Climate Change and Photography
By Angela Wheeler
The only way to combat censorship is to shine a light on it whenever we see it.
In censoring material that contradicts the popular – though increasingly feeble – fiction of a climate crisis, Facebook is quick to discount the credentials of one of the world’s leading scientists while honoring sources of dubious credibility.
Continue reading “Facebook “Fact Checks” Prof. Will Happer”By Andy May
The featured image is by Josh, used with permission.
There are 20 clearly false statements and three additional problematic statements in Tinus Pulles’ “Climate Denialism.” Most of them stem from disagreements on how to interpret existing data. However, some are due to his lack of understanding of what we wrote or, intentional distortion of what we wrote. What is puzzling is I was asked to peer review this paper months ago and I sent in the review in October. Nearly all the errors you will see in the list below were pointed out then, yet they remain in the paper. To nearly everyone familiar with climate science literature and our paper, these errors are obvious. I find it more than a bit alarming that even the grammatical errors I pointed out in the paper last October are still in it. Why such a flawed paper was published is a mystery. Peer review is not working as intended.
Continue reading “The errors and misstatements in “Climate Denialism””By Andy May
The featured image is the key figure 2 from May & Crok.
This post is mostly a list of errors and misinformation in the AJES (The American Journal of Economics and Sociology) board’s response by Ted Gwartney and Alexandra Lough to May & Crok. But first I applaud the board’s decision to formally publish the paper they invited May & Crok to write for their special climate change edition. The paper they asked us to write (already published online) was intended to explain the science behind the “climate denial” point of view, and it accomplished that.
The paper has received a lot of criticism, see the links at the end of this post for our response to each critique. The critiques all fall into two categories:
The AJES board’s criticism, by Gwartney & Lough falls in the second category. May & Crok is a straightforward and honest look at the state of climate today, and the paper simply points out, and the AR6 WGI report agrees, that there are no signs of any dangers from man-made climate change now or in the immediate future.
Continue reading “The AJES Response to May & Crok”The featured image is a photograph of the Big Bend area in Texas in October 2015 when the drought index was moderately moist. The photo was taken by the author.
Stories of some sort of current catastrophic drought in the western U.S. are greatly exaggerated (apologies to Mark Twain). While the western U.S. is dry due to its location under a zone of perpetual high atmospheric pressure and little rain, the present drought conditions in the region are moderate by historical standards. This post is mostly an update of two earlier posts by Anthony Watts here and here. Watts’ posts have stood the test of time quite well. It is amazing how often the “consensus” recycles old, debunked myths.
Continue reading “Drought in the Southwestern U.S.”By Andy May
To read this post in German see here, translation by Christian Freuer.
The IPCC and the climate “consensus” believe that essentially all warming since 1750 is due to man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as shown in figure 1 here or in (IPCC, 2021, p. 961). This has led to a 45-year search for the value of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 (“ECS” in °C per 2xCO2). Yet, after spending 45 years trying to calculate the sensitivity of climate to man-made greenhouse gases, the “consensus” has been unable to narrow the uncertainty in their estimates and, if anything, the climate model uncertainty is now larger than in earlier reports(IPCC, 2021, p. 927). It is now clear, at least to me, that modern climate models make many critical assumptions that are poorly supported and sometimes conflict with observations. This is an attempt to explain some of these problems and how they developed over time. It is long past time for the “consensus” to stop ignoring the obvious weaknesses in their 60-year old conceptual model of climate.
Continue reading “Climate Models, Clouds, OLR, and ECS”By Andy May
The featured image for this post is from Angela Wheeler at the CO2 Coalition, used with permission.
This post is a comment on Cobb, 2024, the paper is entitled “The politics of climate denialism and the secondary denialism of economics.” The paper defines climate denialism, discusses the reasons it exists, and the effect of widespread “denialism” on society. The paper was written in response to a paper I wrote with my colleague Marcel Crok, entitled “Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems,” the abstract for our paper is here and the full text can be downloaded here. I am responding to Cobb’s paper primarily to correct some misinformation in it regarding our paper and Exxon’s climate research efforts. Unfortunately, the paper is paywalled and quite different from the abstract. I asked Cobb several times for a copy, via email and through ResearchGate, but he never responded to my requests, so I bought a pdf from Wiley.
Continue reading “Comment on Cobb, 2024”By Andy May
I last wrote about Climate Change and Civilization for the past 4,000 Years in 2016. Since then, a lot has changed, and I’ve learned a lot more about the subject. First, we learned that various air and sea temperature proxies, such as ice core δ18O or tree rings, are all different. For a discussion of some temperature proxies used and the problems with them, see here. Proxies have different accuracies, they are often sensitive to the temperature of different seasons, and they have different temporal resolutions. Thus, as pointed out by Soon and Baliunas in 2003, they are all local and “cannot be combined into a hemispheric or global quantitative composite.”
Continue reading “Climate Change over the past 4000 Years”By Andy May
“Consensus” scientists do not believe that solar variability, internal climate variability (in this model simplified to the ~67-year stadium wave), or volcanism influence net global warming or climate change since 1750, yet considerable evidence exists that these factors have an impact. I’ve previously built a model of the HadCRUT5 global average temperature (see here) from seven known climate and solar cycles using multiple regression and was reasonably successful.
Continue reading “Natural Climate Change Factors”By Andy May
This is the text of a talk I gave at an American Institute for Economic Research Bastiat Society of Houston Meeting on September 26, 2024.
The IPCC, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, AR6 report and the so-called “climate consensus” cabal hide and suppress many inconvenient truths that run counter to their hypothesis that man-made climate change is dangerous. I will list and discuss some examples in this post, more are explained in our recent book, The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC: An Analysis of AR6.
Continue reading “Suppression of Science and Inconvenient Truths”By Andy May and Marcel Crok
Phoma Destructiva’s full comment is shown indented, as a block quote. To see the original go here. To see the abstract of our paper, go here. The official paper is still paywalled, to download the full final submission of our paper, fully peer-reviewed, for free click here or go to my ResearchGate page here. Our paper, published May 29, 2024, is in the 99.7%ile of all 26.5 million research papers followed by Wiley.
Continue reading “Phoma destructiva’s 2nd Comment on Pubpeer”
