AFS – APOCALYPSE FATIGUE SYNDROME


AFS – APOCALYPSE FATIGUE SYNDROME

Hon Keith DeLacy AM

As an inherently impressionable person I have been dealing with the coming apocalypse all my life. It started with the bible. The Book of Revelation in the New Testament vividly warned of impending doom, and many of the Hebrew prophets forecast the apocalypse.

Pope Sylvester II at the beginning of the millennium year 1000, predicted the Millennium Apocalypse, the end of the world. Riots occurred throughout Europe and pilgrims headed to Jerusalem seeking salvation.

And the Apocalypse was always associated with sin, it was deserved. “And these will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:40) If I had been thinking sinful thoughts, I trembled at night, dreaming of the fires of hell. There was no escape.

Thomas Malthus wrote an Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798 and became the preeminent father of doom. Unchecked population growth would lead to inevitable catastrophe – population growth was exponential while the growth in food supply was arithmetical.

We were impressionable kids, we grew up with Malthusiasm, waiting for doomsday. It was a compelling argument. Yet 200 years later, despite exponential population growth the world is so much wealthier and better fed. The Malthusian apocalypse was no better than Pope Sylvester’s.

Paul Erhlich became a cult figure in the 1970’s. Malthus’ inability to deliver on his population apocalypse proved no deterrence to Erhlich. He wrote The Population Bomb in 1968 forecasting that “sometime between 1970 and 85 the world will undergo vast famines, hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.”
(more…)



The Muddled Models of the IPCC


Key IPCC quotes

The fifth and latest IPCC assessment report, published in 2013, showed that climate models failed to predict the absence of warming from 1998 and 2012, and that climate scientists have no clear idea of why they failed. (NB. I have added the bolding in the following extracts.)

  1. “… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).” [WG I SPM, page 5, section B.1, bullet point 3, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-6]
  2. “… an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (…) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble ….” [WGI contribution, chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-8]
  3. “There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).” [WG I SPM, section D.1, page 15, bullet point 2, and full Synthesis Report on page SYR-8]
  4. “This difference between simulated [i.e. model output] and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error“. [WGI contribution, chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769]

IN MY SIMPLER WORDS …

1 – According to statistical practices the trend in temperature from 1998 to 2012 (the 15 years prior to the report being drafted) falls somewhere between slight warming and slight cooling. In other words there is no certainty that any warming occurred.

2 – Despite claims of the accuracy of climate models most of the model runs (97%) wrongly predicted warming from 1998 to 2012.

3 – The IPCC is admitting that “some models” – we are not told how many, so maybe it’s almost all – exaggerate the influence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

4 – The models could be wrong for a number of very basic and general reasons; the IPCC really doesn’t know why the models failed.

John McLean, Leading IPCC reviewer.



Dung beetles ate our climate-history!


Or “Droughts and Extreme Weather are Nothing New.”
by Dr Bill Johnson

Outpourings of climate bulldust over recent decades have been more alarming than changes in the climate.

Drought and above-average temperatures during recent El Niño-dominated years from 2001 to 2010 were deliberately and relentlessly marketed as global-warming. Driven incestuously by WWF and its Wentworth Group; green groups; Climate Commissioners; and a bunch of pretend-institutes, superlatives flew-up every greasy-pole out through talking-heads into the community’s ear.

Australians endured an endless chatter-based marketing campaign involving the ABC, CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology that intertwined CO2; the hot/critical decade; Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) “health”; and the carbon tax; grinding them into our national psyche. Science was reorganised with rivers of tax-payers cash enticing once-proud universities to lend brand to the cause. Every hot/cold/dry/wet day, clamouring professors popped out of disused broom-cupboards across the land, waving models and “new reports”. It was an overt scientifically-disingenuous beat-up.

Read the full paper: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/johnson-climate-history.pdf [PDF, 20 KB]



Green Energy Policy? – “Nothing that Works”


green-economy-sedan-s

Source: http://stevehunterillustrations.com.au/political-cartoons/

Modern industrial society commenced with the use of coal and oil to power factories, trains,
ships and agriculture and to generate electricity. With abundant energy, prosperity increased,
and people could save enough to support leisure, education, culture and environmental
concerns.

But the dark greens have a dream to dismantle all this, and return society to the hunter/gatherer
era.

In an unguarded moment Maurice Strong, a leader of the international green movement, said:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our
responsibility to bring that about?”

Greens have thus gleefully spread the global warming scare to justify a massive political war on
hydro-carbon fuels. Timothy Wirth, ex-President of the UN Foundation, spilt the beans:

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is
wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/exposing-the-green-agenda.pdf

To mask their real aim of de-energising modern industry, they continually promote “alternative
energy”.

The only alternatives to coal, oil and gas for stable, reliable and economical grid power are
nuclear energy, and in favourable locations, hydro or geothermal.

Nuclear power could be one of our cheapest and safest energy sources. However greens have
opposed and denigrated it for decades, and erected such bureaucratic and financial hurdles that
it is seldom considered in most pampered western societies.

They are in favour of hydro, providing it does not disturb one fish or frog on their favourite river.

But they continually spruik the benefits of wind and solar power.

Wind/solar can be useful in some mobile or remote locations, and for some people with deep
pockets who wish to become independent of the grid. But being totally unable to supply 24/7
grid power, they need reliable backup (or massive batteries) for about 75% of their rated
capacity. Once we subtract the energy and resources needed to build and maintain the
towers/panels, plus the roads and transmission lines, plus backup/batteries and then run it all
intermittently, the whole-of-life net-contribution of wind/solar to energy supply or emission
reduction is negligible or negative.

Another dark green leader, Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountains Institute, said:

“It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap,
abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Green energy policy promotes this dictum by supporting “Nothing that Works”.

The world focus on carbon dioxide is simply a useful tool in a much larger political agenda:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/26/opinion-co2-is-the-demon-because-malthus-and-ehrlich-were-wrong-about-overpopulation/

Read more, as well as:

  • Hydrogen – the Net-Negative Energy Option.
  • Smoggy Thinking on Pollution
  • The Overflow Column
    • Al Gore and David Suzuki lie about CO2. It has 600% less effect than claimed.
    • No missing Heat in the Oceans.
    • No Global Warming for 18 years.
    • Climate Change Alarm is UN Hoax.
    • Alarmists Desperate as Paris Deadline Looms, but UK rejects Greens.

Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/nothing-that-works.pdf [PDF: 156KB]

Keywords: Green Energy, alarmism, UN, Agenda 21, hydrogen energy, pollution, smog, greenhouse effect, missing heat, UK rejects greens.



One Wrong Equation in the Computerised Climate Models caused the Global Warming Scare


Red Faces all round among the profiteers of doom. A wrong equation that falsely triples the tiny direct warming caused by doubling CO2 concentration has been discovered and exposed in a major peer-reviewed paper just published in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, one of the world’s top learned journals.

No rogue equation, no climate crisis.

For more information see: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/oops.pdf [PDF, 541KB]

Keywords: Climate modelling; Monckton, Soon, Legates, Briggs, Bode, CO2 sensitivity.



The Global Warming Scare is Based on an Error in Feedback Assumptions


A group of leading climate researchers has identified a fatal flaw in the climate models that leads them to produce triple the global warming predicted from doubling the CO2 in the air.

CO2 in the atmosphere has some warming effect on Earth’s climate, but undisputed science shows that each additional CO2 molecule we emit has less warming effect than all its predecessors already in the air.

The direct warming effect of doubling the CO2 in the air is generally agreed to be little more than 1 C°. However climate models produce exaggerated warming forecasts by assuming that strongly positive or amplifying temperature feedbacks, such as the increased capacity of warmer air to carry water vapour, a greenhouse gas. They assume that these positive feedbacks will turn 1 C° of direct warming into 3 C° of imagined catastrophe.

They model this assumed feedback with a feedback system-gain equation which is at the heart of every climate model. The equation, however, is borrowed from electronic circuitry. It is not applicable to dynamical systems such as the Earth’s atmosphere.

However, a growing body of learned papers in the climate-science journals (e.g. Lindzen & Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer & Braswell, 2010, 2011) consider that climate feedbacks are net-negative, moderating rather than intensifying the 1 C° direct warming from a CO2 doubling.
(more…)



Failure of Climate Models


roy-spencer-graph

[Click the image for larger PDF version.]

The video referred to is here:



The Science is Settled?


Climate Research needs Re-direction

Governments are running huge deficits, but still spend billions on “climate research” especially trying to model the effect of the atmosphere and its trace of carbon dioxide on surface temperature. Benefits are hard to find. It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the main driver of weather or climate.

comrade

“What is referred to reverently as “climate research” is mainly just grubby advocacy supporting the political war on carbon. Why are we still funding scientists who believe that “the science is settled”? If they believe that they know the answers, what are they are doing with their research funds?”

Around the world there are five official weather data-bases, about 14 weather satellites (some say there are 88 of them!), 73 climate computer models, at least 30 research groups and thousands of academics receiving grants and attending never-ending climate conferences. Much of this torrent of public money is now focussed on trying to torture a climate confession out of one normally un-noticed and totally innocent trace gas in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide.

The major determinants of surface weather are latitude, earth’s rotation, the seasons, the sun with its variable radiations and orbital changes; and nearness to the oceans which maintain the water cycle, moderate temperatures and house massive volcanic chains.

Read more, as well as:

  • Warmists Watch Wrong Weather Warnings
  • Let’s Hear How They Will Do It
  • The Overflow Column
    • Obama Baloney
    • US/China Climate Agreement triggers Global Cooling in US
    • A Lone Australian Farmer Fights back against Kyoto Theft. He needs our help
  • Another Climate Change Ransom from the IPCC

Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/science-settled.pdf [PDF, 280KB]

Keywords: Climate research, climate models, oceans, volcanoes, ice ages, biofuels, IPCC, snow storms.



The Climate Change Enigma


By Ian McClintock.

There is an old scientific tenet that says “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.

I commenced an independent, comprehensive investigation of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) some 25 years ago because of the direct potential impact this would have on my farming enterprise.

Farmers work directly with nature and climate as they pursue their farming and grazing activities and if the world was going to warm, possibly catastrophically, it would at the very least mean a substantial change in my enterprise mix and management approach, and at worst, might mean I could no longer continue to farm.

I therefore had a strong vested interest in attempting to understand the science (and politics) behind the claims that were being made so that I could take appropriate action as future climatic events developed and demanded.

It goes without saying that I needed to seek out the actual truth with an open mind as it would be clearly counter- productive to delude myself with preconceived or incorrect ideas and assumptions.

It is a long story but what I found, quite early on in my investigation, is that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), despite having spent many billions of dollars on attempting to find compelling evidence to substantiate their hypothesis, have been totally unable to do so.

At first I could not believe this, I must be wrong, so I carefully and critically re-read the IPCC Reports and much other relevant information. The result was the same, NO valid empirical evidence 1 has ever been cited. I was and am astounded.

A very careful study has shown that ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ has proven to be no more than a politically generated fairy tale, yet the media, most Governments, many scientific organisations, Universities and others continue to ignore any and all evidence that challenges the IPCC claims and blindly accept what they say.

Why?

Read the full paper: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/enigma.pdf [PDF, 2.6MB]



Modelling Madness


garbage-in

Complex computer models are continually being used to generate incessant alarms about the future for our environment and resources – climate, weather, minerals, oil, food, water, pollution and the oceans.

Every year the computers get more expensive, and the models more complex, but their doomsday forecasts still fail.
(more…)

Next Page »

© 2007-2018 The Carbon Sense Coalition. Material on this site is protected by copyright. However we encourage people to copy, print, resend or make links to any article providing the source, including web address, is acknowledged. We would appreciate notification of use.
The Carbon Sense Coalition is proudly powered by WordPress and themed by Mukka-mu