The Last 20,000 Years: a brief history of the Earth's temperature

By Javier:

Climate alarmists hostile to facts that contradict alarmist exaggerations and lies

And, of course, hostile to the messenger of those facts:

The Seattle Times ran a hysterical story at the Washington Park Arboretum in Seattle. Cliff Mass, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington and no climate change skeptic, demolished the Times story in a strongly-worded blog post. 

But perhaps more importantly, he goes on to describe the kind of pressure to which he is subjected to not post such corrections because of the ammunition it gives to “deniers”. It is an excellent exposition on the corruption of the scientific method that is rampant in climate science — not just the suppression of dissent, but the suppression of every small correction of the most exaggerated claims.

Climate alarmism - Historical overview, inconsitencies and evidence of fraud

Climate skeptic Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard) at the 34th Annual Meeting of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, on July 9, 2016 presents an overview  of the history of climate alarmism and its media coverage, inconsistencies between alarmist claims and the climate data record and evidence for fraudulent manipulation and altering of the record by NASA, NOAA and others. It's a rambling presentation covering, back and forth, the past century+ but leaves the definite impression that something is seriously amiss about the current climate alarmist narrative.



More:

Heller gave a similar presentation at a Washington State Senate hearing February 2017.  Some senators (Dems) are skeptical of Heller's conclusions but it is interesting that Washington State is at least willing to hear from skeptics like Heller and Don Easterbrook (previous post).

Data manipulation and false data,  Data Integrity

Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach is a self-taught amateur scientist well known for his skeptical posts on climate change at Watts Up With That. Thanks to the alarmist propagandists at DeSmogBlog, whose mission it is, in part, to "debunk" climate "deniers", I came across this video of Willis's presentation at ICCC7. He talks about his research on "species extinction" and offers some interesting insights into the role of DNA and how it might work in helping species to survive radical changes in the environment (eg. surviving through multiple ice ages):



Far from "debunking" Mr. Eschenbach the video leaves one admiring him even more for his wit and natural intelligence.

Michael Mann at the U.S. House Climate Science Hearing

At the House Climate Science Hearing earlier this week what most clearly stood out was  Dr. Michael Mann's hypocrisy and nastiness:

From a subsequent WUWT post:

"I can now understand why Dr. Mann is not liked, and globally not liked at that."

From Mark Steyn:  "A Disgrace To The Profession" and a whole lot more.

Earth Hour 2017 - the many reasons to abhor it.

Earth Hour came and went again last night and I completely missed it. I only realized it today going over WUWT where Anthony had posted Ross McKitrick's classic compendium of reason's to abhor it.

I don't know if Bill Gates celebrated it or not but one of his recent tweets highlighted the amazing human progress over the last 200 years, much of it due to the availability of cheap fossil fuel:

Progress is sometimes hard to see…but for much of humanity, the world is better than it’s ever been: https://t.co/nY4s5a7fyj via @MaxCRoser pic.twitter.com/aBX5xJyDXg

— Bill Gates (@BillGates) March 3, 2017

As long as we ignore the purveyors of Earth Hour that progress will continue. Otherwise, not so much!

Climate scientist Judith Curry calls it quits

Anthony Watts: "Yesterday, I was saddened to learn that Dr. Judith Curry had resigned her position at Georgia Tech..."

Curry: “... the deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists… I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. ... ” 

“... How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide.”

Mark Steyn comments on the abuse Curry endured from the disgraceful Michael E. Mann (among others): 

I despise Michael Mann for many reasons, not least for the damage his peculiar insecurities have done to honest inquiry and scientific integrity. But his disgusting treatment of Dr Curry ranks high on my list. And, however long it takes, I will ensure that her prediction from 2012 comes true.

The science, politics and morality of climate change "action"

Professor John Christy, Alabama state climatologist speaks on science, politics and morality as they relate to climate change "action":




[via]

Global cooling

Watts Up With That:

Steepest drop in global temperature on record

Climate change myths

From A Review of ’25 Myths that are Destroying the Environment’ 

... Myth #12: Are people the most important factor determining the Earth’s climate? Dr. Botkin says no. The processes affecting the Earth’s climate are complex and man is only a midget among giants. His discussion of this topic is quite good and familiar to this audience. I direct the curious to the book, he covers the key points well. 

Myth #13 is that climate change will lead to a huge number of extinctions. The truth is that even though we are in the Quaternary ice age and have been for the past 2.6 million years, there have been very few extinctions. The climate changes, both warming and cooling, observed in the Quaternary far exceed anything predicted by the climate alarmists for the future, yet only one tree went extinct in North America in that period. 

Myth #14 is that recent weather is proof of climate change. How this myth persists in mainstream news organizations, like the Economist, when every qualified scientist (alarmists and skeptics) says no weather event can be attributed to climate change is beyond understanding. 

Myth #15, consensus is science. Dr. Botkin notes that science is a process of questioning ideas. Scientific statements can be tested and proven wrong, otherwise the statement is not scientific. If the statement survives the tests; it is acceptable and potentially valid. Consensus has nothing to do with scientific validity. One of the problems with the “consensus statement” that man is causing dangerous climate change is it cannot be tested. Thus, the statement is not scientific. 

Myth #16 is that climate models are accurate. It is bizarre that unvalidated computer climate model predictions are considered “true” by many climate alarmists, politicians and news organizations. They haven’t successfully predicted anything to date.

The book is available at Amazon.ca.

Combating climate hype

There is no connection between climate change and hurricanes:  30 peer reviewed papers

Former Gaia high priest says global warming is a religion

In an interview with the UK Guardian, James Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia hypothesis says he now thinks global warming is a religion:

“Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot..."

... it is manifestly clear that he enjoys maddening the green movement. “Well, it’s a religion, really, you see. It’s totally unscientific.”

And his views on fracking?

"he has withering contempt for environmentalists’ opposition to fracking. “You see, gas in America is incredibly cheap, because of fracking,” he says. But what about the risk of triggering earthquakes? He rolls his eyes."

How about nuclear energy?

"Even more heretical than his enthusiasm for fracking is Lovelock’s passionate support for nuclear power."

 And why would a rabidly left wing rag like the Guardian publish this?

"Perhaps they are testing the water, to see how readers react." [Check out the comments.  But, whatever the reason, it's good publicity for the skeptical position. ]

Climate change and the Big Debate

Will climate change come up as an issue in tonight's big Trump v. Hillary debate?

Take the poll.

Global cooling ahead? "Some climate scientists" are unhappy with research that suggests so.

Anthony Watts (via GWPF) :

... Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues ... suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum. This may have implications for temperatures here on Earth. Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.  ...

It's predictable but still interesting how "some climate scientists" react to research producing results that don't fit their ideological narrative.  These people are not scientists, they are the opposite and should be named and shamed. 

CO2 is beneficial, there is no climate crisis

So says Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore in his latest publication.  From the conclusions:

... Despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary, much of Western society has been convinced that a global warming and a climate change crisis is upon us. The idea of catastrophic climate change is a powerful one, as it encompasses everything and everywhere on Earth. There is nowhere to hide from “carbon pollution.” There is also the combination of fear and guilt: we are fearful that driving our cars will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing so. A powerful convergence of interests among key elites supports and drives the climate catastrophe narrative. ...

... Lost in all these machinations is the indisputable fact that the most important thing about CO2 is that it is essential for all life on Earth and that before humans began to burn fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was heading in a very dangerous direction for a very long time. Surely, the most “dangerous” change in climate in the short term would be to one that would not support sufficient food production to feed our own population. ... The best outcome would be that CO2 does cause some measure of warming, but somewhat lower than that suggested by extreme predictions.  We should ask those who predict catastrophic climate change, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, some pressing questions regarding the outcome if humans had not intervened in the carbon cycle. 

• What evidence is there that we are not already past the maximum global temperature during this Holocene interglacial period? 

• How can we be certain that in the absence of human emissions the next cooling period would not be more severe than the recent Little Ice Age? 

• Given that the optimum CO2 level for plant growth is above 1,000 ppm and that CO2 has been above that level for most of the history of life, what sense does it make to call for a reduction in the level of CO2 in the absence of evidence of catastrophic climate change?

• Is there any plausible scenario, in the absence of human emissions, that would end the gradual depletion of CO2 in the atmosphere until it reaches the starvation level for plants, hence for life on earth? 

• What evidence or argument is there that the global climate would not revert to another glacial period in keeping with the Milankovitch cycles as it has done repeatedly during at least the past 800,000 years?

These and many other questions about CO2, climate and plant growth require our serious consideration if we are to avoid making some very costly mistakes.  

[via]

Nuclear technology to power the world?

New reactor technology under development all but eliminates waste and safety problems of the old fission reactors.  It's actually a revival of an old idea, the molten salt reactor, by Transatomic Power:

... fueled by uranium or spent nuclear fuel (it burns waste) 

... extremely efficient fuel utilization ... reducing the total volume of waste by 96%.  ... majority of the waste ...remains radioactive for only a few hundred years, rather than hundreds of thousands of years.

... extremely safe (walk-away safe), and does not require active cooling, even in the worst-case accident scenarios.

... molten salt remains liquid at atmospheric pressure, even at the very high temperatures present in a nuclear reactor ... does not require a full containment dome ...

This seems to have a lot of potential.  False bogeyman though CO2 emissions are, Transatomic's sales pitch hypes the global warming scare as a reason to go nuclear, but that's pretty standard these days.

"Hottest year ever"?

Freeze out in Northeast USA – temps in the teens overnight 

During the “hottest year ever”, we had this yesterday for the opening day of Baseball in Pittsburgh between the Pirates and the Cardinals: Pittsburgh temps in mid-30s ...

... more than 20°F below normal for April 4th around Boston. ... close to 1881 record low of 20°F ...

New study shows NOAA exaggerated U.S. warming

James Delingpole: 

Another week, another study showing that our official climate data gatekeepers have been exaggerating the extent of “global warming” to make it look more scary, more urgent, more desperately in need of extra funding for our official climate data gatekeepers…

This one, co-authored by meteorologist Anthony Watts (of Watts Up With That? fame) shows that at least half of the “global warming” in the US since 1979 has been fabricated by NOAA.

 Judith Curry and Anthony Watts comment:

Curry: This looks like a solid study.  The participation of John Nielsen-Gammon in this study is particularly noteworthy; Watts writes:

Watts: "Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, the state climatologist of Texas, has done all the statistical significance analysis and his opinion is reflected in this statement from the introduction ...Dr. Nielsen-Gammon has been our worst critic from the get-go ..."

Papal encyclical on global warming splits the church

WUWT:

The papal Laudato Si’ encyclical on global warming .... has prompted reportedly heated exchanges between senior church figures, at a recent top level meeting in Rome.

"...Argentinean Bishop ... Sorondo, a close advisor to Pope Francis ... stressed that the pope’s declarations on the gravity of global warming ... are magisterial teaching equivalent to the teaching that abortion is sinful. 

... Father Joseph Fessio, SJ ... who obtained his doctorate in theology under Joseph Ratzinger ... told LifeSiteNews, “Neither the pope nor Bishop Sorondo can speak on a matter of science with any binding authority, so to use the word ‘magisterium’ in both cases is equivocal at best, and ignorant in any case.” Fr. Fessio added, “To equate a papal position on abortion with a position on global warming is worse than wrong; it is an embarrassment for the Church.” "

Climate realists to bring inconvenient truths to COP21

Beginning Dec 7, 2015 at Hotel California, 16 Rue de Berri, 75008 Paris, France:

The Heartland Institute – known globally as the leading think tank debunking global warming alarmism and junk science – is partnering with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), and other allied organizations to bring some of the world’s most esteemed climate scientists and policy experts to present the inconvenient, data-based truth to the United Nations’ COP 21 summit in Paris....

It will be interesting to see who attends these events and how/if it is reported by the MSM!