[awakened53]

Pulling Back the Curtain on Junk Science: How Climate Alarmists Manipulate the Presentation of Data

At the same time that ‘I haven’t a clue about science’ activist Greta Thunberg was preparing her overly dramatic “You have stolen my dreams, and my childhood, with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones” speech for the United Nations whilst receiving praise for pulling millions of children out of school “for climate change,” life-long environmentalist Tony Heller was calmly making a video exposing the climate fraud.
Heller has higher education in geology, electrical engineering, computer science and geochemistry. You will be hard-pressed to find anyone with a broader career in science, education, environment and engineering. “Your computer/game consoles work, partly due to my efforts. By contrast, climate science doesn’t work, because it is done largely by dishonest, incompetent hacks who don’t follow or even understand any legitimate methodology,” he wrote.
On his website, Real Climate Science, is an article ‘The History of The Modern “Climate Change” Scam’ which includes images of the relevant documents to accompany each of the following statements, even though we have only included one such image:
In January 1972, the National Science Foundation held a meeting at Brown University to discuss ‘climatic change’ – which meant global cooling and which they said was of natural origin. Later that year, the participants sent a letter to President Nixon warning of a new ice age within a century. The White House ‘seized’ on the global cooling threat. NASA’s top climate experts predicted a new ice age by the year 2021. The US Military responded to the global cooling, which they said was causing ‘extreme weather’. Everything which now gets blamed on global warming was blamed on global cooling.”
“Scientists realised that global cooling was a potential big money scam for them. In 1974, the New York Times reported on a meeting of climate experts in Germany. There was a unanimous consensus that global cooling threatened the world’s food supply. In 1974, the CIA said global cooling would produce drought, famine, international conflict and political unrest throughout the world.
Read More: Pulling Back the Curtain on Junk Science: How Climate Alarmists Manipulate the Presentation of Data

[awakened53]

Swedish scientist says humans should become cannibals to fight climate change because eating human flesh is more ‘sustainable’ than the meat industry

A solution to tackling climate change is to eat human flesh from dead bodies, a Swedish scientist has claimed.
Professor Magnus Soderlund, of Stockholm School of Economics, believes practicing cannibalism might save the planet if society were to ‘awaken to the idea’.
Speaking on Swedish television, he suggested dead bodies would be more sustainable than the meat and dairy industry – or even eating insects – if food sources become scarce in the future.
He also claimed that ‘conversation’ about taboos of cannibalism can change over time and that people can be ‘tricked’ into ‘making the right decisions’, the Epoch Times reports.
Professor Soderlund first presented his argument during a panel talk called ‘Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh?’ at the Gastro Summit.
Read more: Swedish scientist says humans should become cannibals to fight climate change because eating human flesh is more ‘sustainable’ than the meat industry

[awakened53]

What ALL of them? One writer, one propaganda lie, many copies

[awakened53]

“Misuse of Statistics” Said to Surround Met Office/BBC Claims of “Much Faster” Recent Sea Level Rises


Taking its cue from the publication of the Met Office’s annual climate report for 2021, the BBC recently reported that sea levels were rising “much faster” than a century ago. Citizen journalist Paul Homewood did a little digging and came to a different conclusion, noting in the process that, in his view, it was an “improper…. misuse of statistics”. Rates of sea level rise in recent decades are similar to those seen between 1920 and 1960, he reported.
The Met Office notes that since the 1900s, sea levels have risen around the U.K. by between 12-21cms, and this compared with the 15-25cms likely range of global sea level rises. A reader of Homewood’s blog sought further details from the Met Office and was told that according to the “scientific consensus” contained in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, the average annual global sea level rise was 1.3mm between 1901 and 1971. This increased to 1.9mm between 1971 and 2006, and further increased to 3.7mm between 2006 and 2018. On the back of the figures as presented, it was claimed that human influence was “very likely the main driver of these increases since at least 1971”.
Homewood said that the Met Office was supplying figures – contained in the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers – that compared the period since 1971 with the period 1901-1971. He noted that this was the “worse sort of cherry picking”. As can be seen below, 1971 was at the end of a significant slow-down in sea level rise.


Read More: “Misuse of Statistics” Said to Surround Met Office/BBC Claims of “Much Faster” Recent Sea Level Rises

[awakened53]

The BBC’s ‘Big Oil vs The World’ Documentary Failed to Provide a Shred of Evidence to Support its Alarmist Claims – What does anyone expect? It’s the BBC and why is anyone paying the TV licence to be lied to by the minute?

The BBC recently broadcast a three part series entitled “Big Oil vs The World“.
The theme of the three hour documentary was that the oil and gas industry discovered over forty years ago that their product produced large amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and that the increase in these greenhouse gases would lead to climate change.
The documentary alleges that the oil and gas industry deliberately disseminated misinformation in order to prevent or slow down any legislation that would hurt its profit margins.
Many interviews are shown of former employees of the oil and gas industry that have had damascene conversions and now see that they were part of a huge crime against humanity or at least humanity yet to come.
I watched all three hours of this documentary on BBC iPlayer. It was very well done with many clips of hurricane damage, floods, wildfires and industry pumping out pollution.
The music reinforced the sense of doom and horror that these oil and gas company executives put profit ahead of saving the planet.
The trouble is that even though so many people consider the subject of climate change ‘settled science’ not one shred of evidence was put forward in the whole three hours.
One of the climate change experts was asked what his reaction to his predictions coming true was. He said he was angry, yet his predictions were not offered and subsequently it was not demonstrated how they were true.
Graphs and documents with certain phrases highlighted were flashed up but there was no time to evaluate them.
A ‘methane hunter’ declared that she had provided overwhelming evidence to the U.S. regulators but to no avail. During this segment images from thermal cameras were shown which looked very scary but there was no explanation as to what to look for to determine that methane was present.
The Attorney General of Massachusetts was interviewed and it was detailed how Exxon Mobile was going to have to answer in court to the allegations. It was detailed exactly what they were going to accuse the company of and footage of the team discussing the wrongdoings was shown.
That segment finished with the fact that the New York State Attorney General had tried the same thing but Exxon Mobil had won that case. Nothing further was said, no reference to the court documents, nothing to suggest that the company had pulled the wool over the court’s eyes. Nothing.
I would imagine that if I had bothered to complain to the BBC I would receive a response along the lines of them not having to provide evidence because the science is settled, but you have to ask the question, why?
Read more: The BBC’s ‘Big Oil vs The World’ Documentary Failed to Provide a Shred of Evidence to Support its Alarmist Claims – What does anyone expect? It’s the BBC and why is anyone paying the TV licence to be lied to by the minute? 

[Steve]

World Climate Declaration - There is No Climate Emergency


World Climate Declaration plus all signatories in pdf

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared. 
To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in.  This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.

There is no climate emergency
A global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models 
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.

Epilogue
The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.
From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.
* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts
World Climate Declaration plus all signatories in pdf
World Climate Declaration AMBASSADORS
NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER NORWAY/USA
PROFESSOR GUUS BERKHOUT / THE NETHERLANDS
DR. CORNELIS LE PAIR / THE NETHERLANDS
PROFESSOR REYNALD DU BERGER / FRENCH SPEAKING CANADA
BARRY BRILL / NEW ZEALAND
VIV FORBES / AUSTRALIA
PROFESSOR JEFFREY FOSS † / ENGLISH SPEAKING CANADA
JENS MORTON HANSEN / DENMARK
PROFESSOR LÁSZIÓ SZARKA / HUNGARY
PROFESSOR SEOK SOON PARK / SOUTH KOREA
PROFESSOR JAN-ERIK SOLHEIM / NORWAY
SOTIRIS KAMENOPOULOS / GREECE
FERDINAND MEEUS / DUTCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR RICHARD LINDZEN / USA
HENRI A. MASSON / FRENCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR INGEMAR NORDIN / SWEDEN
JIM O’BRIEN / REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER / AUSTRALIA
DOUGLAS POLLOCK / CHILE
DR. BLANCA PARGA LANDA / SPAIN
PROFESSOR ALBERTO PRESTININZI / ITALY
PROFESSOR BENOÎT RITTAUD / FRANCE
DR. THIAGO MAIA / BRAZIL
PROFESSOR FRITZ VAHRENHOLT / GERMANY
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY / UNITED KINGDOM
DUŠAN BIŽIĆ / CROATIA, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, SERBIA AND MONTE NEGRO

https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/

[awakened53]

Self-obsessed lunatics claim targeting of milk depots has led to empty shop shelves

Campaigners have claimed their efforts to disrupt dairy distribution facilities have led to supermarket shelves being left empty of milk in north London.
Climate activist group Animal Rebellion said it has been causing significant disruption to a number of dairy distribution facilities over five days, including blocking and occupying sites and damaging milk trucks.
They paused their action in response to the death of the Queen.
But the protesters, who want to see a transition to plant-based alternatives to milk and dairy products to tackle the climate crisis, claim their actions are now having an effect on consumers’ access to milk.
Animal Rebellion wants to see farmers supported to make the switch from meat and dairy production to a plant-based food system, to free up land for rewilding that can draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through new forests and plants, helping curb the climate crisis and protecting nature.

Read more: Self-obsessed lunatics claim targeting of milk depots has led to empty shop shelves

[awakened53]

Rising Nonsense About Sea Levels From the BBC

There was a report on the BBC Breakfast programme today about the threat of rising sea levels to historic castles on our coast. The BBC bleated that these castles, which had protected Britain’s coasts for hundreds of years, were now being destroyed by rising sea levels due to climate change. The BBC claimed that “scientists have predicted that sea levels could rise by a metre by the end of this century”.
This reminded me of a BBC documentary, Earth Under Water made by the BBC in 2010. In this documentary the BBC presented two scenarios – a two metre sea-level rise by 2100 and a five metre sea-level rise by 2200. Using these two ‘scenarios’, the BBC showed the terrifying consequences for coastal cities and low-lying land from these predicted sea-level rises.
I guess the one positive one can take from the two programmes is that the BBC has reduced its prediction of sea-level rise by 2100 from two metres to a mere one metre.
But let’s test whether a sea-level rise of two metres or even one metre by 2100 is credible.
Here’s a table of sea-level rises from 1880 to 1980.

Notice at least two things:
[ul]
[li]The sea-level is rising somewhere between 10cm and 12cm per hundred years. We have just 78 years till the year 2100. Yet at the current rate, it would take about 1,000 years for the sea level to rise by one metre and around 2,000 years for the sea level to rise by two metres. So the idea that the sea level could rise by one metre (or even two metres) in the next 78 years is complete nonsense.[/li]
[li]The sea level is rising by different rates at different locations and is even apparently falling by 37cm per century around Scandinavia.[/li]
[/ul]
It’s a pity that nobody at the BBC has read my book There is No Climate Crisis. If they had, they would know what’s really happening and stop making their wildly exaggerated, nonsensical claims of impending climate catastrophe. Here’s just a small excerpt from my book about supposed rising sea levels:

Read More: Rising Nonsense About Sea Levels From the BBC

[Steve]

Remembering Dr Tim Ball

Today on the program James celebrates the life and work of Dr. Tim Ball, a man who devoted his retirement years to fighting the good fight against the agents of the climate scam and the green enslavement agenda. His fearless truth-telling in the face of so much adversity serves as an example to us all.

https://www.corbettreport.com/timball/


Tim Ball The Deliberate Corruption Of Climate Science

https://archive.org/details/TimBallTheDe...ateScience

[Steve]

Toxic time bomb of waste from solar panels in landfills
 by Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris
Listen to the article on America Out Loud.
BeyondWords 
Most people seem to believe that wind and solar panels produce no waste and have no negative environmental impacts. This is entirely wrong, explains energy and environment expert Isaac Orr, Policy Fellow at the Center of The American Experiment.

He says everything humans do has an environmental impact, whether it be mining, using a coal-fired power plant, or even tourism. When it comes to energy and environmental policy, the real question to ask is not “will there be an impact?” but rather, “can the impacts be minimized?” and “do the benefits outweigh the costs?”

Because everything has an effect on the environment, everyone must understand the impacts of all energy sources so we can make the best possible energy decisions. Whether we recognize it or not, we are constantly making trade-offs in our lives.

A recent article in Grist warns of a looming onslaught of solar waste as solar panels in the United States begin to reach the end of their 25-year lifetimes. The article begins:
“Solar panels are an increasingly important source of renewable power that will play an essential role in fighting climate change. They are also complex pieces of technology that become big, bulky sheets of electronic waste at the end of their lives — and right now, most of the world doesn’t have a plan for dealing with that.”
While their role in fighting climate change is untrue but the rest is accurate.

For the rest of this article please go to source link below.
https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/climat...landfills/
Existing user? Sign in here
https://www.americaoutloud.com/megatons-...time-bomb/