Climate change may rank dead last in nearly every US opinion poll, and be the #1 priority for only 1% of American adults. But it is at the very top of the list for Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, AOC and other Democrat Party leaders. Indeed, it is the primary justification for the Green New Deal that they plan to implement and impose, to control and transform the entire US energy and economic system ... and much more. In fact, some of them plan to force us to spend some $100 trillion over the next decade on this great crusade.
In this article , David Wojick and I take a closer look at what they have in mind, and how it will affect virtually every aspect of our lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties. As the DNC national convention wraps up, and the RNC convention gets underway, it’s a good time for every American to ponder this very carefully.
Thank you for posting our article, forwarding it to your friends and colleagues - and noting that David is my coauthor.
Best regards,
Paul
Green New Deal disruption and destruction
Not just energy, but every aspect of our lives, living standards, history, culture and freedoms
David Wojick and Paul Driessen
Kamala Harris co-sponsored the Senate resolution to support the Green New Deal. Now Joe Biden has endorsed the plan. Naturally, people want to know what the GND will cost - usually meaning in state and federal government spending. But that is the wrong question.
The real question is, how much do Green New Dealers expect to get out of it, at what total cost? Mr. Biden says he wants the feds to spend nearly $7 trillion over the next decade on healthcare, energy and housing transformation, climate change and other GND agenda items. But that is only part of the picture.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who has a degree in some socialist version of economics) and the folks who helped her write Biden’s so-called Climate Plan have a clear idea of how much money they want, and pretty much know where they expect the money to come from. Here it is in its clearest form, as stated by Rep. Ocasio-Cortezs then chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti:
World War II was a time of great sacrifice and hardship, as part of a dramatic and historic mobilization to win a horrific global war. However, that hard reality doesn’t matter to these folks. They say we are now waging a war to stop catastrophic climate change. So money, sacrifice and disruption are irrelevant
“The resolution describes the 10-year plan to transform every sector of our economy to remove GHG [greenhouse gases] and pollution. It says it does this through huge investments in renewables, at WW2 scales (which was 40-60% of America’s GDP).” [emphasis added].
Our nation’s GDP is around $20 trillion a year, or $200 trillion in ten years. 40-60% of that is $80-120 trillion. For simplicity, let’s call it an even $100 trillion to finance the Green New Deal utopian dream.
$100 trillion! The ways and means of raising this stupendous sum are also clear in their minds. It will be done the same way WW2 was financed, however that was. To them, it’s obvious that we can simply do this, because we did it before. The specifics don’t matter. Government elites will figure them out.
But even this arrogant, cavalier attitude is only part of the picture.
If you read what Green New Dealers say, confusion arises because people think the GND is an ordinary policy proposal: “Here’s what we want done, and this what it should cost.” It is nothing like that. The Green New Deal is more along the lines of, “Here’s the level of effort we require to transform our entire economy, and this is what we should be able to do with that much money.”
People tend to interpret Green New Dealer talk of a WW2-like mobilization as a simple metaphor. But these folks mean it as an actual measure of what they are determined to do. So far they have glossed over and ignored the extreme hardships of mobilization. Here’s just one example - not from front lines mayhem, but from the United States home front during World War II.
Gasoline, meat and clothing were tightly rationed. Most families were allocated three US gallons of gasoline a week, which sharply curtailed driving for any purpose. Production of most durable goods, like cars, new housing, vacuum cleaners and kitchen appliances, was banned until the war ended. In industrial areas housing was in short supply as people doubled up and lived in cramped quarters. Prices and wages were controlled. [Harold Vatter, The US Economy in World War II]
No doubt the Green New Deal mobilization would impose different hardships. But all mobilizations are oppressive. You can’t commandeer half of the GDP without disrupting or even destroying people’s lives.
The argument is sound in its way, provided there is a need for all-out war - which there is not. The minor to modest temperature, climate and extreme weather changes we’ve been seeing (in the real world outside computer models) explain why most Americans see no need for a painful war. So does the fact that China, India and other emerging economies are not about to give up fossil fuels anytime soon.
In fact, polls show that roughly half of Americans do not even believe in the idea of human caused global warming, much less that it is an “existential threat,” as Senator Harris claims it is. The latest Gallup poll found that only 1% of US adults consider “climate change/environment/pollution” to be “the most important problem facing this country today.” That’s down from a meager 2% in the May 28-June 4 poll.
Even more revealing, a 2019 AP-NORC poll found that 68% of adult Americans were unwilling to pay even an extra $10 on their monthly electricity bill to combat global warming. Indeed, 57% of them would not be willing to pay more than $1.00 in added electricity charges to fight climate change!
Just wait until they see what the Biden-Harris-AOC-Democrat Green New Deal would cost them.
And it’s not just that their costs would likely skyrocket from an average US 13.2 cents per kilowatt hour (11.4 cents or less in ten states) to well beyond the nearly 20 cents per kWh that families are already paying in California and New York, or the 30 cents that families are now paying in ultra-green Germany. Or that factories, businesses, hospitals, schools and everyone else would also see their costs escalate - with blue collar families, the sick and elderly, poor and minority communities hammered hardest.
It’s that the GND would force every American to replace their gasoline and diesel cars and trucks with expensive short-haul electric vehicles; their gas furnaces and stoves with electric systems; their home, local and state electrical and transmission systems with expensive upgrades that can handle a totally electric economy. They’ll see their landscapes, coastlines and wildlife habitats blanketed with wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines and warehouses filled with thousands of half-ton batteries. Virtually every component of this GND nation would be manufactured in China and other faraway places.
The cost of this massive, total transformation of our energy and economic system would easily reach $10 trillion: $30,000 per person or $120,000 per family - on top of those skyrocketing electricity prices. And that’s just the intermittent, unreliable energy component of this all-encompassing Green New Deal.
These are stupendous, outrageous costs and personal sacrifices. Every American, at every campaign event and town meeting, should ask Green New Deal supporters if they think America needs to - or can afford to - cough up $10 trillion or $100 trillion over the next ten years. And not let them get away with glib, evasive answers, or attempts to laugh these questions off as meritless or irrelevant.
The American people are not about to be mobilized into an all-out war against dubious climate change, with price tags like these coupled with repeated blackouts, huge personal sacrifices, and massive joblessness in every sector of the economy - except among enlightened government ruling classes.
They’ve already seen news stories about the latest rolling blackouts in California (here, here, here and here) - ?resulting from one-third of that state’s electricity coming from “renewable” sources, and with another third of the state’s electricity imported from other states that also get heat waves. They should ponder what their lives, livelihoods and living standards would be under 100% wind and solar power.
And yet, once again, even all this insanity is only a small part of the picture.
Remember, the Green New Deal is also about government run healthcare - and an economy and nation where “progressive” “woke” legislators, regulators, judges and activists tell companies what they can manufacture and sell...and tell us what we can buy, eat and drink; how and how much we can heat and cool our homes; and what we can read, hear, think and say, as they “transform” our culture and traditions.
The GND is being promoted by politicians, news and social media, “educators” and “reformers” who also want to eliminate free enterprise capitalism; have totally open borders, even for criminals and people who might have Covid and other diseases; and want to defund the police, put anarchists, looters and terrorists back on our streets, and take away our right and ability to defend ourselves, our homes and our families.
The time to think long and hard about all of this is NOW. Not sometime after the November 3 elections.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues. David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.
My colleagues and I have given many lectures about the myths, misconceptions and outright lies in the global warming arena the last few decades. After an hour of graphs, charts and pictures detailing how a tiny trace gas, carbon dioxide, has no relationship to whatever warming and cooling or weather extremes has occurred we get the inevitable statement from someone in the audience.
“How can you deny that man made global warming and its effects are real when 97 percent of climate scientists agree that it is true?”
At that point we have to explain that the 97 percent figure is not what it appears to be. It is a convenient fiction to imply a consensus.
It is now the rule in the schools. Our students are not being taught the scientific method. In the classroom they are taught what to think and not how to think.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND THE PHONEY CONSENSUS
The scientific method does not involve a poll or vote by scientists (that is in the realm of politics where you vote on a law or candidate), but validation of a theory with facts.
Michael Crichton, PhD, MD, famous author, producer, screenwriter and lecturer often talked about claims of a consensus.
“Historically the claim of consensus is the first refuge of scoundrel; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled”. “Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus… Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.”
The fact that a VP and a failed presidential candidate who had a D in the only science class he ever took produced the movie An Inconvenient Truth seen by our children numerous times in schools even in gym class should raise eyebrows. It did in the UK where the courts ruled in order for the film to be shown that teachers must make clear that the film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument, and if teachers present the film without making this plain they may be in breach of the 1996 Education Act and guilty of political indoctrination. They required the eleven most egregious inaccuracies had to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
WHAT DO SCIENTISTS REALLY THINK?
There have been many polls and declarations that demonstrate a large percentage of real scientists believe in climate change BUT that natural factors are the primary driver.
Climatology wasn’t a recognized specialty or profession even at colleges when I first taught weather and climate in the 1970s into the early 1980s. It was mostly a small part of introductory classes on weather or in geography or geology courses. When climate change became part of an anti fossil fuel agenda and big money suddenly appeared, teachers never trained in climate suddenly became ‘climate scientists’. Environmental sciences emerged as a career path.
The UN, politicians, industry and the mainstream and on-line media would want you to believe that all scientists have now seen the light, that there is a consensus. That is not the case. Most honest scientist know so. Many are forced into silence or if they vocalize their dissent, find their careers endangered or even destroyed. Still many when past the stage of their career where they can speak the truth or when they can do so anonymously, will do so.
A Global Warming Petition was signed by 31,487 scientists including 9,029 with PHDs in their fields. The petition states that: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”.
1100 Climate Realists signed ‘’The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change” from 40 countries demanding an end to climate hysteria. 1000+ International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims to the U.S. Senate, 300+ Eminent Scientists Reject U.N. Climate Change Treaty (Paris Accord). A recent survey found 1350 peer review papers questioning global warming and 1000 papers believing cooling has begun. See my team’s effort to fact-check popular alarmist claims here. We have many other peer review papers disprove the theory.
Scientists are aware of the failures too and now have proposed 54 excuses and counting as to why their models have failed. See this interesting series on the Great Scientific Fraud here.
IGNORED OPINION POLLS
There are many well-educated people who do not agree with the survey and its 97% figure. In a 2011 Scientific American opinion poll on the state of climate science provided the eye-opening results cast by their “scientifically literate” readership. With a total of 5190 respondents, a consensus of 81.3% think the IPCC is “a corrupt organization, prone to group-think, with a political agenda” and 75% think climate change is caused by solar variation or natural processes vs. 21% who think it is due to greenhouse gases from human activity. 65% think we should do nothing about climate change since “we are powerless to stop it,” and the same percentage think science should stay out of politics. When asked, “How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?”.76.7% said “nothing.” Scientific American removed the poll when pressured by environmental groups.
In a 2013 Forbes article, it was reported only 36 percent of earth scientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. The survey results show earth scientists and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists.
Even a global UN survey of the public, received over 9.7 million votes and found in prioritizing what should be focused on, action on climate change finished last.
The first quoted source was an online survey that was published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman from the University of Illinois. The survey was sent to 10,257 scientists to, which 3,146 scientists responded to.
There were two primary questions in the survey. The first “When compared to pre-1800 levels, do you think mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? ”
History has recorded a prolonged global cold era know as “The Little Ice Age” that lasted from about 1400 to 1850 AD. Since that time the global average temperature has risen. I know of no meteorologist, climatologist or anyone involved in the study of the earth’s temperature, who would argue this point.
Question number two asked “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
BUT what constitutes “human activity”? The burning of fossil fuels to make energy is one. The changing of land surfaces to make cities, farmland and deforestation is “human activity” that can change temperature as well. Changing mean temperature can be accomplished by changing the environment around a climate recording station. This is also “human activity”. As rural stations are increasingly surrounded by urban sprawl, roads and buildings, the temperature of the site will warm due to the “Urban Heat Island (UHI)” effect. This has nothing to due with fossil fuel. The results from the survey do not address just what constitutes “human activity”. A “yes” response to question two implies the responder is referring to fossil fuels but that is not necessarily the case. It is however, what the survey likely wanted to convey.
Question number two also does not address what the word “significant” means to each individual respondent. What constitutes significant can be very different from person to person.
The 97% figure from the on-line survey comes from a whittling down of the accepted number of responses from 3,146 to 79. The 79 scientists are those that said they have recently published 50% of their papers in the area of climate change. Of these, 76 of 79 answered “risen” to questions one (96.2%). How this number is not 100% was a surprise. As to question two, 75 of 77 answered ‘yes” (97.4%).
An attempt at a more rigorous approach to confirm the 97% number followed and failed. Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW. They found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW, while only 64 papers (0.5% of the total) explicitly endorsed humans are the primary (50%+) as the cause. This was 97% of those who explicitly identified a cause. A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition.
Cook et al. (2013) was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which conveniently has multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) where the paper likely received substandard “pal-review” instead of the more rigorous peer-review. The paper has since been refuted five times in the scholarly literature by Legates et al. (2013), Tol (2014a), Tol (2014b), Dean (2015) and Tol (2016).
All the other “97% consensus” studies: e.g. Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.
---------
AN UPHILL BATTLE
Alarmists have the advantage of virtually all the massive funding for climate change research ($1.65Byear) and they have a huge ‘social support’ group of
(1) Agenda driven or ratings driven journalists, environmentalists and corporations that have realized green is their favorite color and see this as a way to keep green paper flowing into their coffers and pockets
(2) Traders and major market firms licking their chops at the prospects of big time money from alternative energy companies that have realized this is the vector to bigger profits and
(3) Politicians and political activists who see it as a way to accomplish ulterior goals about changing society and increasing their powerbase.
Some Saw This Coming
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” And, “he urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” H.L. Mencken
Well before the climate change scare started, we were warned in 1961:
“… [In] the technological revolution during recent decades...research has become central ... complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government ... the solitary inventor ... has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields ... the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”
- President Eisenhower in his Farewell address
His words have been proven remarkably prophetic. Look at the real motivations in their own words.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
- The Club of Rome Premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations.
-------
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
-------
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
-------
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
-------
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
- Emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
-------
“The future is to be [One] World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance.”
- Former Washington State Democratic governor Dixy Lee Ray
-------
“Urgent and unprecedented environmental and social changes challenge scientists to define a new social contract...a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding.”
NOAA’s Administrator Jane Lubchenko, when she was president of AAAS in 1999
-------
“Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” In simpler terms, replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World government and economic control.
- UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres
-------
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. “It is not. It is actually about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
-IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer
-------
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
- David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First
-------
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
-------
The Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing” (nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy) “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,”
-Saikat Chakrabarti, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff.
The universities, professional societies and even congress has taken serious and alarming steps to eliminate (punish) doubters and public opinion. They attack any of their own, who speak out. That includes formerly outspoken environmentalists like Dr. Patrick Moore, co founder of Greenpeace and Michael Shellenberger formerly Time Magazine’s ‘Hero of the Environment’ whose apology for the false scare which was published by Forbes but then forced to be removed. They even have threatened to use RICO against any vocal doubters that remain. See why attention to this is important for our future here.
Stacey Abrams, who ran for governor of Georgia, and Tom Steyer, who ran for president of the United States, are now trying to run me out of town. Abrams, Steyer, and the leaders of 17 large environmental lobbies recently asked Facebook to ban a research group that I direct the CO2 Coalition, made up of 55 climate scientists and energy economists.
The annual budgets of these lobbies total over half a billion dollars, and Steyer alone is worth $1.6 billion. Their alarmist view of our supposedly impending environmental doom predominates in mainstream media, centering on the impact on the earth of emissions of carbon dioxide -a non-polluting, mild warming gas, and an important source of plant and plankton food.
By contrast, the CO2 Coalition’s annual budget is half a million dollars. Like all scientists and economists who ask for any proof of the looming apocalypse, we are excluded from mainstream-media discussion. You might wonder: how did the Steyer-Abrams crowd even notice us, let alone conclude that we posed a threat to their enforced consensus, which calls for an end to the affordable, reliable energy that powers over 80 percent of the world?
The answer is found in the work of a Silicon Valley computer entrepreneur named Eric Michelman, who became fabulously wealthy creating a modification of the computer mouse. For more than a decade now, Michelman has devoted his wealth to squelching media debate on climate change - a successful dry run for the cancel culture that we see engulfing many other issues today.
In 2016, Michelman was the founding and lead funder of a group called Climate Feedback, whose purpose is to “fact-check” and label as “false” any and all deviant thoughts about fossil-fueled climate catastrophe. The group has been certified as an unbiased source on climate issues by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which was founded by the Tampa Bay Times and operates the left-leaning PolitiFact. At some point, Facebook turned its censorship oversight over to the Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network.
That’s when our organization’s problems started.
In September 2019, a “false” label appeared on Facebook when the Washington Examiner posted an article I had written there with Dr. Patrick Michaels, our senior fellow and a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists. The op-ed described the poor performance of climate models that had projected alarming increases in future temperatures. The “false” label triggered a wave of censorship from Facebook’s algorithms, blocking reposting and advertising.
The detailed, scientifically referenced letter we wrote to Facebook that soon got the label reversed is almost identical in form and argument to responses this summer to similar Climate Feedback censorship written by environmental writer Michael Shellenberger, Dr. Michaels (after a televised appearance on Fox’s Life, Liberty, and Levin), and climate statistician Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. All of us agree: Climate Feedback is biased, sloppy, and often just flat wrong. For example, in its “fact-checks,” the group blatantly contradicts the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s finding that there has been no statistically significant increase in rates of sea-level rise, hurricanes, droughts, and floods during the carbon emissions era that began with the dramatic industrialization after World War II.
Climate Feedback is Michelman’s third major attempt at promoting climate alarmism and silencing opposing views. First came the Climate Change Education Project, in 2008, followed by the More than Scientists campaign in 2015. When he set up that campaign, Michelman said:
It’s about showing the science is settled. Studies consistently show that 97 percent of scientists agree. We want the public to both hear from them that, yeah, this is settled, but also see scientists for who they are. They’re our neighbors, our fellow citizens, and community members. They’re people with kids, and they’re worried about the future. When they say, “I am concerned about climate change and I think we need to act on it,” you can understand they’re saying it because they have kids just like you do.
Since Michelman had decided that the science was settled in favor of a 97 percent consensus on catastrophe before he even founded Climate Feedback, his group should never have been let into a network of “unbiased” reviewers. And its performance shows why.
I’m all for debating with Climate Feedback. For 15 years as a professor at American University, I invited to my classes on climate statistics and mathematical modeling many of the groups whose leaders signed the recent letter to Facebook calling for us to be banned. But there was no response because the cancel culture doesn’t believe in debate. It believes in silencing its opponents by denying them a platform. We’ll hold on as long as we can. I believe that the truth will out-even against “fact-checkers.”
Dr. Caleb Rossiter is the executive director of the CO2 Coalition.
-------
Thank you Dr. Rossiter,
I think that it is very important to put names and faces to the ‘Cancel Culture’ that is trying to defeat us with censorship. Note that none have any scientific background and therefore default to strong arm tactics. They cannot afford to let the truth be heard.
Here in Portland, the worst of the worst have turned to rioting, because Race is the hottest topic of the moment, surpassing Climate and COVID-19. And these mostly white folks are at their best when they are at their worst: rioting. Their latest tactic is to scream racist remarks at black Portland policemen. That goes over well!
But more generally, these folks have to be very unhappy about our climate. It has been almost too perfect of late. Due to a northerly flow, we have had trouble reaching normal highs, let alone exceeding them. On July 13, 14, and 15, our record highs (101, 103, and 103 F) were set the very first year records were kept at the new Portland Airport. That was 1941. We were in the 80’s this year. Then in 1942, we set record highs that still stand today of 102 and 105 F on July 1 and 2. We reached 66 and 72 F this year on those dates.
I understand the frustration of the Cancel Culture. Our destroyed downtown is a monument to their overwhelming stupidity.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
COVID19 models - a lesson for those who blindly trust climate scientists
The beneficial gas CO2 is demonstrated by Dr Craig Idso from CO2 Science, an organization trusted by NOAA to be a center that displayed US station data prior to the development of NCDC/NCEI.
Junk models using fraudulent data have been used to try and convince the world CO2 is bad and we need to rid it by eliminating all fossil fuels which output CO2.
Dr. Patrick Moore, Ecologist and co-founder of Greenpeace shows this also.
The models used to estimate U.S. deaths from COVID19 had projections that ranged from over 2 million two months back to 100,000-240,000 and then down to 60,000. Most hoped they would come down further, but the numbers blew past the 60,000. A lot of uncertainty exists in the data still though as an unknown number of the deaths attributed to COVID19 may really have been due to other morbidities and also some point out health care institutions are financially better off with a COVID19 cause of death.
The media seemed perplexed about the large changes in the models and questioned their concept and value. Welcome to the world of modeling (see this comparison).
We in the weather business use models as a tool and they present special challenges. We have a plethora of models to choose from which run 2 to 4 times a day or even on a smaller scale hourly. Operational model forecasts go out to as far 16 days into the future. The models are subject to large errors especially in the latter periods when storms are coming inland from data sparse regions like the Pacific. We have a favorite phrase - garbage in, garbage out.
The climate model story is even worse. The climate models overstate the warming from greenhouse gases by a factor of two or more.
Climate model forecasts versus the satellite and balloon observations
The models projected the greatest warming in the tropical high atmosphere (called the Tropical Hot Spot) where air in the mean rises due to convergence of air from both hemispheres. But the models warming results mostly from the release of heat from condensation of water vapor (95% of the greenhouse effect). CO2 is a trace gas, just 0.04% of the atmosphere by volume.
See no warming trend in the upper atmosphere since 1979 where models predict it.
Climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf in DER SPIEGEL actually admits quietly that the models are crap, running way too hot here.
HOW THEY DEAL WITH LACK OF REAL DATA AT GROUND LEVEL
The lack of warming is documented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s U.S. Climate Reference Network, an extremely accurate network of temperature stations throughout the United States that requires no corrective adjustments. (It began reporting temperature data in 2005.) When climate activists claim specific impacts of global warming in the United States, those impacts could not have been caused by any recent warming because no significant recent U.S. warming has occurred.
On a global scale the climate cabal portray the output from their models as gospel, and the believers confuse the model projections with measured data. The data centers make unsubstantiated claims that a given month or year is the warmest back to the beginning of the record (1880 or even 1850) often by the tiniest of margins (0.05C for example).
But the data is just not there to make those claims.
71% of the earth is oceans, and data before the satellite data became available 40 years ago, ocean data was reliant on ships which travelled along specific routes mainly in the northern hemisphere near the land.
A large percentage of land surface was erratically covered with observing sites and the data too often spare and intermittent.
To create an apparent agreement with their sacred models, the data centers manipulated real data or even generated with their models data for 95% of the planet that had poor coverage before the satellite era.
MIT’s climate scientist Dr. Mototaka here exposed the phoney claims that most years are the warmest ever since the 1850s of 1880s.
“The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.”
The world’s greatest scientists in the 1970s knew that and created the first view of global trends by using land temperatures where available in the Northern Hemisphere. It showed a 2F warming from 1880s to around 1940 and then a cooling that by around 1970s cut that by more than half. Further cooling until the late 19870s virtually eliminated the rest.
These early measurements were erased when models and global land (and ocean) data was ‘created’ in the following decades. The models cooled the early data and enhanced the warming to create an apparent steady warming during the eras when fossil fuel use increased. Our conclusion is that there is man made global warming but the men are in NOAA, NASA and Hadley.
By the way, the ocean data coverage and accuracy did not really become reliable until the implementation of the ARGO buoys in 2000 designed to accurately measure temperatures and ocean heat content. Like the satellite used to measure sea level changes (which showed no changes - until artificial adjustments were made), the early results were disappointing - showing no warming. The ARGO data supported the inconvenient near two decade pause in the warming that started in the late 1990s.
The models are tuned to manipulated (fraudulent) data. In addition to what we have shown above, this can be seen when you examine all the extremes of weather that these models and the theories predict. See here how each of the claims have failed.
SUMMARY
COVID19 has shown how major the impact on the global population a pandemic can bring. A Green New Deal wasn’t developed in a lab, but is as bat shit crazy and would have a major impact on life as we know it. The effect on our economy would not be as sudden but just as serious. The government would not be sending you checks in the mail to help but driving up the cost of energy, and the cost of living and the choices you make (cars you drive, where you can live, how much you can make and keep). Because it is based on junk science, we need to dispatch it as quickly as we can the COVID19.
See much more on this issue in this presentation in front of New Hampshire Taxpayers.
(See this comparison of climate models to COVID19 models). And go to this must see video on the fraud behind COVID19.
Mar 17, 2020
Climate change accused of being deadlier than Covid 19 - Fact check
This is a classic example of what I am trying to show, that this “climate change” issue is more than meets the eye, It is about using any tactic possible to push an agenda that is regressive and seeks to LIMIT what man can do, rather than expand. This article tries to scare the daylights out of people who are already scared, with an implication not supported by any facts today, We are all anxious about the unknown with this virus, so here we go, the predictable use of climate to scare people even more. But the facts are clear on climate over the last 100 years, the results on mankind are EXACTLY OPPOSITE. Which is even more remarkable given the growth of human life
I guess if the Covid-19 completely fizzles out, which is also a possibility, then anything that happens in the weather globally over the next 20 years that is blamed for deaths, means perhaps it would outstrip it, But the facts reveal that man’s adaptation via freedom, competition, and capitalism, which is leading the way, is saying the EXACT OPPOSITE is happening!
And that journalist that are writing things like this choose to ignore the facts, or have not researched it enough to see another side, speaks volumes as to the amount of trust one should put into any agenda that involves narrow-minded one-sidedness
Instead of writing thousands of words I will use a few choice charts, What I want to know, is why the people that write this stuff do not have the intellectual curiosity or the journalistic integrity to do what journalists are supposed to do: Question and show both sides of the issue. It is because of the lack of those qualities, we are reading what we are reading
So here we go, In direct defiance of what is implied in the above article, Climate deaths are plummeting.
image.gif
Now why, if you knew this, would you write what you did? Why did you not look at least for the countering argument?
Now watch this. Personal GDP globally and Life expectancy globally:
This means MORE PEOPLE ARE LIVING LONGER AND PROSEPERING MORE! When did this hockey stick like skyrocket start? At the start of the fossil fuel era.
Now consider this, and do not think this is minimizing the COVID 19 threat, The median age of deaths is in the low 80s. But if this virus appeared in the pre fossil fuel era, it may have gone virtually unnoticed BECAUSE of LIFE EXPECTANCY IN PRE FOSSIL FUEL ERA was between 30 and 40.
The ramping up to the current levels can be linked if not directly, then indirectly to the advancement of mankind in the fossil fuel era.
When one reads anything, including what I write, one needs to look at both sides, The fact is that the vast majority of articles written on this matter do not bring up countering points, and use the assumption that there is no counter, or someone is a science denier. Yet charts like this show that people saying that are denying facts that any 5th grader ( I use 5th grade since that population age group and around is getting the wits scared out of them with climate change) can see. What is being done today though in articles like the one that spawned this counter, is to make statements that run contrary to what has been going on, with no thinking beyond a set agenda? When you are narrow-minded, your field of vision is extremely limited and what is being revealed in a lot of things has to do with this subject is the narrow mindedness and intolerant views of people who should be doing the opposite, if they are indeed journalists.
In this case, not only do the facts about climate deaths and the advancement of mankind run contrary to what is being implied but the fact that IF NOT FOR THE INCREASE IN LIFE EXPECTANCY brought about with the help of the fossil fuel era, then this viruses impact, if the median age of death is in the low 80s, may not have even been noticed in the late 19th century since life expectancy was about half of what it is today.
As always, I ask the rational reader to consider the other side of the issue. And remind people, as per the previous piece I wrote, to be on guard against any event being blamed on “climate change” for “climate change” is actually a vehicle for another result. At the very least, consider the actual data presented here. And all you journalists that are using all the great tools we have today try to look at both sides of the issue, You might come to realize that where you stand today was built yesterday and the fossil fuel era and the freedoms we enjoy, is in a large part responsible for the foundation we have built to give you the chance. Don’t take that for granted, Question in all you do. Facts like what I have shown above, indicate that there is a reason to look at both sides of an issue. Be open-minded and tolerant, and don’t accuse those that bring up ideas you may not have seen, of being someone they are not (example Climate Denier). But writing scare articles using what is admittedly a scary virus, and then saying, “climate change” is something worse, without even showing people where we are today on the matter and the actual data, is not being open-minded nor tolerant of contrary ideas.
Author
Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore - and Others” which you can purchase at the CFACT bookstore.
NOAA and NASA can be counted on virtually every month or year end to religiously and confidently proclaim that the latest global average surface temperature (GAST) is among the warmest on record. Back in the 1970s when an assessment of a global temperature was first attempted, the scientists recognized that even land-only surface temperature data was a significant challenge given that most of the reliable data was limited to populated areas of the U.S, Europe and eastern China with just spotty often intermittent data from vast land areas elsewhere.
There were just 26 stations in 1880, only 4 in the southern hemisphere. Even in 1900, the 664 global stations was on 2.8% of the number in 2000.
Temperatures over oceans, which covered 71% of the globe, were measured along shipping routes mainly in the Northern Hemisphere erratically and with varying measurement methods. Despite these shortcomings and the fact that absolutely no credible grid level temperature data existed over the period from 1880 to 2000 in the Southern Hemisphere’s oceans (covering 80.9% of the Southern Hemisphere), global average surface temperature data estimation and publication by NOAA and NASA began in the early 1990s.
To illustrate the problem, on January 16, 2020, the WSJ published a lead article by Robert Lee Hotz stating: “NASA, NOAA ranked 2019 as the second-hottest year in tracking data to 1880. The world experienced near-record global temperatures in 2019, federal climate scientists said. ---.” This claim was made despite the fact that absolutely no credible temperature data exists over this period for more than 40% of the planet (0.5*0.809 =0.4+).
After 2000, there were diving buoys. But when the best technology designed specifically for the purpose, the ARGO buoys, disappointed by showing no upward trend, the data from the buoys was “adjusted.” John Bates, data quality officer with NOAA admitted “They had good data from buoys...and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did - so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.” He retired after that change was made.
That was just the latest example of data manipulation. Initially, this global data had a cyclical pattern similar to previously reported Northern Hemisphere data (high in the 1930s and 40s, low in the 70s). Then, as time progressed, the previous officially reported GAST data history was modified, removing the cycle and creating a more and more strongly upward sloping linear trend in each freshly reported historical data set.
--------------
Peer reviewed, published and readily reproducible research has shown that: “The conclusive findings were that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality.”
“In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, which removed their cyclical temperature patterns are completely inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, despite current assertions of record-setting warming, it is impossible to conclude from the NOAA and NASA data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever.”
Current climate policies - based on these unreliable temperature records - threaten our economic and national security interests. As the proposed climate policies grow more extreme, the consequences of allowing this record to remain unchallenged gravely threatens an onslaught of litigation based on the greenhouse gas endangerment finding. Importantly, this litigation imposes significant impediments to the mineral land leasing and pipeline infrastructure build out necessary to maintain and enhance energy independence and economic prosperity.
Furthermore, the US financial sector has already dramatically curtailed its support of conventional energy source development in large part due to the continued calls for regulatory destruction of the fossil fuel industry based substantially on NOAA and NASA’s now invalidated global surface temperature records. This situation is putting our Nation’s energy security at grave risk ‘ which means our economic and national security are also in great peril.
----------
ADDENDUM to the Research Report entitled: On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, Abridged Research Report, Dr. James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo ABD, Dr. Craig D. Idso, June 2017
The June 2017 Research Report provides ample evidence that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data was invalidated for use in climate modelling and for any other climate change policy analysis purpose. However, there was one very critical science argument that this report did not make, which is made here.
This critical point involves whether or not it was even possible to compute a mathematically proper GAST data set over the period 1900-2000 in the first place. Claims of record-setting GAST were made as one of the three Lines of Evidence of the 2009 GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding. Another Line of Evidence purported that climate models, tuned to fit this GAST data, were adequate for policy analysis purposes. The third Line of Evidence for validation required credible Surface Temperature data as well. However, as stated in the aforementioned GAST Research Report:
“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever - despite current claims of record setting warming. Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings” (1)
Thus, in this GAST report, ample evidence was provided that the current officially reported GAST data are simply not credible, therefore invalidating the 2009 Endangerment Finding. However, there is a proof that is far easier to understand. Over the period 1900-2000, there is virtually no credible surface temperature data available for at least 40% of the surface of the Earth. This follows from the fact that the Southern Hemisphere’s surface is over 80% ocean (.50*.80=40), and essentially no credible temperature data was captured for these vast oceans over this time period. (2)
Hence, it never made any sense to even attempt to compute a GAST data set over this time period unless the purpose was to construct a temperature data set that could be made to have virtually any pattern over that time period that the institutions involved desired to portray as reality. In truth, with literally no credible temperature data available for well over 40% of the Earth’s surface, these institutions were only limited by what was credible to the outside world. (3) Thus far, not knowing these facts, all relevant parties, e.g., regulators, environmentalists, and government officials, have been far too accepting of the GAST record as a valid global temperature database. Since GAST data has now been separately proven to not be a valid representation of reality, it also means that the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding has been once again invalidated.
(2) Southern Hemisphere “The South Atlantic, the South Pacific, the Indian Ocean and several seas, including the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand and the Weddell Sea next to Antarctica, constitute approximately 80.9 percent of the Southern Hemisphere. Land constitutes about 19.1 percent. In the Northern Hemisphere, on the other hand, most of the area is comprised of land masses.”
In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen et al reported that “Problems in obtaining a global temperature history are due to the uneven station distribution (40), with the Southern Hemisphere and ocean areas poorly represented,” - - - - (Science, 28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511)
In 1978, the New York Times reported there was too little temperature data from the Southern Hemisphere to draw any reliable conclusions. The report, prepared by German, Japanese and American specialists, appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of Nature, the British journal and stated that “Data from the Southern Hemisphere, particularly south of latitude 30 south, are so meager that reliable conclusions are not possible,” the report says.
“Ships travel on well-established routes so that vast areas of ocean, are simply not traversed by ships at all, and even those that do, may not return weather data on route. Attempting to compile a ‘global mean temperature’ for 70% of the earth from such fragmentary, disorganized, error-ridden and geographically unbalanced data is more guesswork than science.
As to sea surface temperatures (SST), this data is even more fragmentary than the air temperature readings. Prior to around 1940, SST was collected by throwing buckets over the side of a ship, hoisting it on deck and dipping a thermometer in it. Bucket data is only useful for immediate weather prediction purposes, not for long-term statistical climatic analysis. Any other data collected in such bizarre ways would be laughed out of any other scientific forum.”
“Since the 1980s and 1990s we have satellites to measure SST [22] using infra-red sensors (not to be confused with the MSU instruments which measure the atmosphere). Unfortunately, satellites sensing SSTs in the infra-red can only see the immediate water surface, not the water even a few centimetres deeper. This is because infra-red radiation at these wavebands (around 10 microns) cannot penetrate water at all, and so the satellite can only ‘see’ that top millimetre. This can result in both warm and cool errors. On hot still days, the top centimetre of the ocean surface can be much warmer than waters a few centimetres deeper, similar to the same phenomenon which can be observed in any undisturbed outdoor swimming pool. On windy days, there is no such difference due to wave mixing. There is also an intermittent ’thermal skin effect where the top millimetre of water on calm seas can be up to 0.3C cooler than the water just beneath the ‘skin’ due to evaporation taking place on the surface. For these reasons, SSTs taken from satellites are only accurate to within a few tenths of a degree, adequate for immediate meteorological purposes or detecting an El Nino, but not suited to measuring subtle global climatic changes of a few tenths of a degree.” John Daly
========
See the Superbowl of Data Tampering by Tony Heller:
--------------
All our efforts are volunteer (pro-bono). Help us with a donation if you can (left column).
Below are a series of rebuttals of the 13 most common climate alarmists’ claims such as those made in the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment Report. The authors of these rebuttals are all recognized experts in the relevant fields.
For each alarmist claim, a summary of the relevant rebuttal is provided along with a link to the full text of the rebuttal, with graphics and includes the names and the credentials of the authors of each rebuttal.
* Heat Waves - have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally.
* Hurricanes - the decade just ended as the second quietest for landfalling. hurricanes and landfalling major hurricanes in the U.S since the 1850s.
* Tornadoes - the number of strong tornadoes has declined over the last half century. More active months occur when unseasonable cold spring patterns are present.
* Wildfires - decreasing since the very active 1800s. The increase in damage in recent years is due to population growth in vulnerable areas and poor forest management. See Australia Wildfire story here.
* Snowfall - has been increasing in the fall and winter in the Northern Hemisphere and North America with many records being set.
* Sea level - the rate of global sea level rise on average has fallen by 40% the last century. Where today, it is increasing - local factors such as land subsidence are to blame. See how sea level trends are being adjusted here.
* Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland Ice - the polar ice varies with multidecadal cycles in ocean temperatures. Current levels are comparable to or above historical low levels. Arctic ice returned to higher levels with a very cold winter in 2019/20. Ice was highest level since 2013. See update here on the AMO, PDO ocean cycles, the Solar and Arctic temperatures.
* Alaska July 2019 heat records/ winter 2019/20 cold - the hot July resulted from a warm North Pacific and reduced ice in the Bering Sea late winter due to strong storms. Record ice extent occurred with record cold in 2012. 2019/20 has been the third coldest winter in Fairbanks since the Great Pacific Climate Shift in the late 1970s.
* ”Ocean Acidification” - when life is considered, ocean acidification (really slightly reduced alkalinity) is a non-problem, or even a benefit.
* Carbon Pollution as a health hazard - carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless invisible trace gas that is plant food and it is essential to life on the planet. CO2 is not a pollutant.
* Climate change is endangering food supply - the vitality of global vegetation in both managed and unmanaged ecosystems is better off now than it was a hundred years ago, 50 years ago, or even a mere two-to-three decades ago thanks in part to CO2.
* There is a 97% consensus that climate change is man-made - a 97% consensus is a convenient fiction meant to bypass the scientific method and sway public opinion and drive societal changes and policies that support political agendas.
See the detailed rebuttals here. Each section details claim and links to a detailed scientific analysis with supporting graphics and lnks.
Please help support our VOLUNTARY efforts if you are able by using the PAYPAL donate button in left side column. Small contributions help and are always appreciated.
Mar 24, 2020
Solid Reasons To Push Back On The Dangerous Globalist Radical Environmental Plans
UPDATE: Before you read and trust any of the government, AMS, research center or environmental advocacy organization “state of the climate” nonsense see one that can be trusted by Professor Ole Humulm here.
Also Dr. Charles Battig in American Thinker on A Winning Trifecta for Climate Science and rationality here.
Also Bjorn Lomborg’s well resourced book False Alarm (How Climate Change Panic Cost Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.
-----------
Government agencies, energy companies, auto and major corporations are increasing their support of decarbonization programs and policies (including taxes, mandated reduction of our use of fossil fuels, pushing not ready for prime time alternatives). This has proved to be a disaster where this unwise radical agenda has been imposed.
CO2 - NOT A POLLUTANT BUT THE GAS OF LIFE
CO2 is a beneficial trace gas (0.04% of our atmosphere). With every breath we emit out 100 times more CO2 than we breathe in so it is not harmful. The increase in CO2 has caused a significant greening of the earth, with increased crop yields feeding more people at lower cost.
Dr. Craig Idso of CO2 Science noted recently “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and it is most certainly not causing dangerous global warming. Rather, its increase in the atmosphere is invigorating the biosphere, producing a multitude of benefits for humanity and the natural world, notwithstanding the prognostications of the uninformed.”
Dr. Will Happer, Princeton Physicist talks about the great benefits of CO2 to the biosphere and to all of humanity.says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.
Dr Patrick Moore, ecologit and co-founder of Greenpeace says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.
It’s not the first time we were told we faced an existential threat due to ‘climate change’. In 1970, Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich warned that because of population growth, climate stress (then cold) and dwindling energy that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off” which was too late to stop. Even as each subsequent dire forecast failed (see how the alarmist/media record is perfect (100% wrong) in the 50 major claims made since 1950 here), the alarms continued, each pushing the date forward - 2000, 2020, and now 2030. Last summer, at Glacier National Park signs “Warning: glaciers will be gone by 2020” were quietly removed as ice and snow has increased.
That is because they have used failed assumptions and models tuned to manipulated (fraudulent) data. Dr. Mototaka here exposes that:"The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.”
I have spent 50 years focusing on attribution science - starting with my Master’s thesis on what caused bomb east coast snowstorms in winter. I have spent the decades doing correlations of weather patterns and extremes with natural factors. The last few years, I worked with a team of scientific experts evaluated today today’s 12 most commonly reported claims and found them all either unfounded and explainable by natural factors - see here.
Tony Heller has a kick butt video that exposed the fraud using a unique data tool that exposed their tricks and the real story.
Heat records have declined since the 1930s, which holds 22 of the 50 state hottest ever temperature records. The 2010’s was the second quietest decade for landfalling hurricanes and major hurricanes since 1850. It was the quietest decade for tornadoes since tracking began in the 1950s. Sea level rises have slowed to 4 inches/century globally. Arctic ice has tracked with the 60-year ocean cycles and is similar to where it was in the 1920s to 1950s. NOAA could find no evidence of increased frequency of floods and droughts (last spring had the smallest % of US in drought on record).
Snow which the university scientists here predicted would disappear, actually has set new records (fall and winter) for the hemisphere and North America, and both Boston and NYC have had more snow in the 10 years ending 2018 than any other 10 year period back to the late 1800s.
Wildfires cause havoc but were far more prevalent before the forest management, fire suppression and grazing of the 1900s. They are problems now because more have left the failing cities to move out of state or to the beauty of the foothills. The power lines to service them can spark new fires when the cold air rushes through the mountain passes this time of years downing trees onto the power lines.
In the U.S., with low cost energy, low taxes and elimination of stifling regulations, we had the lowest unemployment for the nation in decades or history and for the first time in a long time significant wage increases! Here in NH, we had the lowest unemployment in the nation. The U.S. is energy independent, a long time thought unachievable goal. Our air and water is cleanest in our lifetimes well below the tough standards we put in place decades ago.
The real existential threat comes would come from radical environmentalism and their prescribed remedies. The climate scare is politically driven, all about big government and control over every aspect of our lives. AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti in May admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing” - nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy. He was echoing what the climate change head of the UN climate chief and the UN IPCC Lead Author said - that is was our best chance to change the economic system (to centralized control) and redistribute wealth (socialism).
The economy in every country that has moved down an extreme green path have seen skyrocketing energy costs - some 3 times our levels.
Renewables are unreliable as the wind doesn’t always blow nor the sun shine. And don’t believe the claims millions of green jobs would result. In Spain, every green job created cost Spain $774,000 in subsidies and resulted in a loss of 2.2 real jobs. Only 1 in 10 green jobs were permanent. Industry left and in Spain unemployment rose to 27.5%.
Many households in the countries that have gone green are said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). The elderly are said in winter to be forced to “choose between heating and eating”. Extreme cold already kills 20 times more than heat according to a study of 74 million deaths in 13 countries.
Politicians in the northeast states are bragging that they stopped the natural gas pipeline, shut down nuclear and coal plants and blocked the northern Pass which would have delivered low cost hydropower from Canada. In Concord, they are now scurrying to try and explain why electricity prices are 50 to 60% higher than the national average here and are speculating they have not moved fast enough with wind and solar. Several states have even established zero carbon emissions. This will lead to soaring energy prices and life-threatening blackouts. For a family of 4 in a modest house with 3 cars, the energy costs could increase well over $10,000/year
(based on a sample of households and their energy costs multiplied by 3 as has occurred in countries with a onerous green agenda). And by the way like in Europe where this plan was enacted or planned, many will lose their jobs. They are being told what (if) they can drive and what they can eat. Prosperity always delivers a better life AND environment than poverty.
REALITY CHECKS LARGELY GETTING NO MEDIA ATTENTION
There are a few recent important reports that show what the impact of these plans are likely to be. The radical environmentalists and globalists believe that people are stupid and can be counted on to believe what government leaders, progressive think tanks and the well paid scientific cabal say. There are a few recent reports that show what the real impact of some of these plans now on the drawing board are likely to be and they are very scary.
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE’S GLOBAL ENERGY INSTITUTE’S ENERGY ACCOUNTABILITY SERIES 2020
Candidates for elected office have pledged to ban the very technology that has enabled the boom (and the never thought possible energy independence) - fracking. This raises an important question: what would happen to American jobs and the economy if fracturing was banned? In this report, the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute has undertaken the modeling and analysis to answer that question.
Simply put, a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for our economy.
Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025 it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $7.1 trillion. Job losses in major energy producing states would be immediate and severe; in Texas alone, more than three million jobs would be lost. Tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels would decline by nearly a combined $1.9 trillion, as the ban cuts off a critical source of funding for schools, first responders, infrastructure, and other critical public services.
Energy prices would also skyrocket under a fracking ban. Natural gas prices would leap by 324 percent, causing household energy bills to more than quadruple. By 2025, motorists would pay twice as much at the pump ($5/gallon +)
THE NORTHEAST PETRI-DISH - MASSACHUSETTS CASE STUDY
Massachusetts lawmakers have been aggressive in enacting policies they believe to combat climate change. Policymakers passed the Global Warming Solutions Act and joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative intending to reduce the state’s GHG emissions. As a result you can see Massachusetts tops all the other lower 48 states in the cost of electricity according to the EIA (173.2% of the average of the lower 48 states). Right up there with Massachusetts are all the other northeast RGGI states and not surprisingly California. Connecticut is #1 now with 175.1%.
For Massachusetts this is before the introduction of the Transportation Climate Initiative or TCI, the next big over the cliff proposed effort to kill fossil fuels
They write “The Transportation and Climate Initiative of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States (TCI) describes itself as “a regional collaboration of 12 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia that seeks to improve transportation, develop the clean energy economy and reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector.” Massachusetts is a participating state.
The founding document for the TCI is a “Declaration of Intent,” issued in 2010 and signed by transportation and environmental officials in 11 states. The declaration states that the purpose of the TCI is “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, minimize our transportation system’s reliance on high-carbon fuels, promote sustainable growth, address the challenges of vehicle-miles traveled and help build the green energy economy.”
The Initiative is “facilitated” by the Georgetown Climate Center, which worked closely with the Obama administration in its to design and implement climate change (fossil fuel elimination) policies.
BHI examined three scenarios - plans for 20%, 22% and 25% reductions of CO2 emissions from gasoline and diesel vehicles.
The midpoint TCI analysis for the period 2022-2026 for a 22% reduction of gasoline and diesel emissions would lead to a total loss of 36,533 jobs with increased energy cost per household of $3,037 in Massachusetts.
The Green New Deal presented the ideal radical left desires to change life as we know it. It is more likely change will continue to be incremental. And these studies show, the actions are not supported by real data and honest science, and the pain will be significant.
“If you don’t know where you are going, you might end up somewhere else.” Yogi Berra
Right now COVID-19 has taken up all the country’s (world’s) attention and coverage. After the country goes back to work and before the election we need to work hard to increase awareness of the fraud behind the scare and the extreme damage that could result from the ideologically driven policies. It is an uphill battle for those of us fighting it and one with little or no support.
Mar 09, 2020
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Methane - a more scientific view
The greenhouse effect makes this planet more hospitable. Greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere keep the planet warmer than it would otherwise be by re-radiating some of the energy back toward the earth - in a process called back radiation. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas. Much of the discussion of the greenhouse effect has been rooted in an incorrect picture of the atmosphere: nearly all climate models begin by assuming “dry air” as the gas. As shown in Figure 1, that assumption yields this picture of the atmosphere:
Mentioning H2O (Water vapor) in an asterisk is definitely not the right way to go about it. Dry air does not exist in nature, but must be created in the laboratory with specialized equipment. Therefore, the above picture seriously misrepresents the reality of air and the reality of the greenhouse effect. In reality, the greenhouse gases (GHGs) comprise a small finite fraction of the atmosphere, and H2O is by far the most important of them. In the pie-chart shown in Figure 2 below, we illustrate better how the greenhouse effect is “divvied up” in the real world, unlike the imaginary world of dry air.
Figure 2: Breakdown of the “natural” greenhouse effect by contributing gas. IPCC ReportAR-1. 1992. (Because halocarbons are industrial gases they are not represented here).
However, to draw even this graph, it was necessary to choose some specific amount of water vapor in a representative atmospheric model. That’s not a very reliable way to guess (given the forecast reliability of climate models), but it’s far better than guessing zero, which is the case with “dry air.” In Figure 2, 28% of the greenhouse effect is attributed to “other gases” which are almost entirely CO2. That percentage is very likely way too high. The magnitude of CO2’s influence is now being challenged worldwide See 1, 2 . However, the point we wish to make herein is about methane (CH4) and its actual greenhouse impact, not that of CO2.
In the U.S., regulation of methane emissions from numerous sources is currently being debated. Currently, this debate is not at all about the scientific basis for regulation, but rather totally about the costs involved with regulating various sources. However, contrary to the common assertions, the GHG temperature impact of methane is negligible 3. Thus, water vapor and clouds are primarily responsible for the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect. Climate modelers have tried to model this highly complex thermodynamic process by starting with dry air and then introducing H2O as a “feedback” effect. That clearly doesn’t work as shown below.
There is a huge difference between methane as a confined gas inside laboratory equipment and methane as it is found in normal air. In the real world of real air, the very few possible absorption-lines of CH4 are utterly swamped by the prominent absorption-lines of H2O at the very same wavelengths. Any photon that might be captured by CH4 has long since been captured by H2O. Add to that the fact that there is very little energy in the CH4 region of the infrared spectrum (7.65 microns), because the radiation emanating from earth is centered around 15 microns and spread from about 9 microns to 30 microns. Also, add to that the fact that CH4 concentration is about 1.8 parts per million, while H2O is about 15,000 parts per million. As it turns out, H2O’s impacts, including its phase-change-related impacts, overwhelm everything else in the entire “greenhouse” game.
The entire furor over methane (and the “cow farts” which are good for some giggles) is simply a result of imagining an atmosphere having an idealized chemical-laboratory setting instead of thinking of the earth’s actual atmosphere, made up of real air, which contains H20 - lots of it, not to mention the enormous oceans always ready to evaporate more H2O upon warming.
The mechanism by which methane goes away is this: being far lighter than air (atomic weight 16), CH4 drifts from the surface (where its origin is termites, wetlands, rice paddies and a little from human and animal activities, etc.) up through the troposphere into the stratosphere. There it is soon oxidized to H2O and CO2 . That happens in the daytime, aided by solar photons. (CH4 and O2 molecules don’t just automatically combine when nearby, and infrared photons are too weak to energize the reaction.) The amount of H2O in the stratosphere is about 4 or 5 ppm. Why not zero? H2O was supposed to have all frozen out and turned into clouds in the upper troposphere, was it not? It seems very likely that virtually all the H2O molecules in the stratosphere are what is produced via the oxidation of CH4. But these H2O molecules are of such low density that the H2O-to-H2O collisions (required to begin a snowflake) would occur very infrequently. People guess that the lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere might be around 5 years. That’s a guess because it hasn’t been measured well. The many different emission sources of CH4 are ‘ubiquitous”, i.e. “all over the place” and there’s no current way to track atmospheric CH4 concentration. Moreover, there is more being originated every day. But, once again, since CH4 is lighter than air, it gradually heads for the stratosphere anyway where the above mentioned chemical reaction dispenses with it! Hence the hand-waving guess of 5 years still stands. But, nobody cares, because CH4 goes away on its own with negligible impact on the Earth’s temperature. There is no place akin to Mauna Loa where CH4 atmospheric concentration has been measured over a large fraction of the past century; thus, unlike for CO2, any claim that a century ago CH4 concentration was half its value
today is specious.
Rather the entire fear of CH4 is based entirely on the IPCC “Global Warming Potential” number being a “factor of 28 stronger” than CO2. But that concept is rooted in thinking about “dry air” in the laboratory, not about “real air” in nature.
SUMMARY
Water vapor and clouds totally dominate the greenhouse gas impact on the Earth’s temperature. Methane emissions have negligible impact and there is no need whatsoever for their regulation. In fact, the cost/benefit ratio associated with any attempt at regulation to reduce methane emissions would be infinite, since the “global cooling benefit” would be zero - not to mention the costs being huge!
More than a million Californians suffered power blackouts last Friday evening. When high temperatures caused customer demand to exceed the power available, California electrical utilities used rotating outages to force a reduction in demand. The California grid is the worst in the nation, with green energy policies pursued by the state likely furthering reduced grid reliability.
At 6:30 pm on Friday, Pacific Gas and Electric, California’s biggest utility, began shutting off power in rolling outages to force a reduction in demand. Southern California Edison also denied power to homes, beginning just before 7 pm. Shutoffs impacted a rotating group of up to two million customers until 11 pm.
The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) declared a Stage 3 Electrical Emergency, the first Stage 3 emergency since 2001. Spot power electricity prices soared to over $1,000 per megawatt-hour, more than 10 times the usual price.
In 2018, 19 percent of California’s electricity came from roof-top and utility-scale solar installations, the highest percentage in the nation. But by 6:30 pm each day, that solar output approaches zero. The state lacks enough reliable electricity generation capacity to run the air conditioners during hot summer evenings.
California has the least reliable electrical power system in the US. It isn’t even close. According to data by Eaton Corporation, the state leads the US in power outages every year, with more than double the outages of any other state over the last decade.
The causes of power outages can be divided into four major groups, which in order of importance are weather or downed trees, faulty equipment or human errors, unknowns, and vehicle accidents. California suffered the largest number of outages in each category in each year for 2014 through 2017.
For more than a decade, California has been closing coal and nuclear power plants. Recently, the state also began closing natural gas-fired plants as part of a continuing effort to fight global warming.
In 2006, Senate Bill 1368 established California’s Emissions Performance Standard, an effort to reduce state greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Since 2007, 11 in-state, coal-fired plants have been closed as a result, with an additional 3 converted to biomass fuel. California also slashed imports of electricity generated from coal plants. The Argus Cogen plant in Trona is the last remaining coal plant.
California nuclear plants, though not emitters of greenhouse gases, are also being phased out. The second and third units of the San Onofre nuclear generating plant near Los Angeles ceased operation in 2013. The Diablo Canyon plant, the last nuclear plant in California, is scheduled for closure in 2025.
Driven by state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, gas-fired plants are also being shuttered. Natural gas generating capacity has fallen by more than 10 percent since 2013, with additional reductions planned.
Following the blackouts last Friday night, blackouts resumed at 6:30 pm on Saturday. Power officials blamed the loss of 1,000 megawatts of wind power when the wind subsided and the unexpected shutdown of a 470-megawatt power plant. It’s clear that the state does not have enough reliable baseload power as backup for intermittent wind and solar energy.
The problem of California’s poor electric reliability will likely get worse. On September 10, 2018, then Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100, committing California to obtain 100 percent of its electricity from “clean energy sources” by 2045. Replacement of coal, nuclear, and natural gas generators with wind and solar will continue erode grid reliability.
As part of global warming efforts, officials want all citizens to switch their natural gas stoves and furnaces to electric models. More than 30 California cities have enacted bans on gas appliances, including the major cities of San Francisco and San Jose. Almost 10 percent of the state population now lives in an area covered by restrictions against gas appliances in new residential construction.
California also wants residents to transition from gasoline- and diesel-powered cars and trucks to plug-in electric models. So, when those blackouts occur in the future, not only will your lights and air conditioners fail, but you won’t be able to cook your food or drive your car either.
California sacrificed reliable electrical power on the altar of the fight against global warming. There is no evidence that state efforts will have the slightest effect on global temperatures, but they will be great for candle and flashlight sales.
Steve Goreham is a speaker on the environment, business, and public policy and author of the book Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.
Climate alarmist are telling you a false story line
It’s really about spending huge sums of taxpayer money on a non-existent problem and vastly expanding government control over our lives
Greenland’s name wasn’t just a clever marketing ploy by the Icelandic Vikings to get suckers to move there
There is so much good news because of our gently warming world that you gotta wear shades - more food and less poverty
Be aware of the climate alarmist Trojan Horse
--------
On Tuesday evening, I appeared on the PBS program Chicago Tonight, with Alderman Matt Martin for a discussion about Chicago’s so-called “climate emergency.”
During the segment, we debated the merits of his resolution, “Declaring a Climate Emergency and Emergency Mobilization Effort to Restore a Safe Climate.” As you may know, several cities throughout America have passed similar measures, which are more about virtue-signaling than pragmatic solutions.
In essence, these misguided resolutions are all about spending huge sums of money on a non-existent problem and vastly expanding government control to boot. Just think about a city saving the earth. Oh, the hubris! Coincidence? I think not. These resolutions - including the Green New Deal - are not intended to avoid a climate cataclysm. They are really about increasing the power of politicians, so they can exert maximum control over our lives while reaching even deeper into our wallets and purses.
It isn’t about the climate, because we are not, nor have been, on the brink of a climate apocalypse. The manufacturing of the “climate crisis” is a stealth maneuver to increase the size and scope of government under the guise of global warming - don’t ever forget it.
In reality, we are threatened more by the Climate Delusion than we are by a worldwide climate catastrophe. In fact, over the past 170 years, our world (thankfully) is warming at a very gentle rate. This is natural, as all planets tend to undergo periodic cycles of warming and cooling. I don’t think it is a coincidence that without the presence of mankind, Mars is also experiencing a gentle warming cycle.
This warming/cooling phenomenon has been occurring for millennia, well before humans discovered and put petroleum to use for our benefit. For instance, there once was a time when humans actually walked from Asia to North America - not because they could walk on water, but because ocean levels were much lower, exposing a land bridge between present-day Russia and Alaska. Believe it or not, our planet has experienced several cooling and warming periods.
Greenland is called Greenland because from 900 to 1300, humans could actually grow crops in the then-warmer soil and climate of Greenland - it wasn’t just a clever marketing ploy by the Icelandic Vikings to get suckers to move there. This Medieval Warm Period was preceded by the cold and dark Middle Ages. Which was preceded by the Roman Warm Period from 700 BC to the time of Christ.
The Romans wore togas and shorts for a reason, it was warm way back then. When it is warm, it is better for plants, animals, and people. CO2 is plant food, worldwide crop harvests are up, up, up. Fortunately, we are in the midst of a natural warm and wet period, which is a good thing. In fact, more people die from exposure to cold than heat every year. I could go on and on, with mountains of facts, but I digress.
I know you are fed a steady diet of lies by the radical, legacy media. Unfortunately, like Alderman Martin, they are telling you a false story line. Taking this into account, I understand if you are skeptical in regards to The Heartland Institute’s perspective of climate realism. We at Heartland have done a deep dive into this topic and offer you a truthful, fact-based, realist perspective.
Martin’s resolution claims “WHEREAS, the death and destruction already wrought by current average global warming of 1 degree C [this is America for goodness sake, why isn’t this expressed in Fahrenheit?] demonstrates that the Earth is already too hot for safety and justice, [whatever that means] as attested by increased and intensifying wildfires, floods and rising seas, diseases, droughts and extreme weather.”
This alarmist rhetoric is quite alarming, and should immediately trigger your skeptical side. This type of doom and gloom propaganda is precisely why I call those who have joined the climate change movement (to some it has become a religion) climate alarmists, aka the green extreme. This is a classic case of the Chicken Little folk tale in action. Even worse, it is a world-wide false alarm, the sky is not falling and it isn’t burning up either.
At present, the world is experiencing less hurricanes that are less severe than in the past.
There are also less tornadoes in the United State than in many times in the past.
Australia, the desert continent, is getting wetter.
NOAA temperature data points to no heat increase in the U.S. over the past two (actually even 9) decades.
The oceans have risen 4 inches a century for the past 170 years, and are holding steady.
I have witnessed Lake Michigan at very high and very low levels. In my life, global warming and now climate change were blamed for both the highs and the lows. Wow, you can’t make this stuff up.
For decades, climate alarmists, like children (and Chicken Little) have simply made stuff up. And their highly unqualified predictions have been proven false time and time again. Over and over, they parrot the same dire projections and yet they carry on as if nothing has happened as these predictions fail to materialize, again and again and again.
Here is a primer on their poor predictions. Polar bears are going to die! There are more than ever. We will all be dead in a few years! We are not. Everyone will starve! Meanwhile, more people are well-fed and global poverty is at its lowest rate ever!
Being from Wisconsin, I ask: why would Wisconsinites not welcome a North Carolina-like climate? Why would people who live in northern Alberta, Canada not welcome Wisconsin-esque weather? Land values are up in northern Alberta, because the land is able to be used for more productive purposes. Put another way, humans can grow more crops when it is warm. There is so much good news because of our gently warming world - not in spite of it. We are being fed a steady diet of lies by the prophets of doom for the benefit of themselves and their wealthy well-connected friends; not for the benefit of ordinary, hard-working Americans - like you.
Be aware!
Sincerely,
Frank Lassee
---------
Surveys show the public largely does not prioritize climate change policies.
See how Facebook is doing fake Fact-Checking on papers that are not published on cabal controlled journals here.
Academics and scientists are yet again issuing “consensus” statements on climate change. In 2017, we were warned by 16,000 scientists across 184 countries that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.” This past week, BioScience, an academic, peer-reviewed journal from Oxford University Press, found 11,224 scientists, from 153 countries, who signed off on the latest climate change drivel. Citing a “moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is,” they’ve published the paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” In dystopian tone, they’ve issued a demand for Earth’s population to “be stabilized - and, ideally, gradually reduced - within a framework that ensures social integrity.”
With the disclaimer that I’m just a layman who resides in “flyover country,” who are these “11,000 Scientists,” and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter? Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields - their expertise isn’t inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science. For example, a physicist won’t teach a graduate-level course in biology, a podiatrist won’t perform open heart surgery, and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing. How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology, or atmospheric science? Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link - so I looked.
In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists. As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports that there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S. Conversely, this list contains plenty of “experts” who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN, and linguistics. Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could not care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change - let alone allow him to tell me how to live my life.
This raises the question: “Why did so few meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric scientists sign off on this latest paper?” Perhaps they know that this is faux science? The climate is a complex dynamic that science don’t fully understand, let alone predict. Nonetheless, radical, statist elements of society continue to advocate economy-destroying actions - taking lemmings over the cliff with them.
At family gatherings in the upcoming holiday season, when annoying in-laws cite “scientific consensus” on man’s effects on climate change, expose their ignorance and the irrelevance of these doomsday papers with an analogy. Advise them to seek out the consensus opinion of a group of chemists, linguists, and data scientists if they believe they tore a rotator cuff or have concerns with an asymmetrical mole they’ve discovered.
Parents, legislators, taxpayers, and others footing the bill for college education might be interested in just what is in store for the upcoming academic year.
Since many college classes will be online, there is a chance to witness professors indoctrinating their students in real time. So, there’s a chance that some college faculty might change their behavior. To see recent examples of campus nonsense and indoctrination, visit the Campus Reform and College Fix websites.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, warned congressional lawmakers “that Antifa is ‘winning’ and that much of academia, whether wittingly or unwittingly, is complicit in its success,” reported Campus Reform.
In his testimony before Congress Turley said:
To Antifa, people like me are the personification of the classical liberal view of free speech that perpetuates a system of oppression and abuse. I wish I could say that my view remains strongly implanted in our higher educational institutions. However, you are more likely to find public supporters for restricting free speech than you are to find defenders of free speech principles on many campuses.
The leftist bias at our colleges and universities has many harmful effects. A mathematics professor at University of California, Davis, faced considerable backlash over her opposition to the requirement for “diversity statements” from potential faculty.
Those seeking employment at the University of California, San Diego, are required to admit that “barriers” prevent women and minorities from full participation in campus life.
At American University, a history professor wrote a book calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. A Rutgers University professor said: “Watching the Iowa Caucus is a sickening display of the overrepresentation of whiteness.”
A Williams College professor has advocated the inclusion of social justice in math textbooks. Students at Wayne State University are no longer required to take a single math course to graduate; however, they may soon be required to take a diversity course.
Maybe some students will be forced into sharing the vision of Laurie Rubel, a math education professor at Brooklyn College. She says
the idea of cultural neutrality in math is a “myth,” and that asking whether 2 plus 2 equals 4 “reeks of white supremacist patriarchy.”
Rubel tweeted: “Y’all must know that the idea that math is objective or neutral IS A MYTH.”
Math professors and academics at other universities, including Harvard and the University of Illinois, discussed the “Eurocentric” roots of American mathematics. As for me, I would like to see the proof, in any culture, that 2 plus 2 is something other than 4.
Rutgers University’s English department chairwoman, Rebecca Walkowitz, announced changes to the department’s graduate writing program emphasizing “social justice” and “critical grammar.”
Leonydus Johnson, a speech-language pathologist and libertarian activist, says Walkowitz’s changes make the assumption that minorities cannot understand traditional and grammatically correct English speech and writing, which is “insulting, patronizing, and in itself, extremely racist.”
Then there is the nonsense taught on college campuses about white privilege. The idea of white privilege doesn’t explain why several historically marginalized groups outperform whites today.
For example, Japanese Americans suffered under the Alien Land Law of 1913 and other racist, exclusionary laws legally preventing them from owning land and property in more than a dozen American states until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
During World War II, more than 120,000 Japanese Americans were interned. However, by 1959, the income disparity between Japanese Americans and white Americans had almost disappeared.
Today, Japanese Americans outperform white Americans by large margins in income statistics, education outcomes, and test scores, and have much lower incarceration rates.
According to Rav Arora, writing for the New York Post, several black immigrant groups such as Nigerians, Trinidadians, Tobagonians, Barbadians, and Ghanaians all “have a median household income well above the American average.”
We are left with the question whether the people handing out “white privilege” made a mistake. The other alternative is that Japanese Americans, Nigerians, Barbadians, Ghanaians, Trinidadians, and Tobagonians are really white Americans.
The bottom line is that more Americans need to pay attention to the miseducation of our youth and that miseducation is not limited to higher education.
"After our daughter of fifteen years of age was moved to tears by the speech of Greta Thunberg at the UN recently, she became angry with our generation “who had been doing nothing for thirty years”. So, we decided to help her prevent what the girl on TV announced of “massive eradication and the disappearance of entire ecosystems”. We are now committed to give our daughter a future again, by doing our part to help cool the planet four degrees.
From now on she will go to school on a bicycle, because driving her by car costs fuel, and fuel puts emissions into the atmosphere. Of course it will be winter soon and then she will want to go by bus, but only as long as it is a diesel bus. Somehow, that does not seem to be conducive to ‘helping the Climate’.
Of course, she is now asking for an electric bicycle, but we have shown her the devastation caused to the areas of the planet as a result of mining for the extraction of Lithium and other minerals used to make batteries for electric bicycles, so she will be pedaling, or walking. Which will not harm her, or the planet. We used to cycle and walk to school too.
Since the girl on TV demanded “we need to get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels” and our daughter agreed with her, we have disconnected the heat vent in her room. The temperature is now dropping to twelve degrees in the evening, and will drop below freezing in the winter, we have promised to buy her an extra sweater, hat, tights, gloves and a blanket.
For the same reason we have decided that from now on she only takes a cold shower. She will wash her clothes by hand, with a wooden washboard, because the washing machine is simply a power consumer and since the dryer uses natural gas, she will hang her clothes on the clothesline to dry.
Speaking of clothes, the ones that she currently has are all synthetic, so made from petroleum. Therefore on Monday, we will bring all her designer clothing to the secondhand shop.
We have found an eco store where the only clothing they sell is made from undyed and unbleached linen, wool and jute. It shouldn’t matter that it looks good on her, or that she is going to be laughed at, dressing in colorless, bland clothes and without a wireless bra, but that is the price she has to pay for the benefit of The Climate. Cotton is out of the question, as it comes from distant lands and pesticides are used for it. Very bad for the environment.
We just saw on her Instagram that she’s pretty angry with us. This was not our intention.
From now on, at 7 p.m. we will turn off the Wi-Fi and we will only switch it on again the next day after dinner for two hours. In this way we will save on electricity, so she is not bothered by electro-stress and will be totally isolated from the outside world. This way, she can concentrate solely on her homework. At eleven o’clock in the evening we will pull the breaker to shut the power off to her room, so she knows that dark is really dark. That will save a lot of CO2.
She will no longer be participating in winter sports to ski lodges and resorts, nor will she be going on any more vacations with us, because our vacation destinations are practically inaccessible by bicycle.
Since our daughter fully agrees with the girl on TV that the CO2 emissions and footprints of her great-grandparents are to blame for ‘killing our planet’, what all this simply means, is that she also has to live like her great-grandparents and they never had a holiday, a car or even a bicycle.
We haven’t talked about the carbon footprint of food yet. Zero CO2 footprint means no meat, no fish and no poultry, but also no meat substitutes that are based on soy (after all, that grows in farmers fields, that use machinery to harvest the beans, trucks to transport to the processing plants, where more energy is used, then trucked to the packaging/canning plants, and trucked once again to the stores) and also no imported food, because that has a negative ecological effect. And absolutely no chocolate from Africa, no coffee from South America and no tea from Asia.
Only homegrown potatoes, vegetables and fruit that have been grown in local cold soil, because greenhouses run on boilers, piped in CO2 and artificial light. Apparently, these things are also bad for The Climate. We will teach her how to grow her own food.
Bread is still possible, but butter, milk, cheese and yogurt, cottage cheese and cream come from cows and they emit CO2. No more margarine and no oils will be used for the frying pan, because that fat is palm oil from plantations in Borneo where rain forests first grew.
No ice cream in the summer. No soft drinks and no energy drinks, as the bubbles are CO2. She wanted to lose some pounds, well; this will help her achieve that goal too.
We will also ban all plastic, because it comes from chemical factories. Everything made of steel and aluminum must also be removed. Have you ever seen the amount of energy a blast furnace consumes or an aluminum smelter? Uber bad for the climate!
We will replace her 9600 coil, memory foam pillow top mattress, with a jute bag filled with straw, with a horsehair pillow.
And finally, she will no longer be using makeup, soap, shampoo, cream, lotion, conditioner, toothpaste and medication. Her sanitary napkins will be replaced with pads made of linen, that she can wash by hand, with her wooden washboard, just like her female ancestors did before climate change made her angry at us for destroying her future.
In this way we will help her to do her part to prevent mass extinction, water levels rising and the disappearance of entire ecosystems. If she truly believes she wants to walk the talk of the girl on TV, she will gladly accept and happily embrace her “new way of life.
May your troubles be less, may your blessings be more, and may nothing but happiness come through your door! When we choose not to focus on what is missing from our lives but are grateful for the abundance that is present we experience heaven on earth.
For years we’ve been subjected to what can only be described as fake science on climate change, brought to us by folks that can best be described as fake climate scientists.
They engage in practices that real scientists would never follow, and willfully ignore everything the scientific method prescribes as guidelines for honest, replicable, beneficial research. Even worse, these fake/alarmist scientists demand that their suspect work be used to justify energy policies that would upend and devastate modern industrial economies - for no climate benefit… with millions of acres blanketed by wind turbines and solar panels ...and with billions of impoverished people being trapped in energy poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death.
My article this week tackles this problem head-on. Thank you for posting it, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.
Best regards,
Paul
Fake climate science and scientists
Alarmists game the system to enrich and empower themselves, and hurt everyone else
Paul Driessen
The multi-colored placard in front of a $2-million home in North Center Chicago proudly proclaimed, “In this house we believe: No human is illegal” - and “Science is real” (plus a few other liberal mantras).
I knew right away where the owners stood on climate change, and other hot-button political issues. They would likely tolerate no dissension or debate on “settled” climate science or any of the other topics.
But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief - or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited - it’s pseudo-science, at best.
Real science - and real scientists - seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and experimental data. If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature - at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.
Real science does not involve simply declaring that you “believe” something, It’s not immutable doctrine. It doesn’t claim “science is real” - or demand that a particular scientific explanation be carved in stone. Earth-centric concepts gave way to a sun-centered solar system. Miasma disease beliefs surrendered to the germ theory. The certainty that continents are locked in place was replaced by plate tectonics (and the realization that you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate change).
Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate.
They don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t hide their data and computer algorithms (AlGoreRythms?), restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who dares to ask inconvenient questions or find fault with their claims and models. They don’t concoct hockey stick temperature graphs that can be replicated by plugging in random numbers.
In the realm contemplated by the Chicago yard sign, we ought to be doing all we can to understand Earth’s highly complex, largely chaotic, frequently changing climate system - all we can to figure out how the sun and other powerful forces interact with each other. Only in that way can we accurately predict future climate changes, prepare for them, and not waste money and resources chasing goblins.
But instead, we have people in white lab coats masquerading as real scientists. They’re doing what I just explained true scientists don’t do. They also ignore fluctuations in solar energy output and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth’s history. They look only (or 97% of the time) at carbon dioxide as the principle or sole driving force behind current and future climate changes - and blame every weather event, fire and walrus death on manmade CO2.
Even worse, they let their biases drive their research and use their pseudo-science to justify demands that we eliminate all fossil fuel use, and all carbon dioxide and methane emissions, by little more than a decade from now. Otherwise, they claim, we will bring unprecedented cataclysms to people and planet.
Not surprisingly, their bad behavior is applauded, funded and employed by politicians, environmentalists, journalists, celebrities, corporate executives, billionaires and others who have their own axes to grind, their own egos to inflate - and their intense desire to profit from climate alarmism and pseudo-science.
Worst of all, while they get rich and famous, their immoral actions impoverish billions and kill millions, by depriving them of the affordable, reliable fossil fuel energy that powers modern societies.
And still these slippery characters endlessly repeat the tired trope that they “believe in science” - and anyone who doesn’t agree to “keep fossil fuels in the ground” to stop climate change is a “science denier.”
When these folks and the yard sign crowd brandish the term “science,” political analyst Robert Tracinski suggests, it is primarily to “provide a badge of tribal identity” - while ironically demonstrating that they have no real understanding of or interest in “the guiding principles of actual science.”
Genuine climate scientist (and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Judith Curry echoes Tracinski. Politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren use “science” as a way of “declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand… The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal - and one political party ticket,” she explains.
The ultimate purpose of all this, of course, is to silence the dissenting voices of evidence- and reality-based climate science, block creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science, and ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use ...and upend modern economies.
The last thing fake/alarmist climate scientists want is a full-throated debate with real climate scientists - a debate that forces them to defend their doomsday assertions, methodologies, data manipulation ... and claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less that 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%).
Thankfully, there are many reasons for hope. For recognizing that we do not face a climate crisis, much less threats to our very existence. For realizing there is no need to subject ourselves to punitive carbon taxes or the misery, poverty, deprivation, disease and death that banning fossil fuels would cause.
Between the peak of the great global cooling scare in 1975 until around 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise in rough conjunction. But then temperatures mostly flat-lined, while CO2 levels kept climbing. Now actual average global temperatures are already 1 degree F below the Garbage In-Garbage Out computer model predictions. Other alarmist forecasts are also out of touch with reality.
Instead of fearing rising CO2, we should thank it for making crop, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, benefitting nature and humanity - especially in conjunction with slightly warmer temperatures that extend growing seasons, expand arable land and increase crop production.
The rate of sea level rise has not changed for over a century - and much of what alarmists attribute to climate change and rising seas is actually due to land subsidence and other factors.
Weather is not becoming more extreme. In fact, Harvey was the first Category 3-5 hurricane to make US landfall in a record 12 years - and the number of violent F3 to F5 tornadoes has fallen from an average of 56 per year from 1950 to 1985 to only 34 per year since then.
Human ingenuity and adaptability have enabled humans to survive and thrive in all sorts of climates, even during our far more primitive past. Allowed to use our brains, fossil fuels and technologies, we will deal just fine with whatever climate changes might confront us in the future. (Of course, another nature-driven Pleistocene-style glacier pulling 400 feet of water out of our oceans and crushing Northern Hemisphere forests and cities under mile-high walls of ice truly would be an existential threat to life as we know it.)
So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs - in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” - let them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. The rest of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.
Trump gives hope to derailment of the establishment’s plans (both parties) for a New World Order - which would cede our rights and control over our lives including a redistribution of any wealth to the UN.
Update: see the whole story behind the story in their own words in Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters by C3 Headlines.
Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” And, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”
We start with Mencken’s quotes because they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religious; the studious; the famous; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping “the populace alarmed” to further their own personal, selfish goals.
The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.
Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previous paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose an ‘Agenda’ based on their elite values and self-importance. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.
Australia PM’s adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order
Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, says UN is using debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule.
The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order - provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.
Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Australia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production.
Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Australia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders’ summit in Brisbane last year.
Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.
“The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN....
“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”
Figueres used an address in Melbourne to urge Australia to move away from coal, the country’s second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming.
“Economic diversification will be a challenge that Australia faces,” she said.
Abbott has described coal as “good for humanity” and the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future.
Figueres also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott’s track record.
At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth.
At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was “crap”, repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.
Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: “No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables.”
Abbott’s office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Updated: Public and many to most real scientists are unconvinced.
From: Malcolm Roberts [mailto:malcolmr@conscious.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 12:07 PM
To: UQ VC OFFICE
Cc: John Cook; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; FORBES VIV; Carter Bob; Plimer Ian; Jennifer Marohasy
Subject: D15/7927: Complaint of serious corruption of science by UQ’s John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
Dear Professor Hoj:
As an honours engineering graduate from the University of Queensland I am inquiring of you as to the reasons our university supports the work of John Cook who serially misrepresents climate and science? Specifically, why is our university wasting valuable funds to mislead the public through a free course and by producing associated international video material? Course
Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here.
It details John Cook’s fabrication of an unscientific ‘consensus’. Science is not decided by claims of consensus. Resorting to claims of consensus is unscientific and contradicts the scientific process.
Fabricating false claims of scientific consensus is not honest.
Science is decided by empirical scientific evidence. John Cook has repeatedly failed to provide any such evidence that use of hydrocarbon fuels is causing the entirely natural climate variability we experience.
A succinct summary of John Cook’s fabrication of a consensus, and of the corruption of science upon which his claims rely and that is furthered by his claims, and of the empirical scientific evidence he blatantly contradicts, are discussed in pages 6-18 of my report to federal MPs Senator Simon Birmingham and Bob Baldwin. It is available at this link.
My seven years of independent investigation have proven that there is no such empirical scientific evidence anywhere in the world. Climate alarm is unfounded and is a purely political construct pushing a political agenda. Please refer to Appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7 and 8 at this link.
John Cook’s core public climate claims are false and blatantly contradict empirical scientific evidence. Please refer to appendix 4 at the same link.
Further, John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists and I’m wondering if that would make his work a serious offense.
As you likely know, John Cook works closely with the university’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who reportedly has many serious conflicts of financial interest surrounding his false climate claims. These are discussed on pages 54-59 of Appendix 9 at this link and briefly on pages 16 and 17 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin MP.
I draw your attention to my formal complain dated Wednesday 10 November 2010 to the university senate about the work of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg misrepresenting climate and science. That was not independently investigated by then Vice Chancellor Paul Greenberg who was subsequently dismissed over another event, reportedly for a breach of ethics. My formal complaint is discussed on pages 57 and 58 of Appendix 9 at this link.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s responses to my request for empirical scientific evidence of human causation of climate variability have repeatedly and always failed to provide such evidence.
This email is openly copied to both Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook and to reputable Australian scientists and academics expert on climate and to Viv Forbes an honours graduate in geology from our university. Viv Forbes understands the key facts on climate and on the corruption of climate science by beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm perpetrated falsely by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook.
Please stop John Cook’s misrepresentations and restore scientific integrity to our university. I please request a meeting with you to discuss our university’s role in deceiving the public and to discuss restoring scientific integrity. I would be pleased for that meeting to be in the company of John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if that suits you.
Pages 19-26 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin discuss the serious damage to our nation and to humanity and our natural environment worldwide as a result of unfounded climate alarm spread by our university’s staff. I hope that you will fulfill your responsibility for investigating and ending such corruption. To neglect to do so will mean that you condone such damage and dishonesty. I seek confidence that you will restore the university’s scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm Roberts
BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society
The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science
In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2.
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science. See the list here.
----------------------
See the Galileo Movement here.Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”
----------
See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.
-----------
From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge
--------
Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.
NOTE:
See all the talks at the latest ICCC9 Conference in Las Vegas in 2014 here.
Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.
The left loves to reference desmogblog.com when any skeptic produce an analysis or paper challenging CAGW - see the real story about this looney left green PR firm here.
“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
---------------
See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.
Go to and become a member of WeatherBell Analytics here.
Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here. It’s latest report (2013) details information from almost 4,000 papers.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)
See samples on WeatherBELL Facebook
Support Icecap efforts to combat scientific fraud and environmental fanaticism with generous donation via a secure access to Paypal
_thumb.jpg)
_thumb.png)
_thumb.png)
_thumb.png)
_thumb.png)
_thumb.png)
_thumb.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
