Thursday, 28 November 2019


In Climate Change: the facts 2017, Clive James wrote an article entitled
Mass Death Dies Hard. 

When you tell people once too often that the missing extra heat is hiding in the ocean, they will switch over to watch Game of Thrones where the dialogue is less ridiculous and all the threats come true. The proponents of man-made climate catastrophe asked us for so many leaps of faith that they were bound to run out of credibility in the end.
Now that they finally seem to be doing so, it could be a good time for those of us who have never been convinced by all those urgent warnings to start warning each other that we might be making a completely senseless tactical error if we expect the elastic cause of the catastrophists, and all its exponents, to go away in a hurry.

An excellent piece (read in full -HERE) and Clive ended with

For as long as the climate change fad lasted it always depended on poppycock and it would surely be unwise to believe that mankind’s capacity to believe in fashionable nonsense can be cured by the disproportionately high cost of a temporary embarrassment. I’m almost sorry that I won't be here for the ceremonially unveiling of the next threat. Almost certainly the opening feast will take place in Paris, with a happy sample of all the world’s young scientists facing the fragrance remains of their first-ever plate of foie gras, while vowing that it will not be the last.

Tuesday, 26 November 2019

Energy & Environmental Newsletter: November 25, 2019

Climtegate: 10 years on.
November 25, 2019

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy and environmental policies. Our premise is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science (please consult for more information).
A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. Towards that end, every three weeks we put together a newsletter to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and the environment. We appreciate MasterResource for their assistance in publishing this information.
Some of the more important articles in this issue are:
NYS Health Board advocates 1.5 setbacks and 35 dBA noise limits
Short video: True Costs of Renewables – the Texas Lesson
When wind turbines die, the problems are just beginning
10 Times the Wind Industry Claimed it Supported Ending Its Tax Credits
The NY Governor’s well-paid wind-power liars
Wind ‘on its knees’ as profits vanish, says industry pioneer
Weighing the Cost of Offshore Wind
Wind Turbines – Why the FAA Fails to Ensure Air Safety
Dangerous Impact of Wind Turbines on Radar
Top GE engineer lifts lid on wind turbine collapse probe findings
Solar Panels Produce Tons of Toxic Waste—Literally
Russia’s opportunistic partnership with Africa
NYS Governor Needs to Stop Pandering to Environmentalists
Restore Electricity Market Integrity to Ensure Grid Reliability
Report: Energy Utopias and Engineering Reality
Military Opposes Proposed Pennsylvania Wind Project
The Fossil Fuel Dilemma
Response to proposed US GREEN energy act
Dr. Curry: Legacy of Climategate, 10 years later
Climategate 10 Years On – The Bastards Have Got Away With It!
Climategate and ‘Post-Normal Science’
Climate Extremism in the Age of Disinformation
Climate change: On media perceptions and misperceptions
Why climate sceptics will lose — and how they can win
Why did you change your views on climate change?
Excellent video: John Stossel on Global Warming
Dr. McKitrick: Climate Models vs Observations: 2019 Update
Miscellaneous Energy News:Restore Electricity Market Integrity to Ensure Grid Reliability
Report: Energy Utopias and Engineering Reality
Military Opposes Proposed Pennsylvania Wind Project
The Fossil Fuel Dilemma
Response to proposed US GREEN energy act
Myth or Matter: Is Offshore Wind Blowing In Too Fast?
Short video: Tucker blasts ‘ phoney’ Bernie Sanders’ fossil fuel hypocrisy
Trump’s Energy Victory Lap
Proposed Customs and Border Protection Changes Will Weaken the Jones Act
Wind Developers Submit New England Offshore Wind Proposal
Short video: Dismantling offshore gas and oil platforms
Blame California fires on uncleared fuel, not the utility company
New Law Requires You To Listen To Greta’s Lecture Before Buying Gasoline
Transition to electric vehicles puts heavy pressure on production of critical metals
Green Delusion Persists: Tesla Owner Can’t Find Anyone To Recycle His Wrecked Car
China signals that coal power will be a top priority
Trump Talks Energy Progress at the New York Economic Club
Solar Energy: Yes of No?
Other News about Manmade Global Warming:Climate Extremism in the Age of Disinformation
Climate change: On media perceptions and misperceptions
Why climate skeptics will lose — and how they can win
Why did you change your views on climate change?
Excellent video: John Stossel on Global Warming
Dr. McKitrick: Climate Models vs Observations: 2019 Update
Climate alarmists use junk science to promote their agenda
Opening Up the Climate Policy Envelope
World Climate Declaration: “There is no climate emergency”
We Must Confront ‘Climate Change’ with Reason Rather Than Emotion
10 questions to ask your climate alarmist friends
An Open Letter to Greta Thunberg
Climate Science’s Myth-Buster
Excellent video: Wolfgang Muller (EIKE), on climate change
European Parliament Told: There is No Climate Emergency
Video: The European Climate Declaration – Connecting Climate Realists Globally
New Tony Heller Video: There Is No Climate Crisis
L A Times propaganda conceals colossal global failure of the Paris Agreement
How Bad Science & Horrific Journalism Misrepresent Wildfires and Climate
Alien Theories About Climate Change
‘Climate emergency’ declaration takes heat for fictional ‘world scientists’
11,000 Scientists — just kidding!
The Left’s new solution to climate change–Get rid of us
Global CO2 Emissions Rising Again And Won’t Peak Before 2040
IEA’s WEO 2019 scenarios won’t hit the Paris targets, again
10 Carbon Capture methods compared
Update: Dr Ridd’s Fight for Freedom of Speech on Climate Change
Does one ten-thousandth of the atmosphere control Earth’s thermostat?
Video: Europe’s Green Fall
Greta sets sail on new plastic yacht
The Danish Meteorological Institute admits it wrongly reported Greenland’s “Record Warm Temperature” this Summer
Living-in-the-moment mentality and climate crisis concerns
Harvard-Yale game ends in near-darkness after climate change protest
German Hotel Group Cancels ‘Alternative Climate Conference’ After Protests
Climate Scientists Forced to Hide from German Thugs

UN Environment Program: Director's massive failure!


U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown (no relation), says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the UN Environment Program (UNEP). He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human....  (Source) (Checked by Snopes - see above)

In 1989, the UN couldn't get it right, has its propaganda or even their "science" improved since then?

Why do Western Governments, Main Stream Media and alarmists keep pushing the #agwFraud?

Saturday, 23 November 2019

A simple explanation of the new climate science,

by Dr Ed Berry
Climate Truth
New calculations prove all human CO2 emitted since 1750 has added only 31 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 to the atmosphere, and natural CO2 has added 100 ppm.
All human carbon has added only one per cent to the carbon in Earth’s carbon cycle. Nature has added much more carbon to the carbon cycle than humans have added.
The new calculations use data from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC claims the CO2 level was 280 ppm in 1750, and human CO2 added the 131 ppm to get today’s 411 ppm. But IPCC’s calculations are in serious error.
The new calculations show IPCC stumbled badly in its calculation of the human carbon cycle and IPCC’s errors are responsible for all the false climate alarmism today.
The new calculations fully account for the addition of human carbon to the carbon cycle and the recycling of human carbon between carbon reservoirs. These calculations show, for the first time, the true effect of human CO2 emissions on the carbon cycle.
The new calculations show human CO2 does not cause climate change. And no amount of reduction of CO2 emissions will have any measurable effect on climate change. Nature controls the level of atmospheric CO2.
The new calculations invalidate the handwaving arguments that human CO2 emissions are a threat to the planet. They are not a threat to the planet.
This new information makes fraudulent all claims, laws, actions, and treaties that seek to reduce CO2 emissions.
The new calculations are so simple that their relative accuracy cannot be denied. Henceforth, no one can argue, using accepted physics, that the human-caused increase in 2020 is larger than 31 ppm.
The Data
The carbon cycle has four key carbon reservoirs: land, atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean.
IPCC’s AR5 Figure 6.1 shows IPCC’s data for the natural and human carbon cycles. The black numbers represent the natural carbon cycle. The red numbers represent the human carbon cycle.  
Figure 1 shows IPCC’s numbers for the natural carbon cycle as percentages of total carbon. The percentages in each reservoir are the “fingerprint” of the carbon cycle at equilibrium.

Figure 1. IPCC’s natural reservoir levels as a percent of total carbon for the land, atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean.
No long-term effect from human CO2
Human and natural carbon atoms are identical. Therefore, nature treats human carbon exactly like it treats natural carbon. Therefore, if human emissions were to stop, human carbon would approach the same equilibrium percentages, the same “fingerprint,” as natural carbon.
Before doing any calculations, this natural fingerprint proves there will be no long-term effect of human carbon emissions on the carbon cycle or on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Figure 1 shows only 1.45 per cent of natural carbon is in the atmosphere. Therefore, in the long term, only 1.45 per cent of all human carbon will be in the atmosphere.
IPCC made serious errors in its human carbon cycle.
Figure 2 shows IPCC’s human carbon cycle as of about 2013.

Figure 2. IPCC’s human reservoir levels in percent as of about 2013 reveal serious errors on IPCC’s calculations.
IPCC shows 66 percent of human carbon is still in the atmosphere. Where did IPCC get 66 percent?
Well, it takes 66 percent of all human carbon to produce the 113 ppm that IPCC needs to add to 280 ppm to get 393 ppm that was measured in about 2013.
In other words, the IPCC did not calculate 66 per cent using the carbon cycle. IPCC simply set its human carbon numbers to support its invalid assumption that human emissions have caused ALL the increase in CO2 above 280 ppm.
IPCC’s method is called “circular reasoning” or “garbage in, garbage out.” IPCC’s “garbage in” caused obvious errors in its human carbon cycle that IPCC was too oblivious to recognize.
Here are IPCC’s obvious errors that everyone should catch.
In the beginning, there was no human carbon in any of nature’s carbon reservoirs. Then human carbon began to flow into the atmosphere. From the atmosphere, human carbon flowed to the land and to the surface ocean. Once in the surface ocean, human carbon flowed to the deep ocean.
Figure 2 shows human carbon in the deep ocean but no human carbon in the surface ocean.
Question 1: How did 42 per cent of the human carbon get to the deep ocean without first adding any human carbon to the surface ocean?
Answer: It can’t.
Figure 2 shows human carbon in the land is negative.
Question 2: How did human carbon flowing from the atmosphere to the land subtract 8 per cent from the land?
Answer: It can’t. A negative level is impossible because all human carbon is positive. A negative carbon level is like having a glass filled with negative water.
Question 3: Why did not someone in the IPCC catch these obvious errors?
Answer: The IPCC must be incompetent in science and outright liars to produce the garbage it feeds you about human-caused climate change.
The very significant difference in the percentages in Figures 1 and 2 proves the IPCC treats human carbon differently than it treats natural carbon. That violates physics because nature will treat human and natural carbon the same.
How to calculate the human carbon cycle correctly.
Here’s the thing. Human carbon must obey the same physics rules as natural carbon.
But IPCC uses different physical rules for human carbon than for natural carbon. 
Therefore, IPCC’s human CO2 claims and IPCC’s climate models are junk science.
The Physics model – described in my scientific paper – easily finds IPCC’s hidden rules for natural carbon. Then the Physics model applies these same rules to human carbon.
The Physics model makes year-by-year calculations of the human carbon cycle beginning in 1750. Each year, it adds the IPCC-approved annual estimate of human carbon to the atmosphere and allows human carbon to flow from reservoir to reservoir according to the rules for natural carbon.
Figure 3 shows the result of the Physics model calculations at the end of 2019.

Figure 3. The Physics model human reservoir levels as a percent of total carbon by 2020.
Only 15 per cent of all human carbon remains in the atmosphere by 2020. That 15 per cent is equal to 31 ppm.
In 2020, both human carbon and natural carbon have added carbon to the carbon cycle. This has increased atmospheric CO2 from IPCC’s 280 ppm to 411 ppm, or by 131 ppm.
If the natural CO2 level had stayed at 280 ppm, as IPCC claims, then human CO2 would have added 31 pm to give a total of 311 pm. Therefore, the natural CO2 level must have increased by 100 ppm, from 280 to 380, to produce the CO2 level at the end of 2019.
Human carbon has added 31 ppm or about 25 per cent of the new carbon. Nature has added 100 ppm or about 75% of the new carbon.
IPCC’s human carbon cycle calculations are invalid because IPCC based its calculations on its assumption that human CO2 emissions caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm. IPCC refused to test its assumption. IPCC made its assumption an alarmist claim.
The Physics model has tested IPCC’s assumption and proved it is wrong.
How human carbon would change if all human CO2 emissions stopped in 2020.
The Physics model shows how human carbon would flow from the atmosphere to the other carbon reservoirs if human CO2 emissions stopped in 2020.
Figure 4 shows the percentages of human carbon in each carbon reservoir in 2100 under the assumption that all human CO2 emissions stopped in 2020.
The percentages in Figure 4 have moved toward the percentages in Figure 1. Most human carbon has moved to the deep ocean. Very little remains in the atmosphere and surface ocean.
Only 4 percent of human carbon would remain in the atmosphere by 2100. That is equivalent to an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8 ppm. That amount of increase cannot cause any measurable climate change.

Figure 4. The Physics model reservoir levels as a percent of total human carbon by 2100, assuming human carbon emissions stop in 2020.
A significant percentage, 19 percent, of human carbon remains in the land.
Where did the new natural carbon come from?
The Physics model indicates the warming of the Earth after the Little Ice Age caused carbon stored in the oceans and land to be released into the carbon cycle.
IPCC made serious blunders in its calculation of the human carbon cycle. IPCC’s blunders are the source and basis of all climate alarmism. IPCC’s climate blunders have worked their way into legal decisions, legislation, government regulations, and business decisions.
The new calculations, amazingly simple, prove the IPCC errored in its calculation of the human effect on climate.
There is no valid scientific basis for climate alarmism.

Sunday, 10 November 2019

11,000 scientist include Mickey Mouse

This blog has previously posted Dr Ed Berry's paper

Human CO2 does not cause climate change


Dr Ed now has entered the current debate re Greta Thunberg and alarmists claims

Climate alarmists use junk science to promote their agenda (link)

Ed Writes:
Greta snarls at you for using fossil fuels. Bill Gates, George Soros, and others pay to manage and promote Greta because she inspires the brainwashed younger generation to accept junk science. 
Ed then refers to the 11,000 "scientists."
In a moment, I will to show you a simple proof that President Trump is a better climate scientist than all 11,000 climate science imposters who claim we have a “climate emergency. 
Those 11,000 so-called “scientists” don’t know a freaking thing about climate science. If they were MD’s, they would be to using leaches to suck your blood. Today, they are opportunists who suck your money and your freedom. They are guilty of climate malpractice. There are not 11,000 real climate scientists on the planet.
 As we have revealed on this blog (link) the 11,000 "scientists" didn't include many real scientists.

Dr Ed moves on to "scientific truths."

First, no one can prove a theory is true. Climate alarmists have a theory. Their theory is that human carbon {CO2} emissions cause global warming, global warming causes climate change, and climate change causes bad stuff to happen.
Then they claim the bad stuff PROVES human carbon causes climate change. Isn’t that what you read in the news every day? 
In logic, their argument is called the “argument of ignorance” or “affirming the consequent.”
Aristotle explained their false illogic 2300 years ago. Here is a parallel version of this illogic that you will readily understand:            If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.            Bill Gates is rich. So, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. 
The point is events do not prove their cause. Claims that bad stuff happens does not prove we caused it. Get it?

So, how does science work?
Science works by proving theories false. Having 11,000 claims that a theory is true is meaningless. One scientist who gives you valid evidence that their theory is not true, wins the science debate. (eg see #AGWfalsiied)
Dr Ed exposes more FAKE science but moves on to "Climate science today."
Until about the 1980’s climate science was science. Now, climate “science” is climate politics and feelings. Most people don’t know the difference between real science and fake science. The climate alarmists have a political agenda, a ton of money, and an absence of science. 
Climate politics wants you to believe the climate lie that our carbon emissions cause climate change. If you believe the lie, you will vote for a socialist government. Climate politics rejects climate truth because truth stops them from achieving their political agenda.
The climate activists want power. They want to control you. They want America to decline in power. They want a socialist world government to run the world and America.I don’t want that to happen. But it will take a lot more people than me to stop it.
Dr ED goes on to show how the climate alarmists are lying.

To read more, go to

Climate alarmists use junk science to promote their agenda