We are on track and why all because some computer program that cannot tell the weather in a week is forecasting the climate in a 100 hundred years.

These models have been proven wrong, ofcourse you donot hear that on MSM.

There is no threat, look at cyclones, bushfires and yes even those cuddly polar bears.

The info is there go and see for yourself or SUFFER what awaits all of us.

The system works because we tow the line rememeber that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/shopping-i-cant-reall...

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, outlines the catastrophic consequences of Net Zero policies, in two and a half minutes:

"We have got this concept that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. That's never been shown... So the whole business of climate change is underpinned by an assumption."

"On that assumption, we've speared the countryside with wind turbines and covered all this prime agricultural land with a solar panels... Here's the problem: The solar panels, and the turbine blades, are made in China. Once we decarbonise, and get rid of our gas and coal generation, then we're at the mercy of China."

Source: https://watch.adh.tv/videos/save-the-nation-friday-28-october-2022

https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1677997192626204783

Frank wrote on Jul 10^th, 2023 at 10:44am:


An op-ed by Prof Ian Plimer in The Australian, which
was condemned as blatantly false by climate
scientists, has been found to have breached
standards by the Australian Press Council. In
November, his column titled ‘“Let’s not pollute
minds with carbon fears” argued that there “are no
carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see
because most carbon is black. Such terms are
deliberately misleading, as are many claims.”

The article also referred to the “fraudulent changing
of past weather records” and “unsubstantiated
claims polar ice is melting”, as well as “the ignoring
of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives
are growing rather than being inundated”.

In a lengthy adjudication the Oz was forced to
publish on page two on Friday, the press council
said the article contained inaccurate and misleading
material in its claims that the Bureau of
Meteorology had fraudulently changed weather
records and that Plimer’s claims that there was no
evidence polar ice was melting were misleading.

The newspaper breached two of the general
principles of reporting: ensuring factual material is
accurate (principle 1) and ensuring facts are
presented with reasonable fairness and balance and
opinion is based on fact (principle 3).

The council found that while it would have preferred
Plimer’s links to the mining industry were disclosed
in the column, The Australian did not breach
guidelines in not disclosing because Plimer’s “past
or present directorships of mining companies and
advocacy in the debate around climate change were
so well known” that it was not required.

In reviewing the article last November, University of
NSW professor Katrin Meissner wrote: “This article
is an impressive collation of the well known, scientifically
wrong, and overused denier arguments. It is ideologically
motivated and, frankly, utter nonsense.”

—Excerpted from The Guardian Australia, 24 July 2020.

There are more climatologists that disagree with the doomsday scenario than what there is preaching it.

1/3 preach it because they are on the gravy train.

2/3 disagree but never get any air time on MSM.

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 12^th, 2023 at 12:27am:



The old 97%.

Cook et al 2013.

You can still read the abstracts at the SkepSci website.

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=a&a=&c=&e=1&yf=1991&yt=2011

A total of 65 papers (according to them), out of 11,000 odd pages, said AGW was more than 50%.

934 papers apparently said there was some AGW

And 2934 didn't actually say they endorsed AGW, but the researchers thought they meant to... or something.

Frank wrote on Jul 12^th, 2023 at 1:45pm:

Any reference to the  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM)  is pointless and a faulty analogy. 
You're citing clinical science from 70 years past, without
acknowledging just how much the sciences, including
climatology, have advanced during that period.

So... do you disagree with the claim that "97 percent of
climate scientists agree that human-caused climate
change is happening"?     And if so why?

In Europe - The 48C that wasn't.

Quote:


https://notrickszone.com/2023/07/19/europes-48c-horror-that-never-was-esa-media-...

Of course there are those quick to promote it as AGW.

Some peopleo thers have used the intense summer heat to make ridiculous statements.  On this score it’s a competition between Hillary Clinton and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The former US secretary of state last week blamed “MAGA Republicans” for the heatwave. “Hot enough for you? Thank a MAGA Republican. Or better yet, vote them out of office,” she said on social media, linking to a tweet that attacked Republicans for not supporting the Inflation Reduction Act.


Meanwhile, Guterres said at a press conference in New York that “the era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived”, declaring climate change “here and terrifying”.

The two statements were stupid in their own ways. Clinton was trying to politicise the weather, something no government can control over any measurable time frame. Guterres was simply being hysterical, seeking to use fear to garner political support for more “climate action”, which not coincidentally means more power for governments and “experts”.

A 2021 survey of 10,000 young people aged 16 to 25 across wealthy nations – the next generation of leaders – found 59 per cent were “extremely worried” to the point that 45 per cent said climate change affected their “daily life and functioning”, according to the Lancet.

These two comments came as scientists had confirmed July was the hottest month ever recorded in 120,000 years of history, according to the Scientific Americ
an and a deluge of media articles. That reliable measures only go back a little over a century doesn’t seem to matter.

Even assuming the “global temperature” can be measured accurately, an average taken over three weeks is meaningless. Indeed, a quick internet search suggests the 1936 heatwave in the US, which killed thousands of people, was at least as bad, and lasted longer.

Government institutions as much as the media are to blame for this propaganda victory, increasingly starved of alternative voices to report on and biased published data.

Earlier this month the International Monetary Fund quietly disinvited John Clauser, an American scientist who won the 2022 Nobel prize for physics, from giving a presentation on July 25 about climate change models.

From the perspective of climate alarmists it’s not hard to see why. Some junior bureaucrats must have alerted the organisers to Clauser’s sacrilege of a few weeks earlier at Quantum Korea, a science conference in Seoul.

In his keynote address he told an audience of budding scientists the world was “awash with pseudoscience”. Then he committed a cardinal sin. “I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis, and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.”

“The IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous disinformation,” said Clauser, who won the Nobel prize “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”.  I suppose he – unlike Greta Thunberg, who is feted by global institutions – is not a proper climate expert.

Similarly, the US Environmental Protection Agency on its website shows charts indicating the frequency, duration and intensity of heatwaves in the US have been increasingly steadily since the 1960s. If it was a UN event, perhaps one could understand, given the IPCC is ultimately a United Nations body. But the IMF is independent of the UN, suggesting the cancellation was another pathetic example of censorship by a supposedly intellectual institution stuffed with PhD graduates.

But dig a little deeper on the website and one finds a “Heat Wave Index” going back to 1895, which clearly shows the heatwaves were more common before the 1960s, especially in the 1930s, before human-induced climate change was even considered.

These two recent examples of bias and censorship in relation to climate change merely pave the way for stupid statements by senior political figures.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/experts-feel-the-heat-of-latest-clim...