Top climate alarmists

I've blogged before about the time I attended a lecture by Katherine Hayhoe as she outright lied to the audience, composed mostly of college kids and environmental activists who ate it up. I was astonished at how eagerly they believed the lies.

This is a great post from Tony on the topic:

What Next For Katherine Hayhoe?

Posted on December 7, 2016 by tonyheller

Fake climate evangelical Katherine Hayhoe prospered as a top source of fake climate news for the fake Obama administration.

Left to right : 1. Fake actor with a carbon footprint the size of a small country.  2. Fake scientist/evangelical. 3. Fake everything.

When she wasn’t doing that, she was fear mongering to the people of Texas about a fake permanent drought. Texas just had their second wettest two years on record.

http://hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/nwssr/24mPNormNWSSR.png

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

What will Katherine do now?

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/what-next-for-katherine-hayhoe/

Arctic ice is cyclical

Lots of information on this.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/todays-arctic-compares-with-150-years-ago/

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/nineteen-degrees-of-winter-warming-in-the-arctic-from-1910-to-1954/

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/actual-photographs-of-the-disappearing-arctic/

http://www.cfact.org/2016/11/28/five-stages-of-climate-grief/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/29/the-politicization-of-climate-science-is-not-a-recent-phenomenon/

EVEN SHADIER: CHANGING THE SCIENCE TO SUPPORT POLICY

Were you aware that politicians revised the text of the IPCC’s second assessment report, drastically changing the draft written by the scientists? Once again, I’m reproducing a portion of my free ebook On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1. It’s from the heading of THE EVOLUTION OF THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING MOVEMENT:

While there were early scientific studies that pointed to possible increases in surface temperatures associated with the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases, let’s begin this discussion with the formation of the report-writing wing of the United Nations called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As discussed above, the primary task of the IPCC was to create reports that supported the politicians’ agendas. Limiting global warming was likely one of those focuses, but most assuredly there were many others.

The politicians found scientists to write those reports—so began the mutually beneficial relationship between climate scientists and politicians. The politicians wanted scientific support for their agendas and the scientists were more than willing to oblige because the politicians held the purse strings for climate research.

Burning protected forests for "bioenergy"

Sunshine hours alerts us to this:

https://sunshinehours.net/2016/11/28/protected-forests-in-europe-felled/

Protected forests in Europe felled

What an insane world we live in where environmentalists are killing forests and bats and eagles all in the name of saving them from AGW.

Today the outrage is forests.

Protected forests in Europe felled to meet EU renewable targets – report

Europe’s bioenergy plants are burning trees felled from protected conservation areas rather than using forest waste, new report shows.

Protected forests are being indiscriminately felled across Europe to meet the EU’s renewable energy targets, according to an investigation by the conservation group Birdlife.

Up to 65% of Europe’s renewable output currently comes from bioenergy, involving fuels such as wood pellets and chips, rather than wind and solar power.

Bioenergy fuel is supposed to be harvested from residue such as forest waste but, under current legislation, European bioenergy plants do not have to produce evidence that their wood products have been sustainably sourced.

Birdlife found logging taking place in conservation zones such as Poloniny national park in eastern Slovakia and in Italian riverside forests around Emilia-Romagna, where it said it had been falsely presented as flood-risk mitigation.

White House Climate Summit

Tony Heller has a great one here: http://realclimatescience.com/2016/10/todays-white-house-climate-summit/

Today’s White House Climate Summit

Posted on October 4, 2016 by tonyheller

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when  the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”

• Barack Obama  June 3, 2008

Eight years after he was certain he slowed the rise of the seas, President Obama held a conference of climate experts on the White House lawn today to discuss how time is running out to save the planet from a great flood.

 Only Leo “Noah” DiCaprio can save us.

Thirty years ago, the UN warned us that time was running out, and we only had until the year 2000.

Mercury News

Climate change is the biggest freak show of lunatics in history.

sample book cover July 1 2017

guide to spotting bad climate science

Some thoughtful guidelines.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/19/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-climate-science/

Global warming speedometer

Effective graphics are difficult to develop, so I want to acknowledge and recommend this one, which I found here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/25/introducing-the-global-warming-speedometer/

_____________

Introducing the global warming speedometer

Guest Blogger / 6 days ago May 25, 2016

A single devastating graph shows official climate predictions were wild

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The new global warming speedometer shows in a single telling graph just how badly the model-based predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have over-predicted global warming.

The speedometer for the 15 years 4 months January 2001 to April 2016 shows the [1.1, 4.2] C°/century-equivalent interval of global warming rates (red/orange) that IPCC’s 1990, 1995 and 2001 reports predicted should be occurring by now, compared with real-world, observed warming (green) equivalent to less than 0.5 C°/century over the period.

Observed reality

RSS and UAH monthly near-global satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly values for each month from January 2001 to April 2016 were assumed to be broadly accurate and were averaged. The least-squares linear-regression trend on their mean was determined and found equivalent to 0.47 C°/century.

Predictions in IPCC’s Assessment Reports

IPCC (2007, 2013) are too recent to allow reliable comparison of their predictions against reality.

IPCC (2001), on page 8, predicted that in the 36 years 1990-2025 the world would warm by 0.75 [0.4, 1.1] C°, equivalent to 2.1 [1.1, 3.1] C°/century. This predicted interval is 4.5 [2.3, 6.6] times observed warming since January 2001.

IPCC (1995), at fig. 6.13, assuming the subsequently-observed 0.5%-per-year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, predicted a medium-term warming rate a little below 0.4 C° over 21 years, equivalent to 1.8 C°/century, or 3.8 times observed warming since January 2001.

IPCC (1990), at page xxiv, predicted near-linear global warming of 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] C° over the 36 years to 2025, a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] C°/century. This predicted interval is 6.0 [4.0, 8.9] times observed warming since January 2001.

Conclusion

Fifteen years is long enough to verify the predictions from IPCC’s first three Assessment Reports against real-world temperature change measured by the most sophisticated method available – satellites.

The visible discrepancy between wild predictions and harmless reality since January 2001 demonstrates that the major climate models on which governments have relied in setting their mitigation policies are unfit for their purpose. Removing the exaggerations inbuilt into the models eradicates the supposed climate problem.

The real-world evidence shows that global warming mitigation policies are based on predictions now exposed as having been flagrantly and baselessly exaggerated.

All global-warming mitigation policies should be forthwith abandoned and their heavy cost returned at once to taxpayers by way of cuts in energy taxes and charges.

Industries such as coal mining and generation should be fully compensated for the needless loss and damage that ill-considered government policies inflicted on them.

Subsidies for global warming research should be ended and IPCC dissolved.

climatefeedback.org a sham

I went to this web page with hopes of finally seeing a rational discussion: http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/the-telegraph-bjorn-lomborg-in-many-ways-global-warming-will-be-good-thing/

Instead, I found a series of viewpoint-driven comments that contain the same logical fallacies they attribute to Lomborg's work. Worse, the web page does not allow readers' comments. I teach university classes on environmental science and ethics, but I have no way to point out the problems with the feedback from these scientists.

Consequently, this web page is merely more of the same: model-based propaganda.

Very disappointing!

Plus, although the page gives links to the various scientists quoted, it doesn't give a link to Lomborg's original article. You can find it here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/05/no-one-ever-says-it-but-in-many-ways-global-warming-will-be-a-go/

Lomborg makes a point that the experts unintentionally verify with their comments:

When we shift the climate conversation to describe positives along with negatives, and focus on costs and benefits of policies – essentially treating this challenge like any other policy agenda – it becomes obvious how many of today’s accepted climate policies are poor.  Little wonder climate campaigners do not want this sort of conversation.

Here are some excerpts:

Our climate conversation is lopsided. There is ample room to suggest that climate change has caused this problem or that negative outcome, but any mention of positives is frowned upon. We have known for decades that increasing CO₂ and precipitation from global warming will make the world much greener – by the end of the century, it is likely that global biomass will have increased by forty percent.

...

Only mentioning the negatives distorts and degrades the political conversation. Any reasonable person can recognize both positives and negatives among the policy proposals of both Tories and Labour. It is an extreme partisan that insists either side offers only negatives.

Yet, this is the position enforced by the climate alarmists – last seen in aletter to The Times from Lord Krebs and company, essentially telling the newspaper to stop reporting less-than-negative climate stories. While it is true any individual news story rarely represents the whole truth, it is revealing that such campaigners don’t send out similar letters to correct the daily deluge of alarmist stories.

The idea that climate is bad for all good things and good for all bad things belongs in a morality play. In the real world, we should look at all the available information. When the BBC warns of more severe tropical storms, it has some validity. The UN’s climate panel expects to see fewer but stronger hurricanes. But it is an incomplete picture.

As the world develops, it has become much less vulnerable: a hurricane hitting Florida kills few people while a similar event in Guatemala kills tens of thousands. Indeed, climate-related deaths have dropped from half a million per year in the 1920s to less than 25,000 per year in the 2010s.

...

If our climate conversation managed to include the good along with the bad, we would have a much better understanding of our options. Climate economics does just that, taking all the negatives (like rising sea levels and more heat deaths) and all the positives (a greener planet, fewer cold deaths). A climate economics approach finds that today – contrary to the alarmists’ massive insistence on negatives-only stories – global warming causes about as much damage as benefits. Over time, climate becomes a net problem: by the 2070s, the UN Climate Panel finds that global warming will likely cause damage equivalent to 0.2 per cent to 2 per cent of global GDP. This is certainly not a trivial cost, but nor is it the end of the world. It is perhaps half the social cost of alcohol today.

This suggests that a policy which could eradicate global warming for 1 per centof global GDP would probably be a good deal. Unfortunately, we do not have such a deal on the table. The Paris climate treaty will cost around 2 per cent of global GDP and fix much less than a tenth of the problem. Less effective but more ambitious climate policies cost at least 6 per cent of global GDP per year and likely much more. Wind and solar, which covers less than half of one percent of global energy, costs dozens of times more than their climate benefits. Electric cars provide perhaps a thousandth in climate benefit of their substantial public subsidies. Biofuels are just hugely costly while increasing emissions.

When we shift the climate conversation to describe positives along with negatives, and focus on costs and benefits of policies – essentially treating this challenge like any other policy agenda – it becomes obvious how many of today’s accepted climate policies are poor.  Little wonder climate campaigners do not want this sort of conversation.

__________

You can see more of Lomborg's stuff here: http://www.lomborg.com/

97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’

For years the media and politicians (including President Obama, John Kerry, etc.) have promoted the idea that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, that it's caused by human activity, and that it will be catastrophic.

It's a completely false narrative.

It always has been.

And yet I've heard it repeated over and over, usually with no citation. Those who have discussed it with me personally have had no idea where the statistic originated or what it actually means. It's basically an example of Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda.

So it's always refreshing to see another perspective:

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’

97 Consensus? Dr. Lindzen: 'They never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda. So all scientists agree it's probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce co2 etc. If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?'

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotFebruary 15, 2016 3:43 PM with 28 comments

Video of interview is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-fXj-ANWRk

Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, MIT professor emeritus, and lead author of the “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks” chapter of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, attributes climate hype to politics, money, and propaganda. Lindzen particularly takes issue with the “97% consensus” claim that is being used to stifle debate and demonize skeptics.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT:

RealClearRadioHour: 

Question: How much warming do you expect for a doubling of carbon dioxide?

Lindzen: “Doubling is chosen for a very good reason. The dependence of the greenhouse gas effects what is called logarithmic. Which means if you double CO2 from 280 to 560ppm, you would get the same thing you as you would get from doubling from 560 to 10120. It’s a diminishing return thing.”

“There is no obvious trend for at least 18 years in temperature.”

Lindzen on ‘97% consensus’: 

Lindzen: “It was the narrative from the beginning. In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda.”

“So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2 etc.

If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?

If I look through my department, at least half of them keep mum. Just keep on doing your work, trying to figure out how it works.

MIT ‘has just announced that they see this bringing in $300 million bucks. It will support all sorts of things.’

#

Related Links: 

Academia Cashing in on Climate Scare: MIT announces $300 million five-year plan ‘for action on climate change’ – Each center will seek about $8 million in annual funding, or more than $300 million in total over the five-year period — which the plan says represents “far and away the greatest opportunity for MIT to make a difference on climate change.”

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen on ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?’ – Dueling Datasets: Satellite temperatures show no warming for over 18 years, while heavily adjusted ground based data shows alleged ‘hottest year’

Satellites: No global warming at all for 18 years 8 months

Watch: MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen on Fox News: ‘The whole thing is fairly absurd’ – ‘We are demonizing a chemical — a molecule essential to life – CO2’

Click here to watch: – Lindzen: ‘These guys think saying climate changes, saying it gets warmer or colder by a few tenths of a degree should be taken as evidence that the end of the world is coming.’

MIT’s Dr. Lindzen in WSJ: ‘The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics’ – ‘Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm…even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating’ – Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: ‘Members of Congress send inquisitorial letters to universities, energy companies, even think tanks.’

The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom.

‘Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have been vastly higher through most of Earth’s history. Climates both warmer and colder than the present have coexisted with these higher levels

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/02/15/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-mocks-97-consensus-it-is-propaganda/#ixzz40X8Nexfb

Bee-pocaclypse called off

Bee colony collapse (BCC) was a huge media sensation a few years ago. Here's the latest.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/17/bee-pocaclypse-called-off-bees-doing-ok-global-warming-was-never-a-cause/

Bee-pocaclypse called off, bees doing OK, global warming was never a cause

Anthony Watts / 15 hours ago February 17, 2016

Back in 2007, Wired Magazine mused:

It’s only slightly less ridiculous than the other bee killing theory that year – cell phones.

I published a story about the loony idea that was proposed by some researcher in Europe about “cell phone radiation may be killing bees”. I pointed out that it was garbage then, as it is now.

In 2012, I published a post saying global warming is off the hook for the issue, due to the discovery of a phorid fly parasite that had been spreading through colonies due in part to the commercial trucking of bees on demand.

Now in a new set of data from USDA, publicized in a story from the Washington Post today, it turns out bee colonies are now at a 20 year high, and that beekeepers have basically solved the problem on their own.

---

Call off the bee-pocalypse: U.S. honeybee colonies hit a 20-year high

The trouble all began in 2006 or so, when beekeepers first began noticing mysterious die-offs. It was soon christened “colony collapse disorder,” and has been responsible for the loss of 20 to 40 percent of managed honeybee colonies each winter over the past decade.

The math says that if you lose 30 percent of your bee colonies every year for a few years, you rapidly end up with close to 0 colonies left. But get a load of this data on the number of active bee colonies in the U.S. since 1987. Pay particular attention to the period after 2006, when CCD was first documented.

As you can see, the number of honeybee colonies has actually risen since 2006, from 2.4 million to 2.7 million in 2014, according to data tracked by the USDA. The 2014 numbers, which came out earlier this year, show that the number of managed colonies — that is, commercial honey-producing bee colonies managed by human beekeepers — is now the highest it’s been in 20 years.

So if CCD is wiping out close to a third of all honeybee colonies a year, how are their numbers rising? One word: Beekeepers.

A 2012 working paper by Randal R. Tucker and Walter N. Thurman, a pair of agricultural economists, explains that seasonal die-offs have always been a part of beekeeping: they report that before CCD, American beekeepers would typically lose 14 percent of their colonies a year, on average.

So beekeepers have devised two main ways to replenish their stock. The first method involves splitting one healthy colony into two separate colonies: put half the bees into a new beehive, order them a new queen online (retail price: $25 or so), and voila: two healthy hives.

The other method involves simply buying a bunch of bees to replace the ones you lost. You can buy 3 pounds of “packaged” bees, plus a queen, for about $100 or so.

Beekeepers have been doing this sort of thing since the advent of commercial beekeeping.

Full story here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/

---

End of a crisis that never was. Case closed, and climate was never to blame.

UHI fraud at NOAA

One of the biggest challenges in climate science is getting accurate, reliable data.

The challenge is made worse by the way the government is collecting and processing data. Here's an important example:

Extreme UHI Fraud At NOAA

Posted on February 11, 2016 by tonyheller

NOAA has 16 USHCN stations in Maryland, but they have stopped collecting data from all but four of them. One of the disappearing stations is at Laurel, which has been collecting since 1895 – but no data reported since August 2015.

Laurel raw data shows no warming over the past 60 years, but Beltsville (at I-95 and The Beltway) is five miles closer to Washington DC and shows two degrees warming during that period as the city has expanded. Beltsville is one of the four stations still reporting.

The fact that 75% of the stations in Maryland are missing doesn’t stop NOAA from fabricating temperatures for the 12 missing ones. Laurel is located midway between Washington DC and Baltimore, where another one of the four active stations is located.

NOAA generates the fake Laurel temperature data by interpolating from the neighboring stations, which in this case would be UHI infected Beltsville and Baltimore. The graph below shows how Laurel temperatures are adjusted by USHCN. They cool pre-1975 temperatures and warm post-1975 temperatures. The exact opposite of what would be expected.

But here is where the NOAA fraud really gets ugly. Beltsville raw temperatures have warmed two degrees over the last 60 years due to Urban Heat island effects. But instead of adjusting recent temperatures downwards to compensate, they do the exact opposite and massively cool the past.

The final temperature graph for Beltsville shows almost five degrees warming over the past 60 years, when in fact there has been none.

This level of fraud defies explanation, but is standard operating procedure at NOAA and NASA.