Puncturing the 'global warming' hot-air balloon
The author of this article, James Delingpole (born 1965) is an English columnist and novelist who has written for most of the major UK
newspapers, particularly to protest the ideology and faux science of catastrophic global warming. He is executive editor for the London
branch of the Breitbart News Network, and has published several novels and four political books. He was a member of the Heartland
Institute delegation that went to Rome and sought in vain to be admitted to the Vatican-sponsored international symposium on global
warming in 2015.
58 scientific papers published so far in 2017 alone
further confirm that 'global warming' is unfounded myth
by JAMES DELINGPOLE
6 Jun 2017
“Global warming” is a myth — so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#sthash.ktF0tSb7.FYsfngw5.dpbs
In other words, the so-called “consensus” on global warming is a massive lie. And Donald Trump was quite right to quit the Paris agreement which pretended that the massive lie was true.
By “global warming” these papers don’t, of course, mean
the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that.
Rather, they mean “global warming” in the sense that is most commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, huckster politicians, scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed mainstream media (MSM) reporters and commentators. .
“Global warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown.
What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.
That is, all these different experts from around the world — China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, etc. — have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and come to
the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story.
Late 20th century and early 21st century global warming, they show, is neither dramatic, nor unusual, nor scary. Here, as collated by Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone, are just some of the charts to prove it.
Büntgen et al, below, shows that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were warmer
in the early 1400s than they are today.
Abrantes et al (below) confirm the traditional view — which Michael Mann tried to dismiss
with his discredited Hockey Stick chart — that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than
anything we have experienced in our own era.
Here’s one from Li et al showing that China was much warmer 8,000 years ago.
Here’s an unusual one from Guillet et al suggesting that there’s nothing new about wildly
early or late grape harvests [dependent on temperature at the time] through the centuries:
And on and on it goes — there are 80 graphs in all, each showing in its different way why the scare about global warming has been horribly overdone because the evidence just doesn’t support its being unusual or a problem. Several of the papers note that
the primary influence on warming appears to be solar activity. [Which would be the intuitive reasoning to anyone who has college-level acquaintance with the influence of solar activity on the earth and the fundamentals of climate and weather dynamics.].
Few, if any, entertain the notion that carbon dioxide levels have much to do with it.
The intellectually corrupt and mendacious alarmist science establishment — I’m thinking, for example, of my personal bete noir, the left-wing political activist and Nobel-prizewinning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, former president of the Royal Society — would have us believe that climate skepticism is a minority activity, the preserve of a few cranks, championed only by people who don’t do the science. But this is just ugly propaganda.
In the article referenced at the start, here are dozens of reputable scientists from around the world with no axe to grind, reporting studies which all corroborate, independently and rigorously, the increasingly respectable view that “man-made global warming” just isn’t a thing.
Not that it ever was a thing, really.
This debate — as I argue at some length elsewhere* — was always about left-wing ideology, quasi-religious hysteria, and “follow the money” corruption, never about “science.” Still, it’s always a comfort to know that “the science” is on our side too.
*Delingpole's 2012 book entitled Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing your Children's Future
They do so hate that fact, the Greenies.
Trump’s EPA chief backs scientific approach that
could upend the supposed 'global warming consensus'
by Michael Bastasch
June 8, 2017
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt re-ignited a long-simmering debate over a method of scientific inquiry that could upset the supposed “consensus” on man-made global warming.
In an interview with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak on Monday, Pruitt said he supported a “red team-blue team” set up to test climate science. Pruitt was inspired by an op-ed by theoretical physicist Steven Koonin, but others have been pushing this idea as well.
“If truth is what we are all after, why would any scientific organization object to an independent look at the claims of the climate establishment?” climate scientist John Christy said.
Christy has testified on the value of “red teams” for climate science many times in the past decade. This time, however, environmentalists and “consensus” scientists are worried Congress will take him seriously.
Red teams would challenge blue teams on global warming hypotheses on “what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world,” Pruitt told Breitbart.
The military commonly uses this method to challenge strategies and improve their overall effectiveness. Many climate scientists, however, say it has no place in their field. After all,
97 percent of climate scientists supposedly believe humans are the main cause of global warming.
“Science already has a red team: peer review,” David Titley, a climate scientist and retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, told
The Washington Post.
“This just feels to me … like another way to skirt the tried and true scientific process that has worked for years in our field and many others,” said Marshall Shepherd, an atmospheric science professor at the University of Georgia who called the idea a “gimmick.”
Consensus scientists say the red team setup could manipulate public understanding of the science, giving a false impression of uncertainty and delay action on global warming. [But isn't massive public manipulation of opinion what they have been doing all these decades? Why can they not simply debate the other side on scientific and practical merits? Skeptics, like Christy, say the other side is afraid the method will expose the weakness of the supposed “consensus” on global warming.
“My own analysis concerning 102 climate model runs is as clear as it can be — the theory has failed the simplest of scientific tests,” Christy said. “None of the august scientific societies crunched through the huge volumes of model output and observational data to perform such tests.”
“In the normative scientific method, when our theory fails, we are supposed to go back and modify or reject the theory and test again,” Christy said. “In this modern way of doing science, as best I can tell, the proponents of a failed theory simply yell louder, schedule marches on Washington, and attempt to quash any dissent.”
Consensus scientists say
peer review works just fine, but skeptics point out the problems with climate models and many of their predictions.
['Peer review' refers to the process whereby through vetting of scientific articles submitted for publication is supposed to be done by other scientists, i.e., the writer's 'peers', in an objective, non-partisan way. But peer review for climate change articles fails when the editorial policy of the publications supposedly vetting the articles is openly and unequivocally supportive of one side of any argument. Not only do they uncritically and unobjectively publish articles presenting the side they favor, but worse, they do not publish any articles disputing that side.]
In fact, many articles have been written about the problems with the faulty models and predictions used by AGW advocates for decades in peer-reviewed scientific journals disputing the catastrophic AGW hypothesis.
[The 'truth advantage' with the journals supporting the anti-catastrophe view is that they necessarily must present the AGW side in the process of arguing against the latter's methods/conclusions/factoids.]
Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. says peer review has become politicized, where “gatekeeping” plays a role in who gets published and who doesn’t. Skeptics usually get the wrong end of that deal.
[Quite an understatement in view of the real situation.]
Pruitt can only do so much to change how the EPA conducts research, and it’s uncertain how much traction this idea will gain in Congress, especially with other major issues, like the Russia investigation and Obamacare repeal, sucking up political capital.
“I can understand why political organizations would object —because their deeply held beliefs may be shown to be in error and thus set a foundation to undo their attempts to set rules for the ‘hoi polloi,’” Christy said.
“Claiming that the truth has already been determined regarding climate change, and thus red teams are not needed, is an argument made by someone who has not examined the theory,” he said.
Clearly, I am on the rational scientific side [as opposed to emotional, scientistic and ideological] of this controversy, but the moment I can find a scientific article that can sufficiently answer the objections of the anti-catastrophe scientists, I would gladly re-post it. I request anyone who has such an article (or articles) to let me know.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 10/06/2017 19:23]