Tag: Climate Change Hoax

Posted on

Patrick Moore, Ph.D co-founder Greenpeace Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

maxresdefault

maxresdefault

Patrick Moore, Ph.D co-founder Greenpeace Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

Patrick Moore

Dr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies,

[Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas. Watch his presentation about this piece at the video player to the left.]

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

IPCC Conflict of Interest

By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

Political Powerhouse

Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.

https://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

Posted on

Climate-Change Deniers’ and ‘Put a Price on Carbon’ , but have you seen “big foot”?

url

url

Climate-Change Deniers’ and ‘Put a Price on Carbon’ , but have you seen “big foot”?
Cole Mellino | March 16, 2015 10:37 am

The South by Southwest (SXSW) Festival is happening now in Austin, Texas. Running from March 9 to 22, it’s a massive film, interactive and music festival that is nearly 20 years old. The festival brings together designers, developers, investors, entrepreneurs and politicians for panels and discussions about technology and innovation.

For the third time in the last few years, Al Gore, founder and chairman of the Climate Reality Project, spoke at the festival on Friday. Naturally, his interactive discussion focused on addressing the climate crisis. The former vice president focused on the need to “punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting ‘accepted science,’” said the Chicago Tribune.

Gore said forward-thinking investors are moving away from companies that invest in fossil fuels and towards companies investing in renewable energy. “We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore told the Chicago Tribune, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies that exceeded their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.”

He called on the tech-minded SXSW crowd, which is dominated by Millenials, to harness technology to launch a grassroots movement to tackle climate change and call out climate deniers. “We have this denial industry cranked up constantly,” Gore said. “In addition to 99 percent of the scientists and all the professional scientific organizations, now Mother Nature is weighing in.”

Years from now, Gore said the next generation will look back at us and ask: “How did you change?,” according to Macworld. “Part of the answer may well be that a group of people came to South by Southwest in Austin, Texas in 2015 and helped to make a revolution,” Gore said.

Gore wanted these young, tech-savvy attendees to start a grassroots movement using social media like they did when “net neutrality was threatened or when the Stop Online Piracy Act threatened to blacklist websites that offered so-called illegal content,” said Macworld. That means signing petitions to fight climate change, utilizing social media to call out climate deniers in Congress and streaming the Live Earth Road to Paris concert on June 18, an event designed to draw attention to the climate talks in Paris this December.

The former Veep even gave a nod to Pope Francis during his talk, showing a slide of the pontiff and saying “How about this Pope?” Pope Francis celebrated his two-year anniversary as Pope on Friday, riding a wave of popularity “that has reinvigorated the Catholic Church in ways not seen since the days of St. John Paul II,” said the Chicago Tribune. Gore said he was looking forward to the Pope’s highly anticipated encyclical on the environment which is due to be released in June or July. “I’m not a Catholic,” Gore said, “but I could be persuaded to become one.”

https://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16/al-gore-sxsw-punish-climate-deniers/

Posted on

‘Fears of man-made global warming exaggerated’

abominable-snowman-520169

‘Fears of man-made global warming exaggerated’

By Anahita Mukherji, TNN | 7 Jan, 2015, 04.49AM IST

MUMBAI: Two of three scientists at a session on climate change and society at the Indian Science Congress on Tuesday felt fears of man-made global warming were greatly exaggerated. Their presence at the conference was particularly significant in light of the current ‘development-versus-envir- onment’ debates.

“While I agree that glaciers are melting because of global warming, if this is because of man, then what was the reason for the melting of the glaciers in the Gondwana period long  ..

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/45786412.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cpps

Posted on

No Global Warming for 18 Years

url

No Global Warming for 18 Years
October 6, 2014

H. STERLING BURNETT

Climate Change Weekly #141

According to Professor John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama/Huntsville, October 1 marked the 18th anniversary of no warming as measured by Earth’s climate satellite system. Despite a continued and marked rise in emissions and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, Earth’s temperature has plateaued for the past 18 years.

Christy told CNS News, “That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on.”

Christy and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer compiled raw temperature data collected from 14 instruments aboard various weather satellites. The data show no warming. While all of the climate models used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted steeply rising temperatures over the past two decades, the data show they were wrong.

The gap between the data and the model projections shows scientists have a very limited understanding of the complexity of the climate system and the factors that affect climate changes. And because the model projections were all wrong in one direction – all projecting ongoing, increasing warming – the assumptions were biased toward predicting warming.

Christy says it is “a fool’s errand” to base government policies affecting millions of Americans and billions of people around the world on these badly flawed models.

CNS News quotes Christy saying:

Our ignorance is simply enormous when it comes to the climate system, and our understanding is certainly not strong and solid enough to make policy about climate because we don’t even know what it’s going to do, so how can we make a policy that says ‘I want to make the climate do something’ when we don’t know what makes the climate do what it does?

https://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/10/06/no-global-warming-18-years

Posted on

Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

imgres

Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

By CORAL DAVENPORTAUG. 26, 2014

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

“If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time,” said Paul Bledsoe, a top climate change official in the Clinton administration who works closely with the Obama White House on international climate change policy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=0

Posted on

The scandal of fiddled global warming data

abominable-snowman-520169

The scandal of fiddled global warming data

The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

By Christopher Booker
4:04PM BST 21 Jun 2014

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

Posted on

A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

abominable-snowman-520169

A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

By Axel Bojanowski

News that Lennart Bengtsson, the respected former director of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, had joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), sent shockwaves through the climate research community. GWPF is most notable for its skepticism about climate change and its efforts to undermine the position of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The tremors his decision sent through the scientific community shocked Bengtsson.

The scientist said colleagues placed so much pressure on him after joining GWPF that he withdrew from the group out of fear for his own health. Bengtsson added that his treatment had been reminiscent of the persecution of suspected Communists in the United States during the era of McCarthyism in the 1950s.

Not all of his fellow climatologists agree. Gavin Schmidt a climatologist and climate modeler at NASA described the “alleged connection to McCarthy” as “ridiculous.” “As someone who has actually been threatened with criminal sanctions by a United States Senator only because of published science, I don’t quite see why Bengtsson’s total freedom to associate with anyone he wants — and let me be clear, he has this freedom — has in any way been compromised,” he said.

But Bengtsson insists that even close colleagues shunned him. He says that one research partner, apparently fearing damage to his reputation, withdrew from a study they had been conducting together. Bengtsson added no further details other than to state that the incident had been hurtful.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html

Posted on

The ‘Cure’ for Climate Change Is Far Worse than the Disease

abominable-snowman-520169

The ‘Cure’ for Climate Change Is Far Worse than the Disease
Nicolas Loris
May 6, 2014 at 8:18 pm

Manmade greenhouse gas emissions already are causing gloom and doom and adversely affecting our way of life. That’s the conclusion of the National Climate Assessment released today by the Obama administration. But before we trade our Buicks for bikes, it’s important to highlight the climate realities and show that the administration’s proposed policy solutions will drive up the cost of energy for Americans and have no meaningful impact on climate.

Although the planet has warmed over the past six decades and a broad consensus exists that part of that warming is attributed to manmade emissions, what we’re seeing and where we’re headed is not toward climate catastrophe. As my colleague David Kreutzer writes, the climate threats do not match up with reality. Sea levels are rising but not as fast as projected.  There have been no significant trends for floods, droughts, hurricanes or tornadoes.  Although the report does not address hurricanes, it does admit that “other trends in severe storms, including tornadoes, hail, and thunderstorms, are still uncertain.”

The report has a variety of serious problem. Many of the models the federal government relied on to promulgate these regulations projected a 0.3-degree Celsius warming over the past 17 years, when in reality no warming occurred (although CO2 emissions have increased). Since 2011, 16 experiments published in peer-reviewed literature found the equilibrium climate sensitivity (the effect that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have), is 40 percent lower than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the NCA project. In other words, a lot of variability exists in projecting what impact increased GHGs will have on the planet, which has serious implications not just for future temperature projections but all the other scary scenarios NCA outlines.

What’s most troubling is, even if climate change were occurring at an unsustainable rate, the administration’s policy prescriptions will not fix anything but will further harm the economy. The proposed limits for carbon dioxide emissions essentially would prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants and force existing ones into early retirement, driving up the cost of energy on American families and businesses.  Higher energy prices shrink production in consumption, resulting in less income for families, more people in the unemployment line and less economic growth.  And even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gas emissions entirely, we would not moderate the Earth’s temperature more than a few tenths of a degree Celsius by the end of the century.

Some of the NCA’s policy solutions are even more invasive.  The report says greenhouse gas reductions is one of the co-benefits of replacing short vehicle commutes with biking or walking and reducing your red meat intake to reduce the amount of methane emitted from the animals we eat.  Not that federal government nudging and taking away choice from consumers and businesses is new.  Over several decades the Department of Energy now has set efficiency regulations for more than 50 commercial and industrial products, including everything from dehumidifiers to illuminated exit signs.  DOE touts these regulations not only as ways to save energy and money for consumers but as greenhouse gas reducers as well.

What today’s report and the latest data show are that the cure for climate change, as envisioned by the Obama administration, is far worse than the disease. Congress needs to step up and stop the administration’s costly and ineffective solution to a non-problem.

Posted on

The IPCC’s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science

abominable-snowman-520169

The IPCC’s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science

by Dan McGrath on March 31, 2014 in Extreme weather, Failed predictions, IPCC, Junk Science,Mythical Consensus, Real Science, Sea Levels

By Joseph Blast

This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.

Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).

So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.

https://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/03/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

Posted on

How Democratic donors benefit financially from climate policy

Steyer-Soros-Podesta

Gas Attack

Column: How Democratic donors benefit financially from climate policy

BY: Matthew Continetti
March 21, 2014 5:00 am

Some lies just won’t go away. In February the Washington Post published an article with the following headline: “Why There’s No Democratic Version of the Koch Brothers’ Organization.” It was the umpteenth attempt to explain, in a particularly simplistic manner, how the millionaires and billionaires who donate money to the Democratic Party are nothing, absolutely nothing, like those meanie cancer research philanthropists Charles and David Koch.

The author, Reid Wilson, interviewed “Democratic strategists who deal frequently with high-dollar donors,” and these Democratic strategists told him, strategically, that their high-dollar donors are better than Republican ones. “For the Koch brothers, electing the right candidate can mean a financial windfall,” Wilson wrote. “Democratic donors revolve more around social issues.” On the one hand you have petty, greedy rich men, and on the other you have committed liberals willing to sacrifice for causes they believe in. The morality play writes itself.

Now, these liberals are not totally selfless, Wilson cautions. They are human beings; they have egos; they seek affirmation. “Donors like being recognized for their philanthropic gestures.” Hedge-fund billionaire and radical environmentalist Tom Steyer, for example, “cooperated with the New Yorker when it wrote a profile of him last year.” Charles and David Koch, though, “didn’t cooperate when the magazine took a look at their political activities,” presumably because “no one needs to send the message that the better-known Koch brothers are there for Republican candidates.” So that’s why the Kochs didn’t talk to Jane Mayer.

Does Reid Wilson believe in Santa Claus? His willingness to suspend disbelief when confronted with the image of a mythic creature—the un-self-interested liberal—suggests as much. The words “labor” and “union” appear nowhere in his article, despite the fact that unions are 6 of the 10 top all-time donors recently compiled by OpenSecrets.org, despite the fact that unions spent some $4.4 billion on politics between 2005 and 2011. (Incidentally, every member of the OpenSecrets.org top ten either leaned Democratic or split money evenly between the two parties. The Democrats are not hurting for money.)

Unions, their leadership, and their staff see political giving as “an investment,” any non-cross-eyed observer of the political scene would agree, with donations laundered back to the SEIU, AFSCME, NEA, UAW, and others in the form of generous and unsustainable pensions, wage laws benefiting closed shops over free labor, government-mandated dues and contracts, and job protections that make it difficult even for child predators to be fired from schools. That’s an ROI the hosts of the Shark Tank would envy.

https://freebeacon.com/gas-attack/

Posted on

Senate Dems stage climate all-nighter want lawmakers to agree that climate change is a scientific fact.

blog+box+of+rocks

 

Washington  DC dumb as a box of rocks

Legislating fact : Senate Dems stage climate all-nighter  want lawmakers to agree that climate change is a scientific fact.
By Laura Barron-Lopez

At least 28 Senate Democrats are pulling an all-nighter on Monday to wake up “stubborn” climate change deniers in Congress.

With substantial climate change legislation all but dead in Congress, the senators involved in Monday’s climate-fest just want to get to a point where lawmakers can agree that climate change is a scientific fact.

And having the Senate Democratic leadership on their side doesn’t hurt, said Sen. Brian Schatz, (D-Hawaii), who helped spearhead the push for congressional action on climate change.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) will be among those participating in the talk-a-thon on the Senate floor, along with Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), along with 22 others.

Notably absent from the marathon session will be the four most vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection this year: Sens. Mary Landrieu (La.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Mark Begich (Alaska) are not scheduled to take part, according to a list of speakers.

However, they were invited, Schatz said, adding that their Republican colleagues were verbally invited as well. The response, Schatz admitted was far from enthusiastic.

Read more: https://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/200263-climate-change-all-nighter-in-congress#ixzz2vToIn8O9
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Posted on

Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals

images

Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals

By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Brussels

The EU’s reputation as a model of environmental responsibility may soon be history. The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking — jeopardizing Germany’s touted energy revolution in the process.

The climate between Brussels and Berlin is polluted, something European Commission officials attribute, among other things, to the “reckless” way German Chancellor Angela Merkel blocked stricter exhaust emissions during her re-election campaign to placate domestic automotive manufacturers like Daimler and BMW. This kind of blatant self-interest, officials complained at the time, is poisoning the climate.

But now it seems that the climate is no longer of much importance to the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, either. Commission sources have long been hinting that the body intends to move away from ambitious climate protection goals. On Tuesday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported as much.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html