THE Climate Change Farce Explained By Two Expert “Scientists”

Holdren Obama Sicence Czar

John Holdren – Barack Hussein Obama’s Science Czar

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States…De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation…Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.” – John Holdren

•••

If you’re relatively familiar with the climate “debate”, you will know that the rapid cooling period from the 1940’s to the 1970’s led to climate “experts” (climate scientists) declaring the end of life as we know it, in the form of the “Global Cooling” scare:

A few examples (And apologies if these sound all too familiar with the current global warming climate change scare) :

1. In 1976 the CIA warned that (man-made) Global Cooling would bring – “Drought, Starvation, Social Unrest And Political Upheaval”:

CIA 1974 Global Cooling.jpg

21 Jul 1976 – C.I.A. WARNING – Trove

2. The UN was so concerned about man-made Global Cooling during the 1970’s that they wanted to melt the Arctic by spreading black soot on it:

UN Black Soot Arctic 1970s.jpg

02 Feb 1972 – Scientists fear for Arctic Sea ice – Trove

3. Our featured climate expert ‘John Holdren’ predicted and feared a new “Ice Age” during the 1970’s Global Cooling scare:

John Holdren Global Cooling Scare 1.jpg

John Holdren Global Cooling Scare 2

John Holdren in 1971: “New ice age” likely · zomblog

(Interestingly, the link to Holdren’s global cooling hysteria no longer exists)

•••

Now time to introduce our second climate change “Expert” (UN climate scientist) – Dr Stephen Schneider…

Steve Schneider pleaded with President Nixon for funding in order to halt the feared Global Cooling crisis of the 1970’s:

1971

Schneider Global Cooling Nixon.jpg

1977

Schneider global cooling scare

http://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-strategy-a-chilling-prospect.html?_r=0

Four years later (1981) Professor Stephen Schneider became a Global Warming alarmist:

Published: August 22, 1981

A team of Federal scientists says it has detected an overall warming trend in the earth’s atmosphere extending back to the year 1880. They regard this as evidence of the validity of the ”greenhouse” effect, in which increasing amounts of carbon dioxide cause steady temperature increases.

The seven atmospheric scientists predict a global warming of ”almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century. It might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, they say, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. In that case, they say, it would ”flood 25 percent of Louisiana and Florida, 10 percent of New Jersey and many other lowlands throughout the world” within a century or less.

A leading participant in past carbon dioxide studies has been Dr. Stephen H. Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

STUDY FINDS WARMING TREND THAT COULD RAISE SEA LEVELS – NYTimes.com

And yes, nowadays, expert scientist John Holdren (Obama’s former science Czar), just like his comrade Professor Stephen Schneider, fears not man-made Global Cooling but Global Warming:

1997: John Holdren predicts ten degrees warming:

John Holdren 10 deg warming.jpg

The Free Lance-Star – Google News Archive Search

I don’t blame them for changing the name to “Climate Change” – covers all bases.

The perfect scam: Hot, cold, wet, dry, flood, drought, whatever – it’s all your fault…

Bigger, smaller, whatever. It’s global warming | Climatism

•••

 

 


Georgia Tech Climatologist Quits Over “Craziness” In Field Of Climate Science

Curry Senate2.jpg

A MUST SEE interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight, featuring Professor Judith Curry who has recently quit her position as the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Her reasoning is simple yet so very damaging and dangerous, not only to “climate science” but to the fate of all “sciences”. Her resignation is to do with, not only being vilified by colleagues for having a sceptical (scientific) view of “climate change”, but importantly the ongoing ‘monopolistic’ funding of research into the science of man-made global warming, versus the non-existent resources directed toward the study of natural climate change.

This imbalance of government funding skews and distorts the science that is output, and as Joanne Nova notes, a “lack of funding for alternatives leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction.”

The systemic failure self-perpetuates :

  • Where’s the motivation in proving anthropogenic global warming wrong?
  • How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?
  • “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair, 1935

The oneway-traffic flow of government funding leads not only to an unhealthy distortion of science, but also to an unhealthy bias in the scientific and media reporting we receive on climate change.

MUST SEE interview between Tucker Carlson and Dr. Curry here:

•••

Related :


Cuomo Curses New York to the Dark Ages with $360m on Subsidised Wind Power

Right, Left, Centre, Conservative, Liberal or communist – I still can’t get my head around the fact that ANY human being can be intrinsically motivated by ideology over facts, data and reason in support of the wind experiment.

“Progressiveness is a sickness” has been thrown around a bit lately but surely hard data pertaining to blackouts, energy poverty and economic ruin must prove unequivocally that wind energy is a compete failure and surely MUST override stubborn “save the planet” ideology?!

STOP THESE THINGS

***

In 2017, with examples like Germany, Ontario and South Australia on file, any political leader still pushing subsidised wind power on his or her people is either a certifiable lunatic or is in on it.

Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York State simply leaves that question begging with his move to throw $360 million of taxpayers’ money to the wind.

In New York, Wind And Solar Get Double Their Value In Subsidies
The Daily Caller
Andrew Follett
16 January 2017

New York state is paying 11 large wind and solar power projects two times more in subsidies than the projects actually generate in electricity.

New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced the $360 million in spending over the weekend, but didn’t reveal the precise amount of funding for each project. A good portion of the funding will go to the large company Invenergy’s 105.8 megawatt Number Three wind…

View original post 355 more words


Climate Change Australia – Pleasing Tim Flannery, Outraging Conservatives

Dear Greg Hunt and the CSIRO,

If the science of Climate Change aka Global (non) Warming is “settled”, why the need for more climate-groupthink-jobs?

Conservatives elected the Abbott (conservative) government, now the Turnbull Gov, on the basis of abolishing climate policy and investigating, if not, ending the corrupt CSIRO and BoM climate cabals.

It’s no wonder the Turnbull coalition 2016 election result was such a disaster with opinion polls now in further freefall.

The majority of voters and taxpayers *did not* vote for this latest climate cash splash.

Spending more taxpayer millions on the alarmist climate scam, when the country is broke, is an outright scandal and a disgrace.

PA Pundits - International

Bolt New 01By Andrew Bolt ~

Malcolm Turnbull’s hijacking of the Liberal party continues – and I wonder how much longer Liberal members will allow this to go on:

CSIRO LogoClimate Science lobby, The Climate Council said new Science Minister Greg Hunt ordering CSIRO head Larry Marshall to re-hire climate scientists was a good step, but Australia needs to grow climate science capacity to meet international commitments.

One of Mr Hunt’s first acts as Science Minister has been to order Mr Marshall to hire 15 new climate scientists and invest $37 million in research over 10 years.

Professor Tim Flannery from the council said the government had failed to stop the full extent of the job cuts to climate divisions.

Mr Marshall announced in February that 350 jobs would go including in the Oceans and Atmosphere and the Land and Water divisions. This was then cut down to 275, with only a portion…

View original post 57 more words


Fire Is An Essential And Necessary Part Of The Forest Cycle

Climate zealots, Greens politicians (Obama) and their armchair sycophants, fail to acknowledge or realise that as CO2 has increased, wildfire acreage has decreased, where the U.S. is concerned.

But yes, facts and empirical evidence (science) are irrelevant when you’re pushing “save the planet” ideology, and when that ideology “climate change” is now a $1.5 Trillion industry.

Real Science

Greens get hysterical when forests burn, because they don’t understand anything about science, forests, or nature. Many species of trees can’t exist without fire. Aspens are making a rapid comeback in California, thanks to the fires.

ScreenHunter_10237 Aug. 30 06.00

LAKE FIRE: Aspens rising from ashes – Press Enterprise

The Sangre de Cristo Mountains of Northern New Mexico (where I used to work as a wilderness ranger) have the tallest Aspen trees in the world.  These were the result of huge fires during the hot/dry 1890’s.

5037317346_471ba900cc

 Below350.org Below350.org

Spokane Falls Daily Chronicle June 25, 1890

New Mexico has been very wet the last two years, with few fires – and huge new Aspen Groves are growing around Los Alamos, which was hit by several large fires earlier this century.

Not only do greens not understand the climate, but they imagine they can control it. They are complete imbeciles, who have no business influencing policy.

View original post


Learning To Think Like A Progressive

Real Science

If you are a progressive, this is an upwards trend.

ScreenHunter_44 Apr. 09 00.00

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend

And this is a downwards trend.

ScreenHunter_45 Apr. 09 00.03

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168248/uninsured-rate-lowest-2008.aspx

When Obama was elected in 2008, the number of uninsured was 44 million. Now it is 48 million. The press has hailed this huge increase in the number of uninsured (four times the population of Denver) as a big success for Obamacare.

View original post


Global Warming Was Never About Science. It Was Always About Power And Money

Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis
.”
– Greenpeace International

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

This planet is on course for a catastrophe.
The existence of Life itself is at stake
.”
– Dr Tim Flannery,
Climate Council

•••

If you’re happy being part of a herd and your groupthink belief system is built around “consensus”, “settled science” and The Guardian. And if you’ve consumed obscene amounts of green Kool-Aid with a healthy dollop of communism to guard against socialised eco-guilt, then best not read this Kurt Schlichter article, which will guarantee put a 16-inch gaping hole in the side of your Global WarmingClimate Change “Save The Planet” sanctimony …

“The Los Angeles Times and Reddit recently barred dissenters from their pages – there’s no better concession of defeat than silencing your opponent.”

Climate Change Scammers’ Worst Week Ever

Kurt Schlichter | TownHall.com Jan 13, 2014

e03405ba-eef9-48f9-9e60-001f27494d65

Between global warming suckers getting entombed in ice while trying to prove the Antarctic ice cap has melted to most of America doing a Frigidaire impression, the entire façade of this bogus leftist power grab is crumbling.

Understand that the climate change meme is simply the latest attempt by leftists to trick society into remaking itself in their image. It was never about science. It was always about power and money.

The scammers have been ably assisted by a palace guard media that eagerly reports the scammers’ every lie while ignoring every inconvenient truth. You’ll skim the mainstream media in vain for the reason behind the trapped expedition’s trip to the Antarctic. And, of course, the most inconvenient truth of all is that it hasn’t gotten significantly warmer since the industrial revolution started generating CO2, and it hasn’t warmed at all in recent years.

The left’s use of pseudo-science as a means to seize and centralize control has a colorful history. One particularly colorful scheme was the progressive nightmare of eugenics. Leftist icons like Margaret Sanger eagerly advocated it as a tool to eliminate infants of color.

Let’s fast forward to the 1970s, when we were entering a new ice age and the only possible solution was – surprise – more government power. The global cooling panic morphed into the global warming panic. Suddenly, temperatures were inexorably rising and the ice caps were melting. In fact, they should be melted by now.

But “global warming” is problematic when the uncherry-picked evidence shows that the Earth is not getting significantly warmer. The hockey stick is stuck. Now, one might take this new evidence and revise one’s conclusion to conform to the observed data. We call that science. But we are dealing with “science,” and when the evidence doesn’t support your conclusion you change the name of the phenomenon.

Hence, “climate change.” Its goal was stop us wacky literalists from being able to point to a lack of warming to disprove global warming. Apparently, we were fools to expect that what the scammers called “warming” might involve warming.

“Climate change” is useful because it minimizes the dangerous possibility of negating the theory through observation. Any kind of change in the weather is “climate change.” That means literally any evidence supports the theory. If you really want to tick off a scammer, ask him what piece of observable data would lead him to conclude that his climate change theory is incorrect.

Of course, in science, an unfalsifiable theory isn’t a theory at all. But in “science,” you aren’t really talking about theories. You are talking about politically necessary conclusions that are beyond question. “Science” is a religion, and we’re the heretics.

But even “climate change” has become problematic. What if the climate is not changing for the worse? Recent years have seen fewer hurricanes, and of less intensity. The Antarctic ice the penguins stood on while laughing at the trapped ship of fools was manifestly still there. Polar bears continue to wander the northern wastes uncooked.

So the left has now moved to an even vaguer, less empirically assessable concept – looming “climate collapse.” It’s a beautiful notion, at once evoking some sort of horrendous catastrophe while offering absolutely no way to evaluate its accuracy. The “climate collapse” remains off in the future, vague and ambiguous, an unspecified disaster where something bad might happen and no one can prove the negative, so there is no way to judge it to be fact or fiction.

This is “science.” And if you doubt that something of an undefined nature might possibly occur at some unknown point in the future and maybe have unexplained negative effects, you reject “science” in all its forms. You also probably believe in God and are definitely racist.

Climate change scam arguments pique my lawyerly interest as exemplar tactics, techniques and procedures in the art of obfuscation. But the nomenclature isn’t the only bit of dissembling. The scammers attempt to intertwine the idea that human activity has some sort of impact on the climate with their demand that we transfer to their control trillions of dollars and much of our sovereignty. They intentionally erase the distinction between the cause of the alleged problem and the proposed solution, neatly skipping the effect.

Continue Reading »

•••

Related Links :

Some Science :

Climate Money Related :

United Nations Freedom Related :