This article byon breitbart.com, makes it plain that global warming alarmism is scientifically unsupportable and, supporters of this alarmist, political movement are unethical in their science and their behaviour.
I would have been satisfied with just sharing this post on Face Book, but the sharing ‘button’ seems to be inactive. Perhaps there is censorship involved?
Another day, another attack on the integrity of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, this time in the New York Times.
I first became aware of Soon in 2009 when reading through the Climategate emails. One of them was a jocular suggestion by a warmist called Tom Wigley as to how best to smear Soon and his co-author Sallie Baliunas.
Might be interesting to see how frequently Soon and Baliunas, individually, are cited (as astronomers). Are they any good in their own fields? Perhaps we could start referring to them as astrologers (excusable as…’oops, just a typo’).
You might be wondering what Soon and Baliunas had done to incur the wrath of the climate alarmist establishment. Well, they’d just published a meta-analysis of all the papers which had been written on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). What their paper showed is that contrary to claims by one Michael Mann (the name may be familiar), the MWP was not a small, localised event but global, big and widespread.
So the memo went out from the Hockey Team (the uber-vindictive Mann and his lickspittle posse) to get Soon, and they’ve been going at him ever since: not by criticising the quality of his science — that would be too difficult because his science is impeccable — but simply by trying to make his life miserable, deny him tenure, and to smear him as compromised and corrupt.
The reason for the latest attack on Soon is that he is the co-author, with Christopher Monckton et al, of a paper published earlier this year in the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences journal Science Bulletin.
This study — Why Models Run Hot — infuriated the alarmist establishment, first because it was unusually popular (receiving over 10,000 views — thousands more than most scientific papers get) and second because it made a mockery of their cherished computer models.
As Paul Driessen explains:
Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,” concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO2-driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be “no more than one-third to one-half of the IPCC’s current projections” – that is, just 1-2 degrees C (2-4 deg F) by 2100! That’s akin to the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and would be beneficial, not harmful.
Rather than attack the substance of the paper, the warmists reverted to their usual tricks, lead by Kert Davies, an activist lawyer who works for a Greenpeace front organisation called Climate Investigations Center.
The complete article is linked here.
The world is dangerous because world leaders, puppet newspapers like NYT, and “scientists”-adjusting-data-for hire lost the AGW debate. Their anger is vented on Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. But anyway, “the cat is out of the bag!” Temperature data were altered !
Earth’s climate is, and always has been, controlled by the pulsar remnant of a supernova that:
1. Made our chemical elements
2. Birthed the solar system five billion years (5Ga) ago
3. Sustained the origin and evolution of life on Earth after 3.5 Ga ago
4. Still controls every atom, life and world in the solar system (and the climate on each planet) . . .
a volume of space greater than10,000,000,000,000,000,000 Earths, and still expanding!
Click to access Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf
World leaders like Obama and Putin had delusions of power, but the Sun’s pulsar core controls vibrations of each atom and the heart-beat of every life, including that of the world leaders, NYT editors and scientists-adjusting-data-for-hire.
The danger now: Will world leaders graciously admit defeat, or incite racial and/or religious violence or even a “false flag” nuclear war to sustain their false delusion of control of the world?
The consensus science religion of AGW was worldwide, except in equally dogmatic Muslim countries. Is that the basis for current anti-Islam propaganda?