Stop the Personal Attacks and Answer the Climate Questions

By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From WUWT

When you realize you are losing an argument, it is common to abandon the argument and attack the person. It is one of many forms of arguments called ad hominem, or to the person. A disagreement between two people makes an ad hominem argument easy to notice. The loser and the winner are clear, and a shift in the tone and focus of the discussion is relatively apparent.

The structure and method chosen to create the myth of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) guaranteed an ad hominem situation. The evidence against the hypothesis was overwhelming from the start. The only question was left academic. Can you have a collective ad hominem, that is a personal attack on a group, or does it only apply to an attack on an individual? The answer is not about the number but the nature of the attack. When it is an individual, the attack occurs because the debate on the issue is lost, and that is true when it is a group.

Continue reading


Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #332

Brought to You by, The Science and Environmental Policy Project

By Ken Haapala, President

Specific Problems in IPCC Science: New Zealand is one country whose politicians have accepted the questionable science of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As such, the government is implementing measures that are destructive to the livestock industry, primarily cattle and sheep, based on hollow calculations by the IPCC – that is, calculations that have little meaning, no matter how precise. The calculations are on the greenhouse warming potential (GWP) of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), which are calculated to comprise 50% of New Zealand’s emissions of greenhouse gases. These actions illustrate how acceptance of the shoddy science of the IPCC by government entities can become economically destructive to westernized nations.

Continue reading

Empirical Evidence Shows Temperature Increases Before CO2 Increase

By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From WUWT

The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase. Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?

The most important assumption behind the hypothesis that human activities are causing global warming is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The assumption became almost the total focus of the IPCC because of the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #316

By Ken Haapala, President

Brought to You by The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Constant, Not Accelerating: On May 16, SEPP Chairman emeritus S. Fred Singer had an essay in the Wall Street Journal explaining why there is little humanity and governments can do to stop the constant rate of sea level rise. Unfortunately, in the print edition, the sentence “But there is also good data showing sea levels are in fact rising at a constant rate,” was muddled into reading “But there is also good data showing sea levels are in fact rising at an accelerating rate.” [Boldface added]. The error was corrected in the online editions. The central issue of Singer’s essay is” that sea-level rise does not depend on the use of fossil fuels.”

Continue reading

The Biggest Deception in the Human Caused Global Warming Deception

By  Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From

It is likely that every year annual variance in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere exceeds the warming effects of human CO2. I can’t prove it, but nobody can disprove it with any reasonable measure of evidence because there is insufficient data or understanding of natural processes. However, it is likely true, and alone destroys the human-caused global warming (AGW) narrative. This is one reason why AGW is the biggest, most pervasive, and longest lasting ‘fake news’ story to date. It is also a ‘deep state’ story created and perpetuated by and through the bureaucracies.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #252

The Week That Was – Dec 16, 2016 – Brought to You by

By Ken Haapala, President Science and Environmental Policy Project

Data Manipulation: As twice-elected president of a science society formed in 1871, with early members important to the beginning of climate measurements covering the US, this author has been very concerned with the manipulation of historic data that seems to have taken place over the past few decades. In effect, a warming trend seems to have been established in the data where one did not exist before. As we saw during Climategate, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia “lost” historic data when data was mathematically adjusted.

Similarly, as researchers Joe D’Aleo and Tony Heller have demonstrated, the data entrusted to NOAA; and its subordinate organizations the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC); seem to have been manipulated to give the illusion of a warming trend by lowering the earlier data. Now, Paul Homewood, of the UK, points out that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS) has changed its own data since 2011 without notification as to why. The adjustments to its December 2016 version give the illusion of a stronger warming trend than existed in their 2011 data.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #234

The Week That Was: July30, 2016 – Brought to You by

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Accusation Is Evidence? Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) claims he is seeking evidence of wrongful influence by Exxon for raising doubt that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary cause of global warming, now called climate change. He claims he is not suppressing scientific inquiry, or freedom of speech, but merely seeking evidence. The question is what constitutes evidence to Senator Whitehouse and his group. Is it direct physical evidence, such as comprehensive temperature measurements by satellites showing atmospheric temperatures are rising in response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide? Which is not occurring. Of course, with the latest El Niño there is little doubt that atmospheric temperatures also rise in response to El Niño weather events. Is it indirect evidence, such as surface temperatures, which are sparse (the globe is poorly covered) and measure many natural and human caused influences in addition to CO2. Or is it hearsay, rumor, such as 97% of scientists say… or scientific organizations (which have not rigorously polled) say…

Senator Whitehouse organized a teach-in given on the Senate floor on week of July 11 by Whitehouse and eighteen of his senate colleagues. A major claim is that “According to Climate Investigations Center research, your groups have received over $92 million from the Koch family, Donors Trust, Donors Capital, and ExxonMobil. And that’s just what investigators can figure out.”

Continue reading