It Happened Again: Ship Carrying ‘Climate Change Warriors’ Concerned About Melting Arctic Ice Gets Stuck in Ice

A ship carrying passengers who included a group of ‘Climate Change Warriors’ who are concerned about melting Arctic ice got stuck in the ice halfway between Norway and the North Pole.

Oh, the irony.

“Arctic tours ship MS MALMO with 16 passengers on board got stuck in ice on Sep 3 off Longyearbyen, Svalbard Archipelago,” reports the Maritime Bulletin. “The ship is on Arctic tour with Climate Change documentary film team, and tourists, concerned with Climate Change and melting Arctic ice.”

The passengers were safely evacuated by helicopter.

“Something is very wrong with Arctic ice, instead of melting as ordered by UN/IPCC, it captured the ship with Climate Change Warriors,” joked Erofey Schkvarkin.

The story is similar to a 2014 incident when a Chinese icebreaker had to be sent to rescue dozens of global warming researchers and environmentalists who got stranded on a ship which got stuck in the Antarctic ice.

Poster child environmentalist Greta Thunberg has not commented on the latest incident.

Reference: Summit.news

NASA: "Climate Change" Caused by Changes in Earth's Solar Orbit and Axial Tilt (Not Man-Made Causes)

For more than 60 years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has known that the changes occurring to planetary weather patterns are completely natural and normal.

But the space agency, for whatever reason, has chosen to let the man-made global warming hoax persist and spread, to the detriment of human freedom.

It was the year 1958, to be precise, when NASA first observed that changes in the solar orbit of the earth, along with alterations to the earth’s axial tilt, are both responsible for what climate scientists today have dubbed as “warming” (or “cooling,” depending on their agenda).

In the year 2000, NASA did publish information on its Earth Observatory website about the Milankovitch Climate Theory, revealing that the planet is, in fact, changing due to extraneous factors that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity.

This information has yet to go mainstream, some 19 years later, which is why [people with shady agendas] have now begun to claim that we really only have 18 months left before the planet dies from an excess of carbon dioxide (CO2).

The truth, however, is much more along the lines of what Serbian astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch, after whom the Milankovitch Climate Theory is named, proposed about how the seasonal and latitudinal variations of solar radiation that hit the earth in different ways, and at different times, have the greatest impact on earth’s changing climate patterns.

The below two images (by Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC) help to illustrate this, with the first showing earth at a nearly zero orbit, and the second showing earth at a 0.07 orbit.

This orbital change is depicted by the eccentric, oval shape in the second image, which has been intentionally exaggerated for the purpose of showing the massive change in distance that occurs between the earth and the sun, depending on whether it is at perihelion or aphelion.

The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit changes slowly over time from nearly zero to 0.07. As the orbit gets more eccentric (oval) the difference between the distance from the Sun to the Earth at perihelion (closest approach) and aphelion (furthest away) becomes greater and greater. Note that the Sun is not at the center of the Earth's orbital ellipse, rather it is at one of focal points.

Note: The eccentricty of the orbit shown in the right image is a highly exaggerated 0.5. Even the maximum eccentricity of the Earth's orbit — 0.07 — it would be impossible to show at the resolution of a web page. Even so, at the current eccentricity of .017, the Earth is 5 million kilometers closer to Sun at perihelion than at aphelion. (Images by Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC)

“Even the maximum eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit – 0.07 – it would be impossible to show at the resolution of a web page,” notes the Hal Turner Radio Show. “Even so, at the current eccentricity of .017, the Earth is 5 million kilometers closer to Sun at perihelion than at aphelion.”

The biggest factor affecting earth’s climate is the SUN

As for earth’s obliquity, or its change in axial tilt, the below two images (Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC) show the degree to which the earth can shift on both its axis and its rotational orientation. At the higher tilts, earth’s seasons become much more extreme, while at lower tilts they become much more mild.

A similar situation exists for earth’s rotational axis, which depending on which hemisphere is pointed at the sun during perihelion, can greatly impact the seasonal extremes between the two hemispheres.

Left: The change in the tilt of the Earth's axis (obliquity) effects the magnitude of seasonal change. At higher tilts the seasons are more extreme, and at lower tilts they are milder. The current axial tilt is 23.5°. Image by Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC)

Right: Precession — the change in orientation of the Earth's rotational axis — alters the orientation of the Earth with respect to perihelion and aphelion. If a hemisphere is pointed towards the sun at perihelion, that hemisphere will be pointing away at aphelion, and the difference in seasons will be more extreme. This seasonal effect is reversed for the opposite hemisphere. Currently, northern summer occurs near aphelion. (Image by Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC

Based on these different variables, Milankovitch was able to come up with a comprehensive mathematical model that is able to compute surface temperatures on earth going way back in time, and the conclusion is simple: Earth’s climate has always been changing, and is in a constant state of flux due to no fault of our own as human beings.

When Milankovitch first put forward his model, it went ignored for nearly half a century. Then, in 1976, a study published in the journal Science confirmed that Milankovitch’s theory is, in fact, accurate, and that it does correspond to various periods of climate change that have occurred throughout history.

In 1982, six years after this study was published, the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences adopted Milankovitch’s theory as truth, declaring that:

“… orbital variations remain the most thoroughly examined mechanism of climatic change on time scales of tens of thousands of years and are by far the clearest case of a direct effect of changing insolation on the lower atmosphere of Earth.”

If we had to sum the whole thing up in one simple phrase, it would be this: The biggest factor influencing weather and climate patterns on earth is the sun, period.

Depending on the earth’s position to the sun at any given time, climate conditions are going to vary dramatically, and even create drastic abnormalities that defy everything that humans thought they knew about how the earth worked.

Source: NaturalNews.com (excerpts) / Reference: HalTurnerRadioShow.com

Hockey Stick Climate Change Graph is Evidence-Free

The hockey stick graph

has become a well-known term and concept in climate change circles. AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or manmade global warming advocates have often tried to justify climate change alarmism by citing data and pointing to graphs that show an extreme, drastic and historically unprecedented rise in temperature.

This rise is depicted on a graph as a sharp, steep upturn that resembles a hockey stick, hence the term. Last week the BC Supreme Court in Canada finally concluded a 9-year long defamation case by dismissing it. The lawsuit was brought forward by climatologist Michael Mann (who has pushed AGW on the public for decades) against retired professor Dr. Tim Ball.

The hockey stick became an infamous term in climate change circles due to Mann’s work, though perhaps now it will become more a symbol of fraud.

Mann failed to produce the evidence and data required in a court of law to justify the hockey stick graph. Mann was also part of the Climategate scandal. The news was broken by climate site WattsUpWithThat.com on August 22nd.

Mann was a Big Part of Climategate

Mann is no stranger to controversy – or fraud. He once falsely claimed he was a Nobel Prize winner. He was heavily involved in the hacked and leaked Climategate emails. To recap, the manmade global warming movement suffered a tremendous blow to its credibility in a 2009 scandal dubbed Climategate. Hackers gained access to the internal emails of the CRU (Climatic Research Unit) of the University of East Anglia in England. They released these communications to the public.

The CRU emails were incriminating; the scientists involved discussed using “tricks” in their research to get the results they wanted, debated how to frame and obscure uncertainties in their data, talked about how to “hide the decline” of temperature (and therefore show more of a warming trend by fudging the data), plotted to remove journal editors with whom they disagreed and discussed how to keep dissenting views (anti-AGW articles) out of peer-reviewed journals!

Here is a sample email:

From: Phil Jones

To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,
… I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil

[Context: CRU head Phil Jones refers to 2 global warming skeptics, Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, whose papers suggested that local urbanization not global CO2 levels were the main cause of warming. Jones was using his position to try to keep the paper out of the IPCC report.]

The result of this fraud translated into UN (United Nations) policy. The BBC reported on Nov. 20th 2009 that researchers at CRU “played a key role” in the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) findings.

Hockey Stick or not? Mann vs Ball. Image credit: Principia Scientific

Michael Mann’s hockey stick hyperbole that was used by the UN IPCC

The Hockey Stick Temperature Rise Claim is Evidence-Free

Mann’s refusal to provide the data (his R2 regression numbers) not only adds to suspicions that his data is fraudulent, but also landed him in contempt of court, as far back as 2 years ago in 2017 when he first refused. When you compare Mann’s and Ball’s graphs above, there are some stark differences.

Notice how Mann’s is surprisingly smooth and flat until the end, when there is a sudden uptick (the hockey stick), while Ball’s takes into account both the MWP (Medieval Warm Period, c.950 – c.1250) and the Little Ice Age (c.1400 – c.1750).

Mann’s graph looks deliberately engineered to cause alarm and fright by making it appear like we are experiencing in a once-in-a-thousand year temperature spike. This Principia Scientific article is 2 years old but has proved very prescient in predicting the outcome of this case. It refers to a point in the case 2 years ago (when it was still ongoing) when Mann refused to back his hockey stick claims with evidence:

“Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn.

“State’ is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have willfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.”

What Principia Scientific predicted is exactly what happened. The Canadian court awarded Ball damages, ordering Mann to pay the defendant’s legal costs.

The Implications

So what does this mean for the manmade global warming / climate change movement? If the hockey stick graph is exaggerated or fraudulent, what about all the papers and studies that relied on it? This is from Principia Scientific again:

“A bitter and embarrassing defeat for the self-styled ‘Nobel Prize winner’ who acted as if he was the epitome of virtue, this outcome shames not only Michael Mann, but puts the climate science community in crisis. Many hundreds of peer-reviewed papers cite Mann’s work, which is now effectively junked.”

The hockey stick graph was junk science. Now there is both scientific and legal weight to discredit it. perahps teh situation is best summed by this 2003 Canadian study which concluded as follows:

“The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects …

“The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.”

Conclusion: Better to Play the Ball, not the Mann

Selling the public the idea of AGW is a big plank in the overall plan of Agenda 2030 (formerly Agenda 21). The idea is to convince people that humanity is killing the planet via CO2 emissions (which every single living human being contributes to just by virtue of being alive and breathing) – not by industrial pollution, pharmaceutical contamination of waterways, pesticides, deforestation and GMOs.

Nope, the UN and IPCC want people to believe it’s all about CO2 and warming, so they can justify draconian regulations, mass austerity and a global carbon tax. If you want to know more about the NWO (New World Order) bankster background to this, see here for a brief synopsis: Good Hearts, Fooled Minds: Top 4 Fallacies of the Hijacked Environmental Movement.

Perhaps it’s appropriate here to remember that old adage that sports coaches like to say: it’s better to play the Ball not the Mann.

By Makia Freeman, Guest writer, HumansAreFree.com