THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 1, 2019
Opinion: On NOAA, Contrived Science and the IPCC
Special Opinion by Paul Plante.
For those unfamiliar with the term “IPCC,” it stands for the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” which is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations supposedly dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options, and I use the word supposedly on purpose, because the horse**** coming into Our House of Representatives on September 18, 2019 in the form of the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 is anything but an objective, scientific view of climate change, because first of all, the IPCC itself is not objective; it has a definite agenda, and more to the point, the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself, rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources, so in a word, it does not know what the **** it is talking about, and that is a fact.
As to the underlying agenda, we can see it at least strongly hinted at, if not clearly stated in the following from the REMARKS BY THE MINISTER OF WATER AND CLIMATE HONOURABLE OPPAH. C.Z. MUCHINGURI-KASHIRI (MP) AT COP 23, to wit:
The Zimbabwe Government views climate change as a serious issue and a matter that needs urgent attention.
end quotes
At the same time, we have this concerning Zimbabwe from the Reuters article “Zimbabwe fires 211 striking doctors as economy worsens” on November 8, 2019, as follows:
HARARE (Reuters) – Zimbabwe on Friday fired more than 200 public sector doctors who have been on strike for more than two months demanding better pay to protect them from soaring inflation.
Other public workers say they cannot go to work because they have no money.
Police on Wednesday blocked a handful of public sector workers from marching to government offices with a petition demanding better pay.
Junior and middle level doctors from state hospitals have been on strike since Sept. 3.
They want their pay indexed to the U.S. dollar to stop their earnings being eroded by triple-digit inflation.
Patients are being turned away from hospitals because there are no doctors to treat them.
The board plans to call in 516 of the government’s 1,601 doctors for disciplinary hearings.
Tawanda Zvakada, spokesman for Zimbabwe Hospital Doctors Association, said he could not immediately comment.
The government said last month it had doubled doctors’ salaries.
They said that was inadequate, as it would only increase their monthly salary to about 2,000 Zimbabwe dollars ($130).
Zimbabweans are bearing the brunt of the worst economic crisis in a decade, with shortages of foreign currency, fuel, power and medicines.
The crisis has been worsened by a drought that has left more than half of the population in need of food aid and forced the government to scramble for scarce dollars to import grain.
Mnangagwa has asked for patience while his government tries to fix the economy.
But hope has dimmed that he can end years of economic troubles that were a hallmark of the rule of the late Robert Mugabe, who was ousted in an army coup two years ago.
end quotes
So, they need money and lots of it, and as a result, we now have a contrived climate crisis to shake that money loose, as we see by going back to those remarks by the MINISTER OF WATER AND CLIMATE HONOURABLE OPPAH. C.Z. MUCHINGURI-KASHIRI of Zimbabwe, as follows:
My country has ratified the Paris Agreement and now a Party to this crucial treaty.
We view the Paris Agreement as a stepping stone towards tangible action in addressing the climate change challenge facing the world today.
end quotes
Except as we are going to see from the real science, there is not a “climate change challenge” facing the world today, which takes us back to his remarks as follows:
We need to move with speed to finalise the development of the rulebook for implementation of this Agreement.
Access to climate finance remains a challenge to Zimbabwe and most of the developing world as the Green Climate Fund which is the main funding mechanism of the UNFCCC, remains slow in processing applications and the disbursement of resources.
Our GCF Readiness Proposal was approved more than a year ago, but up to date, GCF has not released the funds.
We need to see a change in the way these funds are handled and simplification of the GCF projects approval and funds disbursement processes.
end quotes
Yes, it is all about getting access to the money, people, and that money is supposed to flow from us to them, which is a great deal for Zimbabwe, and a real lousy deal for us.
Getting back to the IPCC, it was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and was later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly with membership open to all members of the WMO and UN.
With respect to the IPCC having an agenda, it produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change, which is about “social justice and equity” as core aspects of climate-resilient development pathways for transformational social change per Chapter 5 of the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018.
Now, contrast that with this statement from the propaganda concerning the IPCC:
The objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”.
end quotes
Except the term “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” is more bull****, as we can see by examining the real science, not this bogus “science” contrived by this IPCC crowd, which is the purpose of this essay.
With respect to that contrived science, which is based on thin air, we have as follows this hysteria-mongering from AP NEWS entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:
NEW YORK (AP) — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim new report Wednesday.
Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report issued as world leaders met at the United Nations.
It warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems.
“The oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble, and that means we’re all in big trouble, too,” said one of the report’s lead authors, Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.
“The changes are accelerating.”
The dire effects will be felt on both land and sea, harming people, plants, animals, food, societies, infrastructure and the global economy.
“The world’s oceans and cryosphere have been taking the heat for climate change for decades.”
“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
end quotes
Except that is not true, as we clearly see by consulting the real science this IPCC crowd is attempting to bury under a huge mountain of bull**** from the IPCC, to wit:
From CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition by H.H. Lamb:
COOLING IN THE ARCTIC
The cooling of the Arctic since 1950–60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the present century, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world’s oceans but also in the Norwegian—East Greenland Sea.
In some places, e.g. the Franz Josef Land archipelago near 80°N 50–60°E, the long-term average temperature fell by 3–4°C and the ten-year average winter temperatures became 6–10°C colder in the 1960s as compared with the preceding decades.
It is clear from Icelandic oceanographic surveys that changes in the ocean currents have been involved.
Indeed a greatly (in the extreme case, ten times) increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current, bringing polar water southwards, has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for fifty years (fig. 97): in April–May 1968 and 1969 the island was half surrounded by the ice, as had not occurred since 1888.
Such ice years have always been dreaded in Iceland’s history because of the depression of summer temperatures and the effects on farm production.
In the 1950s the mean temperature of the summer half year in Iceland had been 7.7°C and the average hay yields were 4.3 tonnes/hectare (with the use of 2.8 kg of nitrogen fertilizer); in the late 1960s with mean temperature 6.8°C the average hay yield was only 3.0 tonnes/hectare (despite the use of 4.8 kg of fertilizer).
The temperature level was dangerously close to the point at which the grass virtually ceases to grow.
The country’s crop of potatoes was similarly reduced.
The 1960s also saw the abandonment of attempts at grain growing in Iceland which had been resumed in the warmer decades of this century after a lapse of some hundreds of years.
At the same time the changes in the ocean have produced changes in the spawning grounds and seasonal range of migration of fish stocks — a not much publicized aspect of the international wrangles and ‘cod wars’ of recent times.
With the fall by over 1°C in the mean sea surface temperatures off west Greenland from the peak years in the 1920s and 1950s, the cod fishery there declined by the early 1970s to a tiny fraction of what it had been in those times.
The Greenland cod migrated to Iceland waters, and for a few years (1967–71) offset the declining stocks there; but since 1974 the spawning stocks in Iceland waters have been only a tenth of what they were in the late 1950s and the total stocks have fallen by almost a half, the decline being probably attributable to combined effects of the change in water climate and over-fishing.
Similarly, herring stocks have moved from Iceland waters to the wider reaches of the Norwegian Sea farther east, south and north and to the North Sea, while a southward shift of the southern limit of cod seems to have led to increased catches in the North Sea since about 1963.
An interruption of the colder regime introduced by the 1960s affected Europe and Iceland, part of east Asia and the eastern United States in the early-mid 1970s and was perhaps too hurriedly hailed as a reversal of the trend.
Most of Europe and parts of the other regions named experienced between 1971 and 1977 four to seven mild winters in a row, largely thanks to repetitive occurrences of anticyclones in positions which gave them southerly or southwesterly winds.
One or two of these winters produced extreme phenomena such as the roses still blooming in the parks in Copenhagen in late January.
But much of the remaining areas of the northern hemisphere, in Asia and Africa and including the polar region and the two great oceans as well as eastern Canada, had a straight run of colder than usual winters in the same years.
As the pattern depended so largely on the positions of stationary (‘blocking’) features in the wind circulation in middle latitudes, no great surprise should have been caused when conditions were reversed again in many of these regions in the immediately following years later in the decade.
By the end of the decade in Iceland, as in other regions of the Arctic fringe, it had to be concluded that the colder regime which set in in the 1960s seems to be continuing; and after notably cold years in 1979 and 1980 the widely debated expectation of global warming setting in as a result of the impact of the man-made increase of carbon dioxide on the world climate is being called in question in these countries.
end quotes
That, people, is the real science that is being buried by the contrived science of this IPCC crowd, with aid and assistance from the NOAA in this country.
This essay asks the essential existential question as to why that is – why is this IPCC crowd lying to us, and why is the United States House of Representatives foisting those lies on us as if they were the truth?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... -the-ipcc/
ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC
Re: ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC
NOAA
Ko Barrett named NOAA Research deputy assistant administrator
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Craig McLean, NOAA’s assistant administrator for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), has named Ko Barrett as the deputy assistant administrator for OAR Programs and Administration.
In this leadership position, Barrett supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise, and the execution of NOAA programs including the Climate Program Office, Ocean Acidification Program, the National Sea Grant College Program, Ocean Exploration and Research, and the Office of Weather and Air Quality research.
“Ko has many valuable skills that made her a sound choice for this leadership position, not the least of which are her experience in and knowledge of OAR and NOAA, a savvy sense of organizational and policy issues, and a willingness to challenge the status quo in unselfish and constructive ways,” said McLean.
Barrett comes to this position from seven years of serving as deputy director of OAR’s Climate Program Office, which oversees and coordinates climate activities across NOAA, addressing climate observations and monitoring, research and modeling, and the development and delivery of climate services.
For over 15 years, Barrett has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body created to review and assess the most recent scientific, technical, and socio-economic information produced worldwide that is relevant to understanding climate change.
She is widely recognized as an expert on climate policy, particularly on issues related to climate impacts and strategies to help society adapt to a changing world.
Barrett currently serves as one of three vice chairs of the IPCC.
Prior to joining NOAA in 2005, Barrett was the director of the Global Climate Change program at the US Agency for International Development and oversaw climate activities in more than 40 countries.
She has won multiple awards for contributions both to NOAA and the nation, notably NOAA Administrator’s Awards in 2010 and 2015, the U.S. Department of State Meritorious Honor Award in 2011, and a Nobel Peace Prize shared with members of the IPCC in 2007.
Barrett has a bachelor of science degree in environmental studies from the University of North Carolina Asheville, where she was named University Scholar as well as Distinguished Research Scholar, and elected a member of the Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society.
Barrett will assume the full duties and responsibilities of her new position on July 18, 2016.
For more information, please contact Monica Allen, director of public affairs for NOAA Research at 301-734-1123 or by email at monica.allen@noaa.gov
https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMI ... inistrator
Ko Barrett named NOAA Research deputy assistant administrator
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Craig McLean, NOAA’s assistant administrator for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), has named Ko Barrett as the deputy assistant administrator for OAR Programs and Administration.
In this leadership position, Barrett supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise, and the execution of NOAA programs including the Climate Program Office, Ocean Acidification Program, the National Sea Grant College Program, Ocean Exploration and Research, and the Office of Weather and Air Quality research.
“Ko has many valuable skills that made her a sound choice for this leadership position, not the least of which are her experience in and knowledge of OAR and NOAA, a savvy sense of organizational and policy issues, and a willingness to challenge the status quo in unselfish and constructive ways,” said McLean.
Barrett comes to this position from seven years of serving as deputy director of OAR’s Climate Program Office, which oversees and coordinates climate activities across NOAA, addressing climate observations and monitoring, research and modeling, and the development and delivery of climate services.
For over 15 years, Barrett has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body created to review and assess the most recent scientific, technical, and socio-economic information produced worldwide that is relevant to understanding climate change.
She is widely recognized as an expert on climate policy, particularly on issues related to climate impacts and strategies to help society adapt to a changing world.
Barrett currently serves as one of three vice chairs of the IPCC.
Prior to joining NOAA in 2005, Barrett was the director of the Global Climate Change program at the US Agency for International Development and oversaw climate activities in more than 40 countries.
She has won multiple awards for contributions both to NOAA and the nation, notably NOAA Administrator’s Awards in 2010 and 2015, the U.S. Department of State Meritorious Honor Award in 2011, and a Nobel Peace Prize shared with members of the IPCC in 2007.
Barrett has a bachelor of science degree in environmental studies from the University of North Carolina Asheville, where she was named University Scholar as well as Distinguished Research Scholar, and elected a member of the Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society.
Barrett will assume the full duties and responsibilities of her new position on July 18, 2016.
For more information, please contact Monica Allen, director of public affairs for NOAA Research at 301-734-1123 or by email at monica.allen@noaa.gov
https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMI ... inistrator
Re: ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 1, 2019 at 7:43 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, NOAA!
According to its propaganda page in Cyberspace, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, is the agency of the United States federal government responsible for monitoring our climate and our environment, and taking steps to preserve them.
According to its website, NOAA’s tasks include:
Environmental Assessment and Prediction:
• Improving short-term warning and forecasting services
• Forecasting climate trends and changes
• Promoting safe navigation
Protecting Natural Resources While Helping Develop Them:
• Building sustainable fisheries and recovering protected species
• Sustaining healthy coastal ecosystems
• Observing the environment
end quotes
NOAA enters this discussion on several levels, starting with an AP News article entitled “NOAA scientist: agency likely broke science integrity rules” by Jay Reeves and Seth Borenstein on 9 September 2019, as follows:
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) — The acting chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said his agency likely violated its scientific integrity rules last week when it publicly chastised a weather office that contradicted President Donald Trump’s claim that Hurricane Dorian threatened Alabama.
Two top NOAA civil servants not so quietly revolted against an unsigned agency press release issued late Friday rebuking the Birmingham weather office for saying Alabama was safe.
The agency’s top scientist called Friday’s release “political” and the head of the National Weather Service said the Alabama office “did what any office would do to protect the public.”
“My understanding is that this intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political,” acting chief scientist and assistant administrator for ocean and atmospheric research Craig McLean wrote to staffers Sunday night.
In the email, first reported by The Washington Post, McLean said he is “pursuing the potential violations” of the agency’s science integrity policy.
McLean said that the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology.”
end quotes
Which takes us back to the hysteria-mongering from AP NEWS entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:
NEW YORK (AP) — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim new report Wednesday.
Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report issued as world leaders met at the United Nations.
“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
end quotes
And there, right before our eyes, thanks to the integrity of the Cape Charles Mirror, is a clear-cut case of a violation of the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy which tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology,” because it is clear that the allegiance of Ko Barrett, deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is to the IPCC, which is a political organization with an ideology foreign to American values.
As to who this Ko Barrett is, the IPCC informs us thusly:
People Profile: Ko Barrett, Vice-Chair, IPCC
Ko Barrett is the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) where she supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise.
In 2015, Ko Barrett was one of the first women elected to serve as a vice chair of the IPCC.
For over 15 years, she has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the IPCC.
She has also served for over a decade as a lead negotiator for the United States on the United Nations treaty on climate change.
Ko Barrett is widely recognized as an expert on climate policy, particularly on issues related to climate impacts and strategies to help society adapt to a changing world.
end quotes
Clearly, her agenda is driven in large part by what the IPCC wants from her, given that the IPCC produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change, whose objective is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”.
Which then takes us back to this hysterical statement from her, as follows:
“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
end quotes
To which I respond by saying, “based on what?”
What is the scientific basis for that sensationalist statement of hers that “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” because I took the trouble to pose this question to the Climate Science Program Manager at NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory, to wit:
Q: Does the science in the opinion of the consensus, to your knowledge, support the conclusion that there is going to be a cataclysmic break-down in the environment by 2030 if we don’t stop using fossil fuels right now?
On Monday, September 23, 2019, 7:10:37 PM EDT, Howard Diamond wrote:
Frankly, I do not know.
end quotes
Nor does Ko Barrett!
So why then is she engaging in hysteria-mongering for the IPCC?
And why is NOAA with its vaunted Science Integrity Policy turning a blind eye to it?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-202756
Paul Plante says :
So, NOAA!
According to its propaganda page in Cyberspace, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, is the agency of the United States federal government responsible for monitoring our climate and our environment, and taking steps to preserve them.
According to its website, NOAA’s tasks include:
Environmental Assessment and Prediction:
• Improving short-term warning and forecasting services
• Forecasting climate trends and changes
• Promoting safe navigation
Protecting Natural Resources While Helping Develop Them:
• Building sustainable fisheries and recovering protected species
• Sustaining healthy coastal ecosystems
• Observing the environment
end quotes
NOAA enters this discussion on several levels, starting with an AP News article entitled “NOAA scientist: agency likely broke science integrity rules” by Jay Reeves and Seth Borenstein on 9 September 2019, as follows:
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) — The acting chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said his agency likely violated its scientific integrity rules last week when it publicly chastised a weather office that contradicted President Donald Trump’s claim that Hurricane Dorian threatened Alabama.
Two top NOAA civil servants not so quietly revolted against an unsigned agency press release issued late Friday rebuking the Birmingham weather office for saying Alabama was safe.
The agency’s top scientist called Friday’s release “political” and the head of the National Weather Service said the Alabama office “did what any office would do to protect the public.”
“My understanding is that this intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political,” acting chief scientist and assistant administrator for ocean and atmospheric research Craig McLean wrote to staffers Sunday night.
In the email, first reported by The Washington Post, McLean said he is “pursuing the potential violations” of the agency’s science integrity policy.
McLean said that the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology.”
end quotes
Which takes us back to the hysteria-mongering from AP NEWS entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:
NEW YORK (AP) — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim new report Wednesday.
Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report issued as world leaders met at the United Nations.
“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
end quotes
And there, right before our eyes, thanks to the integrity of the Cape Charles Mirror, is a clear-cut case of a violation of the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy which tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology,” because it is clear that the allegiance of Ko Barrett, deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is to the IPCC, which is a political organization with an ideology foreign to American values.
As to who this Ko Barrett is, the IPCC informs us thusly:
People Profile: Ko Barrett, Vice-Chair, IPCC
Ko Barrett is the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) where she supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise.
In 2015, Ko Barrett was one of the first women elected to serve as a vice chair of the IPCC.
For over 15 years, she has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the IPCC.
She has also served for over a decade as a lead negotiator for the United States on the United Nations treaty on climate change.
Ko Barrett is widely recognized as an expert on climate policy, particularly on issues related to climate impacts and strategies to help society adapt to a changing world.
end quotes
Clearly, her agenda is driven in large part by what the IPCC wants from her, given that the IPCC produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change, whose objective is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”.
Which then takes us back to this hysterical statement from her, as follows:
“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
end quotes
To which I respond by saying, “based on what?”
What is the scientific basis for that sensationalist statement of hers that “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” because I took the trouble to pose this question to the Climate Science Program Manager at NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory, to wit:
Q: Does the science in the opinion of the consensus, to your knowledge, support the conclusion that there is going to be a cataclysmic break-down in the environment by 2030 if we don’t stop using fossil fuels right now?
On Monday, September 23, 2019, 7:10:37 PM EDT, Howard Diamond wrote:
Frankly, I do not know.
end quotes
Nor does Ko Barrett!
So why then is she engaging in hysteria-mongering for the IPCC?
And why is NOAA with its vaunted Science Integrity Policy turning a blind eye to it?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-202756
Re: ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 3, 2019 at 10:27 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, contrived science, people, where the word “contrived” is taken to mean “having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, as in a contrived plot,” and here I am focusing in on this hysterical and frankly, quite stupid statement from the IPCC in the AP NEWS article entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:
It warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems.
end quotes
Wetter hurricanes?
Other nastier weather systems?
Are you kidding me here?
What exactly is a “wetter” hurricane, given that I have yet to hear of one that was dry?
And how about these “other nastier weather systems?”
Nastier that what?
And that is not “science,” people, because scientists do not use such terms as “nastier weather systems” – only hysterical people who can’t think straight do, or those who are dishonest.
But I want to stay with the subject of the IPCC’s “contrived science,” or “science” having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, which takes us back to CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition by H.H. Lamb, to wit:
A more serious reversion to colder climate came with the year 1879, a year well within the class of the 1690s.
Through December 1878 and January 1879 the temperature in England stayed mainly below the freezing point, and it was very snowy; the spring was cold, with May colder than many an April; the summer was the wettest and one of the seven coldest in the long instrument records for England; it was followed by a notably cold autumn and another near freezing month in December.
The cold wet weather delayed the ripening of the harvest, so that even in East Anglia in some places the corn had not been gathered in by Christmas.
end quotes
Now, if one were to calmly and rationally think about what “nasty” weather might be like, I would certainly put that forth as a real good example of the nasty weather we have already experienced on this earth of ours, and that had nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide, which takes us back to the real science, to wit:
But the effects of 1879 and the difficult years with cold winters and wet summers which followed were not confined to England.
The peak emigration of people from the countries of northern, central and western Europe was in the 1880s.
The years 1876–9 also brought droughts, monsoon failures and famine in China and India.
The old stories of medieval Europe’s famine situations of outbreaks of cannibalism and children sold into slavery repeated themselves in these years in the Far East.
end quotes
Those are the times these fools on this IPCC want to take us back to with their cry that the United States must go to zero CO2 emissions by 2030.
Moving right along:
The temperature records in China (fig. 86) and indicators such as the freezing dates of Lake Suwa in central Japan (fig. 90) show that this was one of the severest phases of the Little Ice Age in the Far East.
The deaths due to famine in the late 1870s in India and China have been estimated at 14–18 million.
The historical documentary information which begins to be available from the southern hemisphere in the centuries described in this and the previous chapter seems to confirm that there too a colder climate developed during the last millennium.
Glaciers advanced in South America and New Zealand, and there were appropriate changes in the New Zealand forests.
But the timing of the severest phases was different, it seems almost opposite, to that in the northern hemisphere.
We have referred to evidence of this in chapter 3 (p. 39).
Captain Cook’s voyages in the 1770s and others on to the 1830s confirm that the Antarctic sea ice was more restricted and open sea extended farther south, although those were times when the northern polar ice was well forward and troubling Iceland.
Later in the nineteenth century, in the 1850s and around 1900, the southern sea ice extended farther north and there were many accounts from the sailing ships of those days of sightings of the great tabular icebergs calved from the Antarctic inland ice drifting to much lower latitudes, off the River Plate and approaching the other southern continents.
After 1894–5, when there was a good deal of ice on the Thames in London, there was a long respite from severe winters in England and in Europe generally.
Not again was there a month with mean temperature below the freezing point in England until January 1940.
end quotes
When one reads actual climate history, which is based on extensive records that the IPCC has pretty much successfully buried, one can see how the IPCC has contrived its “science” for the purpose of creating fear in people to advance its agenda, which is entirely political, given that the IPCC is a governmental body, not a scientific organization, which again takes us back to the real science, as follows:
Only the winters of 1916–17 and 1928–9 during that interval of forty-five years could be considered in any way severe, the February in both cases coming near to being a freezing month in England and causing some ice to appear on the Thames.
The much more severe winter of 1962–3 (3-month mean temperature in central England −0.3°C, January −2.1° C) never brought the water temperature in London’s river below about 10°C (50°F), owing to all the industrial and urban effluents now passed into the river.
end quotes
Now, if 1962-3 was a much more severe winter, how did that happen, given that the IPCC says it should have been warmer due to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere from dangerous anthropogenic (an invented word that means nothing at all) interference with the climate system?
Let’s go back to the science and see what more we can see:
It should plainly be desirable to update our portrayal in fig. 91a of the course of world-average temperature at the surface of the Earth, as indeed has been attempted in various quarters.
The most authoritative version is due to the (WMO/UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change14 (IPCC for short).
The curve here shown as fig. 91b represents the IPCC figures when looked at as the successive five-year means from 1860 to 1989.
The three-year mean for the remarkably warm years 1990–2 is the last point at the right-hand end of the graph.
The overall shape of this historical curve is the product of successive revisions adjusting the values for urban and industrial warming and any other possibly distorting influences at the observation sites — not least the changes that have taken place in the observing practices at sea with ever bigger ships, changes in the height of their decks above the water, and measurements in recent decades being made within the vessel in intake pipes instead of in open buckets.
This writer is inclined to the belief that, however careful the observing procedures and however carefully studied the adjustments applied afterwards to the observations, to declare a value for the world average or an area average to within some hundredths of a degree centigrade is an unattainable ideal.
end quotes
WHOA, get that back off the page – publicly declaring that a value for the world average or an area average to within some hundredths of a degree centigrade is an unattainable ideal.
What could I have been thinking when the IPCC climate crisis crowd says otherwise?
Getting back to the science:
All responsible researchers agree that the temperatures measured must be adjusted for peculiarities of the site and the changes of these peculiarities with time.
All these things have led to revisions of the data.
Urban and industrial influences also change with time, as does the pollution of various kinds which may influence the data.
Also, it is now appreciated that the climates of islands, big and small, differ from those over the open sea as well as from the climate of the nearest extensive land-masses.
Even the inhabited camps in polar wastes create their own climates through the artificially generated heat, smoke and pollution, all of which tend to be trapped locally and held beneath the temperature inversions.
The light wind speeds below the inversion also lead to a strong local concentration of the effects.
Hence, adjustments must be attempted even though they introduce an arbitrary element into the results.
end quotes
So, despite the fact that there is no rational scientific basis for this “global average” temperature, as it truly means nothing, nonetheless the IPCC and their parrots in the media will continue to use the term while shrieking as they did today about how warm it has gotten, as we here to the north of you dig out from under around two feet of snow that obviously failed to get the message from the IPCC and media that it is supposed to be warmer, not colder, which again takes us back to the science, to wit:
It is agreed that the 1880s and early 1890s were a cold time, though not everywhere in the northern hemisphere oceans, and that the twentieth century has been generally warmer.
Warming was rapid from about 1920 to 1940.
The cooling which set in in the 1940s had a wobbly course, but the climatic record continued generally colder in the northern hemisphere until some time after 1970.
In the southern hemisphere, particularly the Antarctic and the sub-Antarctic ocean zone, there was a rapid warming going on from about 1950 onwards.
Despite the rapid rise of world temperature after 1975 indicated by our fig. 91b (a graph produced by the IPCC which shows continuous warming for the earth), there has been a noteworthy occurrence — seen, for example, in the Danish temperature record here reproduced in fig. 28a (p. 80) and in other records in North America and Europe of further cold events or some continued colder conditions until 1985 to 1987.
The state of affairs at the time of writing (1994) seems to be that, after truly exceptional warmth in the years 1989–91, there has been some fall of temperature world-wide, which has been attributed by many to the effects of the great volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in June 1991.
end quotes
So why is the IPCC, and by extension the media, to include the AP and NPR, trying to concoct a false narrative that the earth’s climate is continually warming, when the earth has climatic zones, not an earth climate?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204046
Paul Plante says :
So, contrived science, people, where the word “contrived” is taken to mean “having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, as in a contrived plot,” and here I am focusing in on this hysterical and frankly, quite stupid statement from the IPCC in the AP NEWS article entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:
It warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems.
end quotes
Wetter hurricanes?
Other nastier weather systems?
Are you kidding me here?
What exactly is a “wetter” hurricane, given that I have yet to hear of one that was dry?
And how about these “other nastier weather systems?”
Nastier that what?
And that is not “science,” people, because scientists do not use such terms as “nastier weather systems” – only hysterical people who can’t think straight do, or those who are dishonest.
But I want to stay with the subject of the IPCC’s “contrived science,” or “science” having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, which takes us back to CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition by H.H. Lamb, to wit:
A more serious reversion to colder climate came with the year 1879, a year well within the class of the 1690s.
Through December 1878 and January 1879 the temperature in England stayed mainly below the freezing point, and it was very snowy; the spring was cold, with May colder than many an April; the summer was the wettest and one of the seven coldest in the long instrument records for England; it was followed by a notably cold autumn and another near freezing month in December.
The cold wet weather delayed the ripening of the harvest, so that even in East Anglia in some places the corn had not been gathered in by Christmas.
end quotes
Now, if one were to calmly and rationally think about what “nasty” weather might be like, I would certainly put that forth as a real good example of the nasty weather we have already experienced on this earth of ours, and that had nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide, which takes us back to the real science, to wit:
But the effects of 1879 and the difficult years with cold winters and wet summers which followed were not confined to England.
The peak emigration of people from the countries of northern, central and western Europe was in the 1880s.
The years 1876–9 also brought droughts, monsoon failures and famine in China and India.
The old stories of medieval Europe’s famine situations of outbreaks of cannibalism and children sold into slavery repeated themselves in these years in the Far East.
end quotes
Those are the times these fools on this IPCC want to take us back to with their cry that the United States must go to zero CO2 emissions by 2030.
Moving right along:
The temperature records in China (fig. 86) and indicators such as the freezing dates of Lake Suwa in central Japan (fig. 90) show that this was one of the severest phases of the Little Ice Age in the Far East.
The deaths due to famine in the late 1870s in India and China have been estimated at 14–18 million.
The historical documentary information which begins to be available from the southern hemisphere in the centuries described in this and the previous chapter seems to confirm that there too a colder climate developed during the last millennium.
Glaciers advanced in South America and New Zealand, and there were appropriate changes in the New Zealand forests.
But the timing of the severest phases was different, it seems almost opposite, to that in the northern hemisphere.
We have referred to evidence of this in chapter 3 (p. 39).
Captain Cook’s voyages in the 1770s and others on to the 1830s confirm that the Antarctic sea ice was more restricted and open sea extended farther south, although those were times when the northern polar ice was well forward and troubling Iceland.
Later in the nineteenth century, in the 1850s and around 1900, the southern sea ice extended farther north and there were many accounts from the sailing ships of those days of sightings of the great tabular icebergs calved from the Antarctic inland ice drifting to much lower latitudes, off the River Plate and approaching the other southern continents.
After 1894–5, when there was a good deal of ice on the Thames in London, there was a long respite from severe winters in England and in Europe generally.
Not again was there a month with mean temperature below the freezing point in England until January 1940.
end quotes
When one reads actual climate history, which is based on extensive records that the IPCC has pretty much successfully buried, one can see how the IPCC has contrived its “science” for the purpose of creating fear in people to advance its agenda, which is entirely political, given that the IPCC is a governmental body, not a scientific organization, which again takes us back to the real science, as follows:
Only the winters of 1916–17 and 1928–9 during that interval of forty-five years could be considered in any way severe, the February in both cases coming near to being a freezing month in England and causing some ice to appear on the Thames.
The much more severe winter of 1962–3 (3-month mean temperature in central England −0.3°C, January −2.1° C) never brought the water temperature in London’s river below about 10°C (50°F), owing to all the industrial and urban effluents now passed into the river.
end quotes
Now, if 1962-3 was a much more severe winter, how did that happen, given that the IPCC says it should have been warmer due to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere from dangerous anthropogenic (an invented word that means nothing at all) interference with the climate system?
Let’s go back to the science and see what more we can see:
It should plainly be desirable to update our portrayal in fig. 91a of the course of world-average temperature at the surface of the Earth, as indeed has been attempted in various quarters.
The most authoritative version is due to the (WMO/UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change14 (IPCC for short).
The curve here shown as fig. 91b represents the IPCC figures when looked at as the successive five-year means from 1860 to 1989.
The three-year mean for the remarkably warm years 1990–2 is the last point at the right-hand end of the graph.
The overall shape of this historical curve is the product of successive revisions adjusting the values for urban and industrial warming and any other possibly distorting influences at the observation sites — not least the changes that have taken place in the observing practices at sea with ever bigger ships, changes in the height of their decks above the water, and measurements in recent decades being made within the vessel in intake pipes instead of in open buckets.
This writer is inclined to the belief that, however careful the observing procedures and however carefully studied the adjustments applied afterwards to the observations, to declare a value for the world average or an area average to within some hundredths of a degree centigrade is an unattainable ideal.
end quotes
WHOA, get that back off the page – publicly declaring that a value for the world average or an area average to within some hundredths of a degree centigrade is an unattainable ideal.
What could I have been thinking when the IPCC climate crisis crowd says otherwise?
Getting back to the science:
All responsible researchers agree that the temperatures measured must be adjusted for peculiarities of the site and the changes of these peculiarities with time.
All these things have led to revisions of the data.
Urban and industrial influences also change with time, as does the pollution of various kinds which may influence the data.
Also, it is now appreciated that the climates of islands, big and small, differ from those over the open sea as well as from the climate of the nearest extensive land-masses.
Even the inhabited camps in polar wastes create their own climates through the artificially generated heat, smoke and pollution, all of which tend to be trapped locally and held beneath the temperature inversions.
The light wind speeds below the inversion also lead to a strong local concentration of the effects.
Hence, adjustments must be attempted even though they introduce an arbitrary element into the results.
end quotes
So, despite the fact that there is no rational scientific basis for this “global average” temperature, as it truly means nothing, nonetheless the IPCC and their parrots in the media will continue to use the term while shrieking as they did today about how warm it has gotten, as we here to the north of you dig out from under around two feet of snow that obviously failed to get the message from the IPCC and media that it is supposed to be warmer, not colder, which again takes us back to the science, to wit:
It is agreed that the 1880s and early 1890s were a cold time, though not everywhere in the northern hemisphere oceans, and that the twentieth century has been generally warmer.
Warming was rapid from about 1920 to 1940.
The cooling which set in in the 1940s had a wobbly course, but the climatic record continued generally colder in the northern hemisphere until some time after 1970.
In the southern hemisphere, particularly the Antarctic and the sub-Antarctic ocean zone, there was a rapid warming going on from about 1950 onwards.
Despite the rapid rise of world temperature after 1975 indicated by our fig. 91b (a graph produced by the IPCC which shows continuous warming for the earth), there has been a noteworthy occurrence — seen, for example, in the Danish temperature record here reproduced in fig. 28a (p. 80) and in other records in North America and Europe of further cold events or some continued colder conditions until 1985 to 1987.
The state of affairs at the time of writing (1994) seems to be that, after truly exceptional warmth in the years 1989–91, there has been some fall of temperature world-wide, which has been attributed by many to the effects of the great volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in June 1991.
end quotes
So why is the IPCC, and by extension the media, to include the AP and NPR, trying to concoct a false narrative that the earth’s climate is continually warming, when the earth has climatic zones, not an earth climate?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204046
Re: ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 4, 2019 at 10:03 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, who then is this Ko Barrett who is making these reckless, irresponsible, and frankly from my perspective as an engineer, quite hysterical statements about “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” when she herself is not in possession of a shred of evidence she can point to or rely on to justify that patently hyberbolic statement, which is dishonest on her part, as well as fraudulent to make such hysterical claims without having any evidence whatsoever to support them, which demonstrates a decided lack of both integrity and basic common sense which would tell a mature adult that you do not sow panic in a population based on hyperbole and falsehood?
And why have we got an elected official in what is a foreign governing body, the IPCC, serving as a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where she supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise, and the execution of NOAA programs including the Climate Program Office, Ocean Acidification Program, the National Sea Grant College Program, Ocean Exploration and Research, and the Office of Weather and Air Quality research, when that very much appears to be a major-league conflict of interest on her part?
And why is she apparently exempt from NOAA’s supposed Scientific Integrity Policy which tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology,” which she clearly is not doing making such irresponsible and reckless and hysterical comments to AP “science writer” Seth Borenstein about “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” when she herself is not in possession of a shred of evidence she can point to or rely on to justify that patently hyberbolic statement, which is dishonest on her part, as well as fraudulent to make such hysterical claims without having any evidence whatsoever to support them.
As to her position with NOAA, since we American citizens are closed out of the proceedings of the IPCC by which she was elected an IPCC co-chair, we are informed of the following from a NOAA press release entitled “Ko Barrett named NOAA Research deputy assistant administrator” on Tuesday, July 12, 2016, to wit:
Craig McLean, NOAA’s assistant administrator for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), has named Ko Barrett as the deputy assistant administrator for OAR Programs and Administration.
“Ko has many valuable skills that made her a sound choice for this leadership position, not the least of which are her experience in and knowledge of OAR and NOAA, a savvy sense of organizational and policy issues, and a willingness to challenge the status quo in unselfish and constructive ways,” said McLean.
Barrett comes to this position from seven years of serving as deputy director of OAR’s Climate Program Office, which oversees and coordinates climate activities across NOAA, addressing climate observations and monitoring, research and modeling, and the development and delivery of climate services.
For over 15 years, Barrett has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body created to review and assess the most recent scientific, technical, and socio-economic information produced worldwide that is relevant to understanding climate change.
end quotes
However, as we know, the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself; rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources, which is to say, it cherry-picks the “science” it wants to support its position that all climate change on earth today is a function of human beings, not natural processes, which according to the IPCC, no longer function, despite having done so for millions of years prior to this.
So it is another falsehood to state that IPCC reports are relevant to understanding climate change, unless you are a true believer in the carbon dioxide theory of the IPCC, which is a perversion of the original science of Svante Arrhenius back in the early-1900s.
Getting back to the NOAA press release:
She is widely recognized as an expert on climate policy, particularly on issues related to climate impacts and strategies to help society adapt to a changing world.
Barrett currently serves as one of three vice chairs of the IPCC.
Prior to joining NOAA in 2005, Barrett was the director of the Global Climate Change program at the US Agency for International Development and oversaw climate activities in more than 40 countries.
end quotes
As to USAID, it’s mission statement reads as follows:
“As the U.S. Government’s principal leader, coordinator, and provider of international development and humanitarian assistance, USAID advances national security and economic prosperity, while demonstrating American values and goodwill abroad.”
“Our investments save lives, foster inclusive economic growth, reduce poverty, and strengthen democratic governance while helping other countries progress beyond needing our assistance.”
end quotes
As to their “vision of success,” we have:
“We anticipate, mitigate, and respond to global challenges, standing together with people affected by poverty and disaster.”
“The people we help achieve their own peace and prosperity and create stable institutions that respond to their needs.”
“We are recognized as the world’s premier development agency.”
“We are highly effective, efficient, accountable, and agile.”
end quotes
So, what has any of that to do with research into climate science, besides nothing, especially since Barrett only has a bachelor of science degree in environmental studies from the University of North Carolina Asheville?
What game is NOAA playing at here?
Stay tuned for more.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204046
Paul Plante says :
So, who then is this Ko Barrett who is making these reckless, irresponsible, and frankly from my perspective as an engineer, quite hysterical statements about “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” when she herself is not in possession of a shred of evidence she can point to or rely on to justify that patently hyberbolic statement, which is dishonest on her part, as well as fraudulent to make such hysterical claims without having any evidence whatsoever to support them, which demonstrates a decided lack of both integrity and basic common sense which would tell a mature adult that you do not sow panic in a population based on hyperbole and falsehood?
And why have we got an elected official in what is a foreign governing body, the IPCC, serving as a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where she supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise, and the execution of NOAA programs including the Climate Program Office, Ocean Acidification Program, the National Sea Grant College Program, Ocean Exploration and Research, and the Office of Weather and Air Quality research, when that very much appears to be a major-league conflict of interest on her part?
And why is she apparently exempt from NOAA’s supposed Scientific Integrity Policy which tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology,” which she clearly is not doing making such irresponsible and reckless and hysterical comments to AP “science writer” Seth Borenstein about “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” when she herself is not in possession of a shred of evidence she can point to or rely on to justify that patently hyberbolic statement, which is dishonest on her part, as well as fraudulent to make such hysterical claims without having any evidence whatsoever to support them.
As to her position with NOAA, since we American citizens are closed out of the proceedings of the IPCC by which she was elected an IPCC co-chair, we are informed of the following from a NOAA press release entitled “Ko Barrett named NOAA Research deputy assistant administrator” on Tuesday, July 12, 2016, to wit:
Craig McLean, NOAA’s assistant administrator for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), has named Ko Barrett as the deputy assistant administrator for OAR Programs and Administration.
“Ko has many valuable skills that made her a sound choice for this leadership position, not the least of which are her experience in and knowledge of OAR and NOAA, a savvy sense of organizational and policy issues, and a willingness to challenge the status quo in unselfish and constructive ways,” said McLean.
Barrett comes to this position from seven years of serving as deputy director of OAR’s Climate Program Office, which oversees and coordinates climate activities across NOAA, addressing climate observations and monitoring, research and modeling, and the development and delivery of climate services.
For over 15 years, Barrett has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body created to review and assess the most recent scientific, technical, and socio-economic information produced worldwide that is relevant to understanding climate change.
end quotes
However, as we know, the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself; rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources, which is to say, it cherry-picks the “science” it wants to support its position that all climate change on earth today is a function of human beings, not natural processes, which according to the IPCC, no longer function, despite having done so for millions of years prior to this.
So it is another falsehood to state that IPCC reports are relevant to understanding climate change, unless you are a true believer in the carbon dioxide theory of the IPCC, which is a perversion of the original science of Svante Arrhenius back in the early-1900s.
Getting back to the NOAA press release:
She is widely recognized as an expert on climate policy, particularly on issues related to climate impacts and strategies to help society adapt to a changing world.
Barrett currently serves as one of three vice chairs of the IPCC.
Prior to joining NOAA in 2005, Barrett was the director of the Global Climate Change program at the US Agency for International Development and oversaw climate activities in more than 40 countries.
end quotes
As to USAID, it’s mission statement reads as follows:
“As the U.S. Government’s principal leader, coordinator, and provider of international development and humanitarian assistance, USAID advances national security and economic prosperity, while demonstrating American values and goodwill abroad.”
“Our investments save lives, foster inclusive economic growth, reduce poverty, and strengthen democratic governance while helping other countries progress beyond needing our assistance.”
end quotes
As to their “vision of success,” we have:
“We anticipate, mitigate, and respond to global challenges, standing together with people affected by poverty and disaster.”
“The people we help achieve their own peace and prosperity and create stable institutions that respond to their needs.”
“We are recognized as the world’s premier development agency.”
“We are highly effective, efficient, accountable, and agile.”
end quotes
So, what has any of that to do with research into climate science, besides nothing, especially since Barrett only has a bachelor of science degree in environmental studies from the University of North Carolina Asheville?
What game is NOAA playing at here?
Stay tuned for more.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204046
Re: ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 5, 2019 at 7:30 pm
Paul Plante says:
And let us stay with NOAA Deputy Assistant Administrator, Programs & Administration Ko Barrett for the moment as one of the key people and prime movers behind this irresponsible and reckless HYSTERIA-MONGERING in the media about a contrived “CLIMATE CRISIS” that is literally making people crazy and berserk with fear, as we were witness to just today in the AFP article “‘Do it for our children,’ parents plead at UN climate meet” on 5 Dec 2019, where we were informed as follows as to just how hysterical people like this Ko Barrett have made the public at large with their own reckless and hysterical statements about a “CLIMATE CRISIS, ” to wit:
Parents from around the globe Thursday said governments locked in negotiations at UN talks in Madrid must beat back the threat of global warming to “give our children the future that they deserve”.
end quotes
Beat back the threat of global warming?
Seriously, people, exactly how is that to be done, given that it is the earth that is in charge of what its climate is going to be at any given time and place, and not human beings?
That these people actually are asking these governments locked in negotiations at UN talks in Madrid to “beat back the threat of global warming” to “give our children the future that they deserve,” shows just how deluded they are about reality, and that is thanks to HYSTERIA MONGERS like NOAA’s Ko Barret, and this IPCC climate crisis crowd.
Staying with that AFP article, we have further, as follows:
“Our children are being handed a broken world on the verge of climate chaos and ecological breakdown,” they said in an open declaration from 222 associations in 27 countries.
end quotes
A broken world on the verge of climate chaos and ecological breakdown?
What is “climate chaos?”
And where on earth is it that they getting that term from, besides irresponsible hysteria-mongerers like NOAA’s Ko Barrett, because there is no such scientific term as “climate chaos,” which takes us back to the AFP story on just how hysterical NOAA’s Ko Barrett has made people with her irresponsible and reckless blather about a “climate crisis,” to wit:
“At our current rate of emissions, we are dangerously close to reaching tipping points which could unravel human civilisation within our own and our children’s lifetimes,” the declaration said.
“We are at a turning point in the story of our species, and you, the delegates of this influential UN climate summit, have an opportunity to choose what happens next.”
end quotes
So, people, there you are seeing in real time the results of this propaganda campaign based on contrived science that NOAA and the IPCC are using to make people so crazy with fear so they cannot think straight and thus are easily led down the garden path by a ring in their nose, with that crazy talk about us being “dangerously close to reaching tipping points which could unravel human civilisation within our own and our children’s lifetimes,” and “We are at a turning point in the story of our species.”
Keep repeating a lie over and over and over, as this IPCC crowd and Ko Barrett have been doing, and as this AFP article clearly shows, you can get the unwitting masses to think anything you want them to think, like the world is going to end and civilization, which was never raveled too tight to begin with, is going to unravel unless they surrender their futures and the futures of their grandchildren to this pack of fools meeting right now in Madrid who can’t even agree on what day it is, and Ko Barrett and the IPCC.
Closing out on Ko Barrett, since she is in many ways the star of this climate crisis show now on-going in Madrid, where of course, little Greta Thunberg and her crowd and marching and shrieking and chanting in the streets and creating clouds of toxic and noxious carbon dioxide each time they exhale, on a site called ZoomInfo, she has posted for herself a Business Profile, where we learn the following about what NOAA considers to be her qualifications to head up NOAA’s so-called “research” efforts despite only possessing a bachelor’s degree in environmental studies, which is a liberal arts survey program, to wit:
Ko Barrett leads the Global Climate Change Team for the US Agency for International Development .
She manages climate-related activities in more than 40 countries and regions around the world that seek to promote sustainable development, while minimizing the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and reducing vulnerability to climate change.
Ms. Barrett has held this position for five years.
Prior to working at USAID , she lived overseas for seven years, working on environment policy issues in Egypt and Ukraine.
end quotes
So, how does that then qualify her to be what is in essence NOAA’s top scientist in charge of what research is done, or not done?
A question for our times.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204435
Paul Plante says:
And let us stay with NOAA Deputy Assistant Administrator, Programs & Administration Ko Barrett for the moment as one of the key people and prime movers behind this irresponsible and reckless HYSTERIA-MONGERING in the media about a contrived “CLIMATE CRISIS” that is literally making people crazy and berserk with fear, as we were witness to just today in the AFP article “‘Do it for our children,’ parents plead at UN climate meet” on 5 Dec 2019, where we were informed as follows as to just how hysterical people like this Ko Barrett have made the public at large with their own reckless and hysterical statements about a “CLIMATE CRISIS, ” to wit:
Parents from around the globe Thursday said governments locked in negotiations at UN talks in Madrid must beat back the threat of global warming to “give our children the future that they deserve”.
end quotes
Beat back the threat of global warming?
Seriously, people, exactly how is that to be done, given that it is the earth that is in charge of what its climate is going to be at any given time and place, and not human beings?
That these people actually are asking these governments locked in negotiations at UN talks in Madrid to “beat back the threat of global warming” to “give our children the future that they deserve,” shows just how deluded they are about reality, and that is thanks to HYSTERIA MONGERS like NOAA’s Ko Barret, and this IPCC climate crisis crowd.
Staying with that AFP article, we have further, as follows:
“Our children are being handed a broken world on the verge of climate chaos and ecological breakdown,” they said in an open declaration from 222 associations in 27 countries.
end quotes
A broken world on the verge of climate chaos and ecological breakdown?
What is “climate chaos?”
And where on earth is it that they getting that term from, besides irresponsible hysteria-mongerers like NOAA’s Ko Barrett, because there is no such scientific term as “climate chaos,” which takes us back to the AFP story on just how hysterical NOAA’s Ko Barrett has made people with her irresponsible and reckless blather about a “climate crisis,” to wit:
“At our current rate of emissions, we are dangerously close to reaching tipping points which could unravel human civilisation within our own and our children’s lifetimes,” the declaration said.
“We are at a turning point in the story of our species, and you, the delegates of this influential UN climate summit, have an opportunity to choose what happens next.”
end quotes
So, people, there you are seeing in real time the results of this propaganda campaign based on contrived science that NOAA and the IPCC are using to make people so crazy with fear so they cannot think straight and thus are easily led down the garden path by a ring in their nose, with that crazy talk about us being “dangerously close to reaching tipping points which could unravel human civilisation within our own and our children’s lifetimes,” and “We are at a turning point in the story of our species.”
Keep repeating a lie over and over and over, as this IPCC crowd and Ko Barrett have been doing, and as this AFP article clearly shows, you can get the unwitting masses to think anything you want them to think, like the world is going to end and civilization, which was never raveled too tight to begin with, is going to unravel unless they surrender their futures and the futures of their grandchildren to this pack of fools meeting right now in Madrid who can’t even agree on what day it is, and Ko Barrett and the IPCC.
Closing out on Ko Barrett, since she is in many ways the star of this climate crisis show now on-going in Madrid, where of course, little Greta Thunberg and her crowd and marching and shrieking and chanting in the streets and creating clouds of toxic and noxious carbon dioxide each time they exhale, on a site called ZoomInfo, she has posted for herself a Business Profile, where we learn the following about what NOAA considers to be her qualifications to head up NOAA’s so-called “research” efforts despite only possessing a bachelor’s degree in environmental studies, which is a liberal arts survey program, to wit:
Ko Barrett leads the Global Climate Change Team for the US Agency for International Development .
She manages climate-related activities in more than 40 countries and regions around the world that seek to promote sustainable development, while minimizing the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and reducing vulnerability to climate change.
Ms. Barrett has held this position for five years.
Prior to working at USAID , she lived overseas for seven years, working on environment policy issues in Egypt and Ukraine.
end quotes
So, how does that then qualify her to be what is in essence NOAA’s top scientist in charge of what research is done, or not done?
A question for our times.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204435
Re: ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 6, 2019 at 10:09 pm
Paul Plante says :
And since we are on the subject now of the HARM that DO-GOODER idiots in programs like USAID do, when they go thousands of miles away from where they live, to meddle in the lives of others, as this IPCC crowd is hankering to do, or is already doing, let’s go back to the authority on the earth’s ever-changing climate, “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition by H.H. Lamb, to wit:
A partly similar mistake, or misjudgment (outside meddlers fixing people in other countries to land which cannot support them for political reasons), had been made in the Sahel (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, The Gambia, Guinea Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal) in the time of more abundant rains in the 1950s and early 1960s.
end quotes
So, for the record, today, there is now a “climate crisis” in the Sahel, or “climate chaos,” as the MEDIA HYSTERIA-MONGERERS like to term it for the shock value that term implies, so important to them in the never-ending ratings game where you can’t rest on past laurels, that as we clearly will see from a Reuters article entitled “Hike in record-dry months for Africa’s Sahel worries scientists” by Laurie Goering on December 13, 2018 is going to be blamed on carbon dioxide, not a major-league ****-up by these foreign AID, which is the beauty of carbon dioxide for these people who caused these problems by shifting blame to something that nobody can see like carbon dioxide, but first, let’s go back to H.H. Lamb, as follows to develop that actual story further, to wit:
International aid for the developing countries in the zone was used to drill deep wells in order to use (and ultimately use up) the great reserve of subterranean water — sometimes known as ‘fossil water’— which accumulated in different climatic regimes thousands of years ago.
end quotes
Now, notice the term “different climatic regimes,” which is what the earth actually has – not a one-size-fits-all “climate” as these raving lunatics gathered in Madrid to howl at the moon to make time stop and the earth’s climate stand still at exactly where they like it, not too warm, not too cold, but just right, want to have it with their cries to “beat back the threat of global warming” to “give our children the future that they deserve,” which raises the question, given what these DO-GOODER-AT-ANY-COST fools have done to the Sahel, of what kind of future are these meddling fools going to give them, to wit:
This introduced a kind of short-lived prosperity to the region with greatly increased cattle herds and growth of the human population (the latter thanks also to the beginnings of satisfactory health services).
The sparse vegetation was soon over-grazed, resulting in a spread of the desert.
end quotes
As we are going to see from the Reuters article, that is now being blamed on CO2, not human stupidity by outside meddlers who have grand ideas about spreading PROSPERITY to every single person in the world, no matter the cost, which they personally will likely never have to bear, just as was the case with USAID in Viet Nam during the Viet Nam war.
Getting back to Lamb and the human errors which have contributed to the severity of that drought, which incidentally has been common in the Sahel going back centuries because of natural causes unrelated to carbon dioxide, we have:
And this, it seems, certainly introduced meteorological self-reinforcing mechanisms, which help to maintain the drought.
Through the greater reflection of the solar radiation by bare soil, the total energy absorbed in the ground and lower atmosphere is reduced and an anticyclonic tendency with dry air subsiding from aloft is introduced.
At the same time there would be even less moisture than before stored in any vegetation and available for recycling.
In these ways the whole region became more vulnerable than before to the next down-turn of the natural rainfall, which duly came from the mid-1960s onwards.
And now we learn that, because the later years have shown the meagre recovery of rainfall in the Sahel from its 1971–3 minimum seen in fig. 99 (p. 276) and because some meteorological advice takes the complacent view that the recent extreme stress was only a random short-term variation, resettlement of the displaced population and rehabilitation of their cattle stocks is under way.
end quotes
Now, notice that he points out the cyclic nature of those droughts in the Sahel, which means those cycles are well-known to anyone who would claim to be a “climate scientist,” to wit:
It has been found too that, when the northern hemisphere circumpolar vortex develops a sharp trough near the longitude of India, the southerly wind component in the region of the eastern part of the trough tends to bring the monsoon system quickly north in that region.
The northerly winds in the western part of the trough, and the surface northerlies near the axis of the trough, are equally capable of delaying the monsoon or producing breaks in the monsoon after it has already been established.
Thus the monsoon situation over India, and presumably in like manner over east Asia, may be critically affected by the exact longitude in which a trough in the upper westerlies develops.
In the last two decades it has been shown that the behaviour of the monsoon over west Africa is also related to that of the westerlies in middle latitudes over that sector of the northern hemisphere: in periods when blocking anticyclones or northerly winds over western and northern Europe (especially in winter and spring) divert a branch of the upper westerlies and much of the cyclonic activity south into the Mediterranean, the monsoon commonly fails to penetrate so far north as usual, or is late, over west Africa and elsewhere south of the Sahara.
In such years the zone across Africa from Senegal and the Sahel to Ethiopia is liable to be stricken by drought.
end quotes
And that has never been any kind of secret, nor is it rocket science, given that in high school, we learn about the earth’s climatic zones and where its deserts are located, such as the Sahel area, and why deserts are deserts instead of the Garden of Eden with lush growth everywhere, but that is not going to stop these so-called “climate scientists” from flipping the narrative and making the cause of the droughts “carbon pollution” in the air, which takes us back to Lamb, as follows:
The character of the same millennium farther south, in the Mediterranean, north Africa and far to the east into Asia, is most marked by the periods of drought, which seem to have had two maxima, around AD 300–400 and 800.
The Caspian Sea fell to low levels at these times.
end quotes
Now, people, while you personally may be unacquainted with this information, the point is that these are KNOWNS – this is not idle speculation as to what might have been in the fantasy world inside the head of some raving “climate scientist,” a dangerous breed, indeed – this is the actual history of the world we inherited as well as the world little Greta and her crowd of shriekers are going to inherit – and it is a world that does not make life easy for fools for reasons of its own not shared with the human occupants of the planet like little Greta Thunberg who is on a rampage because the earth won’t do tricks for her like a trained puppy!
Staying with that actual history a bit longer, we have:
In Italy, and perhaps elsewhere in the northern Mediterranean, the driest periods were evidently separated (cf. fig. 59) by intrusion of the wet, cold influence affecting northern and central Europe around AD 600 and again in the later 800s.
But over wide areas farther south and east the dryness seems to have persisted.
This was when Ephesus, Antioch and Palmyra decayed: there and in southern Italy and Greece people were migrating to the coasts and leaving a depopulated hinterland.
And in Arabia, places where agriculture had been carried on with the aid of elaborate irrigation works, which had survived earlier periods of desiccation, were abandoned around AD 600.
According to Rhys Carpenter, the seventh century AD was the climax of this.
The evidence suggests that most parts of the northern hemisphere south of about 35°N continued as warm as, or warmer than, before through these centuries.
The yearly floods of the Nile, supplied by the summer monsoon rains over Ethiopia, were low; but the winter flow of the river, which depends on the rains near the equator, was high, as was the level of Lake Rudolf in eastern equatorial Africa.
This probably means that the equatorial rains had a restricted seasonal migration north and south at that time.
They seem to have supplied more water to equatorial Africa, and therefore to the White Nile, than in the years of drought in the Sahel and Ethiopia in the 1970s: possibly the seasonal migration of the rain system was even more restricted in the centuries which we are considering here than it was during the 1970s.
end quotes
What truly amazes me is how ignorant these IPCC people like Ko Bartlett of NOAA must think we are of the actual history of the earth and how it functions that they try to slide this “carbon pollution” BULL**** theory by us, as if we wouldn’t be able to know the difference, and apparently, that includes a good-sized body of people who are totally ignorant and clueless about the world around them and how it functions, which is something that used to be taught in the fourth grade of grade school.
So, having studied a bit of actual history there, let’s go back to the Reuters article where the blame for the drought in the Sahel is placed, not on natural processes compounded by human arrogance and stupidity (“We’re here from America to save you and we are going to make the desert bloom like the Garden of Eden to bring prosperity to your land just like we have in America”), but on carbon dioxide, instead, to wit:
KATOWICE, Poland (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Climate change is driving much drier conditions in Africa’s Sahel belt, which has experienced a 50-percent hike in record dry months in recent decades, scientists said.
Lead author Jascha Lehmann told the Thomson Reuters Foundation the researchers had been “a little bit surprised by the very strong signal” on drying in Africa.
end quotes
Which raises the question of why those fools were surprised, given the long history of drought in the Sahel, as we see from this article from Aljazeera entitled “Analysis: Understanding the Sahel drought – Scientists say that the current drought in the Sahel began as far back the 1960s” by Steff Gaulter, a meteorologist, on 22 Jun 2012, to wit:
Between the vast Sahara Desert and the dense foliage of the African Rainforest is a band of semi-arid grassland.
Known as the Sahel, this hardy landscape is one of Africa’s most productive crop regions.
But the crops in the Sahel are grown close to their limits of tolerance, and rely on natural rainfall.
This means that even small changes to the amount of rain can have disastrous effects.
Unfortunately, this is a region which often suffers highly erratic rainfall.
Droughts in the Sahel don’t last a month or a year, they last for decades.
And these long droughts have occurred regularly over the past 12,000 years.
end quotes
So what is up with these dudes in the Reuters article who are blaming it on carbon dioxide?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204819
Paul Plante says :
And since we are on the subject now of the HARM that DO-GOODER idiots in programs like USAID do, when they go thousands of miles away from where they live, to meddle in the lives of others, as this IPCC crowd is hankering to do, or is already doing, let’s go back to the authority on the earth’s ever-changing climate, “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition by H.H. Lamb, to wit:
A partly similar mistake, or misjudgment (outside meddlers fixing people in other countries to land which cannot support them for political reasons), had been made in the Sahel (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, The Gambia, Guinea Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal) in the time of more abundant rains in the 1950s and early 1960s.
end quotes
So, for the record, today, there is now a “climate crisis” in the Sahel, or “climate chaos,” as the MEDIA HYSTERIA-MONGERERS like to term it for the shock value that term implies, so important to them in the never-ending ratings game where you can’t rest on past laurels, that as we clearly will see from a Reuters article entitled “Hike in record-dry months for Africa’s Sahel worries scientists” by Laurie Goering on December 13, 2018 is going to be blamed on carbon dioxide, not a major-league ****-up by these foreign AID, which is the beauty of carbon dioxide for these people who caused these problems by shifting blame to something that nobody can see like carbon dioxide, but first, let’s go back to H.H. Lamb, as follows to develop that actual story further, to wit:
International aid for the developing countries in the zone was used to drill deep wells in order to use (and ultimately use up) the great reserve of subterranean water — sometimes known as ‘fossil water’— which accumulated in different climatic regimes thousands of years ago.
end quotes
Now, notice the term “different climatic regimes,” which is what the earth actually has – not a one-size-fits-all “climate” as these raving lunatics gathered in Madrid to howl at the moon to make time stop and the earth’s climate stand still at exactly where they like it, not too warm, not too cold, but just right, want to have it with their cries to “beat back the threat of global warming” to “give our children the future that they deserve,” which raises the question, given what these DO-GOODER-AT-ANY-COST fools have done to the Sahel, of what kind of future are these meddling fools going to give them, to wit:
This introduced a kind of short-lived prosperity to the region with greatly increased cattle herds and growth of the human population (the latter thanks also to the beginnings of satisfactory health services).
The sparse vegetation was soon over-grazed, resulting in a spread of the desert.
end quotes
As we are going to see from the Reuters article, that is now being blamed on CO2, not human stupidity by outside meddlers who have grand ideas about spreading PROSPERITY to every single person in the world, no matter the cost, which they personally will likely never have to bear, just as was the case with USAID in Viet Nam during the Viet Nam war.
Getting back to Lamb and the human errors which have contributed to the severity of that drought, which incidentally has been common in the Sahel going back centuries because of natural causes unrelated to carbon dioxide, we have:
And this, it seems, certainly introduced meteorological self-reinforcing mechanisms, which help to maintain the drought.
Through the greater reflection of the solar radiation by bare soil, the total energy absorbed in the ground and lower atmosphere is reduced and an anticyclonic tendency with dry air subsiding from aloft is introduced.
At the same time there would be even less moisture than before stored in any vegetation and available for recycling.
In these ways the whole region became more vulnerable than before to the next down-turn of the natural rainfall, which duly came from the mid-1960s onwards.
And now we learn that, because the later years have shown the meagre recovery of rainfall in the Sahel from its 1971–3 minimum seen in fig. 99 (p. 276) and because some meteorological advice takes the complacent view that the recent extreme stress was only a random short-term variation, resettlement of the displaced population and rehabilitation of their cattle stocks is under way.
end quotes
Now, notice that he points out the cyclic nature of those droughts in the Sahel, which means those cycles are well-known to anyone who would claim to be a “climate scientist,” to wit:
It has been found too that, when the northern hemisphere circumpolar vortex develops a sharp trough near the longitude of India, the southerly wind component in the region of the eastern part of the trough tends to bring the monsoon system quickly north in that region.
The northerly winds in the western part of the trough, and the surface northerlies near the axis of the trough, are equally capable of delaying the monsoon or producing breaks in the monsoon after it has already been established.
Thus the monsoon situation over India, and presumably in like manner over east Asia, may be critically affected by the exact longitude in which a trough in the upper westerlies develops.
In the last two decades it has been shown that the behaviour of the monsoon over west Africa is also related to that of the westerlies in middle latitudes over that sector of the northern hemisphere: in periods when blocking anticyclones or northerly winds over western and northern Europe (especially in winter and spring) divert a branch of the upper westerlies and much of the cyclonic activity south into the Mediterranean, the monsoon commonly fails to penetrate so far north as usual, or is late, over west Africa and elsewhere south of the Sahara.
In such years the zone across Africa from Senegal and the Sahel to Ethiopia is liable to be stricken by drought.
end quotes
And that has never been any kind of secret, nor is it rocket science, given that in high school, we learn about the earth’s climatic zones and where its deserts are located, such as the Sahel area, and why deserts are deserts instead of the Garden of Eden with lush growth everywhere, but that is not going to stop these so-called “climate scientists” from flipping the narrative and making the cause of the droughts “carbon pollution” in the air, which takes us back to Lamb, as follows:
The character of the same millennium farther south, in the Mediterranean, north Africa and far to the east into Asia, is most marked by the periods of drought, which seem to have had two maxima, around AD 300–400 and 800.
The Caspian Sea fell to low levels at these times.
end quotes
Now, people, while you personally may be unacquainted with this information, the point is that these are KNOWNS – this is not idle speculation as to what might have been in the fantasy world inside the head of some raving “climate scientist,” a dangerous breed, indeed – this is the actual history of the world we inherited as well as the world little Greta and her crowd of shriekers are going to inherit – and it is a world that does not make life easy for fools for reasons of its own not shared with the human occupants of the planet like little Greta Thunberg who is on a rampage because the earth won’t do tricks for her like a trained puppy!
Staying with that actual history a bit longer, we have:
In Italy, and perhaps elsewhere in the northern Mediterranean, the driest periods were evidently separated (cf. fig. 59) by intrusion of the wet, cold influence affecting northern and central Europe around AD 600 and again in the later 800s.
But over wide areas farther south and east the dryness seems to have persisted.
This was when Ephesus, Antioch and Palmyra decayed: there and in southern Italy and Greece people were migrating to the coasts and leaving a depopulated hinterland.
And in Arabia, places where agriculture had been carried on with the aid of elaborate irrigation works, which had survived earlier periods of desiccation, were abandoned around AD 600.
According to Rhys Carpenter, the seventh century AD was the climax of this.
The evidence suggests that most parts of the northern hemisphere south of about 35°N continued as warm as, or warmer than, before through these centuries.
The yearly floods of the Nile, supplied by the summer monsoon rains over Ethiopia, were low; but the winter flow of the river, which depends on the rains near the equator, was high, as was the level of Lake Rudolf in eastern equatorial Africa.
This probably means that the equatorial rains had a restricted seasonal migration north and south at that time.
They seem to have supplied more water to equatorial Africa, and therefore to the White Nile, than in the years of drought in the Sahel and Ethiopia in the 1970s: possibly the seasonal migration of the rain system was even more restricted in the centuries which we are considering here than it was during the 1970s.
end quotes
What truly amazes me is how ignorant these IPCC people like Ko Bartlett of NOAA must think we are of the actual history of the earth and how it functions that they try to slide this “carbon pollution” BULL**** theory by us, as if we wouldn’t be able to know the difference, and apparently, that includes a good-sized body of people who are totally ignorant and clueless about the world around them and how it functions, which is something that used to be taught in the fourth grade of grade school.
So, having studied a bit of actual history there, let’s go back to the Reuters article where the blame for the drought in the Sahel is placed, not on natural processes compounded by human arrogance and stupidity (“We’re here from America to save you and we are going to make the desert bloom like the Garden of Eden to bring prosperity to your land just like we have in America”), but on carbon dioxide, instead, to wit:
KATOWICE, Poland (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Climate change is driving much drier conditions in Africa’s Sahel belt, which has experienced a 50-percent hike in record dry months in recent decades, scientists said.
Lead author Jascha Lehmann told the Thomson Reuters Foundation the researchers had been “a little bit surprised by the very strong signal” on drying in Africa.
end quotes
Which raises the question of why those fools were surprised, given the long history of drought in the Sahel, as we see from this article from Aljazeera entitled “Analysis: Understanding the Sahel drought – Scientists say that the current drought in the Sahel began as far back the 1960s” by Steff Gaulter, a meteorologist, on 22 Jun 2012, to wit:
Between the vast Sahara Desert and the dense foliage of the African Rainforest is a band of semi-arid grassland.
Known as the Sahel, this hardy landscape is one of Africa’s most productive crop regions.
But the crops in the Sahel are grown close to their limits of tolerance, and rely on natural rainfall.
This means that even small changes to the amount of rain can have disastrous effects.
Unfortunately, this is a region which often suffers highly erratic rainfall.
Droughts in the Sahel don’t last a month or a year, they last for decades.
And these long droughts have occurred regularly over the past 12,000 years.
end quotes
So what is up with these dudes in the Reuters article who are blaming it on carbon dioxide?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204819
Re: ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 7, 2019 at 11:15 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, while this UN “global climate crisis” crowd meeting in Madrid are screeching out of one side of their mouth about drought in the Sahel, which is historically an arid zone on the earth for natural reasons related to air flows around the earth, not carbon dioxide, and the end of the world coming, guess what is coming out of the other side, and this is directly related to the true agenda of this IPCC, which is transfer of money and technology to the third-world countries of the earth, we have this from the UN, to wit:
Welcome to the United Nations
“The Sahel: Land of Opportunities”
The overarching goal of the UN Support Plan for the Sahel is to scale up efforts to accelerate shared prosperity and lasting peace in the Sahel countries and the region at-large by implementing priorities to achieve the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the African Union Agenda 2063
end quotes
Shared prosperity in the Sahel, people, an arid area that receives very little rain because the arid and semi-arid regions of Africa (Sahara and Sahel) lie north of about 10°N, near the northern limit of the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ), also called the “climate equator” as it lies near the geographic equator, and divides the global air circulation patterns into two mirror images to the north and south.
The ITCZ is an area of low atmospheric pressure that forms where the Northeast Trade Winds meet the Southeast Trade Winds near (actually just north of) the earth’s equator.
As a direct result, the Sahara and Sahel receive one rainy season with very little precipitation, which has been the situation there since maybe 5000 years before Christ was born, and as Penn State University tells us in Lesson 7 of its on-line learning program about climate and the changing climates of the earth, entitled “Climates of Africa – Forming of the Sahara Desert,” to wit:
There was a time when the Sahara was immensely rainy, and now it is not.
We care because the development of Egyptian civilization and settlement in the Nile Delta was driven by this climate change.
We also care because this huge change in climate was not caused by human activity.
end quotes
Which is to say, people, it was not caused by carbon pollution as the House Democrats and NOAA and the IPCC climate crisis crowd would have us believe, to mislead us, which takes us back to the UN’s plan to make the Sahel prosperous, as if those fools who have made a fine mess of the world already with their ineptness and outright corruption had the power to do so, to wit:
The Sahel, the vast semi-arid region of Africa separating the Sahara Desert to the north and tropical savannas to the south, is as much a land of opportunities as it is of challenges.
Although it has abundant human and natural resources, offering tremendous potential for rapid growth, there are deep-rooted challenges — environmental, political and security — that may affect the prosperity and peace of the Sahel.
end quotes
Hey, dudes, really, no kidding – deep roots challenges to making the Sahel prosperous!
My goodness, who’d a thought it, which takes us back to that UN HOUSE OF CARDS, as follows:
For this reason, the United Nations has come up with a unique support plan targeting 10 countries to scale up efforts to accelerate prosperity and sustainable peace in the region.
Target countries:
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, The Gambia, Guinea Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal.
end quotes
To see what these UN fools are up against as they bring prosperity to Burkina Faso, for example, we have from the news as follows:
Dozens killed in ethnic violence in Burkina Faso – Reuters
https://www.reuters.com › article › us-burkina-security › dozens-killed-in-…
Jan 4, 2019 – OUAGADOUGOU (Reuters) – About 46 people were killed in ethnic clashes in central Burkina Faso this week, the government said on Friday.
Ethnic clashes kill 13 in Burkina Faso as security worsens …
https://www.reuters.com › article › ethnic-clashes-kill-13-in-burkina-faso-a…
Jan 2, 2019 – Thirteen civilians have been killed in ethnic violence in central Burkina Faso, the government said on Wednesday, echoing a rise in …
More Than 60 Dead in Burkina Faso Violence – The New York …
https://www.nytimes.com › 2019/04/03 › world › africa › burkina-faso-killed
Apr 3, 2019 – Burkina Faso and neighboring Mali have seen a spike in ethnic clashes fueled by Islamist militants as they seek to extend their influence over …
Local rivalry sparks deadly attack on Burkinabe village
https://www.france24.com › Return to homepage › Africa
Apr 2, 2019 – Eight people have died in eastern Burkina Faso in what a minister described as … Intercommunal violence in Burkina has made it harder for the …
Over 60 killed in Burkina Faso inter-community clashes
https://www.france24.com › Return to homepage › Africa
Apr 4, 2019 – Over 60 killed in Burkina Faso inter-community clashes … Burkina and neighbouring Mali have seen a spike in ethnic clashes fuelled by …
Countries of the Sahel
end quotes
As to Cameroon, the next on the list, we have:
Thousands Flee Violence in Cameroon’s English-Speaking …
https://www.voanews.com › africa › thousands-flee-violence-cameroons-e…
Aug 26, 2019 – Tens of thousands of people have deserted Cameroon’s conflict prone English-speaking regions after a bloody weekend. … The renewed fighting comes after a military tribunal ordered separatist leaders imprisoned for life. … Six hundred people wait at Amour Mezam, a bus terminal in …
end quotes
And this:
Is Cameroon dangerous?
Cameroon Crime Rates
Like many of its neighbours, crime is a serious problem throughout Cameroon. Having said that if you are sensible, i.e. don’t flash your cash around, avoid dangerous areas and be a bit inconspicuous you should have a trouble free stay. Sep 24, 2018
Crime, Politics & Poison in Cameroon → How to Stay Safe
https://www.worldnomads.com › travel-safety › africa › cameroon-crime-pol…
end quotes
And that list goes on and on for those other countries, as well, but you know what – the UN is going to end all of that by making everybody prosperous, so they will all be happy and feel good about themselves and all warm and squishy inside, which for the more emotionally-driven, is what it is all about – make them all rich and they will have nothing to fight about, even though the violence is actually ethnically-driven, or a function of religion, which takes us back to the UN as follows:
The support plan highlights the enormous opportunities in the Sahel and its vast assets in natural resources, energy, tourism and culture.
It is aimed at mobilizing public resources and triggering private investments in the 10 countries in support of ongoing efforts and initiatives by governments, international and regional organizations, and other partners.
It is built around the following six priority areas:
• Cross-border cooperation
• Prevention and sustaining peace
• Inclusive growth
• Climate action
• Renewable energy
• Women and youth empowerment
The plan will bring coherence, improve coordination and strengthen collaboration with all partners in the region.
National and regional institutions, bilateral and multilateral organizations, the private sector and civil society organizations will work towards operationalizing and implementing the Security Council resolutions on the Sahel.
Women, youth and job creation will cut across all priority areas and interventions, aiming at strengthening governance, improving security and building resilience, as well as promoting a more integrated approach to address the humanitarian-security-development nexus as a strategy to accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The Sahel is also endowed with enormous renewable energy potential; it has more solar energy production capacity than other regions of the world.
The Sahel is endowed with great potential for renewable energy and sits atop some of the largest aquifers on the continent.
Potentially one of the richest regions in the world with abundant human, cultural and natural resources.
The launch
The launch of the UN Support Plan for the Sahel will take place during a high-level-meeting on the Sahel on the margins of the 31st Summit of the Africa Union in Mauritania’s capital, Nouakchott.
The launch followed by the creation and deployment of the G5 Sahel Joint-Force and the United Nations Integrated Strategy (UNIS) for the Sahel could bring tangible progress.
So, countries in the region are encouraged to adopt, with support from international partners, the necessary measures to fully implement the support plan.
end quotes
And when they talk about “international partners,” people, they are talking about us.
More specifically they are talking about Nancy Pelosi and her pack of fawning Democrats who were just in Madrid to tell the UN crowd that the Democrats were going to bring the United States back into this insanity after Trump announced he was getting us out of it, which brings us full circle in this series of discussion on climate hosted by the Cape Charles Mirror to Chapter 5 of the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius October 8th 2018 transmitted to the House Democrats directly from the hand of little Greta Thunberg of Sweden who has more access to the Democrats in our House of Representatives than we American citizens do, to wit:
Social justice and equity are core aspects of climate-resilient development pathways for transformational social change.
Addressing challenges and widening opportunities between and within countries and communities would be necessary to achieve sustainable development and limit warming to 1.5°C, without making the poor and disadvantaged worse off (high confidence).
Identifying and navigating inclusive and socially acceptable pathways towards low-carbon, climate-resilient futures is a challenging yet important endeavour, fraught with moral, practical and political difficulties and inevitable trade-offs (very high confidence). {5.5.2, 5.5.3.3, Box 5.3}
It entails deliberation and problem-solving processes to negotiate societal values, well-being, risks and resilience and to determine what is desirable and fair, and to whom (medium evidence, high agreement).
The fundamental societal and systemic changes to achieve sustainable development, eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities while limiting warming to 1.5°C would require meeting a set of institutional, social, cultural, economic and technological conditions (high confidence).
Attention to power asymmetries and unequal opportunities for development, among and within countries, is key to adopting 1.5°C-compatible development pathways that benefit all populations (high confidence). {5.5.3, 5.6.4, Box 5.3}
Re-examining individual and collective values could help spur urgent, ambitious and cooperative change (medium evidence, high agreement). {5.5.3, 5.6.5}
end quotes
So, people, yes, coercion is required to bring peace and prosperity to the Sahel, and who has to be coerced to make that happen is us – that is what the statement about the fundamental societal and systemic changes to achieve sustainable development, eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities while limiting warming to 1.5°C would require meeting a set of institutional, social, cultural, economic and technological conditions.
If Nancy Pelosi is successful in bringing us back into the so-called Paris Agreement based on the hysteria-mongering of such public officials in this country as NOAA’s Ko Barrett, who is also an elected official of the IPCC, our national borders would disappear and we would end up being subsumed into this one world government that is the UN IPCC.
Should that be forced upon us without our consent by the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-205216
Paul Plante says :
So, while this UN “global climate crisis” crowd meeting in Madrid are screeching out of one side of their mouth about drought in the Sahel, which is historically an arid zone on the earth for natural reasons related to air flows around the earth, not carbon dioxide, and the end of the world coming, guess what is coming out of the other side, and this is directly related to the true agenda of this IPCC, which is transfer of money and technology to the third-world countries of the earth, we have this from the UN, to wit:
Welcome to the United Nations
“The Sahel: Land of Opportunities”
The overarching goal of the UN Support Plan for the Sahel is to scale up efforts to accelerate shared prosperity and lasting peace in the Sahel countries and the region at-large by implementing priorities to achieve the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the African Union Agenda 2063
end quotes
Shared prosperity in the Sahel, people, an arid area that receives very little rain because the arid and semi-arid regions of Africa (Sahara and Sahel) lie north of about 10°N, near the northern limit of the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ), also called the “climate equator” as it lies near the geographic equator, and divides the global air circulation patterns into two mirror images to the north and south.
The ITCZ is an area of low atmospheric pressure that forms where the Northeast Trade Winds meet the Southeast Trade Winds near (actually just north of) the earth’s equator.
As a direct result, the Sahara and Sahel receive one rainy season with very little precipitation, which has been the situation there since maybe 5000 years before Christ was born, and as Penn State University tells us in Lesson 7 of its on-line learning program about climate and the changing climates of the earth, entitled “Climates of Africa – Forming of the Sahara Desert,” to wit:
There was a time when the Sahara was immensely rainy, and now it is not.
We care because the development of Egyptian civilization and settlement in the Nile Delta was driven by this climate change.
We also care because this huge change in climate was not caused by human activity.
end quotes
Which is to say, people, it was not caused by carbon pollution as the House Democrats and NOAA and the IPCC climate crisis crowd would have us believe, to mislead us, which takes us back to the UN’s plan to make the Sahel prosperous, as if those fools who have made a fine mess of the world already with their ineptness and outright corruption had the power to do so, to wit:
The Sahel, the vast semi-arid region of Africa separating the Sahara Desert to the north and tropical savannas to the south, is as much a land of opportunities as it is of challenges.
Although it has abundant human and natural resources, offering tremendous potential for rapid growth, there are deep-rooted challenges — environmental, political and security — that may affect the prosperity and peace of the Sahel.
end quotes
Hey, dudes, really, no kidding – deep roots challenges to making the Sahel prosperous!
My goodness, who’d a thought it, which takes us back to that UN HOUSE OF CARDS, as follows:
For this reason, the United Nations has come up with a unique support plan targeting 10 countries to scale up efforts to accelerate prosperity and sustainable peace in the region.
Target countries:
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, The Gambia, Guinea Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal.
end quotes
To see what these UN fools are up against as they bring prosperity to Burkina Faso, for example, we have from the news as follows:
Dozens killed in ethnic violence in Burkina Faso – Reuters
https://www.reuters.com › article › us-burkina-security › dozens-killed-in-…
Jan 4, 2019 – OUAGADOUGOU (Reuters) – About 46 people were killed in ethnic clashes in central Burkina Faso this week, the government said on Friday.
Ethnic clashes kill 13 in Burkina Faso as security worsens …
https://www.reuters.com › article › ethnic-clashes-kill-13-in-burkina-faso-a…
Jan 2, 2019 – Thirteen civilians have been killed in ethnic violence in central Burkina Faso, the government said on Wednesday, echoing a rise in …
More Than 60 Dead in Burkina Faso Violence – The New York …
https://www.nytimes.com › 2019/04/03 › world › africa › burkina-faso-killed
Apr 3, 2019 – Burkina Faso and neighboring Mali have seen a spike in ethnic clashes fueled by Islamist militants as they seek to extend their influence over …
Local rivalry sparks deadly attack on Burkinabe village
https://www.france24.com › Return to homepage › Africa
Apr 2, 2019 – Eight people have died in eastern Burkina Faso in what a minister described as … Intercommunal violence in Burkina has made it harder for the …
Over 60 killed in Burkina Faso inter-community clashes
https://www.france24.com › Return to homepage › Africa
Apr 4, 2019 – Over 60 killed in Burkina Faso inter-community clashes … Burkina and neighbouring Mali have seen a spike in ethnic clashes fuelled by …
Countries of the Sahel
end quotes
As to Cameroon, the next on the list, we have:
Thousands Flee Violence in Cameroon’s English-Speaking …
https://www.voanews.com › africa › thousands-flee-violence-cameroons-e…
Aug 26, 2019 – Tens of thousands of people have deserted Cameroon’s conflict prone English-speaking regions after a bloody weekend. … The renewed fighting comes after a military tribunal ordered separatist leaders imprisoned for life. … Six hundred people wait at Amour Mezam, a bus terminal in …
end quotes
And this:
Is Cameroon dangerous?
Cameroon Crime Rates
Like many of its neighbours, crime is a serious problem throughout Cameroon. Having said that if you are sensible, i.e. don’t flash your cash around, avoid dangerous areas and be a bit inconspicuous you should have a trouble free stay. Sep 24, 2018
Crime, Politics & Poison in Cameroon → How to Stay Safe
https://www.worldnomads.com › travel-safety › africa › cameroon-crime-pol…
end quotes
And that list goes on and on for those other countries, as well, but you know what – the UN is going to end all of that by making everybody prosperous, so they will all be happy and feel good about themselves and all warm and squishy inside, which for the more emotionally-driven, is what it is all about – make them all rich and they will have nothing to fight about, even though the violence is actually ethnically-driven, or a function of religion, which takes us back to the UN as follows:
The support plan highlights the enormous opportunities in the Sahel and its vast assets in natural resources, energy, tourism and culture.
It is aimed at mobilizing public resources and triggering private investments in the 10 countries in support of ongoing efforts and initiatives by governments, international and regional organizations, and other partners.
It is built around the following six priority areas:
• Cross-border cooperation
• Prevention and sustaining peace
• Inclusive growth
• Climate action
• Renewable energy
• Women and youth empowerment
The plan will bring coherence, improve coordination and strengthen collaboration with all partners in the region.
National and regional institutions, bilateral and multilateral organizations, the private sector and civil society organizations will work towards operationalizing and implementing the Security Council resolutions on the Sahel.
Women, youth and job creation will cut across all priority areas and interventions, aiming at strengthening governance, improving security and building resilience, as well as promoting a more integrated approach to address the humanitarian-security-development nexus as a strategy to accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The Sahel is also endowed with enormous renewable energy potential; it has more solar energy production capacity than other regions of the world.
The Sahel is endowed with great potential for renewable energy and sits atop some of the largest aquifers on the continent.
Potentially one of the richest regions in the world with abundant human, cultural and natural resources.
The launch
The launch of the UN Support Plan for the Sahel will take place during a high-level-meeting on the Sahel on the margins of the 31st Summit of the Africa Union in Mauritania’s capital, Nouakchott.
The launch followed by the creation and deployment of the G5 Sahel Joint-Force and the United Nations Integrated Strategy (UNIS) for the Sahel could bring tangible progress.
So, countries in the region are encouraged to adopt, with support from international partners, the necessary measures to fully implement the support plan.
end quotes
And when they talk about “international partners,” people, they are talking about us.
More specifically they are talking about Nancy Pelosi and her pack of fawning Democrats who were just in Madrid to tell the UN crowd that the Democrats were going to bring the United States back into this insanity after Trump announced he was getting us out of it, which brings us full circle in this series of discussion on climate hosted by the Cape Charles Mirror to Chapter 5 of the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius October 8th 2018 transmitted to the House Democrats directly from the hand of little Greta Thunberg of Sweden who has more access to the Democrats in our House of Representatives than we American citizens do, to wit:
Social justice and equity are core aspects of climate-resilient development pathways for transformational social change.
Addressing challenges and widening opportunities between and within countries and communities would be necessary to achieve sustainable development and limit warming to 1.5°C, without making the poor and disadvantaged worse off (high confidence).
Identifying and navigating inclusive and socially acceptable pathways towards low-carbon, climate-resilient futures is a challenging yet important endeavour, fraught with moral, practical and political difficulties and inevitable trade-offs (very high confidence). {5.5.2, 5.5.3.3, Box 5.3}
It entails deliberation and problem-solving processes to negotiate societal values, well-being, risks and resilience and to determine what is desirable and fair, and to whom (medium evidence, high agreement).
The fundamental societal and systemic changes to achieve sustainable development, eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities while limiting warming to 1.5°C would require meeting a set of institutional, social, cultural, economic and technological conditions (high confidence).
Attention to power asymmetries and unequal opportunities for development, among and within countries, is key to adopting 1.5°C-compatible development pathways that benefit all populations (high confidence). {5.5.3, 5.6.4, Box 5.3}
Re-examining individual and collective values could help spur urgent, ambitious and cooperative change (medium evidence, high agreement). {5.5.3, 5.6.5}
end quotes
So, people, yes, coercion is required to bring peace and prosperity to the Sahel, and who has to be coerced to make that happen is us – that is what the statement about the fundamental societal and systemic changes to achieve sustainable development, eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities while limiting warming to 1.5°C would require meeting a set of institutional, social, cultural, economic and technological conditions.
If Nancy Pelosi is successful in bringing us back into the so-called Paris Agreement based on the hysteria-mongering of such public officials in this country as NOAA’s Ko Barrett, who is also an elected official of the IPCC, our national borders would disappear and we would end up being subsumed into this one world government that is the UN IPCC.
Should that be forced upon us without our consent by the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-205216
Re: ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 14, 2019 at 7:24 pm
Paul Plante says:
And here, while there is a break in the action elsewhere as Nancy Pelosi and her pack of Democrats get ready to impeach Trump, the elected president, on criminal charges of violating United States Criminal Code 18 U.S.C. § 1505 having found him guilty of corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influencing, obstructing, or impeding or endeavoring to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law of the Democrats under which any pending proceeding by the Democrats is being had, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry by the Democrats under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by the Democrats in the House of Representatives, let us go back to the subject once more of “contrived science,” where again the word “contrived” is taken to mean “having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, as in a contrived plot,” such as the AP NEWS article entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, which screamed out at us that the IPCC, which is a political lash-up prostituting science to create HYSTERIA in the public at large to make them “tractable” and therefore, easy to manipulate with falsehoods, warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems, and focus in on a phrase the IPCC uses to scare us with, that being “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” which is yet more bull****, especially that word “anthropogenic,” a totally-contrived political term, as we can clearly see by going to an article in the Brit publication The Guardian entitled “The Anthropocene epoch: have we entered a new phase of planetary history? – Human activity has transformed the Earth – but scientists are divided about whether this is really a turning point in geological history” by Nicola Davison on 10 Jun 2019, to wit:
It was February 2000 and the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen was sitting in a meeting room in Cuernavaca, Mexico, stewing quietly.
Five years earlier, Crutzen and two colleagues had been awarded the Nobel prize in chemistry for proving that the ozone layer, which shields the planet from ultraviolet light, was thinning at the poles because of rising concentrations of industrial gas.
Now he was attending a meeting of scientists who studied the planet’s oceans, land surfaces and atmosphere.
As the scientists presented their findings, most of which described dramatic planetary changes, Crutzen shifted in his seat.
“You could see he was getting agitated.”
“He wasn’t happy,” Will Steffen, a chemist who organised the meeting, told me recently.
What finally tipped Crutzen over the edge was a presentation by a group of scientists that focused on the Holocene, the geological epoch that began around 11,700 years ago and continues to the present day.
After Crutzen heard the word Holocene for the umpteenth time, he lost it.
“He stopped everybody and said: ‘Stop saying the Holocene!'”
“‘We’re not in the Holocene any more,’” Steffen recalled.
end quotes
Now, speaking as an engineer, here, which is a totally different breed of cat from a “scientist,” such as this Crutzen dude who heard the word Holocene for the umpteenth time and flipped out and lost it, yelling at the people around him to “Stop saying the Holocene,” I would say the dude sounds like a dangerous lunatic who might be better off being institutionalized somewhere safe, but at the same time, and this is based on experience with the trade, there is absolutely nothing which prevents a dangerous lunatic from being a scientist, so there it is, which takes us back to The Guardian, as follows:
But then Crutzen stalled.
The outburst had not been premeditated, but now all eyes were on him.
So he blurted out a name for a new epoch.
A combination of anthropos, the Greek for “human”, and “-cene”, the suffix used in names of geological epochs, “Anthropocene” at least sounded academic.
end quotes
So the term the IPCC uses is an un-scientific, political term pulled from straight out of the *** of someone who might well be unhinged, but that does serve as any kind of bar to the IPCC using the bull**** term to scare people with, since that is how the IPCC needs people – frightened out of their wits and unable to see the SCAM going on here, which is a big money transfer scheme in the guise of “fighting global warming,” which takes us back to The Guardian for more of that story, as follows:
A few months after the meeting, Crutzen and an American biologist, Eugene Stoermer, expanded on the idea in an article on the “Anthropocene”.
We were entering an entirely new phase of planetary history, they argued, in which human beings had become the driving force.
And without a major catastrophe, such as an asteroid impact or nuclear war, humankind would remain a major geological force for many millennia.
end quotes
Now, keep in mind that those assertions aren’t based on any “science,” or “scientific findings;” to the contrary, they are based solely on the emotional “feelings” of someone who may well not be all there, which takes us again back to The Guardian:
The article appeared on page 17 of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme’s newsletter.
At this point it did not seem likely the term would ever travel beyond the abstruse literature produced by institutions preoccupied with things like the nitrogen cycle.
But the concept took flight.
Environmental scientists latched on to what they saw as a useful catch-all term for the changes to the natural world – retreating sea ice, accelerating species extinction, bleached coral reefs – that they were already attributing to human activity.
Academic articles began to appear with “Anthropocene” in the title, followed by entire journals dedicated to the topic.
Soon the idea jumped to the humanities, then newspapers and magazines, and then to the arts, becoming a subject of photography, poetry, opera and a song by Nick Cave.
“The proliferation of this concept can mainly be traced back to the fact that, under the guise of scientific neutrality, it conveys a message of almost unparalleled moral-political urgency,” wrote the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk.
end quotes
And seriously, people, if you were pulling off the SCAM OF THE CENTURY, which is what this IPCC global climate crisis crowd is doing, and you needed people petrified with fear and unable to think straight while you are fleecing them, why would you go for less than a message of almost unparalleled moral-political urgency?
Getting back to the genesis of this horse**** term “anhropogenic,” The Guardian continues as follows:
There was just one place where the Anthropocene seemed not to be catching on: among the geologists who actually define these terms.
To many geologists, accustomed to working with rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old, the notion that a species that has been around for the blink of an eye was now a genuine geological force seemed absurd.
Few would deny we are in a period of climatic turmoil, but many feel that, compared with some of the truly apocalyptic events of the deep past – such as the period, 252m years ago, when temperatures rose 10C and 96% of marine species died – the change so far has not been especially severe.
end quotes
As I have said elsewhere, compared to the climatic “hands” the earth has dealt people at various times in its long, history (humans have in fact been on earth since before 2000 when millennials think the world was created just for them), we really have it being fairly benign, but hey, that is just me.
Getting back to the genesis of the political term “anthropogenic”:
At a meeting of the Geological Society of London, in 2006, a stratigrapher named Jan Zalasiewicz argued that it was time to look at the concept seriously.
With a mounting sense of apprehension, Zalasiewicz agreed to take on the task.
He knew the undertaking would not only be difficult but divisive, risking the ire of colleagues who felt that all the chatter around the Anthropocene had more to do with politics and media hype than actual science.
“All the things the Anthropocene implies that are beyond geology, particularly the social-political stuff, is new terrain for many geologists,” Zalasiewicz told me.
“To have this word used by climate commissions and environmental organisations is unfamiliar and may feel dangerous.”
end quotes
And the use of the term has everything to do with politics and media hype, and absolutely nothing whatever to do with science, and yes, it is indeed quite dangerous for these politicians on this IPCC to be turning people’s heads inside out with contrived pseudo-science to scare them and render them unable to think or question, which are basic citizenship requirements for any democracy to be able to function properly as opposed to being a despotism or tyranny, which this IPCC will be if only it can trick and fool us American citizens to come on board and surrender our collective futures to them to manage, which is the “social-political stuff” that the IPCC really is all about – redistribution of wealth, by them, which takes us back to The Guardian, once again, for more, as follows:
One of the loudest critics of the Anthropocene is Stanley Finney, who as the secretary-general of the IUGS, the body that ratifies changes to the timescale, is perhaps the most powerful stratigrapher in the world.
When Finney first came across the term “Anthropocene”, in a paper written by Zalasiewicz in 2008, he thought little of it.
As the Anthropocene working group gained momentum, he grew concerned that the ICS was being pressured into issuing a statement that at its heart had little to do with advancing stratigraphy, and more to do with politics.
end quotes
It has everything to do with politics, which is driving this train, and nothing to do with “science,” at all, to wit:
Academics both inside and outside geology have noted the Anthropocene’s political implications.
In “After Nature,” the law professor Jedediah Purdy writes that using the term “Anthropocene” to describe a wide array of human-caused geological and ecological change is “an effort to meld them into a single situation, gathered under a single name”.
To Purdy, the Anthropocene is an attempt to do what the concept of “the environment” did in the 1960s and 70s.
It is pragmatic, a way to name the problem – and thus begin the process of solving it.
Yet if a term becomes too broad, its meaning can become unhelpfully vague.
“There is an impulse to want to put things in capital letters, in formal definitions, just to make them look like they’re nicely organised so you can put them on a shelf and they’ll behave,” said Bill Ruddiman, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia.
A seasoned geologist, Ruddiman has written papers arguing against the stratigraphic definition of the Anthropocene on the grounds that any single start-date would be meaningless since humans have been gradually shaping the planet for at least 50,000 years.
“What the working group is trying to say is everything pre-1950 is pre-Anthropocene, and that’s just absurd,” he told me.
end quotes
And I believe that absurd is a very accurate scientific term for this CHARADE going on here, which takes us back to the narrative, to wit:
Ruddiman’s arguments have found wide support, even from a handful of members of the working group.
Then, in late April, the group decided to hold a vote that would settle, once and for all, the matter of the start-date.
Working group members had one month to cast their votes; a supermajority of at least 60% would be needed for the vote to be binding.
The results, announced on 21 May, were unequivocal.
Twenty-nine members of the group, representing 88%, voted for the start of the Anthropocene to be in the mid-20th century.
end quotes
And that is how the term “anthropogenic” as used by the IPCC, the Democrats in this country and Greta Thunberg, came into existence, people – it was pulled straight from the *** of one scientist who might not have been mentally stable, and made mainstream by the HYSTERIA-MONGERING media!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-207492
Paul Plante says:
And here, while there is a break in the action elsewhere as Nancy Pelosi and her pack of Democrats get ready to impeach Trump, the elected president, on criminal charges of violating United States Criminal Code 18 U.S.C. § 1505 having found him guilty of corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influencing, obstructing, or impeding or endeavoring to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law of the Democrats under which any pending proceeding by the Democrats is being had, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry by the Democrats under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by the Democrats in the House of Representatives, let us go back to the subject once more of “contrived science,” where again the word “contrived” is taken to mean “having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, as in a contrived plot,” such as the AP NEWS article entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, which screamed out at us that the IPCC, which is a political lash-up prostituting science to create HYSTERIA in the public at large to make them “tractable” and therefore, easy to manipulate with falsehoods, warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems, and focus in on a phrase the IPCC uses to scare us with, that being “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” which is yet more bull****, especially that word “anthropogenic,” a totally-contrived political term, as we can clearly see by going to an article in the Brit publication The Guardian entitled “The Anthropocene epoch: have we entered a new phase of planetary history? – Human activity has transformed the Earth – but scientists are divided about whether this is really a turning point in geological history” by Nicola Davison on 10 Jun 2019, to wit:
It was February 2000 and the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen was sitting in a meeting room in Cuernavaca, Mexico, stewing quietly.
Five years earlier, Crutzen and two colleagues had been awarded the Nobel prize in chemistry for proving that the ozone layer, which shields the planet from ultraviolet light, was thinning at the poles because of rising concentrations of industrial gas.
Now he was attending a meeting of scientists who studied the planet’s oceans, land surfaces and atmosphere.
As the scientists presented their findings, most of which described dramatic planetary changes, Crutzen shifted in his seat.
“You could see he was getting agitated.”
“He wasn’t happy,” Will Steffen, a chemist who organised the meeting, told me recently.
What finally tipped Crutzen over the edge was a presentation by a group of scientists that focused on the Holocene, the geological epoch that began around 11,700 years ago and continues to the present day.
After Crutzen heard the word Holocene for the umpteenth time, he lost it.
“He stopped everybody and said: ‘Stop saying the Holocene!'”
“‘We’re not in the Holocene any more,’” Steffen recalled.
end quotes
Now, speaking as an engineer, here, which is a totally different breed of cat from a “scientist,” such as this Crutzen dude who heard the word Holocene for the umpteenth time and flipped out and lost it, yelling at the people around him to “Stop saying the Holocene,” I would say the dude sounds like a dangerous lunatic who might be better off being institutionalized somewhere safe, but at the same time, and this is based on experience with the trade, there is absolutely nothing which prevents a dangerous lunatic from being a scientist, so there it is, which takes us back to The Guardian, as follows:
But then Crutzen stalled.
The outburst had not been premeditated, but now all eyes were on him.
So he blurted out a name for a new epoch.
A combination of anthropos, the Greek for “human”, and “-cene”, the suffix used in names of geological epochs, “Anthropocene” at least sounded academic.
end quotes
So the term the IPCC uses is an un-scientific, political term pulled from straight out of the *** of someone who might well be unhinged, but that does serve as any kind of bar to the IPCC using the bull**** term to scare people with, since that is how the IPCC needs people – frightened out of their wits and unable to see the SCAM going on here, which is a big money transfer scheme in the guise of “fighting global warming,” which takes us back to The Guardian for more of that story, as follows:
A few months after the meeting, Crutzen and an American biologist, Eugene Stoermer, expanded on the idea in an article on the “Anthropocene”.
We were entering an entirely new phase of planetary history, they argued, in which human beings had become the driving force.
And without a major catastrophe, such as an asteroid impact or nuclear war, humankind would remain a major geological force for many millennia.
end quotes
Now, keep in mind that those assertions aren’t based on any “science,” or “scientific findings;” to the contrary, they are based solely on the emotional “feelings” of someone who may well not be all there, which takes us again back to The Guardian:
The article appeared on page 17 of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme’s newsletter.
At this point it did not seem likely the term would ever travel beyond the abstruse literature produced by institutions preoccupied with things like the nitrogen cycle.
But the concept took flight.
Environmental scientists latched on to what they saw as a useful catch-all term for the changes to the natural world – retreating sea ice, accelerating species extinction, bleached coral reefs – that they were already attributing to human activity.
Academic articles began to appear with “Anthropocene” in the title, followed by entire journals dedicated to the topic.
Soon the idea jumped to the humanities, then newspapers and magazines, and then to the arts, becoming a subject of photography, poetry, opera and a song by Nick Cave.
“The proliferation of this concept can mainly be traced back to the fact that, under the guise of scientific neutrality, it conveys a message of almost unparalleled moral-political urgency,” wrote the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk.
end quotes
And seriously, people, if you were pulling off the SCAM OF THE CENTURY, which is what this IPCC global climate crisis crowd is doing, and you needed people petrified with fear and unable to think straight while you are fleecing them, why would you go for less than a message of almost unparalleled moral-political urgency?
Getting back to the genesis of this horse**** term “anhropogenic,” The Guardian continues as follows:
There was just one place where the Anthropocene seemed not to be catching on: among the geologists who actually define these terms.
To many geologists, accustomed to working with rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old, the notion that a species that has been around for the blink of an eye was now a genuine geological force seemed absurd.
Few would deny we are in a period of climatic turmoil, but many feel that, compared with some of the truly apocalyptic events of the deep past – such as the period, 252m years ago, when temperatures rose 10C and 96% of marine species died – the change so far has not been especially severe.
end quotes
As I have said elsewhere, compared to the climatic “hands” the earth has dealt people at various times in its long, history (humans have in fact been on earth since before 2000 when millennials think the world was created just for them), we really have it being fairly benign, but hey, that is just me.
Getting back to the genesis of the political term “anthropogenic”:
At a meeting of the Geological Society of London, in 2006, a stratigrapher named Jan Zalasiewicz argued that it was time to look at the concept seriously.
With a mounting sense of apprehension, Zalasiewicz agreed to take on the task.
He knew the undertaking would not only be difficult but divisive, risking the ire of colleagues who felt that all the chatter around the Anthropocene had more to do with politics and media hype than actual science.
“All the things the Anthropocene implies that are beyond geology, particularly the social-political stuff, is new terrain for many geologists,” Zalasiewicz told me.
“To have this word used by climate commissions and environmental organisations is unfamiliar and may feel dangerous.”
end quotes
And the use of the term has everything to do with politics and media hype, and absolutely nothing whatever to do with science, and yes, it is indeed quite dangerous for these politicians on this IPCC to be turning people’s heads inside out with contrived pseudo-science to scare them and render them unable to think or question, which are basic citizenship requirements for any democracy to be able to function properly as opposed to being a despotism or tyranny, which this IPCC will be if only it can trick and fool us American citizens to come on board and surrender our collective futures to them to manage, which is the “social-political stuff” that the IPCC really is all about – redistribution of wealth, by them, which takes us back to The Guardian, once again, for more, as follows:
One of the loudest critics of the Anthropocene is Stanley Finney, who as the secretary-general of the IUGS, the body that ratifies changes to the timescale, is perhaps the most powerful stratigrapher in the world.
When Finney first came across the term “Anthropocene”, in a paper written by Zalasiewicz in 2008, he thought little of it.
As the Anthropocene working group gained momentum, he grew concerned that the ICS was being pressured into issuing a statement that at its heart had little to do with advancing stratigraphy, and more to do with politics.
end quotes
It has everything to do with politics, which is driving this train, and nothing to do with “science,” at all, to wit:
Academics both inside and outside geology have noted the Anthropocene’s political implications.
In “After Nature,” the law professor Jedediah Purdy writes that using the term “Anthropocene” to describe a wide array of human-caused geological and ecological change is “an effort to meld them into a single situation, gathered under a single name”.
To Purdy, the Anthropocene is an attempt to do what the concept of “the environment” did in the 1960s and 70s.
It is pragmatic, a way to name the problem – and thus begin the process of solving it.
Yet if a term becomes too broad, its meaning can become unhelpfully vague.
“There is an impulse to want to put things in capital letters, in formal definitions, just to make them look like they’re nicely organised so you can put them on a shelf and they’ll behave,” said Bill Ruddiman, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia.
A seasoned geologist, Ruddiman has written papers arguing against the stratigraphic definition of the Anthropocene on the grounds that any single start-date would be meaningless since humans have been gradually shaping the planet for at least 50,000 years.
“What the working group is trying to say is everything pre-1950 is pre-Anthropocene, and that’s just absurd,” he told me.
end quotes
And I believe that absurd is a very accurate scientific term for this CHARADE going on here, which takes us back to the narrative, to wit:
Ruddiman’s arguments have found wide support, even from a handful of members of the working group.
Then, in late April, the group decided to hold a vote that would settle, once and for all, the matter of the start-date.
Working group members had one month to cast their votes; a supermajority of at least 60% would be needed for the vote to be binding.
The results, announced on 21 May, were unequivocal.
Twenty-nine members of the group, representing 88%, voted for the start of the Anthropocene to be in the mid-20th century.
end quotes
And that is how the term “anthropogenic” as used by the IPCC, the Democrats in this country and Greta Thunberg, came into existence, people – it was pulled straight from the *** of one scientist who might not have been mentally stable, and made mainstream by the HYSTERIA-MONGERING media!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-207492