BBC tries to mislead the public again over Antarctica Glacier..

the Global Warming Policy Forum has complained that the BBC is misleading the public again over melting in the Twaites Glacier in Antarctica.   91 underground volcanoes have been found and it is these that have caused the melting, nothing to do with humans!  Stop deliberately misleading the public BBC!    The BBC has referred to these volcanoes in a past report.  so why do they omit this in their January 2020 rfeport?

New York Court Dismisses Climate Lawsuit Against ExxonMobil

December 19, 2019

By H. Sterling Burnett

New York state Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager dismissed a lawsuit brought by state Attorney General (AG) Letitia James against ExxonMobil.

New York state Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager dismissed a lawsuit brought by state Attorney General (AG) Letitia James against ExxonMobil.

The suit accused ExxonMobil of lying to investors about the company’s business prospects in light of the possible costs of government regulations to fight climate change.

“The office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Ostrager wrote in his decision. “The office of the Attorney General produced no testimony from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure.”

Ostrager dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought again based on these facts in the state of New York. The case was the first of several climate-related lawsuits against major oil companies to go to trial.

Were arsonists responsible for Australian bushfires?

https://thegwpf.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=ba5398b43f&e=d1137e41eb

Hollywood actors, despite host Ricky Gervais joking that they tend to have less schooling than Greta Thunberg, used the Golden Globes to push the warming narrative.  "The tragedy unfolding in Australia is climate-change based,” Australian Russel Crowe said in a message.  "When one country faces a climate disaster, we all face a climate disaster, so we’re in it together," Cate Blanchett said.  This is nonsense and is being parroted throughout the media. CFact report  www,CFact.org

If there's a human element to Australia's bush fires it is Greens preventing forest management coupled with arson by rogues. The rest is natural, historically normal, and NOT climate.

CFACT recently featured a pair of hard-hitting articles that thoroughly debunk the Australian climate hype.
 

Dr. Jennifer Marohasy is an Australian environmental scientist.  She shared the hard data at CFACT.org that reveals that this year's temperature in Australia, though certainly scorching hot, is also historically normal, with the summer of 1938-1939 possibly Australia's hottest.  Australia's hottest ever reliable temperature recording was 51.7 degrees Celsius (125 degrees Fahrenheit) at the Bourke Post Office on January 3, 1909.  In addition, this year's bush fires, despite their terrible toll on people and wildlife, are by no means Australia's largest. 

Australia's most widespread fires likely occurred "on 13th January 1939 (Black Friday), 2 million hectares burnt with ash reportedly falling on New Zealand. That was probably the worst bush fire catastrophe in Australia’s modern recorded history in terms of area burnt and it was 80 years ago."

James Delingpole skewered those conflating Australia's fire with climate employing his signature take-no-prisoners approach.  CFACT featured it on Facebook

Was eco-madness responsible for Boeing 747 Max crash?

Miranda Devine New York Post October 2019.
acknowledgements to GWPF
   The Boeing crash.  Was Eco madness responsible?

   

Air travel, which accounts for 2 percent of global emissions, has become the great bogeyman for climate alarmists, sparking a backlash against airlines.

Punitive eco-taxes, aviation regulations, activist investors, green NGOs and climate-aware passengers conspire to force airlines and manufacturers to lower CO2 emissions by using less fuel, which accounts for 99 percent of aviation’s carbon footprint.

No one has said it explicitly yet, but this relentless pressure to reduce emissions appears to have been a significant factor in the disastrous safety failures of the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, which resulted in two fatal crashes in the past year, claiming 346 lives.

The warning from Boeing’s catastrophes is that climate ideology can have fatal consequences.

The 737 MAX was trumpeted as “Boeing’s game changer.” It reduced emissions by 14 percent and Boeing raced it into production to compete with a climate-friendly new offering from Airbus.

But in order to achieve its green goal, Boeing had to use much bigger engines that didn’t fit in the usual position under the wing of the repurposed, 53-year-old 737 design.

The engines had to be moved forward and hoisted higher.

As a result, the aerodynamics changed, and the planes had a tendency to pitch up and potentially stall on takeoff. Boeing’s solution to this hardware defect was an imperfect software bandage that would automatically correct the pitch. In both crashes, preliminary investigations found this software kicked in even when the plane wasn’t stalling, with lethal consequences.

To understand the 737 MAX fiasco, you must go back to 2011, when Boeing faced an existential challenge from Airbus’ low-emission A320neo, which had been developed under stringent new European aviation climate regulations.

American Airlines, an exclusive Boeing customer, was threatening to defect to the A320neo, as The New York Times reported. Three months later, Boeing announced the 737 MAX.

The eco-imperative for Boeing was more than woke posturing. Its customers, the airlines, were demanding better environmental performance because of regulations and mounting threats from climate-conscious institutional investors. Biofuels and electric planes aren’t yet viable, so fuel efficiency was the only option.

While aviation escaped inclusion in the 2015 Paris climate agreement, the following year, the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization bound 191 member nations to reduce CO2 emissions by a colossal 50 percent by 2050 or spend 2 percent of revenues buying offsets.

In other words, airlines have to pay to plant trees to satisfy emission-reduction targets. This buys them cover to expand the industry.

The decarbonization imperative for Boeing was clear. Carriers like United, which has vowed to become “the most environmentally conscious airline in the world,” rushed to buy the 737 MAX. So did American Airlines, whose CEO boasted, “We’re much more environmentally friendly than United Airlines right now because we’ve invested in more fuel-efficient aircraft.”

This was the priority driving Boeing. Its 2018 report “Build Something Cleaner” featured the 737 MAX on the cover and boasted that the plane will “emit 305,040 fewer tons of CO2 and save more than 215 million pounds of fuel per year, which translates into more than $112 million in cost savings.”

Declaring its commitment to halving carbon emissions by 2050, it said, “Reducing emissions is aligned to our customers’ strategic desire to decrease fuel use, a major cost and priority in their purchasing decisions. Our customers increasingly require that Boeing’s products and services include environmentally progressive attributes.”

Investors, too, increasingly demand improved “carbon performance.”

In March, a study funded by airline investors with $13 trillion of assets under management chastised the aviation industry for not doing enough to fight climate change.

“As investors, we need clarity about [whether] the sector is to make its contribution to the goals of the Paris Agreement” was a typical comment from investment bank BNP Paribas.

The pressure on Boeing to deliver climate outcomes was relentless. A flawed retrofit design was the price, when Boeing decided it couldn’t wait another decade to design a new aircraft.

Indonesia’s Lion Air was the 737 MAX’s first customer in 2012. In 2018, one of Lion Air’s planes crashed, killing 189 people. A year later, the 737 MAX fleet is still grounded.

Boeing has lost more than $25 billion in market value and this week belatedly replaced a senior executive, after messages came to light between senior pilots complaining about the 737 MAX software “running rampant” during a test simulation in 2016.

New York Times October 2019