Gator

Matt Ridley is a British scientist who appeared on Foxtel's Outsiders program this morning. He (mistakenly) believes that CO2 and humans are "probably" warming the planet. But he's more concerned by radical government policies for this mistaken belief. For this lukewarm attitude he is pilloried by alarmists and labelled a climate misinformer. There is no hole for the Left. https://www.skepticalscience.com/Matt_Ridley_blog.htm

Here's one of James Hansen's from NASA temperature graphs from 1981. Note the cooling from 1940 to 1980. Now note the current NASA 20th century temperature graph. The cooling from 1940 to 1980 has been erased. Same organisation. Both NASA graphs of 20th century temperature data. Two different messages. It's fraudulent data manipulation that Leftists turn a blind eye to. And why do they turn a blind eye ? Because they are the most disingenuous swines to ever draw breath.

A quick lesson on how this global warming madness started. Bert Bolin a Swedish scientist was the first to talk about the dangers of CO2 in 1974 when global scientists were worried about global cooling. He said fossil fuels and the increase in CO2 may help warm the planet by a few degrees over the next 50 years. Originally considered absurd two things happened. The temperatures started to warm, and the miners went on strike. The oil crisis of the 1970s plunged the world into recession and the miners brought down Ted Heath’s conservative government. The beginning of the politicisation of energy was through Margaret Thatcher, who wanted nuclear energy. She didn’t trust the Middle East and she didn’t trust the miners, therefore coal, so she wanted nuclear power (the fact we don't have it now is a scandal). When the concerns re CO2 were raised she saw a great opportunity to go nuclear. She wasn’t really concerned about the destruction of the planet. Thatcher went to the Royal Society of scientists and said there’s money on the table to prove this stuff. Naturally, they did. And we’re left with this global madness driven by fund addicted scientists and enabled by deranged Leftists, whose new religion is the climate.

Another excellent discussion by Willie Soon, who can't believe the morons who believe that CO2, which is the equivalent of 4 cents in $10,000, is the driver of global warming. Naturally, he believes solar activity is the driver. WHICH IT IS. (may have to scroll back to the beginning)

At UN Summit, World Rulers Adopt Agenda for Global Socialism Written by Alex Newman· A far-reaching United Nations plot to re-engineer civilization and impose global socialism on humanity, variously dubbed “Agenda 2030” and the “Sustainable Development Agenda,” was ushered in on Friday with a “thunderous standing ovation,” the UN Department of Public Information reported. Every one of the 193 UN member governments on the planet — from communist and Islamist dictatorships to those ruling what remains of the “Free World” — vowed to help impose the UN's controversial goals on their subjects. Indeed, according to the UN and the global agreement itself, not a single human being will be allowed to escape what one prominent internationalist ominously referred to as the next “Great Leap Forward.” That the UN Agenda 2030's 17 so-called “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) and its accompanying 169 targets are essentially a recipe for global socialism and corporatism is hardly open for dispute, as countless analysts have pointed out in recent weeks. Goal number 10, for example, calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.” The brutal communist dictatorship ruling mainland China even boasted of its “crucial role” in creating the UN agenda. But as the UN document makes clear, national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is simply not enough — international socialism is needed to battle inequality even “among” countries. In other words, Western taxpayers: Prepare to be fleeced so that your wealth can redistributed internationally. Of course, as has been the case for generations, most of the wealth extracted from the productive sector in what remains of the free world will be redistributed to the UN and Third World regimes — not the victims of those regimes, impoverished largely through domestic socialist policies imposed by the same corrupt regimes that will be propped up with more Western aid. More than a few governments and dictators also announced that they would be “aligning their national development plans with the Sustainable Development Agenda,” essentially ensuring a growing supply of poor people to exploit as a pretext for more UN-led global socialism. The UN document, formally entitled “Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” was adopted on Friday, September 25, at the start of the UN's three-day Summit on Sustainable Development in New York. Speaking at the opening ceremony of the confab, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon hinted at just how far-reaching the plot really is. “The new agenda is a promise by leaders to all people everywhere,” he explained, presumably conflating “leaders” with mass-murdering gangsters such as Kim Jong Un, Raul Castro, and Robert Mugabe who somehow managed to seize control over entire nations. “It is a universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.”

Admissions from Alarmists “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

Dr. Richard Lindzen is anything but convinced by headlines claiming 2015 is the warmest year on record. He says what’s most important is that climate models have been over-predicting warming for more than 40 years. “Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, tells the science blog Climate Depot. “Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?” “All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations,” Lindzen says. “Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity.” Scientists with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared 2015 the hottest on record Wednesday, with the average global temperature reaching 0.87 degrees Celsius above the 20th century average. Democrats and environmentalists used the news to push for more government action on global warming, but what they neglected to mention is temperatures were driven up last year by an incredibly strong El Niño — a naturally occurring warming event. The strong El Niño briefly brought global temperatures to levels predicted by most climate models, but it’s likely that once the warming event goes away temperatures will move back down to levels well below what climate scientists say will happen if more carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere. “But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen says. Lindzen and other experts skeptical of hyped-up claims about man-made global warming argue those who claim 2015 is the hottest on record ignore the fact the changes in global temperature being observed are very small. He also cautions that surface-based temperature readings — taken by weather stations, buoys, ships and other means — are subject to biases and errors that can make them highly unreliable. Lindzen has pointed out in the past that “70% of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well.” “They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree,” he said in November. “Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.” Check out some of the badly sited weather stations collecting data:

Prof Peter Ridd: the Great Barrier Reef recovers, our science institutions are failing us, science needs to be checked The coral reef recovers. Peter Ridd: Coral Reefs recover — “the scientists make hay when it dies in a spectacular way but they are quiet when it recovers.” On symbionts — “There is a large variety of symbionts and some allow coral to grow faster but are more sensitive to bleaching.” All the corals on the Great Barrier Reef live and grow much faster in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Thailand where the water is much hotter than it is on the reef and the corals just juggle these symbionts. 4:20 Corals have a little thermometer built in them, when you take a core of them from many years ago we know what the temperature of the water was back when Captain Cook sailed up the coast, it was actually about the same temperature then. It was colder 100 years ago, but it has recovered from that. The temperatures on the reef are not even significantly warmer than average on a hundred year timescale. Corals that bleach in one year will be less susceptible to bleaching in following years.

Global Climate Monitoring: The Accuracy of Satellite Data March 12, 1997 Recently, much scientific debate has focused on the global temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere as measured by orbiting satellites. And while these data are exceedingly precise, verified by multiple satellite observations, and balloon measurements taken in-situ, they reveal no discernable warming trend in the Earth's lower atmosphere over the last 18+ years. OK 2017 The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia. OK. Got it. In the 1997 top NASA article they say there's been "no warming for 18+ years" and in 2017 NASA says "unprecedented decades of warming since the mid-20th century". Due to humans of course. But what about the concerns for global cooling in 1975 ? Only a deranged Leftist doesn't see hypocrisy here. Especially when satellite data doesn't show warming for 20 years. And minimum arctic sea ice extent is greater in 2017 than 2007.

But hang on. NASA and NOAA have shown that 1940 through to 1978 wasn't so cold after-all. You mean they rewrote records to suit their global warming aim ? 1975 : Ice Age Coming – Global Cooling To Cause Terrorism And Nuclear Blackmail

More incredible science theory. Monday 17 September 2012 20.14 AEST As sea ice shrinks to record lows, Prof Peter Wadhams warns a 'global disaster' is now unfolding in northern latitudes. One of the world's leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years. "This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates". Wadhams says the implications are "terrible". "The positives are increased possibility of Arctic transport, increased access to Arctic offshore oil and gas resources. The main negative is an acceleration of global warming." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice Umm no. He was only out by 4.64 million square kilometres. 2017 Arctic sea ice minimum (you know, summer) had 500,000 more square kilometres than a decade ago (2007). But how can that be when the last decade has been the hottest on record. How can sea ice defy temperature. Answer ? It can't. It's simply defied NASA's fraudulent "adjustments". The Arctic sea ice minimum extent in 2017 was 1.23 million square kilometres greater than the year Prof Wadhams made his alarmist prediction. Trigger warning. This post is not a safe space for Lefties. Too late.

...

Original scientific graphs were simply changed to suit a new global warming narrative. It cooled between 1940 and 1978, but that was too "inconvenient".

Thick Arctic ice is growing at a greater rate than a decade ago when NASA and NOAA would have you believe the Arctic's temperatures are the hottest on record. Only a Leftwing brain would think that sounds reasonable.

There are many indications that the 1940’s were as warmer or warmer than the present, and that government climate scientists intentionally erased the warmth. They're scratching their heads as to why it was warmer and what they can do about it. They simply started making "adjustments". Because how could it be warmer then with less CO2 in the atmosphere ? That's not helpful at all.

The facts wreck global warming theory, so NASA quite predictably responded by erasing the 1940’s Arctic warmth.

According to NASA and NOAA, Earth and the Arctic are much warmer now than they were in 1940. Yet in 1940 Arctic ice was melting, and in 2017 Arctic ice is expanding. Ice doesn’t lie, but government climate scientists do. The 1930's was the hottest decade on record until NASA and NOAA adjusted data.

The NOAA HAS made adjustments to US temperature data over the last few years that has increased the apparent warming trend. These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained. In fact, they have not really be explained at all, and have only been detected by skeptics who happened to archive old NOAA charts and created comparisons like the one below. Here is the before and after animation(pre-2000 NOAA US temperature history vs. post-2000). History has been cooled and modern temperatures have been warmed from where they were being shown previously by the NOAA. This does not mean the current version is wrong, but since the entire US warming signal was effectively created by these changes, it is not unreasonable to act for a detailed reconciliation (particularly when those folks preparing the chart all believe that temperatures are going up, so would be predisposed to treating a flat temperature chart like the earlier http://www.climate-skeptic.com/category/temperature-measurement

It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface. During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today . Oxygen in the atmosphere fluctuated from 15 to 35% during this period From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to 100 million years ago, a high temperature went with declining carbon dioxide. The theory that carbon dioxide concentration is related to the temperature of the earth’s surface is therefore wrong. Vincent Gray Wellington, New Zealand https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/

NOTE: All charts were plotted directly from composite data sets using Lotus 1-2-3. CO2 Graph Sources: Temperature Graph Sources: 2001-1958: South Pole Air Flask Data 1958-1220 B.P.: Law Dome, Antarctica 1220 B.P.- 2302 B.P.: Taylor Dome, Antarctica 2302 B.P.- 414k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data 2000-1979: Satellite stratospheric data 1979-1871: S. Hemisphere ground temp. data 1871- 422k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data

Yes, I'm aware of the funding addicted scientists who push their climate porn agenda. I'm also aware of people like Bill Gray, who was defunded by Al Gore, because he didn't like his views. Gray was America's pre-eminent expert on hurricanes and his views didn't fit Gore's narrative. 'Dr. Bill Gray has passed away. He was my hero, and an inspiration. Bill was a man of the highest integrity and character. Bill had his funding cut off by Al Gore in 1993 for refusing to go along with Gore’s global warming politics. Unlike so many others, Bill chose scientific integrity over politics and money, and fought against climate fraud to his last breath.' NASA and NOAA show a 30 year exaggerated trend by about a third of a degree due to poorly sited weather stations. https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/files/2015/12/Press-Release-NEW-STUDY-OF-NOAA-USHCN.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/ Look at a couple of photos on the above link to see where a weather sensor is located in a car-park near office air conditioners. Climate scientists thought we were in a warming phase in the 1940s and then a cooling phase in the 1970s. Now it's back to warming, even though we're about 1 degree difference since 1880. Wow. Can you believe it ? A whole of a degree. And even then, it might be a bit less. Not to mention the planet was coming out of a little ice age in the 1800s. James Hansen from NASA said "much of Lower Manhattan would be underwater by 2008". The same James Hansen admitted in 1999 "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought." The same James Hansen predicted the Arctic would be free of summer ice by now. Dr Hansen was considered a climate "prophet". In 1986 the same Hansen predicted temperatures would increase "4-6 degrees between 1958 and 2020". It better hurry up. Do you want more dud predictions ? Do you want more evidence of data tampering from NASA and NOAA ? They've fudged records to make the 40s and earlier appear cooler and from the 70s onwards to appear warmer. Answer me this Hood. The planet is 4.5 billion years old. How do you know what the perfect temperature is anyway ? There's enough evidence to suggest being warmer is better than cooler. CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Human contributes about 3% of that. Australia contributes 1.5% of that. Australia contributes 0.000018% of atmospheric CO2 and almost half of that is absorbed in the biosphere. This hoax is beyond a joke. As for the cost ? This article is 6 years old, but it highlights spend categories. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#1170797ebbef CO2 has gone from 280 ppm in 1880 to about 400 ppm in 2017. 1880 wasn't far off a little ice age. In that time the planet has barely gone up a degree in temperature. And within that time we've had cooling and warming periods. We've cooled as the CO2 has gone higher than 280 ppm. CO2 doesn't drive climate, imo. It may contribute a small amount of heating as a greenhouse gas, but it certainly isn't the "driver". And the planet is far from warming "dangerously". Some more warming would be GOOD.

Yes, and the following video in particular, uploaded just two weeks ago, shows NASA and NOAA for the fraudsters they are and the hysteria over nothing. Have a listen @hardtack

It's not as simple as that. The claim is that man's contribution is not easily absorbed and has upset the "natural balance". So even though it's relatively small it's very significant. About 40% of anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed into the ocean and vegetation and approx. 60% remains in the atmosphere. Due to man's contribution CO2 levels (ppmv) are at their highest levels for 15-20 million years, or so the claim goes (and I'm not disputing it). Unfortunately for the zealots their models have been wrong and the planet hasn't been warming as they predicted even with these higher carbon levels. So what to do ? Tamper with the data and try and show that it has been. There's nothing earth shattering about the 150 years claim. It simply coincides with increased human activity with coal burning and deforestation. 150 years ago CO2 was 280 ppm and now it's 400 ppm. One of the questions is could the increase in CO2 be natural or is it all the fault of we bad humans. Some scientists argue one way, some another. What nature gives to the biosphere nature takes out. So humans piling on has a deleterious effect, because we don't take it back. Nature emits, nature absorbs. Humans emit... The general consensus is that humans contribute about 3% of CO2, but this site says 5%. http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp William Whitesell's book says 3%, which is the figure usually mentioned. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=sktLX1gSSOYC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=atmospheric+CO2+is+97%+natural&source=bl&ots=OP9U7d54lY&sig=pUlQ1CZpSb7nkz0P9L2PaGPW2ms&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBsuuoganXAhVLU7wKHe4UC5cQ6AEIUjAG#v=onepage&q=atmospheric CO2 is 97% natural&f=false You can buy the book here: https://www.booktopia.com.au/climate-policy-foundations-william-c-whitesell/prod9781107002289.html Probably the best proof of human contribution is a chart from this site: https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/only-about-3-of-co2-in-atmosphere-due-to-burning-fossil-fuels/

What does this comment even mean ? I'm just citing commonly referred to discussions re mankind's percentage contribution. If you're genuinely interested do your own frigging research and come back and share your discovery.