By Eric Worrall – Re-Blogged From WUWT
The Aussie Government ABC says there is nothing special about human beings.
The human race is not special. So why do we think we’re immune to mass extinction?
By Geoff Dawson
Could we face a mass extinction of human beings in our lifetime?
As global temperatures rise and this summer’s bushfires devastate the Australian landscape, it’s a worst-case scenario that is beginning to be seriously discussed.
The rapid spread of the coronavirus in recent weeks has also escalated the anxiety that people feel about their mortality.
Google says many people ask this question so here is the correct answer: polar bears are not going extinct. If you have been told that, you have misunderstood or have been misinformed. Polar bears are well-distributed across their available habitat and population numbers are high (officially 22,000-31,000 at 2015 but likely closer to 26,000-58,000 at 2018): these are features of a healthy, thriving species. ‘Why are polar bears going extinct?’ contains a false premise – there is no need to ask ‘why’ when the ‘polar bears [are] going extinct’ part is not true.1
Start learning the deep details of the science and economics instead of letting extremists dictate what you’re allowed to think or say.
Last year was the year the climate issue took a sharp turn towards extremism. Let’s hope 2020 is the year sanity makes a comeback.
There have long been three groups occupying the climate issue. To avoid pejoratives, I will call them A, B and C.
The A group are the doubters. They don’t believe greenhouse gases (GHGs) do much harm and they don’t support expensive climate-policy interventions. If we must choose between climate policy and the continued use of inexpensive fossil energy, they readily choose the latter.
[For those of you who don’t know what ClimateGate is, look over the documents and other material at: https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ –Bob]
By Judith Curry – Re-Blogged From WUWT
My reflections on Climategate 10 years later, and also reflections on my reflections of 5 years ago.
Last week, an email from Rob Bradley reminded me of my previous blog post The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later. That post was the last in a sequence of posts at Climate Etc. since 2010 on Climategate; for the entire group of posts, see [link] Rereading these was quite a blast from the past.
While I still mention Climategate in interviews, the general reaction I get is ‘yawn . . . old hat . . . so 2010 . . . nothingburger . . . the scientists were all exonerated . . . the science has proven to be robust.’ I hadn’t even thought of a ’10 years later’ post until Rob Bradley’s email.
By Eric Worrall – Re-Blogged From WUWT
President Vladimir Putin has dismissed Greta Thunberg’s climate crusade, suggesting she has no idea of the cost of what she is demanding.
“I may disappoint you but I do not share everyone’s enthusiasm about Greta Thunberg’s speech [to the UN]. You know, the fact that young people, teenagers pay attention to the acute problems of the modern world, including ecology. That is right and very good. We need to support them. But when somebody uses children and teenagers in their own interests it deserves to be condemned.
Nobody explained to Greta that the modern world is complicated, and complex, and it changes fast. People in Africa and in many Asian countries want to be as wealthy as people in Sweden. How can it be done? By making them use solar energy which is plentiful in Africa? Has anyone explained the cost of it?”
By Mike Jonas – Re-Blogged From WUWT
I recently had a (fairly short) conversation with an acquaintance, who was stunned to discover that I did not think at all highly of the position that Professors Terry Hughes and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg at James Cook University, Queensland, have taken on coral science and the Great Barrier Reef.
“Have you seen the documentary Chasing Coral?” I was asked, “There seems to be a lot of evidence that the reef is dying.” (or words to that effect).
I agreed to watch the documentary (if I’d known it went for a whole hour I might not have agreed so readily), and to report back when we next happened to be at the local cafe at the same time – an event which occurs from time to time. A bit like coral bleaching, perhaps.
By Willis Eschenbach – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Charles the Moderator has been doing a fantastic job of keeping WUWT humming along, and deserves everyone’s thanks. Today he sent me an interesting article thinking I might want to comment on it. It has the usual kind of alarmist headline, viz:
Greenland lost 11 billion tons of surface ice in one day
YIKES! EVERYONE PANIC!
Now, I’ve gotta admit that that sounds like a lot of ice, eleven billion with a “b” tonnes melted in one single day. However, I’m a tropical boy, so I’m kinda prejudiced in these matters. Here’s my conflict of interest statement. When I’m in a place where the ice jumps up out of my adult beverage and starts running around the landscape, I consider that to be “water behaving badly” whether it’s one cube or eleven billion tonnes, and I try to avoid such locations … but I digress.
By Vijay Jayaraj – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is fairly popular. Even people in far eastern countries like India and Australia know about it.
But little do we hear about Climate-Change Derangement Syndrome (CCDS) and another new syndrome emerging from it.
CCDS is a behavioral pattern in which a section of our society responds irrationally to any trend in global temperatures that contradicts its narrative of a dangerous rise in global temperatures, without regard to the actual data.
The Week That Was: May 30, 2015- Brought to You by www.sepp.org
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Climate and Health – Lancet: The British medical journal Lancet released what is billed as the most comprehensive study on the relationship between temperature extremes and human mortality. According to the abstract: “Although studies have provided estimates of premature deaths attributable to either heat or cold in selected countries, none has so far offered a systematic assessment across the whole temperature range in populations exposed to different climates. We aimed to quantify the total mortality burden attributable to non-optimum ambient temperature, and the relative contributions from heat and cold and from moderate and extreme temperatures.
By Paul Driessen- Re-Blogged From http://www.cfact.org
Russian President Vladimir Putin is outraged that the United States has indicted 14 FIFA soccer officials, accusing them of corruption, racketeering, fraud and conspiracy, involving bribes totaling over $150 million in kickbacks for awarding tournament rights. He says the US is meddling in Russian affairs and plotting to steal the 2018 World Cup from his country. What chutzpah.
By Howard Lowe – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Mother Earth is a dynamic place, constantly changing and evolving. Although it operates in a cyclical manner, the major cycles are not short, falling into a time frame of thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of years. We know that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west on a regular 24-hour cycle, but times vary depending on the season of the year. The Earth revolves around the Sun, and the Moon around the Earth, all in a cyclical predictable manner. These phenomena have always intrigued man leading him to seek more knowledge about his surroundings, about the star-filled skies, about his origin, about the future.
Guest opinion by Paul Driessen – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Will Congress, media examine government, environmentalist and university alarmist funding?
Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA), other senators and Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) recently sent letters to institutions that employ or support climate change researchers whose work questions claims that Earth and humanity face unprecedented manmade climate change catastrophes.
The letters allege that the targeted researchers may have “conflicts of interest” or may not have fully disclosed corporate funding sources. They say such researchers may have testified before congressional committees, written articles or spoken at conferences, emphasizing the role of natural forces in climate change, or questioning evidence and computer models that emphasize predominantly human causes.
Josh writes: Here are the cartoon notes of a riveting talk given by Dr Christopher Essex last Wednesday,11th Feb, in the House of Lords, UK Parliament. Chris is Chairman, Permanent Monitoring Panel on Climate, World Federation of Scientists, and Professor and Associate Chair, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Canada. He is also co-author, with Ross McKitrick, of the book Taken by Storm.
Climate Models are crap! For example, they didn’t forecast any chance of a zero global temperature rise during the last 18 years 1 month, which has occurred. Read the analysis below.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
One of the most interesting statistics from the recent mid-terms was the New York Times’ exit poll (Fig. 1), showing that more than two-thirds of “Democrat” voters thought climate change was a serious problem. Five-sixths of Republicans didn’t.
Figure 1. The New York Times’ exit poll showing the partisan divide on climate.
Put this interesting statistic with another interesting statistic: the growth in the CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. In 1988, the year in which IPeCaC was founded and James Hansen first bleated about the imagined threat of “global warming” before Congress after Senator Tim Wirth had had the air-conditioning turned off in the hearing room, the world emitted 22 million tonnes of CO2 a year.
In 2013, just 25 years later, 35 million tonnes of CO2 were emitted. For all the chatter about the need to cut CO2 emissions, for all…
View original post 2,180 more words
The IPCC has use many models to try to predict future global temperatures. To date, these models have done a lousy job, not even being able to predict the past climate fluctuations. Worst of all, the IPCC and the rest of the CAGW Alarmism industry have ignored the numerous natural variation explanations.
One of these lines of thought is ENSO – the El Nino/Southern Oscillation. Let’s look briefly at each of the parts.
The federal government spent $22 Billion in 2013 ($165 Billion cumulative total) on global warming research grants, subsidies, junkets, etc. Global warming alarmism is being used to justify an anti-energy policy which is hurting all Americans, especially the poor.
The Models are the centerpiece that all the Alarmists point to, to “prove” that their vision of the end of the world is coming, are hopelessly lousy.