Uncategorized

IPPC’s fatally flawed analysis of temperatures

“The flaws imply that there is no demonstrated observational evidence that global temperatures have significantly increased (i.e. increased more than would be expected from natural climatic variation alone).”Douglas J. Keenan

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/statistical-analyses-of-surface-temperatures-in-the-ipcc-fifth-assessment-report/

In 2009 it was discovered that a well paid group  of $cientists had lied about the data in the Al Gore’s hedge fund propaganda  ”  man made global warming from mans C02 emissions” now re branded as “Climate change”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

The oligarchy that fund the IPPC  thinking everyone had forgotten about climate-gate scandal, as they do  ,  relaunched a [pure fear based astro turf campaign. A climate change movement  in which they tell unwitting people their survival depends on lobbying for “Climate change”. These fanatics are trying to spread the belief in “man’s emitted c02 warming the planet” .

They are confusing “pollution” which is obviously real with “man made global warming by Co2 emissions” which is a lie.

They are lobbying for   wealth building for the 1% who organised this movement :a) Imposing a carbon tax on the 99% and b) the elites Carbon trading at the expense of the 99%  who will have basic necessities  sky rocket with the c) costly and impotent “regulation”.

Man’s emissions of C02 is not warming the planet, there is no such event as “man made global warming”. Its a total myth in which actual science is seen as “irrelevant”.A flawed computer model and lies is all they have.

CO2 is Nature’s colorless, odorless, tasteless gas essential for all life on Earth. It’s not toxic. It doesn’t make land, water or air dirty or unsafe to use. It does not cause disease. CO2 comprises less than about 0.04 percent of the air. Of Earth’s annual production of CO2, humans produce just 3 percent aprx.

Solar energy , cosmic rays and the oceans are ignored in the  fabricated computer models  as the IPPC has a mandate “man made global warming” and  that insane mandate is a conflict of interest with actual climate science.

https://www.corbettreport.com/take-the-100000-global-warming-believer-challenge/

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/24/alarmists-are-in-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7#ian-plimer-7

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304713704579095340714975708

In 2013  NIPCC  a non govt climate scientist org  very politely  flushed the IPCC 2013 report down the toilet where it belonged. So now its 2015 and the IPCC have no evidence for their theory, no science.

Bob Carter is an Emeritus Fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs and Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition “The three headline conclusions of the 2013 NIPCC Report, Climate Change Reconsidered: II Physical Science, are:1. We conclude neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history. Furthermore, solar forcings of temperature change are likely more important than is currently recognized, and evidence is lacking that a 2° C increase in temperature (of whatever cause) would be globally harmful.

2. We conclude no unambiguous evidence exists for adverse changes to the global environment caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events; and an increased release of methane into the atmosphere from permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is unlikely

 3. We conclude the current generation of GCMs are unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100 year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation until they have been validated and shown to have predictive value. https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/12/26217/

 

Standard