ipcc

The inconvenient fact is that sea level has been rising at a tiny 1 to 3 millimeters per year, as it has since before the industrial revolution with no significant acceleration.

It’s the latest in a slew of studies trying to figure out how much warming can be expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide levels. The answer: not much, according to Lewis and Curry.

A major new study says that the cost to meet the UN Paris Agreement’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C is a whopping three times the cost to limit it to 2 degrees. That is a huge cost for a very small difference.

The question is what difference does this tiny difference make as far as future global impacts go?

As a pseudoscientific advocate for climate alarmism the IPCC is unparalleled.

These reports are supposedly summarizing the existing scientific literature, but in reality the merely choose and use scholarly citations to support the one-sided argument for alarmism.

Canadians Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris report from Bonn that the IPCC is now resorting to even more spurious “science” than ever in support of its wildly alarmist claims of climate catastrophe around the corner. They cite a vast lack of real-world data to support these claims, noting that there are no weather stations representing about 85% of the Earth’s surface area.

The thrust of each video is that the climate models are wrong and we need to understand why. WATCH NOW

CFACT policy advisor Larry Bell refutes the claims of alarmist activists that hurricanes Harvey and Irma were “enhanced” as a result of climate change — and shows that the same alarmists had made the same statements in prior years regarding prior hurricanes — and then there was a 12-year lull.

After six years of tedious litigation, a court in Vancouver, British Columbia appears set to hand down a ruling involving one of the most controversial claims ever made in support of human-induced global warming. Michael Mann refused to provide his temperature proxy data despite a court order. What is he afraid we’ll discover?

CFACT policy analyst Larry Bell hails the action by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to seek peer-reviewed investigations of facts and fictions regarding key areas of agreement and dispute on climate policy. Bell notes that Mother Nature is a far bigger player in climate change than is human activity, and that indeed even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits that the climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system.

Eight top scientists responded to complaints by Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Rafael Reif and others condemning President Trump for withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accords, stating strongly that he had done the right thing for America. The authors cite temperature and other climate data that are at odds with the computer modeling upon which the global warming theory is founded — and show that myriad claims by warmists are either false or misleading. Number one with a bullet is that carbon dioxide is a killer when in fact is is the life-giving catalyst for plant growth.

CFACT policy analyst Larry Bell calls out Ben Santer, Kerry Emanual, and Naomi Oreskes for their shrill opposition to genuine peer review that might well expose fake science. And for good reason. Santer is one of the top perpetrators of false and misleading information through his work with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Earlier this month, a Politico headline reported a “White House showdown on Paris deal set for next week,” to resolve “simmering tensions” regarding “a major point of dispute between the moderate and nationalist wings of the White House.” That planned April 18 meeting was subsequently postponed indefinitely due to top official “scheduling conflicts.” Reuters reported […]

As CFACT Senior Policy Advisor Paul Driessen points out, REAL science is easily distinguished by fake science. His latest evidence compares the testimonies of three real scientists (Dr, Roger Pielke, Jr., Dr. Judith Curry, and Dr. John Christie) versus heralded pseudo-scientist Michael Mann (who was caught cherry-picking data to “prove” his “hockey stick” thesis) at a recent House Science Committee hearing. Pielke, Curry, and Christie all described the science that lies behind their stances, while Mann resorted to an ad hominem attack on “climate deniers.”

CFACT advisor Larry Bell asks the rhetorical question — Will the climate fanatics tone down their rhetoric given the lack of evidence of climate catastrophe? Indeed, though nearly every single fear-filled prediction of theirs has failed to occur, they will not be shamed into silence as long as the worldwide “science” community enjoys the financial benefits of parroting the party line.

Yety another new “study” promises global disasters of biblical proportions if the U.S. does not unilaterally stop using fossil fuels (and indeed, must subsidize fossil fuels in India and China). But CFACT Senior Policy Advisor Paul Driessen exposes the buffoonery of the so-called Expert Market report – the latest in a long series of computer-driven fake reports that are crafted solely with the intent to frighten people into submission and never matching predictions with actual recorded data.

CFACT Senior Policy Advisor Paul Driessen demonstrates how the inappropriate, politicized fixation on so-called “climate science” is not even science since it is an opinion demanding a positive conclusion and how this is both teaching bad research habits but also starving much-needed research that can yield valuable results.

New research by Dr. Roger Bezdek shows that excessive groundwater pumping, not manmade “global warming,” is the primary cause of subsidence in coastal areas studied — subsidence that gives the false appearance of sea level rise. The best way to protect these coastal lands is to stop or sharply curtail groundwater pumping that collapses water tables and leads all too often to saltwater intrusion.

Ever since the elections, our media, schools, workplaces, and houses of worship have presented stories showcasing the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Liberal-progressive snowflakes are wallowing in denial, anger, and depression. They cannot work, attend class, or take exams. They need safe “healing” spaces, Play-Doh, comfort critters, and counseling. Too many […]