By Dr. John Happs ~
According to Wikipedia the scientific method involves careful observation, rigorous scepticism about what is observed … formulating hypothesis … testing and refinement etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
A number of entries in Wikipedia appear to display an absence of the above principles when it comes to reporting about climate change, with little criticism of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) narrative. Thus, we have excellent examples of why this online source should be closely examined for possible bias when providing information about climate change and influencing factors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_conspiracy_theory
Close inspection suggests that Wikipedia has deleted a list of the many well-qualified scientists who have rejected the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming meme:
William Connolley was noted for promoting Wikipedia’s climate alarmist views whilst suppressing any rational, skeptical information that he didn’t like. Lawrence Solomon noted how:
“He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph.”
In 2009 Solomon also noted:
“All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/wikipedia-thuggery-ed-craig/
Connolley might not be influencing Wikipedia’s climate statements anymore but that clearly hasn’t stopped Wiki-bias, as the following examples illustrate.
Ignoring the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been accused (with evidence) of committing scientific malfeasance since its inception in 1988, Wikipedia continues to quote the IPCC as the authority on climate science, which it clearly isn’t. We are told:
“As stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the largest contributor to global warming is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) since 1750, particularly from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation.”
Why doesn’t Wikipedia acknowledge that atmospheric carbon dioxide has never driven global temperature at any time over the last 500 million years?
Historical Global Carbon Dioxide Concentration Levels
It appears that Wikipedia has not documented the fact that, when atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature track closely, carbon dioxide level rise follows global temperature as numerous peer-reviewed, published studies confirm, including the following:
Fischer et al. (1999) reported a time lag between global temperature rise and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels of 600 ± 400 yrs. during early de-glacial changes in the last 3 glacial–interglacial transitions.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.283.5408.1712
Indermühle et al. (2000) using Antarctic ice-cores between 60 and 20 kyr before present, found that carbon dioxide lagged behind temperature by 1200±700 years.
https://earthref.org/ERR/20302/
Mudelsee, M. (2001), found a similar lag and reported this in his paper: The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589.
Monnin et al. (2001) examined the Dome C record, and found a very close correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature over the last glacial maximum, with carbon dioxide lagging on average 400 years.
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen9/monnin2001.html
Caillon et al. (2003) also reported such a lag in their paper: Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12637743/
In 2013, Humlum et al. published their study:
Atmospheric CO2 and Global Temperature: Which Leads Which When Change Occurs?
They concluded that:
“The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature.”
Wikipedia quotes the IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers, saying:
“Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes.”
Exactly how that human influence has been detected, the IPCC doesn’t (cannot) say.
Surely Wikipedia knows that the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is not a scientific document. It is a political document written by UN officials who haven’t concealed their intentions to bring about political change, along with the transfer of money from developed countries to developing countries. Evidence for this UN manoeuvre is found here:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/hand-of-government-in-the-ipcc.pdf
And here:
https://saltbushclub.com/2020/06/08/seeds-of-climate-corruption/
And here:
https://saltbushclub.com/2020/07/03/un-and-green-zealots/
The IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM) does not represent what many of the contributing scientists said in the technical reports and the use of the SPM in the latest AR6 IPCC report shows that the deception continues, as Dr Robert Balling pointed out:
IPCC contributing scientists reported 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’s Summary for Policymakers.
https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/climate-ecology/46-statements-by-ipcc-experts-against-the-ipcc/
The IPCC’s SPM claim that human influence has warmed the planet is “unequivocal” is false and is not backed up with any empirical evidence. The “human influence” claim ignores the many natural factors that impact global climate such as:
Orbital change, eccentricity, obliquity, and precession:
Plate tectonics:
Variations in solar output:
And here:
Solar activity and clouds:
https://phys.org/news/2022-06-clouds-important-role-history-climate.html
Asteroid/comet strikes:
Volcanism, including eruptions of super-volcanoes:
https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/laki-iceland-1783
And here:
https://earthsky.org/earth/volcanoes-might-have-triggered-the-little-ice-age/
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC):
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-year-history-current-yields-climate.html
And here:
The Beaufort Gyre:
https://www2.whoi.edu/site/beaufortgyre/
And here:
https://electroverse.net/the-arctics-ticking-climate-bomb-little-ice-age-imminent/
Natural oscillations such as El Niño and La Niña:
Earth passages through the Milky Way’s spiral arms:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06150
And here:
https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2014/aug/30/global-warming-just-eco-religion-6/
Orbital dynamics of the Earth – Moon system:
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-151/
Wikipedia claims that:
“The evidence for global warming due to human influence has been recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.”
Why hasn’t Wikipedia reported how position statements about climate change from science academies and associations are usually made without debate or consultation with the wider membership. Of the international science bodies that have issued statements warning of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, not one has provided evidence showing that the majority of their members subscribe to those statements.
Alarmist statements about climate change appear to represent the opinions of a mere handful of members. Academy officials are well aware of where their funding originates and that more alarmism will probably lead to more finance. Members could be blissfully unaware of alarmist, unsubstantiated statements released by their governing board until it is too late.
Fortunately, members of many science academies have made their feelings known about the way in which climate alarmism is usually the opinion of the executive or a committee specifically appointed by the executive.
Britain’s Royal Society shifted its position on climate change in 2010 away from total support of the IPCC toward expressing much more uncertainty. In fact, a review of the Royal Society’s initial position was forced on the society by 43 of its Fellows who demanded that its publication Climate Change Controversies, produced in 2007 and published on its website, should be rewritten to consider more rational views.
The full membership is rarely, if ever, surveyed in an even-handed way, for its opinion and examples of this, along with the reaction from members can be found here:
https://saltbushclub.com/2019/11/06/another-blatant-lie/
In 2009, the Geological Society of Australia (GSA) Executive Committee issued a statement in support of global warming alarmism, but were forced to withdraw it after they received intense criticism from the Society’s members.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=3051&cpage=1#comment-61086
A search of Wikipedia about the “CO2 Coalition” gives the following response:
“The CO2 Coalition is a non-profit organization that is sceptical about catastrophic man-made climate change, founded in 2015. The group’s claims are disputed by the vast majority of climate scientists.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition
Some Organisation!
The reader might want to look up the “CO2 Coalition” website and see for themselves that this organisation has many top-level scientists as members. Their qualifications and background details are provided at:
https://co2coalition.org/about/
Wikipedia claims there is a “scientific consensus on climate change.”
There certainly is, but not the one promoted by Wikipedia, as witnessed by the following petitions:
More than 4,000 scientists, including 70 Nobel Laureates have signed the Heidelberg Appeal to say there is no climate emergency: https://americanpolicy.org/2002/03/29/the-heidelberg-appeal/
More than 31,000 scientists, including geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists, signed the Oregon Petition to say there is no climate emergency: http://www.petitionproject.org/ More than 1,500 scientists, including 200 with expertise and qualifications in climate science signed the Manhattan Declaration to say there is no climate emergency: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54
Consider the document:
“More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming.”
This can be located at:
http://www.cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf
The above petitions can be easily found online. All of the signatories (a vast majority of scientists) reject the notion that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to dangerous global warming or any climate extremes.
Many NASA scientists, engineers and astronauts have signed a petition, objecting to the climate alarmism that reached the media from several of NASA’s activist scientists, such as Dr. James Hansen (now retired). This petition can be found here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/10/49-nasa-scientists-call-bs/
The document:
“1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm” can be located at:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Wikipedia claims that:
“Climate change conspiracy theories have resulted in poor action or no action at all to effectively mitigate the damage done by global warming. In some countries like the United States of America, 40% of Americans believe that climate change is a hoax in spite of the fact that there is a 100% consensus among climate scientists that it is not according to a report in 2019.”
100% consensus among climate scientists?
Why has Wikipedia clearly ignored the tens of thousands of scientists that have signed the above petitions rejecting global warming alarmism?
We have come across similar claims of a 97–100% consensus based on surveys that have been easily discredited.
The 97% claim originated from Dr. Peter Doran’s 2009 account of a 2008 survey conducted by Margaret Zimmerman, one of Doran’s students. This survey was based on only two questions, so phrased that anyone would answer “Yes” to them.
Worse still, 97.5% of the initial respondents were excluded after their responses were received, leaving only 79 responses considered from the 3,146 received.
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/97pct/
What climate alarmists invariably fail to do is point to other surveys that refute the mantra of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, such as:
“Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, after a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.”
And:
“A majority of broadcast meteorologists are skeptical of alarmist global warming claims and find the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change untrustworthy”, according to a survey by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.
A 2008 survey of members of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found that:
“27.4% believe it [climate change] is caused by primarily natural factors…, 25.7% believe it is caused by primarily human factors…, and 45.2% believe that climate change is caused by both human and natural factors.”
A later (2012) survey of APEGGA’s members found that only 36% were in general agreement with the IPCC position “that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
And:
“51% think there’s little or no danger from anthropogenic climate change, either because human activity has little effect and/or because the effects are benign.”
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
Another biased survey was conducted in 2013 by John Cook but, rather than ask scientists, he counted papers, and announced that 97% of relevant climate science papers “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
The obvious flaws in the Cook study have been exposed here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/the-97-consensus-misrepresented-miscalculated-misleading/
And here:
http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.html
And here:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
Wikipedia claims that:
“Global warming is causing Arctic sea ice to thaw at historic rates.”
Except that it isn’t! Wikipedia might want to report the many failed predictions from so-called “experts” about the disappearance of sea-ice, ice sheets and glaciers because of rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
In 2007, we had palaeontologist Dr. Tim Flannery predicting that global temperature could rise by much more than the IPCC’s prediction of three degrees. He predicted that Arctic ice would be gone by 2012:
In 2007, Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, predicted an ice-free Arctic Ocean by 2014.
It didn’t happen!
https://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2117573.htm
In 2008, Dr. Ted Scambos said:
“There’s a group (of scientists) that makes a very strong case that in 2012 or 2013 we’ll have an ice-free (summer) Arctic, as soon as that. It’s astounding what’s happened.”
Except that nothing astounding happened.
In 2008, Dr. Julienne Stroeve from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said the Arctic seas may be ice-free in summer within five to 10 years with Dr. Ian Willis, from the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge going even further by questioning the ability of the ice to make a come-back:
“But now it’s so thin that you would have to have an exceptional sequence of cold winters and cold summers in order for it to rebuild.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7461707.stm
It did rebuild and without “an exceptional sequence of cold winters and cold summers.”
In 2008, Dr. Mark Serreze, from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said:
“There is this thin first-year ice even at the North Pole at the moment. This raises the spectre – the possibility that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4728737&page=1
Undeterred by the fact that the ice didn’t disappear, Serreze introduced the dreaded “Tipping Point” now widely used by climate alarmists:
“We could very well be in that quick slide downwards in terms of passing a tipping point. It’s tipping now. We’re seeing it happen now.”
Actually, we couldn’t see it and it didn’t tip at all!
In 2011, Dr. Peter Wadhams said Arctic sea-ice could completely melt away by the summer of 2015, destroying the natural habitat of animals like polar bears. He said:
“The ice that forms over the Arctic sea is shrinking so rapidly that it could vanish altogether in as little as four years’ time…”
It didn’t vanish and polar bears are doing very well:
In 2012, Wadhams predicted that Arctic sea-ice would disappear – again within 4 years.
Ice thickness actually increased in 2013 and 2014 by more than 30%:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice?newsfeed=true
What about the Greenland ice sheet? Alarmists tell us that it is melting and that sea level will rise by several meters.
In fact, Greenland has far more ice today than in the past. Central Greenland was actually vegetated around 1 million years ago:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X16303405
Searching Wikipedia for this fact, Wikipedia reported:
“The page “Central Greenland was vegetated around 1 million years ago:” does not exist.”
Perhaps I didn’t look in the right place.
Wikipedia should report the fact that Christ et al. (2021) also reported evidence of flora and fauna remains at the Greenland icesheet base, showing that the ice sheet melted and re-formed at least once during the past million years:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2021442118
As did Dr. Eske Willerslev from the University of Cambridge:
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/07/world/oldest-dna-sequence-discovered-greenland-scn/index.html
In 2013, Dr. Paul Beckwith said:
“For the record; I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer.”
Apparently, Beckwith doesn’t seem to know much about Holocene climate history since he went on to say:
“This is abrupt climate change in real-time. Humans have benefitted greatly from a stable climate for the last 11,000 years or roughly 400 generations. Not anymore. We now face an angry climate. One that we have poked in the eye with our fossil fuel stick and awakened. And now we must deal with the consequences.”
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/03/huge-patches-of-warm-air-over-the-arctic.html
A stable climate for the last 11,000 years? Beckwith and a few other climate alarmists also need to do a little homework and find out how the climate has shifted over the last 11,000 years:
In 2016, Dr. Peter Wadhams appeared to forget about his earlier series of failed predictions, offering up yet another one, saying:
“Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice.”
The Arctic is still not ice-free Peter!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/21/arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-next-year
In 2019, Harvard scientist Dr. James Anderson said: “The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero.”
Well, here we are in 2023 and so is the Arctic ice.
A search in Wikipedia for failed arctic sea ice predictions produced:
The page “Failed arctic sea ice predictions” does not exist.
Again, perhaps I didn’t search in the right place for this information.
Back to Wikipedia’s claim that:
“Global warming is causing Arctic sea ice to thaw at historic rates.”
So how have all those expert predictions and Wikipedia’s claim worked out? Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reveals the trend, showing that sea ice extent in the Arctic stands at a 12-year high:
Has Wikipedia ignored the fact that it is not uncommon for the Arctic to be ice-free, only to recover? See here:
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
And here:
http://www.archive.org/stream/arcticgeographye00roya/arcticgeographye00roya_djvu.txt
And here:
Has Wikipedia pointed out that there was less Arctic sea ice during the pre-industrial period than in modern times? See here:
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/15/5099/2021/
And here:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bor.12514
Turning to the investigations into the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), following the leaking of emails that clearly pointed to scientific fraud, leading to the “Climategate” scandal, Wikipedia claims that:
“Eight committees investigated these allegations and published reports, each finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”
Perhaps that is because those committees didn’t look very hard or they had no intention of finding evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee held a single hearing in which MP Graham Stringer expressed his frustration over this pathetic inquiry, saying:
“In a situation that is almost beyond parody Muir Russell stated that he didn’t ask Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails because they would have had to interview Jones under caution. What was the solution then? The Vice Chancellor asked Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails. This rather negated the purpose of having an independent Inquiry when the only person to ask the crucial question was the Vice Chancellor who saw his prime responsibility to the good name of the University. The accused investigating themselves again.”
https://climateaudit.org/2011/03/14/13258/
MP Graham Stringer called the Oxburgh Inquiry a “whitewash” and the Commons Committee called Oxburgh in and asked why he hadn’t done the review they had been promised. He said:
“If you wanted to validate the science, you would have a different panel. You wouldn’t appoint me as chairman. You’d appoint experts from the field. It’s a very different activity. I was quite clear that what we took on was to look at the integrity of the researchers.”
In fact, no scientists skeptical of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming meme were allowed any input into Oxburgh’s “investigation.”
Dr. Michael Kelly was also critical of the investigation saying:
“Up to and throughout this exercise, I have remained puzzled how the real humility of the scientists in this area, as evident in their papers, including all these here, and the talks I have heard them give, is morphed into statements of confidence at the 95% level for public consumption through the IPCC process. This does not happen in other subjects of equal importance to humanity, e.g. energy futures or environmental degradation or resource depletion. I can only think it is the ‘authority’ appropriated by the IPCC itself that is the root cause.”
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/11/are-computer-models-reliable-can-they-predict-climate/
The Muir Russell inquiry did not hold any public hearings and, again, there was no provision for input by any of the many scientists critical of the CRU or those critical of Dr. Michael Mann’s thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph.
Many people were aware that damning emails had been deleted yet Muir Russell claimed there had been no deletion of emails, including the ones about the plan to keep critical papers out of the IPCC reports.
Fred Pearce wrote in The Guardian:
“None of the inquiries have cleared the air.”
A full account of the “whitewashing” of the so-called “investigations” into the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), can be found here:
And here:
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf
A search at Wikipedia for peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism toward the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming meme, resulted in the following response:
“The page “Peer reviewed papers supporting climate skepticism” does not exist.”
Perhaps I didn’t ask the right question.
This is a surprising response by Wikipedia since there are more than 1,300 peer-reviewed, published papers providing skeptical arguments against climate alarmism:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
A search at Wikipedia for a list of IPCC contributing scientists who have questioned the reliability of the IPCC process resulted in the following response:
“The page “IPCC contributing scientists have questioned the reliability of the IPCC process does not exist.”
Again, maybe I didn’t ask the right question.
Surely, when so many climate scientists criticised and resigned from the IPCC process, when they witnessed the deception perpetrated by the UN, this should be well documented. For instance, Dr Johannes Oerlemans, Professor of meteorology at the Faculty of Physics and Astronomy at Utrecht University was a lead author for 3 IPCC Working Group Assessments. He said:
”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.”
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nearly-2-billion-adults-have-never-heard-climate-anthony-leiserowitz
Physicist Dr. Philip Lloyd was an IPCC co-coordinating lead author. He said:
“I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN 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.”
These, and many other statements critical of the IPCC from former IPCC contributing scientists can be found here:
https://climatefact.org/scientists-about-the-un-ipcc/
Mueller (2023) has shown how Wikipedia misrepresented the “greenhouse effect”, starting with the following diagram:
Heat transfer around the planet is complex with many interactions, involving clouds, land surfaces, oceans, lakes and many other complex pathways.
Carbon dioxide is captured and used by vegetation and is sequestered in the oceans via a series of interactions that are not always fully understood yet Wikipedia skirts around these important interactions by producing what Mueller describes as being “a grossly misleading graphic.” He said:
“One of the favourite tricks of climate prophets of doom is to suggest that all major factors influencing our climate are more or less constant, with the sole exception of “greenhouse gases”.
An article by Jit after he searched Wikipedia for “climate crisis” led to what he described as a “lexicon of doom” with the following references:
Climate catastrophe (NYT, ABC Australia, Guardian) (2019)
Threats that impact the earth (WWF) (2012-)
Climate breakdown (Peter Kalmus) (2018)
Climate chaos (NYT, US Democratic candidates, Ad Age marketers) (2019)
Climate ruin (US Democratic candidates) (2019)
Global heating (Richard Betts) (2018)
Climate emergency (The infamous “letter” in BioScience, Guardian) (2019)
Ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency (Greta) (2019)
Global meltdown, scorched Earth, the great collapse, Earthshattering [sic] (Ad Age marketers) (2019)
Climate disaster (Guardian) (2019)
Climate calamity (LAT) (2022)
Climate havoc (NYT) (2022)
Climate pollution, carbon pollution (Grist) (2022)
Of course, I might be overstating my skepticism about Wikipedia’s biased reporting on climate and paleoclimate so I will leave it to the reader to search and see if Wikipedia agrees with the following facts:
FACT: Coral reefs are expanding globally and are not being impacted by climate change:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2020/03/15/like-polar-bears-coral-reefs-are-doing-fine/#more-47134
And:
Coral reefs are thriving – even where atomic bombs were exploded in the 1950’s:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/15/us-bikini-idUSSYD29057620080415
And:
FACT: Surface data sets, such as HADCRUT and GISS, only measure the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere, whereas the satellite sets of UAH and RSS measure it through the whole of the lower troposphere, and are much more accurate, comprehensive and uncontaminated.
Satellite data are in agreement with thousands of measurements from radio-sondes (weather balloons). None show any warming trend of concern:
And:
And:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/6/7
And:
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/temperature-flucturations.png
And:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2022/08/a-truth-the-climateers-simply-wont-tolerate/
FACT: Whereas uncontaminated temperature data do not show unprecedented warming, it is computer models that make exaggerated projections of rapid warming. In reality, the amount of warming since 1979 has been negligible and, when we factor in margins of error, we are not seeing any statistically significant warming.
And:
FACT: Australia’s government funded CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) claim that Australia’s climate has shown warming since 1910, illustrated by this graph:
What the BOM and CSIRO fail to point out is that:
- Surface air temperature data are based on terrestrial thermometry which is notoriously unreliable because of the Urban Heat Island Effect and inappropriate placement of equipment.
- Uncontaminated satellite data are not in agreement with terrestrial thermometry as shown here:
FACT: In 2000 Dr. David Viner from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia said:
“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event”. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
Another climate alarmist, Dr. David Parker from the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said that eventually British children could have only “virtual” experience of snow via movies and the Internet.
In 2007 the IPCC and the US government said that snow would become much less common as the climate warms especially in the cities.
In 2023, Northern Hemisphere snow cover reached a 56 year high:
Snowfall records are being broken around the world:
https://electroverse.net/october-snow-is-falling-in-hawaii/
And here:
https://electroverse.net/nasa-data-reveals-global-snowfall-has-increased-over-the-past-40-years/
FACT: Oceans and seas are not warming dangerously:
And here:
And here:
FACT: Wildfires have decreased dramatically in number and intensity:
And here:
FACT: There is no increase in extreme weather events:
And here:
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/07/IPCC-Extreme-Weather.pdf
And here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11575
FACT: Sea level rise is not accelerating although some coastal settlements are subsiding or facing sea inundation from coastal erosion:
And here:
FACT: Island nations are not threatened by sea level rise and many islands are growing in size:
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-island-inevitable-sea.html
And here:
And here:
FACT: All oceans are alkaline with a pH more than 8. There is no evidence of any ocean becoming even slightly acidic:
And here:
https://co2coalition.org/news/ocean-health-is-there-an-acidification-problem/
FACT: Many peer-reviewed, published papers, ignored or marginalised by the IPCC, show that the sun is an important driver of climate change as seen in the relationship between global temperature and solar radiance:
Movements of plasma within the sun change the sun’s magnetic field strength and, as it declines, cosmic radiation from outer space can more easily penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere. This results in increased cloud formation, the reflection of incoming solar radiation and cooling.
http://notrickszone.com/100-papers-sun-drives-climate/
And here:
https://co2coalition.org/2022/08/29/the-sun-climate-effect-the-winter-gatekeeper-hypothesis-iv/
And here:
FACT: Climate change is not leading to food shortages and there is ample evidence to show that food production is increasing significantly thanks to rising carbon dioxide levels:
https://www.westernjournal.com/climate-alarmists-ignoring-time-record-crop-production-india/
And here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/21/co2-and-crops-nas-vs-science/
And here:
FACT: Climate-related deaths have declined dramatically:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fewer-people-die-from-climate-related-natural-bjorn-lomborg-2f
And here:
FACT: Polar bears are not threatened with extinction because of global warming and melting sea ice. They were an endangered species in the 1950’s & 60’s with few restrictions on hunting. The 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act and1974 International Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears meant that there are now around 30,000, up from about 7,000 in the 1950’s (U.S. Fish & Wildlife). Hunting is now restricted.
Professor Susan Crockford is arguably the world’s leading expert on polar bears. She says that polar bears are thriving and:
“We tend to hear nothing but alarming messages about the current status & welfare of polar bears from animal advocates including lobby groups and activist scientists.”
She commented on “starving polar bears” feeding on walruses:
“The walrus narrative promoted by Sir David Attenborough is a manipulative sham with no resemblance to reality.”
And here:
Old, emaciated polar bear.
But Wikipedia couldn’t resist reporting “starving polar bears”, under a picture of an emaciated polar bear, similar to this one:
And Wikipedia couldn’t resist reporting that bears are starving because of – you guessed it – climate change:
“This is due to global climate change which causes the ice around the islands to melt much earlier than previously. The bears need to adapt from their proper food to a diet of detritus, small animals, bird eggs and carcasses of marine animals. Very often they suffer starvation and are doomed to die. The number of these starving animals is sadly increasing.”
To its credit, Wikipedia also reported:
“Contrary to popular opinion, the World Wildlife Fund studies for polar bears show that this species has prospered since 1950, attaining five times the numbers found in 1950.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_seas
No doubt there are many accurate and reliable pieces of information on various topics in Wikipedia and some might say that my criticism is somewhat unfair. However, in light of the billions of taxpayer dollars that have been wasted on the climate non-problem, the reader can now see why I mistrust Wikipedia’s alarmist information about climate change and the authority of the discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Dr. John Happs M.Sc.1st Class; D.Phil. John has an academic background in the geosciences with special interests in climate, and paleoclimate. He has been a science educator at several universities in Australia and overseas and was President of the Western Australian Skeptics for 25 years
Annie Apple
Carl
Dave the Sage
Ditzy Dee
Doc'
Grumpy Old Man
marlin6
mjmotley
Nick Anaxagoras
Aussie
PA Pundits - International
Guest Contributor
patpacer
petervburrows
Joe from PA
Jehanne
spanishbride
steevesna
T Lee Humphrey
T. L. Jenkins
TonyfromOz
Turtle
PA Pundits International 
Carl05
Mon 04/17/2023
If you’re sick of Wikipedia’s biased codswallop on many subjects, try downloading the Infogalactic transporter from microsoft or google play stores. It will convert the wikipedia page to the infogalactic page when you click on the browser link. Infogalactic is in the template format of wikipedo & tries only to relay facts while removing the bias. It’s not perfect, but we need to eradicate this reliance from our browsers to utilise sikipedia as our go-to source for general info.
LikeLiked by 2 people
PA Pundits - International
Tue 04/18/2023
Thank you Carl05 for the info. Interesting site.
Also if you search with duckduckgo.com you’ll get better results than using go ogle!
Have a good day!
LikeLike
john 3 16
Sat 04/15/2023
The following article, now deleted by Wikipedia, has been retrieved using the Web Archive
“List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming“
https://web.archive.org/web/20191115154603/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
LikeLiked by 2 people