Earth Changes and the Pole Shift
Global Warming Hoax - Leading Scientists Debunk Climate Alarmism
Global Warming Hoax - Leading Scientists Debunk Climate Alarmism
One of the main establishment lies is Global Warming, a cover for the Earth changes anticipated to be caused by Planet X.
In their recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” a group of sixteen world-renowned scientists decry the unscientific alarmism over “global warming,” citing numerous inconvenient facts that dispute global warming claims. Here is a video interview with signatory William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University:
Their message to policymakers?
There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically. . . . Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.
This statement follows up on the public resignation of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever from the American Physical Society (APS) in which he states:
I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?
The group of scientists note the following facts that refute climate alarmist claims:
1. The lack of global warming for well over 10 years now:
This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections–suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
2. CO2 is not a pollutant:
CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. The smear campaigns by the warming establishment are outrageous:
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the Journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
4. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before–for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
The scientists then address the key issue of why there is so much intolerance and corruption among global-warming proponents, and the answer they give is sadly, “Follow the money.”
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Signatories:
Claude Allegre, former Director, Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris
J. Scott Armstrong, Co-Founder, Journal of Forecasting and International Journal of Forecasting
Jan Breslow, Head, Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University
Roger Cohen, Fellow, American Physical Society
Edward David, Member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences
William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Michael Kelly, Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge
William Kininmonth, former Head of Climate Research, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT
James McGrath, Professor of Chemistry, Virginia Technical University
Rodney Nichols, former President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences
Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator
Nir Shaviv, Professor of Astrophysics, Hebrew University
Henk Tennekes, former Director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
Antonio Zichichi, President, World Federation of Scientists, Geneva
Stanislav
Most of the Recent Warming Could be Natural - Jennifer Marohasy and John Abbot study
As we stated at the start of the ZetaTalk saga, the Global Warming myth was perpetrated as a cover for the approach of Planet X. Tugging at the Earth from afar, Planet X was roiling the core, and when it arrived in the inner solar system in 2003 the Earth wobble likewise increased activity. The Earth was heating up, bottom up, as the melting permafrost showed. Increased carbon emissions had nothing to do with this, as heat rises, nor does warmer air create more volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. The myth was supported by the UN, who participated in the fraud, and even after being exposed the myth lives on as an aware public is terrifying the participants. They would be blamed.
ZetaTalk Chat Q&A for September 6, 2014
Most of the Recent Warming Could be Natural
21 August, 2017 by Jennifer Marohasy. "AFTER deconstructing 2,000-year old proxy-temperature series back to their most basic components, and then rebuilding them using the latest big data techniques, John Abbot and I show what global temperatures might have done in the absence of an industrial revolution. The results from this novel technique, just published in GeoResJ [1], accord with climate sensitivity estimates from experimental spectroscopy but are at odds with output from General Circulation Models.
According to mainstream climate science, most of the recent global warming is our fault – caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide. The rational for this is a speculative theory about the absorption and emission of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide that dates back to 1896. It’s not disputed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, what is uncertain is the sensitivity of the climate to increasing atmospheric concentrations.
This sensitivity may have been grossly overestimated by Svante Arrhenius more than 120 years ago, with these overestimations persisting in the computer-simulation models that underpin modern climate science [2]. We just don’t know; in part because the key experiments have never been undertaken [2].
<....>
Proxy temperature record (blue) and ANN projection (orange) based on input from spectral analysis for this Northern Hemisphere multiproxy. The ANN was trained for the period 50 to 1830; test period was 1830 to 2000.
To be clear, while mainstream climate science is replete with published proxy temperature studies showing that temperatures have cycled up and down over the last 2,000 years – spiking during the Medieval Warm Period and then again recently to about 1980 as shown in Figure 12 – the official IPCC reconstructions (which underpin the Paris Accord) deny such cycles. Through this denial, leaders from within this much-revered community can claim that there is something unusual about current temperatures: that we have catastrophic global warming from industrialisation.
In our new paper in GeoResJ, we not only use the latest techniques in big data to show that there would very likely have been significant warming to at least 1980 in the absence of industrialisation, we also calculate an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of 0.6°C. This is the temperature increase expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. This is an order of magnitude less than estimates from General Circulation Models, but in accordance from values generated from experimental spectroscopic studies, and other approaches reported in the scientific literature [9,10,11,12,13,14].
The science is far from settled. In reality, some of the data is ‘problematic’, the underlying physical mechanisms are complex and poorly understood, the literature voluminous, and new alternative techniques (such as our method using ANNs) can give very different answers to those derived from General Circulation Models and remodelled proxy-temperature series."
References to article:
1. Abbot, J. & Marohasy, J. 2017. The application of machine learning for evaluating anthropogenic versus natural climate change, GeoResJ, Volume 14, Pages 36-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gf.2017.08.001
2. Abbot, J. & Nicol, J. 2017. The Contribution of Carbon Dioxide to Global Warming, In Climate Change: The Facts 2017, Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Editor J. Marohasy, Pages 282-296.
9. Harde, H. 2014. Advanced two-layer climate model for the assessment of global warming by CO2. Open J. Atmospheric Climate Chang. Volume 1, Pages 1-50.
10. Lightfoot, HD & Mamer, OA. 2014. Calculation of Atmospheric Radiative Forcing (Warming Effect) of Carbon Dioxide at any Concentration. Energy and Environment Volume 25, Pages 1439-1454.
11. Lindzen, RS & Choi, Y-S. 2011. On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. Asia-Pacific. Journal of Atmospheric Science Volume 47, Pages 377-390.
12. Specht, E, Redemann, T & Lorenz, N. 2016. Simplified mathematical model for calculating global warming through anthropogenic CO2. International Journal of Thermal Science, Volume 102, Pages 1-8.
13. Laubereau, A & Iglev, H. 2013. On the direct impact of the CO2 concentration rise to the global warming, Europhysics Letters, Volume 104, Pages 29001.
14. Wilson, DJ & Gea-Banacloche, J. 2012. Simple model to estimate the contribution of atmospheric CO2 to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. American Journal of Physic, Volume 80, Pages 306-315.
Source and more to read: Most of the Recent Warming Could be Natural. (n.d.). Retrieved August 23, 2017, from http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/
Aug 23, 2017
Stanislav
Expert Review: Australian Weather bureau’s temperature errors caused by old hardware
7 September, 2017. "Decades-old hardware and outdated management practices must be overhauled at the Bureau of Meteorology after extremely low temperature readings at two NSW sites were misreported, an expert review has found. A review into the bureau’s automatic weather stations, sparked by a series of reports in The Australian, has found there was equipment failure at Goulburn and Thredbo, hardware was “not fit for purpose”, and there were “clearly failures” in systems of bureaucracy put in place back in the 1990s.
<...>
Scientist Jennifer Marohasy said for the bureau to dismiss the missing temperatures as technical faults was “nonsense”.
“The bureau is taking us for fools,” Dr Marohasy said. “For them to suggest there’s a problem with the equipment, and only those two, and that they discovered it, is a fabrication.’’
<...>
“The bureau failed to adequately communicate the limitations of the MSI1 card to its field staff. This replacement was made by bureau field officers who were unaware of the difference in temperature range capabilities by the two cards.”"
Reference & source: SAM BUCKINGHAM-JONES (2017, September 7). Weather bureau’s temperature errors caused by old hardware. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/weather-bureaus-tempera...
Sep 7, 2017
Stanislav
Push for probe into weather stations failures
Climate scientist Jennifer Marohasy and radio technician Lance Pidgeon visit the weather station at Goulburn Airport that measured a record low of -10.4C on July 2
11 September, 2017. "The results of an independent review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s weather stations, which found there was decades-old hardware and clear failures in its bureaucratic processes, have prompted calls for a parliamentary inquiry into temperature manipulation.
The executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs, John Roskam, said the review raised critical questions about the accuracy of the bureau’s data after two sites were found to have equipment incapable of measuring extremely low temperatures.
<...>
“The bureau has now acknowledged that for many years temperature readings have been wrong for at least two weather stations.
<...>
Dr Marohasy, a senior fellow at the institute, said: “The bureau claims to have a network of 695 automatic weather stations across Australia, are they seriously suggesting the only two that have issues are the two that I raised?"
SAM BUCKINGHAM-JONES (2017, September 11). Push for probe into weather stations failures. Retrieved September 11, 2017, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/push-for-probe-into-wea...
Sep 11, 2017