Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic

How Can Rational People Believe Them?

Source; Sent from a friend: 12/20/2022 8:31:51 AM Central Standard Time

“Another Ice Age could soon be upon the world… A trend shows no indication of reversing.”—Time magazine, 1974

“Noel Brown, is senior environmental official for the United Nations, predicted entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels by the year 2000.”— Associated Press, 1989.

“42 top American and European investigators examining climate change determined that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than may hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.”—George Kukla & Robert Matthews, prominent scientists, letter to President Nixon warning of a global cooling crisis.

“The W. Side Highway in New York would be underwater by 2019 because of rising sea levels cause by global warming.”—Famed climatologist Jim Hanson, 1989.

The UN’s IPCC executive summary in Chapter 10 states that: “the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers. Those other drivers include population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, meeting type of governing system, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development, [such as cancel culture and critical theory implementation] Will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.”

People tend to believe and trust the chosen media in areas outside their expertise. It’s part of the Gell-Mann Annesia effect—you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story on a subject you know well then read the rest of the publication as if it was somehow more accurate.

If the lying-liberal media were even remotely close to being a truly unbiased source of information, they would at the very least point out the abysmal, dumpster level track record of climate doomsday prognostications. Of course they do not, so tens of millions gullible Americans are fooled every year.

Nevertheless, climate alarmism has come to dominate US politics, especially among liberals/democrats. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So, they offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make a little mention of any doubts there might be. Imagine instead headlines like record high temperatures are becoming rare, hurricane show no sign of human influence or global warming won’t have much impact on the economy, even though they’re a lot closer to what the science actually says.

There is even a new category of journalists that can be called "climate reporters.” Their mission is largely predetermined; if they don’t have a narrative of climate change doom to report, they don’t get heard. The general lack of knowledge of what the science actually says, the drama of extreme weather events in their heart rendering impact on people, and pressures within the climate crisis industry all work against balance coverage in the media

Apparently it is difficult for people in the media to understand what’s actually written in the assessment reports. Or has the lying-liberal media has forgotten that their job is not to be an arm of the liberal/democrat establishment, no matter how much they love climate-alarmism, or the democratic Party, no matter how much they hate fossil-fuels, Trump, or the GOP. They’ve spent years torching their credibility. They earned distrust from their propaganda. What a dangerous shame.

In that vein, The Associated Press (AP) is passing off press releases and blog posts from climate change activists and groups and those who fund them, as if they were actual, factual news stories. It is accepting an $8 million grant from 5 prominent Big-Business foundations known for promoting and backing organizations that promote climate alarmism. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Quadrivium, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation are funding the hiring of more than two dozen journalists. "This far-reaching initiative will transform how we cover the climate story," said AP senior vice president and executive editor Julie Pace in the press release announcing the grant program. I’ll bet!

Commenting on AP’s decision to take millions of dollars from climate-woke foundations to fund climate reporting, Climate Depot said: "The media’s coverage of climate change has sunk to a new journalistic low. … The mainstream media, led by the Associated Press, is now publicly admitting they are just phoning in their coverage on climate change." Led by the Rockefeller Foundation and others, the AP will be parroting what the ideological activist groups’ funding pays for, while actual news will be tossed aside.

Not precisely understanding the subject about which one is talking and the way one is talking about it, none of us can reason, talk, or choose well about subjects we do not first understand. To claim otherwise is to a common sense. Hence there will be no attempt to present a patina of objectivity, balance, or unbiased news by the AP when it comes to "climate change.” The AP has very publicly ceased to be a legitimate news gathering and reporting organization, at least in reporting on climate change. It has become a bought and paid-for shill for the environmental movement, spreading climate alarm around the world(1). Paraphrasing H.L. Mencken, the whole aim of liberal politics is to keep the populace aroused with alarm by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, mostly of them imaginary.

Can anyone honestly believe AP will report objectively on climate matters when climate change alarm foundations are giving it millions of dollars? This is especially egregious when evidence indicates a climate crisis is not in the offing and bad weather events are not extreme in the context of history and recent data. To do so would be to bite the climate-woke hand feeding them. Reader, beware.

Oxford University’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism finds television news sources play up disaster scenarios and downplay issues of scientific uncertainty, benefits of global warming, and opportunities for solving the problems.

“It is clear that media, politicians, and often the assessment reports themselves blatantly misrepresent what the sign says about climate and catastrophes. Those failures indict the scientist who write into casually review reports, the reporter to uncritically repeat them, the editors who allow that to happen, the activists and organizations to fan the flames of alarm, and the experts whose public silence endorses the deception. The constant repetition of these and many other climate fallacies turns them into accepted beliefs...Not some secret cabal, but rather a self reinforcing alignment of perspectives and interests...Activism masquerading as the science is pernicious.”— Stephen E Koonin

1. In the paper, statistician and philosopher of science William M. Briggs, Ph.D. shows most claims attributing specific extreme weather events and trends in extreme weather and temperatures are made by researchers comparing computer simulations of the climate today to simulations of the climate as it might have been without human activity. The problem with such claims is the simulations are only as good as the assumptions built into the models and our understanding of the full panoply of factors that influence climate and how they interact. "We simply have little or no idea what the climate would have been without human activity... Moreover, we can’t ever know what it was like...In order to attribute individual weather events to humankind, scientists need a perfect model of the climate. They do not have this. Therefore, claims that we are responsible for any particular weather event are at best overconfident, if not plain wrong," Briggs says. Attribution studies assume the weather has been getting worse, yet empirical observations refute this claim, Briggs notes. "These studies assume either (a) perfect forecasting models, or (b) known, uncertainty-free causes of climate change," Briggs writes. "Neither condition holds. Because of this, attribution claims are far too certain or are wrong. They should not be used in any policy decisions."

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by M on December 21, 2022 at 7:30am

IPCC, the doomsday con

“After reading hundreds of recent books, scientific journals, and reports on the climate, I’m very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change and can’t trust the data because too much ideology is involved.”— Jordan Peterson, Cambridge Union Address

The final sentence of the latest IPCC report sums up the claims made in the body of the document in stark, fashion: "The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human well-being and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.”

The problem is that there is NO real evidence whatsoever, other than questionable forecasts, that climate change threatens human survival or even long-term economic progress. The IPCC provides no real data to back up its predictions of impending doom. Instead, the IPCC’s doomsday claims rely on climate models that have been discredited in the scientific literature, such as RCP 8.5. There simply isn’t enough fossil fuel in existence on the planet to bring about RCP 8.5. Economist Richard Tol, a member of Academia Europea (the European equivalent of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences), writes: "They could either pretend that RCP 8.5 is fine, or ignore most of the literature." Denying physical reality and the substantial body of literature that debunks RCP 8.5 is the course the IPCC chose.

Among the egregious claims made in the recent report are assertions about sea level rise are refuted by the IPCC’s own data in the scientific report. It is not an accurate representation of the literature that WG2 [Working Group 2] cites to justify this claim. It is also empirically false, as vulnerability to floods has dramatically decreased even as the planet has warmed.

This IPCC report portrays people and nations as living solely at the whims of nature, with no ability to minimize the climate’s effect on us or respond effectively to weather extremes and changing climate conditions. This portrayal a "bizzaro world" because it is the opposite of human history, which demonstrates humans are adaptable and human societies are resilient. Humans apply ingenuity and technology to climate conditions, to shape it in ways that limit the impact climate has on their lives and lifestyles and thereby increase human lifespans, improve human health, and enhance well-being.

“There is, however, the dawning realization among researchers that even apparently tiny solar variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A report issued by the national research Council The effects of Solar variability on Earth’s climate lays out some surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.”—NASA

The sun has been far less active than it has been in a century. Solar cycles last about 11 years, and not since Solar Cycle 14 in February 1906 has there been a cycle with fewer sunspots. Since April 2014, the number of sunspots has consistently fallen. The current weak solar cycle is a continuation of a 20-year downward trend in sunspot cycle strength.

Research published in Nature Communications confirms the sun’s role in climate is underestimated by climate models. Climate models assume solar activity has a direct but minimal effect on global temperatures and climate. This research is the first to use experimental data to confirm a powerful indirect effect of solar(1) and cosmic activity on Earth’s climate. The data indicate cosmic rays from Supernovae, and from fluctuations in solar irradiance, lead to changes in cloud formation on Earth, producing an effect 5 to 7 times stronger than the direct effect of changes solar irradiance alone. As cosmic rays increase so does cloud cover, and visa-versa(2). As clouds increase, they block the amount of sunlight and solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface and trap some amount of outgoing radiation, with more clouds on balance having a cooling effect. When solar activity is low, more cosmic rays reach Earth, forming more low clouds, and the world is cooler. When the sun is active, fewer cosmic rays reach Earth, fewer low clouds form, and the world warms.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation’s research explains why, over geologic time scales, the correlation between climate variation and changes in cosmic rays is much larger and closer than the correlation between climate variation and shifts in greenhouse gases. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age coincide with changes in solar activity, as does the pause in rising global temperatures extending from the late 20th to the early 21st centuries, which has occurred during a time of remarkably low solar activity. This gives a foundation to the large body of empirical evidence showing that solar activity is reflected in variations in Earth’s climate. For example, the Medieval Warm Period around year 1000AD and the cold period in the Little Ice Age 1400-1900 AD both fit changes in solar activity(3). The logical consequence is that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is smaller than what climate models suggest, models upon which the theory of man-made global warming entirely depends and is the sole proof.

Russian scientists on the International Space Station have been tracking changes in the Sun’s radius. They found it varies in cycles, ranging in size from an area slightly more than the surface area of the earth to nearly 3 times that area. since more heat is emitted from a larger surface area then a smaller one such variations can affect the amount of heat radiated from the sun that reaches the earth. A study published in Nature: Geoscience found changes in solar activity affect climate, especially on the regional level(4).

There is a strong correspondence between very cold periods on earth and high Cosmic ray activity, weak solar magnetic fields, and low sunspot numbers(5). In fact, Professor Humlum found that the declining sunspot numbers between the crest of cycles 21 to 24 (Cycle 24 is the weakest in 200 years and long-term indicators suggest the next sunspot cycle will be significantly weaker than the current one) correlate with the leveling of world temperatures from 2000 thru 2015. Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University predicts that sunspot numbers will continue to drop and that by 2030-2040 sunspot numbers will be as low as during the Maunder minimum in the 17th century—a cold period Known as the Little Ice Age. A lag time between the decline in sunspot numbers and a decline in world temperatures(6) may be due to an initial heat outflow adjustment from the Earth’s oceans.

Nature Communications published research, led by the U K’s Met Office, that reports sunspot activity has experienced the fastest decline Earth has seen in the past 9,300 years. According to the report, the decline in solar activity could result in significantly cooler winters in Europe and America during the next 50 years.

1. 1. Horst Ludecke, Emeritus Professor of Physics it the University of Applied Sciences of the Saarland, documented how solar variability has driven temperature and climate change throughout history. Ludecke cited research strongly indicating solar activity remains the primary driver of any climate change today as in the past, with human missions playing, at most, only a minor role in the ongoing recovery from the Little lce Age.

2. Nir Shaviv, Professor of Astrophysics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has shown how cosmic rays likely accounted for much of any recent global warming. Scientists have documented how cosmic rays seed cloud formation in the earth’s atmosphere. When the sun is undergoing periods of increased solar output, cosmic rays are more efficiently blocked from reaching the earth’s atmosphere. The resulting decrease in cloudiness enables the sun to more efficiently warm the earth. Shaviv showed how global warming alarmists are ignoring the impact of solar variance and cosmic rays on the earth’s climate, and are therefore erroneously assigning too much recent warming to carbon dioxide rather than enhanced solar output.

3. 3. Science Daily confirms the Little Ice Age between the early 15th and mid 19th centuries was global, not regional, and driven by an unusually quiet solar period. Their data show “the most extreme cold phases of the Little Ice Age – in the mid-15th and then again in the early 18th centuries – were synchronous in Europe and South America,” corresponding to periods with extremely few sun spots.

4. The US has experienced a substantial increase in total surface net solar radiation since 1996, yet temperatures remained relatively steady, according to a published paper in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Cloudiness has decreased in the US since 1996, as has specific atmospheric humidity. Each of these developments contradicts alarmist global warming theory.

5. 4. Using data from the Central England Temperature (CET) record, the world’s longest instrument-based temperature record (1659 to the present), researcher Alan Smith of the University of Durham reports approximately two-thirds of the temperature variations the Earth experienced between the Maunder Sunspot Minimum in the late seventeenth century and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-late eighteenth century can be explained by fluctuations in solar output or total solar irradiance (TSI) alone. Further proof is that solar activity has declined in recent years along with any rise in Earth’s temperature has ceased.

6. 5. Data from the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor satellite, confirmed by other satellites, show solar activity rose substantially after the 1970s during the modest measured rise in temperatures and began declining in the early 2000s coinciding with the hiatus. Solar activity may account for at least 70% of the temperature variation since the 20th century, thus undermining IPCC’s assertion that more than 50% of the temperature rise since the 1950s is due to human greenhouse gas emissions.