Posted on

Bill Nye the scientism guy

Bill Nye

Facts don’t support his hypothesis, so he shouts louder, changes subjects, and attacks his critics

May 27, 2016 by Dr. Willie Soon and István Markó,

True science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.

That’s why Albert Einstein once joked, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts.” When informed that scientists who rejected his theory of relativity had published a pamphlet, 100 authors against Einstein, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

In the realm of climate scientism, the rule seems to be this: If the facts don’t support your argument, talk louder, twist the facts, and insult your opponents. That’s certainly what self-styled global warming “experts” like Al Gore and Bill Nye are doing. Rather than debating scientists who don’t accept false claims that humans are causing dangerous climate change, they just proclaim more loudly:

Our theory explains everything that’s happening. Hotter or colder temperatures, wetter or drier weather, less ice in the Arctic, more ice in Antarctica – it’s all due to fossil fuel use.

Climate scientism aggressively misrepresents facts, refuses to discuss energy and climate issues with anyone who points out massive flaws in the man-made climate chaos hypothesis, bullies anyone who won’t condemn carbon dioxide, and brands them as equivalent to Holocaust Deniers.

In a recent Huffington Post article, Mr. Nye “challenges climate change deniers” by claiming, “The science of global warming is long settled, and one may wonder why the United States, nominally the most technologically advanced country in the world, is not the world leader in addressing the threats.”

Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).

– See more at: https://www.cfact.org/2016/05/27/bill-nye-the-scientism-guy/#sthash.fjwv9nf7.dpuf

Posted on

Why Everything You Know About Climate Change Is Wrong

abominable-snowman-520169

April 2,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Point: Manmade climate change is a real phenomenon.

Counterpoint: No, it’s not. Climate has been changing since before humankind existed.

And so the conversation has circled for decades. But what if there was an alternative way of understanding what’s happening to our planet?

For scientist William Goodenough, we are wasting resources barking up the wrong tree. He agrees the planet is in a natural warming cycle, but suggests a shift in Earth’s magnetic poles is a primary cause of climate change.

“Our politicians are diverting $22 billion in annual research that tries to connect climate change to our use of carbon,” says Goodenough, author of “The Three Concepts of Climate Change: Is AGW Politics or Science?” (www.whyclimatechange.net).

“That research proves inconclusive year after year. Many people suggest completely reorganizing our economy to meet a radical energy policy, to the tune of an unquantifiable amount of money and a great economic burden on the average American.”

Here’s how Goodenough explains key concepts of his alternative theory.

• No scientific instrument connects human activity to climate change. If there was direct evidence tying humanity’s activity to climate change, we would have heard of it by now. Nonetheless, the message in the media has continuously reinforced the connection. Advocates for manmade climate change have successfully linked the issue to environmental problems associated with humans, including air pollution. The result has been public confusion.
• How the magnetic poles come into play. Earth’s magnetic poles are relocating by 3,000 miles. This shift is having a significant impact onrealized in computerized aircraft-control navigational systems, and that’s a clue it’s likely affecting Earth’s climate, too. The magnetic pole alters the direction of the enormous current flow through the Earth, causing magnetic chaos in our planet’s core. This weakens the magnetic shield that protects the planet from damaging solar particles. Pole shifting changes the direction of the interaction between the geophysical and the magnetic North Poles by moving the coldest area of the Arctic toward Asia, thereby significantly altering the climate while not changing total Earth temperature.
• A multi-disciplined approach to understanding climate change is necessary. “AGW climate science” is a gross oversimplification of terms. The issue includes perpetual changes in total Earth temperature, the direction of the sun’s activity, and the planet’s distance and orientation to the sun during orbit. Also in need of consideration is how the sun’s activity, Earth’s core and magnetic forcing interact with Earth’s atmosphere. In most of today’s climate research, all necessary fields of study aren’t taken into account, including meteorology, climatology, geophysics, geomagnetism, archaeology, paleoclimatology and history.

“If you respect sufficient evidence,” Goodenough says, “you aren’t satisfied with mainstream theories on this problem and should be open to compelling new data.”

About William Goodenough

William Goodenough is author of “The Three Concepts of Climate Change: Is AGW Politics or Science?” (www.whyclimatechange.net). He is a technical analyst with decades of experience in scientific analysis of computer systems, control systems, pneumatic systems, power distributions systems, automated processes, hydraulic systems and fuel systems related to aerospace certification.

Posted on

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels ‘COOLS planet’, says NASA

abominable-snowman-520169

BURNING fossil fuels and cutting down trees causes global COOLING, a shock new NASA study has found.

By JON AUSTIN
PUBLISHED: 13:07, Mon, Dec 21, 2015 | UPDATED: 17:00, Mon, Dec 21, 2015

Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.

Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced – which causes the global greenhouse effect.

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols – also given off by burning fossil fuels – actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

The research was carried out to see if current climate change models for calculating future temperatures were taking into account all factors and were accurate.

A NASA spokesman said: “To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA

Posted on

Leaders Gather to Save the World

ostrich

The UN wants to limit global warming to 2C, but international co-operation has been slow in coming

Tom Bawden Environment Editor
@BawdenTom

Almost 150 heads of state, including David Cameron, Barack Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, are heading to Paris for the start of the most important environmental meeting for decades.

Ahead of the summit, more than 175 countries have tabled pledges (known as intended nationally determined contributions, or INDCs) to cut their carbon emissions which, if enacted, would be enough to limit global warming to 2.7C. But the United Nations has pledged to limit climate change to 2C – and would much prefer it to be 1.5C.

This means there is much work to be done in Paris. Although nobody is expecting an agreement that will guarantee to limit global warming to 2C, the UN climate chief Christiana Figueres is determined to enshrine a process that paves the way for the world to be able to meet that target further down the line. Here are some of the different interest groups and what they want from Paris:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-climate-change-talks-what-the-different-groups-attending-expect-from-these-crucial-meetings-a6753126.html

Posted on

NOAA’s climate change science fiction

climate change hoax

The environmental intelligence agency ignores satellite data

By Lamar Smith – – Thursday, November 26, 2015

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the nation’s leading collector of climate data. Every day, NOAA analyzes vast amounts of data to predict changes to our climate, weather, oceans and coasts. The agency also publishes monthly temperature averages across the nation and compares those numbers to historical temperature records.

As the nation’s self-proclaimed authority on “environmental intelligence,” NOAA should be held to the highest scientific standards. This means their conclusions should be objective, independent of political consideration and based on all available sources of information.

NOAA’s top official, Kathryn Sullivan, has described the agency’s role as providing “timely, reliably, and actionable information — based on sound science — every day to millions of Americans.”

In testimony before the House Science Committee, NOAA’s deputy administrator, Manson Brown, made similar remarks, noting the importance of satellite data. He said that NOAA’s ability “to deliver environmental intelligence starts with keeping the pulse of the planet, especially the atmosphere and the ocean, and this is the central capability where space-based assets come into play.” So why does NOAA leave out satellite data when it releases climate projections?

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. This fact is well documented, but has been embarrassing for an administration determined to push through costly environmental regulations.

Instead, NOAA focused its study on surface temperature monitoring that is often flawed because these sites measure thousands of independent temperature readings and utilize a hodgepodge of different methods that have changed over time. For example, measurements from land-based stations can be skewed because of their location and proximity to surrounding heat-holding asphalt in urban areas.

Satellite data, on the other hand, is highly calibrated and provides complete global coverage. For decades, satellites have been used to monitor the earth and collect information. Satellites measure something extremely important — the deep atmosphere. The temperature readings collected by satellites often differ from ground monitoring stations and have consistently shown much smaller rates of warming. Yet NOAA refuses to incorporate satellite data into its monthly projections that are released to the public. Why?

NOAA appears to pick and choose only data that confirms their bias. NOAA then disseminates this incomplete data to the media who manufacture alarming headlines but ignore the uncertainty of the conclusions.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/lamar-smith-noaas-climate-change-science-fiction/

Posted on

Global Cooling , Global Warming , ah no Global Cooling again ….

al gore climate hoax

Cold sun rising
Sam Khoury
Special to The Nation November 11, 2015 1:00 am

New studies flip climate-change notions upside down

The sun will go into “hibernation” mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society’s annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it – the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova’s model is said to have near-perfect accuracy.

So what is a “solar minimum”?

Our sun doesn’t maintain a constant intensity. Instead, it cycles in spans of approximately 11 years. When it’s at its maximum, it has the highest number of sunspots on its surface in that particular cycle. When it’s at its minimum, it has almost none. When there are more sunspots, the sun is brighter. When there are fewer, the sun radiates less heat toward Earth.

But that’s not the only cooling effect of a solar minimum. A dim sun doesn’t deflect cosmic rays away from Earth as efficiently as a bright sun. So, when these rays enter our atmosphere, they seed clouds, which in turn cool our planet even more and increase precipitation in the form of rain, snow and hail.

Solar cycles

Since the early 1800s we have enjoyed healthy solar cycles and the rich agriculture and mild northern temperatures that they guarantee. During the Middle Ages, however, Earth felt the impact of four solar minimums over the course of 400 years.

The last Maunder Minimum and its accompanying mini-Ice Age saw the most consistent cold, continuing into the early 1800s.

The last time we became concerned about cooler temperatures – possibly dangerously cooler – was in the 1970s. Global temperatures have declined since the 1940s, as measured by Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The PDO Index is a recurring pattern of ocean-atmosphere climate variability centred over the Pacific Ocean. Determined by deep currents, it is said to shift between warm and cool modes. Some scientists worried that it might stay cool and drag down the Atlantic Decadal Oscillation with it, spurring a new Ice Age. The fear was exacerbated by the fact that Earth has been in the current inter-glacial period for 10,000 years (depending on how the starting point is gauged).

https://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html

Posted on

More Top Scientist Question “Global Warming” religion

abominable-snowman-520169

TOP PHYSICIST FREEMAN DYSON: OBAMA HAS PICKED THE ‘WRONG SIDE’ ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The climate models used by alarmist scientists to predict global warming are getting worse, not better; carbon dioxide does far more good than harm; and President Obama has backed the “wrong side” in the war on “climate change.”

So says one of the world’s greatest theoretical physicists, Dr Freeman Dyson (pictured above), the British-born, naturalised American citizen who worked at Princeton University as a contemporary of Einstein and has advised the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.

In an interview with Andrew Orlowski of The Register, Dyson expressed his despair at the current scientific obsession with climate change which he says is “not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to the obvious facts.”

This mystery, says Dyson, can only partly be explained in terms of follow the money. Also to blame, he believes, is a kind of collective yearning for apocalyptic doom.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/13/top-physicist-freeman-dyson-obama-picked-wrong-side-climate-change/

France’s top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change

Philippe Verdier, weather chief at France Télévisions, the country’s state broadcaster, reportedly sent on “forced holiday” for releasing book accusing top climatologists of “taking the world hostage”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11931645/Frances-top-weatherman-sparks-storm-over-book-questioning-climate-change.html

Posted on

Dr. Tim Ball in his new book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”.

abominable-snowman-520169

BY BRITTANY SOARES

“It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,” says Dr. Tim Ball in his new book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”.

Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988.

Several UN conferences set in motion the hoax that is based on the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing a dramatic surge in heating the Earth. IPCC reports have continued to spread this lie through their summaries for policy makers that influenced policies that have caused nations worldwide to spend billions to reduce and restrict CO2 emissions.

Manmade climate change—called anthropogenic global warming—continues to be the message though mankind plays no role whatever.

https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/the-truth-about-climate-change-liberals-dont-want-you-to-know

Posted on

The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’

bull shit meter

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

By JOSEPH BAST And ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinionessay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year inNature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Posted on

Nobel Laureate Says Obama’s ‘Dead Wrong’ on Global Warming

abominable-snowman-520169

By Melanie Batley   |   Tuesday, 07 Jul 2015 11:35 AM!

A Nobel Prize-winning scientist who supported President Barack Obama has said that he does not believe global warming is a problem, and has openly criticized the president for his position on the issue.

“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Ivar Giaever announced during a speech at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, last week, according to Climate Depot.

Quoting Obama’s warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” Giaever said it was a “ridiculous statement.”

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” he said, according to Climate Depot.

“Obama said last year that 2014 is [the] hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ivar-Giaever-nobel-prize-global-warming-obama/2015/07/07/id/653805/#ixzz3fFOsUpSC

Posted on

When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?

michaels-img1

By Patrick J. Michaels
This article appeared in TownHall.com on May 29, 2015.

Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.

The story is told in a simple graph, the same one that University of Alabama’s John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15.

The picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world.

The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979, predicted by the UN’s latest family of climate models, many of which are the handiwork of our own federal science establishment. The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.

The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature. Both of these are thought to be pretty solid because they come from calibrated instruments.

“The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.”

If you look at data through 1995 the forecast appears to be doing quite well. That’s because the computer models appear to have, at least in essence, captured two periods of slight cooling.

The key word is “appear.” The computer models are tuned to account for big volcanoes that are known to induce temporary cooling in the lower atmosphere. These would be the 1982 eruption of El Chichon in Mexico, and 1992’s spectacular Mt. Pinatubo, the biggest natural explosion on earth since Alaska’s Katmai in 1912.

Since Pinatubo, the earth has been pretty quiescent, so that warming from increasing carbon dioxide should proceed unimpeded. Obviously, the spread between forecast and observed temperatures grows pretty much every year, and is now a yawning chasm.

It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked by the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps the three most important words in life: we were wrong.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/when-will-climate-scientists-say-they-were-wrong?utm_content=bufferd4179&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Posted on

FEMA to require climate change plans for states seeking disaster relief

dinosaure

By Lydia Wheeler – 05/05/15 10:32 AM EDT

A new Federal Emergency Management Agency policy requiring states to address climate change before they can become eligible for grant funding is drawing fire from congressional Republicans.

The regulations, part of a FEMA State Mitigation Plan Review Guide issued last month, are not set to take effect until next March. But lawmakers are demanding an explanation for the rules now.

In a letter to FEMA Administrator W. Craig Fugate, the lawmakers said they’re concerned that the agency’s decision will create unnecessary red tape in the disaster preparedness process.

“As you know, disaster mitigation grants are awarded to state and local governments after a presidential major disaster declaration,” they wrote. “These funds are crucial in helping disaster-stricken communities prepare for future emergencies.”

The letter was signed by Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.).

In the revised guide, the agency said mitigation planning regulation requires consideration of the probability of future hazards and events to reduce risks and potential dangers.

“Past occurrences are important to a factual basis of hazard risk, however, the challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding and higher sea levels, could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards impacting states in the future,” FEMA said in its guide.

But in their letter, the senators said climate change is still being debated, citing “gaps in the scientific understanding around climate change.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/241050-gop-lawmakers-ask-fema-to-explain-new-disaster-grant-requirement

Posted on

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

Booker-puerto_3175673a

The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry

By Christopher Booker

8:14PM BST 25 Apr 2015

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

Posted on

Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed – and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

27EA516F00000578-3052926-image-a-11_1429822240331

Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records
It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC
Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming
These ‘climate wiggles’ were not properly accounted for in IPCC report

By ELLIE ZOLFAGHARIFARD FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 15:56 EST, 23 April 2015 | UPDATED: 18:31 EST, 23 April 2015

ReaGlobal warming hasn’t happened as fast as expected, according to a new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records.

The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates.

But it adds that these so-called ‘climate wiggles’ could also, in the future, cause our planet to warm up much faster than anticipated.

The study compared its results to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

‘Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,’ said Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University. ‘But this could change.’

The Duke-led study says that variability is caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors.

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html#ixzz3YFhytBcR

Posted on

Media Ignore Deposed UN Climate Chief: Fighting Climate Change Is ‘My Religion’

Pachauri

Pachauri

Media Ignore Deposed UN Climate Chief: Fighting Climate Change Is ‘My Religion’
By Tim Graham | February 28, 2015 | 9:57 AM EST

As Joseph Rossell noted earlier, Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, the scientist leading the fight against “climate change” at the United Nations, resigned after some sexual-harassment allegations surfaced against him in his home country of India, and the networks completely ignored it.

So it’s also obvious that they also ignored the shocking admission in Dr. Pachauri’s resignation letter: fighting against global warming, he said, was “my religion.”

“For me, the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma [the path of righteousness].”

Investors’ Business Daily explored this on its editorial page on Friday:

And all this time we were supposed to believe that global warming and climate change were about rigorous science. Pachauri’s admission merely confirms what we have said for years. The zealots have concocted a warming religion .

This is an observation also made by Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who told a gathering at the Cato Institute in fall 2009 that all of environmentalism, not just the climate-change belief system, “is a religion.”

University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse made a similar remark a year later. “When everything is evidence of the thing you want to believe, it might be time to stop pretending you’re all about science,” she wrote in her blog.

– See more at: https://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2015/02/28/media-ignore-deposed-un-climate-chief-fighting-climate-change-my#sthash.zBQN9pOM.dpuf