• Home
  • Climate Change/Global Warming

Headline-Grabbing Global Warming Study Suffers From A Major Math Error


By Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor
DailyCaller.com
 

  • The media fawned over a recent global warming study that had a major math error, researchers found.
  • It turns out, the math error made it appear as if oceans warmed more than previously thought.
  • Major media outlets uncritically covered the study, sounding the alarm on global warming.

The recent headline-grabbing study that claimed global warming was heating the oceans up faster than expected suffers from a major math error, according to two researchers.

The study, which was published in a prestigious scientific journal at the end of October, put forward results suggesting global warming was much worse than previously believed. The media ate the results up.

Independent scientist Nic Lewis found the study had “apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.” Lewis’ findings were quickly corroborated by another researcher.

Numerous media outlets uncritically highlighted the study’s findings. The Washington Post, for example, reported the work suggested “Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted.”

The Post’s coverage of the “startling” climate study was echoed by The New York Times, which claimed the study suggested global warming “has been more closely in line with scientists’ worst-case scenarios.”

The BBC warned “[t]his could make it much more difficult to keep global warming within safe levels this century.”

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Climate Change Audit: Global Warming Figures Based on 'Careless, Amateur' Data

First ever audit on official data finds major errors making it 'effectively useless'


By Jay Greenberg
Neonnettle.com

The first ever audit on the official data used for Climate Change has found the figures to be "riddled with errors," making it "effectively useless."

The world's most important temperature data, HadCRUT4, is used by international governmental bodies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This dataset is what the dramatic claims about “man-made global warming” are based on, with governments using the data to justify spending trillions of dollars on “combating climate change” while it's also the basis for the Paris Climate Accord.

For the first time, however, the data has been audited by Australian researcher John McLean, who says it’s far too inaccurate to be taken seriously, even by climate scientists.

According to a groundbreaking analysis by McLean, the figures should never have been used by a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world.

It’s very careless and amateur, he says.  About the standard of a first-year university student.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Don't Tell Climate Change Fanatics This Piece Of News

Global tree canopy cover increased by 865,000 square miles.


 

By Hank Berrien
TheDailyWire.com

Global warming and climate change fanatics, stop now before you read any further.

According to a new study published in Nature, in the roughly quarter century between 1982 and 2016, global tree canopy cover increased by 865,000 square miles.

While the area of bare ground and short vegetation is diminishing, forest area is growing. As Ronald Bailey notes in Reason, “Forests in montane regions are expanding as climate warming enables trees to grow higher up on mountains.”

The greatest increase in tree canopy occurred in Europe, including European Russia, where it exploded by 35%. A close second was found in China, where tree canopy gained 34%. In the U.S., tree canopy increased by 15%.

Bailey notes, “These new findings contradict earlier studies that reported a continuing net loss of forest cover. … For example, the Food and Agriculture Organization's Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 reported, ‘In 1990 the world had 4,128 million [hectares] of forest; by 2015 this area had decreased to 3,999 million ha. This is a change from 31.6 percent of global land area in 1990 to 30.6 percent in 2015.’”

But the Nature study posits that the world gained 2.24 million square kilometers in forest area since 1982, rather than losing 1.29 million square kilometers between 1990-2015, as the FAO implied.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?


SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The ‘Godfather’ Global Warming Was Wrong

 

Michael Bastasch
TheDailyCaller.com

Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen famously warned Congress almost 30 years ago to the day that human activities had put the world on the path to disaster, but two scientists now say the global warming “godfather’s” predictions were wrong.

Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Ryan Maue compared Hansen’s temperature predictions to real-world observations and found his supposedly “highly unlikely” forecast with the least amount of warming was the most accurate.

“Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16,” Michaels and Maue wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

“Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect,” the two scientists wrote. “But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong.”

“Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago,” they wrote. (RELATED: Congress Demands EPA Investigate Potential Collusion With Lobbyists To Thwart Trump’s Agenda)

Climate model accuracy has become a major source of debate as scientists realized predictions diverged greatly from observations over the last 15 years or so. Governments often rely on climate models to justify climate policies or regulations, meaning inaccurate models can yield bad policies.

Hansen laid out three global warming scenarios in 1988 at an iconic congressional hearing: a high-end one where the world warms about 1 degree Celsius by 2018, a middle-range of 0.7 degrees of warming and a low-end estimate with only a few tenths of a degree of warming. The hearing was held on a hot summer day and was organized by none other than former Democratic Rep. Al Gore of Tennessee.

Hansen wished he hadn’t been so accurate in predicting future warming, contradicting Michaels and Maue, he told the Associated Press on Monday. AP claimed Hansen’s predictions had “pretty much come true so far, more or less.”

“I don’t want to be right in that sense,” Hansen said, adding he wished “that the warning be heeded and actions be taken.”

Many other scientists the AP spoke with raved about Hansen’s predictions. Berkeley climate scientist Zeke Hausfather tweeted: “Hansen’s 1988 projections have largely been borne out.”

However, Michaels and Maue said Hansen’s predictions only look correct because of the strong El Nino effect, a naturally occurring warming event, that began in 2015. Global temperatures have actually come down quite a bit since El Nino subsided.

“The problem with Mr. Hansen’s models — and the U.N.’s — is that they don’t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases,” Michaels and Maue wrote.

“Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures,” the two wrote. “The most recent of these was published in April by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.”

The two Cato scientists also took on Hansen’s other failed predictions, including those about the Greenland ice melt, temperatures in the U.S. Midwest, hurricanes and tornadoes.

“The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious,” Michaels and Maue wrote.

“These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?” they wrote.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling


Investors.com

Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

"The 2016-2018 Big Chill," he writes, "was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average."

Isn't this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?

In this case, it didn't warrant any news coverage.

In fact, in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown's story, no other news outlet picked up on it. They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism's impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that "our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly."

Reporters even found time to cover a group that says they want to carve President Trump's face into a glacier to prove climate change "is happening."

In other words, the mainstream news covered stories that repeated what climate change advocates have been saying ad nauseam for decades.

What's more, journalists are perfectly willing to jump on any individual weather anomaly — or even a picture of a starving polar bear — as proof of global warming. (We haven't seen any stories pinning Hawaii's recent volcanic activity on global warming yet, but won't be surprised if someone tries to make the connection.)

We've noted this refusal to cover inconvenient scientific findings many times in this space over the years.

Hiding The Evidence

There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models."

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven't seen any increase in violent weather in decades?

Crickets.

Reporters no doubt worry that covering such findings will only embolden "deniers" and undermine support for immediate, drastic action.

But if fears of catastrophic climate change are warranted — which we seriously doubt — ignoring things like the rapid cooling in the past two years carries an even bigger risk.

Suppose, Brown writes, the two-year cooling trend continues. "At some point the news will leak out that all global warming since 1980 has been wiped out in two and a half years, and that record-setting events went unreported."

He goes on: "Some people could go from uncritical acceptance of steadily rising temperatures to uncritical refusal to accept any warming at all."

Brown is right. News outlets should decide what gets covered based on its news value, not on whether it pushes an agenda. Otherwise, they're doing the public a disservice and putting their own already shaky credibility at greater risk.

 

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See

U.S. Cuts 'Global Warming' Gases Faster Than Anyone Else, But Media Ignore It

Despite What You've Heard, Global Warming Isn't Making Weather More Extreme

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

PragerU


Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities...but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Book Details Al Gore’s Quest To Become World’s First ‘Carbon Billionaire’

‘Lavishly’ profited off climate lobbying


 

 

 

 

By: Marc Morano
Climate
Depot

 

Book Chapter Excerpt:

Making Out like a Bandit

And it’s not just universities, professors, and green organizations that have reaped financial benefits from the climate panic. Former vice president Al Gore has done quite well for himself, too. As Bloomberg News reported, “In the last personal finance report he filed as vice president, Gore disclosed on May 22, 2000, that the value of his assets totaled between $780,000 and $1.9 million.”

Buy by 2007, Gore’s wealth had skyrocketed. By that point he had a net worth “well in excess” of $100 million, including pre–public offering Google stock options, according to an article at Fast Company. MIT scientist Richard Lindzen declared that Gore wanted to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.” After the Obama administration bloated climate and energy stimulus packages, Gore was on the path to that achievement.

By 2008, Gore was so flush that he announced a $300 million campaign to promote climate fears and so-called solutions. And he just kept raking it in. According to a 2012 Washington Post report, “14 green-tech firms in which Gore invested received or directly benefited from more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks, part of Obama’s historic push to seed a U.S. renewable-energy industry with public money.”

The Post explained that Gore “benefited from a powerful resume and a constellation of friends in the investment world and in Washington. And four years ago, his portfolio aligned smoothly with the agenda of an incoming administration and its plan to spend billions in stimulus funds on alternative energy. The recovering politician was pushing the right cause at the perfect time. Gore’s orbit extended deeply into the administration, with several former aides winning senior clean-energy posts.”

Republican Congressman Fred Upton of Michigan, the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has been a critic of Gore’s profiting off the taxpayer funds using his government connections. Gore’s portfolio “is reflective of a disturbing pattern that those closest to the president [Obama] have been rewarded with billions of taxpayer dollars and benefited from the administration’s green bonanza in the rush to spend stimulus cash.”

Gore was essentially either a founder, a member, or a partner in a whole wide range of groups that were profiting or poised to profit from a green energy stimulus and federally mandated carbon trading schemes if they became law. Gore would have personally benefited if the carbon cap-and-trade bill he supported had become law. The media never treated his Congressional testimony in support of the climate bills for what it actually was—a former vice president supporting legislation that would make him richer. These reports prompted one sarcastic skeptic to suggest, “Maybe Al Gore Should Be the Subject of a RICO Investigation.”

The power of carbon trading schemes to enrich politicians and corrupt politics is one reason that environmental guru James Lovelock has slammed carbon trading, declaring, “Most of the ‘green’ stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It’s not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it’ll make a lot of money for a lot of people.”

 

In 2013, Gore sold his Current TV network to the Qatar-funded Al Jazeera for a reported $100 million. The sale inspired this headline at my Climate Depot website: “AlGorjeera—It’s Official: Al Gore Is by Far the Most Lavishly Funded Fossil Fuel Player in the Global Warming Debate Today.”

I asked if the media would now accurately label Gore an industry-funded activist every time they reported on him. Gore had literally sold out to big oil and gas: Al-Jazeera “received its initial funding through a decree from Emir of Qatar, and Qatar gets its wealth from its vast oil and natural gas reserves.”

The freshly laid off staffers from Current TV did not hesitate to lash out at Gore. “Gore’s supposed to be the face of clean energy and just sold [the channel] to very big oil, the emir of Qatar! Current never even took big oil advertising—and Al Gore, that bullshitter sells to the emir?” declared one former staffer, according to the New York Post. Another staffer commented, “He [Gore] has no credibility.”

Read: Bonus chapter: Intimidating the ‘Deniers’ to Enforce the ‘Consensus’ – Climate ‘deniers’ threatened with being ‘thrown in jail’

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

In Startling Reversal, Scientific American Counsels People to ‘Chill Out’ over Global Warming


 

Apocalyptic scenarios attributed to global warming are simply false and the human race will be able to accommodate whatever “climate change” throws at us, claims a remarkably sober new essay in Scientific American.

 

By Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.
Breitbart.com

The essay, penned by John Horgan, the director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, analyzes two recent reports by “ecomodernists” who reject climate panic and frame the question of climate change and humanity’s ability to cope with it in radically new terms.

One of the reports, a work called “Enlightened Environmentalism” by Harvard iconoclast Steven Pinker, urges people to regain some much-needed perspective on climate, especially in the context of the overwhelming material benefits of industrialization.

Pooh-poohing “the mainstream environmental movement, and the radicalism and fatalism it encourages,” Pinker argues that humanity can solve problems related to climate change the same way it has solved myriad other problems, by harnessing “the benevolent forces of modernity.”

Separating himself from environmentalists who seem to detest modernity, Pinker asserts that industrialization “has been good for humanity.”

“It has fed billions, doubled lifespans, slashed extreme poverty, and, by replacing muscle with machinery, made it easier to end slavery, emancipate women, and educate children. It has allowed people to read at night, live where they want, stay warm in winter, see the world, and multiply human contact. Any costs in pollution and habitat loss have to be weighed against these gifts,” he says.

advertisement

And just as human ingenuity has allowed us to overcome countless obstacles in the past, he notes, it is more than reasonable to suppose it will do so in the future as well.

The second report put forward by Horgan is a recent article by Will Boisvert titled “The Conquest of Climate,” which contends that the “consequences for human well-being will be small” even if human greenhouse emissions significantly warm the planet.

Boisvert, who has been described as a “left-wing environmental expert, is no “climate denier,” yet he calls for climate alarmists to take a deep breath and step back from doomsday forecasts that likely have little to do with what will actually take place in the future.

As an example, the author pokes fun at a 2016 Newsweek article announcing that “Climate change could cause half a million deaths in 2050 due to reduced food availability.”

The story, based on a Lancet study, made dire forecasts regarding the effects of climate change on agriculture, while failing to note that the study actually predicts much more abundant food availability in 2050 thanks to advances in agricultural productivity. These advances will “dwarf the effects of climate change,” he contends, and the “poorest countries will benefit most.”

Like Pinkers, Boisvert tries to factor in what climate alarmists ignore: the capability of human beings to react to changing scenarios in remarkably ingenious ways.

“Throughout history humans not only weathered climate crises but deliberately flung ourselves into them as we migrated away from our African homeland into deserts, mountains, floodplains and taiga,” he writes, before embarking on an excursus into the striking cleverness of the Inuit in adapting to a hostile environment.

The current climate change “crisis” that has ecologists’ knickers in a knot, just isn’t that big a deal, he argues. It is merely the “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates,” which will likewise “amount to just another problem in economic and technological development, and a middling-scale one at that.”

While climate skeptics will welcome this gust of common sense wafting in from the Scientific American, establishment climate alarmists will undoubtedly seek to quash the news, knowing it could affect not only the funding they depend on, but the ideologically driven political programs they seek to impose on the world.

After all, if the world is not under imminent peril from climate change, who will listen to—and fund—the prophets of doom?

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)