<font id="hXS"><del id="hXS"><video id="hXS"></video></del></font>
<delect id="hXS"><rp id="hXS"></rp></delect>

<i id="hXS"></i>
<optgroup id="hXS"><del id="hXS"></del></optgroup>
<i id="hXS"></i><optgroup id="hXS"><del id="hXS"></del></optgroup>
<i id="hXS"><option id="hXS"><listing id="hXS"></listing></option></i>

      Apr 18, 2019
      Climate Change and the Ten Warning Signs for Cults

      Will

      Have you thought to yourself that the Climate Change movement seems more and more like a religious movement?

      I have, so I researched how to identify a religious cult. Rick Ross, an expert on cults and intervention specialist, developed a list of ten warning signs for unsafe groups, which is published by the Cult Education Institute. So let’s take a look at all ten signs and compare:

      1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

      The leading advocates of the Climate Change movement are politicians, entertainers, and even children. Climate preachers such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio lack any formal scientific training whatsoever, and live personal lives of unparalleled luxury while prescribing carbon austerity for the masses. Yet no one is permitted to point out their scientific ignorance or call attention to their hypocritical lifestyles.

      Child advocates such as Greta Thuneberg and the crudely indoctrinated children of the “Sunrise movement” are essentially sock puppets for their shameless activist handlers. Refuse to bend the knee to these tiny fascists, as Diane Feinstein most recently did, and the mainstream left will relentlessly attack you as an accessory to mass murder.

      The authority of Climate Change leaders is entirely unmerited and absolute, yet no one is permitted to hold them accountable for their ignorance, inexperience, or brazen lies. Thus, the Climate Change movement clearly meets the first warning sign for unsafe groups.

      2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

      The conclusions of the Climate Change movement may not be challenged or questioned under any circumstances. Those who dare scrutinize the conclusions, methodology, or prescriptions of “climate scientists” are categorically dismissed as a “Climate Denier”, an excommunicated untouchable whose opinion is no longer valid on any subject.

      Questions and critical inquiry aren’t merely dismissed or refuted. The unfortunate heretic immediately experiences a relentless ad hominem onslaught of scorn and hatred from the political and media left, and is often subjected to accusations of outright murder. Simply question the effectiveness of a “carbon tax” and you may find yourself tied to a stake.

      There is no tolerance for questioning the Climate Change movement, and thus it clearly meets the second warning sign for unsafe groups.

      3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

      Hardly anyone knows just how much money is spent on “Climate research” every year. The cost is spread out among laughably useless study grants, wind and solar farm subsidies, carbon offset credits, “green” building code evaluation and enforcement, salaries for bureaucrats solely dedicated to “climate concerns”...you get the idea, it’s a lot of hazy money.

      The abhorrent practice of “sue and settle” was a flat out money laundering scheme that allowed sympathetic government officials to transfer millions of tax dollars to radical leftist environmental groups. The practice only ended when the Trump administration used executive power to clamp down on it.

      The total amount of yearly financial expenditure on the Climate Change movement is vague, difficult to track, and often carried out in unethical manners. Thus, the Climate Change movement exhibits the third warning sign for unsafe groups.

      4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

      This one is pretty obvious. The Climate Change movement always shouts out revised and updated apocalypse predictions, eerily reminiscent of the stereotypical bum on the sidewalk with that “The End Is Near” sign. “The world will end in X years if we don’t do X” is the constant refrain. The years always pass, and the apocalypse never happens. Interestingly, this is a characteristic of multiple religious cults (such as the Seekers of Chicago, and the Order of the Solar Temple). At the moment, we apparently have 12 years to nationalize the entire economy and phase out fossil fuels before we all die a fiery death.

      There’s also no shortage of conspiracy theories about who they consider to be Earth’s greatest saboteurs. They have an enemies list. The fossil fuel industry is at the top of it, with widespread tinfoil hat theories about oil companies burying patents for efficient renewable fuel recipes to keep us all guzzling gasoline.

      The “repent or burn” doomsday preaching is the most well-known staple of the Climate Change movement, and quite clearly exemplifies the fourth warning sign for unsafe groups.

      5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

      Climate alarmists who leave, step back from, or even lightly criticize the movement are immediately subjected to vicious smear campaigns. Dutch professor Richard Tol experienced this phenomenon firsthand when he removed his name from an IPCC climate report and criticized the reports excessively apocalyptic predictions.

      The smear campaign was led by Bob Ward, director of policy at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change “This has all the characteristics of a smear campaign”, Tol said. “It’s all about taking away my credibility as an expert.”

      The treatment of Professor Tol is not uncommon, and clearly demonstrates that the Climate Change movement exhibits the fifth warning sign for unsafe groups.

      6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

      Professor Tol is not an anomaly. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, and countless other former IPCC in-crowd climate experts were subjected to smear campaigns from their colleagues and the news media for the crime of throwing cold water on the outlandish predictions of the Climate Change movement.

      This pattern is all too familiar to anyone who has studied what happens to individuals who leave the Church of Scientology, and clearly meets the sixth warning sign for unsafe groups.

      7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

      The abuses of the Climate Change movement are loud and proud. They vociferously attack their perceived enemies for public consumption, and are cheered on by fellow travelers in the journalism class. Most recently they brainwashed a bunch of kids and marched them into an octogenarian Democrat Senator’s office to beg not to be murdered by a ‘No’ vote on impossible legislation. Have you seen those kids in Diane Feinstein’s office? You should, it’s creepy, here they are.

      These tantrums and protests aren’t only meant to rally supporters of the Climate Change movement. They are a form of intimidation, a tactic used to silence those who question the gospel. There is ample evidence that the Climate Change movement meets the seventh warning sign of an unsafe group.

      8. Followers feel they can never be “good enough”.

      The atonement process for Climate warriors always demands more. It started with using a recycling bin and grocery bags. Now, in 2019, being a good follower means imposing veganism on the masses and issuing fatwahs against innocuous objects such as plastic straws and grocery bags. Despite all the efforts of the faithful, Climate minions maintain a constant state of dread and despair, knowing they can never truly do enough to stop the coming doom.

      Clearly, the eighth warning sign for unsafe groups applies to the Climate Change movement.

      9. The group/leader is always right.

      When have the climate leaders been called wrong for their failed predictions? Regardless of the weather, they are always intrinsically correct.

      Flood? Climate Change. Drought? Climate Change.

      No Snow? Climate Change. Too much snow? Climate Change.

      Tornado? Climate Change. Hurricane? Climate Change. Lack of hurricanes? Climate Change.

      See how this works?

      One of the best aspects of the movement is “weather is climate until it isn’t”. The acolytes of Climate Change will point out the window in a heat wave and say, “See? We’re right!”

      If a skeptic points out the window during a blizzard, the same acolytes will simply cry “Weather isn’t climate!” It’s a game they can never lose, one in which they are never wrong and always right.

      Thus, the ninth warning sign for unsafe groups clearly applies.

      10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

      The path to discovery for the Climate Change movement is an intentionally vague discipline referred to as “climate science”.

      Did you carry out a study on gender and glaciers? Climate Science.

      Did you think up the worst possible scenarios that have no actual chance of happening (actual portion of latest National Climate Assessment)? Climate Science.

      Any “science” that confirms the tenets of the Climate Change movement is deemed “climate science”, while actual scientific research that disputes their conclusions is derided as “denialism”.

      The tenth warning sign for unsafe groups is clearly met.

      The Verdict: It’s a cult

      According to the established, scientific guidelines developed by cult experts, the Climate Change movement fits the bill for a potentially unsafe group.

      When I looked up these established warning signs, I honestly expected Climate Changeists to meet two or three of them, NOT TEN! The disturbingly religious nature of this supposedly “scientific” movement should alarm any thinking human being, especially since the movement now openly seeks to nationalize the entire economy.

      It’s time for conservatives to realize what they are dealing with, and act accordingly. Rather than debating Climate Change activists, it may be time to start staging interventions.

      If someone you know is a member of the Climate Change Movement, and you are interested in intervention strategies, please visit.

      See also CO2 Derangement Syndrome here.

      Apr 14, 2019
      Hypothesis: Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age

      By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng.

      1. Introduction.

      On December 6, 2018 I was informed in a letter from the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) that I was “the 2019 Summit Award recipient of the Centennial Leadership Award. This is APEGA’s most prestigious award and is given to members of APEGA in recognition of continued leadership in the profession and in the community, attaining the highest distinction relating to engineering or geoscience.” That award has now been withdrawn by the Executive and the unanimous vote of APEGA Council, because of posts I wrote on wattsupwiththat.com

      Two of my several accomplishments that resulted in the Centennial Award were:

      * Innovations, by myself or with colleagues, which created 500,000 jobs, caused $250 billion in capital investment in Alberta and made Canada the fifth-largest oil producer in the world;

      *Taking decisive actions that incurred significant personal risks when staff at the Mazeppa sour gas project were afraid to act, which may have saved up to 300,000 lives in Calgary.

      For brevity, I have not included in this treatise all the details and references that support my statements.  For the record, I have two engineering degrees related to the earth sciences, have worked on six continents, and have diligently studied the subject fields since 1985. In the late 1960s I was a member of an environmental group at Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, which predated Greenpeace. We focused on real air, water and soil pollution, which was largely cleaned up by the 1980’s and 1990’s.

      APEGA objected to my following posts, which were written as my personal opinions:

      “In the 20th Century, socialists Stalin, Hitler and Mao caused the deaths of over 200 million people, mostly their own citizens. Lesser killers like Pol Pot and the many tin-pot dictators of South America and Africa killed and destroyed the lives of many more. Modern Green Death probably started with the 1972-2002 effective ban of DDT, which caused global deaths from malaria to increase from about 1 million to almost two million per year. Most of these deaths were children under five in sub-Saharan Africa - just babies for Christ’s sake!” - Comment February 1, 2019

      “...radical greens (really radical leftists) are the great killers of our time. Now the greens are blinding and killing babies by opposing golden rice...” - Comment March 10, 2019

      “The Green movement is really a smokescreen for the old Marxists - and they are the great killers of our age.” - Comment March 11, 2019\

      APEGA refused to discuss the evidence, and baselessly claimed the moral high ground.

      2. My hypothesis is that “Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”.  Here is some of the supporting evidence:

      * The banning of DDT from ~1972 to 2002, which caused the malaria deaths of tens of millions of children under five years of age, and sickened and killed many more adults and children;


      Enlarged

      * The fierce green opposition to golden rice, actions that blinded and killed millions of children (here, here, here)

      * The misallocation of scarce global resources for destructive intermittent ”green energy” schemes, which are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy;

      * Properly allocated, a fraction of the trillions of dollars squandered on green energy schemes could have installed clean drinking water and sanitation systems into every community on the planet, saving the lives of many tens of millions of children and adults; the remaining funds could have significantly reduced deaths from malaria and malnutrition; Source: Global Crises, Global Solutions, The 1st Copenhagen Consensus, edited by Bjorn Lomborg, 2004, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 648 pp.

      * The number of Excess Winter Deaths and shattered lives caused by runaway energy costs in the developed world and lack of access to modern energy in the developing world probably exceeds the tens of millions of malaria deaths caused by the DDT ban; Excess Winter Deaths (more deaths in winter than non-winter months) total about two million souls per year, which demonstrates that Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity (source)

      * Indoor air pollution from cooking fires kills many women and children in the developing world;

      * In addition to runaway energy costs and increased winter deaths, intermittent wind and solar power schemes have reduced grid reliability and increased the risk of power outages (here, here);

      * Huge areas of agricultural land have been diverted from growing food to biofuels production, driving up food costs and causing hunger among the world’s poorest people.

      3. There is NO credible scientific evidence that climate is highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2, and ample evidence to the contrary.

      Catastrophic human made global warming is a false crisis. Competent scientists have known this fact for decades. In a written debate in 2002 sponsored by APEGA and co-authored on our side by Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson and me, we concluded:

      “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming - the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

      “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply - the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

      Many scientific observations demonstrate that both these statements are correct-to-date.

      The current usage of the term “climate change” is vague and the definition is routinely changed in the literature, such that it has become a non-falsifiable hypothesis. It is therefore non-scientific nonsense.

      “A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” - Karl Popper

      Climate has always changed. Current climate is not unusual and is beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earth is in a ~10,000 year warm period during a ~100,000 year cycle of global ice ages.

      The term “catastrophic human-made global warming” is a falsifiable hypothesis, and it was falsified decades ago - when fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 increased sharply after ~1940, while global temperature cooled from ~1945 to ~1977. Also, there is no credible evidence that weather is becoming more chaotic - both hurricanes and tornadoes are at multi-decade low levels of activity.

      Even if all the observed global warming were to be ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, the calculated maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about (here, here), which is not enough to produce dangerous global warming.

      Climate computer models cited by the IPCC and other climate activists employ much higher assumed sensitivity values that create false alarm. The ability to predict is perhaps the most objective measure of scientific competence. All the scary predictions by climate activists of dangerous global warming and wilder weather have proven false-to-date - a perfectly negative predictive track record.

      Based on current knowledge, the only significant impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is greatly increased plant and crop yields, and possibly some minor beneficial warming of climate.

      4. Humanity needs modern energy to survive, to grow and transport our food and provide shelter, warmth and ~everything we need to live. Green energy schemes have been costly failures.

      Fully ~85% of global primary energy is from fossil fuels --oil, coal and natural gas. The remaining ~15% is almost all nuclear and hydro. Green energy has increased from above 1% to less than 2%, despite many trillions of dollars in wasted subsidies. The 85% fossil fuels component is essentially unchanged in past decades, and is unlikely to significantly change in future decades.

      The fatal flaw of grid-connected green energy is that it is not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily due to intermittency - the wind does not blow all the time, and the Sun shines only part of the day. Intermittent grid-connected green energy requires almost 100% backup ("spinning reserve") from conventional energy sources. Renewable wind and solar electrical generation schemes typically do not even significantly reduce CO2 emissions - all they do is increase energy costs.


      Enlarged

      Claims that grid-scale energy storage will solve the intermittency problem have proven false to date. The only proven grid-scale “super-battery” is pumped storage, and suitable sites are rare - Alberta is bigger than many countries, and has no sites suitable for grid-scale pumped storage systems (link).

      5. The trillions of dollars of scarce global resources wasted on global warming hysteria, anti-fossil fuel fanaticism and green energy schemes, properly deployed, could have improved and saved many lives.

      About two million children below the age of five die from contaminated water every year - about 70 million dead kids since the advent of global warming alarmism. Bjorn Lomborg estimates that a fraction of these squandered green energy funds could have put clean water and sanitation systems into every community in the world.

      Waste of funds and loss of opportunity due to global warming alarmism and green energy nonsense have harmed people around the world. In North America and Europe, trillions of dollars have been wasted on grid-connected green energy schemes that have increased energy costs, increased winter mortality, and reduced the stability of vital electrical grids (link).

      In the developing world, the installation of electrical energy grids has been stalled for decades due to false global warming alarmism.

      Last winter England and Wales experienced over 50,000 excess winter deaths. That British per-capita excess winter death rate was ~three times the average excess winter death rate of the USA and Canada.

      Energy costs are much higher in Britain, due to radical green opposition to the fracking of gassy shales.

      The anti-oil-pipeline campaign has cost ~$120 billion dollars in lost oil revenues and destroyed ~200,000 jobs in Alberta and across Canada. This is an enormous financial and job loss for Canada(here, here).

      The funds wasted on baseless global warming hysteria, anti-fossil-fuel fanaticism and destructive green energy schemes, properly deployed, could have saved or improved the lives of many millions of people.

      6. The conduct of climate activists has been destructive, deceitful and violent.

      Global warming alarmists have shouted down legitimate debate and committed deceitful and violent acts in support of their false cause. The Climategate emails provide irrefutable evidence of scientific collusion and fraudulent misconduct. Also see here.

      In Canada, skeptic climatologist Dr. Tim Ball and other skeptics have received threats, and buildings related to the energy industry including the Calgary Petroleum Club were firebombed. In the USA, skeptic scientists have had their homes invaded, and several highly competent skeptic scientists have been harassed and driven from their academic posts.

      7. Radical greens have caused enormous harm to the environment, for example:

      * Clear-cutting the tropical rainforests to grow sugar cane and palm oil for biofuels;
      * Rapid draining of the vital Ogallala aquifer in the USA for corn ethanol and biodiesel production;
      * Clear-cutting forests in the eastern USA to provide wood for the Drax power plant in Britain;
      * Destructive bird-and-bat-chopping wind power turbines.

      8. Why are the radical greens so anti-environmental?

      Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder and Past-President of Greenpeace, provided the answer decades ago. Moore observed that Eco-Extremism is the new “false-front” for economic Marxists, who were discredited after the fall of the Soviet Union circa 1990 and took over the Green movement to further their political objectives. This is described in Moore’s essay, “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement: written in 1994 - note especially “The Rise of Eco-Extremism” here.

      For radical greens, it was never about the environment - the environment was a smokescreen for their extreme-left totalitarian political objectives. To better understand radical green objectives, see here, excerpted below:

      “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. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

      “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

      “ Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

      “ The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” Christopher Manes, Earth First!

      “ A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation” Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

      “ One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

      “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

      “ I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

      “ 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

      “ The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival or millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth - social and environmental.” Ingrid Newkirk, former President of PETA

      “ The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.” David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club, founder of Friends of the Earth

      9. Conclusion

      The evidence strongly supports my hypothesis that “Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”.

      The number of deaths and shattered lives caused by radical-green activism since ~1970 rivals the death tolls of the great killers of the 20th Century - Stalin, Hitler and Mao - they advocate similar extreme-left totalitarian policies and are indifferent to the resulting environmental damage and human suffering.

      Apr 07, 2019
      Medical Journals and the Global Warming Noble Lie

      John Dale Dunn

      The Noble Lie is a concept discussed by Plato in the dialogues, lies told by oligarchs to get the populace in the right frame of mind, deceptions intended to influence the mindset and behavior of the populace.  The Noble Lie is not often noble; it is the tool of the totalitarian.  Totalitarianism is built on the Noble Lie and the best evidence of it in modern society is political correctness and its accompanying censorship and intimidation of any speech or conduct that contradicts the Orwellian “good think” of the Noble Lie.

      Most would assume that prestigious medical journals like Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on this side, and Lancet and British Medical Journal on the other side of the Atlantic are reliable and scientifically trustworthy, certainly not involved in perpetrating Noble Lies.  Not so, sadly, simply not so.  Medical journals, as a part of the academic life and social structure can be counted on to publish junk science that supports Orwellian “good think.”

      So how is the Noble Lie promoted in the medical literature, you might ask.  What subjects would possibly be a place where medical journals participate in the promotion of junk science in service to the totalitarian Noble Lie?  The answer is that the administrative state needs and creates armies of experts to push their agenda and Noble Lie, so the academy and its journals are recruited - with money and rewards of power and position.  Funding and research awards and the resulting academic advancements create dependents in academia.  Name a leftist cause and without fail academic medical journals will enthusiastically and cooperatively publish those well-funded research reports and articles in support the leftist/ socialist position.  Journals are the voice of the academy and the academy is the mouthpiece for the oligarchic government science advocacy intended to justify government actions.

      For many years I have been collecting research on the effect of warming on human health, counting on the help of Dr. Craig Idso (MS Agronomy, PhD Geography), an energetic researcher who is constantly scanning the scientific literature for research on climate then putting it up at his web site CO2 Science.Org in archives of articles.  The Subject Index includes human health.  Idso, Dunn and others have written extensive discussions on warming and human health, including chapter 9 in Climate Change Reconsidered (2009) and Chapter 7 in Climate Change Reconsidered II (2013), both published by Heartland Institute of Chicago.  Our conclusions, supported by the medical research around the world studying rates of disease and death, are that warming will benefit human health and welfare, for obvious reasons—warm is easier on the plants and animals, so also humans.

      Lancet is a multi-faceted medical journal entity, iconic in medical history, founded in England in 1823, now with offices in London, New York and Beijing, publishing multiple specialty and general medical journals on line and in print.  Lancet published in 2015 a long term and planet wide study of death impacts of hot and cold extreme or moderately extreme ambient temperatures, by Gasparinni and 22 other authors, 384 locations around the globe, 27 years studying 74 million deaths, and their results showed that cold and cooler ambient temperatures killed 17 times more people than warmer and hot temperatures.

      On November 1, 2017 Lancet published an article by a group it had created called the “Lancet Countdown on health and climate change,” and the 64 authors produced a 50 page paper with a 195 references that declares a global health crisis due to warming (Climate Change).

      Consider the contradiction.  Warm is good, warm is deadly.  Which will it be?  Could the Lancet editors and the Countdown group they put together be in the bag for the warmer/climate change movement?  Prepared to do what they can to promote claims that terrible things will happen to people because of warming?  Could this be pushback on their enemy, the warming-skeptical Trump Administration, for leaving the Paris Climate Treaty?

      Lancet has been a political advocacy journal on many political issues for a long time.  Should we expect medical journals to be politically neutral when the academy is extremely leftist/socialist in attitude?

      So you might say: “Well, OK, Lancet - British—they are leftist by habit, so no surprise, but here in America medical journals are more middle of the road, more impartial, less partisan.” Au Contraire.

      The NEJM and the JAMA are both dedicated to the leftist ideology—socialized medicine, environmentalism, all the political, social, sexual and cultural aspects of the leftist revolution.  No room for dissent and disagreement, the medical journals pick their articles and the articles always display a leftist orientation, aggressively.

      Medical Journals do not entertain or publish ideas and comments by dissenters to the leftist canon.  That is across the board on social and societal, political, medical, scientific issues.  They keep alive, pursue and promote the Noble Lies of the left.

      John Dale Dunn MD JD is an emergency physician and inactive attorney, Medical Officer for the Brown County Texas Sheriff, Policy advisor to the Heartland Institute of Chicago and the American Council on Science and Health of New York City.

      Apr 03, 2019
      The Biggest Lie Ever Told - Man-made Global Warming

      ICECAP Note: We appreciate your support the last few years but in 2018, we fell short of covering the maintenance. I am reducing my hours (down from 60 hours a week at WeatherBELL) this spring and summer to work on initiatives to fight the dangerous moves to abandon low cost energy sources for unreliable renewables. They ARE NOT FREE. Countries that have moved that way have seen electricity skyrocket. Look at your electrical bills and multiply by 3 and see what the future would look like. The real motivation is deindustrialize the west which means higher energy costs and lost jobs. As IER stated: “Escalating electricity prices are regressive-poorer people pay a much higher proportion of their incomes heating and cooling their houses than do richer people. As a result, these European countries have experienced an increase in energy poverty, and increasing signs of unrest related to energy pricing, such as the yellow vests movement in France.”

      See how though the rich to whom the increased cost is pocket change can fly around the world in their private jets pushing people to deindustrialize and depopulate for the good of the planet, the families who earn less than $20,000/year already spend over 40% of their income on electricity, gasoline and gas/heating oil. How could they afford the 100-250% increases the move to renewables will produce?


      Enlarged

      Though they love to claim renewables will lower cost, the test regions the northeast with RGGI and California show the opposite is true.


      Enlarged

      See the heavy renewable countries worldwide are paying much higher prices. The renewables are unreliable and brownouts and blackouts are an issue, forcing them to rush build coal plants to keep their lights on. Here we have become energy net producer and have the cleanest air.


      Enlarged

      Please help support our efforts by clicking on the DONATE button on the left column where you can safely use PAYPAL. We will report back with a video of our first presentation this Tuesday evening.

      --------------

      --------------

      Carbon Dioxide Only Causes Climate Change in UN IPCC Climate Models

      Today’s climate change is well within the range of natural climate variability through Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history. In fact, it is within the range of the climate change of the last 10,000 years, a period known as the Holocene, 95% of which was warmer than today. Indeed, it is now cooler than the Holocene Optimum, which spanned a period from about 9,000 to 5,000 years ago. The Optimum was named at a time when warming was understood to be a good thing in contrast to the miserable cold times that periodically cripple mankind. A small group fooled the world into believing that warming is bad and that today’s weather is warmer than ever before, all caused by the human addition of a relatively trivial amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. It is the biggest lie ever told, and that reason alone caused many to believe.

      The lie began with the assumption that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in temperature. In the historical record, temperature increases before CO2, so the benign gas is not causing temperature rise. Indeed, it cannot cause global warming or climate change. The only place where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in the computer models promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is the main reason why the model predictions are always wrong. However, the objective of a big lie is to override the truth for as long as possible. Here are the original definition and objective of the big lie, quoting from Adolf Hitler]s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels:

      “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.”

      The comments relate to a big lie in a nation-state, but it, like the big lie about climate, was intended to achieve global status. Goebbels applied the big lie of Nazism with its ultimate goal of a Third Reich to rule the world for a thousand years. The UN created the big lie of global warming because it identified the enemy - industry and capitalism - while threatening the world with a potential global disaster. This supposed threat exceeded the ability of any individual nation-state to ‘solve,’ and that dictated the need for a world government. This is why the human-caused global warming lie was created by and perpetuated through the UN.

      Some of the small lies used to perpetuate the big lie include:

      - It is warmer now than ever before.

      - There is more severe weather now than ever before.

      - CO2 levels are the highest ever.

      - Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels are the lowest ever.

      - Extinction rates are the highest ever.

      - Polar bear populations are in serious decline.

      - Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate.

      The Obama administration ably perpetuated the lie through the bureaucracies of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Former vice-president Al Gore continues to spread the lie and tout it through his ironically;named movies, An Inconvenient Truth and An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. The real inconvenient truth is that in the week before he received the Nobel Peace Prize, a UK court ruled his first film was political propaganda with nine major scientific errors. He did not correct the errors and still spreads false information. Yet Gore is welcomed by mainstream media, who never question him about the errors or why his 2006 prediction that we had only ten years left to save the Earth from dangerous global warming was obviously wrong. This is not surprising because they never asked him about his lack of science and climate qualifications either. Goebbels understood this when he wrote,

      “Let me control the media and I will turn any nation into a herd of pigs.”

      The big difference between the global warming lie and Goebbels’ big lie concept is that an open mechanism of changing government prevents the perpetuation of the climate lie. The Trump administration has proposed to establish a Presidential Commission on Climate Security, headed by former Princeton physicist Will Happer, to expose the climate lie by disclosing how the IPCC only examined human causes of climate change. They will show how natural climate change completely overwhelms any human effect. For example, human production of CO2 is less than the uncertainty in the measurement of the transfer of CO2 from two natural sources: the oceans, and vegetation and land. In other words, if we removed all the people from the planet, a scientist left behind to measure the CO2 levels would not detect any difference.

      The ultimate lie is that members of the IPCC community are telling us the truth about the dangers of man-made climate change. In 1998, Kyoto Protocol supporter professor Tom Wigley estimated that, even if we met all the Kyoto reduction targets, it would only lower temperatures by 0.05C by 2050. After the Paris Agreement, Danish Statistician Bjorn Lomborg calculated that, if fully implemented, Paris would reduce the global temperature by 0.048C by 2100. And neither of these people question the politically-correct but scientifically-flawed view that CO2 is driving climate change.

      Goebbels noted that the state can only maintain the lie as long as it can shield people from the economic consequences. Clearly, that is no longer possible as the costs of achieving such inconsequential results becomes better known.

      The first group to do this thoroughly and objectively was the U.S. Senate. They realized that they would soon be required to consider the Kyoto Protocol. Rather than vote on it directly, they created the Byrd/Hagel Resolution which stated that America shouldn’t be a signatory to any agreement based on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that would seriously damage the U.S. economy and didn’t include emission reductions for developing countries that were similar to those imposed on the U.S. Like the 2015 Paris Agreement, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was based on the UNFCCC and had the potential to seriously damage the U.S. economy, while not holding developing countries to emission reductions similar to those imposed on America. That’s why Senators from across the aisle unanimously endorsed Byrd/Hagel, and why former President Bill Clinton never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification.

      Even though the Senators were not questioning the big lie about CO2 and climate change in 1997, they saw clearly that action on any climate treaty or agreement by the U.S. did not justify the economic costs or job losses. And today’s Paris Agreement costs are also extraordinary. Based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise, the costs are forecast to be $1 - 2 trillion every year. It’s time for today’s Democrats to be as practical as their Congressional forebears.

      About Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris

      Dr. Timothy Ball is Chief Science Advisor of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. Dr. Ball a renowned environmental consultant and award-winning former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, where he founded and directed the Rupertsland Research Centre. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. He has 40 years experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications professional, technical trainer and S&T advisor to a former Opposition Senior Environment Critic in Canada’s Parliament.

      Apr 02, 2019
      Climate Change scientists who faked data are now desperately archiving it to cover their tracks

      By Don Wrightman

      The latest fake news on climate change suggests that scientists are copying as much US climate data as possible, because they fear the data might be wiped out under the Trump administration. The misleading article doesn’t account for the past three decades of corrupt climate data from politicized activist scientists, who may be getting the boot from the incoming administration. If anything, those scientists should be deleting the data to cover their behinds, not copying it.

      The recent fake news headline, “Scientists are frantically copying US climate data fearing it might vanish under Trump,” would pose major problems for the scientists, if it were true. Government employees, who protect government data by transferring it into private servers, would be committing the same federal crime that plagued Hillary Clinton’s campaign efforts.

      Among the shocking revelations from 2009’s Climategate emails was the destruction of raw temperature data, by scientists who were supposed to maintain it. At the admission Phil Jones, a Climatic Research Unit member at the University of East Anglia, original raw data had not been kept due to storage availability. That seems more inline with something corrupt scientists would be inclined to do, opposed to preserving data. The Competitive Enterprise Institute launched a lawsuit over climategate because the EPA’s climate policies rely on the data that had been destroyed.

      It’s typical to see the climate alarmist establishment freaking out over a Trump presidency; they are now at risk of having their lies exposed. Donald Trump is in no mood to show mercy to those who have manipulated raw temperature data to exaggerate global warming. Climate alarmists are claiming that the Trump administration won’t look after the data.

      A Trump advisor has called for NASA to return to its roots, and focus solely on space exploration, not climate research. NASA’s focus on climate research was a bureaucratic overreach for the aeronautic space administration.

      Trump’s transition team has sent an inquiry to the Department of Energy asking for the names of employees who are associated with climate change. The incoming administration wants to know which members have been attending annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations, which department workers have attended meetings regarding the social cost of carbon, which employees receive the highest salaries, and which websites were maintained, or contributed to, by lab staff during scheduled work hours.

      The questioning of the Department of Energy shows that Trump administration is preparing to do good work. Since the left-wing considers climate change to be among the highest of government priorities and a threat to national security, they should be happy to see Trump’s team making those inquiries.


      Enlarged

      Mar 15, 2019
      Global climate change is political not scientific

      UPDATE: We have updated the top 10 alarmist claims and added one on the recent nonsense that agriculture yields will collapse with continued change. See them here.

      ---------

      “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.” H. L. Mencken

      “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” 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. What follows are quotes from some of the leaders in that movement. It exposes their true motivations and intentions. It proves this is political not scientific.

      ONE WORLD GOVERNANCE IDEAS BASED ON POPULATION AND RESOURCE WORRIES

      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

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      THE USE OF MODELS TO HYPE THREATS

      “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
      - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      ”The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
      - Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
      - Al Gore, Climate Change activist

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “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

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis...”
      - David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      ‘The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”

      - David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism.  I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
      - Judi Bari, Principal organizer of Earth First!

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
      - Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environment Programme

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”

      - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
      - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund, Princeton Professor

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

      - Professor Maurice King

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “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!

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
      - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

      - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      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

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      THE FACT THE MODELS AND ALARMIST CLAIMS ARE FAILING MISERABLY IS IGNORED VIOLATING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

      The great Nobel Laureate Physicist Richard Feynman taught students: “If a theory disagrees with experiment (or data), it’s wrong… That simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, or what your name is… If [your hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Einstein schooled his fellow scientists: “A model or a hypothesis cannot ‘prove’ anything. But data can invalidate a hypothesis or model. It takes only one experiment to prove me wrong.”

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


      Enlarged

      “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. Consensus is the business of politics. 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. (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc). There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

      See Dr. Patrick Moore, ecologist, radical environmental activist and co-founder of Greenpeace talk about his journey to the truth and skepticism. He speaks about the benefits of the demonized gas CO2.


      Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout - Dr Patrick Moore

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change. This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don’t appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.”
      - Stephen Moore, author of Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic...on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections...proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
      - MIT professor of atmospheric science Richard Lindzen

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


      - Nobel Laureate physicist Ivar Giaever changes his mind on global warming, recognizes it as a psuedoscience.

      -------------------

      Above we have shown in their own words how the indoctrination of the world on the alleged perils of global warming evolved.

      My philosophy when I taught college was to show my students how to think - not what to think. As Socrates said, “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” I told my students that data is king, and models are only useful tools. Any model’s output or any theory needed to be examined and validated using data, and must always used with caution.  We have found no evidence here and here and even more here and here) that any of the claims are right.

      See Stephen Moore’ right-on assessment here.

      ------------

      Judith Curry writes:

      Kelly (2008) argues that “a belief held at earlier times can skew the total evidence that is available at later times, via characteristic biasing mechanisms, in a direction that is favorable to itself.” Kelly (2008) also finds that “All else being equal, individuals tend to be significantly better at detecting fallacies when the fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclusion which they disbelieve, than when the same fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclusion which they believe.” Kelly (2005) provides insights into the consensus building process: “As more and more peers weigh in on a given issue, the proportion of the total evidence which consists of higher order psychological evidence [of what other people believe] increases, and the proportion of the total evidence which consists of first order evidence decreases… At some point, when the number of peers grows large enough, the higher order psychological evidence will swamp the first order evidence into virtual insignificance.” Kelly (2005) concludes: “Over time, this invisible hand process tends to bestow a certain competitive advantage to our prior beliefs with respect to confirmation and disconfirmation… In deciding what level of confidence is appropriate, we should taken into account the tendency of beliefs to serve as agents in their own confirmation.  Kelly refers to this phenomenon as ‘upward epistemic push.’

      I wrote about that same time on Icecap Why Bringing Sanity Back on Climate Change Won’t Be Easy.

      And see the real story about the Paris Accord and Poland UN Climate Summit: Poland_real_story.pdf

      Apr 14, 2019
      Dr. Patrick Speaks Out on Environmental Extremism

      Dr. Patrick Moore, Ecologist Ecosense

      I wrote this little polemic in 1994 after many years of fussing and fuming about the changes that had come over my beloved Greenpeace. In retrospect it seems a little harsh but it gets the point across. The essay was published in this form in Leadership Quarterly, 5(3/4), 1994

      More than twenty years ago I was one of a dozen or so activists who founded Greenpeace in the basement of the Unitarian Church in Vancouver. The Vietnam war was raging and nuclear holocaust seemed closer every day. We linked peace, ecology, and a talent for media communications and went on to build the world’s largest environmental activist organization. By 1986 Greenpeace was established in 26 countries and had an income of over $100 million per year.

      In 1986 the mainstream of western society was busy adopting the environmental agenda that was considered radical only fifteen years earlier. By 1989 the combined impact of Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez, the threat of global warming and the ozone hole clinched the debate. All but a handful of reactionaries joined the call for sustainable development and environmental protection.

      Whereas previously the leaders of the environmental movement found themselves on the outside railing at the gates of power, they were now invited to the table in boardrooms and caucuses around the world. For environmentalists, accustomed to the politics of confrontation, this new era of acceptance posed a challenge as great as any campaign to save the planet.

      For me, Greenpeace is about ringing an ecological fire alarm, waking mass consciousness to the true dimensions of our global predicament, pointing out the problems and defining their nature. Greenpeace doesn’t necessarily have the solutions to those problems and certainly isn’t equipped to put them into practice. That requires the combined efforts of governments, corporations, public institutions and environmentalists. This demands a high degree of cooperation and collaboration. The politics of blame and shame must be replaced with the politics of working together and win-win.

      Collaboration versus Confrontation

      It was no coincidence that the round-table, consensus-based negotiation process was adopted by thousands of environmental leaders. It is the logical tool for working in the new spirit of green cooperation. It may not be a perfect system for decision-making, but like Churchill said about democracy, “It’s the worst form of government except for all the others”. A collaborative approach promises to give environmental issues their fair consideration in relation to the traditional economic and social priorities.

      Some environmentalists didn’t see it that way. Indeed, there had always been a minority of extremists who took a “No Compromise in Defense of Mother Nature” position. They were the monkey-wrenchers, tree-spikers and boat scuttlers of the Earth First! and Paul Watson variety. Considered totally uncool by the largely pacifist, intellectual mainstream of the movement, they were a colorful but renegade element.

      Since its founding in the late 60’s the modern environmental movement had created a vision that was international in scope and had room for people of all political persuasions. We prided ourselves in subscribing to a philosophy that was “trans-political, trans-ideological, and trans-national” in character. For Greenpeace, the Cree legend “Warriors of the Rainbow” referred to people of all colors and creeds, working together for a greener planet. The traditional sharp division between left and right was rendered meaningless by the common desire to protect our life support systems. Violence against people and property were the only taboos. Non-violent direct action and peaceful civil disobedience were the hallmarks of the movement. Truth mattered and science was respected for the knowledge it brought to the debate.

      Now this broad-based vision is challenged by a new philosophy of radical environmentalism. In the name of “deep ecology” many environmentalists have taken a sharp turn to the ultra-left, ushering in a mood of extremism and intolerance. As a clear signal of this new agenda, in 1990 Greenpeace called for a “grassroots revolution against pragmatism and compromise”.

      As an environmentalist in the political center I now find myself branded a traitor and a sellout by this new breed of saviors. My name appears in Greenpeace’s “Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations”. Even fellow Greenpeace founder and campaign comrade, Bob Hunter, refers to me as the “eco-Judas”. Yes, I am trying to help the Canadian forest industry improve its performance so we might be proud of it again. As chair of the Forest Practices Committee of the Forest Alliance of B.C. I have lead the process of drafting and implementing the Principles of Sustainable Forestry that have been adopted by a majority of the industry. These Principles establish goals for environmental protection, forest management and public involvement. They are providing a framework for dialogue and action towards improvements in forest practices. Why shouldn’t I make a contribution to environmental reform in the industry my grandfather and father have worked in for over 90 years?

      It’s not that I don’t think the environment is in deep trouble. The hole in the ozone is real and we are overpopulating and overexploiting many of the earth’s most productive ecosystems. I believe this is all the more reason to hang on to ideas like freedom, democracy, internationalism, and one-human-family. Our species is probably in for a pretty rough ride during the coming decades. It would be nice to think we could maintain a semblance of civilization while we work through these difficult times.

      The Rise of Eco-Extremism

      Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.

      Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.

      These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:

      * It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.

      * It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural”. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tragedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.

      * It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are criticized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?

      * It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas—too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is absurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbors. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.

      * It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are successful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.

      * It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.

      * It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.

      As a result of the rise of environmental extremism it has become difficult for the public, government agencies and industry to determine which demands are reasonable and which are not. It’s almost as if the person or group that makes the most outrageous accusations and demands is automatically called “the environmentalist” in the news story. Industry, no matter how sincere in its efforts to satisfy legitimate environmental concerns, is branded “the threat to the environment”. Let me give you a few brief examples.

      The Brent Spar

      In 1995, Shell Oil was granted permission by the British Environment Ministry to dispose of the oil rig “Brent Spar” in deep water in the North Sea. Greenpeace immediately accused Shell of using the sea as a “dustbin”. Greenpeace campaigners maintained that there were hundreds of tonnes of petroleum wastes on board the Brent Spar and that some of these were radioactive. They organized a consumer boycott of Shell service stations, costing the company millions in sales. German Chancellor Helmut Kohl denounced the British government’s decision to allow the dumping. Caught completely off guard, Shell ordered the tug that was already towing the rig to its burial site to turn back. They then announced they had abandoned the plan for deep-sea disposal. This angered British Prime Minister, John Major.

      it remains to this day. Independent investigation revealed that the rig had been properly cleaned and did not contain the toxic and radioactive waste claimed by Greenpeace. Greenpeace wrote to Shell apologizing for the factual error. But they did not change their position on deep-sea disposal despite the fact that on-land disposal will cause far greater environmental impact.

      During all the public outrage directed against Shell for daring to sink a large piece of steel and concrete it was never noted that Greenpeace had purposely sunk its own ship off the coast of New Zealand in 1986. When the French government bombed and sunk the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour in 1985, the vessel was permanently disabled. It was later re-floated, patched up, cleaned and towed to a marine park where it was sunk in shallow water as a dive site. Greenpeace said the ship would be an artificial reef and would support increased marine life.

      The Brent Spar and the Rainbow Warrior are in no way fundamentally different from one another. The sinking of the Brent Spar could also be rationalized as providing habitat for marine creatures. It’s just that the public relations people at Shell are not as clever as those at Greenpeace. And in this case Greenpeace got away with using misinformation even though they had to admit their error after the fact.

      WWF and Species Extinction

      In March, 1996, the International Panel on Forests of the United Nations held its first meeting in Geneva. The media paid little attention to what appeared to be one more ponderous assemblage of delegates speaking in unintelligible UNese. As it turned out, the big story to emerge from the meeting had nothing to do with the Panel on Forests itself. In what has become a common practice, The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) chose to use the occasion of the UN meeting as a platform for its own news release.

      The WWF news release, which was widely picked up by the international media, made three basic points. They claimed that species were going extinct at a faster rate now than at any time since the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago. They said that 50,000 species were now becoming extinct each year due to human activity. But of most significance to the subject of forests, WWF claimed that the main cause of species extinction was “commercial logging”, that is, the forest industry. They provided absolutely no evidence for this so-called fact about logging and the media asked no hard questions. The next day newspapers around the world proclaimed the forest industry to be the main destroyer of species.

      Since that announcement I have asked on numerous occasions for the name of a single species that has been rendered extinct due to forestry, particularly in my home country, Canada. Not one Latin name has been provided. It is widely known that human activity has been responsible for the extinction of many species down through history. These extinctions have been caused by hunting, the conversion of forest and grassland to farming and human settlement, and the introduction of exotic diseases and predators. Today, the main cause of species extinction is deforestation, over 90% of which is caused by agriculture and urban development. Why is WWF telling the public that logging is the main cause of species extinction?

      While I do not wish to guess at the WWF’s motivation, it is instructional to consider the question from a different angle. That is, if forestry does not generally cause species extinction, what other compelling reason is there to be against it? Surely the fact that logging is unsightly for a few years after the trees are cut is not sufficient reason to curtail Canada’s most important industry.

      Despite the WWF’s failure to support its accusations, the myth that forestry causes widespread species extinction lives on. How can a largely urban public be convinced that this is not the case? The challenge is a daunting one for an industry that has been cast in the role of Darth Vadar when it should be recognized for growing trees and providing wood, the most renewable material used in human civilization.

      Chlorine in Manufacturing

      I don’t mean to pick on Greenpeace but they are close to my heart and have strayed farther from the truth than I can tolerate. In this case the issue is chlorine, an element that is used in a wide variety of industrial, medical, and agricultural applications. In 1985 Greenpeace took up the campaign to eliminate chlorine from all industrial processes, to essentially remove it from human use despite its enormous benefits to society.

      The basis of the campaign was the discovery that the use of chlorine as a bleaching agent in the pulp and paper industry resulted in the production of minute quantities of dioxin, some of which ended up in waste water. The industry responded quickly and within five years of the discovery had virtually eliminated dioxins by switching to a different form of chlorine or eliminating chlorine altogether. The addition of secondary treatment resulted in further improvements. Independent scientists demonstrated that after these measures were taken, pulp mills using chlorine had no more environmental impact than those that used no chlorine. Did Greenpeace accept the science? No, they tried to discredit the scientists and to this day continue a campaign that is based more on fear than fact. Its as if chlorine should be banned from the periodic table of elements altogether so future generations won’t know it exists.

      Forestry

      This critique of radical environmentalism is nowhere more appropriate than in the present debate over managing our forests and manufacturing forest products. Human management of forests is portrayed as somehow “unnatural”. As mentioned before, horse-logging appeals to the extremists because it uses less technology. My response to this idea is that it would make more sense for the city people to use horses to get their 150 pound bodies to work in the morning and let the loggers have the engines from their cars so they can move the heavy loads in the forest. I suppose this is a result of my twisted country perspective.

      For Greenpeace the zero chlorine campaign was just the beginning. Now Greenpeace Germany is leading a campaign for a global ban on clearcutting in any forest. They want lumber and paper manufacturers to use a label that states their product is “clearcut-free”. Canada has been chosen as the target for consumer boycotts because it uses clearcutting in forestry. It doesn’t matter that the world’s most knowledgeable silviculturists believe that clearcutting is the most appropriate form of harvesting in many types of forest. It doesn’t matter that most forestry in Germany is by the clearcut method, they want to boycott us anyway. What matters is that it makes a good fundraising campaign in Europe.

      The public is unaware of the basic flaws in the Greenpeace campaign to end clearcutting worldwide. They do not realize that there is no clear definition of the term “clearcutting” and that Greenpeace refuses to engage in a dialoque to determine the precise nature of what it is they are opposed to. It is also not widely realized that there is no such thing as a supply of pulp and paper that is “clearcut-free”. The practice of clearcutting is so widespread that it would be impossible to obtain a supply of wood chips that came from forests where only single-tree selection forestry is practiced.

      Perhaps the most cynical aspect of the Greenpeace campaign is their assertion that forests are clearcut in British Columbia to make tissue paper and toilet paper for Europeans. They use the slogan “When you blow your nose in Europe you are blowing away the ancient forests of Canada” to imply that Europeans could save Canadian forests if they would stop buying tissue made from Canadian pulp. Everyone who has studied Canadian forestry, including Greenpeace, knows that the pulp and paper industry in British Columbia is based entirely on the waste products of the saw milling industry. The forests are harvested to supply high value solid wood for furniture, interior woodwork and construction. Only the wastes from making lumber and those logs that are unsuitable for saw milling are made into pulp. If we did not make pulp from these wastes they would have to be burned or left to rot as was the case in the past.

      Rather than promoting unilateral boycotts that are based on misinformation and coercion, organizations like Greenpeace should recognize the need for internationally accepted criteria for sustainable forestry and forest products manufacturing. Through dialogue and international cooperation it would be possible to achieve agreement and end the unfair practice of singling out an individual nation for sanctions. Unfortunately they have now joined in the effort to spoil an International Convention on Forests. Their reasons for opposing a convention are not valid and amount to a transparent front for a strong anti-forestry attitude.

      Conclusion

      It is not reasonable to expect the environmental movement to drop its extremist agenda overnight. The rise of extremism is a major feature of the movement’s evolution and is now deeply embedded in its political structure. We can hope that as time passes the movement will be retaken by more politically centrist, science-based leaders and that the extreme wing will be marginalized. At the same time, we must remember that most of the larger environmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council etc. do have many members and campaign teams that are reasonable and based on good science. It’s just that for the time being, major elements of their organizations have been hi-jacked by people who are politically motivated, lack science, and are often using the rhetoric of environmentalism to promote other causes such as class struggle and anti-corporatism.
      The only way industry can successfully help to promote a more pragmatic and reasonable environmental movement is to prove that it is willing and able to avoid future damage to the environment and to correct past abuses. In other words, if your house is in order, there will be little or nothing for extremists to use as a reason for taking an essentially “anti-industry” position.

      The challenge for environmental leaders is to resist the path of ever increasing extremism and to know when to talk rather than fight. To remain credible and effective they must reject the anti-human, anarchistic approach. This is made difficult by the fact that many individuals and their messengers, the media, are naturally attracted to confrontation and sensation. It isn’t easy to get excited about a committee meeting when you could be bringing the state to its knees at a blockade.

      The best approach to our present predicament is to recognize the validity of both the bioregional and the global visions for social and environmental sustainability. Issues such as overpopulation and sustainable forest practices require international agreements. Composting of food wastes and bicycle repairs are best accomplished locally. We must think and act both globally and locally, always cognizant of impacts at one level caused by actions at another. Extremism that rejects this approach will only bring disaster to all species, including humans.

      Mar 26, 2019
      Indignant climate campaigners terrified of proposed scientific debate

      Patrick Moore:

      Will Happer:

      --------------

      By Larry Bell

      Before even thinking about squandering one hundred trillion dollars on an insane economy-collapsing Green New Deal premised upon an end-of-world climate catastrophe, let’s take a very hard look at the so-called “settled science” nonsense. The Trump White House plans to convene a National Security Council review panel headed by Princeton emeritus professor of physics Dr. Will Happer to do exactly that.

      One of the loudest, shrillest, most unsettled voices of protest against science scrutiny is emanating from Dr. Michael Mann, the author of a cobbled-together and thoroughly debunked “hockey stick” graph first used by the IPCC and Al Gore to gin up the climate Armageddon alarm.

      A March 20 article co-authored by Mann and Bob Ward in The Guardian equated the planned NSC panel to Stalinist repression.

      Accordingly, a great place to begin this investigation is to revisit scandalous Climategate email exchanges between members of Mann’s hockey team along with readily available public records I have previously written about in numerous Forbes and Newsmax articles.

      Tom Crowley, a close Mann colleague, wrote, “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

      Yet friendship aside, Mann’s hockey shtick graph co-author Raymond Bradley clearly drew the line regarding another research paper jointly published by Mann and colleague Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia.

      Bradley wrote,

      “I’m sure you agree the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year [climate] reconstruction.”

      Nevertheless, Michael Mann sanctimoniously attacked Will Happer’s scientific credentials to chair the NSC’s panel because “[he] has not published any research on climate change in a reputable science journal.”

      By “reputable,” Mann is obviously referring to publishers that exclusively post research papers endorsed by the Climate Crisis Cartel and its IPCC sponsors.

      An email from Jones to Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports, said, “Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW [global warming] is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.”

      Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported this connection be represented in IPCC reviews, “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital - hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”

      Top cyclone expert Christopher Landsea demanded that the IPCC refute Trenberth’s scientifically unsupportable but highly publicized claim of a global warming-hurricane link following a deadly 2004 Florida storm season. Receiving no response, Landsea resigned as an invited 2007 IPCC report author.

      A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann marked “Highly Confidential” discussed keeping two papers published in Climate Research from being in that next IPCC report. Jones wrote: Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

      Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested, “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

      Trenberth’s associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research warned in another email to Mann, “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive ... there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC ... “ Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another email to Mann, “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

      Writing to Phil Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying, “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.”

      Thorne prudently observed in a separate email, “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

      Another scientist worries, “.... clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”

      Still another observed, “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

      One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences, “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably....”

      Oh Mann!

      I understand your angst about where your rebounding hockey puck may wind up.

      Mar 24, 2019
      Feds push climate alarmism to our children

      By David Wojick

      As our children skip school to chant climate alarmist slogans, you may wonder “Where do they get this stuff?” Of course they get some of it from their teachers, but these teachers get a lot of it via the U.S. Federal Government.

      The sad fact is that a number of federal agencies either maintain or fund websites that specifically exist to push alarmist teaching materials. In many cases these alarmist materials are also federally funded. The Trump Administration has done very little to stem this flow of propaganda to our children.

      Here is a partial list of Federal or federally funded websites pushing alarmist educational materials for kids:

      1. Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network (CLEAN).

      Bills itself as A collection of 700+ free, ready-to-use resources rigorously reviewed by educators and scientists. Suitable for secondary through higher education classrooms. CLEAN is funded by grants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy.

      2. US Global Change Research Program “Resources for Educators.”

      Link

      The USGCRP is funded by 13 federal agencies. It also produces the hyper-alarmist National Climate Assessments.

      3. NOAA’s ”Teaching Climate.” (A massive website)

      NOAA’s Climate.gov website is completely alarmist. In fact they define alarmism as so-called “Climate literacy.”

      4. NASA’s ”Climate Kids” (Another huge site)

      Includes games and videos for young children. Here is part of the green message: “Some of the ways you can help may have to wait until you are a little older - like choosing an energy-efficient car, installing solar panels on the roof of your house, or choosing a green career.”

      5. The National Ocean Service’s ”Talking to Children about Climate Change.”

      Alarmist materials for teachers, beginning in elementary school.

      6. ”Teaching about Climate Change” from Carlton College, sponsored by NSF

      Carleton is another massive alarmist site that includes both teaching teachers how to teach alarmism and classroom materials for doing so.

      7. ”Climate Change Live” with many federal “partners”.

      CCL advertises itself as a “distance learning” site.

      8. ”Climate Change Activities” from UCAR, sponsored by NSF.

      UCAR is a consortium of universities that runs NSF’s multi-billion dollar National Center for Atmospheric Research.

      9. ”Climate and Global Change” by the National Earth Science Teachers Association, sponsored by NASA and NOAA.

      NESTA is solidly alarmist.

      10. ”Climate Change” from AAAS, sponsored by NSF.

      Includes alarmist material for all grades, including kindergarten.

      11. ”Climate Change and Human Health Lesson Plans” by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH.

      Promotes various health scares based on climate change alarmism.

      In contrast to these federal propaganda sites, there is at this time no website that focuses on teaching children about skepticism and the real scientific debate over climate change. It is no wonder that they believe false alarmism.

      ---------------------

      Dear Dr. Joe,

      Yes, it is disappointing that President Trump has not been able to change some of the outrageous behavior of federal government agencies.

      The climate propaganda programs need to stop NOW.

      Our local American Meteorological Society chapter still references the NASA climate propaganda site as their authority for hysteria, based on repeated recommendations from Phil Mote’s OCCRI at Oregon State University.  But I think that the Oregon AMS at least suspects that it may not be a good way to argue science.  Unfortunately, none of the officers of the local chapter have adequate training in science to be able to distinguish real from fake science, especially when the fake science is promoted by a young woman, Kathy Dello, who works for Mote.  Neither the President nor the Vice President of the chapter have formal training in meteorology.  Yet President Steve Pierce keeps referring to himself as a “meteorologist,” when presenting the weather on local TV.

      Here is the comment that I left for the article below:

      Propagandizing children is simply wrong, VERY WRONG.

      Children need to be taught how to think not what to think. Climate science provides a wonderful opportunity to teach children how science really works and how to resist the overwhelming propaganda that they will be told is the Real McCoy.

      First and foremost, science is not an exercise in consensus and authority. It is an exercise in careful logic and robust evidence. That is why the great physicist, Richard Feynman, characterized science as “a belief in the ignorance of the experts.” That is why the motto of the first scientific society, the British Royal Society, is “Nullius in Verba” or “Take no one’s word for it”. And that is why Aristotle characterized arguments from authority and consensus as ‘logical fallacies.’

      For instance, we don’t argue that the world is round, because everyone agrees that it is. We simply present a photo of Dr. Harrison Schmitt standing on the moon with a round earth in the background. (Schmitt is the only scientist to ever walk on the moon. He has a PhD in Geology from Harvard and works with me as a Director of the CO2 Coalition.)

      Yet most of the arguments in favor of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming insist that people believe in the coming apocalypse, because 97% or 99% or all scientists do. What nonsense! Why do you suppose they do that in lieu of the evidence? That’s easy.  They don’t have convincing evidence!

      All they have is a vague correlation between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and slightly rising atmospheric temperatures since World War Two. Although atmospheric CO2 apparently rose continuously during this period, the global temperature anomaly only rose for two of the seven decades and only after a notable shift in the Pacific Ocean called the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977. Could our oceans be responsible for the shift? Sure! It is easy to show that our oceans contain 99 to 99.9% of the mobile heat on this planet.

      But what about the infallible ‘Climate Models’ that are supposed to be able to predict our climate out a century using mathematical methods similar to weather models? With weather models barely accurate out a week, it should seem preposterous that the similar climate models work out to 5,200 weeks! And indeed the climate models badly fail verification tests.


      Link

      My colleague, Professor of Mathematical and Theoretical Physics Gerhard Gerlich, perhaps said it best:

      “To derive climate catastrophes from these computer games and to scare Mankind to death is a crime.”

      It is especially criminal to involve children in the climate fraud.

      Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
      Corbett, Oregon USA

      Apr 09, 2019
      New England Curtails amid World Natural Gas Boom

      By Steve Goreham—April 9, 2019

      "Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont now pursue decarbonization targets to reduce emissions 75-85 percent by 2050. These states’ “strategic electrification” policy calls for eliminating natural gas and propane from home and water heating applications by substituting electric appliances and heat pumps that can use wind and solar systems.”

      “Because of insufficient gas pipeline capacity, New England now faces critical shortages. In January, utility Con Edison announced a moratorium on new natural gas customers in Westchester County, New York. That same month, Holyoke Gas & Electric of Massachusetts also announced that it can no longer accept new natural gas service requests due to a lack of supply.”

      Global usage of natural gas continues to grow rapidly. Methane and propane are essential low-cost, non-polluting fuels for heating, cooking, industrial use, and generation of electrical power. But states in New England, New York, and some nations seek to curtail the use of natural gas.

      From 1965 to 2017, world natural gas consumption increased almost six-fold, from 631 billion cubic meters to 3.7 trillion cubic meters per year. Gas use in North America doubled, increased in Europe by a factor of 14, and skyrocketed in Asia Pacific by a factor of more than 100. Gas became the primary fuel for heating and cooking in developed nations and a major fuel for industry and electricity generation across the world.


      Figure 1. World Natural Gas Consumption

      In 2017, natural gas delivered 23 percent of the world’s energy, up from about 15 percent in 1965. Today gas provides nine times as much global energy as wind and solar combined.

      Natural gas, or methane, is a clean-burning fuel, free of nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, soot, and other pollutants. Water vapor is the largest waste product from methane combustion. But New England states have decided to curtail the use of gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

      Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont now pursue decarbonization targets to reduce emissions 75-85 percent by 2050. These states’ “strategic electrification” policy calls for eliminating natural gas and propane from home and water heating applications by substituting electric appliances and heat pumps that can use wind and solar systems.

      A 2015 survey by the US Department of Energy found that 58 million US residences use natural gas as the primary heating fuel. An additional 11 million homes use propane, fuel oil, or kerosene. Natural gas and other hydrocarbon fuels heat about 58 percent of US homes. Gas use is even higher in New England, with hydrocarbons the primary fuel for over 80 percent of one to four family homes.

      Elimination of natural gas and propane for heating will be costly for New England residents. A 2017 study by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority found that only four percent of the state’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning load could cost-effectively switch to heat pumps.

      To force a transition away from natural gas, New England policymakers have blocked construction of new gas pipelines. The Constitution Pipeline, a project to bring gas from the shale fields in Pennsylvania to the pipeline network in Schoharie County, NY, is one of many examples. This pipeline continues to be stalled after receiving a construction permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2014.

      In opposing the Constitution Pipeline, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office stated, “...we will not relent in our fight to protect our environment and ensure a cleaner, healthier future...New York is stepping up for the future of our planet, our economy, and our children.”

      Because of insufficient gas pipeline capacity, New England now faces critical shortages. In January, utility Con Edison announced a moratorium on new natural gas customers in Westchester County, New York. That same month, Holyoke Gas & Electric of Massachusetts also announced that it can no longer accept new natural gas service requests due to a lack of supply.

      New England residents pay high prices for heating and electricity, particularly in winter months. Shortages during weeks of severe cold push residential gas prices up by as much as 400 percent. Power plants are forced to use expensive oil fuel, with gas reserved for home heating. Oil provided almost one-quarter of New England’s electricity during the severe cold at the end of December, 2017.

      New England policies contrast sharply with those of most of the country. US natural gas main and service distribution pipelines grew 80 percent from 1984 to 2016 and continue to expand in most states.

      In an extreme case, in 2017 the government of Netherlands called for elimination of all natural gas usage by 2050. Despite the fact that 90 percent of Dutch homes are heated by natural gas, the government proposed that 170,000 gas lines would be disconnected every year, to be replaced by geothermal and heat pump systems. Last year Amsterdam announced a phase-out of natural gas in favor of more “sustainable” sources of energy.

      In contrast to efforts to curtail gas use in New England and Netherlands, global shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG) are exploding to help satisfy growing demand. World LNG trade increased 12 percent in 2017, 10 percent last year, and is projected to increase by another 11 percent in 2019.

      There is no evidence that restrictions on New England usage will have a measurable effect on world demand for natural gas, or the slightest effect on global temperatures. But misguided government energy policies will raise prices for New England residents.

      Japan and South Korea remain the world’s largest importers of liquefied natural gas, with LNG demand growing fastest in China, South Korea, and Pakistan. LNG supply growth is dominated by shipments from Australia and the fracking fields of the United States.

      Steve Goreham is a popular speaker on the environment, business, and public policy. He is author of the influential primer, Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development, and other books on energy and the environment.

      Dec 03, 2018
      Dr. Willie Soon versus the Climate Apocalypse

      By Dr. Jeffrey Foss

      More honesty and less hubris, more evidence and less dogmatism, would do a world of good

      Dr. Jeffrey Foss

      “What can I do to correct these crazy, super wrong errors?” Willie Soon asked plaintively in a recent e-chat. “What errors, Willie?” I asked.

      “Errors in Total Solar Irradiance,” he replied. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change keeps using the wrong numbers! It’s making me feel sick to keep seeing this error. I keep telling them - but they keep ignoring their mistake.”

      Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon really does get sick when he sees scientists veering off their mission: to discover the truth. I’ve seen his face flush with shock and shame for science when scientists cherry-pick data. It ruins his appetite - a real downer for someone who loves his food as much as Willie does.

      You have got to love a guy like that, if you love science - and I do. I’m a philosopher of science, not a scientist, but my love for science runs deep - as does my faith. So I cannot help but admire Willie and his good old-fashioned passion for science.

      Willie Soon may one day be a household name. More and more he appears at the pointy end of scientific criticism of Climate Apocalypse. In two recent lawsuits against Big Oil, one by New York City and the other by San Francisco and Oakland, Dr. Soon is named as the “paid agent” of “climate change denialism.” As the man who - Gasp! - singlehandedly convinced Big Oil to continue business as usual.

      Can you even imagine that? I can’t: Big Oil couldn’t turn off its taps in big cities even if it wanted to.

      Putting such silly lawsuits aside, it is a big honor, historically speaking, for Dr. Soon to be the face of scientific rebuttal of Climate Apocalypse, since feeding the developed world’s apocalypse addiction is the main tool of a powerful global political agenda.

      The IPCC - along with the United Nations and many environmentalist organizations, politicians, bureaucrats and their followers - desperately want to halt and even roll back development in the industrialized world, and keep Africa and other poor countries permanently undeveloped, while China races ahead. They want Willie silenced. We the people need to make sure he is heard.

      Dr. Soon never sought the job of defending us against the slick, computer model-driven, anti-fossil fuel certainties of Climate Apocalypse. Willie just happened to choose solar science as a career and, like many solar scientists, after nearly three decades of scientific research in his case, came to believe that changes in the sun’s brightness, sunspots and energy output, changes in the orbital position of the Earth relative to the sun, and other powerful natural forces drive climate change. In brief, our sun controls our climate.

      Even the IPCC initially indicated agreement with him, citing his work approvingly in its second (1996) and third (2001) Assessment Reports. That later changed, significantly. Sure, everyone agrees that the sun caused the waxing and waning of the ice ages, just as solar scientists say. However, the sun had to be played down if carbon dioxide (CO2) was to be played up - an abuse of science that makes Willie sick.

      Unfortunately for the IPCC, solar scientists think solar changes also explain Earth’s most recent warming period which, they point out, began way back in the 1830s - long before we burned enough fossil fuels to make any difference. They also observed the shrinking of the Martian ice-caps in the 1990s, and their return in the last few years - in perfect time with the waning and waxing of Arctic ice caps here on Earth.

      Only the sun - not the CO2 from our fires - could cause that Earth-Mars synchronicity. And surely it is no mere coincidence that a grand maximum in solar brightness (Total Solar Irradiance or TSI) took place in the 1990s as both planets’ ice caps shrank, or that the sun cooled (TSI decreased) as both planets’ ice caps grew once again. All that brings us back to Dr. Soon’s disagreements with the IPCC.

      The IPCC now insists that solar variability is so tiny that they can just ignore it, and proclaim CO2 emissions as the driving force behind climate change. But solar researchers long ago discovered unexpected variability in the sun’s brightness - variability that is confirmed in other stars of the sun’s type. Why does the IPCC ignore these facts? Why does it insist on spoiling Willie’s appetite?

      It sure looks like the IPCC is hiding the best findings of solar science so that it can trumpet the decreases in planetary warming (the so-called “greenhouse effect") that they embed in the “scenarios” (as they call them) emanating from their computer models. Ignoring the increase in solar brightness over the 80s and 90s, they instead enthusiastically blame the warmth of the 1990s on human production of CO2.

      In just such ways they sell us their Climate Apocalypse - along with the roll-back of human energy use, comfort, living standards and progress: sacrifices that the great green gods of Gaia demand of us if we are to avoid existential cataclysms. Thankfully, virgins are still safe - for now.

      Surely Willie and solar scientists are right about the primacy of the sun. Why? Because the observable real world is the final test of science. And the data - actual evidence - shows that global temperatures follow changes in solar brightness on all time-scales, from decades to millions of years. On the other hand, CO2 and temperature have generally gone their own separate ways on these time scales.

      Global temperatures stopped going up in the first two decades of this century, even though CO2 has steadily risen. The IPCC blames this global warming “hiatus” on “natural climate variability,” meaning something random, something not included in their models, something the IPCC didn’t see coming.

      This confirms the fact that their models do not add up to a real theory of climate. Otherwise the theory would be falsified by their incorrect predictions. They predicted a continuous increase in temperature, locked to a continuous increase in CO2. But instead, temperature has remained steady over the last two decades, while CO2 climbed even faster than before.

      IPCC modelers still insist that the models are nevertheless correct, somehow - that the world would be even colder now if it weren’t for this pesky hiatus in CO2-driven warming. Of course, they have to say that - even though they previously insisted the Earth would not be as cool as it is right now.

      Still, their politically correct commands stridently persist: stay colder in winter, stay hotter in summer, take cold showers, drive less, make fewer trips, fly less, don’t eat foods that aren’t “local,” bury your loved ones in cardboard boxes, turn off the lights. Their list of diktats is big and continuously growing. 

      Unlike the IPCC, Willie and I cannot simply ignore the fact that there were multiple ice ages millions of years ago, when CO2 levels were four times higher than now. And even when CO2 and temperature do trend in tandem, as in the famous gigantic graph in Al Gore’s movie, the CO2 rises followed temperature increases by a few centuries. That means rising CO2 could not possibly have caused the temperature increases - an inconvenient truth that Gore doesn’t care about and studiously ignores.

      Unfortunately, through their powerful political and media cadres, the IPCC has created a highly effective propaganda and war-on-fossil-fuels vehicle, to herd public opinion - and marginalize or silence any scientist who dares to disagree with it. For better or worse, richer or poorer, my dear, passionate Dr. Soon is one scientist who is always ready to stand in the path of that tank and face it down: anytime, anywhere.

      I’m frightened by the dangers to Willie, his family and his career, due to his daily battles with the Climate Apocalypse industry. I can’t get it out of my mind that the university office building of climatologist John Christy - who shares Willie’s skepticism of Climate Apocalypse - was shot full of bullet holes last year. But let’s not let a spattering of gunfire spoil a friendly scientific debate. Right?

      Willie’s courage makes me proud to know him, and to be an aficionado of science like he is. When it comes to the long game, my money is on Dr. Willie Soon. We the people hunger for truth, as does science itself. And that hunger will inevitably eclipse our romantic dalliance with the Climate Apocalypse.

      Dr. Jeffrey Foss is a philosopher of science and Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

      ------------

      Current Solar Cycle The 3rd Quietest In More Than 250 Years Of Observation
      By P Gosselin on 26. December 2018

      The sun in November 2018
      By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
      (Translated by P Gosselin)

      Our sun was also very much less active in November than normal, comparing all solar cycles 1-23 up to month no. 120 since since the beginning of the systematic survey in 1755, the first year of solar cycle 1.The latest observed SSN (sunspot number) was a meager 5.9 for the monthly average.

      On 16 days the sun was completely “spotless”. The maximum number over the days of November was 15, which does not mean that there were 15 spots - no, the number indicates that 5 spots were observed in a maximum of 1 spot group.  So there was very low spot activity, only 20% of the average value.


      Fig. 1: The current solar cycle 24 (red) compared to a mean cycle calculated as the average of cycles 1-23 (blue) and cycle 5 (black), which for years was quite similar and observed around 1800.

      Fig.1 clearly shows that we had probably already arrived at the solar minimum at the beginning of 2018 (month 110 in the diagram). Will there be another “flare up” like in SC 5? The probability is rather low.

      A comparison of all the observed solar cycles so far, 120 months into the cycle:


      Fig. 2: The summary (between the observed SSN numbers and the respective mean value (blue in Fig.1) for all cycles up to the current cycle month 120 of SC 24.

      The measurements of Cycle 24 are well recorded. It is very likely that we will stay in the minimum for another year with very little activity. This can also be seen in the solar polar fields, which stagnate at their maximum value. To illustrate this, we have graphically processed them as mean values from the solar northern and southern hemispheres. We always looked at the same time period, between the zero point (it is the respective spot maximum) and 2110 days afterwards, that is the last measuring point of the SC24 on November 27, 2018:


      Fig. 3: The temporal development ( of the polar solar fields of the sun since 1980. The strength in the spot minimum, at the end of the respective graph when the fields become stationary and hardly change, is a good indicator for the activity of the subsequent cycle.

      Figure 3 shows very clearly how hesitantly the increase in the current cycle occurred. The three predecessor cycles showed a much faster development after the zero crossing. Later, SC 24 then settled on a slightly higher value than SC 23. This could mean that SC 25 could become slightly stronger from 2020. But one should not expect too much accuracy from the method. It is clear that SC 25 will by far not become as strong as SC23 and 22, i.e. sub-normally active, see Fig. 2.

      We’ll keep you up to date!

      Also see new papers???” that support the solar changes and likely cooling.

      Sep 19, 2018
      Join the Fight for Skepticism in Schools

      David Wojick

      Let the fight begin

      In March the Heartland Institute fired a big broadside right into the teaching of climate change alarmism in America’s schools. They began sending Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming directly to many of the Nation’s science teachers. Of course the alarmists went nuts, especially Sen. Sheldon “jail the skeptics” Whitehouse, who denounced Heartland’s bold move in a series of letters to various education groups.

      My group is now taking the next skeptical step. We are crowd funding the Climate Change Debate Education (CCDE) project. While Heartland’s effort explains skepticism to teachers, our goal is to explain it to the students. You can make donations here.

      Our project will establish a website portal that collects and distributes materials to teach about the climate debate. Once established and given sufficient funding we will also produce new teaching materials. The long term goal is to build a collection that systematically addresses all of the important climate science issues at the appropriate grade levels. Our target audience is not just teachers, but parents, friends of students and the students themselves.

      There are presently a lot of alarmist websites offering one-sided classroom materials teaching the false dogma of dangerous human induced climate change. That this alarmism is highly debatable is nowhere to be seen on these websites. So we want to counter these alarmist websites with one that teaches about the real debate, between alarmism and realistic skepticism.

      Both the Federal government and many advocacy groups maintain websites that distribute alarmist climate teaching materials. These materials teach that dangerous human induced climate change is settled science, which is far from true.

      For example, the CLEAN website is funded jointly by NOAA, NSF and DOE. CLEAN stands for Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network. In fact “climate literacy” is code for the false belief that humans are causing dangerous climate change. CLEAN says it has over 600 free, ready to use resources suitable for use in secondary and higher education classrooms. They also boast that they are the core of the “Teaching Climate” part of the federal Climate.gov website. This is Government bias targeting children.

      All of CLEAN’s teaching materials are biased and based on this false premise. The reality is that dangerous human influence on climate is completely unproven and the subject of intense scientific debate. That only the scary side is being presented as settled science is a severe lack of balance.

      Creating balance in climate science education

      The first step toward creating balance in climate education is to provide teaching materials that properly present the scientific debate as it actually is. We propose a phased approach to this effort. First an implementation phase then, if funding is available, a production phase. Here the goal is to recruit and guide volunteers who will produce highly targeted teaching materials. In particular, there is a need for simple, yet well designed, lesson plans that teach a specific scientific issue to a specific grade level.

      These lesson plans need to be tailored to the state standards, which typically dictate what topics are taught in which grades. There are numerous specific scientific issues that need to be taught at different grade levels. Each potential lesson needs to be simple and compact, designed to fit into the mandated curriculum. Moreover, each lesson must stand alone, because teaching time is limited.

      Getting around the gatekeepers

      We will also develop short, handout types of materials as a way to get around what we call the gatekeepers. Gatekeepers are doctrinaire people who make it hard to get balance into the classroom. It may be the principal, the teacher’s supervisor or even the teacher.

      Our handouts will be something that a parent or student can bring to class. It is normal for students to bring supplementary materials to class, especially when the topic is controversial. In the case of climate change, surveys have also shown that parents often become involved. As with the lesson plans, these handouts will be highly focused, nonpolitical, and tailored to a specific grade level. Since they will be online they can easily be emailed as well. Thus the gatekeepers cannot prevent their distribution.

      Target audiences

      There are three distinct target audiences - teachers, parents and students. Teachers need lesson plans, which are relatively specialized documents. Students need materials written at their grade level. Parents need non-technical information that they can explain to their children or use to confront a gatekeeper. Of course teachers and non-parents can use this information as well. The website will be organized in such a way that each group can find what they need.

      It is important to keep in mind that many K-12 science teachers do not have science degrees, nor do most parents. K-12 is not the place to go into the technical details of climate science. Simplicity is the key.

      Apr 03, 2019
      New Report:  Global Warming Is Not Accelerating

      London, 3 April: The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is misleading the public by suggesting that global warming and its impacts are accelerating. In fact, since 2016 global average temperature has continued to decline.

      That’s according to Norwegian Professor Ole Humlum whose annual review of the world’s climate is published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

      Last week, the WMO issued its own review of the climate, which insinuated that global warming was worsening. However, Professor Humlum points out that the data tells a very different story:

      “Reading the WMO report, you would think that global warming was getting worse. But in fact it is carefully worded to give a false impression. The data are far more suggestive of an improvement than a deterioration.”

      And the lack of anything to be alarmed about is clear across a range of measures, says Professor Humlum:

      “After the warm year of 2016, temperatures last year continued to fall back to levels of the so-called warming “pause” of 2000-2015. There is no sign of any acceleration in global temperature, hurricanes or sea-level rise. These empirical observations show no sign of acceleration whatsoever.”

      Professor Humlum’s key findings:

      In 2018, the average global surface temperature continued a gradual descent towards the level characterising the years before the strong 2015/16 El Nino episode.

      Since 2004, when the Argo floats came into operation, the global oceans above 1900m depth have on average warmed somewhat. The maximum warming (between the surface and 120 m depth) mainly affects oceans near the equator, where the incoming solar radiation is at a maximum. In contrast, net cooling has been pronounced for the North Atlantic since 2004.
      Data from tide gauges all over the world suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1- 1.5 mm/year, while the satellite record suggests a rise of about 3.2 mm/year. The large difference between the two data sets still has no broadly accepted explanation.

      The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent has undergone important local and regional variations from year to year. The overall global tendency since 1972, however, is for overall stable snow extent.

      Tropical storm and hurricane accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) values since 1970 have displayed large variations from year to year, but no overall trend towards either lower or higher activity. The same applies for the number of hurricane landfalls in the continental United States, for which the record begins in 1851.

      Ole Humlum: State of the Climate 2018 (pdf)

      Contact

      Prof Ole Humlum
      e: ole.humlum@gmail.com

      Feb 09, 2018
      New England’s needless energy crisis

      By Karen Harbert

      A new study conducted by the independent grid operator in New England includes a stark warning for utilities, politicians and customers. While the United States has already become the world’s leading energy producer, ISO New England’s research shows that the region may have to rely on increasing amounts of imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) to meet its future power needs, even though it sits on the doorstep of one of the world’s largest natural gas fields.

      The research is consistent with the region’s lack of natural gas infrastructure that was highlighted in our own report ‘What if Pipelines Aren’t Built into the Northeast’ released last year. This shortage means that the region could face a regular risk of rolling winter blackouts by 2024 and would have to rely on more expensive fuel and overseas LNG to meet peak demand.

      Worse, the problem is so severe that emergency measures will likely be necessary almost every winter by the mid-2020s, with the grid operator estimating that rolling blackouts would be necessary in 19 out of the 23 scenarios they studied.

      ISO New England’s study concluded with a blunt assessment of the problem: “while the use of natural gas for both heating and power generation is growing, the natural gas supply infrastructure is not expanding at the same pace, resulting in natural gas supply constraints in winter. Given the region’s current and growing reliance on natural gas, limitations on the region’s natural gas delivery infrastructure are the most significant component of New England’s fuel-security risk.”

      None of this should come as a surprise to those who have been following the energy debate in New England over the past few years. The region has seen closures of many of its coal and nuclear plants, making it increasingly dependent on natural gas generation. A lack of infrastructure has already led to residential electricity prices that are 44 percent higher than the U.S. average, and 62 percent higher for industrial users. New Englanders are also paying 29 percent more, on average, for natural gas.

      The impact of those high prices is significant. Our report found that if additional pipeline infrastructure isn’t built, it will cost New England more than 78,000 jobs and $7.6 billion in regional GDP by 2020.

      Of course, the irony is that neighboring states like Ohio and Pennsylvania sit above the Marcellus and Utica Shales, two of the world’s richest gas reserves. Unfortunately, an aggressive and well-funded campaign by extreme activists has fought against and prevented new pipeline projects that proposed to deliver this energy resource to New England markets.

      Projects like the Northeast Energy Direct, Access Northeast and Constitution pipelines could bring abundant and affordable Pennsylvania gas to New England, but activists have successfully lobbied regulators to deny key permits necessary for pipeline construction.

      These misguided efforts have actually worked against regional environmental goals. While renewable sources of energy show great promise, they also require backup sources that must be quickly scaled up to meet peak demand and pick up the slack when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. People still need fuel to heat their homes and power their businesses, schools, and hospitals.


      Enlarged


      Enlarged

      But because of a lack of infrastructure, rather than using cheaper and cleaner domestic fuel from neighboring states, New Englanders are forced to pay more to burn fuel oil and import higher-priced natural gas from overseas to meet their energy needs. Neither of these scenarios makes economic or environmental sense.

      New England needs modern infrastructure to compete. Energy infrastructure is no exception. We applaud the current administration’s focus on revamping our nation’s infrastructure, and hope New England is included. It’s time for state and local lawmakers to face reality and put consumers over extreme special interests to ensure affordable, reliable energy for all of their residents.

      Karen Harbert is the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute.

      WHERE’S THE BEEF?


      Enlarged


      Enlarged

      Feb 06, 2018
      Fake Nobel Prize Winner Blasts Museum For Ties To Billionaire Climate Skeptic

      By Chris White

      A climate scientist infamous for incorrectly claiming he once won the Nobel Prize is criticizing a museum for not being faithful to the truth and facts because of its association with a billionaire climate skeptic.

      A so-called climate denier does not deserve a leadership position at the American Museum of Natural History, according to Penn State University professor Michael Mann. He was referring to Rebekah Mercer, a wealthy conservative who sits on the museum’s board of trustees.

      ‘A natural-history museum must be accurate, faithful to the facts and trusted by the public,” Mann wrote Monday in an editorial for The News York Times. He urged the museum to distance itself from Mercer, a supporter of President Donald Trump and donator to conservative causes.

      Mann has consistently been called out for falsely claiming to have co-won the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Vice President Al Gore.

      The prize was awarded to Gore that year for his “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change,” according to the panel.

      Mann claimed in his lawsuit in 2012 against conservative pundit Mark Steyn and National Review that he was a Nobel Laureate, but the Nobel committee has consistently rebuked this claim. Mann went on to slam the museum and Mercer for not adhering to the truth and scientific standards.

      “For years, many scientists were hesitant to come out of their labs and speak up for fear that truth-telling would result in personal attacks or threaten their professional credibility,” said Mann, who gained fame for his “hockey stick” graph showing global temperature rise - Gore eventually used the academic’s graphs in his documentary, “Inconvenient Truth.”

      Mann and a handful of scientists used a super PAC to get their colleagues to align against Trump during the presidential election over the president’s willingness to “embrace of conspiracy theories, anti-science attitudes, and disregard for experts.”

      The group, Not Who We Are PAC, wasn’t heavily involved during the election, compared to the tens of millions spent by other super PACs. The group has only spent $23,000 on ads targeting Trump, according to federal filings.
      \
      Mann dismissed the idea that the push against Mercer is a politically partisan issue. He later suggested the museum move to use the Mercer family’s donations “to develop exhibitions and programs that educate the pubic about the climate-denial machine that illuminate its history of using propaganda to obstruct pro-climate action and the document how we’ve arrived at this current crisis point for the planet.”

      Apr 06, 2016
      “…climate change is UN hoax to create new world order”

      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.

      See the quotes here.

      ---------

      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.

      Sep 23, 2015
      In regards to the false 97% “consensus”

      Derek Alker

      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

      Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

      ------------

      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.

      See faulty methodology of Cook study.

      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.

      ---------------

      1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.

      “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.

      See still more annotated here.

      --------------

      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.

      Science and Public Policy Institute here.

      Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

      RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

      The Weather Wiz สล็อต ฟรี เครดิต ถอน ได้ 2019 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)