by Prof. William Happer, Nov 2022
by J. Curry, Nov 26, 2022 in WUWT
There are particular fields in which those that stray from the official narrative are instantly shunned as dissidents. Climate change is one of these. Dr Judith Curry, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has become known as one of the outspoken scientists who doubt the “scientific consensus” on climate change. As a result, she was “academically, pretty much finished off” and “essentially unhirable”. However, this didn’t slow down the bold climatologist.
BizNews spoke to Curry about her views on climate change and the impact that human beings have had on the planet. A delightfully fascinating discussion ensued in which Curry explained her objection to the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policy makers” and how far reality really is from the grim picture painted by environmental activists. Curry made sense of recent extreme weather events and indicated that “Earth has survived far bigger insults than what human beings are doing”. An eye-opening interview.
by J. Summers, Oct 20, 2022 in LifeSite
(LifeSiteNews) — A former climate alarmist appeared on Laura Ingraham’s FOX Newsprogram las week, calling climate alarmism, the belief that the world will suffer catastrophically as a result of man-made climate change or global warming, a “scam.”
Tom Harris, Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition, an organization that seeks to promote a better understanding of climate science, toldIngraham that contrary to the mainstream position, there is not an impending climate crisis.
“I was originally an aerospace engineer,” Harris began, “and I would give speeches, and I wrote articles. I wrote one in the Ottawa Citizen about comparative climatology, how studying the planets helps us understand the earth better. And I used the example of the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. I said ‘This could happen on the earth, if we don’t reduce carbon dioxide!’”
“A local professor at Carleton University, a professor of geology, he liked my article so much he used it in his course on climate change,” Harris continued. “But he said to the students, ‘But that part about Venus is wrong. What happened on Venus cannot physically happen on earth,’ and he explained why.”
Harris claimed that the professor took him to his lab and showed him his findings, as well as those of other scientists, recounting “At times, [carbon dioxide] was 1300% of today, and we were stuck in very cold conditions. So it was all over the board. So I started wondering, ‘Well, maybe he’s right.’”
Harris also stated that the professor introduced him to people that showed him that thousands of scientists who disagree with the so-called “climate consensus,” shattering the proposition that most scientists believe in global warming.
Harris then brought out a book that dismantles the claims of thousands of articles about the climate crisis, showing that “there is no foundation” to the proposition.
“Here’s a book actually that illustrates that, it’s called Climate Change Reconsidered, and this is on climatechangereconsidered.org,” Harris said. “There are thousands of references here which talk about the fact that there is no foundation to the climate scam. It’s all based on models that don’t work.”
When asked by Ingraham if the science around climate and climate change was “settled science,” Harris answered in the negative.
by F. Bergman, Aug 19, 2022 in Slay
A group of almost 1200 of the world’s leading scientists and scholars has signed a document to declare that “there is no climate emergency.”
The group, led by a Nobel Prize laureate, signed the declaration that states climate science is based more on personal beliefs and political agendas than rigorous scientific facts.
The World Climate Declaration warns that climate science “should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific.”
“Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures,” the declaration reads.
by R. Darwall, Mar 7, 2022 in TheSpectator
“No climate crisis” is, of course, not the spin the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is putting on its new 3,676-page report released last month. “The choices we make in the next decade will determine our future,” the IPCC says. “Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.”
It could hardly be plainer. The report is political advocacy barely masquerading as science.
The IPCC Working Group II report is not meant to be about policy; that’s the job of Working Group III, which has yet to produce its contribution to the sixth assessment report. “The focus of our new report is on solutions,” the IPCC says of the Working Group II report. “It highlights the importance of fundamental changes in society.” The solution to climate change, the IPCC claims, is renewable energy, circular economies, healthy diets, universal health coverage and social protection. The only surprise is that the IPCC didn’t include abolishing the Second Amendment in its climate catechism.
“Scientific evidence shows that addressing the risks and impacts of climate change successfully involves a more a diverse set of actors than previously thought” and involvespartnerships with “traditionally marginalized groups, including women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and ethnic minorities (high confidence).” How on earth did the IPCC exclude the LBGTQ+ community? “Different interests, values and worldviews can be reconciled if everyone works together,” the IPCC says. This isn’t science. It’s climate kumbaya.
Small islands were the poster child of net zero as they claimed they risked sinking beneath the waves thanks to rising sea levels. They successfully lobbied for the adoption of the target in the Paris climate agreement to limit the increase in global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The IPCC therefore includes them in a list of global hotspots of high human vulnerability, asserting that their vulnerability will increase in the context of sea level rise. Yet only four years ago, the IPCC in its 1.5 degree Celsius special report stated that “observations, models and other evidence” indicate that unconstrained Pacific atolls have kept pace with sea level rises and that there had been “little reduction in size or net gain in land.”
In a blog post, Roger Pielke Jr. of the department of environmental studies at the University of Colorado Boulder notes that the IPCC lifts projections of future climate damages from studies that eliminate the choice of adapting to climate change, a practice Pielke calls “misleading at best.” Yet buried in the report is a study showing that adequate flood protection, i.e. adaptation, could avoid 95 percent of projected flood damages.
by D. Wojick, Jan 29, 2020 in ClimateChangeDispatch
There is NO climate emergency. Preaching doom and gloom is a crime against the young generation. These are the key points of a new manifesto from the Climate Intelligence Group or CLINTEL.
CLINTEL is a rapidly growing international group, led by prominent scientists, that opposes the ill-founded attempts to scare people into hasty climate policy actions.
They also oppose the terrorizing of children as part of the false climate alarm. CLINTEL recently issued a World Climate Declaration denouncing scaremongering and this new manifesto provides detailed scientific backup for the WCD for a wide public.
The manifesto is authored by Professor Guus Berkhout, the President of CLINTEL.
The focus of the Berkhout manifesto is on climate-related modeling, which it says is “unfit for purpose.” The purpose, in this case, is predicting future climate change. Modeling dominates climate science.
It also provides the scary scenarios that drive hugely expensive and disruptive climate emergency action policies. That the models are faulty is a very important finding.
The manifesto says there are at least four strong reasons why today’s models are no good.