I’m often asked: “Why do so many people still believe that we are facing a climate crisis?”
And:
“Why is so much money being spent on reducing carbon dioxide emissions when many other factors control climate change?”
My answers to these questions rest with the following facts:
The general public has little understanding of science and do not appreciate the complexity of climate science. Few understand that climate alarmism is essentially driven by politics and financial opportunism.
Media reporters (there are few investigative journalists) are always looking for alarmist headlines. Unfortunately, the public largely obtains its (dis)information about climate change through newspapers, radio and television.
Politicians are always “sniffing the breeze” to see which way public sentiment about climate change is going. If the public is alarmed, they can reassure us that they can save us from climate Armageddon. This usually entails the wasting of vast amounts of taxpayer’s money.
Since its inception in 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has followed the directive it was given by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This stated explicitly that the IPCC’s brief is to:
“Assess the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” (My emphasis) (UNFCCC, 2020)
Should the IPCC find no evidence for human-induced climate change there would be no reason for the IPCC to continue, so we can understand the efforts that have been made over the years for those on the IPCC gravy-train to secure a link between human carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.
Not surprisingly, the IPCC could find no evidence for human-induced climate change because there is none so. . . .
Dr. Michael Mann will be in Australia for 6 months during 2020 as Visiting Professor at the Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) at the University of New South Wales.
Bing.com: Dr. Michael Mann
This is the same university that awarded an honorary doctorate to the late Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Investigative journalist Donna Laframboise, in her book: Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report and the Nobel Peace Prize, described Rajendra Pachauri, the former chairman of the IPCC, as an environmental activist, habitual liar on climate matters and a “non-stop train wreck.”(more…)
The Paris Accord is based on fraud. Carbon Dioxide or CO2 is essential for all life on earth. Without it we are all extinct. There is nothing unusual happing with the globe’s temperatures. No unusual warming. Our interglacial warm period peaked 8,000 years ago and we are cooling. We’ve come to the end of this interglacial and are about to enter the next ice age. Humans can do nothing to stop that. The globe has no temperature control knob, it is impossible for humans to control the globe’s temperature. CO2 does not produce warming. There’s not enough of it to do anything. It is warming that produces CO2. It is impossible for the cause to be the effect. CO2 has lagged temperature by 1,000 years for the past 1 mil years and it has never stopped the earth from entering an ice age, even when it was 4,000 ppm. CO2 is the gas of life. We need more not less of it and we should be regulating for more not less emissions. It is needed to grow our food crops.
Paris is based on IPCC reports. The IPCC rely on their GCM models. None of the models rely on past climate history but rather a mathematical theory based on refuted, negated, fake and fraudulent science. They all incorporate:
A “human fingerprint” or THS (Tropical Hot Spot) on the earth’s climate that doesn’t exist. IPCC’s AR2 report was fraudulently altered to remove scientific reports that were negative of their GHE definition;
Lewis Fry Richardson’s flawed atmospheric model equation;
Michael Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick graph in AR3;
Arrhenius’ flawed hypothesis of the greenhouse effect; Arrhenius invented heat from nothing.
The multiplier effect of water vapor feedback. The flawed CO2 increases water vapor hypothesis based on Arrhenius and the Charney report; From observations, water vapor is decreasing.
A corrupted peer review process.
Then back all this up by fraudulently altering the data to support the failed models that can’t even predict the last 30 years of hindsight.
The money wasted on Paris will do absolutely nothing to the globe’s temperatures and is a waste. Paris is economic vandalism disguised as environmentalism. It is the political agenda of the communist movement. A wealth redistribution scheme to get rich countries to give away money to poor countries with the end goal to destroy capitalism.
The problem with Turnbull is that he only listens to one side of the science, the side that suits him. There are 32,000 real scientists in the NIPCC who dissent from the IPCC. Politicians need to listen to the real science, not the fraudulent science. During the last ice age CO2 levels dropped to 180 ppm. Plants don’t grow with CO2 at 150 ppm or less. That’s our food crops. If we lower CO2 will face human extinction. It is the interglacial warm period that is causing CO2 to be released from the oceans. Only 3% of annual emissions are from humans. We need more not less to starve off human extinction in the next ice age that is about to hit us.
Brendan Godwin
Weather Observer and General Meteorology
Bureau of Meteorology
Mawson Antarctic 1974
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.)
“… 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]
“… 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]
“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]
“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.
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.
Twenty-two years ago a bunch of green activists calling themselves “The Earth Summit” met in Rio and invented a way to tour the world at tax-payers’ expense – never-ending conferences on environmental alarms.
Like any good bureaucratic committee, they soon established sub-committees on sustainability, pollution, development, energy, forestry, water, biodiversity, endangered species, poverty, health, population and Agenda 21 (this item alone had 40 chapters each with its own sub-committee). Environmental conferences became the greatest multi-national growth industry in the world financed mainly by tax-payers via participating public servants, climate academics, employees of nationalised industries and tax-sheltered green “charities” such as Greenpeace and WWF.
They really hit the Mother Lode with their creation of the “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” which, in good bureaucratic tradition, duplicated the work of the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC). These then created their own brand-names called “Global Warming”, and its proxies “Climate Change” and “Extreme Weather”.
BACK in the 1980s anthropogenic global warming was resurrected. Its emphasis was that man-made CO2 would dangerously heat up the world and had to be controlled.
And there was lots of money available if this could be proved. So a multi-billion dollar industry was born.
The first thing was to speed up the rate of warming. This was done by ignoring a large number of temperature measuring stations from cold areas like Siberia, places with altitude such as Bolivia and only one above the Arctic Circle. So far so good.
Two distractions were the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. Michael Mann removed those with his hockey stick graph. It has since been shown that feeding random numbers into his program always resulted in a hockey stick. It rapidly went from the 1995 IPCC report’s cover and Al Gore’s presentations into obscurity.
There was also a problem with the record high temperatures from the 1930s–1940s. To lower them, the major measuring agencies started to adjust the original temperatures. This can be legitimate if weather stations have been moved or their surroundings compromised. A photographic record of every station in the US shows that 80% are no longer correctly positioned mostly due to urbanisation (green fields are now asphalt parking lots). Logically the old readings should have been regarded as valid and current readings would need to be lowered. They’ve done the opposite.
They started reducing the temperatures pre-1960 (give or take) and increasing them since then. NOAA for example was adjusting temperatures this way by 0.01 Fahrenheit per month, but then went to doing it twice a month. But hey, when you’re on a good thing, do it more often! The Australian, NZ and GB BOMs, and the US’s NOAA and NASA have all been doing this. They have also stopped providing historical data to other weather forecasters.
Parts of NOAA were so concerned with their official figures they established 100 green field stations across the US. After 10 years they show a steady drop, whereas the “official” adjusted figures just keep rising. Satellite measurements, which are difficult to fudge, are also showing a stable or dropping temperature pattern.
So what does this all mean? Our temperature records have been modified to meaningless; the computer models are useless (87 of 89 major models can’t get within two standard deviations of actuals); the actuals haven’t risen for 17 years; our governments do not class CO2 as a pollutant (look it up); environmentalists should embrace the benefits of more CO2; windmills and commercial solar should be junked.
Let’s get back to using coal and gas, which are more reliable, cheaper and are less dangerous (actually beneficial) to our environment.
We have experimented with square wheels and they have been a failure; we need to get back to ones that make the world go round.
John Ibbotson, Gulmarrad NSW
First published in The Daily Examiner 5 Sep 2014
In 2007 John wrote and published one of the first Australian books sceptical of AGW: Planning Ahead For Future Generations, by Highlighting Climate Change Myths. www.lighthouses.com.au
John is still actively involved in slaying global warming myths and fighting for a better deal for Murray Darling irrigators.
RSS
