Wednesday, 4 June 2025

97% consensus on climate change

 Carl R Franklin

UN Fraud
The UN IPCC is a political body trying to convince the world to stop using fossil fuels but tries to claim they are an unbiased scientific agency. But they only report on the negatives and ignore the benefits. Comments from former IPCC scientists prove their bias.
Public statements from 46 former IPCC scientists who resigned in protest.
�Below is a list of comments made by former IPCC contributors after cutting ties with the politicized body — so scientists who are no longer subject to professional repercussions.
Dr Robert Balling: The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
Steven McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
Dr Murry Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”
Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”
Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.

Thursday, 14 November 2024

The 2024 Spanish floods

 The media and politicians, as usual, jumped on the November 2024 floods in Southern Spain as some sort of freak events, while it took me a few minutes to find they were totally normal, proving both the media provably tell lies and the people blindly accept them. Firstly here are the historic figures for Spanish floods.


Source




And European floods.


Source

Tell me, how can anyone say with a straight face the current floods are special?

Meanwhile let's look at the general and specific reasons for these floods. The first is the most obvious, greedy human beings build on flood planes. Therefore they guarantee when the nearby river overflows, which they always will, they will be flooded. Just stop doing it. As for any changes, look at the land use. Flood prevention, such as dams and other protection methods, have been reduced by 'green' regulations. EU laws such as considering the environmental impacts of reducing flood damage before creating it. If you protect the fish and plants then the victims will be the people who are flooded by protecting the environment. There are no other places to protect flood planes (which should never have been built on in the first place) except between the sources of the water and the land. So ban one and the consequences will be guaranteed. These rules also deter dredging, meaning the flow of water is greatly speeded up as it has less space to flow more slowly. The EU Water Framework Directive makes these obvious safeguards very hard to carry out, meaning typical floods where such actions have not been carried out will be guaranteed to be worse than they would have done, yet all the authorities do is blame us every time it happens despite the frequency being no different to what it ever was. Also the funnel effect, where roads are built in a river valley, such as Lynmouth in the 1950s Source and Valencia in 2024, means the roads and surrounding buildings force the water along a narrow passage far higher than on an open area, causing water levels of many feet high purely due to creating a channel to direct a flooding river directly through the centre of a town. These consequences are clearly a product of human greed and stupidity rather than anything sinister happening in the climate. If it was illegal to build on flood plains, or impossible to insure houses on them things would soon improve.




It is also WEF policy to remove dams, the main reason the rainfall was not held back and caused so much damage. Dam removal


Wednesday, 8 May 2024

Figures on the creation of Israel, wars and Gazan casualties

 As the internet is currently alight with myths and mysteries about Israel and Gaza I was offered a few typical statements and offered to address them all with reliable and confirmable sources.

The answers to the questions are in italic. More may follow if requested.

That's exactly what happened. Palestine was given to Israel by the uk.

The United Nations General Assembly on 15 May 1947 created the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in response to a United Kingdom government request that the General Assembly "make recommendations under article 10 of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_United_Nations

However, by the time of the UN vote Britain had gone cold on the idea, led by the anti-Israel Foreign Office, while the British troops in Palestine did all they could stop a Jewish state and hand control  of the whole area to the Arabs. https://www.palestinehome.org/history-of-palestine-annotated-1/history-1949-israels-empty-promises-joining-un

 

https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/conflict-Palestine  

 

They displaced almost a million people.

 

250-300,000 Arabs fled in the 1947 civil war, the remainder were ordered to leave by Israel’s Arab neighbours who were going to wipe them out. 700,000 left voluntarily and were given six months to return by Israel. Those who didn’t were kept in refugee camps and not allowed to become citizens of Jordan or the other countries they stayed in. So yes, that is the correct figure but they all left by their own means and not by Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight

 

The plo tried to make a two state agreement multiple times that the whole world wanted except Israel and the USA. Now Israel ethnically cleansing Gaza in a land grab

 

You are very close here, but it was Israel who made five offers and the PLO who turned all of them down. Right formula but wrong names.

 

https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-offer-to-have-its-own-state-5-times-in-the-past/

 

The land existed dipshit... doesn't matter if it was a internationally recognized country. Families had been living there for generations only to be killed or pushed out

 

See the figures on expulsions

 

I don't know where ur trying to go with this post. If anything the death toll is way more than anything reported.

 

The 34,000 figure is from Hamas and does not distinguish between terrorists, citizens and children. However currently no international news service is able to confirm these figures.

Monday, 22 April 2024

Climate the Movie - debunked?

 Well not surprisingly the great boffins at Skeptical Science (sic) have published their debunking of Martin Durkin's recent film Climate the Movie, which took on the claims of the climate establishment by top scientists and appeared to emasculate them. Their main list (followed by more paragraphs of disapproval) was 25 points which I'll post here and then test each one as a judge would, with absolutely no bias either way.

Skeptical Science article

Code

Myth

Quick rebuttal

56

mwp

Medieval Warm Period was warmer

Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.

31

lia

We're coming out of the Little Ice-age

Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming.

15

cold

It's freaking cold!

A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.

6

temp

Temp record is unreliable

The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.

20

uhi

It's Urban Heat Island effect

Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.

38

troposphere

Satellites show no warming in the troposphere

The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.

45

pastco2

CO2 was higher in the past

Climate has changed along with CO2 levels through geological time.

120

plant

CO2 is plant food

The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors

127

trace

CO2 is just a trace gas

Many substances are dangerous even in trace amounts; what really matters is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

11

lag

CO2 lags temperature

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.

31

greenhouse

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements.

43

correlate

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature

There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term.

8

1970s

Ice age predicted in the 70s

The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.

5

model

Models are unreliable

Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

2

past

Climate's changed before

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

207

uah

UAH atmospheric temperatures prove climate models are wrong

The most likely explanation for UAH data warming less than expected is that the UAH data set is biased low.

143

cloud

Clouds provide negative feedback

Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.

14

cosmic

It's cosmic rays

Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming.

191

cern

CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming

of one out of four requirements necessary to blame global warming on cosmic rays, and two of the other requirements have already failed.

1

sun

It's the sun

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

17

1934

1934 - hottest year on record

1934 was one of the hottest years in the US, not globally.

240

wildfires

Wildfires are not caused by global warming

Global warming worsens wildfires by creating drier conditions with more fuel for fires to spread further and faster.

16

hurricane

Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming

There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.

37

bear

Polar bear numbers are increasing

Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.

185

gbr

Great Barrier Reef is in good shape

Evidence clearly shows that both ocean warming and acidification due to human CO2 emissions are damaging the Great Barrier Reef


1) Medieval Warm Period was warmer Until 1999 it was. There was no doubt until then, the consensus was that it was warmer. Then came the hockey stick chart, one of a number offered to the UN IPCC, two similar and one different. This meant they had if nothing else been confused about the proxy records, using ice cores, tree rings, vegetation and other possibly contradictory methods to join together to form a reasonably credible representation of the last 1000 year's temperatures. The official line is it is still controversial and uncertain, which is definitely the case as otherwise more than two official diagrams could not stand for the same period. Some say it has been improved, others, using evidence such as vegetation unearthed around the Arctic Circle showing plants there which needed a far higher temperature to survive, while the southern hemisphere had so few records before the 20th century it had very little to begin with directly. So to be fair to both sides the jury is out on this one.

This is Michael Mann's hockey stick, currently used by the UN.

Here is a northern hemisphere graph, followed by the world graph used prior to the hockey stick and still used in some scientific circles.

This is vital to current climate policy, as if it can be proved, even on a balance of probabilities, that the MWP was warmer worldwide it confirms such warming is not only harmless but beneficial.


This is based on both the earlier temperatures (which so far have not been as widely disputed, as they were far more recent in the 18th century and correspond with many pictures and records of ice or frozen rivers much further from the poles than today) and the glacier sizes. These can be relatively easily measured from past records by geologists, and they did indeed start melting before the CO2 rose in the mid-19th century. However there appears to be no dispute whether the LIA actually existed as outside Skeptical Science it's part of official climate history. 


Global warming morphed into climate change, and the jetstream issue means when the jetstreams become unstable they draw more cold away from the poles. As some scientists blame this on man (the evidence is far from convincing) it means they are saying man made warming, sorry, climate change, can indeed cause colder weather as well as warm. This point was not used by the film to dismiss global warming, it was used by those who claim there is.


If you look up temperature records for virtually any period (raw, adjusted and anomalies) they do indeed differ. If any professional engineer, architect or doctor produced differing data you'd find another one, so climate scientists can't get a pass on this one. Easily demonstrated.





I can provide these till the cows come home, and virtually all the adjustments make the present warmer or the past cooler. That means they are not prima facie reliable using the dictionary definition.


Well it is real. Urban heat islands




They do generally, but not everywhere or always.
 See Troposhere graph Roy Spencer graphs for all UAH records.


7) 

CO2 was higher in the past


Yes it was.




9) 

CO2 is just a trace gas


It makes up around 0.04% of the air. If rising heat goes through the air it has a 99.96% chance of missing a CO2 molecule.



It always has before the recent graphs beginning around 1850, until you enlarge them enough and find they still do. 





The experiment always raised to prove this is wrong uses either a tube or a tank, both closed, to add CO2 and watch the temperature rise. As warmer air can't rise out of a closed vessel this experiment can't represent the air. Equations using spectral analysis make up most of the gap, and relies on sensitivity rates (temperature rise per CO2 molecule) set by the experimenters in advance rather than be found by the experiment. Also they can't model feedback, which increases increasing temperatures (positive) or reduces them (negative). The main two are aerosols (negative) and humidity (positive). The hypothesis is that warmer air is more humid which in turn does trap heat as water vapour is easy to measure. In fact the humidity has fallen in all three levels of the atmosphere, meaning the major element of feedback is absent.






The third element from rising water is clouds. As it's nigh on impossible to model cloud formation as it is not predictable enough, they will mean more water evaporating will actually form clouds which in their thicker forms block the sun. 



13) 

Ice age predicted in the 70s




14) 

This is a blanket statement and depends on the model and what they are trying to model. Rather than write an entire paper I'll simply quote the IPCC:

The value of long-term climate predictions was dismissed by the IPCC directly in 2001, saying exactly what its opposition had always said: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"

14.2.2 Predictability in a Chaotic System The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system. As the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) has previously noted, “future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve ‘surprises’. In particular, these arise from the non-linear, chaotic nature of the climate system

14.4 The elimination of models because they are in conflict with climate-relevant data is particularly important.

15) Climate's changed before Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.


I would read the summary of this article and draw your own conclusions.

16) Clouds provide negative feedback

It's called shade. Temperatures are always taken in the shade or the thermometer may melt on a hot day. What causes the shade which blocks so much heat from reaching the surface?


17)

It's cosmic rays


The UN do not recognised solar changes as affecting the temperature in any significant way, but more research suggests it does, based on sunspots, solar output and other cycles which mean the magnetic output of the sun forms more aerosols in the atmosphere which allow more clouds to form, blocking out the sun.



There are more and more articles showing a very close correlation between solar activity and temperature so I suggest Skeptical Science goes back to school on this one.

18) CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming

"The CLOUD experiment studies how ions produced by high-energy particles called cosmic rays affect aerosol particles, clouds and the climate. It uses a special cloud chamber and a beam of particles from the Proton Synchrotron to provide an artificial source of cosmic rays. For this run, however, the cosmic rays are instead natural high-energy particles from cosmic objects such as exploding stars.

“Cosmic rays, whether natural or artificial, leave a trail of ions in the chamber,” explains CLOUD spokesperson Jasper Kirkby, “but the Proton Synchrotron provides cosmic rays that can be adjusted over the full range of ionisation rates occurring in the troposphere, which comprises the lowest ten kilometres of the atmosphere. That said, we can also make progress with the steady flux of natural cosmic rays that make it into our chamber, and this is what we’re doing now.”"

CERN experiment


19)

It's the sun

 see points 17 and 18, this just merges the two.

20) 

1934 - hottest year on record

1934 was one of the hottest years in the US, not globally.


Well it was in America yes. 1934 heatwave

And Britain, apparently 1934 heatwave Britain

However, it is a red herring as whether it was or not it doesn't change any of the other points.


Well if they were they would be increasing as it warms.




This is correct. There is no trend in hurricanes.






 
24) Polar bear numbers are increasing

Populations of polar bears have tripled in 50 years and shown no connection with ice levels.









They are referring to coral, one of the oldest forms of life on earth, which has both thrived during ice ages and warm periods. An average temperature change of a few degrees does not affect coral in all but the shortest term where it may bleach for a while, which will then recover with new growth.





Acidification is an alleged symptom of rising CO2 but in fact the oceans remain alkaline. As it's not related to warming I'll leave that to the specialists.