Climate Tweeters

Here are some great #climate people to follow:@JamesDelingpole @pplonia @Co2Coalition @RoyWSpencer (UAH)@EcoSenseNow @RogerAPielkeSr @RogerPielkeJr @Carbongate @JunkScience @tan123@JoanneNova@ccdeditor@ClimateRealists@BjornLomborg@hockeyschtick1@BigJoeBastardi pic.twitter.com/ptaDkUITf0

— Brad Rush (@OtagoGrad) March 29, 2019

Follow these #climate people whose sites have searchable databases that will link you to 1,000s of research studies:@NoTricksZone @wattsupwiththat @curryja @SteveSGoddard @climateDepot@RossMcKitrick @ClimateAudit pic.twitter.com/ptlTYsmrPZ

— Brad Rush (@OtagoGrad) March 29, 2019

More #climate people to follow:@sjc_pbs@ClimatismBlog@RyanMaue@JWSpry@FriendsOScience@RogTallbloke@TomHarrisICSC@dbirch214@can_climate_guy@thegwpfcom@ClimateHiJinx@LittleIceAge@AGW_IS_A_HOAX@mrbinnion@SpaceWeather101@ClimateNewsCA@IowaClimate@ClimateCatastr1 pic.twitter.com/7IUEGsOTga

— Brad Rush (@OtagoGrad) March 29, 2019

Carbon Tax smoke and mirrors

Raving Canuck’s Guide to the Trudeau Government’s Carbon Tax Smoke and Mirrors
by Graeme Gordon

"Naturally the Liberals won’t admit that this thing is meant to pump money into their coffers, so they’ve employed other methods of convincing the public that it’s a good thing."

An excellent guide.

As usual B.C.'s carbon tax, being the first in North America, is cited by various "experts" (proponents of carbon taxes) to be a fine example of the effectiveness of such taxes in reducing carbon emissions.  This has always struck me as a highly dubious claim for a number reasons:

1. StatsCan multi-year data show no significant differences in the pattern of fossil fuel consumption between BC and provinces without a carbon tax (the other nine). 

2. Fuel prices are notoriously inelastic.  Demand is relatively impervious to price changes. People use what they gotta use. 

3. BC's carbon tax (2.4 c/L in 2008 - 7.78 c/L in 2018) is utterly swamped by market price fluctuations. So, even ignoring point 2, trying to attribute consumer demand changes to the carbon tax is extremely difficult. From GasBuddy:

The Canadian climate change and pipeline follies

Rex Murphy's recent, outstanding assessments:

One of Rex's very best:https://t.co/Vylmbejt4H

— JR (@JR_2020) May 20, 2018

U of A and the Church of Global Warminghttps://t.co/WfkyXsmzCs

— JR (@JR_2020) May 5, 2018

Also this column by Queens professor Bruce Pardy:

An absolutely brilliant article! @AndrewScheer please take note:https://t.co/EpLFfyHfwk

— JR (@JR_2020) May 18, 2018

Unless we can get rid of the Trudeau/Butts Liberals we will remain on track to becoming another Venezuela - energy rich but driven into poverty and political chaos by incompetent ideological extremists. Unless the Conservatives under Andrew Scheer can get their act together, and there's little sign they are doing so, WE ARE SCREWED.

The last glaciation's retreat

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

By Javier:

Thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers support skepticism of climate alarmism

A favorite ploy of climate alarmists is to deny the existence of "peer-reviewed" science supporting views skeptical of climate alarmism.

A good example of this is a Facebook post by a TV Weatherman yelling at skeptics telling them to "put-up-or-shut-up".  Watts Up With That "put-up" - pointing to thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers supporting the skeptical viewpoint.

The "Trust Gap", "social licence" and the rule of law

Giant PR firm, Edelman, does a global annual survey to gauge of the "trust" the public has in its institutions: 1) Government 2) Business 3) Media, and 4) NGOs.

The people surveyed are categorized into three groups:
1) Informed Public 2) General On-line Population, and 3) Mass Population (all population excluding Informed Public)

The results are published in the "Edelman Trust Baraometer".

2016 Edelman Trust Barometer  Widening Trust Gap
2017 Edelman Trust Barometer   An Implosion in Trust! (Brexit, Trump, immigration/refugee crisis?)

Interesting, considering recent events but one does wonder about the validity of the results as a measure of "trust". If it isn't trust that's actually being measured, what is it? It's worth reading this bit of skepticism: "Can You Trust The Data On Trust?"

The surveys show that the "Informed Public", which includes the elites that control the four institutions, have much higher "trust" in those institution than the general public (ie the definition of the "trust gap"). Hardly a surprising result.

With the advent of Internet, the general public is in a position to be better informed and less subject to control of the message by the elites (especially the legacy MSM).  A widening "trust gap" might be a natural consequence of this.  However, a potentially serious downside is a diminishing respect for the rule of law and the constitution.  For example, certain of the elites (Justin Trudeau for one) have been pushing the fuzzy notion of "social license" ("governments issue permits, communities grant permission").  In the case of pipeline approvals this suggests that decisions by lawfully appointed and mandated regulatory bodies (like the NEB) are subject to being overruled by vocal interest groups ("communities") who have no legal status. Mob rule is "permitted" to supplant the rule of law.  Not good!

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

A legendary climate change presentation

Dr. Don Easterbrook's presentation to a Washington State Senate hearing in March of 2013 is an excellent summation of why we should be very skeptical of global warming alarmism:

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]

Proof that a new ice age has already started

Lawrence Solomon: Proof that a new ice age has already started is stronger than ever, and we couldn’t be less prepared

“The New Little Ice Age Has Started.” This is the unambiguous title of a new study from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions, the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg. “The average temperature around the globe will fall by about 1.5 C when we enter the deep cooling phase of the Little Ice Age, expected in the year 2060,” the study states. “The cooling phase will last for about 45-65 years, for four to six 11-year cycles of the Sun, after which on the Earth, at the beginning of the 22nd century, will begin the new, next quasi-bicentennial cycle of warming.” 

... An overheated planet has never been a threat, say climate skeptics, not today, not ever in human history. An underheated planet, in contrast, is a threat humans have repeatedly faced over the last millennium, and now we’re due again.

Global cooling

Watts Up With That:

Steepest drop in global temperature on record

UN censor, Nick Nuttall's role in payoff to Kofi Anan

Nick Nuttall is the wackadoodle U.N. censor who denied media accreditation to The Rebel's reporters attending the Marrakesh climate conference next month.  Claudia Rosett describes a conflict of interest scandal involving Kofi Anan and Nick Nuttall's role in it:

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.

Lying Hillary

The Two Faces of “Green” Hillary Clinton

According to Wikileaks, at the same time Hillary Clinton was wooing the support of radical greens, at a behind closed doors meeting with pro-energy unions, she was telling those same radical greens to “get a life”.