Latest Lewis / Curry Paper is here.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/24/new-data-imply-lower-climate-sensitivity-thus-slower-global-warming/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/29/illustrating-the-failure-of-the-climate-movement-in-one-graph/

Worse still, NASA ex employees relate data falsification and irresponsible spending at the Goddard Institute for Space NASA GISS.

http://columbia-phd.org/RealClimatologists/Articles/2017/09/08/Bridenstine_Climate_Scientists_Are_Not_Noble_Stop_Paying_Them/index.html

Prof Chris de Freitas dies of Cancer.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11888890

Here is his paper from 2002 showing 14 fallacies about Global Warming.

All have stood up to peer review and the test of time.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/deFreitas.pdf

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/28/this-is-the-way-the-climate-scare-ends-not-with-a-bang-but-a-whimper/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/14/two-competing-narratives-on-carbon-dioxide/

“Believing carbon dioxide is the planet’s climate control knob is pretty close to believing in magic”

– Dr. Richard Lindzen

29th March Congressional Testimony. Skip to 32 minutes along and 56 mins

STOP PRESS A MUST READ !!!!!! 5th Feb 2017

NOAA falsifying Climate data

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/

click on this graph to view the changes to the data.

Since 1980 AGW supporters have cooled the past and warmed the present in order to support the faulty theory.

Source: Tony Heller

https://realclimatescience.com/all-temperature-adjustments-monotonically-increase/

The Error in Climate Models is finally uncovered.

Viscount Matt Ridley's presentations at the Royal Society October 2016

The Earth has greened 14% in the last 30 years.

http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

A You Tube overview of his paper from 2013

The Climate is always changing; what's driving it ? , is the question...

Science has not yet mastered prophecy. We predict too much for the next year and yet far too little for the next 10.

...Neil Armstrong

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/25/introducing-the-global-warming-speedometer/

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

Satellite Data: No Global Warming For Past 18 Years ( and get ready for an attack by the Alarmists )

( approximately 25% of all human generated CO2 entered the atmosphere in this period, showing no correlation with temperature )

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/29/a-major-malaise-of-climatology-is-pervasive-in-science/

But NASA believes the models to be correct so all we need to do is adjust the real data set to make it fit the projections....the basis of true science and honesty in observations....

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/24/nasa-global-warming-observations-need-a-further-19-upward-adjustment/

that have been shown to be inaccurate is “a fool’s errand.”

“Our ignorance is simply enormous when it comes to the climate system, and our understanding is certainly not strong and solid enough to make policy about climate because we don’t even know what it’s going to do, so how can we make a policy that says ‘I want to make the climate do something' when we don’t know what makes the climate do what it does?” he asked.

“A policy is supposed to have a goal. Well, if you don’t know how the system works, that means you don’t know how to make it go toward that goal. And that’s certainly the case now, since none of the climate models are able to tell us what the future is going to be. They’ve certainly failed in the past. And so the policy is really a fool’s errand at this point.”

However, he noted that “there is still a strong belief system that greenhouse gases control the climate, and so if that is your belief system, then it doesn’t really matter what the evidence shows.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/satellite-data-no-global-warming-past-18-years

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY18-WState-JChristy-20131211.pdf

2016 update by Christy Senate Testimony http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/03/in-defense-of-satellite-temperature-data-dr-john-christys-powerful-senate-testimony-yesterday/

Statistical Analysis for Null Hypothesis link below. See section 4 page 33 for conclusions and also Statistical Analysis page

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-11292004-134819/unrestricted/bodymatter_akobundu.pdf

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/04/what-stratospheric-hotspot/

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-9-the-heart-of-the-matter-and-the-coloring-in-trick/

THIS DOES NOT EXIST

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/22/study-tropical-hotspot-fingerprint-of-global-warming-doesnt-exist-in-the-real-world-data/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/25/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-242/

Some things to consider

https://geoethic.com/2016/03/09/reflections-on-the-future-of-our-planets-climate/

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/uploads/pics/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3_01.png

Framing the overall picture James Cook University, Prof Bob Carter

The 1973 Nobel Prize co-winner in Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever

Dr Judith Curry PhD, Atmospheric Scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology,Testimony to Congress 2014

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+dr+judith+curry&qpvt=you+tube+dr+judith+curry&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=AB13D6640BF8114C163CAB13D6640BF8114C163C

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/SPPI-disband_the_IPCC.pdf

http://www.examiner.com/article/ipcc-climate-reports-fact-versus-fiction

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/deFreitas.pdf

As the IPCC Models have failed, the IPCC has however become more confident they are correct.

The labeled boxes are from the IPCC review year statements.

The measurements must be "wrong" and needing adjustment or the heat is "hiding" in the Oceans.

A never ending goose chase of excuses for a failed correlation of CO2 and Temperature causality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA&feature=youtu.be

Pat Frank Speaks to Physicians

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/satellite-data-no-global-warming-past-18-years

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/10/terrifying-flat-global-temperature-crisis-threatens-to-disrupt-u-n-climate-conference-agenda/

Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics

A mistake in climate model architecture changes everything. Heat trapped by increasing carbon dioxide just reroutes to space from water vapor instead.

The scare over carbon dioxide was just due to a simple modelling error. A whole category of feedbacks was omitted, which greatly exaggerated the calculated sensitivity to carbon dioxide.

http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html

CLIMATE SENSITIVITY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

The whole AGW issue boils down to the amount of "Climate Sensitivity" with the figure of 0.8 K/(W/m2) for lambda, really the central crux of this overall issue.

That's 0.8 degreees Kelvin ( from absolute zero to about 15 degrees C is about 288 K, and supposedly we have warmed to 288.8 degrees K with the CO2 at the extra 100 ppm humans have added, thus Lambda is deduced as 0.8 K(W/m2), purely from asserting causation from a very tenuous correlation, and now arguably shown to be erroneous by the "hiatus of warming" for over 18 years.

Climate sensitivity[edit]

Main article: Climate sensitivity

Radiative forcing can be used to estimate a subsequent change in equilibrium surface temperature (ΔT_s) arising from that radiative forcing via the equation:

where λ is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in K/(W/m²), and ΔF is the radiative forcing.^[4] A typical value of λ is 0.8 K/(W/m²), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO₂.

Here is the business as usual view that would have the sensitivity constant at about 0.2K, not 0.8K, from empirical observation, not guestimate models. It's probably why the climate models shown on this page are over cooking the temperature estimates.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO₂ forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted.

In fact the question needs to be asked; is CO2 even a feedback ?

The reconstructed record of CO2 and temperature for the earths history would indicate otherwise - no coerrleation.

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/climate_science_as_culture_war

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/344539-i-want-to-pause-here-and-talk-about-this-notion

Michael Crichton > Quotes > Quotable Quote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HOP6JnaZgw

http://www.yalescientific.org/2011/05/cultural-cognition-and-scientific-consensus/

Cultural Cognition and Scientific Consensus

NANCY HUYNH MAY 13, 2011 2

For years, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has released expert consensus reports confirming the reality of global warming and the safety of disposing nuclear wastes deep underground. However, intense debate still persists over these and many other issues scientifically proven and reported by the NAS. The arguments do not revolve around criticizing scientists and their evidence, so the main problem is not actually a lack of faith in the scientic method. Rather, people on both sides of these debates believe that the science supports their side. This phenomenon may be due to “cultural cognition,” and Yale Researchers at the Cultural Cognition Project (CCP) have been studying cultural cognition in a variety of topics, ranging from nanotechnology to gay and lesbian parenting to adjudicatory fact-findings. They aim to improve our understanding of how cultural values influence the perception of risk and the potent effect that this phenomenon can have on public policy.

What is Cultural Cognition?

“Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of people to fit their perceptions of risk and related facts to their group commitments,” says Dan Kahan, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law at Yale Law school and a CCP researcher. Kahan expplains that people tend to accept behavior they and their peers deem honorable and good for society while rejecting behavior they deem dishonorable. Researchers in the CCP measure people’s “worldviews” along the two dimensions of hierarchy-egalitarianism and communitarian-individualism. This framework relates to the theory of anthropologist Mary Douglas, the originator of “the cultural theory of risk.” The theory postulates that people’s perceptions of risk should reflect and reinforce the combinations of values defined by the intersection of these two “worldview” dimensions. For example, hierarchical-individualists might be skeptical of environmental risk and have fewer qualms about nuclear power. They value markets and commerce and oppose restricting these activities. On the other hand, egalitarian-communitarians are ambivalent about markets and commerce, which they blame for social inequity, so they are more likely to accept claims of environmental risk.

Mechanisms

The CCP identified two main psychological processes that create cultural polarization over scientific information. The first is culturally biased information searching: people prefer to look for scientific information that supports, rather than opposes, their cultural predispositions. The CCP study of nanotechnology risk perceptions in Nature Nanotechnology concluded that biased searching explains why public familiarity with nanotechnology correlates with positive views of its benefits relative to its risks. The small proportion of people aware of nanotechnology disproportionately consists of pro-technology, hierarchical-individualists who seek out information that portrays nanotechnology positively.

The second mechanism is culturally biased assimilation. When considering information from any source, people selectively credit or discredit in accordance with their cultural predispositions, becoming more polarized as they learn more. Ideally, people would evaluate all sorts of new information and update their beliefs appropriately. Under these circumstances, the increased dissemination of sound information would lead to consensus on the best available scientific evidence. However, because of cultural cognition, this does not actually happen. Instead, people with opposing values start with opposing beliefs about controversial issues. They search for and interpret information in biased, opposing patterns, ultimately resulting in persistent polarization on risk issues.

Scientific Consensus

Why does scientific consensus fail to address cultural polarization? Indeed, public disagreement in the face of scientific consensus is rare. “The number of findings that people believe and find completely unremarkable exceeds by orders of magnitude the number in which they end up deeply polarized,” Kahan remarks. A particularly illustrative example is the contrast between the vaccines for H1N1 and for HPV. Few doubt the need and benefit of the flu vaccine and most other vaccines, but people are still divided over the HPV vaccine. The project seeks to understand, anticipate, and treat such “pathologies,” as Kahan calls them.

A recent CCP study published in the Journal of Risk Research tackles this issue by examining perceptions of scientific consensus on three issues: anthropogenic climate change, the safety of deep geological nuclear waste storage, and the effect of permitting carrying concealed guns on crime rate. These topics were chosen because expert consensus reports were available and previous work had already established that people have polarized cultural predispositions toward them. The NAS definitively answered yes to the first two questions and deemed the evidence inconclusive for the third.

In the study, subjects were presented with a picture of a scientist and a mock CV, after their cultural values were measured. They were then asked to determine if the scientist was an “expert” on a particular risk issue. The scientists’ credentials were kept con¬stant: they were all professors at major research institutions, with Ph.D.’s from prestigious universities with membership to the National Academy of Sciences. Half the subjects were shown an excerpt from the scientist’s writing defending the “low risk” position on one of the three issues, while the other half were shown excerpts defending the “high risk” position.

The researchers saw a significant shift in response based on the relationship between the cultural predispositions of the subjects and the portrayed positions of the scientists. For example, when the scientists held the “low risk” position on climate change, hierarchical-individualists were highly likely, and egalitarian-communitarians highly unlikely, to rate the scientist an expert. The same occurred with assessments on the other issues.

This result reflects biased assimilation as subjects selectively credited or discredited the scientists’ expertise to reinforce their own cultural predispositions. If the same phenomenon occurred outside of the lab, we could expect people to form opposing impressions of what “most scientists” believe on various issues. The same study also found that both hierarchal-individualists and egalitarian-communitarians tended to believe that scientific consensus was on their side on the issues studied. However, when compared to the NAS expert consensus reports, neither group of subjects were more likely to be correct about what “most expert scientists believe” across the three issues.

Future of Scientific Communication

Now that we have a better idea of the mechanisms behind cultural cognition, the next step is to solve the initial problem by ending debates that should not be happening in the first place.

Kahan says that prevention is key because issues are not born with meaning. Rather, they acquire significance when we present them. Issues can become too firmly associated with different groups, thus catalyzing polarization. The controversy over HPV erupted because a message associating the vaccine with casual sex targeted only young girls. Kahan believes that the campaign should have focused on all children, especially given that boys are also at risk, and that the message should have been worded so as not to threaten any cultural values.

Another study Kahan conducted suggests that public communication should use culturally diverse faces because extreme polarization occurs when people are given a message by someone who looks like them. Presentation of either the same message by someone of a different group or an opposite message by someone of the same group reduced the degree of polarization.

Dr Don EasterBrooks' Senate Testimony.

Richard Lizdens' review.

30,000+ Scientists Petition the IPCC that AGW is non existent. Published Paper and peer reviewed.

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/rebels-turn-on-ipcc-over-carbon-forecast/story-fn9qr68y-1226690485589

Wall St Journal Comment July 2013

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-274986/

German climate scientist Hans von Storch of the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg pointed to the major problems of climate modeling. "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We are facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) ” a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year, he explained.

GREENING OF THE EARTH

Greening of the Earth from extra C02 video. ****** Warning Warning, this was sponsored by the Petrochemical industry, so even if the science is correct you are to disbelieve it because it doesn't agree with the current accepted paradigms about AGW.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/global-snapshot-shows-how-humans-are-greening-the-earth/7346382

The 1973 Nobel Prize co-winner in physics Dr. Ivar Giaeve

Professor Tim Ball

Every One should watch this Documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY-gRFSaP7o

And this series also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHb1EklPrPE

John Christy in More Detail

And on Dec 24th 2012, released when no one was looking, the proof,

NO WARMNG IN THE LAST 10 YEARS despite rising Co2 Levels....these so called Climate models are all FICTION....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224

There isn't really anything more to say on this topic....

EXCEPT that the BBC have some serious credibility issues to face for abandoning their impartial reporting ethic over this "topic", as they have been the mainstream influencer of "public information" for many years and are still trying to explain their way out it it as per the above press release.

Even the Canadian Met Office has got fed up and is pointing the finger....

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52384

Climate Models shown to be irrelavent

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/

Greenland Ice Sheet survivied much warmer temperatures than the current models predict.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/24/greenland_ice_sheet_simply/

All the Planets in the Solar system experiencing Climate change from the Suns activity.

Just scroll the Video along past the Al Gore expose....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vapMyAvbsbg

In more detail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY&NR=1&feature=fvwp

A Very comprehensive hr long discourse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCrUQo3vbuc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8FhmuWWcGw&feature=endscreen&NR=1

John Coleman traces Al Gores infatuation with the faulty AGW hypothesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKrty200Ems

John Coleman traces Al Gores infatuation with the faulty AGW hypothesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k