Skip to main content

A new, exhaustive study on precipitation levels over more than 1,000 years shows the assumptions made by the United Nations and other climate-change activists are badly flawed, suggesting human activity may not be having the impact on global climate that so many insist it’s having.

The report from Stockholm University in Sweden examined Northern Hemisphere rainfall statistics over a 1,200-year period. Researchers concluded that extremes between heavy rainfall totals and droughts were more severe centuries ago, before the fossil fuel-based economy ever existed.

“Hopefully, this will be one more nail in the coffin of the great deception that is the global-warming deception,” said Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatologist at the University of Winnipeg who taught classes on global precipitation for some 25 years.

Ball is also the author of multiple books, including “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.” He told WND and Radio America this report comes as no shock to him. In fact, he wrote about the very same issue just five months ago. Ball said the problem amounts in part to willful ignorance on the part of climate-change proponents.

“They list three major greenhouse gases: water vapor, CO2 and methane,” he said. “They then ignore water vapor. They just say the amount humans produce is of no significance, so they just assume it’s constant. That’s a problem.”

He continued, “The second problem is there is inadequate temperature data to build their computer models. The weather data covers only about 25 percent of the world’s surface. How do you build your models on that? The answer is you don’t.”

Don’t be fooled any longer — it’s just a power grab. Read “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global-Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.”

He said reality has proven the experts wrong at every turn.

“Every single prediction they’ve made with temperature, starting in 1990, has been wrong,” Ball said. “Every one has been wrong. One simple word definition of science is prediction. If you can’t predict, you haven’t got science.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Tim Ball: 
 
 

But as lacking as the data is on temperature levels, Ball said the scientists are even further behind on precipitation.

“The data for precipitation is even worse,” he said. “Measuring rainfall and measuring the water content of snow are some of the most difficult things to do in the weather and climate business.”

Ball said a perfect example of the weak precipitation data could be seen five years ago when scientists tried to predict the impact of monsoons on Africa during the growing season. Half the models predicted a wetter season, and the other half concluded it would be drier.

“Their conclusion was that there weren’t enough precipitation data stations to even meet the minimum requirement of the World Meteorological Association,” he said. “So the lack of data is the serious problem that supports what these people (in Stockholm) are finding.”

According to Ball, this new study also puts the lie to the climate-change premise that temperature is the most important factor when examining where the climate is trending.

“Temperature variation is an issue, but it has to change quite a bit before it comes difficult,” Ball said. “For example, they talk about a two-degree Celsius warming. All you’ve got to do is look at a city that’s just south of you that’s two degrees warmer, and they get along very nicely, thank you.”

Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

He said precipitation is far more important.

“But when you get precipitation change, that impacts flora and fauna and humans tremendously,” he explained.

Ball said 200 climatologists were surveyed in the year 2000 to select the 20 worst natural disasters in the 20th century. Of those 20, scientists picked 11 droughts and five floods.

“So the knowledge of precipitation and its impact is actually more important,” he said.

Ball said the Stockholm report also erodes the credibility of climate-change scientists on another front, namely their contention that rising global temperatures lead to more and more severe droughts.

“They said with global warming, there’ll be more droughts, but that’s counter-intuitive. If you’ve got warmer temperatures, you’ve got more evaporation, more water in the air, therefore fewer droughts,” he said. “Again that illustrates how wrong their thinking is.”

Scientists who believe in human-triggered climate change admit the Stockholm study will intensify the existing debate.

“Do their results invalidate current predictive models? Certainly not. But they do highlight a big challenge for climate modelers, and present major research opportunities both for modelers and climate scientists,” wrote Matthew Kirby of California State University’s Department of Geological Sciences in response to the study.

Another researcher, James Renwick of the Victoria University of Wellington, stated the new data suggests the wet-dry extremes will come this century instead of the last one.

That leaves Ball shaking his head.

“They will look for some way around the evidence. They’ll say this is wrong, that’s wrong and so on,” Ball said. “They’ve done that every time. They had a hypothesis, and they accepted it as proven right from the start. Every time evidence came out that contradicted it, they found ways of blunting that.”

He said the most egregious example was after 1998, when temperatures began leveling off but carbon dioxide levels kept rising, in contrast to the belief that the two factors were linked.

“Instead of correcting their science, they changed from global warming to climate change,” Ball said. “This is what they constantly do. They try to blunt the evidence and deflect the evidence because it’s not fitting with their political agenda.”

It’s also apparently not fitting with their financial agenda. Ball contends so many scientists swear by man-caused climate change simply to keep the research dollars pouring in.

“These people, I guarantee you we’ll find out, are very heavily funded by government in this research,” Ball said. “Of course, if you look at Paris and how much money was put into the Green Climate Fund. It’s all driven by money, not by science and the truth.”

He said this was proven by the Australian government in recent years.

“What the Australian government said was, ‘You’re telling us the science is settled. Well fine. We’ll cut off all the funding to the research.’ Of course everybody scrambled, ‘Oh, no no no. Hold on a minute here,'” Ball said.

 
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I remember one lefty posting a video of an occurrence that happened yearly, perfectly natural and having nothing to do with "global warming", people travel to the area to watch it. He tried to pass it off as "proof" of global warming. What are they claiming they are saving it for? I hope it is fubar for them and their stinking descendants.

Last edited by Bestworking

However, those advocating investigation of climate change skeptics are finding themselves on the other end of the stick as an IG begins a inconvenient audit of the tens of millions they've spent.

"A federal science agency is “seriously” interested in reviewing tens of millions in taxpayer-funded grants awarded to a university professor who wants President Obama to prosecute those who don’t share the administration’s view that mankind is changing the world’s climate.

The National Science Foundation’s inspector general appears poised to look into Jagadish Shukla’s management of federal grant money, much of it from the science agency itself.

The science agency has its own rules and guidelines governing grants, which would be applicable to the millions Shukla, 71, received from the agency.

“The longstanding cozy relationship between [government] grant-makers and grantees makes them blind to even the most obvious conflict of interest,” Bonner Cohen, a scholar with a free-market think tank in Washington, told The Daily Signal.

 

Shukla, a professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., led the charge by 20 college professors to urge a federal investigation aimed at scientific skeptics who differ with their views on climate change.

At the same time, Shukla, his wife, and his research center were awash in taxpayers’ money, according to an internal audit by the university on which The Daily Signal previously reported.

A House panel looking into Shukla’s activities sent related information to Allison Lerner, inspector general for the National Science Foundation."

More at: http://dailysignal.com/2016/03...ions-from-taxpayers/

Global Warming ‘Experts’ Admit: We Lied

A leaked copy of a UN report on global warming says that scientist’s claims that global warming was going to destroy us were drastically wrong.

(See also: Democrats Trying To Outlaw Gas-Powered Cars By 2040)

The Daily Mail reports that in 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed that the planet’s temperature was going to rise 0.2 Celsius every decade, a claim that governments and scientists all across the world have relied on to make their own determinations.

But now the new report says that the climate only warmed at .12 C per decades since 1951, a rate far, far below what everyone was told.

The new report also notes that scientists had to admit that their forecasts were wildly out of sync with the truth.

(See also: Obama To Spend $8 Billion Waging War On Coal)

Some of the findings that the report contains are as follows:

  • They recognize the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
  • They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
  • The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.

    Further, these UN scientists now acknowledge that there has, indeed, been a “pause” in rising temperatures, just as so many have said.

  • A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.
  • And yet, even though the new report admits so many errors, these so-called scientists still pack their paper with apocalyptic scenarios about how global warming is still going to kill us all.

    This on top of the fact that the Arctic ice sheet has grown despite folks like Al Gore that said by now all the ice should have melted.

    (See also: Obama Blames Global Warming For Recent Firefighter Deaths)

    This is why we call the “theory” of global warming globaloney. What do you call it?

    Please Sign The Petition To Repeal Obamacare: CLICK HERE.

  • http://www.mrconservative.com/...perts-admit-we-lied/

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×