“To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” — Twain/Maslow/Kaplan/Baruch/Buddha/Unknown

Climate activists are aggressively pushing the notion that climate change is a “crisis” or an “emergency”, or an “existential threat” in an effort to move governments and their citizens to demand dramatic and heroic actions to halt and reverse climate change. Once such a notion was adopted, only dramatic and heroic actions would be deemed to be acceptable to address the threat. These actions are extremely expensive and frequently require technology which is non-existent or not commercially available.

There are essentially only two approaches to addressing the projected effects of climate change – mitigation and adaptation. The primary focus of climate activists has been on mitigation, with demands that fossil fuel consumption be halted globally, or that CO2 emissions be reduced to net zero, by some near-term future year. However, there appears to be growing recognition among climate activists that their deadlines will not be met and that adaptation approaches must receive higher priority.

The recent formation of the Global Commission on Adaptation is one effort to emphasize the need for adaptation. The Commission accepts the notion that climate change is a crisis requiring far greater response from the global community. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the crisis notion focuses the Commission on dramatic and heroic adaptation strategies. Also, it assures demands that this response not diminish the demanded mitigation efforts.

“Global actions to slow climate change are promising but insufficient. We must invest in a massive effort to adapt to conditions that are now inevitable: higher temperatures, rising seas, fiercer storms, more unpredictable rainfall, and more acidic oceans.”

“Adaptation is not an alternative to a redoubled effort to stop climate change, but an essential complement to it. Failing to lead and act on adaptation will result in a huge economic and human toll, causing widespread increases in poverty and severely undermining long-term global economic prospects.”

The scope adopted by the Commission goes far beyond mere adaptation to projected future climate change effects. Rather, its scope envisions resolving global inequity and vastly improving global infrastructure for water, sewer, transportation, etc. Based on this scope, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has estimated that adaptation funding requirements would be $140 – 400 billion per year by 2030. This would be in addition to the $400 billion per year estimated for mitigation under the UN Green Climate fund by 2030. It is very likely that continued exaggeration of the current and potential future magnitude of the climate crisis would lead to demands for further increased funding of both mitigation and adaptation.

The estimates of funding requirements for mitigation and adaptation are based on unverified climate models and unverified attribution models, frequently run using worst case scenarios. The estimates of funding requirements to improve existing infrastructure and add new, resilient infrastructure, as well as to correct existing societal inequities, are based on consensus opinions of what constitutes adequate and resilient infrastructure and what constitutes societal equity.

The history of the UN Green Climate Fund suggests that it is highly unlikely that the funding needs envisioned for both mitigation and adaptation will be met. Much of the perceived need for both mitigation and adaptation funding is based on societal failure to recognize that climate is not and has never been static and is not ever likely to become static, even as the result of massive mitigation funding. Even if global mitigation efforts were successful in halting anthropogenic climate change, it is highly unlikely that they would be capable of halting natural climate change.

By: Irish Climate Science Forum

Date: February 2019

An Overview of the Latest Climate Science for Policymakers

“This paper provides a brief overview of the latest Climate Science, compiled by the ICSF for the Information of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Action and of the Draft National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP), 2021-2030.  It is a summary compilation of the latest climate research and Observations by independent scientists worldwide.  The summary does not claim to be scientifically Rigorous in every aspect, but hopefully encapsulates the key facts in this rapidly-evoking field.  The latest research and observations indicate that while there is an anthropogenic Green-House Gas (GHG) influence, it is considerably less than depicted by the IPCC.  Much more is also now understood about solar and other natural influences, weather events and many physical observations.  Objective analysis of the facts points to prudent mitigation action but does not indicate a looming climate crisis.  Therefore the ICSF proposes that national climate policy should be based on ongoing energy innovation, efficiency and conservation measures compatible with continued economic growth, rather than imposing any economically and socially-regressive measures.”…

An Overview of the Latest Climate Science for Policymakers

Current conversation regarding climate change is largely couched in terms such as “crisis”, “emergency” and “existential threat”. However, the use of these descriptors is political posturing, not scientific assessment. The General-Secretary of the World Meteorological Organization recently warned against climate alarmism and criticized the media for “provoking unjustified anxiety”. This political posturing is intended to increase public awareness and anxiety regarding climate change and build acceptance for the dramatic actions proposed by climate alarmists.

Against this raucous background, it can be difficult to dispassionately assess the current climate and its impacts on global civilization. There is always climate and climate change, as there is always weather and weather change. Global weather and thus global climate have always included temperature change, precipitation change, storm frequency and intensity change and numerous other changes. There is no official definition of normal global climate or ideal global climate. During the instrumental global climate record there have been periods of warming and of cooling, against a background of warming during recovery from the Little Ice Age. The warming early in the 20th century was followed by cooling from the 1940s through the 1970s, which was then followed by warming again through the end of the century and relative stasis early in the 21^st century.

The political posturing focuses on the increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations resulting from the use of fossil fuels, primarily since the middle of the 20th century. The increased CO2 is charged with being largely responsible for an increase of approximately 1°C over the past approximately 150 years. The increased CO₂ is also thought to be largely responsible for significant global greening over the same period and, to be partially responsible for progressively increasing crop yields globally.

Observations indicate that global precipitation and drought extremes, global heat and cold extremes, global storm frequency and intensity have declined over the period for which we have data. These are all good things, but they are not clearly attributable to any documented change in global climate. There have also been periods of extreme weather of various types, but these periods are of insufficient duration to be classed as climate or to be attributed to some change in climate.

There are no documented instances of people dying as the result of climate change. There are no documented instances of mass migration as the result of climate change. There are no documented climate refugees. There is no documentation of island nations lost to sea level rise driven by climate change. There are no documented instances of areas becoming uninhabitable due to climate change, nor are there any documented instances of areas becoming habitable due to climate change.

In the absence of documented instances of the situations listed above, it is ridiculous to assert that there is a climate crisis and it is pointless to create panic and demand dramatic action because of the alleged crisis. It is becoming increasingly clear that climate change activism is a means to an end unrelated to climate change, driven by a globalist / socialist / communist agenda.

From: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Does the Climate System Have a Preferred Average State? Chaos and the Forcing-Feedback Paradigm

"The UN IPCC scientists who write the reports which guide international energy policy on fossil fuel use operate under the assumption that the climate system has a preferred, natural and constant average state which is only deviated from through the meddling of humans. They construct their climate models so that the models do not produce any warming or cooling unless they are forced to through increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases, aerosols, or volcanic eruptions.

This imposed behavior of their “control runs” is admittedly necessary because various physical processes in the models are not known well enough from observations and first principles, and so the models must be tinkered with until they produce what might be considered to be the “null hypothesis” behavior, which in their worldview means no long-term warming or cooling.

What I’d like to discuss here is NOT whether there are other ‘external’ forcing agents of climate change, such as the sun. That is a valuable discussion, but not what I’m going to address. I’d like to address the question of whether there really is an average state that the climate system is constantly re-adjusting itself toward, even if it is constantly nudged in different directions by the sun." ...

Does the Climate System Have a Preferred Average State? Chaos and the Forcing-Feedback Paradigm

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

                Martin Niemöller

First they came for nuclear and I did not speak out, because it was a competitor.

Then they came for oil and I did not speak out, because it was a competitor.

Then they came for coal and I did not speak out, because it was a competitor.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.

Environmental activists have waged war on the US energy industry in the press and in the courts for decades but lacked the power to inflict major damage. They have since allied themselves with the political left, which has provided them with access to power and funds they lacked previously. This alliance has also enhanced their access to the media, which have provided ample exposure and support for their efforts.

The US nuclear industry has been faced with organized resistance to new power plant siting, resistance to existing power plant life extension programs and demands for premature plant closures. This resistance has been loosely tied to environmental concerns, though not with climate change, because nuclear generation is the only reliable, dispatchable generation technology which emits no CO2 or other “Green House Gasses (GHGs)”.

The alliance with the political left then led to the 2009 US EPA Endangerment Finding regarding motor fuels (oil distillates) and to massive government subsidies for electric vehicles. The Endangerment Finding was based on projected environmental damage estimates produced by unverified climate models, run with uncertain climate sensitivity, forcing and feedback estimates and extreme Representative Concentration Pathways. These models and their uncertain inputs are suitable for generation of scary scenarios, but not as the basis for public policy. This Endangerment Finding is now under review for possible revision or withdrawal.

Success with the Endangerment Finding then led to the EPA Clean Power Plan, intended to require premature closure of existing coal generators and require the application of carbon capture and sequestration technologies, which have not been commercially demonstrated and appear uneconomical, to any new coal generating stations. This Clean Power Plan is being replaced by a far more flexible Affordable Clean Energy Rule.

Environmental activists and state government entities are also resisting coal industry efforts to increase the capacity of US coal export facilities. These facilities could partially offset the loss of domestic markets with export sales to developing nations which are currently unconstrained in expanding their use of coal for power generation. The stated intent is to eventually shut down the US coal industry.

The environmental attacks on nuclear and coal generation, in combination with advanced natural gas combined cycle generating technology and dramatically increased availability and reduced prices of natural gas as the result of hydraulic fracturing has caused the electric utility industry to move towards natural gas as their generating fuel of choice. This shift to natural gas generation has been the primary factor in the impressive US reductions in CO₂ emissions, since natural gas combustion results in half the CO₂ emissions of coal combustion and the combined cycle generators are also approximately twice as efficient as coal generators. Massive subsidies for wind and solar have been far less effective in reducing CO₂ emissions.

Environmental activists have also worked with the political left and the media to prevent or delay construction of new and expanded oil and gas pipeline capacity to connect new and expanded production fields to new and growing markets. The delay or denial of oil pipelines has forced incremental oil supplies to be moved to market by rail, resulting in both higher transportation costs and increased environmental risk. The delay or denial of new natural gas pipelines has impeded the electric generating industry in its efforts to site new natural gas combined cycle generating facilities because of constrained delivery capacity.

More recently, these delivery constraints are also forcing natural gas utilities to halt new customer service connections to protect supplies for existing customers. The State of New York has recently denied necessary permits for two natural gas pipelines, one intended to increase delivery capacity to upstate New York and New England and the other intended to increase delivery capacity to Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island. Both actions have caused the serving natural gas utilities to halt new customer connections. Ironically, the Governor of New York has asked the New York State Public Service Commission to investigate the utility decisions to halt new connections. The New York State ban on hydraulic fracturing has also dramatically constrained in-state natural gas production.

Most historic US natural gas utilities have been acquired by or merged into electric utilities, forming or expanding existing combination utilities, effectively converting inter-company competition to intra-company competition, which ultimately devolves to market allocation for convenience. This is particularly true as constrained pipeline capacity has tightened competition for available pipeline capacity between the utility generating unit and the gas distribution unit. Since generation typically represents 70-80% of combination utility assets, generation typically has priority on available supply.

The electric utility industry has been aggressively marketing and lobbying for an all-electric economy for decades. They have been aided and abetted in these efforts by US Department of Energy Appliance Efficiency Standards and site-based building energy efficiency standards, both of which largely ignore the inefficiencies of the electric power generation, transmission and distribution systems and their higher environmental emissions.

The electric industry has found a new ally in municipal bans on new natural gas connections, imposed in the alleged interest of avoiding increased climate change.  Berkeley, California has imposed such a ban, effective beginning in January 2020. The City of Seattle, Washington is also considering such a ban. Other cities will likely follow suit, particularly in California, Oregon and Washington, at least initially.

These bans, as well as suspensions of new connections as the result of government-imposed supply constraints deprive new residents and commercial businesses of fuel choice for heating, water heating, cooking, laundry drying and other competitive energy end uses. They also prohibit the installation of automatic standby generators, which will become progressively more necessary as reliable, dispatchable generating systems are increasingly replaced by intermittent and non-dispatchable generators, such as wind and solar.

The ultimate intent of the environmental activists and the political left are to move the US toward an all-electric energy supply system, powered by “clean energy” such as wind and solar, supported by battery or other energy storage systems. This approach is questionable from a national security standpoint, since many of the materials required for the construction of the wind and solar generators are controlled by China.

The estimated $30 trillion investment required to achieve this transition and the resulting higher energy costs for the US economy appear to be of little real concern to its advocates. The unsuitability of the resulting energy supply system for process industries, iron and steel production and cement production also appear to be of little concern. One advocate recently suggested that perhaps certain types of production might not be able to be conducted here, even though relocating them to nations with weaker environmental rules would make no difference regarding their contributions to anthropogenic climate change.

The electric utility industry has apparently decided to pursue appeasement of the environmental activists and the political left and, as Winston Churchill suggested, “feed the alligator in the hope that it will eat you last”. The recent fascination of the political left in the US with nationalization of industries suggests that the alligator’s meal might not long be delayed.

From: The Global Warming Policy Foundation

By: Dr John Christy

Date: June 18, 2019

Putting Climate Change Claims to the Test

"When I grew up in the world of science, science was understood as a method of finding information. You would make a claim or a hypothesis, and then test that claim against independent data. If it failed, you rejected your claim and you went back and started over again. What I’ve found today is that if someone makes a claim about the climate, and someone like me falsifies that claim, rather than rejecting it, that person tends to just yell louder that their claim is right. They don’t look at what the contrary information might say."

"OK, so what are we talking about? We’re talking about how the climate responds to the emission of additional greenhouse gases caused by our combustion of fossil fuels. In terms of scale, and this is important, we want to know what the impact is on the climate, of an extra half a unit of forcing amongst total forcings that sum to over 100 units. So we’re trying to figure out what that signal is of an extra 0.5 of a unit." ...

Putting Climate Change Claims to the Test

The weather system which has developed into Hurricane Dorian was first identified as a tropical depression on August 24^th, 2019 approximately three quarters of the way from Guinea-Bissau on the northwest coast of Africa to Venezuela the northeast coast of South America. It was upgraded to a tropical storm later that same day. The system was then upgraded to a hurricane (Cat 1) on August 28^th and finally to a Cat 5 hurricane on September 1st.

The weather system has changed direction from West Northwest to Northwest and back to West Northwest. It is currently projected to change direction again to North Northwest, then to North and finally to Northeast over a period of 5 days. These projected changes of path would avoid landfall on the US East coast. The storm is also expected to weaken to Cat 1 over the same period.

Meteorologists do not know why this weather system became a tropical depression at this location at this time. They do not know why it developed into a tropical storm and then into a major hurricane. They do not understand why it is moving very slowly, or why it has made the multiple changes in direction to date, or why it would make the further changes in direction projected for the next several days.

The historical records of the storm tracks of similar hurricanes have not been particularly enlightening for this weather system, as shown below. The computer models have also been of limited value until very recently.

The broadly variant paths of past hurricanes of similar intensity, the significant range of modeled paths for the current system and the inability to predict system intensity suggest the highly questionable nature of computer-based attribution modeling studies used to calculate the affects of climate change on the path, speed and intensity of this and future similar storms.

History tells us that hurricanes will occur in the Atlantic basin, typically beginning in June and extending through November, with the greatest number of hurricanes occurring in September and October. However, the actual events are not predictable as to initiation, location, speed, intensity and likelihood of landfall. This is clearly illustrated by the recent 12-year long absence of land falling strong hurricanes in the US, followed by a very active hurricane season in 2018, neither of which was predicted.

There has been limited recent discussion of possible approaches to weakening hurricanes or causing them to disintegrate to avoid the effects of major landfalling hurricanes. This 60-year old idea has not matured into a successful approach with demonstrated positive results and probably will not due so.

Major hurricanes contain a huge amount of energy and mass, which can do enormous damage in the event of landfall. Hurricanes pre-existed anthropogenic climate change. We have no documented observations that demonstrate that hurricane occurrence or intensity has been affected by climate change, or would be affected by the cessation of climate change. While many have urged application of the Precautionary Principle to our approach climate change, the simple precaution of not building susceptible infrastructure in hurricane-prone areas has been largely ignored.

From: Watts Up With That?

By: Dr Paul Rossiter

Date: September 26 - October 6, 2019

Understanding the Climate Movement:

1. The Impotence of Science

2. Noble Cause Corruption

3. Follow the Money

"Like many other ethical and well-meaning scientists, I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the climate “science” debate. By resorting to rigorous measurement and analysis of real data, we have a reasonable (but perhaps naïve) expectation that the facts will determine the outcome of the AGW argument. And yet, despite the huge amount of information available, much of it through sites such as WUWT, it appears that the popular debate is clearly being won by the alarmists. Seemingly reputable organisations like IPCC, WHO, WWF, NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, EPA keep issuing reports heralding pending climate doom that appear to be at odds with any unbiased examination of the facts. And when they do, they are immediately picked up by an opportunistic mainstream press and amplified through social media, leading to widespread fear amongst the population, clearly evident in the recent “strikes for the climate”. Ill-informed adolescents become the new Messiahs, preaching the climate doom gospel and given standing ovations in the fact-free climate gab-fests. School children are now the upset victims of corporate (i.e. fossil fuel) greed and government stupidity." ...

1. The Impotence of Science

2. Noble Cause Corruption

3. Follow the Money

Weather changes on all time scales. Some weather changes are predictable in general terms: summer will be relatively warm; winter will be relatively cool. This change occurs every year, driven by the seasonal change in the angle of incidence of the solar radiation striking the earth. However, some summers and winters are relatively warmer or cooler than others. Also, the spring and fall transitions between summer and winter can vary significantly. The historical differences can be documented and essentially constitute the range and pattern of temperature variation and the average temperature over various 30-year climate periods. However, prediction of the seasonal and annual variations over the succeeding 30-year climate period is beyond our current ability.

Seasonal and annual weather are affected by anticipatable but unpredictable weather and climate events. These weather events include El Nino and La Nina, which are not currently predictable in either timing or intensity. They also include previously undocumented events, such as the formation of the warm “blob” in the northern Pacific. The climate events include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which transition between their warm and cool phases over relatively predictable cycles, though the timing of each transition is uncertain. These climate events have different global impacts when they are both in either their warm or cool phases and when they are in different phases.

Other common weather events including droughts and floods, tropical cyclones and tornadoes appear not to have documented impacts on global climate; and, there is no documented impact of global climate on these weather events, although attribution studies suggest that climate change has such an impact. Historical observation identifies areas which are susceptible to these weather events and the seasons in which they are most likely to occur. However, we are currently unable to predict the specific incidence, timing, path and intensity of tropical depressions and whether they will develop into tropical cyclones of some strength. We are also unable to predict the incidence, location, timing, duration and severity of droughts and floods. Tornadoes are even less predictable.

Our inability to predict tropical cyclones is highlighted by the recent 12 year “drought” of strong tropical cyclones striking the US, followed by a year in which 3 strong storms did so. Our inability to predict droughts is highlighted by the declarations of “permanent drought” in California and Texas, followed by the end of each of these droughts. Similarly, predictions of “the end of snow” were proven incorrect in numerous locations over this past winter, including in California. Similarly, predictions of an “ice-free Arctic” continue to be incorrect.

Climate is essentially the sum of weather over a 30-year period. Therefore, if we are largely unable to accurately predict weather events on longer time scales, it seems unlikely that we would be able to accurately predict climate (the sum of weather) over longer time scales. The fact that we have been unable to accurately predict global annual temperature over the 1981-2010 climate reference period supports the unlikelihood of accurate predictions in the longer term.

From: Forbes

By: Roger Pielke

Date: September 30, 2019

Net-Zero Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Requires A New Nuclear Power Plant Every Day

"More than a decade ago, Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner characterized climate policy as an “auction of promises” in which politicians “vied to outbid each other with proposed emissions targets that were simply not achievable.” For instance, among Democrats competing for the presidency in 2020, several, including Joe Biden, have committed to achieving net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Candidate Andrew Yang bid 2049, and Cory Booker topped that by offering 2045. Bernie Sanders has offered a 71% reduction by 2030.

One reason that we see this “auction of promises” is that the targets and timetables for emissions reductions are easy to state but difficult to comprehend. Here I’ll present what net-zero carbon dioxide emissions for 2050 actually means in terms of the rate of deployment of carbon-free energy and the coincident decommissioning of fossil fuel infrastructure." ...

Net-Zero Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Requires A New Nuclear Power Plant Every Day

The journal Nature Communications recently published a study (Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians) conducted by researchers at the University of California Merced. The authors defined groups of individuals as either Climate Change Scientists (CCS) or Climate Change Contrarians (CCC). They contend that, while both of these groups of individuals receive approximately the same exposure in the mainstream media, the growth of alternative media has resulted in members of the CCC group receiving approximately 50% greater exposure.

“These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.“

The authors begin from the presumption that: “the 2–3% of researchers unconvinced by evidence for anthropogenic CC were not only small in group size but also had substantially lower levels of authority in the CC literature(REF 10), essentially the Skeptical Science study assertion. The study focuses on: “on a select set of contrarians who have publicly and repeatedly demonstrated their adamant counterposition on CC issues(REF 12) —as extensively documented by the DeSmog project (DeSmogblog.com), a longstanding effort to document climate disinformation efforts associated with numerous contrarian institutions and individual actors.

The UC Merced press release announcing the study quotes one of the co-authors of the study as follows: “Most of the contrarians are not scientists, and the ones who are have very thin credentials. They are not in the same league with top scientists. They aren’t even in the league of the average career climate scientist.” Dr. Judith Curry provided a sub-list of “prominent, currently active climate scientists” from whom she has learned. Dr. Curry notes that this list of climate science ‘contrarians’ is heavily populated by experts in climate dynamics, i.e. how the climate system actually works.

I have prepared a list of skeptical climate scientists whose names appear frequently in the public press. I have listed the universities from which they received their doctorates, the global ranking of those universities, the scientific focus of their doctorates, the universities at which they are or have been employed and the global ranking of those universities.

I doubt that any of those listed could be accurately described as having “very thin credentials”, especially the Emeritus (E) chaired professors from top ten universities.

The reliance of the studies authors on sources such a Skeptical Science and DeSmog and the use of terms such as “disinformation” and “deniers” says much about the study, none of it good.

From: The Heartland Daily Podcast

Guest: Dr. Ross McKittrick

Date: September 17, 2019

Finding Fault in the Hockey Stick Podcast

"Dr. Ross McKittrick of the University of Guelph, Canada, is a professor of economics who got interested in the climate debate after looking over satellite data. He found the climate community very unresponsive and went on his own journey to discover what was up.

He, alongside Steve McInyre, challenged the famous Hockey Stick paper. Listen in to hear his analysis and why you ought not trust the fraud. Models have to be accurate in their reporting without adjustment by climate pushers."

Finding Fault in the Hockey Stick Podcast

If a climate scientist produces a climate science research result and no one hears about it, is it still climate science?

Concerted efforts by members of the consensed climate science community to enforce the climate change orthodoxy became obvious with the first release of the Climategate e-mails ten years ago, though these efforts have likely been ongoing far longer. Prior to Climategate, these efforts were conducted in secrecy. However, since then, the veil of secrecy has been pulled back progressively, revealing “the man behind the curtain”, to borrow a phrase from the Wizard of Oz.

The early efforts included restricting inclusion of skeptical research in the IPCC process, discouraging scientific journals from publishing skeptical research, demanding the firing of editors who approved skeptical papers for publication, not submitting orthodox research results to journals which published skeptical papers, providing unjustifiably negative peer review responses, refusing to act as peer reviewers for skeptical papers, attempting to have skeptics doctoral degrees revoked and agitating to have government-employed skeptics removed from their position. These efforts were successful to some degree.

The more recent efforts include provoked information demands from senators and congresspersons for voluminous information about the funding and associations and publications of skeptical scientists from the scientists and their employers, failure to include skeptical scientists in requests for proposals, summary rejection of skeptical scientist’s proposals and failure to publicize skeptical results.

The media have now become actively involved in protecting and defending climate orthodoxy by refusing to invite skeptical scientists to appear on network programs, refusing to publish opinion pieces by climate skeptics, refusing to publish skeptical letters to the editor.

Internet search engines have participated in these efforts by focusing their first search responses on results which conform to the current climate orthodoxy. Searches of climate scientists who accept the consensus return listings of research results, while searches of skeptical climate scientists return a high percentage of critical evaluations by organizations supportive of the climate orthodoxy.

Most recently, Nature Communications published a study by a university team identifying and demeaning skeptical climate scientists and other skeptics, using a collection of poorly identified and defined criteria. Several of the identified “deniers” have demanded withdrawal of the study, retractions in the press and personal apologies from the research team, the university communications department and other participants. Potential legal action has been threatened if the above actions are not forthcoming.

Perhaps the most egregious media effort is being coordinated by the Columbia Journalism Review, which is calling upon media outlets to devote a week to focused climate coverage this September. This is intended to be a propaganda campaign in favor of the consensus climate change position and agitation for immediate, dramatic action to control climate change.

“Our ask of you is simple: commit to a week of focused climate coverage this September. We are organizing news outlets across the US and abroad—online and print, TV and audio, large and small—to run seven days of climate stories from September 16 through the climate summit UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres hosts in New York September 23. The stories you run are up to you, though we can offer ideas and background information and connect outlets looking for content with content providers looking for outlets.”

There will certainly be no support for skeptical positions being presented as part of this focused climate coverage. The purpose is not to inform but to incite.

From: Climate Change Dispatch

By: Ferdinand Bardamu

Date: September 17, 2019

Climate Change Hysteria: An Excuse To Redistribute Wealth And Destroy The West

"The “Church of Climate Change” demands that Western nations impose restrictions on industrial CO2 emissions, encouraging them to squander billions on unreliable “green” technologies and renewable sources of energy.

They continue to ignore the one policy that has significantly increased atmospheric CO2 levels in the last few decades, generating hundreds of millions of metric tons of the stuff annually: mass third-world immigration (see Kolankiewicz and Camarota, 2008).

If the IPCC were objective, it would demand an end to mass immigration instead of more carbon taxes and emissions trading.

Such indifference in the face of the evidence shows that they care more about racially dispossessing whites than they do about “saving the planet.”

So what is the ulterior motive? To further understand what this may be, we must examine the career of Canadian businessman Maurice Strong (1929–2015).

Thanks to his tireless “lobbying behind the scenes,” the U.N. has played a key role in forging a “consensus” on man-made global warming. In a sense, he was the right man at the right time." ...

Climate Change Hysteria: An Excuse To Redistribute Wealth And Destroy The West

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recently announced that July 2019 was the warmest July on record. This assessment was based on “adjusted” data provided by NOAA. The WMO attributed the record to climate change driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions and suggested that it was consistent with what is to be expected from climate change.

Dr. Roy Spencer responded to the WMO announcement, suggesting that July 2019 was not the warmest July ever, but probably the fourth warmest. Spencer stated that these announcements were based on “adjusted” data which shared three major problems: the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect; inconsistent sea surface temperature measurement approaches; and, incomplete geographic coverage.

Spencer suggested that Global Reanalysis temperature sets would be a more appropriate basis upon which to base pronouncements regarding global temperature. The global reanalyses are only available over the most recent 40 years, rather than the 100+ year records available from the near-surface thermometer records, since they rely in part on the satellite temperature record.

However, Spencer later compared three global reanalysis temperature sets and determined that the ERA5 reanalysis used by the WMO produces a global temperature estimate approximately 0.2°C higher than the other two reanalysis products. While a difference of 0.2° might seem minimal, this difference is between temperature anomaly products and the estimated total global annual average temperature anomaly over the period ranges from 0.38 to 0.94°C, so the difference is approximately 20-50%.

The ERA5 reanalysis also portrays a rate of increase of global average temperature 0.04-0.05°C per decade more rapid than the other two reanalysis products and 0.05°C more rapid than the UAH satellite data record. Again, while 0.05°C per decade might seem minimal, the difference is between temperature anomaly reanalysis products and represents a difference of approximately 38% compared with both the CFSv2 reanalysis product produced by the NOAA National Center for Environmental Prediction and the satellite record produced by UAH.

These differences between temperature reanalysis products are obviously very significant. Perhaps more significant is the fact that we do not know if any of these reanalysis products is accurate. They represent merely best estimates of the temperature anomaly by each of their producers, based on the agglomeration of measurements provided by numerous sources.

In a recent news release, NASA GISS claimed that their temperature anomaly product, GISSTEMP, was accurate to 0.05°C in recent decades, essentially the period over which the reanalysis products have been available. This would suggest that GISSTEMP accuracy is approximately twice as accurate as the average of the temperature reanalysis products, though that cannot be proven.

It is interesting to compare the temperature anomaly estimates from the various producers over the same time period as the temperature reanalyses, or 1979 to present.

                                NASA GISSTEMP                              0.94°C

                                NOAA NCDC                       0.95°C

                                HadCRUT 4                                          0.71°C

                                RSS MSU                                              0.71°C

                                UAH                                                       0.38°C

The first three listed anomalies are based on near-surface temperature measurements. Collectively, they average 0.87 +0.08/-0.16°C. This is a large and very significant range. The final two listed anomalies are satellite-based measurements. They average 0.54 +/- 0.16°C, which is also a large and very significant range. Obviously, not all of these global temperature anomaly estimates can be correct; and, it is not certain that any of them is correct.

Such is the status of the “settled science” of global annual temperature anomaly measurement.