Exposure of global warming deception goes viral

The manufactured climate change crisis may one day be remembered as the greatest fraud in science history.

With the advent of the new year, perhaps it’s a good time to once again expose the global warming narrative for what it actually is: fact-free alarmist fear-mongering – scientific fraud, to be exact – designed to shut down fossil-fuel industries, enrich carbon traders, soak taxpayers and reduce affluent western societies to a state of pre-industrial poverty – all the while purporting to save the world from what turns out to be an imaginary man-made bogeyman.

The body of evidence discrediting the global warming-turned -“climate change” theory (yes, it’s only a theory) is growing exponentially as it smacks head-on with observational and empirical facts that undermine the entire manufactured edifice of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Take a look at the views of some of the experts, including a few candid assessments by die-hard True Believers, who reveal just how little evidence exists to keep alive the theoretical Global Warming Godzilla that lumbered onto the scene in the late 1980s.

First, here are a few statements from within the ranks of the global warming camp that expose the fraudulent science they themselves are disseminating:

Dr. Phil Jones – No statistically significant warming for 15 years

From the Daily Mail: “Professor [Phil] Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon . . . And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.”

NASA GSS – no sign of global warming in North America

From Strata-sphere.com: “In response to a freedom of information request, NASA’s GISS was required to produce a series of emails, which in turn revealed that (a) NASA admits the current warm period is not historically different from the period around 1921-1950, and (b) that there has been no sign of global warming in North America or the US. How is global warming possible when it is not ‘global’?”

Dr. Phil Jones, Climate Research Unit

From a ClimateGate email: “With their LIA [Little Ice Age] being 1300 -1900 and their MWP [Medieval Warm Period] 800 -1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of  synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and late 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes.”

Professor Richard Muller – 70% of measuring stations poorly sited

Reports Ken Haapala (via WattsUpWithThat.com): “Professor Muller presented himself as a former skeptic [to the House National Resources Committee], but he couched his skepticism as questioning the quality of the land-based surface measurements . . . According to him 70% of measuring stations in the US are poorly sited with a possible error of 2 to 5 degrees C. He evaded the real issue: that most skeptics realize that temperatures have risen, but question that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the principal cause of global warming.”

“Muller failed to mention that . . . he questioned the human influence on global warming; that his calculations of temperatures show no warming for the past ten years; that he has suggested that the cause for the pause in warming is a change in ocean oscillations, and that there is a disconnect between land surface data and atmospheric data.”

An admission: Medieval Warm Period at least as warm as today

From Strata-sphere.com: “The real killer is the global temperature itself, which has been cooling since 2000, and not showing any warming since 1995 – according to Dr Phil Jones, previous head of CRU. In addition, Jones admitted there is no data to overturn the long held scientific theory that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was as warm or warmer than today. Jones admits lack of data in other regions was used by Mann and others to make up the idea the MWP was cooler, but lack of data is not the same thing as proxies showing cooler temps!”

 An admission: Medieval Warm Period at least as warm as today

From Strata-sphere.com: “The real killer is the global temperature itself, which has been cooling since 2000, and not showing any warming since 1995 – according to Dr Phil Jones, previous head of CRU. In addition, Jones admitted there is no data to overturn the long held scientific theory that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was as warm or warmer than today. Jones admits lack of data in other regions was used by Mann and others to make up the idea the MWP was cooler, but lack of data is not the same thing as proxies showing cooler temps!”

Continue reading

Follow @MyersKL

Weather Channel peddles party line blaming ‘climate change’ for severe storms

Jim Cantore: Has he gone Warmist?

So what’s up with Jim Cantore, the head hurricane chaser and “Storm Stories” honcho at the Weather Channel?  Has he gone “Warmist?”

In a Dec. 14 Newsmaker luncheon at the National Press Club in Washington, he appeared to single out “climate change” as the culprit behind this year’s spate of severe weather events afflicting planet Earth’s Garden of Eden. 

Asked whether global warming causes weather extremes, Cantore responded: “We are seeing a warming world. I know there are going to be more extreme weather events.”

He then segued into a few gut-instinct observations: “And being a guy who stands out in the rain all the time . . . it’s raining harder out there. And that’s really weird. It’s not scientific, but when I’m out there in it, it just seems to be raining a lot harder. More water vapor means more rainfall,” he said.

Well, OK, Cantore got the “It’s not scientific” part right.

This isn’t the first time Cantore has parroted the official anthropogenic global warming (AGP) – a.k.a. climate change – meme. (Note: we should dump the term “climate change.” The earth’s climate has been constantly changing for billions of years.)  In an interview with Brian Williams on NBC Dateline last April, he appeared to blame April’s deadly tornado outbreak on global warming.

“If we have a warmer Earth, and the purpose of the jet stream is to help equalize all of that, well, because it’s warmer, it’s going to have to work a lot harder. And that, in addition to the fact that we have so much instability out there in this month of April, heat and humidity, those two things create this monster outbreak . . . .”

Translation:  Warming of the atmosphere [which is not happening] is raising havoc with the jet stream and spawning more tornadoes. Despite Williams’ prompting, Cantore can’t quite bring himself to go full “Chicken Little”: 

WILLIAMS:I guess we’re all looking for ways to explain away what happened here.

CANTORE: It’s hard to do that.

 So give Cantore credit for not going off the deep end and regurgitating the “man is frying the planet” talking points peddled by the Michael Mann Hockey Stick crowd.

 No evidence of human influence

 There is, in fact, no evidence that human-induced warming is causing more extreme weather events,  says Joe Bastardi, WeatherBELL chief forecaster and the former chief long-range forecaster at Accuweather, calling such claims “Alice in Wonderland forecasting.”

He says the alarmists continue to ignore two major climate indicators that have turned cold – the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the cooling of the mid-troposphere.

“Why do they always blame warmth for extreme weather while ignoring two major events – the fourth-coldest PDO we’ve ever had and the fact that mid-troposphere temperatures are the lowest since we started tracking them 10 years ago? What do you expect the weather to do when cold signals show up?”

Please continue

Follow @MyersKL

The global warming meltdown that never was — and never will be

Climate change alarmists have been scorched by real-world facts.

Apologies, apologies! I’ve been on sabbatical, working on several other projects during the past months and have been remiss in my column writing. So it’s time to put pen to paper and continue where I left off: exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science: the theory (yes, theory) of man-made global warming, aka “climate change” and “climate disruption.” (The charlatans and ignoramuses promoting this alarmist nonsense can’t decide what name to give their junk science.)

From this day forward, I will endeavor to regularly inform, enlighten and entertain those readers (both skeptics and self-confessed warmists) who are exposed daily to a constant stream of climate change propaganda peddled by lazy, uninquisitive reporters who willingly serve as advocate-stenographers (Andrew Revkin, are you reading?) for global warming alarmism.

* * *

As I’ve done in the past, let me mention one very important point: the theory of human-induced global warming is exactly that — a theory. The scientists promoting it — the Jim Hansens, Kenneth Trenberths and Phil Joneses of the world — have never demonstrated conclusively that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet. Even laymen researchers who’ve done a few hours of homework (and don’t rely on PR releases for their data) know that humans produce a whopping 0.28 percent of the so-called greenhouse gases, with anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 accounting for a minuscule 0.117 percent of the total. Using a real-world comparison, 0.117 percent of a football field would equal just over four inches.

The warmists’ scientific conclusions are based purely on climate modeling, not experimentation, observation or hard empirical data. Worse, they’ve turned the scientific method on its head. Instead of constructing a theory and then rigorously testing and re-testing to see if it stands up to scientific examination, they start with a pre-ordained conclusion (i.e., fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions cause the earth to warm) and then manipulate and tune their computer models to churn out data that support it. In short, human-induced global warming is the product of laboratory computer simulations and over-active imaginations; it doesn’t exist in the real world.

Another article of faith that deserves a healthy dose of skepticism — from warmists and lukewarmists alike — is the so-called greenhouse theory. According to this sacrosanct doctrine, CO2 and other greenhouse gases “trap” infrared readiation, thus acting like a thermal blanket, raising the earth’s atmospheric temperature to a cozy 33 degrees centigrade. Lucky humanity: Without this atmospheric greenhouse guardian, we’d spend a small fortune heating our homes while arming ourselves against nuisance polar bears roaming the countryside.

It should be noted that the greenhouse theory is relatively modern in origin and, as astrophysicist Joseph Postma observes, “is never mentioned in any fundamental work of thermodynamics, physical kinetics or radiation theory.” Try as you may, you won’t find the terms greenhouse effect or glass-house effect mentioned in any classical textbooks on experimental or theoretical physics.

Follow @MyersKL

Continue reading

CO2-molecule lobby clears air about global warming

ORLANDO, Fla. – Faced with growing criticism, the CO2-molecule lobby said today that it will no longer take the heat for earth’s climate change and has launched a campaign to restore its blackened reputation.

“It’s time to clear the air about the benefits of CO2,” announced chairman Nate Carbo at today’s Alliance of CO2 Molecules (ACO2M) tropospheric conference held high above Walt Disney Resort. “CO2 molecules have been the climate fall guy for years. We’ve been unfairly charged with crimes against humanity. Now we’re going to fight back with all our molecular energy.”

Follow @MyersKL

 Continue reading

PDO and weak solar equals cold

Even with the help of gridded, interpolated, homogenized and UHI-corrupted surface data, it doesn’t look like 2010 is going to be the “hottest year ever” on record. The negative PDO, increased frequency of La Ninas and continued weakness in solar activity are going to eventually put the kibosh on global warming alarmism. Earth’s ever-changing climate is not subject to the fantasies of Playstation modelers.

Warmists abandoning sinking ‘climate change’ ship

Global warmists are abandoning ship as the 'climate change' theory collides with scientific reality.

As the hull-breached “SS Climate Change” struggles to stay afloat after smashing bow-first into the reality of scientific fact, more Warmists-turned-Realists are abandoning ship and heading for the lifeboats.

The latest anthropogenic global warming (AGW) True Believer to don a life vest is physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa.

In an exclusive video interview released by Climate Depot, Rancourt blasts global warming as a “corrupt social phenomenon and “an imaginary problem of the first-world middle class.”

Rancourt excoriates his former “climate change” counterparts, calling them “guilt-laden individuals” who “look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and alleviate the guilt they feel about being on the privileged end of the planet — a kind of survivors guilt.”

Read the rest of the story here.

Is Earth headed for another Little Ice Age?

Geoff Sharp, publisher of the Landscheidt.info Web site, has posted an informative article describing a combination of climate-change events (i.e, solar, oceanic and volcanic) that could very well lead to a extended period of global cooling similar to that which occurred during the Little Ice Age.  By the way, Landscheidt.info is a must-visit site for anyone interested in tracking solar activity.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

“The winters of the past two years have been noticeably colder. The northern hemisphere in particular has experienced record cold, record snow and a rebuilding of the Arctic sea ice extent. The southern hemisphere this winter has also seen record low temperatures in South America which is resulting in many hundreds of deaths (human and livestock).

“There are a number of players involved which can be attributed to this cooling trend and when they come together they are capable of dropping the world’s temperatures by a significant amount.

“Perhaps the most important player is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) which is a hot and cold ocean temperature cycle in the Pacific of about 30 years. The world’s temperature trend very closely matches this cycle which has the potential to override solar activity of the day. The last major PDO cooling event was between 1946 and 1976 which experienced the highest solar cycle on record (SC19) followed by a low cycle (SC20). The deepest cold of this era was recorded when both the PDO and low solar activity teamed up, which is right where we are again today with perhaps a greater influence from the solar side with my predicted imminent grand minimum.”

Read the full article here.

Thoughts on the ‘greenhouse effect’

 

The black line is the annual variation in atmospheric "aborbing power" over a 61-year period. The red trend line shows the greenhouse aborbing power remaining constant (in equilibrium) during that period. Greenhouse absorption increases (blue trend line) only when H20 levels are kept constant.

Here is my reply to Roy Spencer’s recent column describing the reality of the “greenhouse effect”:

Thanks for the nice explanation of the workings of the so-called “greenhouse effect,” which, as you point out, is misnamed. It more accurately should be referred to as the “atmospheric effect,” but I guess we’re stuck with “greenhouse.”

I notice you don’t spend much time explaining the role of conduction, convection and vaporization and its contribution to the earth’s cooling. Is it possible that those atmospheric processes overwhelm what little impact the earth receives from CO2-induced warming?

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s peer-reviewed findings indicate that there is a “greenhouse equilibrium,” probably the result of changes in atmospheric water vapor transport and heat transport, cancelling out the thermal impact of increased levels of CO2.

As Miskolczi notes: “Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC.

He continues:

“The conventional greenhouse theory does not consider the newly discovered physical relationships involving infrared radiative fluxes. These relationships pose strong energetic constraints on an equilibrium system . . . Nobody thought that a 100-year-old theory could be wrong. The original greenhouse formula, developed by an astrophysicist, applies only to the stars, not to finite, semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. New equations had to be formulated.”

Reply

Global warmists in full retreat

I’ve just posted my latest Examiner.com column, “Global warming alarmists in full retreat as skeptics attack greenhouse theory.”  Here is an excerpt. 

The assaults on [Christopher] Monckton and other high-visibility skeptics (for example, Marc Morano of Climate Depot, Joe D’Aleo of ICECAP, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Fred Singer, Anthony Watts and Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi) are further evidence that the global warmists are in full retreat and resorting to slash and burn tactics as they make a desperate last stand to defend their cherished theory from the onslaught of countervailing scientific evidence.

Recently, the so-called “greenhouse effect” has itself come under increasing attack by a phalanx of scientific experts, including Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, professor Nasif Nahle, former radio-chemist Alan Siddons, analytical chemist Hans Schreuder, combustion research scientist Martin Hertzberg, and engineer Heinz Thieme.

In desperation, global warming “True Believers” have turned into a pack of snarling attack dogs.

Last year, 130 skeptical German scientists co-signed an Open Letter of protest to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, asserting, among other things, that a “growing body of evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role” in Earth’s climate.

The scientists derided global warming as a “pseudo religion,” said the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility,” and dismissed the alarmist warnings of rising CO2, claiming it “had no measurable effect” on temperatures.

See the full article here.

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi fights uphill battle with NASA

I talked to physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi earlier this year about his uphill battle to publish his research challenging the conventional theory of greenhouse gas warming.

Miskolczi spent months trying to convince NASA to publish his controversial work, which contradicts the widespread notion that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet.

Here is an excerpt:

Miskolczi’s research was greeted less than cordially by his bosses. After submitting his results to Applied Optics, a respected peer-review journal, he was told to withdraw the paper by his employer, Analytical Services and Materials, a NASA contractor. When he protested (the paper was midway through the review process), his boss withdrew it. He later confronted his NASA supervisor, Dr. Martin Mlynczak, and was simply ignored, he says.

When contacted by phone, Mlynczak refused to discuss the issue. “We’re not going to comment on that,” he said. But, later, NASA public affairs spokesman Chris Rink said the agency “felt the paper did not offer any new insights.” Yet Examiner.com discovered that Miskolczi and Mlynczak had co-authored and submitted a similar research paper with nearly identical atmospheric equations in 2004.

After his paper was withdrawn, Miskolczi’s relationship with his supervisors deteriorated. “Since all of them are experts in the field, I presume they fully understood the implications of the findings,” he says. “They never challenged my results or shared my research with other greenhouse experts. They were just keeping silent. NASA is not an honest research environment.”

You’ll find the full story here.