Archives par mot-clé : Fun?/Discussion

Washington Post Gets Excited By Tiny Increase In Green Vote At Euro Elections

by P. Homewood, May 28, 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


You would think the Washington Post should be able to distinguish between a handful of protesting school kids and millions of grown up voters!

In recent months, massive demonstrations over climate change have rocked European capitals, dwarfing the mobilizations of the continent’s far right. Fridays for Future — a movement inspired by Swedish teenage activist Greta Thunberg — has seen countless European teenagers walk out of school to protest climate inaction. It underscores a growing consensus among the next generation of voters that governments must do more to mitigate environmental disaster, and an impatience with political parties that refuse to recognize the urgency of the situation.

Climate change, said an editorial in France’s Liberation newspaper, “has become the principal criteria of judging political action in the European Union.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/05/28/climate-change-threatens-wests-far-right/

Climate science violates the basic precepts of science

by Sanjeev Sabhlok,  May 9, 2019 in TheTimesofIndia


There are two key pillars of science. First, it doesn’t matter how many “scientists” believe something. All of them could be proven wrong by a single new scientific theory or experiment. Science is always tentatively proven, and it is incumbent on everyone who calls himself a scientist to ask questions even about things that are “settled”. The great physicist Richard Feynman rightly said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”. Scientists must continually question everything and everybody.

Second, science must necessarily make accurate predictions. The global positioning system (GPS) in our mobile phones works only because Einstein’s theories of relativity are accurate to the last possible decimal. Science must not just predict the future: it must predict backwards. Our scientific understanding of cosmic microwave background radiation allows us to literally see the universe as it existed a few thousand years after the Big Bang.

With climate change, things are dramatically unclear and unsettled. Even converting the basic logic of the greenhouse effect into actual estimates for planet Earth is not settled. The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report notes that "If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously … the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2 degrees, in the absence of other changes”. However, some scientists calculate that its impact would be much lower.

Sylvie Brunel : un livre qui ne nous gâche pas la vie…

by Prof. A. Préat, 24 mai 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie


Nous sommes manifestement dans une période médiatico-politique rarement rencontrée dans notre histoire, excepté peut-être aux passages des millénaires et des siècles où les peurs tous azimuts ont engendré chaque fois des comportements irrationnels. Pourtant aujourd’hui nous sommes de plain pied dans un siècle, il n’y a aucune date revêtant une signification particulière et il est presque question de la fin du monde tous les jours puisque le slogan à la mode est ‘la fin du mois ou la fin du monde’. Slogan répété à l’envi par tant de jeunes, de ‘défavorisés’, de retraités et repris en cœur dans les médias et aussi par des scientifiques.

Alors tout ceci est-il fondé ? Faut-il avoir sans cesse peur, peur principalement alimentée par la peur climatique, mais pas uniquement…

German Government Falsified Key IPCC Statement In The Translation Of “IPCC Summary Report To Policy Makers”!

by Prof. dr. H.J. Lüdecke, May 26 2019 in


(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)
Was it sloppiness or intent? In the IPCC Summary Report for Policymakers published by the Federal Government in German, the most important statement of the original English report was falsified.

IPCC reports are available as comprehensive status reports and get strongly condensed as reports for policymakers. The latter are not to be taken as IPCC-authorized extracts as the governments concerned are allowed contribute in the writing. As a result, information or formulations from the English IPCC original which do not agree with German politics are often omitted in the German IPCC reports for policymakers. This is popularly called censorship. As a result of such falsifications, the status reports and the corresponding reports for policymakers are often contradiction.

Key finding deleted from Summary for Policymakers

One example in the past was the famous Chapter 2.6 of the AR5 Report, in which the IPCC explained in detail that no increase in extreme weather events could be found in climate periods (about 30 years) from 1950 onwards (beginning of more extensive measurements and statistics). EIKE reported on this. But in the accompanying German IPCC report for policymakers, this IPCC finding, which is hardly trivial, was nowhere to be seen.

Hearing on the Biodiversity Report

by Judith Curry, May 22, 2019 in ClimateEtc.


The House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Water, Oceans and Wildlife is holding a Hearing today on Responding to the Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

The link to the Hearing page is here [link].

Based on my previous experience with this Committee, the written testimonies will not be posted, and the Hearing will live stream on their Facebook page [link]

Here is the list of witnesses:

  • Sir Robert Watson, Immediate Past Chair IPBES
  • Dr. Eduardo S. Brondizio, Co-Chair IPBES Global Assessment 
  • Dr. Yunne Shin, Coordinating Lead Author, IPBES Global Assessment
  • Dr. Patrick Moore, Chairman CO2 Coalition [link to written testimony Moore]
  • Mr. Marc Morano, Founder Climate Depot [link to written testimony Morano]
  • Dr. Jacob Malcolm,  Director Center for Conservation Innovation, Defenders of Wildlife

Quite an interesting list.  Clearly some of the leading honchos for the IPBES Report.  Surprised that the Republicans apparently got to pick several witnesses.

Having Marc Morano on this list is like waving a red cape before a bull.  True to form, Marc has prepared an extremely hard hitting report for his written testimony, which was sent to me (and others) via email.  Excerpts from Morano’s testimony are provided below:

Refuting the Smear Machine – Part 1

by Donna Laframboise, Lay 22, 2019 in BigPictureNews


When a journalist thinks for herself about climate change, insults and fabrications follow.

Two days ago I reported that a Washington, DC organization called the Government Accountability Project is smearing me on its website. I explained that PR firms target non-conformist climate reporting in an attempt to police what journalists say.

This story begins with a September 2013 opinion piece written by me and published in the Wall Street Journal. It concerned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and was headlined:

Warming Up for Another Climate-Change Report
Every six years, a U.N. panel issues its findings, and the media hail them as definitive. Skepticism may be in order.

Within hours, a Rockefeller Foundation funded entity called Climate Nexus released an error-riddled 600-word rebuttal that now resides on the Government Accountability Project’s official-looking website. An organization with ‘accountability’ in its name is smearing me by reprinting material whose actual author remains in the shadows, anonymous to this day.

Line by line, over the course of two blog posts, I will now respond to this collection of factual errors and lazy insults. Let us begin with the first sentence:

140 Years to a PETM-Style Doomsday!!! Another PETM/Chicken Little of the Sea Epic Fail

by David Middleton, May 18, 2019 in WUWT


Gingerich, 2019 is a recent paper reiterating the PETM Chicken Little of the Sea meme. In the comments section of a recent post, it was cited as evidence of imminent catastrophe and followed up by a comment featuring this image from Clean Tecnica:

I just had to track this back to the Clean Tecnica article… Their scientific prowess is almost always laughable… And I was not disappointed.

L’aluminium, symbole du désarroi climatique ? Pas pour tous….

by Prof. Samuel Furfari, 16 mai 2019, in ScienceClimatEnergie


La Commission européenne a publié dès le début de l’année 2019 son rapport sur l’évolution des prix et coûts de l’énergie en Europe.  On peut y lire que l’étude de ces coûts devrait conduire à  « veiller à̀ ce que les entreprises ne soient pas désavantagées ni écartées » et que « les prix de détail (réels) dans l’Union sont plus élevés qu’aux États-Unis, au Canada, en Russie, en Chine et en Turquie, mais inférieurs à̀ ceux observés au Japon et au Brésil. » Le graphique suivant (Figure 1) illustre bien le fait que les industries européennes sont pénalisées par rapport aux entreprises d’autres pays qui sont des concurrents directs sur les marchés internationaux, y compris pour nos importations. Le rapport ajoute pudiquement, sans y insister que « l’évolution des prix de l’électricité est dominée par les taxes et prélèvements ».

‘Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment’

by Joe Bastardi, May 17, 2019 inThePatriotPost


Apparently, the new strategy to fight climate change is shock therapy. It’s like today’s environmental crusaders are channeling the Ramones song “Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment.” Here are some illustrations.

Shock treatment is for extreme measures. But take, for example, this Dr. Willie Soon plot of solar irradiance (a measure of solar energy) vs. water vapor:

Water vapor is the number-one greenhouse gas. So it’s no secret what temperatures do when water vapor increases.

Recent Studies Indicate Species Extinctions Decline With Warming – Mass Extinction Events Due To COOLING

by K. Richard, May 16, 2019 in NoTricksZone


In the past it has been widely reported that high and abruptly changing CO2 concentrations led to climate conditions that were “too hot for complex life to survive” on the planet.
More recently, though, scientists have determined that the opposite may have been true: mass extinction events occurred during periods of global cooling, expansive ice sheet growth, and marine-habitat-destroying sea level drops of more than 100 meters.
In fact, of the 5 previous mass extinctions, volcanism-induced glaciation is thought to be responsible for the 1st, 3rd, and 4th events, with the 2nd unknown and the 5th from an aseteroid impact.  None of these explanations have ties to CO2 concentrations or sudden warming.

Image Sources: Loehle & Eschenbach (2012), BBC, Wrightstone, 2019

olutions au réchauffement climatique : des universitaires de Cambridge tentent de trouver un moyen de re-geler l’Arctique

by F. Gervais, 15 mai 2018, in Atlantico


Atlantico : Quelles solutions envisagées par la communauté scientifique sont aujourd’hui les plus plausibles pour infléchir réellement le réchauffement climatique ? Pour l’inverser ?

François Gervais : La température moyenne de la Planète a augmenté de l’ordre de 1°C depuis le début du siècle dernier. Mais selon les données du Hadley Center britannique (HADCRUT4), 60 % de cette hausse s’est produite de 1910 à 1945 alors que les émissions de CO2 étaient 6 à 10 fois inférieures à ce qu’elles sont de nos jours, plaidant pour une cause principalement naturelle. Durant les 74 années suivantes, la température n’a augmenté que de 0,4°C en dépit de l’accélération des émissions à partir de 1945. Ce ne sont donc pas les observations qui sont inquiétantes mais les projections des modèles de climat repris par le GIEC. Leur problème est toutefois qu’ils ne sont pas d’accord entre eux, prévoyant des hausses avec une incertitude dans un rapport de 1 à 3, incertitude qui ne s’est pas réduite en 40 ans d’études en dépit de moyens considérables. Un corpus de 3000 publications dans des revues internationales conclut en revanche à une prééminence de la variabilité naturelle du climat sur la contribution anthropique. Cela dit, réduire notre addiction au carbone est sans doute sage car les ressources ne sont pas inépuisables. Mais jouer aux apprentis sorciers avec la géo-ingénierie est plus discutable. Et à quoi bon puisque des astronomes prévoient une moindre activité solaire dans les années à venir. Les recherches visant à retransformer le CO2 en carburant à partir de la photosynthèse de micro-algues sont intéressantes, surtout si le prix du baril devait considérablement augmenter à l’avenir. Toutefois, le supplément de CO2dans l’atmosphère a enrichi la biomasse végétale de l’ordre de 20 % comme le vérifie le verdissement de la Planète observé par satellite. Serait-il raisonnable d’en contrarier le bénéfice en particulier pour les plantes nutritives ?

German Employer’s Association Op Ed: “No Expert Politician In Berlin Believes In Switch To Green Energies Any More”

by P. Gosselin, May 14, 2019 in NoTricksZone


As the pressure mounts in Germany to switch off coal power plants and to rapidly transition over to green energies, one gets the feeling that it all has more to do with a desperate, last-ditch effort by the green energy proponents to rescue their pet green project.

Behind closed doors, no one in Berlin believes in it

Now, just days ago, energy expert Dr. Björn Peters wrote at the German Association of Employers site that the Energiewende has deteriorated to the point that: “No specialist politician in Berlin believes in the success of the Energiewende any more. Whoever you ask, everyone says this only behind closed doors and thinks that if you go to the press with it you can only lose against the ‘green’ media mainstream.”

Peters warns that what is needed in Germany is a good dose of reality and “a fresh start on energy policy.”

Advantages of fossil fuels “too great”

The German expert writes that despite the hundreds of billions of euros committed to green energies, “chemical energy from coal, oil and gas supplies about four fifths of primary energy worldwide and also in Germany and thus represents the present energy supply”.

UN Biodiversity Officials Fail Transparency Test

by Donna Laframboise, May 13, 2019 in BigPictureNews


The United Nations Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is a clone of the IPCC, the UN’s climate body. But there are some notable differences.

We’re told that a great deal of power resides with the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP), which currently consists of 28 individuals. These are the people who, for example, decide which international scholars will be assigned to discuss which topics within the pages of official IPBES reports.

To its credit, that entity’s website has been designed to provide the CV of everyone who sits on this panel. Rather than taking the UN’s word for it that these are world class experts, the public is given the opportunity to examine their credentials firsthand.

But saying you believe in transparency is different from acting like it. If organizations aren’t living up to the standards they’ve set for themselves, that’s worth noticing.

Last week was hugely important for the IPBES – it sought and received massive international media coverage. Despite this, it utterly failed its own transparency test. The CVs of most MEP members aren’t actually available online.

Climate data shows no recent warming in Antarctica, instead a slight cooling

by Anthony Watts, May 10, 2019 in WUWT


Below is a plot from a resource we have not used before on WUWT, “RIMFROST“. It depicts the average temperatures for all weather stations in Antarctica. Note that there is some recent cooling in contrast to a steady warming since about 1959.


Data and plot provided by
http://rimfrost.no 

Contrast that with claims by Michael Mann, Eric Steig, and others who used statistical tricks to make Antarctica warm up. Fortunately, it wasn’t just falsified by climate skeptics, but rebutted in peer review too.