Climate change debate draws differing views among scientists http://www.wral.com/climate-change-debate-draws-differing-views-among-scientists/14628059/
Australia PM's adviser says climate change a UN hoax http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32639813 A top Australian government business adviser has said climate change is a hoax by the United Nations. Most climate models were wrong and there was little evidence of climate change, said Maurice Newman. He said the UN had used climate change as a "hook" to establish and control a new world order. (More at above url)
They had to go back in history and adjust the data to turn a cooling trend into a warming trend and on top of that all their predictions over the years of what would happen as a result of global warming were wrong. Other than that, global warming is a great theory.
Here is Maurice Newman's complete editorial in The Australian. It is good to see some politicians calling out this nonsense for what it is. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ool-not-an-issue/story-e6frg6zo-1227343839905 It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising. We have been subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years. In January 1970, Life magazine, based on “solid scientific evidence”, claimed that by 1985 air pollution would reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth by half. In fact, across that period sunlight fell by between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. In a 1971 speech, Paul Ehrlich said: “If I were a gambler I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Fast forward to March 2000 and David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, told The Independent, “Snowfalls are now a thing of the past.” In December 2010, the Mail Online reported, “Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain”. We’ve had our own busted predictions. Perhaps the most preposterous was climate alarmist Tim Flannery’s 2005 observation: “If the computer records are right, these drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia.” Subsequent rainfall and severe flooding have shown the records or his analysis are wrong. We’ve swallowed dud prediction after dud prediction. What’s more, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which we were instructed was the gold standard on global warming, has been exposed repeatedly for misrepresentation and shoddy methods. Weather bureaus appear to have “homogenised” data to suit narratives. NASA’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record was revised, after challenge, to only 38 per cent probability. Extreme weather events, once blamed on global warming, no longer are, as their frequency and intensity decline. Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer? In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook. Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective. Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or disagreement. Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travellers. As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: “Even if the (climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” Having gained so much ground, eco-catastrophists won’t let up. After all, they have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House. They have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media (the ABC and Fairfax in Australia) to push the scriptures regardless of evidence. They will continue to present the climate change movement as an independent, spontaneous consensus of concerned scientists, politicians and citizens who believe human activity is “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming. (“Extremely likely” is a scientific term?) And they will keep mobilising public opinion using fear and appeals to morality. UN support will be assured through promised wealth redistribution from the West, even though its anti-growth policy prescriptions will needlessly prolong poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy for the world’s poorest. Figueres said at a climate summit in Melbourne recently that she was “truly counting on Australia’s leadership” to ensure most coal stayed in the ground. Hopefully, like India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Tony Abbott isn’t listening. India knows the importance of cheap energy and is set to overtake China as the world’s leading importer of coal. Even Germany is about to commission the most coal-fired power stations in 20 years. There is a real chance Figueres and those who share her centralised power ambitions will succeed. As the UN’s December climate change conference in Paris approaches, Australia will be pressed to sign even more futile job-destroying climate change treaties. Resisting will be politically difficult. But resist we should. We are already paying an unnecessary social and economic price for empty gestures. Enough is enough.
exactly... whether they can someday show man made co2 causes a tiny bit of warming or not...its really just an specious excuse for govt control of economic output.
Climate-Change Advocates Collect Big Money From Interested Parties http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...es-collect-big-money-from-interested-parties/ As climate data continues its stubborn refusal to conform to doomsday models, global-warming activists have focused much of their effort on attempting to discredit critics, apparently in the belief that “science” means suppressing inconvenient information to make hypotheses look better. A major theme running through these efforts is the supposed financial “conflicts of interest” facing scientists whose work is not funded by ideologically pure supporters of catastrophic man-made climate change theories. To put it bluntly, the warmists insist that anyone who disagrees with them is a dishonest puppet of reckless and greedy fossil fuel companies. Skeptical scientists, facing demands from witch-hunting enforcers of climate-change orthodoxy to total up their lunch receipts for the last decade or two, pointed out that global-warming true believers are hardly free of their own conflicts of interest. There is actually far more money behind the Church of Global Warming than any of its skeptics. The difference is that global-warming cabbage is not portrayed as unclean or suspected of influencing the outcome of scientific studies, because it comes from media-approved “good guy” organizations presumed 100 percent selfless and altruistic The biggest media-beloved, honorable, compassionate organization is, of course, the government. (More information including examples of huge grants from the government at the above url)
Coal-state officials blast Obama climate change plan http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/05/coal-state-officials-blast-obama-climate-change-plan/ The Obama administration's far-reaching plan to address climate change would cause job losses and lead to higher electricity prices and even power outages, attorneys general from two energy-producing states said Tuesday. (More at above url)
Climate change is UN-led hoax to create 'new world order' – Australian PM's adviser The Australian prime minister's chief business adviser says that climate change is a ruse led by the United Nations to create a new world order under the agency's control. The statement coincided with a visit from the UN's top climate negotiator. Maurice Newman, chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's business advisory council, said the UN is using false models which show sustained temperature increases because it wants to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule. "It's a well-kept secret, but 95 percent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error," he wrote in an opinion piece published in The Australian newspaper on Friday, without providing evidence. "The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook,” he said, adding that the UN is against capitalism and freedom and wants to create a “new world order.” http://rt.com/news/256861-climate-change-un-hoax/
Damn that plant food! http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ow-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/ Global Warming? No, Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing 'Global Greening' Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study. The findings,published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts. A team of scientists led by environmental physicist Randall Donohue, a research scientist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia, analyzed satellite data from 1982 through 2010. The scientists documented a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” that has caused a gradual greening of the Earth, and particularly the Earth’s arid regions, since 1982. The satellite data showed rising carbon dioxide levels caused a remarkable 11 percent increase in foliage in arid regions since 1982, versus what would be the case if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels had remained at 1982 levels.