Did humans cause 2017’s extreme weather events?

— by Barry Brill, Chairman of the NZ Climate Science Coalition

2017 was a year of extreme weather, especially in the USA with Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria devastating swathes of the country, while western states suffered from a severe drought and consequent bushfires. The year ended with a record-breaking “deep freeze”.

New Zealand also had its weather travails, with NIWA reporting a “marine heatwave”, bringing rainfall records, accompanied by heavy flooding, to parts of the South Island.

Some elements of the media hold the view that such events are a product of Climate Change. They contend that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has already become “dangerous”.

Continue Reading →

Was climate change a lucky escape from lack of warming?

For a long time the common name for the greatest challenge of our generation was “global warming” — in fact, it must have been twenty years or more. We all knew what it was and groaned every time the boring old subject was raised.

Then, maybe a decade or so back, just when people were starting to notice that warming had hit some speed restriction, the name seemed to morph into “climate change”. This was a new name and suddenly climate change was the bogyman. Then, of course, it was all on for young and old — every darn piece of weather was being caused by man-made “climate change”. Continue Reading →

What IPCC scientists actually say

True science — I mean confessions

The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) for each IPCC report is written by bureaucrats and politicians for people who cannot follow scientific language. It is not authoritative, frequently misrepresents the science and is always written before the longer scientific report is finished. If the SPM is challenged, one must resort to the WG1 report, written by scientists. What do the scientists say?

We present here, from the AR4 (2007) (pdf, 106.9 MB) and AR5 (2013) (pdf, 375 MB) reports, a selection of passages that speak against extremist climate change forecasts widely circulated by activists. They are not much referred to by warmsters but they should be widely known, especially by those spending our hard-earned taxes. Dip into these facts — discover the real science and prepare to be amazed by the discord between the claims of the warmsters and the sober consideration of scientists (emphasis added). Continue Reading →

Site traffic is great

A non-trivial audience

 

I’ll try to post this once a month or so, keep you in touch with the real size of the CCG’s audience.

Hail, O audience!

UPDATE 6 FEB

These traffic figures have suddenly reduced themselves, and I think I know why. Only the number of visits has changed, the number of unique visitors has changed only minutely. For example, peak visits on 18 December is now 2232, when two weeks ago it was over 7000, but visitors number 743, when previously they were  almost the same at 739. I changed a setting a few days ago that now counts every visitor with over 50 visits in a day as a robot; so it eliminates their visits. I would guess one robot could easily account for up to 1000 page requests, as there are over 1000 posts, so losing 5000 visits might mean there were about five unidentified robots. Most robots are identified by a regularly updated database but it’s not infallible. The change means that more than 50 genuine page requests in a day by a real visitor aren’t counted in the statistics, but it’s the best we can do. I had to let you know of the change, and anyway daily average visits of 1400 is pretty impressive (over 42,000 visits a month). So thanks! You make the striving worthwhile.

Red/Blue teams to battle on climate

Or will they?

• Guest post •

— by Gary Kerkin

Not long after the Trump administration appointed Scott Pruitt to head the EPA, Pruitt suggested a Red Team/Blue Team debate on climate science—a format in which two teams debate the pros and cons of a proposition. The Blue Team would be composed of scientists supporting the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis; the Red Team would be made up of scientists who skeptical of the hypothesis. Continue Reading →

Lancet blasted for ‘sacrificing the poor’

The GWPF gives us a blockbusting new report from Mikko Paunio, an adjunct professor in general epidemiology at the University of Helsinki. Professor Paunio blasts the Lancet for a “gross distortion” of public health science. What follows is the Executive Summary (emphasis added). You can get the full paper here (pdf, 30 pp, 986 KB). – RT

The Lancet, one of the world’s leading medical journals, recently published two long commissioned reports, timed to coincide with 23rd Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the third UN Environment Assembly. The journal’s aim was to boost climate change mitigation and enhance a ‘Pollution-free World’ initiative in the name of public health. This paper gives examples of the biased, misleading and false health-based arguments that are made in these reports. Continue Reading →

On climate nightmares, daft sea level predictions and reason

Climate nightmare

The story of dangerous anthropogenic global warming is painted as a delicate jigsaw. Diverse enigmatic elements mysteriously combine through uncaring human activity to destroy the planet, preventing which is called “the greatest challenge of our generation.”

At root, however, the story is simple; it’s painted as complex to baffle us. At root, our constant carbon dioxide emissions increasingly heat the atmosphere. But we observe that carbon dioxide does not keep heating the atmosphere, which is demonstrably not warming very much and, debunking the warmsters story, this is the coldest period in the last 65 million years, and for the last 420,000 years, natural temperature changes controlled CO2 levels. There has never been runaway warming.

Continue Reading →