A Letter to Greta Thunberg

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC

via 46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC

46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC

  1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
  2. Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
  3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
  4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
  5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
  6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
  7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
  8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
  9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
  10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
  11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
  12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
  13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
  14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
  15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
  16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
  17. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
  18. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
  19. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
  20. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
  21. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
  22. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
  23. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
  24. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
  25. Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
  26. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
  27. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
  28. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
  29. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
  30. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
  31. Dr Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
  32. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
  33. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
  34. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
  35. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
  36. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
  37. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
  38. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
  39. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”
  40. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
  41. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
  42. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”
  43. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
  44. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
  45. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
  46. Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”
Quote | Posted on by | Leave a comment

A line in the sand

No one wants to believe this blatant hypocrisy more than a white man. But most white men are better than that.
How is that for a line in the sand?
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

KGB defector explains how leftists are used to destroy the United States

One of the “demoralizations” the former KGB officer is referring to in this video interview is the climate-change/global-warming agenda. Activists intentionally scare children so they they are demoralized about their future.

We recently witnessed an example of demoralized Greta Thunberg, a child of Antifa parents (Antifa has been a communist organization since 1930s pre-WWII Germany) and a few million U.S. children who have been indoctrinated by the United Nations’ socialist agenda.

The UN Secretary General today is Antonio Guterres, the former president of Socialist International, which is the successor organization of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, co-authors of The Communist Manifesto, and Vladimir Lenin.

In the photo below, the woman speaking is Carol Browner.  She is speaking at Socialist International. Browner “served as director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2011. Browner previously served as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Clinton administration from 1993 to 2001.”

As the KGB defector explains in detail, do not expect American leftists in leadership or celebrity to change; they are so indoctrinated they cannot change. When the socialists takeover these people will be lined up and shot or crushed.

(Browner bio from Wikipedia. Photo of Greta Thunberg and Antonio Guterres from medium.com.)

Greta and Guterres
Carol Browner Socialist International
Antifa HQ 1932-1933 Germany
Antifa (2)
Antifa 4 RAM
Norman Thomas_Socialist Party

Watch “No Climate Emergency say 500 Scientists to UN” on YouTube


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“What is endangered? Climate or Freedom”

“To our great regret, we are – in the current world – witnessing many cases of the lack of freedom and democracy. Our task for the future is to minimize them. I do not see and hear the terms freedom and democracy here and elsewhere as much or as often as they deserve. We hear other words more frequently – aid, government initiatives and interventions, social justice, positive rights, environment, resources, climate, solving of problems, facing the threats, global challenges, etc.”
“At the Conference on Climate Change the day before yesterday, I resolutely warned against the unjustified alarmism of global warming activists and their fellow-travelers in some governments and international organizations, but even this potential problem, as well as any other, can never be solved without relying on freedom, free markets, free trade and other attributes of free society.”
“To preserve environment is very important but we have to be more modest in our attempting to control the complexities of the world.”
Statement by H.E. Mr. Václav KLAUS President of the Czech Republic at the General Debate of the 62nd Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations
https://www.klaus.cz/clanky/1109     English Pages, 26. 9. 2007.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The UN climate change agenda is crap

UN IPCC Third Assessment Report, Chapter 14, Section, page 774, last paragraph:

“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.

european-petition 22 Sep 2019UN IPCC sure

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“There is no climate emergency.” ~ Now 500 scientists

Brief CLINTEL aan VN-baas Guterres

Professor Guus Berkhout
The Hague

23 September 2019

Sr. António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations,
United Nations Headquarters,
New York, NY 10017, United States of America.

Ms. Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, Executive Secretary,
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
UNFCCC Secretariat, UN Campus, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1,
53113 Bonn, Germany

Your Excellencies,

There is no climate emergency.

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors.
The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.
We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.
We ask you to place the Declaration on the agenda of your imminent New York session.

We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020. The meeting will give effect to the sound and ancient principle no less of sound science than of natural justice that both sides should be fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars!

Please let us know your thoughts about such a joint meeting.

Yours sincerely, ambassadors of the European Climate Declaration,

Professor Guus Berkhout                               The Netherlands
Professor Richard Lindzen                             USA
Professor Reynald Du Berger                         French Canada
Professor Ingemar Nordin                              Sweden
Terry Dunleavy                                                  New Zealand
Jim O’Brien                                                        Rep. of Ireland
Viv Forbes                                                           Australia
Professor Alberto Prestininzi                          Italy
Professor Jeffrey Foss                                      English Canada
Professor Benoît Rittaud                                 France
Morten Jødal                                                      Norway
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt                              Germany
Rob Lemeire                                                       Belgium
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley           UK

There is no climate emergency
A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crop worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.

Policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“There is no climate emergency”: petition

The petition by 300 scientists to Emiel Charles Michel, President of the European Council, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission ‘To be appointed’, Head of the European Parliament, as of 22 Sep 2019.

There is no climate emergency

We, the undersigned 300(?) independent Climate Scientists and Professionals from 15(?) Countries, wish to convey five urgent messages to you:

1. Climate change is a fact. The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with naturally-driven cold and warm cycles.

2. After leaving the Little Ice Age around 1870 AD, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a warming-up period. This is fully in line with the natural behavior of the climate system. However, measurements show that the temperature-increase is significantly less than mainstream climate models predict.

3. There exists no proof that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the principal cause of global warming. On the contrary, latest insights confirm that more CO2 has only a modest influence on climate but it is hugely beneficial for agriculture, forestry, and for the photosynthesis that is the basis of life on Earth.

4. Moreover, there is no scientific evidence that increasing CO2 levels have an enhancing effect on natural disasters. Quite the reverse, there are many indications that most CO2-reduction measures have a devastating effect on wildlife, land use and economic development.

5. Energy policy must be based on scientific and economic realities.  We argue strongly against a harmful and unrealistic “2050-carbon-neutral policy”. There is no climate emergency and therefore no cause for panic and alarm. If superior approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and transition. Our aim should always be reliable and affordable energy at all times

With respect to a well thought-out future, we advise European leaders that science should aim at a significantly better understanding of the climate system and that politics should focus on minimizing damage by giving priority to effective adaptation strategies to extreme weather events.

We also recommend that European leaders make a clear difference in their policy between the Earth’s environment and the Earth’s climate. Taking good care of our environment is a matter of good stewardship. Climate change, however, is primarily caused by a complex combination of natural phenomena we cannot control.

Promotors of the Declaration

  • Professor Guus Berkhout         (The Netherlands)
  • Professor Richard Lindzen       (USA)
  • Professor Alberto Prestininzi  (Italy)
  • Jim O’Brien                                     (Republic of Ireland)
  • Professor Fritz Vahrenholt        (Germany)

Petition and signers (so far) here:

european-petition 22 Sep 2019    (pdf)

https://klimatsans.com/2019/07/28/no-climate-emergency/  (online petition)


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nickel Grass

Today, few people remember the operation “Nickel grass” … almost nuclear war….and Europe once again is a worthless ally…except one nation.
(Nickel grass), which took place in October 1973 during the most serious of all the Arab-Israeli wars. This is when Israel, after two weeks of fierce fighting on two fronts (against Egypt and Syria with the support of the armies of Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and even Cuba and Pakistan), found itself in a very difficult situation. In two weeks of fighting, about 1000 tanks were lost, about 200 aircraft were shot down, more than 2 thousand soldiers were killed. And although the losses of the combined Arab forces were three times greater, more than 2,500 tanks were destroyed there, 514 aircraft were shot down and 12 to 18 thousand soldiers were killed, but there the superiority was initially several times greater. Israel was on the verge of exhausting all military resources, and after declassifying the old archives, it became known that Prime Minister Golda Meir gave the order to be prepared to launch a nuclear attack on the Arab capitals as the last measure for the survival of the state.
But all of the above are known facts. More interesting is another. Not a single European country has agreed not only to the immediate supply of arms to Israel (in relation to which they have always stated that this is the only democracy in the Middle East and in general they are terribly ashamed of the Holocaust), but even banned American transit through their airspace. That is, when the question of the survival of Israel was on the map, the peace-loving Europeans suddenly backed up, afraid of losing the rich Arab market.
As a result, only one European country – Portugal agreed to use its military airfields in the Azores and Lisbon for the urgent transfer of ammunition from the United States to Israel. This operation was called “Nickel Grass” when an air bridge was built in Tel Aviv on October 14, 1973, during which heavy transport aircraft of the US and Israeli Air Force made 567 flights and transferred to support the Israeli army:
– 40 F-4 Phantom bombers
– 46 A-4 fighters
– 12 heavy transport ca = BC Hercules S-130
– From 35 to 45 helicopters
– 600 tanks and armored personnel carriers
– from 150 to 200 anti-tank guns
– From 30 to 40 missile systems for air defense
And from 22 to 25 thousand tons of ammunition.
All this allowed Israel to end the war in just an additional 7-10 days, completely destroy the armies of Syria and Egypt and occupy new strategic territories. Moreover, the capitals of both Syria and Egypt were in jeopardy, since the leading positions of Israel were less than 100 km from Cairo and only 35 km from Damascus.
But, as I already said, another thing is significant in this story – not a single country in Europe (except Portugal) agreed not only to support deliveries, but even to provide its airspace for the transit of American cargo to Israel. It is clear that the Israelis would have survived without American help, but there would have been a nuclear war and the country’s leadership was ready for it.
By Yuri Tuvin, Gloucester, Massachusetts
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Walk away

Excellent 6 minute statement.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
%d bloggers like this: