Archive for the ‘alarmism’ Category

Matt Ridley’s 2016 Annual GWPF Lecture

Posted: October 18, 2016 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, IPCC

Matt Ridley runs through some of climate science’s main weaknesses, to put it politely.


By Paul Homewood

Matt Ridley has given the 2016 Annual GWPF lecture at the Royal Society. I strongly suggest you bookmark it, as it is a comprehensive condemnation of current climate policies:

View original post 1,853 more words

Booker Exposes Wadhams’ Crackpot Theories

Posted: October 3, 2016 by oldbrew in alarmism, sea ice

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Arctic ice scare merchants are fast running out of credibility in the face of the inconvenient – for them – facts.


Booker in the Telegraph today:

I know it is only two weeks since I last reported on Arctic ice, but the latest news from that front is even more remarkable. My theme then was those sad climate activists who regularly venture into the polar regions because they have been fooled into thinking that the ice is vanishing but find it so thick that they have to be rushed back to safety. But this week’s focus is on those responsible for fooling them.

For nine years, two professors – Wieslaw Maslowski from California and Peter Wadhams from Cambridge – have been in the forefront of warning that, thanks to runaway global warming, the Arctic will soon be “ice-free”. Their every dire prediction has been eagerly reported by the warmist media, led by the BBC, In 2007 they said this would happen “by 2013”.

In July 2008 The Independent even devoted its…

View original post 261 more words

Excellent. So climate alarmists trumpeting Arctic ice melt are prone to farcical exaggeration at least, utter rubbish at worst. Who knew?

Trust, yet verify

Two posts ago, on the subject of another claim of an ice-free Arctic published in the Guardian, the discussion arose whether the journalist realized that he quoted someone with a poor track record in that matter. Commenter Chrism56 alerted me that the journalist (Robin McKie) already had written articles in the past on this subject, so he should have known that there were issues with the credibility of this claim.

The link that was provided went to an article from 2008 in which McKie reported about the claim of an ice-free Arctic that back then was expected five years further in the future.

McKie 2008-08-10

The claim was made by Serreze, Maslowski and Wadhams. Apparently he should know about the botched prediction in the meanwhile.

I became curious whether there were more articles written by McKie on this topic and also how he wrote about it in say 2013, when it became…

View original post 1,145 more words

Once again it turns out that polar bears are more resilient to low summer sea ice conditions than experts assumed. Maybe they should look for some other supposed problem to highlight.


The annual Arctic sea ice minimum for 2016 is imminent and the hand-wringing about polar bear survival has already begun. While this year is shaping up to be another very low sea ice minimum in the Arctic – not as low as 2012 but lower than 2007 (previously the 2nd lowest since 1979) – contrary to predictions, several recent studies show that such low sea ice coverage in summer has had no (or very limited) negative effects on polar bear health and survival. In fact, for polar bears in some areas low summer sea ice has been quite beneficial (although these are not the populations that polar bear specialists predicted would do better).

polar_thin_ice Jessica Robertson_USGS

Since low summer extents of recent magnitude (3.0 – 5.0 mkm2) are clearly not any sort of threat to polar bears, it seems improbable that even an ice-free (≤ 1.0 mkm2) summer (e.g…

View original post 3,219 more words

By Viv Forbes

For at least 21 years now, the U.N. and the IPCC have been ringmaster to a troupe of thousands. They perform at massive annual conferences held in exotic locations, serviced by top hotels and airlines, and funded largely, directly or indirectly, by reluctant taxpayers. 

An estimated 45,000 attendees, including 114 from the Australian government, achieved nothing useful at Copenhagen and just more green tape in Paris. Each of these climate-fests is preceded by numerous meetings of bureaucrats drafting and redrafting their wish lists.

Now the U.N. Climateer-in-Chief, Ban Ki-moon, has jetted into the G20 summit in China to claim climate victory over climate skeptics.

Is there no end to this energy-wasting climate tourism? If they believe that the science is settled, no more conferences are needed.


It’s getting tougher every year for ‘warmists’ to dream up climate scare stories that aren’t obviously just that.

American Elephants

ocean waves
James Delingpole, British writer, rants regularly at Breitbart about the utter goofiness of the world’s climate true believers.  He wrote today about a  climate “science” scam  that keeps on rearing its ugly head, in spite of being debunked thoroughly over and over.

Aside from the need to debunk once more, it’s a classic example of the workings of climate science. In this case, one of Delingpole’s articles was supposedly debunked in The Marine Biologist(the magazine of the marine biologist community). He wrote:

There was a time when I would have just ignored it: the guy who wrote it – one Phil Williamson – is the embodiment of Upton Sinclair’s dictum that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Not only is Williamson based at the “University” of East Anglia – aka Climate Alarmism Central, heavily featured in the Climategate scandal…

View original post 292 more words

Ah, natural variability – the curse of the fanatical warmist.
They don’t understand it and don’t want to believe it exists.
But it does, so they’ll have to put up with it.


By Paul Homewood


From the Daily Caller:

Antarctica has confounded scientists, defying the dire predictions of scientists the South Pole would shrink and exacerbate sea level rise in the coming decades.

Climate models predicted Antarctic sea ice would shrink as the world warmed, and that warming would boost snowfall over the southern continent. Neither of those predictions have panned out, and now scientists say “natural variability” is overwhelming human-induced warming.

“Truth is, the science is complex, and that in most places and with most events, natural variability still plays a dominant role, and undoubtedly will continue to do so,” Chip Knappenberger, a climate scientist with the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“This applies to goings-on in Antarctica as well as in Louisiana,” Knappenberger said, referring to the recent flooding in Louisiana activists have already blamed global warming for.

What recent studies have shown is that…

View original post 856 more words

Michael_HartInterview at Lifesitenews with Michael Hart.

Michael Hart is a former official in Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and now emeritus professor of international affairs at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, where he has taught courses on the laws and institutions of international trade, Canadian foreign policy, and the politics of climate change. He held the Fulbright-Woodrow Wilson Center Visiting Research Chair in Canada-U.S. Relations and was Scholar-in-Residence in the School of International Service, Senior Fellow at American University in Washington, and is the founder and director emeritus of Carleton University’s Centre for Trade Policy and Law. In addition, he has taught courses in several other countries. He is the author, editor, or co-editor of more than a dozen books and several hundred articles.

LifeSiteNews interviewed him during a conference on Catholic Perspectives on the Environment, sponsored by the Wojtyla Institute for Teachers, held at Our Lady Seat of Wisdom in Barry’s Bay, Ontario, August  4-6, 2016.

1)  Professor Hart, your book Hubris: The Troubling Science, Economics, and Politics of Climate Change, has recently been published. In it, you challenge a worldwide project that has become something of a sacred cow. Can you tell our readers what motivated you to begin your research into the subject?

I was initially motivated by questions from my students – and my wife – about the policy implications of climate change. The more I looked into it, however, the more I learned the extent to which it fit with one of my research interests: the extent to which modern health, safety, and environmental regulatory activity relies on poor science advanced by activists to push an agenda. I learned that both domestic and international actors had succeeded in using the poorly understood science of climate change to advance an ambitious environmental agenda focused on increasing centralized control over people’s daily lives.


Climate obsessives never know when to stop being ridiculous.

American Elephants

California is sliding slowly into the abyss. It’s not enough that 9,000 companies have packed up and moved to more tax-friendly states. The Bay Area is so expensive that few can afford to live there. Progressives run the place like their own personal slot machine.

The California Air Resources Board has issued regulations to cut the state’s greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, but the board is getting worried about their climate agenda. It could all be ruined by natural phenomena.They’ve gone after the oil producers, the manufacturers and now they are going after the cows.

It’s methane, which”according to the board is a ‘short-lived climate pollutant with an outsized impact on climate change in the near term.” ” “Cow manure and ‘enteric fermentation’ (flatulence) account for half of the state’s methane emissions.”

“If dairy farms in California were to manage manure in a way to further reduce methane…

View original post 264 more words


#Brexit and climate scaremonger and soon, we suspect, not to be IMF chief, Christine Lagarde is to stand trial over a 404 million euro payment of taxpayers money to controversial tycoon Bernard Tapie, who supported former president Nicolas Sarkozy.

Lagarde, who famously said we’d all be “Roasted, Toasted, Fried and Grilled” by global warming, more recently boosted her reputation for chronically incorrect exaggerations by predicting that a Brexit vote would be “bad or very bad” for the UK economy. The FTSE100 reached a new record high yesterday.

Expect updates on this one folks.



Post referendum analysis from Rodney Atkinson at

One of the most obnoxious features of the post Brexit climate is that the biggest liars and doom mongers in political history – the Remain campaigners – now accuse Leave Campaigners of lying! This has been picked up in continental attacks on Boris Johnson who, if anything, was rather kind and accommodating given the damage done to people, banks and businesses by the Euro corporatist elites. Now those liars are exposing their own lies:


Before the Brexit vote the IMF head, Christine Lagarde (whose appointment was avidly supported by George Osborne) said that the impact on the UK economy of a Brexit vote went from “pretty bad to very, very bad” and that there could be a recession.

Today the IMF says it has a “benign” view of the Brexit effect on the UK economy, there would be no recession and their revised forecast for UK growth is the same as their revised forecast for USA growth (-0.2% for 2016). Their forecast for UK growth in 2017 is 1.3%


Yet another polar bear alarm bites the dust.


All the hubris last month about polar bear x grizzly hybrids, based on an unusual-looking bear killed near Arviat, has turned out to be wishful thinking by those who’d like to blame everything to do with polar bears on climate change. An awful lot of “experts” now have egg on their faces. That “hybrid” was just a blonde grizzly, as I warned it might.

grizzly-polar-bear-hybrid_Arviat 2016 Didji Ishalook

According to one report,Nunavut wildlife manager Mathieu Dumond said:

“Some otherwise pretty renown bear biologists jumped on the hybrid bear story without even knowing what they were talking about,” Dumond said.

“I think it was something blown out of proportion, with the wrong information to start.”

Gee, ya think? CBC ran a story too. But the CBC don’t really admit (see below) that they were the first out of the gate on this story and started the media madness. It was the CBC that relied…

View original post 695 more words


From Quadrant online, another great essay by Walter Starck on the Great Barrier Reef and the alarm industry shills conniving to defraud the public with scare stories about it.

Virtually every year for the past half-century news reports have bannered dire proclamations by “reef experts” on imminent “threats” to the Great Barrier Reef. This has sustained an ongoing, ever-growing charade of “research” and “management” aimed at saving the reef from a litany of hypothetical threats conjured up by a salvation industry which now costs taxpayers over $100 million annually. Although none of these “threats” have ever proven to be anything other than hypothetical possibilities or  temporary fluctuations of nature, the doomsters never cease to rummage through their litany of concerns to find something they can present as urgent in order to keep the funding flowing.


Science under stress?[image credit:]

Science under stress?[image credit:]

The Financial Post’s Junk Science Week stirs up the debate.

Science is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Just about everything we take for granted in modern science, from the use of big data to computer models of major parts of our social, economic and natural environment and on to the often absurd uses of statistical methods to fish for predetermined conclusions.


It’s not hard to imagine Lamar Smith is getting some serious inside info from somebody somewhere, to convince him to pursue an ‘unpopular’ (with climate fanatics) line of enquiry.


By Paul Homewood


Climate Change Dispatch have a good guest post from Steven Capozzola about Lamar Smith’s investigation of NOAA’s “Pausebuster” data fiddling:

Reading the news lately, one might think that Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is some sort of backwards character from the 19th century, a “member of the Flat Earth Society.” So great is the venom directed at him that the UK’s Guardian has referred to him as a “Witch Hunter.”

lamar smith

But what exactly is Smith’s crime?

Under his authority as chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, he’s chosen to investigate the research methods of the taxpayer-funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Last year, NOAA released a study that found there has been no “pause” in recent global warming. Because the findings contradict every other set of observed data on global temperatures, and were issued ahead of the Paris Climate summit, Smith wants to…

View original post 769 more words

At Quadrant we respect winners, so hats off to newly-elected Australian Academy of Science Fellows, Professors Neville Nicholls and Ian Allison. Both are climate catastrophists, each seemingly oblivious to the empirical research which has downgraded the CO2 climate-sensitivity guesstimate (i.e. positive feedback number) from the IPCC’s 1.5-4.5 times to barely more than unity.

These real-world observations suggest that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels would generate, all things being equal, a beneficial increase of about 1degC in warming, not the supposed life-frying 4-6deg rise by 2100 on which the whole multi-trillion-dollar climate scare is based.

The IPCC’s fantasy figure for sensitivity to CO2 is one of the reasons why 111 of its 114 climate model runs  over-estimated the negligible warming in the 15 years to 2013. However, the main reason why the climate models are duds is that the very notion of complex and chaotic climate forces being controlled by a simple CO2-emissions dial is laughable.[1]


The Green Blob identifies itself

Posted: June 1, 2016 by oldbrew in alarmism, greenblob, propaganda

Green blob [credit:]

Green blob [credit:]

Website Climate Scepticism offers a ‘helpful map’ of some of the main players in the shadowy network of climate alarmism. Time for a spot of map reading…

In July 2014, MP and former environment secretary Owen Paterson introduced the term “Green Blob”: ‘I leave the post with great misgivings about the power and irresponsibility of – to coin a phrase – the Green Blob.’

Until now, the exact make-up of the “mutually supportive network” of the Green Blob was not entirely clear, but recently its identity and structure has been nicely illustrated by an unexpected source – a member of the Green Blob itself.


Looks like we’ll be stuck in an age of un-enlightenment at least until the planet cools down a bit.
Tim Cullen puts us in the picture.


Ian Plimer - Not For The Greens

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome, in the Green Corner, the caped crusaders fighting for climate justice and A New American Dark Age.

In a move spearheaded by environmentalists, the Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution aimed at eliminating doubt of climate change and its causes in schools.

“It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis,” said Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux in board testimony. “Climate education is not a niche or a specialization, it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.”

The resolution passed Tuesday evening calls for the school district to get rid of textbooks or other materials that cast doubt on whether climate change is occurring and that the activity of human beings is responsible. The resolution also directs the superintendent and…

View original post 750 more words


Andrea Leadsom MP

From the Daily mail:

In March Energy Minister Amber Fudd claimed energy bills would soar by £500 million a year if we left the EU, adding: ‘The thing about the gas market is you don’t know what shocks and what changes there can be to it.’

But in a remarkable rebuttal to her boss’s claims, Ms Leadsom said today that Brexit would threaten ‘absolutely none’ of the three ‘critical considerations’ at the forefront of Britain’s energy policy.

‘Leaving the EU will give us freedom to keep bills down, to meet our climate change targets in the cheapest way possible, and of course, keep the lights on,’ she said in a speech in central London.

Under the European Commission’s ‘Winter Package’ proposals all 28 EU member states would ‘take on legal responsibility for each other’s gas security’.

This would ensure that EU member states that face having their gas supplies cut – due to political disputes with countries such as Russia or contracts expiring, for example, – would see its gas supplies guaranteed by fellow member states.

Setting out the ‘real threat out continued membership of the EU will have on our energy security,’ Ms Leadsom said: ‘The European Commission’s ‘Winter Package’, contains a number of proposals which make painfully clear the direction of travel in EU energy policy.

‘Two of those suggestions pose a potential threat to our continued energy security.



David Cameron’s #projectfear uses a well know psychological technique called loss aversion. Wiki:

In economics and decision theory, loss aversion refers to people’s tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. Most studies suggest that losses are twice as powerful, psychologically, as gains.[1] Loss aversion was first demonstrated by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.[2]

This leads to risk aversion when people evaluate an outcome comprising similar gains and losses; since people prefer avoiding losses to making gains.

This is why politicians always say in advance they will “run a positive campaign” but then end up running a negative one – fear of downsides outsides potential benefits of upsides in the average person’s mind.

That’s also why entrepreneurs, inventors and explorers tend to be in the vanguard of the Leave campaign – they don’t allow irrational fear of small risks to keep them from trying for the big prize.