Anti Warming News

Any topic with a chance of polarization - Not for the easily offended.

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Fri Jun 09, 2017 10:45 am

Found THIS SITE today and it's a real good read on climate stuff. I'd consider it a "Must Read" for everyone!! It's in PDF format so I can't copy and paste it here so click on the link and go read it there.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:37 pm

Wasn’t the Arctic supposed to be ice-free by 2016?
June 9, 2017
That did not happen.

In September 2012, Cambridge University’s Peter Wadhams claimed the Arctic would be ice-free within four years.

“This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge University.

So what actually happened?

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, even though Arctic sea ice hit its second-lowest extent on record in 2016, tying with 2007, some 1.6 million square miles of ice still remained.

That’s a lot more than zero ice coverage.

In fact, that’s more than half the size of all 48 contiguous United States. According to Wikipedia, the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C. occupy a combined area of 3,119,884.69 square miles.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/the-a ... nt-happen/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... -next-year

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 65781.html

“Do these people get paid for making such predictions?” asks Gareth. “Er…yes. And probably quite a lot!”
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:43 pm

More from the, "You Just Couldn't Make This Shit Up!" Dept. :roll:

Scientists Blame ‘Climate Change’ For Thick Sea Ice That Halted Arctic Expedition

From THIS article on the Daily Caller.
Scientists who cancelled their Arctic expedition due to thick ice conditions haves an interesting excuse for why they had to abandon their research project — climate change.

“We’re doing a large-scale climate change study and before we can even get going on it, climate change is conspiring to force us to cancel that study,” David Barber, a University of Manitoba scientist who lead the expedition, told The Guardian Wednesday.

Barber’s expedition set out in late May after being caught in 25-foot thick ice off the northern coast of Newfoundland. The expedition was forced to turn back after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a four-year project to study the effects of global warming on Hudson Bay.

Now, Barber and fellow researchers are blaming their botched expedition on global warming, or climate change, as they call it.

Their evidence? Not much, except the opinions of some scientists involved — at least, The Guardian didn’t present any evidence otherwise. The paper just assumed climate change was the culprit.

Interestingly enough, The Guardian blamed a similar event in 2013 as a product of “weather” and not “climate change.” That year, a Russian icebreaker carrying scientists ended up stuck in thick Antarctic sea ice.

“It’s not something you would expect to see there and not something we’ve seen there before,” Barber said. “In the high Arctic, climate change is causing the ice to get thinner and there to be less of it. What that does is that it increases the mobility of ice.”

Scientists studied the ice around them while they were stuck. They noticed lots of multi-year ice more common closer to the North Pole. However, what happened to scientists could be a weather-related event.

Scientists are expected to set out again in early July, but their study will no doubt be delayed.

“We’re very poorly prepared for climate change,” Barber said. “We pay lip service to the fact that we think we know it’s coming and society is trying to grapple with the complexity of it, but when it really comes down to brass tacks, our systems are ill prepared for it.”

This isn’t the first time scientists have been stymied by thick Arctic sea ice. Despite the overall decline in sea ice since the late 1970s, the Polar Ocean Challenge found itself caught in thick ice in July 2016.

The voyage’s purpose was to show “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.” The ship got stuck off the coast of Murmansk, Russia.

The year before, a scientific mission to the Arctic was derailed by thick ice. The ice breaker carrying researchers had to be diverted to save supply ships stuck in ice in Hudson Bay.

In 2013, the Russian icebreaker Akademik Shokalskiy got stuck in sea ice off Antarctica while carrying scientists to study how global warming was affecting the South Pole. The Guardian blamed that instance on “weather” and not “climate change.”
The List Rev A =;
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:28 pm

Climate change zealots need to get real
June 18, 2017 12:00am
Peta Credlin

From THIS article.
WELL, now we know.

The biggest deniers in the whole climate change debate are those who think we can have affordable power, lower emissions and a reliable network.

We can’t.

And after they almost sleepwalked their way to defeat at the last election, it would appear Coalition MPs have found their voices again on the issue that has defined Australian political debate over the past 15 years or more.

There’s no doubt that any policy that lowers Australia’s CO2 emissions will increase the cost of power and any move away from baseload capacity will make our network more unreliable.

Forget the movie, this is the real “inconvenient truth” that climate change zealots have never wanted to acknowledge. For too long, the views of the Zeitgeist have dominated debate and anyone daring to question any aspect of climate change was branded a sceptic. Scientific fact or not, any issue that’s galvanised the Left to the point of hysteria makes me sceptical that it’s more about the politics than anything else.

Australia contributes 1.4 per cent of global emissions. That’s right — four fifths of bugger all. But for many years we have been told that we must lead the way in reducing global emissions or suffer a loss of international standing for failing to do our bit. I don’t buy this and never have. We’re just the mugs who take these things seriously when so many don’t.

Take Kyoto for example; we didn’t even sign it yet we met the targets. How about the refugee issue? We’re one of only 27 countries in the world that offers resettlement to refugees while 140 odd countries do not.

What’s that again about everyone doing their fair share?

We live in one of the most competitive economic regions in the world. We are also a country rich in natural resources which has delivered us a record-breaking 26 years of economic growth.

We will never beat our neighbours when it comes to cheap labour but Australia’s abundant energy has always been our saving grace. We are the world’s second largest exporter of thermal coal and will soon be the largest exporter of gas. We also have the world’s biggest reserves of uranium. We should be an affordable energy superpower and, 15 years ago, we were; because the power system was run to minimise price and maximise reliability. Affordable power made us highly competitive, delivered industry and jobs, and gave us all a high standard of living.

Since then, green politics has trumped sensible economics and the result is subsidised wind farms and solar panels that make unprofitable the very coal and gas fired power stations that we need for baseload power. It’s a policy induced mess and we’re all paying the price, particularly our small to medium businesses who are doing it tough.

If you’re a well-off greenie with solar panels on the roof, a Prius in the garage and public transport outside your door, you probably don’t mind. In high income electorates feeling good about saving the planet might matter more than keeping the cost of living down.

For everyone else, we want to see a clean environment, good beaches, and our bush protected but we don’t think killing off our industry just to appease the UN gods and various other Lefties makes much sense, particularly when countries like China and India will massively increase, not decrease, their emissions in coming years. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot. We’re economically shooting ourselves in the head.

Right now, China’s emissions are 20 times those of Australia and even if they meet their Paris Agreement commitments, by 2030, China’s emissions will be 50-60 times ours. Seriously? We sell off industry and jobs in a mistaken belief the world that is acting with similar intent but it is clear they’re not, and won’t. Again, remember my refugee example and you get what I mean.

So what about Finkel?

It’s claimed that the Chief Scientist’s report to COAG aims to address the “trilemma” of achieving lower prices, greater security and a 28 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. Wrong. The report is about meeting the emissions reduction aspiration (which it converts into a commitment) at the lowest cost without major interruptions to supply. It’s not about affordable, reliable power; it’s about climate change.

As every household knows, power prices are skyrocketing and more blackouts are looming this summer because of government policy that mandates the use of intermittent (and unreliable) wind and solar power. Currently, the “renewable energy target” is 23 per cent, which means a doubling of wind generation in the next four years.

Yet the response of Finkel is to graft a “clean energy target” onto the existing RET to achieve 42 per cent of our power supply from renewable sources by 2030. In other words, he’s proposing to solve the problems caused by too much wind and solar power by having even more wind and solar power.

Reports out of Tuesday’s marathon party room discussion suggest that the Prime Minister’s colleagues are now in no mood to accept yet another giant step towards yet another Labor Party position. After adopting Labor’s policy on schools (Gonski 2.0) and Labor’s position on budget repair (more spending funded by a bank tax), there’s growing resistance to adopting Labor’s position on climate change (a 42 per cent renewable target versus Bill Shorten’s 50 per cent one).

The Prime Minister has said that the alternative to Finkel is to do nothing and that nothing is not an option. So far, though, the party room is unconvinced and is reluctant to embrace a Labor-lite solution to the power crisis that could just make it worse. They won’t accept Finkel’s report as it is, with many fearing his modelling of lower power prices is about as dependable as Treasury’s modelling for a return to surplus.

Around the world, China, India and Japan are massively investing in next generation coal fired power stations because they’re cleaner than any of the generators we have here and coal is still by far the most cost-effective way to generate reliable baseload power. If other countries can build high-efficiency, low-emission power stations to run on Australian coal, why can’t we? If it’s right for them under international agreements, how can it be wrong for us? And if the banks won’t fund them because they need ‘certainty’ then why doesn’t the government get involved?

Clearly there’s market failure here and a risk to Australia’s energy security, as well as the capacity of our industry to remain competitive. Wasn’t market failure one of the reasons the government is spending $50 billion-plus on the NBN?

It’s no good having fast broadband if you can’t turn it on.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:15 pm

A Global Warming Red Team Warning: Do NOT Strive for Consensus with the Blue Team
June 13th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-g ... blue-team/
Now that the idea of a global warming Red Team approach to help determine what our energy policy should be is gaining traction, it is important that we understand what that means to some of us who have been advocating it for over 10 years — and also what it doesn’t mean.

The Red Team approach has been used for many years in private industry, DoD, and the intelligence community to examine very costly decisions and programs in a purposely adversarial way…to ask, what if we are wrong about a certain program or policy change? What might the unintended consequences be?

In such a discussion we must make sure that we do not conflate the consensus on a scientific theory with the need to change energy policy, as is often done. (Just because we know that car wrecks in the U.S. cause 40,000 deaths a year doesn’t mean we should outlaw cars; and I doubt human-caused climate change has ever killed anyone).

While science can help guide policy, it certainly does not dictate it.

In the case of global warming and the role of our carbon dioxide emissions, the debate has too long been dominated by a myopic view that asserts the following 5 general points as indisputable. I have ordered them generally from scientific to economic.

1) global warming is occurring, will continue to occur, and will have dangerous consequences

2) the warming is mostly, if not totally, caused by our CO2 emissions

3) there are no benefits to our CO2 emissions, either direct (biological) or indirect (economic)

4) we can reduce our CO2 emissions to a level that we avoid a substantial amount of the expected damage

5) the cost of reducing CO2 emissions is low enough to make it worthwhile (e.g. mandating much more wind, solar, etc.)

ALL of these 5 points must be essentially true for things like the Paris Agreement (which President Trump has now withdrawn us from…for the time being) to make much sense.

But I would argue that each of the five points can be challenged, and not just with “fake science”. There is peer-reviewed and published analysis in science and economics that would allow one to contest each one of the five claims.

The Red Team Approach: It’s NOT a Redo of the Blue Team

John Christy and I are concerned that the Red Team approach, if applied to global warming, will simply be a review of the U.N. IPCC science on global warming. We are worried that it will only address the first two points (warming will continue, and it is mostly caused by CO2). Heck, even *I* believe we will continue to see modest warming, and that it might well be at least 50% due to CO2.

But a Red Team reaffirming those points does NOT mean we should “do something” about global warming.

To fully address whether we should, say, have regulations to reduce CO2 emissions, the Red Team must address all 5 of the “consensus” claims listed above, because that is the only way to determine if we should change energy policy in a direction different from that which the free market would carry it naturally.

The Red Team MUST address the benefits of more CO2 to global agriculture, “global greening” etc.

The Red Team MUST address whether forced reductions in CO2 emissions will cause even a measurable effect on global temperatures.

The Red Team MUST address whether the reduction in prosperity and increase in energy poverty are permissible consequences of forced emissions reductions to achieve (potentially unmeasurable) results.

The membership of the Red Team will basically determine the Team’s conclusions. It must be made up of adversaries to the Blue Team “consensus”, which has basically been the U.N. IPCC. If it is not adversarial in membership and in mission, it will not be a real Red Team.

As a result, the Red Team must not be allowed to be controlled by the usual IPCC-affiliated participants.

Only then can its report can be considered to be an independent, adversarial analysis to be considered along with the IPCC report (and other non-IPCC reports) to help guide U.S. energy policy.
The List Rev A =;
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6317
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by pdq67 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:26 am

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We will never beat our neighbors when it comes to cheap labor but Australia’s abundant energy has always been our saving grace. We are the world’s second largest exporter of thermal coal and will soon be the largest exporter of gas. We also have the world’s biggest reserves of uranium. We should be an affordable energy superpower and, 15 years ago, we were; because the power system was run to minimize price and maximize reliability. Affordable power made us highly competitive, delivered industry and jobs, and gave us all a high standard of living.

You Aussie CSer's keep exporting your energy reserves and you will go under in not too long a time!!

Why don't you turn your energy reserves into, "value added", PRODUCTS like plastics and gasoline......

F** China buying your cheap coal!

How deep is that vast valley a coal that you have?? 600 to 900 feet deep? or more??

pdq67

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:08 pm

The AMS Scolds Rick Perry for Believing the Oceans are Stronger than Your SUV
June 22nd, 2017
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the ... -your-suv/
Yesterday, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) sent a letter to DOE Secretary Rick Perry, scolding him for the following opinion he uttered in a CNBC interview on June 19.

Quoting from a Washington Post article:

Asked in an interview on CNBCs “Squawk Box” whether he believed that carbon dioxide was “the primary control knob for the temperature of the Earth and for climate”, Perry said that “No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.” Perry added that “the fact is this shouldn’t be a debate about, ‘Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?’ Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?”

(Most of the headlines I’ve seen on the CNBC interview, including the WaPo piece, refer to Perry with the usual “denier” terms.)

Basically, Perry is saying he believes that nature has a larger role than humans in recent warming. I, too, believe that the oceans might well be a primary driver of climate change, but whether the human/nature ratio is 50/50, or less, or more than that is up for debate. We simply don’t know.

So, while Sec. Perry goes against the supposed consensus of scientists, it was not outlandish, it wasn’t a denial of a known fact.

It was a valid opinion on an uncertain area of science.

AMS, me thinks thou doth protest too much

In response to Sec. Perry’s comments, the Executive Director of the AMS, Keith Seitter, said this in his letter to Perry (emphasis added):

While you acknowledged that the climate is changing and that humans are having an impact on it, it is critically important that you understand that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause. This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world. We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion. These indisputable findings have shaped our current AMS Statement on Climate Change, which states: “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.”

Indisputable findings? Really? In my opinion, the AMS view (which draws upon the U.N. IPCC view) is much more definitively stated than the evidence warrants.

Sure, all of the scientific institutions are going to jump on the bandwagon, with politically savvy committees agreeing with each other; they are in effect being paid by the government to agree with the consensus through billions of dollars in grants and contracts.

If there is no global warming crisis, there would be little congressional funding to study it, and thousands of climate-dependent careers (including mine) simply wouldn’t exist.

That money also trickles down to the AMS, which is paid to hold scientific conferences, workshops, and publish the resulting research studies in scientific journals. They have a vested interest in the gravy train continuing.

So, maybe I can ask the AMS: Just what percentage of recent warming was natural in origin? None? 10%? 40%? How do you know? Why was the pre-1940 warming rate — caused by Mother Nature — almost as strong as recent warming?

The truth is, no one knows just how much of recent warming was human-caused, including those thousands of “independent” scientists. They pin the blame on CO2 partly because that’s all they can think of, and we still don’t understand natural sources of climate change.

Besides, in the climate business, there are no thousands of independent scientists, anyway. They live and work in an echo chamber, and very few of them have the breadth and depth of knowledge to make an informed judgement on the issue. The vast majority are specialists in some narrow field of research. They go along to get along… and to continue to get funding.

Young climate researchers today cannot voice any doubts about anthropogenic global warming, or they might not have a career. They can’t go to Big Energy for research funding because, as far as I know, such funding does not exist. Big Energy knows they don’t have to pay people to prop up petroleum, natural gas, and coal, because the world runs on the stuff, and for the foreseeable future there are no large-scale, cost-effective, reliable, and readily dispatchable alternatives.

What we DO know with considerable confidence is that increasing CO2 should cause some warming. I’ll admit that my opinion here is mostly based upon a theoretical extrapolation from laboratory measurements of how CO2 absorbs and emits infrared energy. But we really don’t know how much warming. We certainly do not have enough confidence to claim it is indisputable that our greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause, as the AMS letter claims.

I am ashamed that the climate research community allows such pronouncements to be made. The AMS became a global warming advocacy group many years ago, and as a result it lost a lot of established members, including myself.
The List Rev A =;
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1009
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by exhaustgases » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:02 pm

For any climate idiot wanting it to become an ice age instead of warming and melting all the ice caps like it was in the days of adam and eve. I'm sure if they would spend all their time in either the north or south poles for the next 5 years and never be above a freezing temperature, that their minds would change. And that is what needs to happen to all the global warming nut cases, they need a good cold life for awhile and see how fun it is.

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:39 pm

1974 : Climatologists Wanted To Evacuate Six Million People To Save Them From Global Cooling
Posted on June 29, 2017 by tonyheller

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/06/ ... l-cooling/

Image

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesm ... Number=156
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:03 am

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann
Published on July 4, 2017
Written by John O'Sullivan

From THIS article!
Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

As can be seen from the graphs below; Mann’s cherry-picked version of science makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ‘tick’ in the late 20th century (the blade of his ‘hockey stick’). But below that, Ball’s graph, using more reliable and widely available public data, shows a much warmer MWP, with temperatures hotter than today, and showing current temperatures well within natural variation.

Image

Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’

As first reported in Principia Scientific International (February 1, 2017), the defendant in the case, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, had won “concessions” against Mann, but at the time the details were kept confidential, pending Mann’s response.

The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called ‘climate deniers’ like President Donald Trump and his EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt.

As Dr Ball explains:

“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”

Punishment for Civil Contempt

Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.

The spectacular rise and fall of climate alarmism’s former golden boy is a courtroom battle with even more ramifications than the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. To much fanfare at the time, Mann had sued Ball for daring to publish the damning comment that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State.” Dr Ball brilliantly backed up his exposure of the elaborate international money-making global warming scam in his astonishing book, ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science‘.

In his books, articles, radio and television appearances, Dr. Ball has been resolute in his generation-long war against those who corrupted the field of science to which he had selflessly dedicated his life. Now aged 79, Ball is on the cusp of utter vindication. Despite the stresses and strains on himself and his family, Tim has stood at the forefront of those scientists demanding more openness and transparency from government-funded researchers.

As Ball explains:

“We believe he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”

Likely Repercussions for Science & Climate Policy

A bitter and embarrassing defeat for the self-styled ‘Nobel Prize winner’ who acted as if he was the epitome of virtue, this outcome shames not only Michael Mann, but puts the climate science community in crisis. Many hundreds of peer-reviewed papers cite Mann’s work, which is now effectively junked. Despite having deep-pocketed backers willing and able to feed his ego as a publicity-seeking mouthpiece against skeptics, Mann’s credibility as a champion of environmentalism is in tatters.

But it gets worse for the litigious Penn State professor. Close behind Dr Ball is celebrated writer Mark Steyn. Steyn also defends himself against another one of Mann’s SLAPP suits – this time in Washington DC. Steyn boldly claims Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Esteemed American climate scientist, Dr Judith Curry, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae legal brief exposing Mann. The world can now see that his six-year legal gambit to silence his most effective critics and chill scientific debate has spectacularly backfired.

But at a time of much clamor about ‘fake news,’ it seems climate scare stories will have a new angle now that the United States has officially stepped back from the Paris Climate Treaty. President Trump was elected on a mandate to weed out climate fraud so his supporters will point to this legal outcome as vindication for a full purge. It makes a mockery of statements made by Mann last February when PSI’s Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan publicly backed their colleague, Dr Ball and endorsed the revelations in his book. Mann reacted by moaning:

“It is difficult to keep up with this dizzying ongoing assault on science.”

The perpetrator of the biggest criminal “assault on science” has now become clear: Dr Mann, utterly damned by his contempt of the court order to show his dodgy data.

There can be little doubt that upon the BC Supreme Court ruling that Mann did commit data fraud, over in Washington DC, the EPA’s Scott Pruitt will feel intense pressure from skeptics to initiate a full investigation into Mann, his university and all those conspiring to perpetuate a trillion-dollar carbon tax-raising sting on taxpayers.

With the scent of courtroom victory invigorating pensioner Ball, he reveals he is determined to go for a second such court win this coming Fall. Then he defends a similar libel lawsuit in Vancouver, filed against him by fellow Canadian climate scientist, Andrew Weaver.

On that case Tim reports:

“The second defamation lawsuit involves Andrew Weaver and is scheduled for court in October 2017. We are not sure what will happen as Weaver, who was a lead author for the computer model chapter of four IPCC Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013), became a politician. He ran for and was elected leader of the British Columbia Green Party and is a sitting member of the provincial legislature. We must continue to prepare for the trial, but it is the prevailing view in the court system that if a scientist becomes a politician their scientific objectivity is compromised – it is considered the bias of a ’noble cause’.”

As a career-long defender of the scientific method, embracing open and transparent verification of important government research, Ball makes this promise to his loyal supporters:

“Regardless of the outcomes I am planning a major campaign to expose to the world how they used the court system to silence me because I dared to speak out against their claims and actions. I am not particularly bright but I had two major threats, I was qualified, and I had an ability to explain in a way the public could understand. These latter abilities were honed in teaching a science credit for arts students for 25 years.”

Saving a final word for his friends and colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) Dr Ball concluded:

“It goes without saying that I could not have done any of this without the support of people [like Gregg Thomspon] who gave money and John O’Sullivan who gave superb advice from a legal and life experience perspective.”

Dr Ball and his PSI colleagues are among those now calling for governments to set aside proper funding for ‘blue team’ scientists and experts skilled in critically examining claims made by so-called government ‘experts’ where they impact public policy. In the final outcome, these ‘devil’s advocates’ of science (or ‘skeptics’) are the best defense against waste and corruption.

To that end, Australian Astronomer and entrepreneur Gregg Thompson has been crucial in providing resources that helped establish PSI as a registered UK charity devoted to this public service. PSI is urging more charitable donations from ordinary citizens to help further the cause of creating more ‘blue team/red team’ initiatives devoted to monitoring government science and prepared to bravely expose negligence and intentional misconduct on the public dime.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:56 am

NEW RESEARCH REVEALS OFFICIALLY ADJUSTED TEMPERATURE DATA ARE TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH RECORDS

Posted 12 July 2017

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?o ... 1&Itemid=1
"The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NOAA, NASA and HADLEY are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures, such that they can be relied upon for climate modelling and policy analysis purposes.... The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation in reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historial data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credibe U.S. and other temperature data."
See the entire PDF document HERE!

The List Rev A =;
Image
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:35 pm

It's been a while, but I've seen numbers similar to these before. This is a new poll though put out by that liberal hack Bloomberg News so it is somewhat surprising to say the least!

CONSENSUS: Global Warming Isn’t A Top Concern For 90% Of Americans
Michael Bastasch
10:02 AM 07/17/2017
Only one in 10 Americans say global warming is the most important issue facing the U.S., according to a new Bloomberg poll.

Even though 90 percent of Americans did not say global warming was the country’s most pressing issue, climate concerns topped other categories. Only 6 percent said the U.S.’s relationship with Russia was a top concern, and only 4 percent said taxes.

See the entire article HERE
The List Rev A =;
Image
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:30 am

As Dr Spencer points out in this piece, you can't always believe what the article title implies and you must read these articles yourself to see what is actually said in them. Realizing that many don't actually read them, that's the reason I try to copy and paste most of the articles with the title so you can make an informed decision for yourself! In this piece it seems that Dr Spencer is showing us why we need to do just that.

Study: Sea Level Rise Revised Downward
by Dr. Roy Spencer PhD
July 21st, 2017

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/stu ... -downward/
If I had not looked past the headline of the press report on a new study, I would have just filed it under “It’s worse than we thought”. A new study in Nature reported on July 17 carried the following headlines:

“Satellite snafu masked true sea-level rise for decades”
“Revised tallies confirm that the rate of sea-level rise is accelerating as the Earth warms and ice sheets thaw.”

When I read that, I (like everyone else) assumed that corrections to the satellite sea level data since 1993 have now led to a revised trend toward faster (not slower) sea level rise. Right?

Wrong.

During the satellite era (since 1993), the trend in sea level rise was revised downward, by almost 10%, from 3.28 mm/year to about 3.0 mm/year. (For those concerned about Miami going underwater, these numbers equate to a little more than one inch every 10 years). This result was published back in April in Geophysical Research Letters, and the new Nature study looks at the wiggles in the revised data since 1993 and makes ominous pronouncements about sea level rise “acceleration”.

I’m calling “fake science news” on the Nature reporter who covered the story. The headline was technically correct…but misleading. (I can also make up technically correct headlines: “Scientists Agree: Sea Levels are Rising, We are All Going to Die”)

The researchers in April made a major adjustment to the first 1/4 of the satellite record, bringing those early sea levels up. This results in adding curvature to the upward trend (an acceleration) by flattening out the early part of the curve. This new signature of “acceleration” was what made the news in the new Nature study, even though the long term trend went down.

Should this New “Acceleration” be the News?

In a word, no.

Short-term undulations in the sea level rise curve should not be used as a predictive curve for the future. They are affected by a wide variety of natural phenomena. For example, ice loss from Greenland (which was large in 2011-12) has recently reversed itself with huge gains made in the last year. These events are governed by natural variations in weather patterns, which have always occurred.

For longer-term variations, yes, the rate of sea level rise during the entire period since 1993 probably is a little more than, say, during the period since 1900 (sea level rise was occurring naturally, anyway). But the inferred acceleration is small. And even that acceleration could be mostly natural — we simply don’t know.

My main point is that the Nature headline was misleading. They clearly had to find something in the study that supported the alarmist view of sea level rise, and they figured few people would read past the headline.

A face-value reading of the two main studies together results in the conclusion that sea level rise since 1993 has been revised downward. The most recent study then reads too much into the wiggles in the new data, and even implies the acceleration will continue with the statement, “The suggested acceleration… highlights the importance and urgency of mitigating climate change and formulating coastal adaptation plans to mitigate the impacts of ongoing sea level rise”.

The new study does NOT revise recent sea level rise upward, as is suggested by the Nature headline quoted above.
The List Rev A =;
Image
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by GARY C » Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:58 pm

When you have "scientist" like hokey stick creator Michael Mann who is worshiped by millions as a great scientist make these quotes...

"Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages, it's not for science!"
"Science is all about credible theories and best explanations you don't need proof when you have credible theories, all you need is a theory that enough people believe." Michael Mann.

It is clear that modern day science has become a religion!

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:50 pm

New Video: Scientific Consensus And Mass Delusion

The List! Rev A =;
Image
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

Post Reply