Archives par mot-clé : Fun?/Discussion

CARTE BLANCHE : Faut-il céder à l’hystérie climatique?

by Yves Lahaye, 21 juin 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie


En pleine effervescence sur la question climatique, je reste dubitatif en considérant quelques faits avérés qui ne me paraissent pas aller dans le sens proclamé par la doctrine officielle. Je m’interroge également sur des affirmations qui me paraissent relever davantage de l’idéologie que de la science.

Bien sûr, je ne suis pas scientifique. Pour beaucoup, c’est déjà suffisant pour m’interdire d’exprimer un avis sur le sujet ou, mieux, pour m’interdire de poser des questions. Car bien évidemment, tous les scientifiques, bien plus malins que moi, ne décrètent-ils que la fin du monde est proche ? Je n’aurais donc pas d’autre droit que celui de me conformer à la bonne parole sous peine d’être mis au ban de la société.

Consensus? 200+ New 2019 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism

by K. Richard, June17, 2019 in NoTricksZone


In the first 5½ months of 2019, over 200 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and ²²²²mainstream media sources.

 

These 200+ new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY

by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng., June 2019 in WUWT


ABSTRACT

Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.

Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature changes, then tropical humidity changes, then atmospheric temperature changes, then CO2 changes.

The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature changes and CO2 changes occur ~9 months later (MacRae 2008).

The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.

The ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.

Based on the above observations, global temperatures drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations much more than CO2 drives temperature.

Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low, less than ~1C/(2*CO2) and probably much less.

There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather due to increasing CO2 concentrations.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 clearly causes significantly improved crop yields, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.

Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life.

Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc may also increase atmospheric CO2. The increase of CO2 is clearly beneficial.

“Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily because of the fatal flaw of intermittency.

There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the flaw of intermittency in grid-connected wind and solar power generation.

Electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to green energy schemes.

HYPOTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Fig.1a – The very close relationship of dCO2/dt (red) vs global temperature (blue) is clearly apparent. Major volcanoes disrupt the relationship.

Polar bear habitat update at mid-June: more than enough for survival

by Polar Bear Science, June 16, 2019


Here we are at the middle of June, when most polar bears are pretty much done with hunting seals for the season. And despite hand-wringing from some quarters, sea ice extent is down only marginally from average at this time of year and certainly not enough to impact polar bear survival.

Given the large expanse of open water in the Southern Beaufort so early in the season, one resident pessimist insists those polar bears are “challenged” by the lack of ice. If he is right, there should be reports of dozens upon dozens of skinny and dying bears along the coast of Alaska this summer. If not, he will pretend he never suggested any such thing.

So far, despite the early loss of ice in some regions, there have been no reports of polar bears ashore unusually early. Hudson Bay still has lots of thick first year ice, so despite the overall reduced Arctic ice coverage, none of the three Hudson Bay polar bear populations are facing the earlier-than-usual sea ice breakup this year as we keep being promised will show up. In fact, there hasn’t been a significantly early breakup in Western Hudson Bay since 2010 (see previous posts here and here).

Will Climate Change Drive a Million Species Extinct?

by Vijay Jayaraj, June 3, 2019 Townhall


A million species threatened by “climate change”? Well, climate change as defined by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (“a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”) isn’t likely to bring about any warming exceeding that of the warm periods mentioned above.

Which of course means it’s not likely to drive millions of species extinct. In fact, it will be a miracle if the gradual change in climate causes any alarming extinctions at all.

Only illegal hunting and habitat destruction (despite protection by governments) continue to threaten endangered species. Even in the worst case, they won’t cause species extinctions in the millions.

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, lives in Bangalore, India.

Extremes

by Judith Curry, June14, 2019 in WUWT


Politics versus science in attributing extreme weather events to manmade global warming.

If you follow me on twitter, you may have noticed that I was scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Jun 12 [link].  The subject of the Hearing is Contending with Natural Disasters in the Wake of Climate Change.

Late on Jun 10, I received an email telling me that the Hearing is postponed (as yet unscheduled).  Apparently the Committee finds it more urgent to have a Hearing related to holding the Attorney General and Secretary of Commerce in contempt of Congress [link].  Interesting to ponder that Congressional procedural issues are deemed to be more important than Climate Change.

So I spent all last week working on my testimony (which is why there have been no new blog posts).  I hope the Hearing will eventually happen (Michael Mann is also scheduled to testify).

Hurricanes and climate change constitute a major portion of my testimony.  You may recall my recent series  on Hurricanes & climate change [link].  Specifically with regards to detection and attribution, my bottom line conclusion was:

“In summary, the trend signal in hurricane activity has not yet had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes. Manmade climate change may have caused changes in hurricane activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations. But at this point, there is no convincing evidence that manmade global warming has caused a change in hurricane activity.”

A Second Look At Radiation Versus Temperature

by Willis Eschenbach, June 14, 2019 in WUWT


I kept going back and looking at the graphic from my previous post on radiation and temperature. It kept niggling at me. It shows the change in surface temperature compared to the contemporaneous change in how much energy the surface is absorbing. Here’s that graphic again:

 

Figure 1. From my previous post. It is a scatterplot showing the dependence of temperature on the total downwelling radiation (longwave plus shortwave) absorbed by the surface.

What I found botheracious were the outliers at the top of the diagram. I knew what they were from, which was the El Nino/La Nina of 2015-2016.

After thinking about that, I realized I’d left one factor out of the calculations above. What the El Nino phenomenon does is to periodically pump billions of cubic meters of the warmest Pacific equatorial water towards the poles. And I’d left that advected energy transfer out of the equation in Figure 1. (Horizontal transfer of energy from one place on earth to another is called “advection”).

And it’s not just advection of energy caused by El Nino. In general, heat is advected from the tropics towards the poles by the action of the ocean and the atmosphere. Figure 2 shows the average amount of energy exported (plus) or imported (minus) around the globe.

Study: Cattle Methane is a moooot point in global climate

by Anthony Watts, June 12, 2019 in WUWT


Via No Tricks Zone: Agrobiologist and scientific researcher Dr. Albrecht Glatzle, author of over 100 scientific papers and two textbooks, has published research that shows:

“…there is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate” and the “warming potential of anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions has been exaggerated.”

Glatzle, 2018

Domestic Livestock and ItsAlleged Role in Climate Change

Abstract:

“Our key conclusion is there is no need for anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and even less so for livestock-born emissions, to explain climate change. Climate has always been changing, and even the present warming is most likely driven by natural factors.

The warming potential of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been exaggerated, and the beneficial impacts of manmade CO2 emissions for nature, agriculture, and global food security have been systematically suppressed, ignored, or at least downplayed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and other UN (United Nations) agencies.

Furthermore, we expose important methodological deficiencies in IPCC and FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) instructions and applications for the quantification of the manmade part of non-CO2-GHG emissions from agro-ecosystems.

However, so far, these fatal errors inexorably propagated through the scientific literature.

Finally, we could not find a clear domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of mean atmospheric methane concentration.”

Ending Fossil Fuels Would Bring The World Back To The Dark Ages

by Washington Times, June11, 2019 in ClimateChange Dispatch


German engineering, as good as it is, has not been able to eliminate the effect of “green” politics, which would replace fossil and nuclear power with renewables. The result is 172,000 localized blackouts in Germany in 2017.

Poverty was a constant companion of humanity until modern times. The proportion of people worldwide living in poverty was cut in half between 1990 and 2010, according to the World Bank, an achievement unprecedented in human history.

It was the result of a rapid boost in global energy production — up 43 percent during that period, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Nearly 81 percent of that power was generated by fossil fuels, such as oil and gas.

A billion people around the globe still suffer extreme energy poverty, with no access to electricity. Everyone gets a hint of what that means when storms knock out the power, and everything in the house stops.

Fumbling occasionally for candles is a mere inconvenience, but life beyond carbon — entirely dependent on sunshine and a breeze — would be insanity.

Why Climate Models Can’t Predict The Future (And Never Have)

by Jay Lehr, June 11, 2019 in Climate ChangeDispatch


SEE ALSO: Climate Models Of Incompetence

Consider the following: we do not know all the variables that control our climate, but we are quite sure they are likely in the hundreds.

Just take a quick look at ten obviously important factors for which we have limited understanding:

1- Changes in seasonal solar irradiation;

2- Energy flows between ocean and atmosphere;

3- Energy flow between air and land;

4- The balance between Earth’s water, water vapor, and ice;

5- The impacts of clouds;

6- Understanding the planet’s ice;

7- Mass changes between ice sheets, sea level and glaciers;

8- The ability to factor in hurricanes and tornadoes;

9- The impact of vegetation on temperature;

10- Tectonic movement on ocean bottoms.

Yet, today’s modelers believe they can tell you the planet’s climate decades or even a century in the future and want you to manage your economy accordingly.

Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysics laboratory once calculated that if we could know all the variables affecting climate and plugged them into the world’s largest computer, it would take 40 years for the computer to reach an answer.

Radiation versus Temperature

by Willis Eschenbach, June 8, 2019 in WUWT


Due to the recent posts by Lord Monkton and Nick Stokes, I’ve been thinking about the relationship between radiation and temperature. So I turned to the CERES dataset. Here is a scatterplot of the monthly global average surface temperature versus the monthly global average downwelling total radiation absorbed by the surface. The total radiation is the sum of the net solar radiation at the surface and the downwelling longwave radiation at the surface. I’ve removed the seasonal variations from the data.

Note that 3.7 W/m2 is the increase in downwelling longwave radiation expected from a doubling of CO2 …

When I saw that, I thought well, maybe the increase is small because there’s a lag between the absorption of the radiation and the warming. To see if that was the case, I did a cross-correlation analysis of the relationship.

EIA data shows wind & solar met 3% of U.S. energy after $50 billion in subsidizes

by Larry Hamlin, June 6, 2019 in WUWT


The EIA AEO 2019 report shows that in year 2018 wind and solar energy resources provide about 3% of U.S. total energy consumption while fossil fuel energy resources provide about 81% of total energy use.

The dominate use of fossil fuels in meeting U.S. energy needs remains little changed from a decade ago before use of renewable energy resources became mandated and supported by lucrative government subsidizes.

Using additional EIA data the total wind and solar provided energy going back to year 2000 is available which allows an assessment of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) payments to be made.

‘Skeptical Environmentalist’ Bjorn Lomborg sets fire to the scourge of ‘unbridled climate alarmism’

by Charles the moderator , June 7, 2019 in WUWT


Fear’s a great motivator, right? So what better way to motivate people to care about climate change than to scare the crap out of them? Even if you have to leave out some details to do it?

New York Magazine climate columnist David Wallace-Wells seems to be a student at the School of We’re Hurtling Toward Global Environmental Catastrophe and We’re All Gonna Die. Last night, he shared a short piece by James Dyke, a senior lecturer in global systems at the University of Exeter, explaining some of the horrible things humanity is in for:

Latest Global Temp. Anomaly (May ’19: +0.32°C) A Simple “No Greenhouse Effect” Model of Day/Night Temperatures at Different Latitudes

by Dr. Roy Spencer, June 7, 2019 in WUWT


Abstract: A simple time-dependent model of Earth surface temperatures over the 24 hr day/night cycle at different latitudes is presented. The model reaches energy equilibrium after 1.5 months no matter what temperature it is initialized at. It is shown that even with 1,370 W/m2 of solar flux (reduced by an assumed albedo of 0.3), temperatures at all latitudes remain very cold, even in the afternoon and in the deep tropics. Variation of the model input parameters over reasonable ranges do not change this fact. This demonstrates the importance of the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect, which increases surface temperatures well above what can be achieved with only solar heating and surface infrared loss to outer space.

Des coraux qui s’adaptent aux températures plus élevées

by Paul Berth, 31 mai 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie


Selon certaines prédictions, basées sur des modèles informatiques, de nombreux récifs coralliens auront disparu des océans tropicaux au cours des 80 prochaines années[1]. La cause est bien évidemment le réchauffement climatique pouvant provoquer un blanchiment des coraux. Par exemple, en 2014–2017, a eu lieu un évènement global de blanchiment, le 3e au cours des 20 dernières années, et de nombreux coraux furent affectés sur des milliers de kilomètres carrés[2],[3]. Les médias, avides de catastrophisme, en ont beaucoup parlé avec des titres une fois de plus très alarmistes (exemple ici).

Cependant, les choses ne sont pas si simples. Des données satellitaires et des études de terrain ont montré que tous les récifs coralliens ne se comportent pas de la même manière: de nombreux récifs n’ont pas blanchi pendant le dernier épisode El Niño, une très grande partie des coraux a résisté au stress thermique, et de fortes variations locales et régionales ont été observées dans le blanchiment[4]. La relation entre température élevée de l’eau de mer et blanchiment des coraux n’est donc pas évidente. Afin d’éclaircir la situation une équipe américaine a récemment publié une analyse globale des évènements de stress thermique en considérant 3351 sites différents dans 81 pays (Sully et al. 2019, dans Nature Communications[5]). Cette analyse globale est unique et démontre que les coraux sont en train de s’adapter par sélection naturelle et sont désormais un peu plus résistants au blanchiment. Nous avons ici une belle démonstration du fait que les modèles informatiques sont parfois bien loin de la réalité de terrain et qu’il ne faut pas tirer de  conclusions toujours hâtives!

10 Of 10 Coastal Antarctic Stations Show Zero Warming Over Past Decades. Failed Scientists Need To Resign

by Kirye in P. Gosselin, May 31, 2019 in NoTricksZone


Over the past few years, climate alarmists have increasingly been resorting to weather-ambulance chasing, which has necessitated the trotting of the globe in the search of weather anomalies to behold as proof of man-made climate change.

But one place they have been avoiding like the plague is Antarctica as a number of studies have been showing the opposite of what what predicted earlier has been happening down at the South Pole, except for volcanic activity beneath parts of the Antarctic ice shelf.

Analysis of Antarctic stations show cooling

Roy Spencer: Why so many tornadoes this year? It’s not what AOC, Bernie Sanders (or maybe even you) think

by Charles the moderator, May 29, 2019 in WUWT


By Roy Spencer | Fox News

Progressive politicians like Al Gore, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D.N.Y., don’t hesitate to blame any kind of severe weather – even if it is decreasing over time – on global warming.

With the devastating Dayton, Ohio tornadoes fresh on our minds, it is useful to examine exactly why (modest) global warming has produced fewer – not more – of such events.

The simple answer is that tornado formation requires unusually cool air.

Very few thunderstorms produce tornadoes. In the hot and humid tropics, they are virtually unheard of. The reason why is that (unlike hurricanes) tornadoes require strong wind shear, which means wind speed increasing and changing direction with height in the lower atmosphere.

These conditions exist only when a cool air mass collides with a warm air mass. And the perfect conditions for this have existed this year as winter has refused to lose its grip on the western United States. So far for the month of May 2019, the average temperature across the U.S. is close to 2 degrees Fahrenheit below normal.

Patrick Moore auditionné par la Chambre des représentant des Etats Unis à propos du rapport de l’IPBES

by Usbek, 29 mai 2019 in ClimatEnvironnementEnergie


Le  22 mai 2019 la Chambre des représentants des Etats Unis a organisé une audition sur le récent rapport d’évaluationglobale de l’IPBES (Plateforme intergouvernementale scientifique et politique sur la biodiversité et les services éco systémiques ).

Patrick Moore a été invité a donner son témoignage; nous en donnons ci-dessous une traduction (les liens et renvois en bas de page sont du traducteur).


Je vous remercie de m’avoir donné l’occasion de témoigner à l’audience d’aujourd’hui.

En 1971, alors que j’étais doctorant en écologie, je me suis joint à un groupe d’activistes dans un sous-sol d’église à Vancouver, au Canada, et j’ai traversé le Pacifique à bord d’un petit bateau pour protester contre les essais américains de bombes à hydrogène en Alaska. Nous sommes devenus Greenpeace. Après 15 ans au sein du comité directeur, j’ai dû quitter Greenpeace, qui commençait à adopter des politiques que je ne pouvais accepter d’un point de vue scientifique.

Je me suis donné comme mission de toujours appliquer de sains principes scientifiques lors de l’examen des problèmes environnementaux critiques auxquels nous sommes confrontés aujourd’hui.

Ce n’est qu’au début des années 1900, marquées par la disparition définitive de la tourte voyageuse en 1914, que le grand public a commencé à s’intéresser de près à la question de l’extinction des espèces. Cette prise de conscience a été inspirée par l’activisme précoce de Théodore Roosevelt, John Muir et Gifford Pinchot.

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.