Tag: climategate

Have you wondered why we’re getting so many grey, hazy skies?

Have you wondered why we’re getting so many grey, hazy skies?  Blame Solar Engineering – aka Solar Radiation Management.

Dr. Vernon Coleman has always been opposed to capital punishment.  But he has decided that I will make an exception for the geoengineers and climate engineers.  In the article below he explains why.

Note: Geoengineering involves solar radiation management through the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere, and carbon capture and storage. One of the methods of injecting aerosols into the atmosphere is by spraying particles from aeroplanes. Aerial spraying results in unusual persistent jet emissions which are widely described as chemtrails.

I have always been opposed to capital punishment.  But I have decided that I will make an exception for the geoengineers and climate engineers who are behind the sprinkling of millions of tons of light-reflecting particles in our stratosphere.

I have written before about the sprinkling of powder in the skies (it’s known as solar engineering or solar radiation management).

These chemical clouds are designed to cool the earth, and the insane people behind it believe (or at least pretend to believe) the mad theory known as “climate change.” My research suggests that virtually no independent scientists believe the “climate change” theory. The vast majority recognise that it is a confidence trick.

But the conspirators are using climate change as an excuse to block out the Sun’s rays even though they know the damage it will do. Thousands of planes (all running on fossil fuels) are flying around in the stratosphere.

Keep reading

Prof. Murry Salby: Atmospheric carbon is not a pollutant and humans cannot regulate it

In 2016 atmospheric scientist Professor Murry Salby delivered a lecture at University College London.  The purpose of his lecture was to provide proof of why atmospheric carbon is not a pollutant and why humans cannot regulate it.

The effect of fossil fuel on CO2 emissions is minute, Prof. Salby said.  “The fossil fuel perturbation is too small to even be detectable … [It] is presently not detectable.  It will not be detectable, ever.”

Science has been taken over by “government bureaucracy under the aegis of the UN.”  Its objective, he said in 2016, “has become an exercise in social engineering to predict and control the undetectable.”

Murry Salby was critical of anthropogenic global warming. His last position in academia was as a professor at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. 

According to Wikipedia, in 2013 the university dismissed Prof. Salby on grounds of refusal to teach and misuse of university resources.  DeSmog highlighted on Prof. Salby’s profile page that “between 1988 and 2013, Salby committed financial and other offences that led to his departures from faculty positions at two major universities.” 

Regarding Macquarie University it appears DeSmog used an in-house report that could not have been accessed without requesting it under the Freedom of Information Act (“FoI”). “DeSmog vaguely suggest there ‘must have been an FoI’, but there are no links to support that. In the end, a confidential, low standard, internal document with legalistic sounding words, may have been ‘leaked’ to those in search of a character attack,” Jo Nova noted.

Prof. Salby’s dismissal from Macquarie University followed a series of unfulfilled commitments by the university, deliberate attempts by the university to sabotage and silence him and a misconduct hearing held by the university while Prof. Salby was in France. As Jo Nova noted at the time: “Is his research is so dangerous to the cash cow that is ‘global warming’ that it had to be stopped at any cost?” 

Prof. Salby died in 2022.

Despite the persecution he suffered for going against the climate change narrative, Prof. Salby did not stop speaking out about what he knew to be the truth, as demonstrated by the lecture he gave at University College London in 2016.

During this lecture, Prof. Salby demonstrated why carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as climate change catastrophists claim

Keep reading

Global warming in the last 20 years has mostly been caused by changes in the clouds, not greenhouse gases

An assumption made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) in its most recent report is that the warming caused by the increase in long-wave back radiation was due solely to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

The IPCC attributes 100% of the warming to this effect and justifies this with model calculations.  However, a study published in 2021 proved this to be incorrect.

The analysis of the measured data by Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt showed that the warming due to the decrease of short-wave radiation and the increase in long-wave radiation is mainly attributable to the cloud effect.

“The direct aerosol effect is rather small, but the indirect effect via the cloud formation may be larger,” the researchers noted in their peer-reviewed paper.

The two researchers investigated the Earth’s radiation balance over the last 20 years in a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Atmosphere in September 2021. The study titled ‘Radiative Energy flux variation from 2001 – 2020’ brought to light that the warming of the Earth in the last 20 years is mainly due to a higher permeability of clouds for short-wave solar radiation. The authors came to this clear conclusion after evaluating the CERES radiation data.

“The warming of the last 20 years has been caused more by change in the clouds than by the classical greenhouse effect,” they said.

Adding, “The time span of 20 years is still too short to be able to decide conclusively whether the current heating phase is a temporary or permanent development. In the former case, climate forecasts will have to be fundamentally revised.”

The study is technical and difficult for a layman to understand.  However, Vahrenholt and Dübal explained what it all means in an article which you can read HERE.  Dr. Joseph Fourier recently highlighted the study’s findings on LinkedIn.  

Keep reading

Author Of New Paper: No AMOC Collapse…”Should Dissuade People From Climate Doomism”

We hear it over and again: the melting ice in Greenland due to warming will soon lead to a collapse of the AMOC, making it difficult for it to “restart”.

The salt content in the north is critical because the salt-rich tropical water cools down and sinks due to the higher salt content, which is the “pump” that makes circulation possible in the first place. It also transports very large amounts of heat into the North Atlantic.

Scenarios  have been published that calculate a drastic cooling of the greater area (especially Europe) around it if the AMOC is “switched off”. The “Day after Tomorrow” scenario.

A more recent summary of these “tipping point” assumptions comes from Prof. Rahmstorf. It refers to reconstructed phases of such collapses, especially during “Heinrich Events” in the last ice age. At that time, large quantities of icebergs advanced far to the south, where they melted and thus probably brought the AMOC to a standstill through sweetening.

New paper finds no alarm

A completely new paper sheds light on these events in detail and reconstructs the freshwater inputs very precisely. A very detailed discussion can be found here.

Keep reading

Scientific integrity and U.S. “Billion Dollar Disasters”

Today, npj Natural Hazards, a journal in the Nature family of journals, officially published my new paper, “Scientific integrity and U.S. “Billion Dollar Disasters.”

The paper shows — irrefutably in my view — that the “billion dollar disaster” tabulation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), fails to meet the agency’s standards for information quality and scientific integrity.1

For reasons I describe in detail in the paper, the “billion dollar disaster” tabulation is not suitable as a “database” (scare quotes — it is not data by any standard) for the detection and attribution of trends in extreme weather. Similarly, the tabulation is not suitable for identifying the consequences of changes or variability in climate on the costs of disasters. The dataset has been widely misused inscience, by the media, and in policy.

It is, in a word, misinformation.2

Here is how the paper starts:

In the late 1990s, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began publishing a tally of weather and climate disasters that each resulted in more than $1 billion in damage, noting that the time series had become “one of our more popular web pages”1. Originally, the data was reported in current-year U.S. dollars. In 2011, following criticism that the dataset was misleading, NOAA modified its methods to adjusted historical losses to constant-year dollars by accounting for inflation.

By 2023, the billion dollar disaster time series had become a fixture in NOAA’s public outreach, was highlighted by the U.S. government’s U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) as a “climate change indicator,” was a cited as evidence in support of a “key message” of the Fifth U.S. National Climate Assessment showing that “extreme events are becoming more frequent and severe.” The time series is often cited in policy settings as evidence of the effects of human-caused climate change to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and associated economic damage, including in federal agencies, Congress and by the U.S. President. In addition to being widely cited in justifications of policy, as of March, 2024, NOAA’s billion dollar dataset has been cited in almost 1000 articles according to Google Scholar.

NOAA’s “billion dollar disaster” tabulation began as a simplistic but clever way to market NOAA and to attract the attention of reporters with a clickbaity listicle. At some point along the way, the “billion dollar disaster” list was somehow transformed into “data” used in peer-reviewed research, an official indicator of human-caused climate change featured by the U.S. National Climate Assessment, and used by the administration of President Joe Biden to justify a wide range of regulations and policy.

It is a remarkable story of how science can get off track and how misinformation can exist in plain sight, just like the emperor’s new clothes.

Keep reading

Failed climate prediction: A senior UN official claimed that entire nations would be wiped off the face of the Earth by the year 2000

In 1989, a senior UN environmental official warned that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend was not reversed by the year 2000. This prediction was made in an Associated Press article written by veteran reporter Peter James Spielmann and published on 29 June 1989.

According to the article, governments had a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it went beyond human control. The UN official also predicted that as the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations.

In 2019, Snopes “fact-checked” the claim that, “A senior UN environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000” because it “serves as the basis for clickbait posts from several climate denial media outlets.” 

However, because the article was available for all to read, all Snopes could do was demonstrate that Spielmann’s article was not supported by scientific papers or the UNEP report referred to. In other words, the senior UN official lied and Spielmann amplified his lies.

Keep reading

Bill Gates Invests Millions in ‘Climate Vaccines’ to Reduce Methane Emissions From Cows

Bill Gates has long been a proponent of vaccines in general and more recently,  mRNA vaccine technology.

Now, he may have his sights set on developing a vaccine to combat climate change by targeting the methane emissions of livestock.

ArkeaBio, a Boston-based ag-biotech startup, recently raised $26.5 million in a Series A financing round to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions” via the development of a “methane vaccine,” the company announced in a May 8 press release.

Breakthrough Energy Ventures, founded by Gates and which first invested in ArkeaBio in 2022, led the financing round.

The company said:

“ArkeaBio’s vaccine will provide an innovative, cost-effective, and scalable solution to reduce the world’s livestock methane emissions, which currently generate the equivalent of 3 Billion Tonnes of CO2 annually and represent 6% of annual Greenhouse gas emissions.”

Keep reading

“To Use Terms Like ‘Global Boiling’ Is Clearly Absolute Nonsense”

“Don’t believe what Wikipedia writes about me,” Professor Ian Plimer emails me when I arrange an interview with him. Of course, the first thing to do in this case is to check the Wikipedia article about him. “Ian Rutherford Plimer (born 12 February 1946) is an Australian geologist and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. He rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. He has been criticised by climate scientists for misinterpreting data and spreading misinformation,” are the first sentences of the Wikipedia article about him.

Plimer is indeed an Australian geologist and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, where he once was Professor and Head of Earth Sciences. During his long academic career, he has also been a professor at the University of Newcastle, University of Adelaide, Ludwig Maximilians Universität in Munich, Germany, and has work relations with several other universities. He has published more than 130 scientific articles and was one of the editors of the comprehensive five-volume Encyclopedia of Geology. Of course, not all of this information needs to be included in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article about a renowned scientist, but the editor’s choice to include a clear accusation that Plimer is somehow linked to ‘spreading misinformation’ is not surprising, to say the least.

Keep reading

The ‘E’ in ESG: How the Left Injects Climate Alarmism into America’s Boardrooms

The “E” in ESG – “Environmental” – is how anti-fossil fuel climate activism has captured corporate America to the detriment of our economy, our energy security, and our national security.

Daniel Cameron, CEO of the 1792 Exchange, explains how it works in an interview with Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow.  The 1792 Exchange exposes coercion and ideological bias in corporations and works to get America’s businesses back to business.

Marlow notes that the “E” in ESG (which stands for Environmental, Social, and Governance) is “stifling America’s energy sector” and “ultimately harming the economy.”

“But these corporations are still compelled to go along with some of these new leftist measures. Why are they embracing this? What’s going on?” Marlow asks Cameron.

Cameron explains that the “E” in ESG is about inserting anti-fossil fuel “climate alarmism” into America’s corporate boardrooms. Cameron, who served as the Attorney General of Kentucky, says he saw firsthand the dangers of these policies for his coal-producing state.

“I hail from the Commonwealth of Kentucky,” Cameron says, “And when you hear either the Biden administration or Larry Fink at BlackRock or other of these asset fund managers talk about wanting to destroy the fossil fuel industry by 2030 or 2050… that was a big red flag for me because in Kentucky, we are the seventh largest generator of coal.”

Kentucky’s abundant coal resources give the state a “competitive advantage” in providing reliable and affordable energy, Cameron explains. “When you have somebody that wants to destroy that, what you’re saying to me as a state official is that you’re trying to destroy our livelihood,” he says.

Cameron notes that this destructive climate activism is “playing out all across the country” in states with economies dependent on coal, oil, or natural gas. And this activism not only hurts the states’ economies; it also hurts U.S. energy security by making America more dependent on unstable and potentially hostile foreign regimes for our energy.

He also adds that this corporate environmental “virtue signaling” hurts the profitability of American companies and also hurt the retirees whose pensions are managed by asset funds.

“What this is ultimately about is using the hard-earned dollars of shareholders of retirees—about using the money of teachers, firefighters, and police officers—to virtue signal so that corporate leadership and hedge fund managers can ingratiate themselves to the climate alarmists,” Cameron says. “This is bad for America. It’s bad for our energy independence because what it ultimately does is makes us rely on foreign adversaries.”

Keep reading

Climate Change ‘Solutions’ Are Harming the Environment

Big government environmental “fixes” often result in unintended environmental or human health consequences that are worse than the original problem the government solution was meant to solve.

Nowhere is this clearer than with government efforts to fight climate change, an effort in vain if ever there was one.

In Climate Change Weekly, I have detailed the high environmental costs and dangers to people that come with electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels — from fires, to the human and environmental impact of the mining and refining of the minerals necessary to produce and operate them, to the waste problems they create.

As whale deaths mount on the East Coast, The Heartland Institute along with our allies at CFACT and the National Legal and Policy Center have filed a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order on Dominion Energy’s plans to begin pile driving for construction of the base and tower portions of 176 giant offshore wind turbines it plans to erect at great economic and environmental costs off the coast of Virginia as part of President Biden’s “all of government” approach to fight climate change.

CFACT has established a great resource devoted to the myriad environmental problems — including the threat to the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW) from the push for offshore wind along the East Coast. These turbines are being erected right in the middle of NARW and other protected marine mammals’ habitat and migration routes. In the rush to erect these turbines quickly, the federal government and Dominion played fast and loose with the rules and permits, in particular failing to follow the law and proper procedures in accounting for potential comprehensive, cumulative whale impacts.

Research released after Dominion had already received permission from the federal government to proceed, shows that, contrary to what Dominion and the Biden administration have claimed in their reports, the ships contracted to do the pile driving produce an amount of noise during operations that exceeds what federal biologists have determined to be safe for whales.

Keep reading