Simple News Aggregation: Climate Change, Science, Socialism, and Politics : Monday, March 4th, 2019

3년 전

This is another aggregation posts based around Climate Change related topics and the others I listed such as Science, Socialism, and Politics are relevant to that topic these days so the posts shared will be linked to Climate Change in one way or the other. I typically do these type of posts when I see a lot of interesting articles on a subject. Today there are quite a few.

This one is quite good...

Climate Science’s Myth-Buster - It’s time to be scientific about global warming, says climatologist Judith Curry.

We’ve all come across the images of polar bears drifting on ice floes: emblematic victims of the global warming that’s melting the polar ice caps, symbols of the threat to the earth posed by our ceaseless energy production—above all, the carbon dioxide that factories and automobiles emit. We hear louder and louder demands to impose limits, to change our wasteful ways, so as to save not only the bears but also the planet and ourselves.


Not being a climatologist myself, I’ve always had trouble deciding between these arguments. And then I met Judith Curry at her home in Reno, Nevada. Curry is a true climatologist. She once headed the department of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, until she gave up on the academy so that she could express herself independently.

Independence of mind and climatology have become incompatible,” she says.

Do you mean that global warming isn’t real? I ask.

There is warming, but we don’t really understand its causes,” she says. “The human factor and carbon dioxide, in particular, contribute to warming, but how much is the subject of intense scientific debate.


She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree. The warming can’t be blamed on industry, she argues, because back then, most of the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were small. In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause. None of the climate models used by scientists now working for the United Nations can explain this older trend. Nor can these models explain why the climate suddenly cooled between 1950 and 1970, giving rise to widespread warnings about the onset of a new ice age. I recall magazine covers of the late 1960s or early 1970s depicting the planet in the grip of an annihilating deep freeze. According to a group of scientists, we faced an apocalyptic environmental scenario—but the opposite of the current one.

But aren’t oceans rising today, I counter, eroding shorelines and threatening to flood lower-lying population centers and entire inhabited islands? “Yes,” Curry replies. “Sea level is rising, but this has been gradually happening since the 1860s; we don’t yet observe any significant acceleration of this process in our time.” Here again, one must consider the possibility that the causes for rising sea levels are partly or mostly natural, which isn’t surprising, says Curry, for “climate change is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon, with so many processes involved.” To blame human-emitted carbon dioxide entirely may not be scientific, she continues, but “some find it reassuring to believe that we have mastered the subject.” She says that “nothing upsets many scientists like uncertainty.

This brings us to why Curry left the world of the academy and government-funded research. “Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,” she charges.

Click here or above to read more rather than me quoting most of the article.

Though one more quote is worth going out with a bang...

If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.” These days, the climatology mainstream accepts only data that reinforce its hypothesis that humanity is behind global warming.


The rhetoric of the alarmists, it’s worth noting, has increasingly moved from “global warming” to “climate change,” which can mean anything. That shift got its start back in 1992, when the UN widened its range of environmental concern to include every change that human activities might be causing in nature, casting a net so wide that few human actions could escape it.

Greenpeace Co-Founder Rips ‘Pompous Little Twit’ Ocasio-Cortez As ‘Garden-Variety Hypocrite’ On Climate

Dr. Patrick Moore: "You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get the food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death."

by Tyler Durden

Greenpeace Co-Founder, Dr. Patrick Moore, has been in an ongoing spat with New York Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) over the overly-ambitious Green New Deal that could quadruple the national debt. Moore, who has since split with Greenpeace, now refers to himself as the “sensible environmentalist.”

The GND calls for an ultra-progressive bucket list of environmental goals such as the elimination of all fossil fuels, nuclear energy, air travel, 99% of cars and the retrofitting of every single building in America for “state of the art energy efficiency.” AOC’s plan even throws in government-guaranteed jobs – and simply hands cash to anyone “unwilling to work,” along with healthy food and a free house.

The plan would also, as Moore notes, kill everything on earth:

Ocasio-Cortez Invited To Debate Climate Catastrophe Skeptics. They Even Saved Her A Seat

New Santer Study: 97% Consensus is now 99.99997%

A new paper in Nature Climate Change by Santer et al. (paywalled) claims that the 40 year record of global tropospheric temperatures agrees with climate model simulations of anthropogenic global warming so well that there is less than a 1 in 3.5 million chance (5 sigma, one-tailed test) that the agreement between models and satellites is just by chance.

And, yes, that applies to our (UAH) dataset as well.

While it’s nice that the authors commemorate 40 years of satellite temperature monitoring method (which John Christy and I originally developed), I’m dismayed that this published result could feed a new “one in a million” meme that rivals the “97% of scientists agree” meme, which has been a very successful talking point for politicians, journalists, and liberal arts majors.


The new Santer et al. study merely shows that the satellite data have indeed detected warming (not saying how much) that the models can currently only explain with increasing CO2 (since they cannot yet reproduce natural climate variability on multi-decadal time scales).

That’s all.

But we already knew that, didn’t we? So why publish a paper that goes to such great lengths to demonstrate it with an absurdly exaggerated statistic such as 1 in 3.5 million (which corresponds to 99.99997% confidence)? I’ll leave that as a rhetorical question for you to ponder.


Current climate models are programmed to only produce human-caused warming


Justifying the Devolution of Journalistic standards.

This research paper is five years old, but is an interesting glimpse into the reasoning and justifications for lopsided reporting of AGW. Read the paper, discuss. Yuck~ctm

Climate Change in the Newsroom: Journalists’ Evolving Standards of Objectivity When Covering Global Warming.

Sara Shipley Hiles1 and Amanda Hinnant
DOI: 10.1177/1075547014534077
Full Paper here

Environmentalist Tells Tucker Carlson: Renewables Can’t Save The Planet

Jason Hopkins | Energy Investigator

Environmental activist Michael Shellenberger explained to Fox News host Tucker Carlson that it’s not possible to shift the country’s grid completely to renewable energy.

I was one of the founders of, sort of, the first Green New Deal back in 2003, 2007,” Shellenberger, the founder of Environmental Progress, began. “People don’t remember President Obama, we spent about $150 billion on renewables between 2009 and 2015, and we just kept encountering the same kind of problems.

Global Warming off the hook? Alien species are primary cause of recent global extinctions

Alien species are the main driver of recent extinctions in both animals and plants, according to a new study by UCL researchers.

University College London

Alien species are the main driver of recent extinctions in both animals and plants, according to a new study by UCL researchers.

They found that since 1500, alien species have been solely responsible for 126 extinctions, 13% of the total number studied.

Of 953 global extinctions, 300 happened in some part because of alien species, and of those 300, 42% had alien species alone listed as the cause of their demise.

Read More

German Chancellor Backs “Climate Change” Student Strikes

Democrats Now Actively Debating Human Extinction

Harvard Scientists Want To Spray Particles into Atmosphere 4,000 Times a Year... To "Fight Global Warming"

EPA giving oil companies the OK to dump fracking chemicals into Gulf of Mexico

Same scientists who claim “climate science is settled” just announced that Earth’s atmosphere is 50 times larger than the planet itself… oops

Ben Bernanke - The Father Of Extreme US Socialism

PolitiFact: Rick Scott 'False' for Citing Actual Green New Deal Paper

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  trending

As a former professional scientist, it is difficult for me to grasp how people fail to see the impact of censorship and propaganda on science reporting, and in particular the AGW meme.



Yep. I am a scientist too. I didn't go the professional route, though for some time that was on the path I was on. I always loved science, and I was particularly fond of Physics which is the field I would have chosen to be a professional in.

Ultimately as I've written many times it comes simply down to the tool known as the Scientific Method. Do you adhere to it when testing hypothesis? If so. You are a scientist. If not, then you are not a scientist regardless of any labels or degrees you wish to hold up.

The mainstream political narrative for AGW does not follow the scientific method. It also decides on the hypothesis and then cherry picks data, and alters data to support that hypothesis. That isn't even close to the scientific method. It is close to religion and other dogmatic ideas though.

I watched a documentary last night on netflix with my wife named "Behind the Curve" (interesting) and the entire time I was thinking about how everything they were pointing out fit the AGW narrative rather effectively too.


"...the Scientific Method. Do you adhere to it when testing hypothesis? If so. You are a scientist. If not, then you are not a scientist ..."

Boom. There it is. Honorifics, degrees, and any other blather are irrelevant.


Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)

Ways you can help the @informationwar!

  • Upvote this comment or Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP or Join the curation trail here.
  • Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here

Yep I covered that a few aggregation posts ago on Climate Change... or at least I linked to it. :)