Latest:

Sep 26, 2016

Climate Alarm Debunked but Climate Swindle Continues

by James Corbett, via The International Forecaster:

First, the good news: The global warming alarm is officially over. Of course, for the more perceptive among you this is not news at all. The 18 year 8 month long pause in global “warming” (which, after a brief El Nino break, could be back by December). 
The demonstrable lack of a CO2-induced tropical hot spot. Record-breaking gains in Antarctic sea ice. Record-breaking lack of hurricanes making landfall. The demonstrably incorrect claim about “hotspots of acceleration” of sea level rise. And on and on and on and on ad infinitum.

But the latest nail in the coffin of the global warming scam comes via a savage takedown of one of the main pillars of global climate modeling. The pillar is referred to as “climate sensitivity” and measures the expected change in equilibrium temperature in a doubling of radiative forcing (like atmospheric CO2 concentration). In other words, Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) estimates how much equilibrium temperature changes if you have a sustained doubling in CO2 (from 350 parts per million, for instance, to 700 ppm). This is obviously one of the core ingredients of any global climate model, but curiously the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is supposedly synthesizing the best scientific data on climate to come to a “consensus” about climate change has been getting less and less sure about ECS as time goes on.

As a presentation at the London Climate Change Conference earlier this month demonstrates, this is likely due to the fact that four specific mathematical errors have been found in existing ECS models, and once the errors have been corrected it turns out that actual ECS is between 1.3 and 1.7 degrees Celsius, far lower than the IPCC currently predicts (between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius). Keep in mind that the whole Paris climate conference nonsense last month was centered around the pledge to keep carbon dioxide emissions down in order to prevent a 2 degree temperature rise. Well, guess what: that mission is already accomplished. Humans could double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the moment and still not reach 2 degrees of temperature rise. And that’s using the climate scaremongers’ own data. (Those interested in checking out the math for themselves are invited to watch the presentation or view the equations for themselves.)

But now for the bad news: this will not change anything with regard to the Paris climate accord hoopla, the warnings of impending apocalypse, or the cries that “Something must be done!” to stop this non-crisis. And by “something” it is of course understood that lots of money should be thrown at the problem. Lots and lots of money.

As we have discussed in these pages before, the burgeoning climate control industry with all of its green energy offshoots and green finance spiderwebs represent a $100 trillion boondoggle that dwarfs all previous boondoggles (even the Pentagon’s ongoing missing trillions fiasco) by orders of magnitude. Yet curiously, there is no skeptical coverage of the potential swindle represented by this unimaginable transfer of wealth. Instead, all of the media coverage is focused on the other side of the issue: who funds those who critique this (demonstrably incorrect) “consesnsus” on global warming?

In 2006, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ran a documentary that was meant to bring an increasingly skeptical public back on board with the idea of manmade global warming. Airing on The Fifth Estate, an influential and respected investigative journalism program, “The Denial Machine” attempted to throw mud at any scientist who dared to question the so-called ‘consensus’ on manmade global warming by implying all such scientists were secretly funded by oil companies.

Unfortunately for the pushers of the manmade global warming scare the truth is almost exactly the opposite. Rather than a vast, oil company-funded conspiracy, skepticism of the climate swindle is confined to a few marginalized scientists who are increasingly forced to work pro bono in order to work at all. On the other hand, there is no shortage of money for promoters of the official line that we are all about to die in a ecological catastrophe (unless you give all your money to the banksters and give up all your rights, of course).