On TheBFD, New Zealand's most widely-read blog, regular contributor Lushington Brady writes: "Astrophysicist Prof Valentina Zharkova has published a peer-reviewed paper arguing that new understanding of solar cycles suggest that the Earth is about to be plunged into an extended cooling period."
Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball posts at Technocracy News and Trends: "This is an update of an earlier effort to counter the propaganda war that is going on to promote the falsehoods about the environment and climate. An update is required because skills improved with practice and as they lose the war, desperation demands greater deceptions. Technocrats are at the center of this development."
Anthony Watts has just announced on his blog WUWT this message from Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball: "Michael Mann’s case against me was dismissed this morning by the BC Supreme Court and they awarded me [court] costs, Tim Ball." Watts adds: "This is a developing story, I’ll add more as we know more.". And when that "more" arrives we'll post it here.
Read this subsequent analysis of Dr Ball's victory, and the adverse consequences for IPCC:
Bjorn Lomborg wites in "The Australian" newspeper: "Climate campaigners want to convince us that not only should we maintain these staggering costs, but that we should spend a fortune more on climate change, since our very survival is allegedly at stake. But they are mostly wrong, and we’re likely to end up wasting trillions during the coming decades. I will outline how we could spend less, do a better job addressing climate change, and help far more effectively with many of the world’s other ills."
Anyone in doubt about why Earth, its people and its plants, needs MORE rather than less Carbon Dioxide (CO2) must watch this YouTube conversation with Professor William Happer, of Princeton University, who has been recruited by US President Donald Trump to bring scientific sense to the debate about "man-made global warming" and the greenhouse effect.
U.S. climate analyst Roger Pielke writes at Forbes magazine: "The bottom line of this analysis should be undeniable: There is simply no evidence that the world is, or is on the brink of, making 'rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society' that would be required for the deep decarbonization associated with a 1.5°C temperature target. Anyone advocating a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 is engaging in a form of climate theater, full of drama but not much suspense. But don’t just take it from me, do the math yourself."
CLINTEL, the 900-member international group Climate Intelligence Foundation has written an open letter to Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates to point out that his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is misleading the world in its claims about linkage of the Covid-19 pandemic to "climate change".
Self-styled environmentalist Michael Shellenberger has publicly apologised for his earlier part in creating a climate scare: "On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem."
"We know there is simply no basis for climate alarm. All 'scientific' predictions have failed, life has survived happily with much higher CO2 in the past, the medieval warming period a thousand years ago was much warmer than today, the small temperature variations of the 20th century are easily explained by natural causes, and the IPCC reports confirm that there is no increase in extreme weather events and no economic harm from CO2. And yet the hysteria is increasing by the day." Sanjeev Sahblok, leader of the Swarna Bharat Party writes in The Times of India. (Note: slight error about the middle when he incorrectly names Maurice Strong as "Michael")
These slides by US physicist Dr Ed Berry prove human CO2 emissions add only 18 ppm to CO2 in the atmosphere while nature adds 392 ppm. Therefore, everything the UN IPCC and its supporters have told you about climate change is WRONG! Human emissions do not change the climate.(Click on downward arrow lower left corner to change slides)
In the light of a new report by a science group, the Argonauts, showing that the UN IPCC made a fundamental error of physics which predicted warming at three times the rate actually recorded, a New Zealabd trust, Environomics (NZ) Trust, has called on its government to either refute the Argonauts' f...
Also from towerofreason.blogspot.com (exellent site!) an American certified electromagnetic compliance engineer with more than 30 years practical experience in high power radio frequency and microwave applicationsapologies for this post being highly technical, but explains why his critique of the CO2 driven climate change theory is based on a practical understanding of the intersection between chemistry and electromagnetic theory.
Professor Larry Bell writes at 'Newsmax': All of us nice people enthusiastically support educating and encouraging children about the importance of environmental stewardship. It's quite a different matter, however, to fill their precious minds with fearful fantasies that global survival depends upon solving a mythical climate crisis with magical energy solutions."
“We are plunging now into a deep mini ice age,” says British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, “and there is no way out.....The fact is the sun rules the sea temperature, and the sea temperature rules the climate,” explains Corbyn. “What we have happening now is the start of the mini ice age … it began around 2013. It’s a slow start, and now the rate of moving into the mini ice age is accelerating.
In a lecture to the UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen, formerly of MIT, said: " None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history."
Interesting comment by Melanie Phillips in The Times (London): Link to Melanie
Lindzen tells Daily Mail global warming ended 20 years ago Link to Mail
This detailed report prepared by Dr Ole Humlum for the Global Warming Policy Foundation covers all the aspects of "climate change" and shows we have little or nothing to worry about - unless it is future cooling. Dr Humlum is former Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard, Norway, and Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Oslo, Norway.
Dr Ed Berry sums up: "Today, almost all major news media, government websites, and case law assumes the IPCC climate theory is correct. But the IPCC theory is not correct. The IPCC theory is groupthink and nothing more. In 1972, Yale professor of psychology, Irving Janis, published the results of his study on human behavior, Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. He revised and enlarged his second edition published in 1982. He defined the term Groupthink to describe what happens when people get caught up in a pattern of collective psychological behavior. He showed that groupthink has three distinct features:: 1.A group of people assume a belief without a proper appraisal of the evidence. 2.To take the place of evidence, they claim their belief is shared by a ‘consensus.’ 3.Because their belief is not based on evidence, they defend their belief by irrational and dismissive hostility towards anyone who dares to question it. They will not engage in scientific discourse. They will reject all evidence that proves their belief is wrong.
Bjorn Lomborg writes about energy solutions to "climate change" in The Australian: "This idea that we already have the needed technology is so pervasive that before we can establish what the solution to climate change really looks like, we first need to dismantle the faulty idea that we have the solution already. The reality is, today, solar and wind energy together deliver only about 1 per cent of global energy. The International Energy Agency estimates that even by 2040 these will cover a little more than 4 per cent of global energy."
Climate change alarmism is based entirely on speculation, not on science. Alarmism per se is not a hoax, because people really believe it. But alarmism is driven by a repeated practice that is in fact a hoax. This common hoax is the presentation of speculative conclusions as though they were established scientific facts about the physical world. The standard definition of a hoax is a deliberate deception that is intended to fool a lot of people. The scientists and journalists who falsely report speculations as facts know perfectly well what they are doing, which makes what they do a hoax. Distinguished US analyst Dr David Wojick explains: