Category Archives: Climate Skeptics

Double world CO2 emissions and warming increases by just 1 degree

Consider this admission on 12 May 2012 by the prominent German meteorologist Klaus Eckart Puls in an interview by Bettina Hahne-Waldscheck of the Swiss magazine “Factum”, translated, summarized and paraphrased for brevity by P. Gosselin in a journal article titled “The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is Sheer Absurdity”:

Bettina:  You’ve been criticizing the theory of man-made global warming for years.  How did you become skeptical?

Puls:  Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us.  One day I started checking the facts and data — first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements.  To this day I feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it . . . Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.

Bettina:  Is there really climate change?

Puls:  Climate change is normal.  There have always been phases of global warming, many that far exceeded the extent we see today.  But there hasn’t been any warming since 1998.  In fact the IPCC suppliers of data even show a slight cooling.

Bettina:  The IPCC is projecting 0.2 degrees Celsius warming per decade, i.e., 2 to 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.  What’s your view?

Puls:  These are speculative model projections, so-called scenarios — and no

Polar bear population has increased with moderately rising temperatures, from 5,000 50 years ago to 25,000 today and disappearing ice is a myth used for generating climate hysteria

prognoses.  Because of climate’s high complexity, reliable prognoses just aren’t possible.  Nature does what it wants, and not what the models present as prophecy.

The entire CO2 debate is nonsense.  Even if CO2 were doubled, the temperature would rise only 1 degree Celsius.  The remainder of the IPCC’s assumed warming is based purely on speculative amplification mechanisms.  Even though CO2 has risen, there has been no warming in 13 years.

Bettina:  How does sea level look?

Puls:  Sea level rise has slowed down.  Moreover, it has dropped a half centimeter over the last 2 years.  It’s important to remember that mean sea level is a calculated magnitude, and not a measured one.  There are a great number of factors that influence sea level, e.g., tectonic processes, continental shifting, wind currents, passats, volcanoes.  Climate change is only one of ten factors.

Bettina:  What Have we measured at the North Sea?

Puls:  In the last 400 years, sea level at the North Sea coast has risen about 1.40 meters.  That’s about 35 centimeters per century.  In the last 100 years, the North Sea has risen only 25 centimeters.

Bettina:  Does the sea level rise have anything to do with the melting North Pole?

Puls:  That’s a misleading conclusion.  Even if the entire North Pole melted, there would be no sea level rise because of the principles of buoyancy.

Bettina:  Is the melting of the glaciers in the Alps caused by global warming?

Puls:  There are many factors at play.  As one climbs a mountain, the temperature drops about 0.65 degrees Celsius per 100 meters.  Over the last 100 years it has gotten about 0.75 degrees Celsius warmer and so the temperature boundary has shifted up about 100 meters.  But observations tell us that ice also 1,000 meters up and higher has melted.  Clearly there are other reasons for this, namely soot and dust.  But soot and dust do not have only anthropogenic origins; they are also caused by nature via volcanoes, dust storms, and wildfires.  Advances and retreats of glaciers have always taken place throughout the Earth’s history.  Glaciology studies clearly show that glaciers over the last 10,000 years were smaller on average than today.

Bettina:  In your view, melting Antarctic sea ice and the fracture of a huge iceberg 3 years ago are nothing to worry about?

Puls:  To the contrary, the Antarctic ice cap has grown both in area and volume over the last 30 years, and temperature has declined.  This 30-year trend is clear to see.  The Amundsen Scott Station of the USA shows that temperature has been declining there since 1957.  90 percent of the Earth’s ice is stored in Antarctica, which is one and a half times larger than Europe.

Bettina:  Then why do we always read it is getting warmer down there?

Puls:  Here they are only talking about the West Antarctic peninsula, which is where the big chunk of ice broke off in 2008 — from the Wilkins-Shelf.  This area is hardly 1 percent of the entire area of Antarctica, but it is exposed to Southern Hemisphere west wind drift and some of the strongest storms of the planet.

Bettina:  What causes such massive chunks of ice to break off?

Puls:  There are lots of factors, among them the intensity of the west wind fluctuations.  These west winds have intensified over the last 20 years as part of natural ocean and atmospheric cycles, and so it has gotten warmer on the west coast of the Antarctic peninsula.  A second factor is the larger waves associated with the stronger storms.  The waves are more powerful and so they break off more ice.  All these causes are meteorological and physical, and have nothing to do with a climate catastrophe.

Bettina:  Then such ice breaks had to have occurred in the past too?

Puls:  This has been going on for thousands of years, also in the 1970’s back when all the talk was about “global cooling”.  Back then there were breaks with ice chunks hundreds of square kilometers in area.  People were even discussing the possibilities of towing these huge ice chunks to dry countries like South Africa or Namibia in order to use them as a drinking water supply.

Bettina:  What about all the media photos of polar bears losing their ice?

Puls:  That is one of the worst myths used for generating climate hysteria.  Polar bears  don’t eat ice, they eat seals.  Polar bears go hungry if we shoot their food supply of seals.  The polar bear population has increased with moderately rising temperatures, from 5,000 50 years ago to 25,000 today.

Bettina:  But is it true that unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is melting?

Puls:  It has been melting for 30 years.  That also happened twice already in the last 150 years.   The low point was reached in 2007 and the ice has since begun to recover.  There have always been phases of Arctic melting.  Between 900 AD and 1300 AD Greenland was green on the edges and the Vikings settled there.

Bettina:  And what do you say about the alleged expanding deserts?

Puls:  That doesn’t exist.  For example, the Sahara is shrinking and has lost in the north an area as large as Germany over the last 20 years.  The same is true in the South Sahara.  The famine that struck Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia was mainly caused by the leasing of large swathes of land to large international corporations so that they could grow crops for biofuels for Europe, and by war.  But it is much easier for prosperous Europe to blame the world’s political failures on a fictional climate catastrophe instead.

Bettina:  So we don’t need to do anything against climate change?

Puls:  There’s nothing we can do to stop it.  Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.  Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection.  It’s impossible to protect the climate but we can protect the environment and our drinking water.  On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate.  One has nothing to do with the other.

Greta does not like raw eggs

One crisp winter morning in Sweden, a cute little girl named Greta woke up to a perfect world, one where there were no petroleum products ruining the earth She tossed aside her cotton sheet and wool blanket and stepped out onto a dirt floor covered with willow bark that had been pulverized with rocks.

What’s this?” she asked.

Pulverized willow bark,” replied her fairy godmother.

What happened to the carpet?” she asked.

Greta exclaims,” Saving the planet is hard work. Do I have to pull up the last of the fence palings to heat the eggs?”

The carpet was nylon, which is made from butadiene and hydrogen cyanide, both made from petroleum,” came the response.

Greta smiled, acknowledging that adjustments are necessary to save the planet, and moved to the sink to brush her teeth where instead of a toothbrush, she found a willow, mangled on one end to expose wood fibre bristles.

Your old toothbrush?” noted her godmother, “Also nylon.”

Where’s the water? asked Greta.

Down the road in the canal,” replied her godmother, ‘Just make sure you avoid water with cholera in it

Why’s there no running water? ”Greta asked, becoming a little peevish.

Well,” said her godmother, who happened to teach engineering at university, “Where do we begin?

There followed a long monologue about how sink valves need elastomer seats and how copper pipes contain copper, which has to be mined and how it’s impossible to make all-electric earth-moving equipment with no gear lubrication or tires and how ore has to be smelted to a make metal, and that’s tough to do with only electricity as a source of heat, and even if you use only electricity, the wires need insulation, which is petroleum-based, and though most of Sweden’s energy is produced in an environmentally friendly way because of hydro and nuclear, if you do a mass and energy balance around the whole system, you still need lots of petroleum products like lubricants and nylon and rubber for tires and asphalt for filling potholes and wax and iPhone plastic and elastic to hold your underwear up while operating a copper smelting furnace and . . .

What’s for breakfast?” interjected Greta, whose head was hurting.

Fresh, range-fed chicken eggs,” replied her godmother. “Raw.”

How so, raw?” inquired Greta.

Well, . . .” And once again, Greta was told about the need for petroleum products like transformer oil and scores of petroleum products essential for producing metals for frying pans and in the end was educated about how you can’t have a petroleum-free world and then cook eggs.

Unless you rip your front fence up and start a fire and carefully cook your egg in an orange peel like you do in Boy Scouts.   Not that you can find oranges in Sweden anymore.

But I want poached eggs like my Aunt Tilda makes,” lamented Greta.

Tilda died this morning,” the godmother explained. “Bacterial pneumonia.

What?!” interjected Greta. “No one dies of bacterial pneumonia! We have penicillin.” 

“Not anymore,” explained godmother:

The production of penicillin requires chemical extraction using isobutyl acetate, which, if you know your organic chemistry, is petroleum-based.

Lots of people are dying, which is problematic because there’s not any easy way of disposing of the bodies since backhoes need hydraulic oil and crematoriums can’t really burn many bodies using as fuel Swedish fences and furniture, which are rapidly disappearing – being used on the black market for roasting eggs and staying warm.

This represents only a fraction of Greta’s day, a day without microphones to exclaim into and a day without much food, and a day without carbon-fibre boats to sail in, but a day that will save the planet. – contributed

Polar ice is growing in size – thank God for global warming

NSIDC: 2020 Polar Ice doing just fine

According to the latest October report from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the ice locked at Earth’s poles is, overall, GROWING.

The COLD TIMES are returning, the mid-latitudes are REFREEZING in line with historically low solar activitycloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow.

Both NOAA and NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with NOAA saying we’re entering a ‘full-blown’ Grand Solar Minimum in the late-2020s, and NASA seeing this upcoming solar cycle (25) as “the weakest of the past 200 years”, with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.

Furthermore, we can’t ignore the slew of new scientific papers stating the immense impact The Beaufort Gyre could have on the Gulf Stream, and therefore the climate overall.

Up to 97 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef is in pristine condition – Independent Peter Campion

An independent candidate for the rural seat of Hill (SW Cairns) in October’s state election has harshly criticised a 2008 amendment to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act of 1975 that gives “wrongologists an escape clause for damage done to farmers by their questionable expertise and advice to government”.

Peter Campion of Tolga, a retired fireman, is a long-term climate change sceptic and energy realist who has been a regular contributor to the Cairns Post’s ‘Letters to the Editor’ column. Mr Campion is standing for Hill against the Katter Party’s Shane Knuth.

Peter Campion, is a repetitive letter writer published in North Queensland newspapers campaigning about the scientific foibles of climate change but is better known as Barnaby Joyce’s new father-in-law.

“The GPRMPA Act came about due to concerns for the Great Barrier Reef, which initially stemmed from early Reef tourism operators’ misunderstandings of natural reef systems and cycles – especially relating to the ‘gardeners of the Reef’, the Crown of Thorns starfish,” he said.

“The GBRMPA Act had been in operation for 33 years before Reef researchers felt the need to have an escape clause inserted.

“To me, that suggests that by 2008 they had realised there was a fair chance they were wrong.”

The amendment that has drawn Mr Campion’s scorn is in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2008, which inserts a “precautionary principle” clause.

“The amendment describes the precautionary principle as ‘… the principle that lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing a measure to prevent degradation of the environment where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage.’”, Mr Campion said.

“On the basis of this blatantly ridiculous ‘precautionary principle’ all farms , industries, towns, sewage systems, and roads should be closed as they all represent a threat to the environment.

“A better precautionary principle would be the proper Popperian scientific method that automatically assumes all science is only correct until such time as it is proved that it is not – which happens far more often than you’d think.

“It is just horrific to think that these scientists, who completely failed to produce their proof to the recent federal Senate inquiry into the Palaszczuk government’s anti-farmer reef regulations, suspected 12 years ago that their work might not be reliable. Why else would they lobby for an escape clause to give cover for their own malfeasance?” he said.

The scientists at the focus of Mr Campion’s anger, Ian Chubb, Geoff Garrett, and Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, took to the far-left website The Guardian to attack the Senate inquiry as a form of defence of their research. Notably this is the research that Professor Peter Ridd was sacked from JCU for suggesting might be unreliable.

Mr Campion noted, “In their own article they still had to admit that ‘little more than 3% of the coral’ may be negatively affected by water quality issues. That means 97 per cent of the Reef is unaffected, but they still want to impose draconian controls on our food producers.

“This is an outrage. These individuals, and their institutions, are unworthy of any further support from taxpayers and the Palaszczuk government’s anti-farmer Reef regulations must be repealed immediately.”

Email: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority:  info@gbrmpa.gov.au

Queensland Premier:  premiers.master@premiers.qld.gov.au

Climate change nonsense finally wearing off thinking parents

by Andrew Mackinnon

Did government agents light some of the multitude of fires?

The recent bush fires in New South Wales were deliberately lit in order to promote the idea that ‘climate change’ is the threat which caused them and that Australia therefore needs to enact policy to deal with ‘climate change’ so as to prevent further devastation.

It’s irrelevant who was caught lighting the fires, even if they were youths. These are third party intermediaries used for plausible deniability. The Australian government is behind the deliberate lighting of these fires.

Look at the flare up in the Jewish-controlled media linking the fires to ‘climate change’. It’s obvious. First, schoolchildren in Australia protested about ‘climate change’ and that fell flat. Then Greta Thunberg travelled to the United Nations in a yacht to protest about ‘climate change’ and that fell flat because nobody wants to be lectured by a sixteen year old girl being fed a bunch of lines by adult propagandists.

Climate change nonsense is finally wearing off Queenslanders after seeing how the George Soros asset, Greta Thumberg and her well rehearsed performance left parents worried their children might end up like her.

So, the people who want policy to be enacted in Australia regarding ‘climate change’ said to each other, “They ignored the schoolchildren. They even ignored Greta! Let’s give them something they can’t ignore.”

Australian citizens voted Liberal over Labor at the last federal election because they didn’t want the action on ‘climate change’ that Labor was promoting. The majority think that ‘carbon dioxide-driven climate change’ is a fraud, like I do. (Carbon dioxide exists in the earth’s atmosphere at less than 400 parts per million, which is less than 1 part per 2,500, so it doesn’t influence the climate to any appreciable extent.) Australians voted the Liberal Party into federal government at the last federal election earlier this year because it’s the lesser of two very bad evils. Scott Morrison is an appalling Prime Minister but Bill Shorten would have been twice as bad.

The Liberal Party pretends to be opposed to action on ‘climate change’ when it actually supports it and wants it. It knows that the majority of Australian citizens don’t trust the ‘climate change’ agenda, so it’s pretended to adopt the same mistrust in order to win their support. Therefore, if it’s going to be successful enacting policy on ‘climate change’, it needs to resort to indirect methods of lobbying the citizenry, such as deliberately lighting bush fires and then relying on the media to push the narrative that ‘climate change’ is the reason for the fires. The Liberal Party wants to end up in a position in which it is seen as having no choice but to enact policy to deal with ‘climate change’, since ‘climate change’ has become universally recognised as a threat by the citizenry due to high-impact incidents like the bush fires in New South Wales.

The Liberal Party supports action on ‘climate change’ because its allegiance is to the Rothschilds-led synagogue of Satan that needs action on ‘climate change’ in countries around the world in order to provide an excuse for establishing world government ruling over various unions around the world like the European Union, the African Union and the South American Union. There is a planned Asia Pacific Union including China, India and Australia, as well as other Asian countries. There is also a planned North American Union including the United States of America, Canada and Mexico. ‘Climate change’ is the fabricated threat to the entire world which the synagogue of Satan will claim, can only be properly addressed with common policies and methodologies enforced and implemented by world government.

The Rothschilds-led synagogue of Satan has been pushing the fraudulent ‘climate change’ agenda in earnest since 2008 and it’s had this issue on the boil for the past three decades and longer.

 

Sunshine State Gored

A tribute to Al Gore’s Brisbane visit by Viv Forbes

The Priest of Global Warming

Flew in to earn big fees

He warned of heat waves forming

Unless we grew more trees

Alas for Big Al’s forecast

The weather did not warm

Antarctic winds began to blast

And snowy clouds were formed

So if you’re sick of sunshine

And bored with balmy heat

Just pay Big Al to wine and dine

You’ll soon have frost and sleet.

 

 

Climate change mafioso Al Gore interference in election

ABC should be defunded

by Viv Forbes, Executive Director, the Saltbush Club, Australia.  

The Saltbush Club today called for an enquiry into a last minute intervention by an American politician, Al Gore, into the Australian Election.

The Executive Director of the Saltbush Club, Viv Forbes, said that in such a tight election race, the intervention of someone with the international stature of Al Gore, assisted by the climate activist Australian Broadcasting Commission, could easily change the result of the election.

“The Gore intervention was not subtle – he labelled the LNP government climate policy as ‘not credible’ and taking the country ‘in the wrong direction’.

“Becoming even more partisan, Gore praised the opposition Labor plan ‘as an extremely significant act of leadership on the part of Australia.’

“This carefully timed intervention in a closely fought Australian election by a prominent foreign politician is a blatant attempt to promote a damaging climate agenda already rejected in the USA.

“This surely justifies an inquiry into foreign electoral interference and ABC complicity.”

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/al-gore-weighs-in-on-australian-election-urges-australia-to-choose-the-right-path/news-story/c3c1e791154a695c74ced417a56ccd1e

Poland climatefest dumps several million tonnes of CO2 into atmosphere aiding plant growth

by Viv Forbes, science writer

$500M Climate Carnival Concludes.

COP 24 just concluded in Poland. Nearly 23,000 climate saviours attended this 24th annual climate carnival.

Every year, plane-loads of concerned busybodies fly to some interesting new location to spend tax dollars on a well-fed 12 day holiday. They concoct plans to ration and tax the energy used by real workers, farmers and families back home.

Few delegates arrived by bicycle or solar-powered plane – a fleet of at least 100 commercial, private and charter aircraft brought them at a cost estimated at US$57M. When the costs of hotels, ground transport, food, entertainment, air conditioning and office services are added, the bill is likely to top $500 M.

Australian taxpayers supported 46 junketeers. Now these Chicken Littles are back home spreading climate scare stories and lecturing locals to not overspend on Christmas presents.

There is a bright side – all that carbon dioxide emitted by planes, cars, buses, heaters, stoves, beer, champagne and Poland’s coal-fired power stations will help global plant growth.

Source of Estimates:
Cultural Communists Know How to Spend Your Money to Fight Climate Change.”

 

Australia in boots and all with climate racketeers at Poland conference

Liberal and Labor supported 46 emissaries now back home to spread climate scare stories while the absent US throws a party to celebrate fossil fuels

December 16, 2018

Negotiators from around the world struck an eleventh-hour deal Saturday, laying out rules to implement the Paris Agreement and keep the landmark 2015 climate accord intact.

But it wasn’t easy.

The two-week, drawn-out fight that included a rehashing of old battles and the introduction of new ones stretched late into the night here at the COP 24 UN climate conference in Katowice, Poland. The pitched battle hints at challenges to come in the global fight against climate change as the new world order continue to face a wave of political pressure that has put a strain on international cooperation.

15 December 2018, Poland, Katowice:  Australia sent 46 bureaucrats agreeing to shut down the remnants of domestic industry.  President Michal Kurtyka (M) of the UN Climate Change Conference COP24, and other participants of the climate summit are pleased about the decision of the compromise at the world climate summit. The aim of the agreement is to limit global warming to well below two degrees. Photo: Monika Skolimowska/dpa-Zentralbild/dpa (Photo by Monika Skolimowska/picture alliance via Getty Images)

“It has been a long road,” said Polish Energy State Secretary Michał Kurtyka, who served as President of the conference. “This deal hangs in fragile balance, we will all have to give in order to gain.

The issues on the table in Katowice were largely technical questions centering on accounting, finance and seemingly arcane word choices that signal how aggressively countries will cut their emissions. But geopolitics never lurked far from the surface, and the urgency of climate change never proved great enough to keep the politics from bubbling up and disrupting proceedings.

“People are pulling away at the edges of the multilateral system and you wonder whether or not it’s going to unravel further,” said Rachel Kyte, who headed the World Bank’s climate-change program and who now leads Sustainable Energy for All, before the final decision. “Is the beginning of something bigger? How do we cope with it?”

The potential for disruption was clear from the beginning. The U.S., the world’s biggest economy and second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, promised to exit the Paris Agreement last year under President Trump’s direction. This left a void in leadership even as the U.S. officially remains in the talks until it’s eligible to withdraw in 2020. That void opened the door for others to rebel, particularly in places where climate change does not jive with the priorities of populist or authoritarian governments.

In a highly-publicized affair, the U.S. held an event promoting fossil fuels, during which a White House official argued that the country was injecting a dose of “reality” in the face of “alarmism” around climate change. The event won the support of Australia, whose ambassador for the environment joined the panel. And a senior administration official said that other countries had conveyed that they appreciate the U.S. perspective even if they don’t feel comfortable stating so publicly. “They don’t talk about it as much,” said a senior administration official. But, “there’s an appreciation for the realism.”

 

In another conflict, Brazil faced off against the rest of the world when it threatened to reject any deal because of language that would fix an accounting loophole that gives the country double credit for preserving forests in the Amazon. The rest of world protested, but Brazil refused to budge and in the final hours negotiators decided to punt the issue to a future conference.

One of the biggest clamors of the conference came as four oil producing countries, including the U.S, Russia and Saudi Arabia, questioned the validity of climate science and refused to recognize the legitimacy of a report from the IPCC, the UN’s climate science body, showing the effects of climate change if temperatures rise more than 1.5°C.

Changing geopolitics even hit in places where governments care deeply about the threat of climate change. The wave of populism in the European Union fractured the block, weakening its negotiating position. Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a longtime climate negotiations expert, cited political change in Italy, the ongoing Brexit fiasco and the weak positions of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emanuel Macron as contributing to the E.U.’s struggle to wrangle other countries. “There’s always some of these clashes, but it’s more acute here,” he says.

And then there’s the U.S. relationship with China, which is in disarray over ongoing trade issues. The two countries, while often at odds in previous negotiations, often served as mediators between developing and developed countries and helped broker key deals. “There was a capacity to be a convener, each of us,” says Todd Stern, who served as the chief U.S. negotiator under Obama, of the U.S. and China. “That’s not available right now.”

All of these disruptions helped push the talks long into overtime, with a mix of yawns and applause when Kurtyka finally called the conference to an end more than a day later than originally scheduled. The deal that resulted came as a relief: the multilateral approach to fighting climate change will live to see another day.

At the same time, the new agreement left much to be desired from nearly all parties. “I trust that whenever you found dissatisfaction in one part of the text, it was balanced with satisfaction in another,” said Kurtyka.

Perhaps more importantly, all but the most out-of-touch acknowledged that the deal leaves much work to be done if the world actually hopes to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C, a level that the new IPCC report shows could wipe some countries off the map and cause widespread devastation across the planet.

“Carbon emissions keep rising and rising,” Mohamed Nasheed, former president of the Maldives, told reporters before the deal was finalized. “All we seem to be doing is talking and talking and talking.”

As countries continue to wind through the difficult international negotiation process, the obvious answer to make up for the gap caused by political disruption lies outside of the political system. Indeed, some local governments, businesses and apolitical multilateral organizations are already trying to take charge.

For most of the two decades that the U.N. has held these meetings, talk has focused on how to make action on climate change happen at a nebulous point in the future. Now, in large part thanks to the Paris Agreement, that action has already begun. And, while the international system is doomed to be defined by the least common denominator, many cities, states and businesses have stepped up to the challenge. In the months leading up to this conference, the World Bank committed $200 billion in climate investments, a slew of businesses lobbied for market solutions to climate change and alliances of sub-national governments in Japan, Argentina and Mexico joined the U.S. in making commitments to fill the gap in their national governments’ efforts.

“To combat climate change we need much much more than government,” says Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and a central framer of the Paris Agreement. “It’s not for state only. It’s for society.”

The only issue is that none of this is moving fast enough. The IPCC report shows that temperatures have already risen 1°C as a result of human activity and that figure will surpass 1.5°C as early as 2030 without a dramatic shift in direction. A lot of work is necessary to facilitate such a shift. And that’s going to be a huge challenge so long as political tensions persist.

Write to Justin Worland at justin.worland@time.com.

 

Read the rest of this entry

Saltbush Club warns Morrison Poland climatefest is a ‘war on west’

Australia should COP-OUT of COP-24.


by Viv Forbes,  science writer

Secretary of the Saltbush Club

The growing Saltbush Climate Lobby has called on PM Morrison to make no new commitments at the COP24 climate-fest to be held in Poland in a few days.

 Australians no longer trust what politicians and officials are doing behind closed doors far from home.

Nothing of benefit to Australian consumers, tax payers or business will come out of COP24. It will just extend the UN’s war on our cheap, reliable hydro-carbon fuels and the backbone industries that rely on them – primary industries, transport, processing and manufacturing.

It is effectively a ‘War on the West’.

Australia is particularly vulnerable with no nuclear power, no geothermal power and limited hydropower. This war on reliable hydro-carbon fuels and the promotion of unreliable wind and solar power will increasingly deny our industries and consumers cheap reliable power.

There is no justification for the War on carbon dioxide – there is no proof that CO2 drives global temperature and Earth’s climate cannot be tweaked by erecting windmills or putting taxes on carbon dioxide.

COP24 will descend into a grab for cash, and Australia is one of those pullets they plan to pluck.
“Believing carbon dioxide is the planet’s climate control knob is pretty close to believing in magic.”
– Dr. Richard Lindzen

Viv Forbes

forbes@saltbushclub.com

www.saltbushclub.com

Washpool   Qld Australia

 Developing countries are gearing up for the big pay day, and china still defines itself as a developing country:

http://sdg.iisd.org/news/basic-ministers-call-for-just-transition-new-finance-goal-ahead-of-katowice-climate-change-conference/

Scientist slams CSIRO for fraudulently receiving research funds over CO2

Submission to the Independent Commission Against Corruption  by Douglas Cotton, B.Sc., B.A., Dip. Bus. Admin over Greenhouse (greenhoax) events

From 2011 until the present I have spent thousands of hours in study and communication with other scientists in regard to atmospheric and sub-terrestrial physics, in particular as to how it relates to the issue regarding the alleged warming of Earth (and Venus) by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I have written three papers, the first (“Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics”) having been peer-reviewed in 2012 when it appeared on several websites. This paper and two others are now appearing at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605. From my research and application of the laws of physics I can say with certainty that the so-called “greenhouse gases” (which are mostly water vapour and carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere) can do nothing but cool the surface of Earth, not warm it as is alleged by the CSIRO. By being a part of a world-wide movement promulgating the false claims about carbon dioxide supposedly causing warming, the CSIRO is fraudulently receiving funds for useless research which does little more than make the obvious conclusion that more carbon dioxide leads to more radiation from such.

 With several Freedom of Information questions directed to the CSIRO I have come to the conclusion that they have failed to pay due diligence in checking what is false physics supposedly supporting “science” claiming this warming.  If that science were correct then rainforests (with about 4% water vapour above them) should be about 50 to 80 degrees hotter than dry regions like deserts which may have around 1% or less of the greenhouse gas water vapour above them.  The correct physics has been known by some physicists since the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt explained in 1876 how it is gravity acting on air molecules which makes the base of the atmosphere warmer than the top of the troposphere, not radiation from cold greenhouse gases supposedly causing heat transfer into the already-warmer surface.

 I have pointed out to the CSIRO in notes attached to my FOI requests and reference to the above three papers that their “science” is obviously false. There are others like myself with qualifications in physics who also know it is false. In fact there are hundreds of published papers saying similar. Yet the CSIRO refuses to look into such papers and arrogantly claims their “scientists” are correct. Such people appear to be those from the relatively young science of climatology rather than their physicists who ought to understand the physics of heat transfer processes and maximum entropy production as happens in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The correct physics is in my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”  

 The CSIRO has been asked in FOI requests to produce their physics and also evidence of warming by water vapour and carbon dioxide.  They have produced no such physics and no papers containing empirical evidence of actual surface warming by these gases. Their cited papers merely assume that more carbon dioxide causes more warming. Their science claims that water vapour does most of “33 degrees” of warming of the global mean surface temperature, whereas in fact my study of data clearly indicates it cools the surface because it reduces the magnitude of the gravitationally-induced tropospheric temperature gradient.

 Despite all this evidence and correct physics that I have sent them, and the explanations they have been provided with as to why their science is false, they persist in deliberately failing to look into this, and so I can only conclude that they realise that to tell the world the science is wrong would lead to many of their staff losing research jobs that are funded by the government based on their false science. I can only conclude that this amounts to corruption.

 

JCU Professor sacked for blowing the whistle on corrupted climate data

Sacked James Cook University Professor Peter Ridd who blew the whistle on fictitious ‘climate change’ research continues to fight the institution over disciplinary action and now termination of employment.

He has received the same scurrilous treatment as his colleague, the late Professor Bob Carter who also made public the incredibly erroneous and false science behind global warming and its alleged deleterious effect on the Great Barrier Reef.

James Cook Uni Cairns campus gives outspoken climate change sceptic Professor Peter Ridd the heave ho for jeopardising research funds

Both academics questioned the veracity of research and the alleged reef destruction claimed by the leftist academic junta at the Cairns and Townsville campuses.

Both were ostracised and censured for attacking the ‘dodgy’ science which the university academia continuously bleats with the aid of the ABC in order to keep the state and federal grants lining the coffers..

The nitwit PM Turnbull pledged $500 million in the budget to appease the green Mafioso in the hope of sidelining some Green votes and in an effort to keep local federal Liberal member Warren Entsch in the seat of Leichardt.

Both academics for some years have stated almost categorically, ‘there is nothing wrong with the reef’ and ‘climate change’…… is bloody nonsense.

The late and esteemed Professor Bob Carter many years ago disproved the global warming and climate change hoax but was ostracised by his socialist peers and disowned by JCU Townsville.

A crowdfunding page has been re-opened for Professor Ridd’s mounting legal costs. His comments appear below:

Just an update of my battle

On 2 May, 2018, I received a letter from James Cook University (JCU) terminating my employment. JCU have sacked me because I dared to fight the university and speak the truth about science and the Great Barrier Reef.

Shortly after I went public with the GoFundMe campaign to which you donated in February the university presented me with a further set of misconduct allegations, which alleged that I acted inappropriately by talking about the case and have now ended my employment.

I will be fighting their employment termination, alongside the original 25 charges behind JCU’s ‘final censure’ last year.

As a consequence of the sacking, and the new misconduct allegations, my legal costs have substantially increased. JCU appears to be willing to spend their near unlimited legal resources fighting me. In the name of honesty and truth in science, we must fight back. We have an excellent legal team and are confident that we can win the legal case.

I feel extremely indebted to all those who have given so generously. I was blown away by the number of people who supported me, and I had hoped that more funding would not be necessary. Sadly, however circumstances have changed.

I have contributed another $15000 of my own money, in addition to the $24000k I have already spent. However, based on the growing complexity of the case, we will need to raise an additional $159000. It is a bit frightening, but we have reopened the GoFundMe site to receive more donations.

You have already contributed generously so all I ask of you is to help spread the word to expand the number of people who are helping.

I know there were many who were unable to donate the first time – including my own Mum – due to the speed we reached the original target of $95K.

For additional background on all the new allegations from JCU, I have uploaded all the documentation so that you can judge JCU’s allegations for yourself if you wish. https://wordpress.com/page/platogbr.wordpress.com/223

In summary, JCU (1) objects to my criticism of the earlier allegations; (2) criticised my involvement with the Institute of Public Affairs; and (3) objects to me not remaining silent. The facts of the matter are simple: (1) the earlier allegations were an unreasonable infringement on my academic freedom, I was well within my rights to criticise JCU; (2) I have never been paid by the IPA, other than some initial support for my legal case and reimbursement for flights and hotels related to speaking arrangements which is normal academic practice; and (3) I am well within my rights, as stated by my employment agreement, to speak publicly about disciplinary proceedings.

 

Thank you,

Peter Ridd

%d bloggers like this: