Major Change in the Global Warming Groupthink

By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Somebody said economists try to predict the tide by measuring one wave. This puts them in the same league as climate scientists trying to predict the climate by measuring one variable, CO2. It is no surprise that an amalgam of the two, climate and economics, produces even worse results, but that is what happened early in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deception.

The 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report was, under the circumstances, a reasonable document within the bounds of what it set out to achieve. Yes, it was limited to only human causes of climate change by the definition given to it by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Yes, it was bureaucratically controlled by its creation through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Yes, it was built on a system that seemed to predetermine the outcome. Still, the overall Report provides a reasonable attempt to create an historical context for the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #325

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org The Science and Environmental Policy Project

By Ken Haapala, President

Heartland Energy Conference: Among the many excellent presentation at the 2018 America First Energy Conference held by The Heartland Institute, perhaps the most revealing was by Joe Leimkuhler, Vice President for Drilling for the company LLOG, L.L.C. He explained how the production has been changing over the past ten years and what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico, where extent of resources has been a mystery for years. As explained by Leimkuhler, several myths are prevenient about the oil industry, in general. These myths include:

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #324

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org The Science and Environmental Policy Project

By Ken Haapala, President

Group Think-Bureaucratic Science: Last week’s TWTW discussed Judith Curry’s review of a rather remarkable paper by retired MIT professor Carl Wunsch, who participated in 1979 report “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment,” headed by Jule Charney. The findings in Charney Report have become the core reasoning for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and many US government actions, including the EPA’s illogical finding that carbon dioxide endangers human health and welfare.

Continue reading

Climatology’s Startling Error – An Update

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Well, we sent out our paper On an error in defining temperature feedback to a leading journal for review. The reviewers did not like it at all. “And, gracious! How Lord Lundy cried!”

clip_image002

We are persevering, though, for in our submission nothing the reviewers have said in any way undermines the scientific validity of our result, which I outlined here in a series some months back.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #323

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org The Science and Environmental Policy Project

By Ken Haapala, President,  (SEPP)

The Next Cooling: SEPP Chairman emeritus Fred Singer has an article published in the American Thinker on the next ice age and what can be done to possibly prevent it. After dismissing the political notions of nuclear winter, he presents evidence that we live in a geological age of Ice Ages. [The estimated temperatures during the last significant ice age are about 6ºC (about 12ºF) below current temperatures.]

Given the frequent announcements of dangerous global warming by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and their followers, it is easy to overlook that possible cooling is real and dangerous to humanity. During the mild cooling, known as the Little Ice Age, hundreds of thousands died of famine and related diseases in Europe. Contrary to the IPCC and its followers, evidence of the cooling is found in Western Hemisphere, Asia and elsewhere.

Continue reading

Sacred Peer-Review Takes a Big Hit

Re-Blogged From CFACT

Global warming alarmists suffered a big hit this week in their effort to deify shoddy “peer-reviewed” climate papers. Stanford University medical professor John Ioannidis, in an interview with Agence France Presse (AFP), blew the lid off the trustworthiness of the peer-review process.

When the alarmist community seeks to push a new argument or messaging strategy in the global warming debate, they first have one of their pseudo-scientists write an article for publication in a compromised peer-reviewed journal. The political left has infiltrated and taken over most science journals that address political hot topics, much as they have taken over most of the “mainstream” news media. This is especially the case regarding global warming issues. As the leaked Climategate emails revealed, editors of science journals typically are prominent alarmists or deliberately coordinate with prominent alarmists in the selection of articles and messaging (see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review). The “peer-review process” typically involves the editor sending a submitted article to a team of reviewers who are outspoken climate activists. After the paper is published, global warming activists and their media allies typically cite the peer-reviewed nature of the paper as evidence that its conclusions are infallible. Any who question the methodology or alarmist conclusions are then labeled science deniers.

Continue reading

The IPCC; Never Has So Much Been Made Out of So Little by So Many at So Great A Cost

(Apologies to Winston Churchill the brave Battle of Britain people.)

By Dr. Tim Ball- Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the people who formulated the structure that directed their research, constantly manipulated the data and the methods to predetermine the results. It began with the definition of climate change given to them as Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This involved overstating and misrepresenting the amount of atmospheric CO2 currently, and in the past. It also included misrepresentation of its movement through the so-called carbon cycle.

You can pick any segment of the Carbon Cycle they show in Figure 1 (Their Figure 6-1, Fifth Assessment Report) and none of it is based on actual measures, that is real data; everything is an estimate and can’t qualify even as an educated guess.

clip_image002

Figure 1

Continue reading