 2015 supposedly “smashed” the previous temperature record. But actually it was the third-warmest year on record according to satellites.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2015_v6-1

Claims of “hottest ever” in 2015 have been due in part to a strong El Niño in 2015 (which even climate scientist Dr. Richard Betts grudgingly admits to) and some statistical sleight of hand by NOAA to boost temperatures. They said in 1997, that the current absolute temperature of the Earth was warmer by several degrees that today, but they’ve since changed their methodology and say that’s no longer the case…however, their initial claim lines up with what we see in the satellite record above about 1997 and 1998 when the supersized El Niño happened.

Continue reading @ Watts Up With That?

global warming evidence 714_400px

Satellites show no ‘global warming’ for 18 1/2 years –

No North Pole warming for nearly 14 years! No South Pole warming for 37 years!

U.S. has had no warming for 18 years

South Pole sees no warming for 37 years. ‘For the whole of the satellite record, the South Polar region has had a negative trend.  So much for a fingerprint of warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect being greater warming at the Poles!’


Globe:

nov globe

There has been zero trend for exactly half the record, (and for an increase in CO2 concentration of 37 ppm).


Southern Hemisphere:

nov SH

The Pause has lengthened again.  For more than half the record the Southern Hemisphere has zero trend.


Tropical Oceans:

nov tropic oceans

Continue Reading – – –  Satellites show no ‘global warming’ for 18 1/2 years – No N. Pole warming for nearly 14 years – No S. Pole warming for 37 years! | Climate Depot

Climate Change & CO2: What They Haven’t Told You

What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change

By Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, via Prager University on Facebook

Since time immemorial, our climate has been and will always be changing. Patrick Moore explains why “climate change,” far from being a recent human-caused disaster, is, for a myriad of complex reasons, a fact of life on Planet Earth.


The Truth about CO2

By Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, via Prager University on Facebook

Global Warming activists will tell you that CO2 is bad and dangerous. The EPA has even classified it as a pollutant. But is it? Patrick Moore provides some surprising facts about the benefits of CO2 that you won’t hear in the current debate.

Climate science in ‘Jeopardy’

Jeopardy Logo 03
Board 05_flat_180pxBy Anthony J. Sadar and JoAnn Truchan via Washington Times

Scientific practice is a bit off these days. It seems as if the promoters of man-made climate change only want one answer for the cause of every climate phenomenon. Among them:

The reason why thermometers are rising so quickly worldwide. The reason worldwide temperatures have leveled off in the past 17 years. The cause of the higher-than-average hurricane season in 2005. The cause of the lower-than-average hurricane season in 2013. The reason there has been so little snowfall in the U.S. and Europe. The reason there has been so much snowfall in the U.S. and Europe.

If climate science were a category on the popular game show “Jeopardy,” where the answer must be in the form of a question, there would be but one response allowed for the cause of all these contradictory events: “What is man-made climate change?”

Not every “unusual” atmospheric condition or event evokes the humans-are-responsible answer, however. Oftentimes, to attract unwary audiences, not-so-unusual but still unfamiliar events are exaggerated by purveyors of pernicious prognostications.

Take the “polar vortex” scare. This natural phenomenon was proffered as something new, something frightening, something produced by people living comfortably as a result of the use of carbon-based fossil fuels. Of course, it is none of that. This is verified by the Glossary of Meteorology, published by the American Meteorological Society in 1959, in which this well-known phenomenon was clearly defined, not hyped.

Celebrity Jeopardy Comes To Radio City Music HallAs the ancient Ecclesiastes writer observed, there really is “nothing new under the sun.”

Certainly, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) practices the sort of science that gives the desired response first, then seeks the appropriate corresponding questions.

The IPCC defines its role as “to assess … the risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” In other words, the IPCC assumes from the get-go the desired answer that anthropogenic climate change is a fact. It is then the game of researchers, enticed with prized government grants, to find the evidence that always lead to that conclusion.

MORE – – –

The Cooling World (April 28, 1975 – Newsweek Magazine)

By Mason I. Bilderberg – August 22, 2014

Forty years ago global cooling was the alarmist du jour for scaring the hell out of everybody. “Science” was predicting drought, extended dry spells, floods, desolation, food shortages, devastating tornadoes, catastrophic famine, long freezes, temperature increases and even a reversion to the “little ice age” when the Thames was frozen so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. (source: the article featured below)

Science Says Board Game_400px“Scientists” were wringing their hands, worried sick, because they saw “few signs that government leaders anywhere [that] are … prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food.”

The article ends with the same old tired refrain that is repeated ad nauseam by every alarmist everywhere every time the world is about to end (again): “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

Yes. “Science says”, we must ACT NOW! It is imperative to do something immediately – if not sooner – to prevent planetary destruction.

So, from my personal magazine collection i present to you these snippets from a climate-related article published in Newsweek magazine on April 28, 1975. Click the image to download a PDF copy of the entire article in all its alarmist glory.

caption

Click above for a HQ PDF version of the full article

Enjoy 🙂

MIB

Another Ice Age?

By Mason I. Bilderberg – August 12, 2014

From my personal magazine collection is this climate-related article published in Time magazine on June 24, 1974:

Click the image to view an image of the full article.
Click here for a PDF version of the full article.

Follow the links below the image to view the entire article, it makes for great reading. If you replace the word “cooling” with the word “warming” and replace the phrase “ice age” with the phrase “scalding cauldron of death and destruction” it’s just like an Al Gore speech but without the monotonous, lack-of-inflection robot voice.

Enjoy 🙂

MIB

Global Warming: What Correlation?

No_Correlation

Click image for larger view.

About those 97% of climate scientists . . .

menu choice 04By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB) – June 23, 2014

As you know, i am a global warming skeptic. If you wish to catch up on what i believe and why, i recommend looking to the menu at the top of each page where it says “Global Warming.”

Very briefly, this how i split the issue:

I have always had issues with the question, “Do you believe in global warming?”, because it’s really two questions:

  1. Has the earth warmed (over some time frame)?
  2. Are humans responsible?

Because simply answering “yes” to the above question can be misunderstood to mean you agree warming has occurred AND that humans are primarily responsible, i always split the issue:

  1. I do agree there has been some warming over the last 100 years, BUT
  2. I’m not convinced humans are the main cause. I’m inclined to think our climate is primarily driven by the same natural forces that have driven our climate since the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago – and humans are a small part of that natural cycle.

Today i want to revisit an aspect of the global warming theory that i covered in my article “Global Warming: I Have Questions.”

Specifically, i want to add an addendum to my previous challenges of the much touted “97% of scientists agree global warming is real” meme.

For some background, this 97% figure comes from a study conducted by climate scientist John Cook of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute and it is quoted ad nauseam by global warming reality deniers as proof that “97% of climate scientists agree global warming is real and humans are the cause.”

global warming weather_500px
To date, i had been unable to track down a copy of this 2013 study. I thought maybe i had just been looking in all the wrong places, then i come to find out “the University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists (John Cook) to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.[1]

More on the University of Queensland threatening lawsuits over the use of Cook’s ’97% consensus’ data for a scientific rebuttal can be found here, here and here.

global-warming-Gore 02_225pxInteresting, eh? 97% of scientists agree but nobody can use the data in a rebuttal. Gotta love it.

But alas, i finally found a PDF copy of this elusive study and i’ve had a chance to read through it for myself (PDF copy here) and below is my rebuttal.

This rebuttal of the study doesn’t get into the questionable methodology used by John Cook and his fellow authors. I’ll leave that for another day and another time. Why? Because i don’t want to muddy the waters. I don’t need to. Taken at face value, the study does NOT say “97% of scientists agree global warming is real.”

Let’s start on page 3 of the study where they explain how the total number of papers examined was determined:

method

The results and their findings are then depicted on page 4 of the study, in this table. The colors are not in the original table; I added these colors to make it easier to follow along with my breakdown that follows.

table 3 02

These colors will help you follow along with my breakdown, below.

Interpretation of this data is as easy as 1, 2, 3 …

  1. 11,944 papers were analyzed.
  2. 3,896 of these papers expressed a position endorsing anthropogenic global warming (agw).
  3. 3,896 is 32.6% of the 11,944 papers.

CONCLUSION: 32.6% of the papers agree global warming is real.

That’s it. I’ve done nothing to adjust or interpret these numbers. What you see is what you get: 32.6% of the papers agree global warming is real.

The 97% figure could only be obtained by completely ignoring 7,930 out of 11,944 papers.

The 97% figure could only be obtained by completely ignoring 7,930 out of 11,944 papers.

What? What am i missing here? How does Cook et al twist 32.6% into the oft-quoted 97%?

I’ll tell you what’s missing – and it explains why the University of Queensland is threatening lawsuits over the use of this data for any scientific rebuttals:

They simply ignore the 7,930 papers not expressing a position.

That’s right, they simply ignored the 7,930 papers  not expressing a position and qualified their 97% findings by saying the “percent of papers with a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW)“.

The bottom line is, without any interpretation, taken at face value, without any qualifying language, this study says:

32.6% of scientists agree global warming is real!

That is the plain language of this study. Period.

Now remember i said i wasn’t going to get into the methodology of this study? Well, i’m not. But somebody far more qualified than myself has, and this 32.6% gets horribly worse for the authors of this study.

Find out why there is only a 0.3% climate consensus!

🙂

Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)


Also See:

Is Leftist Science-Denial The Most Dangerous Kind?

Science Denial Is Not Exclusive To Right Wing Fundamentalists

By David Jerale via The Libertarian Republic

Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer
“The Liberals’ War on Science.”
(click to download PDF)

In a column for Scientific American January of last year, Michael Shermer, the founder of The Skeptics Society, exposed what he calls “The Liberals’ War on Science.” Shermer observes that, while it is true that Republicans are more overwhelmingly opposed to well-established scientific consensus like anthropogenic climate change theory and evolution, the problem of science denial also reaches epidemic proportions on the left.

“Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs—genetically modified organisms—,” Shermer writes, “in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs.”

Taken only at face value, this seems fairly innocuous– and critics like Chris Mooney were quick to point out, correctly, that science denial is predominantly right-wing.

Fair enough, but I offer this riposte: Rick Santorum and his ilk don’t teach science.

What-are-GMOs-and-How-Safe-Are-They-_250pxDiscovery News, on the other hand, does– and in June, they posted a YouTube video by Laci Green, a popular online social justice advocate, feminist and peer sex educator, about genetically modified organisms.  In this video, Laci doesn’t explicitly state her own opinion with regard to whether or not genetically modified foods are safe, choosing instead to present arguments for and against, with a heavy bias against, ending by asking viewers to post their thoughts on the matter in the comments section below the video.

This is a clear example of “false balance,” a tendency for media to overstate controversy in scientific matters.  Fox News has been criticized for this because their coverage of climate science greatly over-represents those who disagree with anthropogenic global warming theory while there is a strong consensus among climate scientists that the theory is correct.  As it happens, there is a similarly strong scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified foods, but Laci conveniently ignores it for the sake of manufactured controversy– and she’s not alone.

SciShow, hosted by Hank Green, is a YouTube channel with over 1.5 million subscribers devoted to discussing scientific topics.  Last year, Hank posted a video wherein he discusses genetically modified organisms– what they are, why they exist, how they’re made, etcetera– which included some cherry-picked information and outright fabrications about the supposed dangers of genetic modification, in spite of the existing scientific consensus to the contrary.  It was later removed, and re-uploaded by another YouTube user– in the comments section there, Hank explains “We dropped it because we cited studies that have since been discredited.”

 Bill Nye “The Science Guy” - perhaps the most well-known science popularizer alive - supports the global warming theory while trying to scare people into thinking GMOs are harmful.


Bill Nye “The Science Guy” – perhaps the most well-known science popularizer alive – supports the global warming theory while trying to scare people into thinking GMOs are harmful.
Science education programming being used to spread pseudoscience?


But Hank and Laci Green are just a couple of online personalities– No real harm, right?

Enter Bill NyeThe Science Guy.”  Bill has been, for the most part, strongly against science denial– he has spoken against teaching creationism to children as well as climate change denial, but oddly, he breaks form when the topic is genetically modified organisms.

Let that sink in for a moment– perhaps the most well-known science popularizer alive, Bill Nye, trying to scare people into thinking GMOs are harmful.

That’s a far cry from some preacher doing the same thing because it conflicts with his religious dogma.  It’s science education programming being used to spread pseudoscience, and the consequences could be devastating.

MORE – – –

%d bloggers like this: