OH Noes! Increased Carbon Dioxide Making More Flowers In Tropical Forests

“PLANTS convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into energy in the form of sugars, which they can use to fuel any number of vital life processes. As more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, plants have an opportunity to produce a bounty of new energy.”

SHOCK HORROR!! Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and warmth are what eco-systems require to flourish 😱

Watts Up With That?

From FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY and the “but wait, all climate change must be bad!” department.

Climate change linked to more flowery forests, FSU study shows

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — New research from a Florida State University scientist has revealed a surprising relationship between surging atmospheric carbon dioxide and flower blooms in a remote tropical forest.

FSU researchers studying the rich tropical forests of Panama’s Barro Colorado Island found that climbing rates of carbon dioxide have set the stage for a multidecade increase in overall flower production.

The findings were outlined in a paper published in the journal Global Change Biology

“It’s really remarkable,” said Assistant Professor of Geography Stephanie Pau, who led the study. “Over the past several decades, we’ve seen temperatures warming and carbon dioxide increasing, and our study found that this tropical forest has responded to that increase by producing more flowers.”

Pau’s findings suggest that tropical forests, which…

View original post 680 more words

Advertisements

THE Inconvenient Truth Is That Catastrophists Are Wrong

Eco-catastrophists - THE AUSTRALIAN

Institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event. | THE AUSTRALIAN

GLOBAL warming alarmists want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate or the environment. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore, what is in danger is freedom, not the climate.

FORMER head of Deutsche Bank, the ABC and ASX, Maurice Newman, writes another insightful piece in todays Australian maintaining that “it’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.”

*

The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong

Maurice Newman | The Australian :

It should come as a great relief to know the freezing temperatures recently experienced in the northern hemisphere do not signal an end to global warming.

Imagine if mankind’s increasingly costly attempts to arrest CO2 emissions were unnecessary. That the misallocation of productive resources, prolonging the misery of the world’s most vulnerable people, was nothing more than a cynical ideological exercise?

Hopefully, those global warming doubters in Florida watching frozen iguanas falling stiff from the trees now know that while they were freezing, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, little old Penrith in Sydney, Australia, was the warmest spot on the planet, recording its highest temperature ever, having “broken the all-time maximum temperature record for … the Sydney metropolitan area”.

Well, perhaps in all that excitement the bureau can be forgiven for overlooking the fact Penrith Lakes started recording temperatures only in 1995 and for missing a much higher temperature recorded in nearby Richmond in 1939. But they were right. It was hot.

In a hurried piece in Fairfax publications, the Climate Council of Australia’s Will Steffen throws hot water on any misconceptions that may have been drawn from abnormal snowfalls in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, the record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US, and the expansion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

He says: “Terms like ‘global warming’ and the mental images they trigger can be misleading when people attempt to understand what is happening to the climate. A far better term is ‘climate disruption’, which captures the real nature of the vast array of changes, many of them abrupt and unexpected, that are occurring.” So fire and ice, it’s to be expected.

Of course you won’t be surprised to learn Steffen claims “the climate disruption we are increasingly experiencing is not natural. It is caused by the heat-trapping gases we humans are pouring into the atmosphere primarily by the burning of coal, oil and gas.”

On the day Steffen’s opinion piece appeared, this newspaper republished Matt Ridley’s article in The Times claiming “the Earth is very slowly slipping back into a proper ice age”. This confirms research by Henrik Svensmark, Australia’s David Evans and others, who correlated low solar activity (fewer sunspots) and increased cloud cover (as modulated by cosmic rays), with a cooling climate.

Indeed, last year scientists submitted 120 papers linking historical and modern climate change to variations in solar activity.

Steffen wasn’t among them. He says: “Whole ecosystems are succumbing to (human-induced) climate disruption. In 2016 unusually dry and hot conditions triggered massive fires in Tasmania’s World Heritage forests, while ocean circulation patterns have moved ­unprecedented underwater heatwaves around the world, driving the tragic coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.’’

Yet the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt, dismisses many of the claims that he says “misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.”

Peter Ridd from James Cook University goes further, saying: “We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the ARC (Australian Research Council) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.”

Steffen’s work could fit this description. He spends much time pushing eco-catastrophism. “Climate disruption” he says “brings growing risks of large-scale migration and conflict as people, particularly the most vulnerable, are forced to deal with increasingly difficult conditions where they live. Some security analysts warn that climate disruption will dwarf terrorism and other conventional threats if present trends continue or worsen.

“Had enough of climate disruption? Then let’s leave our 20th-century thinking behind and get on with the job of rapidly building innovative, clever, carbon-neutral 21st-century societies.”

But Ridley questions the influence of carbon dioxide. He reminds us that: “In 1895 the Swede, Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this was true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.”

But where would manmade global warming “science” be if it relied on just facts? For decades, climate science has been plagued by scandals, deceit and the confessions of whistleblowers.

Penrith’s hyped recording is not new. Scientist and long-time BOM critic Jennifer Marohasy has been calling for an audit and urging Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg “to inform the World Meteorological Organisation that the temperatures recorded by our bureau are not consistent with calibration, nor any international standard”, and, to “direct the bureau to desist from announcing new record hot days”.

Still, institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event.

But despite their best efforts, in the public’s eyes their story is wearing thin. There have been too many false predictions and unwarranted alarmism. People are wising up to the reality that climate science has become an unfalsifiable ideology and resent having their moral conscience questioned should they disagree.

If Ridley is right and the earth is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age, it will be literally cold comfort, not to mention lethal, to keep passing it off as climate disruption.

To survive such an event, our successors will need a plentiful supply of cheap, reliable energy, impossible given today’s intelligentsia’s religious objection to low-cost fossil and nuclear fuels.

It’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.

(Climatism bolds and pic link added)

The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong | The Australian

•••

Related :


CLIMATE Skeptics Have Valid Reasons To Question Manmade Global Warming

Globe-Earth-Green.jpg

A MUST read op/ed written by Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT and CFACT President David Rothbard.

THIS excellent piece focuses on an important part of the climate debate often overlooked – the heat absorption ability of the carbon dioxide molecule as its concentration increases in the atmosphere.

THE article received “coast to coast” attention via a media usually dismissive of sceptical arguments to the supposed “climate crisis”…

RUCKER’s forward received via email …

“Newspapers coast to coast”

CFACT-mastheads-1-12-18-768x380

This CFACT Op Ed appeared in the newspapers above and more!

Media bias against climate realism is rampant – especially on the national level. Some major publications, like the Los Angeles Times, have actually positioned themselves in opposition to free speech by imposing bans on opinions running counter to the Al Gore narrative.

Fortunately that is not the case with many local media outlets.

I’d like to call your attention, for a couple reasons, to a recent op/ed I co-wrote with CFACT President David Rothbard.

First, as we’ve discussed so often before, the contents of our article reveal that the hysterical case for global warming doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. There are good reasons, scientifically speaking, why those who are skeptical of climate alarmism have their doubts.

Secondly, and most encouragingly, our op/ed hasn’t been circular filed – as it might have been by the establishment media. In fact, it appeared in a host of local newspapers from one end of the United States to the other!

Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming

by and

Many people are actively worried about global warming. And it frustrates them that skeptics and “deniers” refuse to acknowledge the “science” of such an urgent, manmade problem.

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn’t so clearcut, here’s a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is “increase.” After all, CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being “trapped.”

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.’s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The IPCC explains that CO2 follows a “logarithmic dependence,” which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the IPCC recognizes that the middle of this band is already “saturated.”

People who fret about manmade warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 actually loses “heat-trapping” ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned IPCC admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear manmade warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question … are they right? The answer is “No.”

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere — and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. In order to make their case, the IPCC theorizes that any additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this “feedback loop” that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It’s an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the IPCC admits that “an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The IPCC rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar “irradiance” (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun’s output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind — which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the IPCC observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia “has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more.” It’s very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of manmade climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue.

Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming | CFACT

•••

CO2 Related :

CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :

 


Global Agricultural Boom: A million Thanks To Climate Change

“Global agricultural production suffered only during cold periods, including the Little Ice Age, which ended around the late 18th or early 19th century.

Since the 1800s, the earth has been warming — returning to levels ideal for crop production. It is remarkable that the mainstream media can claim that temperatures are killing crops when they have actually contributed to exponential growth of crop yields.”

A rather unwelcome message for the anti-CO2, misanthropic environmental movement.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Planting rice [image credit: BBC]
As the report concludes: ‘Both global warming and carbon dioxide have benefitted plant growth, and both are important contributors to the success of modern civilization.’

Global cereal (grain) production has reached record levels in 2017, says The GWPF.

Credit for the increase usually goes to agrochemicals and other advanced agricultural technology. However, there are two other key contributors — carbon dioxide and climate change.

World cereal production for 2017 is projected to reach 2,613.3 million tons, 5.8 million tons above 2016’s level and nearly one-fourth higher than 2008’s. Despite population growth, production per capita rose 13 percent over the last decade, from 0.31 to 0.35 tons per person.

View original post 351 more words


CALIFORNIA Wildfires Are Not Due To Climate Change

Brilliant analysis Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard.
And, not to mention that a homeless encampment cooking fire was responsible for the latest Bel Air fire. Yet, California’s “climate ambulance chaser” in chief, governor Jerry Brown instead blamed “climate change” as a “new normal” … apparently an easier problem to address than the state’s chronic homelessness.

Green Jihad

In this video, author and scientist Tony Heller brilliantly debunks ambulance chasing climate scientists who come out of the woodwork every time there is a natural disaster, like wildfires in California. In fact, burn acreage in the US has plummeted over the past 85 years, as CO2 has increased.

View original post


THE Carbon Dioxide Word Game

shutterstock_556760875

“Carbon dioxide does not affect air quality. It is, in effect, plant food. Those who call it air pollution are trying to present carbon dioxide as something it is not, in order to further a political agenda.” FOSC

***

AN excellent ‘re-education’ piece by Robert Lyman via Friends Of Science Calgary on the politically demonised gas of life – CO2 (Carbon Dioxide).

OUR children are being scandalously indoctrinated in the class-room to believe that colourless, odourless, tasteless trace-gas and plant food CO2 is a “pollutant”.

THE Obama administration via his extremist EPA even declared, by law, CO2 (your own breath) a “pollutant”!

The EPA on April 17 [2009] proposed new regulations to control carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other “greenhouse gases” as “pollutants” under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. While not mentioning what aspects of carbon-dioxide emissions will be regulated, the carbon dioxide emitted from automobiles and power plants is definitely on the regulation block. The first step toward costly and far-reaching regulations is that the EPA establish carbon dioxide as a regulatory “pollutant,” even though all plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and all animals exhale carbon dioxide.

EPA Declares Human Breath (CO2) a Pollutant

From FOSC :

YOUNG adults in Canada today have grown up during a period when educational standards are significantly different from those of previous generations, and “environmental awareness”, was often included as a formal or informal part of the curriculum. Yet, misconceptions abound. I was reminded of this the other day when a young woman I met expressed concern about how carbon dioxide was harming air quality and people’s health. Even the government, after all, calls carbon dioxide “pollution”.

 

In the interests of clarity, therefore, I thought I would offer some hard information that people might find good to have.

 

In brief, carbon dioxide does not harm air quality.

Carbon-dioxide-3D-vdW

Visualization of carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule

Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas found naturally in the earth’s atmosphere. It is produced by natural sources like volcanoes, hot springs and geysers, people and animals (including fish), decay of organic materials, the combustion (i.e. burning) of fossil fuels, and as a by-product of some industrial processes like baking and brewing. Plants and algae use light to photosynthesize a compound called carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide is the primary source of carbon life; in other words, without carbon dioxide, there would be no life on earth.

image-170842-web 4 part soot

Image of various particulate matter. “Soot” (upper left hand image) is actually ‘”carbon” – a physical remnant of incomplete combustion of burning wood or fossil fuels. It is scientifically inaccurate to refer to the gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), as “carbon” as they are different things. http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/A-C/Carbon.html

 

Carbon dioxide is an essential element in human respiration; people breathe out about 40,000ppm (parts per million) CO2 with every breath.

co2 is not a pollutant supreme court justice

The quality of the air we breathe is sometimes impaired by certain contaminants, and it helps to know what these are. The main ones are:

  • Particulate matter: Particulates are tiny drops of liquid and sold particles, the size of dust or smaller, suspended in the air. They come mainly from agriculture, construction and dust from roads, although various industrial sources play a role. Along with ozone, it is a major component of smog and, at high levels, can harm human health. (Often referred to as PM2.5 or PM10 – meaning Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 or 10 microns in size.)
  • Airborne-particulate-size-chart

    Chart showing diverse forms of airborne particulate matter according to size range.

    Nitrogen oxide: Nitrogen dioxide is a reddish-brown toxic gas with an irritating smell. Exposure to high levels of nitrogen dioxide can cause breathing problems and reduced lung function, and it is a component of acid rain.

  • Ground-level ozone: Low-level ozone is a colourless gas that is formed through a chemical reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. The major sources of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are transportation, oil and natural gas production, electricity generation, home heating and even the burning of firewood. At high levels, ground-level ozone can cause breathing problems, lung damage, and asthma attacks in humans and damage to sensitive vegetation.
  • Sulphur dioxide: Sulphur dioxide is a colourless and toxic gas that smells bad. It is caused both by natural sources and by human activity, the most important of which are smelting and refining, electricity generation, heating, and oil and gas production and other industries. Sulphur dioxide in high concentrations can contribute to breathing and heart problems, especially among infants and the elderly.
  • Carbon monoxide: Unlike carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide is a highly toxic gas that is caused by the incomplete burning of oil, natural gas and coal. High levels of carbon monoxide can cause dizziness, unconsciousness, and even death.

 

 

AirPollutantEmissions_Nat_EN envir can 1990 to 2015

Environment Canada chart shows decline in noxious emissions from 1990  https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=En&n=E79F4C12-1

 

So, carbon dioxide does not affect air quality. It is, in effect, plant food. Those who call it air pollution are trying to present carbon dioxide as something it is not, in order to further a political agenda.

Time lapse of plants with different CO2 concentrations:

Read on…

The Carbon Dioxide Word Game | Friends of Science Calgary

•••

Plant Food CO2 Related :

CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :


CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History

GlobalWarmingFraud

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

THIS brilliant piece of research and writing by, Leo Goldstein. Defeat Climate Alarmism, represents a truly definitive guide to what is, undoubtedly, the greatest pseudoscientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind – the empirically unproven theory of man-made “Global Warming” aka “Climate Change” aka “Climate Disruption”…

SUCH an important and pivotal (quick) read that needs to be spread far and wide, over and over and over again…


Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

Climate Realism Against Alarmism

A Realist Side of the Climate Debate. CO2 is a product of human breath and is plant food, NOT a pollutant.

CLIMATE alarmism is a gigantic fraud: it only survives by suppressing dissent and by spending tens of billions of dollars of public money every year on pseudo-scientific propaganda. Climate pseudo-science is wrong on physics, biology, meteorology, mathematics, computer sciences, and almost everything else. And even if the “climate science” were perfectly correct, climate alarmism politics would still be a tyranny and betrayal. Alarmists demand that the US and other Western countries unilaterally decrease their carbon dioxide emissions, while allowing unlimited increase to China and all other countries, which already emit more than 70% of carbon dioxide and almost 100% of other infrared-absorbing gases and soot.How could this happen? Carbon dioxide is exhaled by humans with each breath. How could the idea to call it a “pollutant” and to regulate its “emissions” get such traction in our society? How could a mad suicidal cult and its preachers obtain so much power in the academia and media, and become a cornerstone of the Democrats’ political platform, in the 21st century?

Many factors were in play.

  1. This takeover did not happen overnight, but took some 30-40 years.
  1. Climate alarmism was born and acquired power abroad. It was led by a bunch of non-governmental organizations of the environmentalist and “global governance” persuasion, acting in cahoots with certain United Nations agencies. It infiltrated the US through American branches of foreign NGOs and their fellow travelers, such as NRDC and EDF. Climate alarmism made a huge leap in 1993, when its fanatical disciple Al Gore became the Vice President. Nevertheless, climate alarmism has always been and remains an essentially foreign phenomenon.For example, the infamous Congressional testimony delivered by Dr. James Hansen in 1988, on invitation from Senator Wirth, was instigated by foreign enviros and diplomats in the run-up to the Toronto conference that happened a few weeks later. The climate dogma had been developing largely in lawless UN agencies and unaccountable transnational organizations, often using them as an extra-territorial operational base when national public demanded answers about its mischief.
  1. There is indeed a strong consensus among foreign governments in support of climate alarmism. This consensus has nothing to do with the science. Many governments are promised “reparations” from the United States for alleged harm; other countries expect to benefit from the damage to North American oil & gas exploration inflicted by climate alarmism; and another group of countries enjoys immunity from limitations that climate treaties impose on Europe and North America and receive fringe benefits in the form of outsourced manufacturing and/or preferential trade terms. Finally, many European countries are ruled by coalitions including influential Green Parties, and the rest are too small to resist.
  1. Over the last 8-10 years, climate alarmism has achieved its huge scale by spending tens of billions of dollars on its own public relations, including payments to public relations firms, pseudo-scientists, corrupt academics, university administrators, journalists, and media outlets. It has also created its own institutions with scientific-sounding names and taken over formerly highly-regarded organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences. Climate alarmism continues to demand more and more money, and spends most of it on self-promotion and intimidating its opponents.
  1. The leaders and pseudo-scientists of climate alarmism are driven by many motives. Fear of just punishment is quickly becoming the leading motive, as it should be. Their crimes start with tax evasion, theft of hundreds of billions of dollars, inflicting economic damage on the order of trillions of dollars, include an attempt to murder millions of Americans by shutting down the national energy infrastructure, and possibly include high treason. It is likely that they hide the truth even from their nominal party leaders – Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That makes the current situation even more dangerous and unpredictable.
  1. The foreign interference, money, and some confusion about the subject matter were not the only factors in the meteoric rise of climate alarmism. Since the late 1980s, the global warming agenda has been accepted by the left as “their cause,” and received unconditional support. The majority of the scientists leaned left, and many of them accepted the alarmist claims (which were much more reasonable then than today) of the environmentalists and general media without suspicion. These scientists also bore old prejudices against conservatives, to whom they attributed all kinds of anti-scientific leanings. Although these prejudices provided enough breeding ground for alarmism, the scientific community successfully resisted climate alarmism in 1990’s. The Oregon Petition, signed by more than 30,000 scientists and other professionals knowledgeable in sciences, is just one example.
  1. In 2001, even the International Panel on Climate Change acknowledged that carbon dioxide emissions did not cause harmful climate change. It reacted to this “discovery” by removing the word “anthropogenic” from its definition of “climate change.” That did not stop climate alarmism from gaining momentum. Instead, climate alarmism finally parted ways with science, and declared its dogma to be the undisputed truth.
  1. Scientifically illiterate Al Gore was responsible for the science in the Clinton–Gore administration from 1993-2001. He evaluated scientists according to their agreement with his views on global warming. Not surprisingly, his appointments and budget decisions had effect of deadly poison, administered to the American scientific enterprise. (To tell the truth, it was not all Al Gore’s fault. The scientific enterprise came under fire from many directions, from the academic “social constructivism” theory to “diversity” politics.) The scientific institutions, already leaning left before Al Gore, just fell to the left after his reign.
  1. George W. Bush was too naïve to fight cunning enviros on the government payroll posing as scientists, and was allowed too little time for that anyway. Concerned with maintaining national unity in the aftermath of the enemy attack on 9/11, he appointed Democrat John Marburger as his scientific advisor (Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy). Marburger let government-financed scientific institutions slide further down and to the left, but his appointment did not save Bush from the usual accusations of “manipulating science for political purposes,” “censoring scientific results,” and “silencing the science,” all slogans shouted by the Union of Con Scientists and the rest of the attack pack.
  1. In 1997, the US Senate rejected the Kyoto pact, instigated by climate alarmism, by a 95–0 vote. The main reason was its discriminatory terms against the US. But these terms, demanding unilateral emission cuts by the US and few other countries, were more like an insult added to an injury. The injury was the corruption of the science by environmentalist quackery, of which the global warming catastrophism was just the latest example. This vote proved to be a palliative treatment. Many politically active leftist scientists, including distinguished ones, remained committed to the totalitarian ideals, wanted Congress to accept their beliefs as the science, and called for Congress to restore science to its appropriate place in government. But the First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The leftist scientists either did not understand the First Amendment, decided that it applied only to religion of the “ordinary folk” and not to them, or were egged on by their comrades whose “science” needed “a place in the government” because it took place neither in nature nor in the lab. When the Senate passed a resolution not addressing alarmist beliefs directly, these scientists probably concluded that the Senators did not have scientific arguments against the alarmist beliefs, and acted out of some ulterior political motives. And they accepted the alarmist claims (which were much more moderate then than today) as real science, and opposition to them as politically or financially motivated. Since many of these scientists were quite distinguished and sincere in their ignorance and hubris, their opinion carried much weight with their colleagues.
  1. The lawless nature of the IPCC and other UN agencies allowed climate alarmists to pull off a trick which would be impossible in any national forum. It was like the “telephone” game played by kids. Scientists at the bottom of the IPCC structure were saying one thing, while Greenpeace and its accomplices at the top of the IPCC structure were telling the public something entirely different, and invoking the authority of the scientists. When elected officials disagreed with the Greenpeace allegations, many legitimate scientists thought that the politicians misunderstood the science, and sharply criticized them. The leftist media was only too happy to amplify such criticism.One example is the play on the definition of “climate change.” If climate change is understood as “dangerous anthropogenic global warming,” as in the UN Framework Agreement on Climate Change, then climate change does not happen. If climate change is defined to include natural climate variations, according to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), then it happens and has been happening for billions of years, but is not alarming. And there are dozens or hundreds of mutually incompatible definitions of climate change, produced by climate alarmists and by scientists trying to get crumbs from the alarmist table.
  1. The extreme left apparently took over the Democratic Party in 2002-2005. The DNC started to court the foreign vote openly. Internet made that courting easy and convenient. Democrat Congresspersons welcomed foreign “observers” at the US elections. Al Gore started a hedge fund called Generation Investment Management in the UK, and founded an exchange to trade hot air (voluntary carbon credits). Gore and his minions publicly fantasized that the hot air would become the hottest commodity of the 21st century, and prepped themselves to become multi-billionaires. Unfortunately, they did not stop at fantasizing, but attracted some serious money, and put it at work to scare us into buying those carbon credits. In 2006, following Al Gore’s fraudumentary An Inconvenient Truth, climate alarmism started its own offensive against the US on the American soil. This offensive has been going surprisingly successfully, and led to the current situation.
  1. The recent Attorneys General gambit is a show of desperation, rather than strength. Greenpeace, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and whoever else behind them have sacrificed three state Attorneys General – Eric Schneiderman, Maura Healey, and Kamala Harris – as if they were merely pawns.  Maybe they were.  Those who press an analogy between the energy companies and the tobacco companies just expose themselves as either hopelessly crazy or craftily malicious. Those who act on that analogy are either criminals or enemy agents. Tobacco is a harmful, addictive, and useless (for everybody but the smokers) product. This is why the unconstitutional and corrupt prosecution of the tobacco companies was successful twenty years ago. Oil, gas, and coal are exactly opposite to tobacco. They are energy sources necessary for the existence of civilized society, on which the lives of the majority of Americans depend. And not everybody in this country is an idiot, thinking that the power of his or her dreams can replace electricity and gasoline.By the way, the climate alarmist lobby opposes nuclear power and hydro power as fiercely as it opposes fossil fuels.

Climate alarmism’s Tower of Babel is falling. It is voluntarily supported by the Obama regime from inside, and by the Guardian from outside. The Guardian used to be a respectable newspaper of the British Left, but dropped to the tabloid level and is awaiting indictment for espionage. Other supporters of climatism are in it only for the money, or because they are chained to it as galley slaves to their oars, or because they are too stupid to run away from the falling tower.

Use the Climate Sanity Search to learn more.

(Climatism bolds)

Welcome | Climate Realism Against Alarmism

H/t @tan123

•••

Climate Chnage Fraud Related :