Home Climate Change Bullshit Top climate scientist breaks ranks with 'consensus'

Top climate scientist breaks ranks with ‘consensus’

Author

Date

Category

‘Our models are Mickey-Mouse mockeries of the real world’

An MIT-trained scientist who has specialized for nearly 25 years in abnormal weather and climate change has published a book explaining why he believes the data underpinning global-warming science are unreliable.

Mototaka Nakamura, who earned a doctorate of science from MIT, has conducted his work at prestigious institutions such as MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology and Duke University.

In his book “The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis,” Nakamura explains why global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on “untrustworthy data.”

“Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency,” he says. “Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”

Last week, a group of 500 scientists and professionals in climate science wrote a letter to the United Nations contending there is no climate crisis and that spending trillions on the issue is “cruel and imprudent.”

They got right to the point in their letter, leading with, “There is no climate emergency.”

They attached their European Climate Declaration, which, according to the letter, argues that “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,” the scientists wrote. “Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.”

They urge the U.N. to “follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.”

Testing ‘regarded as heresy’

Electroverse noted that today’s “global warming science” is built on the work of a few climate modelers who claim to have demonstrated that human-derived CO2 emissions are the cause of recently rising temperatures “and have then simply projected that warming forward.”

“Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.”

Richard Lindzen, an emeritus professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT who has published more than 200 scientific papers, says in a video produced by PragerU “it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of the climate alarmists get.”

He pointed out that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, admitted in its 2007 paper that the “long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

The truth is, the professor said, that climate-change scientists and “skeptics” in the scientific community agree that the climate is always changing and that over the past two centuries, the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

So, why are so many people panic-stricken, including some who are warning the world has only 12 years left to save itself?

He points to politicians, activists and media.

“Global warming provides them, more than any other issue, with the things they most want,” he said.

For politicians, it’s power and money. For activists, it’s money for their organizations and “confirmation of their near-religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature.”

For the media, Lindzen says, it’s ideology, money and headlines.

“Doomsday scenarios sell.”

Isn’t it great to finally see so many “so called experts” coming out and admitting what we knew all along. “THEY WERE WRONG”

Previous articleHave Your Say
Next articleAn oldie, but a goodie

21 COMMENTS

    • Biggest con there has ever been Chuck but I find it hard to see what will bring it down.

      There is clear scientific empirical evidence now with the work of the Connolly’s and theoretical evidence from Lord Monckton’s group’s work but both group’s work is finding it hard to “see the light of day” in the usual way (ie. peer reviewed publishing).

      There is so much political capital and financial capital tied up in it that it is probably going to take an event completely “out of left field” to wake everyone up about it.

      0

      0

    • I dont follow it much Chuck but if the UN scum have a hand in it then it sure as hell won’t be for the greater good & it will all come back to the almighty climate change defeating dollar especially since Trump told them to fk off

      0

      0

    • Not at all. I believe mans activities may have an effect, but nothing like what is claimed by the alarmists.

      0

      0

      • Man’s effect on the climate is negligible. But, and it is a huge but, our impact on the globe due to our insane overpopulation is immense and very damaging and it is getting worse very rapidly.

        0

        0

  1. This is a very interesting video by a brilliant 91 year old mathematician. He was 91 at the time of the video but is not 95. He does not claim that humans have not caused a temperature increase but that how much they have is greatly exaggerated and that we have little idea from computer modelling where the temperature will be next year let alone in 30 years time as there are too many factors to consider. The benefit of CO2 is something that he highlights.

    Carbon Dioxide is Making The World Greener (w/ Freeman Dyson, Institute for Advanced Studies)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHhDxRuTkI

    0

    0

    • OMG Wg –what appalling propaganda from Renwick. I will not pretend to be an expert on the science and data on the issue but even I could drive bus through some of his arguments or explanations.

      0

      0

  2. I am pleased to see more objection and non acceptance of the view that paying money to the UN alongside getting rid of plastic bags and drinking straws will solve whatever the issue may be with supposed human driven climate change.

    That we are now seeing more scientists step up with contrary views is positive. That they are able to move away from connections around their income through research grants that in some cases may influence outcomes is healthy.

    I do not accept any suggestion the UN has a mandate for anything in relation to this country and especially not taking clash from here to redistribute. I will not support any politician agreeing the Paris Agreement should Involve funds taken from New Zealand taxpayers. I will not vote for any politician lining up to support the Zero Carbon Bill or charging us tax for carbon associated matters.

    0

    0

  3. Peak lunacy. “We need to eat the babies!” A climate change activist confronted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during a town hall at the LeFrak City Queens Library in Queens, New York, claiming we only have a few months left: “We got to start eating babies! We don’t have enough time!” .

    She is right about excessive human population but I don’t really see this as a solution!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HULW-ODeqLg

    0

    0

    • Note how everyone sits quietly and listens to what this fruit loop has to say.
      I don’t think I could have stopped myself from immediately challenging such an obnoxious view.
      This has to be a wind-up, surely? A staged piss-take.
      If eating cow/pig/chicken is bad, why would anyone eat a human?
      Why eat babies when there’s so much more meat on an adult?
      Why eat the babies instead of mass human contraception to control over-population? Or compulsory abortion?
      Has AOC distanced herself from this woman’s suggestion?
      – or does she agree with it?
      Our family is currently ‘between breeding generations’ so do we just eat someone else’s baby to save the planet? Which supermarket aisle will they be in, or do you have to hunt your own?
      Do we have to eat them – won’t just killing them have the desired outcome?
      Has social media de-platformed the nutcase for inciting crime?

      0

      0

Comments are closed.

Recent posts

Change in Free Speech Laws.

Free speech requires a leap of faith: a belief that even if bad speech does harm, the good done by allowing people to say...

Supermassive Black Hole

Scientists release first “movie” of Supermassive Black Hole devouring stars in distant galaxy Astronomers and astrophysicists have released a movie of the M87 black hole...

Green Utopia Hell

“Vertical forest” apartment complex in China transforms into mosquito-plagued jungle hell A pioneering effort to turn apartment buildings into a lush vertical forest has transformed...

Recent comments

waikatogirl on Have Your Say
Alexander the Great on Have Your Say
Capricorn One on Have Your Say
Alexander the Great on Have Your Say
Tarquin on Have Your Say
Alexander the Great on Have Your Say
Alexander the Great on Have Your Say
Salacious Crumb on Have Your Say

The way we all feel about this useless government

Hamilton
clear sky
4.6 ° C
6.1 °
3.3 °
93 %
1.3kmh
1 %
Thu
12 °
Fri
17 °
Sat
18 °
Sun
19 °
Mon
22 °
NZD - New Zealand Dollar
USD
1.5045
EUR
1.7669
AUD
1.0811
CAD
1.1318
GBP
1.9394
JPY
0.0143
CNY
0.2216
INR
0.0206