Archive for the ‘alarmism’ Category

Paris gets the party started #COP21

Posted: November 29, 2015 by Andrew in alarmism, solar system dynamics

imageThe latest last chance to save the world has begun, with just 200+ arrests so far. (more…)

In an almost unbelievable display of ignorance or deliberate deception, the BBC on one of its climate alarm pages, links loss of Arctic sea ice to sea level rise. Do they really not understand that floating ice doesn’t change sea level when it melts? Archimedes principle has been around for a couple of thousand years, but it seems the science illiterates at the BBC skipped this class in school.



But not the end he was thinking of ? [credit:]

But not the end he was thinking of ? [credit:]

Are prophets of climate doom going out of fashion? The BBC fears so.

Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries. Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.

In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action. The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan.

Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009.


I suppose this is predictable and plainly nonsense

Prince Charles has pointed to the world’s failure to tackle climate change as a root cause of the civil war in Syria, terrorism and the consequent refugee crisis engulfing Europe.

The heir to the British throne is due to give a keynote speech at the opening of a global climate summit in Paris next week where 118 leaders will gather to try to nail down a deal to limit rising greenhouse gas emissions.

The prince said in an interview with Sky News, to be aired on Monday and recorded before the Nov. 13 attacks in Paris, that such symptoms were a “classic case of not dealing with the problem”.

— Reuters


Much ado about nothing?

Much ado about nothing?

The Paris climate conference is already looking like an expensive waste of time, judging by this report.

The US Senate sent a powerful and unmistakable message to UN climate delegates this week: Don’t expect any US money for Obama’s climate promises.

52 U.S. Senators voted to block an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule this week that would curb carbon emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. Passing the resolution without a veto-proof vote (the President has already promised not to sign it) makes this act of defiance symbolic only. But with the Paris climate summit just a week and a half away, it’s powerful symbolism indeed.


COP21 website sets out to disprove sceptical arguments

Posted: November 15, 2015 by tallbloke in alarmism, climate

Here’s an amusing page from the French government’s COP21 website. I’ve added comments in bold italics. These people need to answer the the Paris Climate Challenge to support their own position, rather than create strawman arguments put into the mouths of sceptics.

Climate-change sceptics’ main arguments disproved point by point.

Global warming stopped in 1998 – since then, temperatures have barely risen.


This claim is based on the Hadley Center report which showed a rise in average temperature of 0.02°C per decade between 1998 and 2008. It has since been widely publicized by climate-change sceptics and wrongly interpreted as a sign that global warming has stopped. But this set of statistics did not include the Arctic, where temperatures have risen significantly in recent years.

This is incorrect, summer minimum has been stable for the last decade on average.


anu_cartoon1Why is the Australian Academy of Science going off the deep end claiming “reprehensible vilification” of warmist scientists? It’s now saying they’re being so threatened and harassed that their ability to do science is in jeopardy. Academy President Andrew Holmes, addressing a greenhouse conference in Hobart on October 27, claimed

“The costs to individuals can be high. It is therefore critical that as scientists and experts we stand together. The ability of scientists to conduct their work, free of fear or hindrance, is vital to the future wellbeing of our community, and the Academy will continue to advocate for academic freedom…  

“As the International Council for Science proclaims, the free and responsible practice of science is fundamental to scientific advancement and human and environmental well-being.“

I thought at first he was chastising the academics at University of Western Australia over their successful witchhunt against non-sceptic Bjorn Lomborg, or that he was chastising academics at University of Melbourne for wanting punitive fines to drive sceptics out of the media. Or maybe rebuking US academic peers who wanted sceptic corporations to be prosecuted under the Racketeering and Corrupting Influences Act (that exercise backfired spectacularly). But I erred, Holmes’ victimology includes only orthodox climate scientists as its purported casualties.


Matt Ridley: The Climate Wars And The Damage To Science
Global Warming Policy Foundation, 5 November 2015

Matt-RidleyAt the heart of the debate about climate change is a simple scientific question: can a doubling of the concentration of a normally harmless, indeed moderately beneficial, gas, from 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.06% of the atmosphere over the course of a century change the global climate sufficiently to require drastic and painful political action today? In the end, that’s what this is all about. Most scientists close enough to the topic say: possibly. Some say: definitely. Some say: highly unlikely. The ‘consensus’ answer is that the warming could be anything from mildly beneficial to dangerously harmful: that’s what the IPCC means when it quotes a range of plausible outcomes from 1.5 to 4 degrees of warming.

On the basis of this unsettled scientific question, politicians and most of the pressure groups that surround them are furiously insistent that any answer to the question other than ‘definitely’ is vile heresy motivated by self-interest, and is so disgraceful as to require stamping out, prosecution as a crime against humanity, investigation under laws designed to catch racketeering by organized crime syndicates, or possibly the suspension of democracy. For yes, that is what has been repeatedly proposed by respected and senior figures in the climate debate.


Via Benny Peiser at GWPF


Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. –Harry S. Truman, Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, 8 August 1950



Friends of Science Society have a new billboard campaign – “Say NO to Climate CO2 Coercion” aimed at the upcoming COP-21 climate change talks that countries like Poland may agree with, as reported by Reuters, Oct. 13, 2015. The “Conference of the Parties” (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are meeting for the 21st time will meet in Paris Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, 2015, to try and hash out an international agreement on carbon dioxide reductions, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says causes global warming, despite reporting in 2013 that global warming was on ‘hiatus’ for 15 years (today more than 18 years), even though carbon dioxide concentrations had steeply risen.

Friends of Science Society propose in their report “Clear the Air in Paris” that non-OECD nations be required to meet pollution reduction standards similar to those Canada has met.

“From 1985 to 2011 Canada’s Industrial emissions of carbon monoxide emissions dropped 26%; carbon particulates dropped 44%; sulfur dioxide emissions dropped 69% while total economic output went up by 89%,” says Michelle Stirling, Communications Manager for Friends of Science. “All nations should have to meet such targets, including viable reclamation, which is the law here in Alberta.”

Friends of Science Society explains that carbon dioxide reduction schemes have led to disastrous consequences over the past 20 years, carbon dioxide concentration has only increased and pollution has not been equitably addressed.
The draft agreement of the COP-21 event now includes a clause creating an International Tribunal of Climate Justice, binding on developed nations, as Article 11, Option 2, in the Oct. 20, 13:30 hr. version of the draft agreement from Bonn.

Friends of Science Society asks what should the “climate justice penalty” be for the tragic outcomes of compliance with “low-carbon dioxide (CO2)” taken as if recommendations of the IPCC, some of which are described below.

The migrant crisis flooding Europe is reportedly driven by US EPA biofuel policies according to MIT Technology Review Aug. 13, 2013. Low-carbon ethanol production has moved megatons of corn for human and animal consumption off world markets, driving up food prices everywhere, leading to civil unrest.
As early as 2007, Jean Zeigler, UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to food called for a 5 year moratorium on biofuels, saying it is a ‘crime against humanity, as reported by the UN, Oct. 26, 2007. His voice went unheeded.

Likewise, the EU’s policies of stringent climate change targets have pushed millions of citizens into “heat-or-eat” poverty, as reported by E&E Jan. 3, 2014.

“Low-carbon” fuel policies led to the proliferation of diesel vehicles across Europe that emit less carbon dioxide, but emit toxic soot and nitrogen oxides, as reported in Bloomberg View of Sept. 23, 2015.

The Daily Mail, Jan. 26, 2011, reported that the people of Baotou, China now live in a toxic wasteland where rare earth minerals are mined for the magnets used in wind turbines, said to be low-carbon energy.
Google engineers have shown that wind turbines ‘simply won’t work’ and do not address climate change issues either, as reported in The Register of Nov. 21, 2014.

Friends of Science says citizens should demand that governments “Say NO to Climate CO2 coercion” of the COP-21 climate conference, saying the sun and other natural variables drive climate change, not carbon dioxide.

Posted Monday, 8 September 2014


In the fable about the boy who cried wolf the villagers quickly decided the boy was lying and ceased to respond to his alarms. It seems modern day journalists must be much more gullible than those ancient villagers. Every year for almost a half­century the news media have breathlessly reported alarmist claims of imminent threats to the existence of the Great Barrier Reef. Despite the fact that all have proved to be fictitious, trivial or short lived fluctuation of nature, the phony alarms never seem to lose credibility with news reporters or even provoke any investigation.

The latest such instance has involved uncritical propagation of alarmist claims regarding the threat from some additional dredging of an existing dredged shipping channel in connection with expansion of the coal loading terminal at Abbott Point in central Queensland. (See: BATTLE FOR THE REEF, reported by Marian Wilkinson and presented by Kerry O’Brien, broadcast on ABC 4 Corners Monday 18 August 2014) Only a modicum of investigation would reveal that all of the ports along the Queensland coast have been dredged and require periodic re­dredging to maintain their entrance channels. The GBR itself is many km offshore and no detriment to the reef attributable to coastal dredging has ever been documented. A scattering of low diversity inshore reefs does occur in the region but these are restricted to rocky outcrops where wave action prevents sediment build­up and these reefs are comprised of a limited range of silt tolerant coral species.


BBC pre-Paris spin: What is Climate Change?

Posted: October 23, 2015 by tallbloke in alarmism, bbcbias
Tags: ,

The BBC has a new article asking ‘What is Climate Change?’ There is much to criticise, although ‘sceptics’ do at least get a mention in regard to ‘the pause’, which is briefly mentioned in a paragraph far down the article. Have a look and post your thoughts below.

Heading the article there is a video about COP 21 which consists of a 1 minute pep-talk on how the UN Green blob intends to disrupt the world’s economies.


Note the BBC signature – black smoke being emitted from the water cooling towers.


Smoke from a California wildfire [image credit: BBC]

Smoke from a California wildfire [image credit: BBC]

Recent California governors like Schwarzenegger have portrayed themselves as leading the ‘green charge’ – whatever that is at the time – but this one seems to have lost the plot a bit. Details from the LA Times.

The ash of the Rocky fire was still hot when Gov. Jerry Brown strode to a bank of television cameras beside a blackened ridge and, flanked by firefighters, delivered a battle cry against climate change.


Re-blog of a post by Russell Cook on American Thinker

We’re told there is a moral imperative to stop catastrophicDnyer human-induced global warming, as seen in twin events last week where Pope Francis implied as much in his visit to the US, and within a letter signed by 20 scientists to President Obama imploring him to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to punish immoral “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.”

The operative word in these twin events is the word “trust.” Trust that the pope sought the advice of the whole range of experts on global warming, and trust what the authors of the RICO letter (viewable now only in archive form here, since it has been erased from its original online location) say in their second paragraph about extensively documented sources proving the corruption of those “corporations and other organizations”.

What happens if you attempt to verify if the situations are true? First, the pope is revealed to have received advice on the global warming issue from highly questionable individuals, and second, the RICO letter’s assertion about extensively documented corruption is revealed to be a literally unsupportable talking point.

Allow me to elaborate on that second problem.


Climate-FundingOh dear, it seems the US house Science, Space, and Technology Committee takes a dim view of partisan scientists publicly funded with $63million since 2001 trying to get climate sceptics imprisoned under the RICO act…

Space Ref, 1 October 2015
Washington, D.C. – Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today sent a letter to Dr. Jagadish Shukla, a professor of climate dynamics at George Mason University who founded the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES).

IGES is a non-profit organization that has received millions of dollars in federal grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA.


goldman-sachsTake a deep breath and make some fresh coffee, this is a long post. We’ll start at the same source the original ‘follow the money’ post was drawn from, two days before my house was raided by the climate cops: the climategate emails.

date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:00:38 +010 ???
from: Trevor Davies <???>
subject: goldman-sachs
to: ???@uea,???@uea,???@uea


We (Mike H) have done a modest amount of work on degree-days for G-S. They
now want to extend this. They are involved in dealing in the developing
energy futures market.

G-S is the sort of company that we might be looking for a ‘strategic
alliance’ with. I suggest the four of us meet with ?? (forgotten his name)
for an hour on the afternoon of Friday 12 June (best guess for Phil & Jean
– he needs a date from us). Thanks.


Professor Trevor D. Davies
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom

Goldman Sachs is an investment banking house with a long history of trying to influence democratically elected governments fiscal, energy and climate policy with its placemen. They lost a lot of cash in the 2007 banking crash, and now they want to cash in on the potential $20T ‘global carbon dioxide market’ to recoup their losses, and make some handsome profits.


Tony Thomas: The warmists’ golden fleece

Posted: September 27, 2015 by tallbloke in alarmism

By Tony Thomas. Originally published at Quadrant Online.

When a trace gas and plant food is denounced as a pollutant, it comes as no surprise that a cabal of climate careerists is calling for sceptics to be charged and, presumably, jailed. Much better to silence doubters than have them draw attention to money-grubbing nepotism and careerist corruptions

The global warming community has stepped up its call for the prosecution of sceptics. The latest: 20 US scientists wrote this month to  President Obama calling for prosecutions of sceptics under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), previously used against the mafia and the tobacco industry (for suppressing evidence of dangers of smoking).

This letter has become an own-goal for two of the signatories, who have been double-dipping  big-dollar salaries from their government-funded climate foundation, additional to their salaries as professors.


Met Office does claiming more extreme

Posted: September 25, 2015 by tchannon in alarmism, Analysis, weather

Collecting valid data is hard. Paul Homewood has highlighted a Met Office report for 2014, produced it seems September 2015. If that is true, no rush, get it right.


— From State of the UK climate 2014

ImageFigure 1. Difference between two datasets of more or less the same thing. The red linear trend line is hinting there is dataset drift.

Oh yes definitely more severe weather..

Snag, this is Met Office data against Met Office data.



Fred Singer

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Letters to the Editor:

Coverup in the Greenhouse? Wall Street Journal; New York; Jul 11, 1996;
Edition: Eastern edition Start Page: A15 ISSN: 00999660 Abstract:

My June 12 editorial-page article “A Major Deception on Global Warming” presents facts indicating that Benjamin D. Santer, and possibly others, made major unauthorized changes in a key technical chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report after that report had b,een accepted by governments. The consequence of these changes was to delete the expressions of skepticism with which many scientists react to global warming claims. Dr. Santer’s June 25 Letter to the Editor in reply attempts to confuse the basic issue: Was the scientific report changed after the governments had formally approved it?


Not the John Wayne classic

Not the John Wayne classic

You have to laugh – doesn’t this man have a country to run? Mashable lets its imagination run wild.

It’s official: POTUS is going to be on Running Wild with Bear Grylls. NBC’s press release about the show was relatively vague; we know the episode will take place in Alaska and focus on climate change’s effects on the area, but not much else.

So we couldn’t help but imagine what President Obama will be doing with the survivalist.