Distinguished U.S. analyst Dr David Wojick posts at CFact: "Few people appreciate this amazing fact, that CO2 in the air is the global food supply. Our meat, fruit and veggies, also our candy and ice cream, milk and wine, are built almost entirely from carbon dioxide and water. Everything we eat and drink.There is also a bit of nitrogen, to make protein, plus a bunch of trace minerals and vitamins, but you and I are basically composed of processed H2O and CO2."
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".
In this video interview, Viscount Christopher Monckton tells Texans that the real aim of the climate alarmist establishment is totalitarian control of the world, through a "world government".
Distinguished Canadian climate scientist, Professor Timothy Ball, explains why and how it is important to help ordinary people understand that claims of dangerous human-caused "global warming" is a hoax that will cost us billions of dollars and do nothing to change global temperatures.
Our leading metro paper, New Zealand Herald, has just reprinted from the "Financial Times" an article challenging the convential wisdom about "climate change". The artcle says: "It's a fallacy explored by Bjorn Lomborg in his book, False Alarm. The main threat to polar bears was not changing climate, he claims, but (now curbed) wild hunting. 'If we want to protect [polar bears], rather than dramatically reducing carbon dioxide emissions to try to tweak temperatures over many decades with a clearly uncertain impact . . . our first step should be to stop shooting them,' he writes. Lomborg's is one of two books that set out to challenge what one might call 'climate miserabilism'. The other is Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger, an American environmentalist turned pro-nuclear campaigner. They explore the way in which climate policy is increasingly shaped by emotive, alarmist and sometimes misleading messages."
For anyone unable to open the Herald page. the text is here in pdf:
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:
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.
Dr David Legates writes at Cornwall Alliance: "Generally, I conclude most of my climate change presentations with the phrase, 'It’s not about the climate; it never was.' Here, I would like to start with that statement. In this brief article, I will discuss why carbon dioxide isn’t the dangerous gas it is made out to be, why climate change is not an ‘existential’ threat to the planet, and why the Green New Deal is not a solution to climate change."
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.
In case you haven't linked with WattsUpWithThat under our "Other Must-Read Sites" (top right) and haven't read the latest essay by our distinguished climate science colleague, Professor Timothy Ball, of Canada, this is recommended as a thoughtul summary of the origins of climate change alarmism.
Posted 18 February 2009
"The hysteria surrounding the concept of 'global warming' will fade over the years. People will see that the apocalyptic forecasts are not coming true. Today there is no fingerprint attesting that carbon dioxide emission causes a rise in temperature. A Grad missile that falls in Sderot should be more cause for concern." Professor Nir Shaviv, Hebrew University, Israel.
With the New Zealand Parliament having received a Notice of Motion (since passed on 2 December 2020) declaring a "Climate Emergency", Professor Geoff Duffy, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Auckland sent MPs a written analysis of the many reasons why such an "emergency...
The news media should be cautious about linking hurricane activity to global warming, according to National Hurricane Center Science and Operations Officer Chris Landsea, in a posting to WattsUpWith That.
Scientists have long known that the ocean plays an essential role in capturing carbon from the atmosphere, but a new study from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) shows that the efficiency of the ocean’s “biological carbon pump” has been drastically underestimated, with implications for future climate assessments. In a paper published April 6 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, WHOI geochemist Ken Buesseler and colleagues demonstrated that the depth of the sunlit area where photosynthesis occurs varies significantly throughout the ocean. This matters because the phytoplankton’s ability to take up carbon depends on amount of sunlight that’s able to penetrate the ocean’s upper layer.
Chris Morrison writes in The Conservative Woman: "It has been an encouraging start to the contest for the year’s loopiest climate story. It has been an encouraging start to the contest for the year’s loopiest climate story."
Anyone concerned at the misinformational peddled about alleged adverse effects on Earth's climate arising from of emissions of methane (CH4) by farm animals must read this 2014 paper by U.S. scientist Dr Tom Sheahen, in which he first applies to CH4 the term "irrelevant", a term since picked up by other scientists such as Dr Will Happer.
Dr Jay Lehr and Tom Harris post at World Commerce Review: "Most of the periodic temperature increases and decreases observed in human history are average amount of the energy that we receive from the Sun. The mild heating and cooling per degrees Fahrenheit reflect changes in solar activity rather than exponential increase in temperature from 1880 to 1935 as the Littlre Ice Age ended. It decreased from 1935 to 1990, and has since levelled off. Temperature changes do not mirror emission changes."
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."