From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Paul Kolk

Could this headline be any more fraudulent?

British bird lovers will see a very different pattern of species as the climate warms, according to scientists.

They say climate change is bad news for birds, but locally we will see “winners and losers”.

Migrants seldom seen on British shores, such as black-winged stilts and bee-eaters, are delighting bird watchers.

But populations of cuckoos are “in freefall” as UK wildlife struggles to cope with multiple pressures.

In nature-depleted Britain, almost half of all bird species are in decline due to a host of pressures – from the loss of meadows, hedgerows and other natural land to climate change and the use of pesticides.

The number of wild birds in Britain has fallen by 73 million since 1970, according to the British Trust for Ornithology, which studies birds in the British Isles.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66858850

The above graph has no relevance whatsoever to the issue of migratory birds. And since most of the decline occurred in the 1970s & 80s, it clearly has nothing to do with climate change either. As the article itself admits, bird populations have been declining for decades because of things like loss of habitat and pesticides. You do not need to invoke the climate bogeyman at all, particularly since there is zero evidence that climate has made any difference at all.

As for this supposed “freefall”, all the BBC can point to are cuckoos and willow warblers.

The Woodland Trust make clear that, while willow warbler populations have been dropping in southern England, they have been increasing in the north.

As willow warblers like open woodland and eat mainly insects, it is highly likely that changes to habitat are the cause of these shifting patterns.

https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/animals/birds/willow-warbler/

The BBC’s claim that “Climate change is one of the biggest pressures that all species are facing, but particularly migratory species, because they have to worry about the climate conditions not only where they’re breeding, but also where they’re wintering and the areas that they’re travelling through to get here, which can be thousands of kilometres”, clearly is not supported by the ability of the bird to thrive in Scotland.

As for the cuckoo, this is what the Woodland have to say:

Apart from these two birds, the BBC offer no other evidence to back up their headline, that UK migratory birds are  ‘in freefall’ over climate change.

Most other migratory birds are doing fine, or at least as well as British species.

It may be that a few uncommon birds decline, but others also appear to be on the increase.

For the BBC to imply that there is some sort of catastrophe going on is simply fraudulent.

Kite & Key Media

Many people take the connection between climate change and extreme weather events — wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. — for granted. But the actual scientific data … tells a more complicated story.

Extreme weather events are everywhere and their connection to climate change is obvious.

At least … according to the media.

Many climate science researchers, however, make a more subtle claim: Climate change is real and humans are contributing to it — but there hasn’t been any corresponding explosion in extreme weather.

Why the confusion? Partially because the media is at the end of a long game of telephone. There are lots of people responsible for translating complicated scientific research into something laypeople can understand — and many of them don’t necessarily understand the science either.

The result: scenarios like the media rushing to blame the 2023 Canadian wildfires on climate change — despite the fact that the research shows no evidence of Canada being at elevated risk for climate-related fires.

These misperceptions have real-world consequences: Attributing every bout of extreme weather to forces outside of our control can leave us feeling powerless. But there is a wide array of tools we can use to mitigate the consequences of the most dangerous kinds of weather events.

📝 SCRIPT
🎁 BONUS CONTENT
📚 SOURCES
AND MORE at https://kiteandkey.media/3RpeMSe

This video and more on Climate Attribution and Extreme Weather can be found on our ClimateTV page

Essay by Eric Worrall

Following a rousing introduction by Dr. Peter Ridd, Dr Will (Don’t call me a climate scientist) Happer presented a dazzling speech, in which he explained in simple terms why CO2 claims don’t make sense.

Will Happer spoke about his work creating reference stars – he pioneered the concept. Light from stars crosses the universe to finally land in our telescopes, only to be mangled by the last few miles of its journey through our atmosphere. Will’s brilliant idea was to use lasers to create a reference light source at the top of our atmosphere, which can be used to untangle the damage the atmosphere does to the incoming light signal.

Dr. Will Happer is a guy who understands atmospheric physics so well, he was able to confidently predict, just from theory, that it would be possible to artificially create an entirely new atmospheric state, which would help Astronomers use adaptive optics to correct defects in their photos.

To appreciate Will Happer’s genius, it is important to note that the reference star is not the laser beam itself, Happer is not just randomly shining a laser into the sky. The laser causes a small patch of a layer of the atmosphere to glow, just like a bright star. Will Happer figured out how to make that happen, by delivering the right laser frequency and intensity to trigger a predictable glow.

I think from this you can reasonably conclude that Happer is someone who seriously understands the atmosphere and radiation physics at a level few others can approach – key concepts for analysing the Greenhouse Effect.

One of Happer’s most powerful slides was this one, which shows the insignificant impact of doubling CO2 on the level of outgoing radiation.

Take your time looking at the image above, because it took me a few seconds to get it the first time I saw it. What the slide is showing is how atmospheric gasses affect thermal radiation escaping the Earth. The blue line is what radiation would be emitted by the Earth at its current temperature if Earth had no atmosphere. The Jagged line underneath the blue line shows the effect of atmospheric gasses partially blocking outgoing radiation at specific frequencies – the greenhouse effect. The reference to the area in the text, is because the area under the curves shows the total amount of energy escaping into space.

If you look carefully, you’ll see two lines sitting almost on top of each other, a dark brown line and a red line. You can’t really see most of the red line, because the red and dark brown lines are intermingled, they almost sit on top of each other. The brown line is how much radiation is trapped by current CO2 levels (around 400ppm). The almost identical red line is how much radiation would be trapped if CO2 levels were raised to 800ppm.

So what is the impact of raising CO2 to 800ppm, over today’s value of approx. 400ppm?

The impact of doubling CO2 from 400C to 800C, according to basic physics, is 0.71C of warming.

How can anyone possibly still think the CO2 greenhouse effect is a problem, after seeing this diagram and calculation?

The reality is almost all the radiation which CO2 can trap, is already being trapped. Adding more CO2 has almost no impact on outgoing atmospheric radiation.

So how do alarmist climate scientists turn this trivial nothing into a global climate panic? How do they turn 0.7C of warming into 3C, 4C, 12C, whatever the latest panic figure is?

According to Dr. Will Happer, they achieve this by adding unphysical, hypothetical positive feedbacks, which amplify the almost non-existent impact of adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere. But there is no proof significant positive feedbacks which amplify the minuscule CO2 effect actually exist.

The rest of Dr. Will Happer’s presentation was just as powerful.

If only we could photocopy this guy, and get him into all the classrooms of the world, the climate panic would disappear overnight. Which is probably why the left worked so hard to cancel him, when Dr. Happer was given a climate science oversight position under President Trump, and served a year on the America First team.

We’d all love to know what Dr. Happer could have achieved, had he received a little extra time. Let’s hope Dr. Will Happer finds a letter from the White House in his mailbox in early 2024.

A huge thankyou to the Institute of Public Affairs for making the Will Happer speeches happen. And a big shoutout to Raj and Vijay, who over a few beers before the event entertained me with some interesting insights into the murky political games being played in the Aussie state of Victoria and elsewhere, details of which have somehow slipped beneath the radar of Australia’s mainstream media.

By Jo Nova

The UN is morphing into the New World Eco-Cathedral and the first commandment is “Give Us Your Money”

Antonio Guterres opened the Working Group Chapter on Fire and Brimstone and dug deep:

[AP News] “Humanity has opened the gates to hell,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said Wednesday, opening a special climate ambition summit with yet another plea for action. “ Horrendous heat is having horrendous effects. Distraught farmers watching crops carried away by floods. Sweltering temperatures spawning disease. And thousands fleeing in fear as historic fires rage.”

In a reversion to the medieval era of microbiology, apparently heat itself spawns disease from the ether. We know heat is the devil itself, the source of all evil, as the IPCC has not found one single good thing that might happen with more hotness.

No one is even pretending this is science anymore, are they?

Once equilibrium climate sensitivity is at the Gates of Hell level, where can it go next? Magma level? And is that better or worse?

The developed world was put in the naughty corner, and not allowed to speak, so they didn’t turn up, or perhaps it was the other way around.

Those [major emitting] nations remained silent. They weren’t allowed to speak because, organizers said, they had no new actions to take.

Heads of state from China, the United States, India, Russia, the United Kingdom and France all skipped the summit.

The 32 national leaders who did qualify represent only 11% of the world’s carbon dioxide pollution.

Guterres was apparently performing for a different crowd — whipping up the poor brethren nations to ask God for money, or failing that, the European Commission, or John Kerry which is nearly the same thing.

Guterres called on “major emitters — who have benefited most from fossil fuels — to make extra efforts to cut emissions, and on wealthy countries to support emerging economies to do so.” They were silent.

There’s some ceremonial ritual at work here, where rich nations are banned from talking then blamed for not saying anything.

Ultimately, the main point of the summit was to feed from the trough:

He called on wealthy nations to fulfill their $100 billion pledges to help poorer countries deal with climate change. The United States is one of the countries that hasn’t done so. The U.N. chief also pushed for countries to spend even more than they’ve promised and put in money to a “loss and damage” fund agreed upon last year that are sort of payments to help nations harmed by extreme weather from global warming.

There was a call to the promised land:

Africa “can leapfrog into a fully green industrial paradigm,’’ Kenyan President William Ruto said. “Yet we cannot and must not do this on our own.”

Little does the Kenyan President know that if Kenya gets there, to the green industrial paradigm, they will be on their own, because no one else has made it. The promised land doesn’t exist. The Green Industrial Paradigm is a the place where modern economies go to die.

Photos from David Neuvere and the EU mixed by Jo Nova, and UN logo by Sshu94