Posts Tagged ‘climate change fraud’

Obama’s ’97 Percent’ Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart

Tuesday, September 9th, 2014

Source: by

The 97% lie

The 97% lie

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

Remember that statement, a while back, from some bloke on Twitter? What we now know with more than 97 per cent certainty that this guy – or whoever is in charge of running his Twitter account – is either wilfully dishonest or woefully ill-informed.

The “97 per cent” claim is an utter nonsense. This report released today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation explains exactly why.

First, that word “dangerous”. This is a concept that was never mentioned in the study responsible for that 97 per cent claim. The paper was written by an Australian warmist activist called John Cook (and others). It drew its conclusions having allegedly reviewed 12,000 papers on climate change and found – so it claimed – that the vast majority of them supported the “consensus” on global warming. (more…)

Ian Stirling’s latest howler: “the polar bear who died of climate change”

Sunday, August 11th, 2013

Source: Polar Bear Science  A male Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) starved to death due to climate change, Svalbard, Norway

by Dr. Susan J. Crockford

Will wildlife biologist and Polar Bear Specialist Group member Ian Stirling now say anything – no matter how unscientific – to garner more sympathy and media attention for polar bears? It appears so.

A tabloid-style picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words article appeared in the environment section of the UK newspaper The Guardian yesterday (August 6, 2013) with a picture of a dead polar bear meant to wring your heart. The picture is a vehicle for statements from Ian Stirling and others that this polar bear died from climate change. A longer article was alongside.

The caption below the photo of a dead polar bear (animal tragedy porn) is this: (more…)

The Climate Circus Leaves Town

Saturday, April 27th, 2013

Source:

by Gary Locke

by Gary Locke

As traditional energy sources go from doom and gloom to boom

If you had told environmentalists on Election Day 2008 that four years later there’d be no successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, that a Democratic Congress would not have enacted any meaningful climate legislation, that domestic oil production would be soaring even after a catastrophic offshore oil spill, and that the environmental community would be having a lively internal debate about whether it should support reviving nuclear power, most might have marched into the ocean to drown themselves. Yet that’s the state of play four months into President Obama’s second term. (more…)

Everything You Know About Paleo-Climate May Be Wrong

Thursday, June 28th, 2012

Source: GWPF

Ice samples pulled from nearly a mile below the surface of Greenland glaciers have long served as a historical thermometer, adding temperature data to studies of the local conditions up to the Northern Hemisphere’s climate. But the method — comparing the ratio of oxygen isotopes buried as snow fell over millennia — may not be such a straightforward indicator of air temperature. “We don’t believe the ice cores can be interpreted purely as a signal of temperature,” says Anders Carlson, a University of Wisconsin-Madison geosciences professor. “You have to consider where the precipitation that formed the ice came from.” –e-Science Earth & Climate, 25 June 2012 (more…)

The Truth About Greenhouse Gases

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

Source:  First Things

by Will Happer

The object of the Author in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes,” wrote Charles Mackay in the preface to the first edition of his Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims. (more…)

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science

Tuesday, May 17th, 2011

Source:  Hot Air

by Bruce McQuain

————–

SPPI Note:  Original SPPI papers by Dave Evans

Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?

Manufacturing Money and Global Warming

Ocean Temperatures: The New Buff in Climate Temperatures

There is No Evidence

Reprints by Dave Evans at SPPI

A Simple Proof that Global Warming is not Man-made

The Wong-Fielding Meeting on Global Warming

Global Warming – A Classic Case of Alarmism

————–

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine.  He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public. (more…)

East Anglia Covers Up Their Trick on Channel Four

Tuesday, October 19th, 2010

Source: Climate Audit

Yesterday, I reported that the University of East Anglia had refused to release attachments to Climategate emails, attachments that would confirm that Wahl and Briffa had knowingly violated IPCC rules on review comments. Their excuse was, in effect, that Wahl and Briffa had agreed their violation of IPCC rules would be done in secret and the University was obliged to honor this compact.

The University had an additional consideration in withholding the document as it also covered up a trick by the University on Channel Four earlier this year, which resulting in Channel Four pulling coverage of IPCC rule violations by CRU and Eugene Wahl. This trick has not been previously reported and I will do so today. (more…)

Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

Source:  Climate change fraud

by John O’Sullivan

Typical satellite

US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high.

The fault was first detected after a tip off from an anonymous member of the public to climate skeptic blog, Climate Change Fraud (view original article) (August 9, 2010).

Caught in the center of the controversy is the beleaguered taxpayer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA’s Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis has now confirmed that the fast spreading story on the respected climate skeptic blog is true. (more…)

O’Brien does it again

Friday, February 5th, 2010

Source:  Herald Sun

By Andrew Bolt

Perhaps, I thought, Kerry O’Brien had finally been embarrassed. Perhaps this was his apologetic way to even things up.

After all, yesterday’s interview on his 7.30 Report with climate sceptic Lord Monckton had been a disgrace, as I wrote this morning. Monckton, unlike almost every warming alarmist interviewed by O’Brien, was not given a one-on-one studio interview. Unlike almost every warming alarmist interviewed by O’Brien, Monckton had his motives and funding questioned, and his integrity gratuitously impugned. Unlike almost every warming alarmist interviewed by O’Brien, his appearance was counterbalanced and interrupted by interviews with three warmist critics, including a green lobbyist, who between them actually managed to speak for longer than did Monckton himselt. And unlike almost every warming alarmist interviewed by O’Brien, Monckton was not allowed the time tto actually explain his views, and indeed had them misreported by the reporter. (more…)

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

Source:  UK Guardian

by Fred Pearce

A close reading of the hacked emails exposes the real process of science, its jealousies and tribalism

Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end.

But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail.

Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN’s top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (more…)

Gate du Jour – Now it’s Greenpeace reports in the IPCC AR4

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Source:  Watts Up With That?

by Anthony Watts

Donna Laframboise, who gave us the list of World Wildlife Fund non peer reviewed studies cited in the IPCC AR4 continues to make lists. Here’s her latest list. Those calm, rational, thoughtful folks at Greenpeace seem to have had a significant hand in the IPCC climate bible. (more…)

Amazongate: new evidence of the IPCC’s failures

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Source. UK Telegraph

by Christopher Booker

The claim in an IPCC report that 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest could disappear through global warming turned out to be unfounded.

It is now six weeks since I launched an investigation, with my colleague Richard North, into the affairs of Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the hugely influential body which for 20 years has been the central driver of worldwide alarm about global warming. Since then the story has grown almost daily, leading to worldwide calls for Dr Pachauri’s resignation. But increasingly this has also widened out to question the authority of the IPCC itself. Contrary to the tendentious claim that its reports represent a “consensus of the world’s top 2,500 climate scientists” (most of its contributors are not climate experts at all), it has now emerged, for instance, that one of the more widely quoted scare stories from its 2007 report was drawn from the work of a British “green activist” who occasionally writes as a freelance for The Guardian and The Independent. (more…)

Global warming science implodes overseas: American media silent

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Source: American Thinker

by Rick Moran

The revelations have been nothing short of jaw dropping. Dozens – yes dozens – of claims made in the IPCC 2007 report on climate change that was supposed to represent the “consensus” of 2500 of the world’s climate scientists have been shown to be bogus, or faulty, or not properly vetted, or simply pulled out of thin air.

We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates who were pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN. (more…)

More unsettling science in the global warming camp

Monday, February 1st, 2010
Source: National Post
by Steve Janke

Remember how I said that we would be witness to scientists abandoning global warming orthodoxy in an attempt to regain lost credibility?

That the global warming dogma — that the question of global warming was “settled science” and that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity was dramatically warming the planet — would be challenged with new research, research that would not be suppressed?

Turns out I was right.

NASA and NOAA are organizations from which many of true believers in the global warming religion have come, and they’ve played a critical role in providing the scientific-sounding justification for the worst of the alarmist predictions.  But now scientists from NOAA have published research in Science that challenges the core assumptions of the global warming camp: (more…)

IPCC “Consensus”—Warning: Use at Your Own Risk

Saturday, January 30th, 2010

Source: Courtesy of Master Resource

by Chip Knappenberger

[SPPI Note on MWR:  The SPPI Monthly CO2 Report and the CO2 Science MWP Project database evidences, the reality of the MWP confirmed by data published by 787 individual scientists from 468 separate research institutions in 42 different countries. Interactive map here.]

The findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often held up as representing “the consensus of scientists”—a pretty grandiose and presumptuous claim. And one that in recent days, weeks, and months, has been unraveling. So too, therefore, must all of the secondary assessments that are based on the IPCC findings—the most notable of which is the EPA’s Endangerment Finding—that “greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”

Recent events have shown, rather embarrassingly, that the IPCC is not “the” consensus of scientists, but rather the opinions of a few scientists (in some cases as few as one) in various subject areas whose consensus among themselves is then kludged together by the designers of the IPCC final product who a priori know what they want the ultimate outcome to be (that greenhouse gases are leading to dangerous climate change and need to be restricted). So clearly you can see why the EPA (who has a similar objective) would decide to rely on the IPCC findings rather than have to conduct an independent assessment of the science with the same predetermined outcome. Why go through the extra effort to arrive at the same conclusion?

The EPA’s official justification for its reliance on the IPCC’s findings is that it has reviewed the IPCC’s “procedures” and found them to be exemplary. (more…)