Alarmist Scientists Are Trying To Hide The Good News That The Planet Is Getting Greener

The discovery was first announced in 2012 in a lecture by Professor Ryanga Myneni of the University of Boston.

Rising CO2 levels are causing the planet to get greener, Myneni revealed. In the last 30 years, he estimated, the planet’s greenery has increased by 14 per cent. About half of this, he calculated, was a direct result of increased carbon dioxide levels, rather than of other factors like warmth, irrigation or fertilisers. And the area covered is vast:  as Myneni’s co-author Zaichun Zhu, of Beijing University, puts it, it’s equivalent to adding a green continent twice the size of mainland USA.

 

AAA1-1024x773

What’s more, Myneni showed, this greening is taking place across the board, in all manner of vegetation: tropical rain forests, subarctic taiga, grasslands, semi-deserts, farmland, the lot.

Ridley-lec1-1024x758

We have reported on this greening before at Breitbart here and here – and, of course, it’s very good news. But it hasn’t been widely circulated in much of the media for reasons which will soon become clear.

The first person to break the good news was science author and journalist Matt Ridley, who wrote it up in the Wall Street Journal in a piece titled How Fossil Fuels Have Greened The Planet.

He began:

Did you know that the Earth is getting greener, quite literally? Satellites are now confirming that the amount of green vegetation on the planet has been increasing for three decades. This will be news to those accustomed to alarming tales about deforestation, overdevelopment and ecosystem destruction.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the notion that CO2 could be beneficial was not something the greenies wanted to hear. And that included the co-author of the study Ryanga Myneni, who did everything he could to discredit Ridley’s (entirely accurate) account of his study.

Read the rest at Brietbart.

U.S. College Professors Tell Students: ‘Climate Skeptics Verboten!’

According to an email provided to Kate Hardiman of The College Fix by a student on the course:

The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course.

Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course.

… If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.

Nor, reports Hardiman, does the alarmist zealotry end there…

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Shock Survey: Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Doing Just Fine

According to local newspaper The Courier-Mail [paywalled]

Teams of divers in a joint two-week expedition sponsored by Mike Ball Dive and Spirit of Freedom surveyed 28 sites on 24 outer shelf reefs along a 300km section of the hardest-hit part of the reef from Bathurst Head to Raine Island.

Spirit of Freedom owner Chris Eade said reports of 93 per cent bleaching on the 2300km long Great Barrier Reef had made global headlines and damaged the reputation of the $5 billion reef tourism industry.

“Scientists had written off that entire northern section as a complete white-out,’’ Mr Eade said.

“We expected the worst. But it is tremendous condition, most of it is pristine, the rest is in full recovery.

“It shows the resilience of the reef.’’

Mike Ball Dive Expeditions operations manager Craig Stephen, who conducted a similar survey on the remote reefs 20 years ago, said there had been almost no change in two decades despite the latest coral bleaching event.

“It wasn’t until we got underwater that we could get a true picture of what percentage of reef was bleached,’’ Mr Stephen said.

“The discrepancy is phenomenal. It is so wrong. Everywhere we have been we have found healthy reefs.

“There has been a great disservice to the Great Barrier Reef and tourism and it has not been good for our industry.”

All right, so it’s local dive operators saying this stuff and, of course, they have a vested interested in keeping the tourist industry alive.

But if we’re talking vested interests, what about all the marine biologists and environmental activists whose funding is dependent on promoting catastrophism and junk-scientific environmental scares like “ocean acidification”?

According to one scaremongering report earlier this year only 7 percent of the reef remains undamaged by “coral bleaching” – one of the dire consequences, we’re repeatedly informed by experts, of global warming.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Prof Brian Cox: Gorgeous Lips; Lovely Smile; Crap Scientist

If you believe his Wikipedia entry, indeed, he is the natural successor to the BBC’s most treasured grand dame, the whispery-voiced gorilla-hugging Malthusian Sir David Attenborough.

Whatever, in terms of UK science TV and radio programme, Cox is undoubtedly a big deal: like a better-looking, better qualified version of America’s Bill Nye the Science Guy.

So even if – as I do – you think he’s a bit irritating, it does really matter what he says about scientific issues because he has a wide, loyal audience who not only worship him as if he were a member One Direction but who revere him as a serious intellect with his proper actual doctorate in high energy particle physics and his associations with the CERN project in Geneva.

That’s why it’s important we take a look at his recent appearance on Q & A – Australia’s answer to Question Time – and examine how well he comported himself when speaking out on science’s most fraught, contested and expensive issue: climate change.

You can watch the video by following the Q & A link above or here at Watts Up With That? Here are my thoughts:

This was a classic progressive Establishment stitch up

Australia’s ABC is so nakedly biased it makes the BBC look like Fox News. Presenter Tony Jones doesn’t even pretend to be neutral, as he showed in his handling of a question on climate change, which had clearly been set up in advance in order to make a fool of the only climate sceptic on the panel – Federal Senator Malcolm Roberts. We know it was a set up because Brian Cox had come armed with a sheaf of relevant papers – graphs and data – which he could pull out with a flourish at the appropriate moment to create a “gotcha!” scenario for Roberts. Roberts clearly hadn’t been expecting this underhand trick (I’ll explain why it is underhand in a moment) but recovered well and did about as well as you could possibly do in a situation where the presenter, all four of fellow panelists and the entire audience have drunk the Kool-Aid. (Memo to all the smartarses in the comments section of Watts Up With That who think you could have done better: no actually you couldn’t – try doing live TV sometime instead of bloviating from the comfort of your armchairs)

Richard Feynman was a real scientist. Brian Cox isn’t.

As Eric Worrall has rightly noted, this was Roberts’s most telling point. Cox began his spiel with the usual weary arrogance we have come to expect of the climate establishment: the tired old line that the vast majority of the world’s top scientists all agree etc. To which Roberts replied: “I’m absolutely stunned that someone [Brian Cox] who is inspired by Richard Feynman, a fantastic scientist who believes in empirical evidence, is quoting Consensus.” Well, indeed. Cox’s entire case rested on his lazy and unscientific assumption that the case for man-made global warming is proven and that even to question it puts you on the maverick fringe. As Feyman could have told Cox, this is a quintessentially unscientific position: “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”

Brian Cox is a low-down dirty cheat

‘Winter Is Coming’ Warns the Solar Physicist the Alarmists Tried to Silence

This is the dire forecast of Professor Valentina Zharkova, a solar physicist at Northumbria University, who has based her prediction on sun spot activity – known to be a significant driver of global climate – which is currently very low and likely to get even lower during the next three solar cycles.

She has spoken about her research and her battle to get it taken seriously by the climate establishment in an interview with the Global Warming Policy Forum. You can see it in this short film.

According to Professor Zharkova:

We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum.

What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small.

The Maunder Minimum occurred during the depths of the Little Ice Age, a period of feeble summers and bitingly cold winters, war, pestilence and famine. It wasn’t all bad: rivers like the Thames in London froze so thickly they could accommodate Ice Fairs; and it’s said that the slow tree growth induced by the cold gave the wood in Stradivarius violins their special timbre. On the whole, though, a descent into a new mini Ice Age would be massively debilitating both to the global economy and people’s living standards. Since the Little Ice Age ended in the middle of the Nineteenth century, we have all got used to the comforts and agricultural advantages (such as being able to grow wheat in more northerly latitudes) of living through a period of global warming. A second Little Ice Age will come as a very nasty shock.

That shock will be felt most especially by the world’s climate alarmist Establishment, whose scientists and learned institutions have staked their reputation on the idea that CO2, not solar activity, is the prime driver of climate and that the planet is on a warming trend not a cooling one.

This explains  why when Professor Zharkova first released her findings last year, various climate alarmists went behind her back to the Royal Astronomical Society to try to persuade them to withdraw the press release.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Donald Trump Will Make a Much More Eco-Friendly President Than Hillary Clinton

Trump really needs to mention this point at his rallies, not just for the trolling, but also because it happens to be true.

Consider just one example: the hundreds of thousands of rare birds and endangered bats slaughtered in the US every year by the wind farms that Hillary Clinton applauds (and will no doubt go on subsidising) and that Donald Trump loathes (and will no doubt starve of subsidies and cause to become as extinct as the Dodo).

As the Daily Beast recently noted, Trump’s hatred of wind farms is probably the most consistent and long-standing of all his political convictions.

Trump does have a point. If you care about flying wildlife, bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes really are about the most pointlessly destructive form of power generation there is – as a series of recent studies show.

These ones specifically concern bats – one of the world’s most fragile species, carefully protected by large bodies of legislation.

And with good reason, as Oxford University ecologist Clive Hambler explains here:

Bats are what is known as K-selected species: they reproduce very slowly, live a long time and are easy to wipe out. Having evolved with few predators — flying at night helps — bats did very well with this strategy until the modern world. This is why they are so heavily protected by so many conventions and regulations: the biggest threats to their survival are made by us.

And the worst threat of all right now is wind turbines. A recent study in Germany by the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research showed that bats killed by German turbines may have come from places 1,000 or more miles away. This would suggest that German turbines — which an earlier study claims kill more than 200,000 bats a year — may be depressing populations across the entire northeastern portion of Europe. Some studies in the US have put the death toll as high as 70 bats per installed megawatt per year: with 40,000 MW of turbines currently installed in the US and Canada. This would give an annual death toll of up to three -million.

Why is the public not more aware of this carnage? First, because the wind industry (with the shameful complicity of some ornithological organisations) has gone to great trouble to cover it up — to the extent of burying the corpses of victims. Second, because the ongoing obsession with climate change means that many environmentalists are turning a blind eye to the ecological costs of renewable energy. What they clearly don’t appreciate — for they know next to nothing about biology — is that most of the species they claim are threatened by ‘climate change’ have already survived 10 to 20 ice ages, and sea-level rises far more dramatic than any we have experienced in recent millennia or expect in the next few centuries. Climate change won’t drive those species to extinction; well-meaning environmentalists might.

Like a lot of true nature lovers – as opposed to the environmental industry’s numerous watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside – Hambler is extremely concerned about the wind farm threat to wildlife.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Meet the Bullying Lefty Cockwomble Physics Prof Who Hates Actual Climate Science

Take this week’s climate prat of the week, Professor Jonathan Butterworth of the Physics and Astronomy Department at University College London.

Butterworth has just been caught red-handed trying to prevent one of his colleagues holding a conference for climate sceptics because, in his opinion, their views are “rather fringe.”

Here is the snooty email he sent to his colleague Dr Athem Alsabti, former Professor of Physics at Baghdad University, now working at UCL’s Observatory:

“It has been brought to my attention that you have booked a room at University College, London, for an external conference in September for a rather fringe group discussing aspects of climate science.

“If this event were to go ahead at UCL, it would generate a great deal of strong feeling, indeed it already has, as members of the UCL community are expressing concern to me that we are giving a platform to speakers who deny anthropogenic climate change while flying in the face of accepted scientific methods. I am sure you have no desire to bring UCL into disrepute, or to cause dissension in the UCL community, and I would encourage you to think about moving the event to a different venue, not on UCL premises.”

The conference – which is still going ahead, though not now in the university itself but at a nearby venue, Conway Hall – will feature a number of scientists every bit as distinguished in their field as Butterworth presumably is in his.

According to Lord Monckton, who is organising it, they include:

Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, who has published more refereed papers on sea-level rise than Professor Butterworth has had hot dinners; Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Oslo, who publishes a widely-circulated monthly data update on global temperatures and related matters; Professor Jan-Erik Solheim of Norway; members of the Swedish Polar Institute, of the Asociacion Rural de Paraguay; of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, of the U.S. Geological Survey; of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the former president of the Italian National Research Council; the Professor of Paleobotany at the Sapienza University, Rome; a world-leading physicist from the François Rabelais University in Tours; an analytical expert from the Laboratoire Analyse at the University of Paris; the brother of the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition in the House of Commons; dozens of doctors of science; and a sprinkling of IPCC expert reviewers, including your humble servant.

Butterworth may think he knows better on climate than these experts, though how is not immediately clear given that it’s not his field. And while he’s perfectly entitled to his random, unsupported, prejudiced, haughty, third-hand, groupthink-induced opinions, what’s baffling is his decision to invoke in his own support the principle of the “scientific method”. (Or “methods” as he mysteriously chooses to pluralise it in his email to Alsbati.)

It must be really annoying for a physics professor to be told by an English literature graduate that he doesn’t understand the scientific method. But since what he’s doing here is the rough equivalent of an English literature undergraduate not knowing who wrote Hamlet, I fear I may have to take the risk of bruising his inflated ego.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Shock: BBC Still Pumping out Dumb Eco-Propaganda

Yes, obviously, I’m joking but only slightly.

The actual topic of Sandel’s programme was very nearly as pointless, irrelevant and out of date: climate change.

I’ve just had a glance at the BBC page promoting this programme and it feels like something some starry eyed eco-activist who’d just had a tofu burger with Al Gore dashed off about 20 years ago:

Most climate scientists think the world is getting warmer and that humans are at least in part responsible. Almost every country in the world has pledged to make efforts to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in order to prevent dangerous “interference with the climate system”. But exactly how to do this raises interesting questions about fairness.

No it doesn’t raise interesting questions about fairness because the premise on which it is based is entirely specious. Every one of the assumptions on which Sandel’s philosophical musings rest is at best heavily contested, at worst disproven.

Stuff like this, for example:

The inhabitants of The Maldives – made up of more than 1,200 islands, most of which are no more than one metre above sea level – are already feeling the effects of climate change. They are victims. But they didn’t cause the problem. Should those countries with historical responsibility for emissions be obliged to compensate The Maldives?

No one who has done even the merest scintilla of a modicum of homework on this subject is remotely worried about the effects of climate change on the Maldives because the Maldives are doing just fine.

Yet rather than row back from its relentless climate change propaganda in the light of evidence, the BBC continues to pretend that it’s a major problem – not just in obvious places like the regular eco-scare newsbulletins of its house green activist Roger Harrabin but even on programmes where it really ought to have no relevance like this episode in its Global Philosopher series.

Sometimes people tell me that for all its faults the BBC is a marvellous institution which we’d miss fearfully if it were ever to leave us.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

This British Heatwave Has Got Nothing Whatsoever to do with ‘Global Warming’

Some of us are old enough to remember an era – the long hot summer of ’76 for example – when this would have been considered a good thing.

“Phew what a scorcher!” it would say in tabloid headlines and inside there’d be a jaunty picture of Mindy from Beckenham greeting the sunshine with her enormous jugs.

But then, everything was better in the 1970s.

Now, of course, it’s all misery and despair. And there’s perhaps no finer example of this than the piece-of-crap report released by the Committee for Climate Change while I was away sunning myself in Sicily, and assiduously reported by useful idiots like the BBC’s house green activist Roger Harrabin. Naturally, the head of the CCC Lord Krebs was invited on to the BBC’s Today programme where he was given a free pass to promote his environmental version of Project Fear.

Here’s a typical example from the Telegraph:

Heatwaves fierce enough to kill thousands will become the norm in the UK within 30 years due to climate change, a report prepared for the Government warns.

Repeats of the extreme heat seen in 2003 that killed more than 2,000 people are likely to become routine by the 2040s, leaving the ageing population at particular risk.

The Committee on Climate Change, an independent body that advises the Government, said people living in newer homes faced a greater risk of overheating than those in older properties.

I wish this were true. I like heatwaves because they ward off ice ages; also I’m more than happy that people in new homes should suffer because they smack of health and safety and EU-driven environmental regulation and I think we should all live in draughty old buildings made of stone like I do.

But it’s just not true. Essentially it’s a work of fantasy, 2000 pages of unutterable drivel overseen by a government placeman – Lord Krebs (a zoologist, specialising in ornithology, formerly of the Food Standards Agency) – who we’re supposed to take on trust as an “expert” but who quite obviously knows far less about climate change than your humble Oxford English Literature graduate.

Paul Homewood shreds his report in loving detail here.

With regards to the heatwave part of the report (it’s just as wrong on stuff like floods, pests and diseases), Homewood notes that there is “no evidence that summers have been getting hotter in recent decades.”

Here’s a chart to prove it.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

RSPB: We Must Build More Bird-Chopping Eco Crucifixes!

RSPB stands for Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and, no, this is not The Onion.

Yes, Britain’s oldest and biggest ornithological society really has put out a report demanding the erection of yet more avian Cuisinarts – despite swathes of evidence showing that these monstrosities are responsible for killing many millions of birds around the world every year.

Its rationale:

The way that we currently use energy in the UK is not sustainable. We use too much of it, we use it inefficiently, and our main sources of energy, fossil fuels, are driving us towards dangerous levels of climate change – one of the greatest long-term threats to wildlife.

In order to save Britain’s wildlife from the alleged threat of climate change, in other words, we’ve got to first got to slice and dice it with the turbine blades that, by some estimates, kill 22 million birds a year.

Britain currently has around 5,000 wind turbines. According to the RSPB, it could do with around 20,000 more. More solar panels too. And wave power. And carbon capture and storage. And herds of organic unicorn to harvest all waste and pollution and magically transform it to special fairy energy which can be sprinkled on the cots of every new born child so as to instil in it a true appreciation of Mother Gaia’s beauty. (I may have invented the last one)

Mysteriously no mention is made of the actual cost of this exercise.

We’re shown a triangle at the beginning which illustrates our ‘energy trilemma’ – Environmental Sustainability; Energy Security; and Affordability.

Read the rest at Breitbart.