Category: Daily News

Japanese Analysis Of “11,224” Signatories Exposes Media/Science Sham…”Deep Blow To Credibility”

The leading media worldwide cranked up the volume when it spread the news of how a statement had been published in the journal BioScience. The statement was a collaboration of “over 11,000 from 153 nations”.

The Guardian, for example reported: “The world’s people face ‘untold suffering due to the climate crisis’ unless there are major transformations to global society.”

Like most major media outlets around the world, the Guardian handled the “statement” as if it were the final confirmation needed to finally end any further discussion and hesitation on rapidly moving to a new, transformed “global society”.

Slick sales job. Dr. Thomas Newsome falsely claiming over 11,000 “scientists” support the climate statement. Image cropped from video by University of Sydney.

The statement more hoax than scientific declaration

Days later, after a more careful scrutiny of the list – which the media failed to carry out, it was uncovered that the list of signatories was a declaration of scientific and media sloppiness and deception. One of the signatories was even cartoon character “Mickey Mouse”. But it gets worse than that.

11,224 list analyzed by Japanese blogger

Since then Japanese climate science skeptic and blogger, Kirye, spent dozens of hours thoroughly compiling and evaluating the 11,224 signatories using an Excel spreadsheet. Her findings have added greater clarity and exposed the true extent of the once media ballyhooed statement now turned hoax.

5 of 11,224 a “climate scientist”

Of the 11,224 signatories, JUST FIVE (5) claimed to be a “climate scientist”.

Only 4 were meteorologists.

A vast number did not even state PhD or professor as their professional title/discipline. Only 2,796 (24.9%) had “professor” in their title. 1,481 (13.2%) of the signatories stated some form of PhD, including PhD “candidate”.

A total of 1,021 had “doctor in their title, i.e. only 9.1%. Many in an unrelated field.

302 of the signatories listed no professional title at all!

34 names had to be discarded altogether because they were invalid.

New climate experts: nephrologists, philiologists, pharmacists!

The vast majority were active in fields totally unrelated to climate science, such as “philiogist”, psychologist, CEO, political scientist, pharmacist, medical doctor, primatologist, physiopathology of the mitochondria, sociologist, industrial systems, nanoscientist, genetics, nephrologist, economist. biotech engineer, foreign language teacher, etc.  In other words, it’s a list hyperinflated by unqualified climate activists. Others were affiliated with environmental activist groups.

“Disservice” to science …”blow to credibility”

Thie list and media handling were in fact so sloppy that it compelled German geologist and hjournalist Axel Bojanowski to write at Cicero here how the statement and list of signatories were “a disservice” to climate science and “a deep blow to the credibility of research (and the media), not only because the list of signatories has apparently been published without verification.”

“Mocks media quality control”

The former Der Spiegel science journalist added: “The fact that numerous representatives of environmental associations are among the signatories and many others without a professional title makes one doubt their scientific character” and that it “mocks” the “media’s quality control function.”

via NoTricksZone

November 17, 2019 at 11:04AM


Majority of UK public back 2030 zero-carbon target

By Paul Homewood




According to the Guardian, the majority of the UK public now backs a 2030 zero carbon target.

Of course, it is always useful to see the exact question asked:


It might just as well have said "do you want to carry on living as you do now but with more trees?"

As Julia Hartley-Brewer suggested, a more pertinent question might have been:


But this and other polls highlight a much more fundamental disconnect between what the public believe on one hand, and reality on the other.

Much of this arises from poor, and often downright misleading, reporting from the media.

Net Zero

Firstly, the implications that decarbonisation will have for the UK.

Only crackpots would even think it feasible to achieve full decarbonisation by 2030. So what on earth are the 32% thinking, who want it to happen by 2025? One can only assume that they think it is easy to do, just build a few more windmills and so on.


In fact only about a tenth of our carbon dioxide emissions come from electricity generation. Phasing out of coal power has helped to reduce carbon dioxide in the power sector by 114 Mt, a quarter of the country’s emissions in 2010, but that was the easy bit.

No experts seriously suggest that the grid can run on intermittent renewables alone, without backup from reliable power, which essentially means fossil fuels.

But in the rest of the economy, little has changed since then 2010.

Transport accounts for a third of emissions, and there is still very little demand for electric cars, which so far this year still only account for 1% of new sales, as they simply are not fit for purpose for most people.

Millions of drivers, including those who do not have off street parking or who need cars for long journeys, would be forced to give up their cars.

Then there is the effect on the UK car industry, which would be decimated, as sales of all conventional cars would have to stop almost immediately, given average car life is around ten years.

Domestic demand for heating accounts for another fifth of emissions, so we would quickly be forced to abandon our gas boilers, and fork out £10,000 or more for much less efficient heat pumps.


Then there is industry, which produces another third of emissions. If companies are forced to invest in low carbon alternatives, the likelihood is that many will simply shut up shop and move their production abroad.

And, of course, a ban on petrol and diesel cars will spell the end for UK oil refineries and chemical plants.

As for the cost of all this, subsidies for renewable energy is already costing the UK £11bn a year, a figure which will carry on rising remorselessly for the next decade, as more low carbon power comes on stream.

But that is the tip of the iceberg. The Committee on Climate Change have estimated their Net Zero plan will eventually cost £50bn a year, about £1800 per household. Independent experts, including Philip Hammond believe this to be a gross underestimate.

Climate Change

But, I hear you say, surely we have no alternative, if we are to “save the planet”?

The problem here is that the UK’s emissions are only 1% of the global total, which continues to rise. In other words, whatever we do will have no effect whatsoever on the climate.


BP Energy Review

Yet so often we hear people saying we “must do something immediately”! And not just the likes of the Extinction Rebellion rabble. Rebecca Long-Bailey, who might be our Secretary of State for Industry next month, (no, please don’t titter), literally said in a speech last week that our chance to tackle climate change would be lost if we did not start investing in her climate plan next month.

In any event, the idea that there is some sort of climate emergency is absurd, regardless of your views on global warming. There is nothing in the data to suggest there is, or will be in the immediate future.

Even the IPCC reports say that the world’s weather is not getting more extreme. Contrary to popular myth, hurricanes, tornadoes and other storms are not getting stronger. Neither are there any overall changes in the frequency or severity of droughts and floods. Experts also tell us that wildfires burn much less land than they used to.

Global food production continues to steadily rise year on year, whilst the number of deaths from weather disasters has plummeted in recent decades.

Even the poor polar bears, who we are regularly told are under threat, are actually doing fine and increasing in numbers.

In the UK too, it simply is not true that our weather has gotten more extreme. In fact, apart from being slightly warmer than a century ago, our climate has changed remarkably little.

Remember the claims a few years ago from so-called experts that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is”, or that we would be soon be having Mediterranean summers every year? The good old British weather knew better!


But when do you ever hear any of this on the telly, or read about it in the papers? If you did, I suspect opinion polls would show rather different results.


November 17, 2019 at 10:54AM

New Video : Exxon Knew

New Video : Exxon Knew

This entry was posted in


. Bookmark the



via Real Climate Science

November 17, 2019 at 09:18AM

FP Proposes a Joint US / EU Climate Trade War Against China

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Foreign Policy, next time the “opportunity opens up”, the USA and European Union should unite to impose carbon taxes on the entire world.

Climate Change Is Coming for Global Trade

As sea levels rise and storms become fiercer, container shipping could be in for major disruptions.


After the cold fall winds swirling around Hurricane Sandy pushed an enormous storm surge toward the New York and New Jersey coastlines several years ago, the ensuing damage left an indelible imprint on the public imagination. Restaurants with ocean views were battered by wild waves, homes were rent asunder, and historic lighthouses were pummeled into piles of rubble. New York City was paralyzed for days, and some 40,000 people were left homeless.

The dramatic destruction garnered 24-hour media coverage, but the damage to international trade slipped more quietly under the radar.

Perhaps more important, the rapid growth of international trade also makes striking an effective global climate agreement more difficult. China’s emergence as a trading superpower has given rise to fears of so-called “carbon leakage,” which occurs when costs related to complying with climate policies drive businesses to transfer production overseas in pursuit of laxer rules. If the European Union or United States makes polluters pay for their greenhouse gas emissions, the fear is that the polluters would simply offshore production to China or another emerging economy, yielding no net environmental benefit. But if developed countries don’t act, emerging economies never will.

A carbon tariff has received considerable attention on both sides of the Atlantic as a means of addressing carbon leakage and breaking the deadlock of international climate action. Such a scheme would involve applying a tariff to imports from countries that have not already accounted for their carbon emissions. However, past efforts to set up a border adjustment have been resisted.

Given these political developments, it is worth considering the prospect for a coordinated EU-U.S. initiative when the next window of opportunity opens up. Coming from the two largest markets in the world, whose economies are responsible for approximately half of global GDP, a joint carbon border tax would represent a seismic shift in international climate diplomacy.

From an EU perspective, the benefit of joint action is clear—it would remove the risk of retaliation from the United States. From a U.S. perspective, the main benefit would be to win a solid ally in its increasingly frayed trading and geopolitical relationship with China. Acting with the EU could also help rejuvenate the United States’ standing as a global climate leader, whereas going it alone risks associating border taxes with strong-arm tactics. Another major benefit of working together on such a carbon initiative would be to bolster the trans-Atlantic relationship, which is—according to many commentators—in crisis.

Read more:

Carbon leakage is the green policy inspired loss of jobs and businesses to countries with lower energy costs.

If you have never heard of “carbon leakage”, this allegedly not a problem receives a lot of attention in Europe, so it is likely a very serious problem indeed.

The European Union’s proposed response to carbon leakage is to try to erect massive tariff barriers, to eliminate the competitive disadvantage created by their costly green energy policies. But the last time the EU and USA attempted joint action on carbon taxes, the Senate failed to pass the Clean Energy and Security Act which would have given President Obama the power the impose carbon tariffs on Chinese imports.

When Europe subsequently tried to go it alone, President Obama moved to block them – the prospect of unilateral European carbon taxes targeting the USA was too much even for President Obama.

Now European leaders dream of a future US president who is at least as radical on climate issues as President Obama was, so they can use the combined economic might of the USA and Europe to level the playing field, by imposing their climate ideology on the entire world.

Naturally European politicians would never dream of interfering in US politics to try to achieve this goal.

via Watts Up With That?

November 17, 2019 at 08:47AM