“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“Themodels are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
Climate modeller, Oxford University
97 Percent of scientists believe in catastrophic human caused climate change? Of course not! But far too many believe this ridiculous statement that defies basic logic and observation. (Can you think of any highly-political issue where you could get even 65% agreement?) The 97% Myth has succeeded in fooling many people because the phony number is repeated over and over again by those who have a financial and/or ideological stake in the outcome. By the way, what any scientist “believes’ doesn’t matter anyway. Science is what happens during rigorous and repeated experimentation.
SALIENT reminders about “consensus” from science legend, Michael Crichton :
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
― Michael Crichton
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
― Michael Crichton
“BLIND trust in authority is the greatest enemy of the truth.”
– Albert Einstein
***
A BIG WIN for freedom of speech and academic freedom as former JCU Great Barrier Reef expert, Peter Ridd, wins wrongful dismissal case against James Cook ‘University’.
ALSO, a massive win for climate scepticism and the fight against sloppy, pseudoscientific ‘science’ driven by Leftist dominated academia driving the $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) man-made global warming climate change agenda.
A Federal Court judge has ruled that James Cook University acted unlawfully when it sacked professor Peter Ridd after he publicly criticised the institution and one of its star scientists over claims about the impact global warming had on the Great Barrier Reef.
Professor Ridd, who worked at the university for 40 years, challenged the dismissal in the Federal Circuit Court, saying the university breached its own enterprise agreement which allowed all staff to express controversial or unpopular views.
The physics professor argued that the Townsville-based university, which is renowned for its marine science expertise, dismissed him for breaching the university’s code of conduct.
Handing down his decision today, judge Salvatore Vasta said that the 17 findings used by the university to justify the sacking were unlawful.
“The Court rules that the 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful,” Judge Vasta said.
A penalty hearing will be set for a later date.
At a hearing last month, Professor Ridd’s barrister Stuart Wood argued his client was entitled to criticise his colleagues and the university’s perceived lack of quality assurance processes.
In 2016, Professor Ridd emailed a journalist to allege that images given to the media by the Australian Institute of Marine Science and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority were misleading because they showed poorly affected corals, which were selected over nearby healthy coral and used to show “broad scale decline” of reef health.
Professor Ridd claimed the use of the images was “a dramatic example of how scientific organisations are happy to spin a story for their own purposes”.
He also said his colleague Professor Terry Hughes, the head of JCU’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, would “wriggle and squirm” when asked to explain the discrepancies in the images.
Professor Ridd was censured again when he repeated the claims on Sky News.
After a third alleged violation of the code of conduct, Professor Ridd was sacked in April 2018.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
•••
FASCINATING article by author Norman Rogers on how the siyanz science of global warming climate change has been fatally corrupted by a culture of groupthink and doomsday hysteria that has snowballed into a viciously protected $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) global Climate Crisis Industry.
*
Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw: Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion
William Happer is one of the most important scientists in the United States. He is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton and a long-serving adviser to the federal government. His scientific discoveries and inventions are extensive. Currently, he serves in the White House as a senior adviser to the National Security Council.
The Trump administration is thinking of forming a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.” The press has been told to direct questions to Dr. Happer. That is enough to bring out the climate hyenas. They can’t stand the thought that Trump might have some solid scientific advice concerning climate change. The hyenas are running an all-out attack against Dr. Happer.
Following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the camp followers of the global warming industry try to create polarization. In a Time magazine article, a former admiral says Happer is a fringe figure. A climate scientist at Georgia Tech says Happer has “false, unscientific notions.” We are reassured that the global warming scare is absolutely solid science, as everyone except climate deniers knows.
What everyone may not know is that climate science is an industry, and the product is the global warming scare. If the global warming scare is discredited, the huge industry will collapse. Climate scientists used to be unimportant academics in an unimportant academic field. The global warming scare made them into celebrities jetting around the world. They won’t give up the glory without a fight.
Climate computer models, the basis of the doomsday predictions, disagree with each other and disagree with the climate of the Earth. But according to the climate science mafia, anyone who brings up such embarrassing information is a tool of the fossil fuel industry. As far as the climate mafia is concerned, the business plan of the fossil fuel industry is to wreck the Earth and wreck the global warming industry. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is wimpy and not inclined to take on the global warmers.
Climate science has gone off the rails. President Eisenhower nailed the problem in his 1961 farewell address. He expressed the fear that because science had become heavily dependent on federal financial support, scientists would color the science in order to increase the flow of federal money. Nothing works better for increasing the flow of federal scientific money than predicting a future disaster. If scientists predict a disaster, we have to give them more money to research methods of preventing the disaster.
Since Eisenhower’s address, we have been treated to a parade of scientific doomsday predictions, none of which measured up to the hype. There was global cooling that preceded global warming. There were acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, overpopulation, and many others. It is not only scientists who use a parade of disaster predictions. Environmental organizations need doomsday predictions, too, in order to keep their members interested. The press has a bias for sensationalism, so it too promotes the latest doomsday predictions.
Many professions are supposed to adhere to high ethical standards. For example, lawyers are supposed to put the interests of their clients above their own interests. Doctors are supposed to put their patients’ welfare above their own pecuniary interests. Journalists are supposed to be objective and not color their work with their own political preferences. We know that not every professional adheres strictly to his ethical code. Scientists are not different. They are supposed to search for scientific truth and to exercise objectivity in their work. They are not supposed to hype weak theories in order to improve their professional standing. But these things happen.
Most scientists are not in a position to contradict global warming hype. Science is a profession characterized by ideological schools and groupthink. Groupthink is worst in sciences where the rules are not clear and the data are confusing — for example, climate science. Young scientists depend on older, more senior scientists for recognition and promotion. They are in no position to contradict groupthink. They have families to feed. The senior scientists may be running large scientific enterprises financed by federal money. To express doubts about the mission or the truth of the groupthink would be to threaten their money and the jobs of people in their organization.
The consequence of the groupthink atmosphere is that dissenters come from the ranks of scientists removed from the pressure to conform — for example, retired scientists, amateur scientists, and scientists so accomplished as to be immune to threats and group pressure. There are thousands of such scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hype. When they speak out, they are attacked, and the attacks are usually vicious. The members of the global warming establishment will almost never debate skeptics. When this was done years ago, the skeptics were too credible.
Science is great, and our modern world is a product of science. But scientists are humans, not gods. They play the same games that other beneficiaries of federal money play. We have been fooled over and over again by fake predictions of disasters or one sort or another. The fake predictions are never completely fake. There is usually some real science buried in all the hype. For example, it is reasonable to expect that some global warming might be caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. What is probably a modest effect has been twisted and exaggerated into a doomsday scenario that demands that we save the planet. The good effects of CO2 that are well known and that are solid science are ignored. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow better with less water. Greenhouse-operators use CO2-generators in their greenhouses. CO2 is greening deserts. How often to you hear about these benefits of CO2?
DDT was banned because it supposedly thinned birds’ eggs and perhaps because some people screamed cancer. But DDT is highly effective against mosquitos that cause malaria. The World Health Organization finally lifted the ban on DDT because thousands of children were dying in Africa. DDT will never be rehabilitated in the U.S. because the propaganda has been permanently imprinted in the minds of the populace.
Science has created institutions that serve to enhance the image of science. For example, peer review often degenerates into pal review. Scientific journals are often filled with papers of dubious value generated by a system that values quantity over quality. The National Academy of Science pretends to give objective advice to the government, but often the advice is to appropriate more money for science.
Typically, when science invents a new doomsday theory, the environmental organizations embellish it with unscientific flourishes. The scientist inventors of the theory don’t correct the environmental organizations because that would slow the momentum toward a new surge of federal money. That should be an ethical violation. Scientists should have a duty to set the record straight in such circumstances.
There is no simple solution to the parade of doomsday theories. It would help if the government understood better that throwing more money at an alleged problem may exaggerate rather than alleviate the problem. Massive spending may not solve difficult scientific problems, but massive spending always creates bureaucracies that exist to sustain the spending.
“As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” – Phil Jones (Uni East Anglia CRU Head)
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
THE “Hottest Year Ever” meme is just one in a long line of propaganda tools used by the Climate Crisis Industry to make you believe that the 1°C rise in global temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age – around 1880 – is “unprecedented” and will bring chaos to wildlife, humans and the planet.
HOW much of these claims are scientific, versus propaganda designed to heighten alarm around the agenda of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), is the centre of much conjecture and debate.
OF particular concern is how a handful of government climate ‘scientists’ have ‘homogenised’ the official surface-based temperature records to land us in the costly, hot mess we face today.
*
SATELLITES Vs THERMOMETERS?
*
ATMOSPHERIC SATELLITES
NASA’s 15 MSU and AMSU satellites generate the RSS and UAH datasets, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower troposphere, the exact place where global warming climate change theory is meant to occur.
MEARS’ objectivity towards the business of global temperature data collection and reporting can be found in his commentary on his website, whilst making his global-warmist intentions clear by unleashing the groupthink pejorative “denialist” – in distasteful reference to NAZI holocaust denial…
MEARS then published a paper claiming that new and improved ‘adjustments’ had “found” that missing warming.
Mears, C., and F. Wentz, 2016: Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment. J. Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLID- 15-0744.1, in press.
FOR the purpose of this post, we’ll look at the untampered UAH (University Alabama Huntsville) satellite data set run byDr. John R. Christy – Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Roy Spencer Ph.D. – Principal Research Scientist at UAH.
SPENCER comments on the divergence between RSS and UAH post “adjustment”:
“We have a paper in peer review with extensive satellite dataset comparisons to many balloon datasets and reanalyses. These show that RSS diverges from these and from UAH, showing more warming than the other datasets between 1990 and 2002 – a key period with two older MSU sensors both of which showed signs of spurious warming not yet addressed by RSS. I suspect the next chapter in this saga is that the remaining radiosonde datasets that still do not show substantial warming will be the next to be “adjusted” upward.
The bottom line is that we still trust our methodology. But no satellite dataset is perfect, there are uncertainties in all of the adjustments, as well as legitimate differences of opinion regarding how they should be handled.
Also, as mentioned at the outset, both RSS and UAH lower tropospheric trends are considerably below the average trends from the climate models.
GLOBAL atmospheric temperatures continue their rapid decline off the record heights of the 2015/16 super El Niño, despite record and rising CO2 emissions.
UAH global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2018 was +0.25°C above the 40-year average:
Our planet has just experienced the most extreme two-year cooling event in a century. But where have you seen this reported anywhere in the mainstream media?
You haven’t, even though the figures are pretty spectacular. As Aaron Brown reports hereat Real Clear Markets:
From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.
The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998.
To put this temperature drop in context, consider that this is enough to offset by more than half the entirety of the global warming the planet has experienced since the end of the 19th century.
BY their own admission, the ocean data is also fake.
date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org
to: Thomas Crowley <thomas.crowley@ed.ac.uk>
Tom,
The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.
NOW it’s time to see how NASA GISS (Gavin Schmidt) and NOAA (Tom Karl) have created the ‘hockey-stick’ temperature rise over recent years in order to drive the Mann-made global warming agenda.
MIND-blowing adjustments to raw data that without exception – cool the past and warm the present – despite UHI (Urban Heat Island effect) undoubtedly compromising the latter parts of the modern temp record.
AND, if you think that the tampering of the earth’s temperature record, by cooling the past and warming the present to fit the man-made global warming narrative is another climate “denier” conspiracy theory then read this Climategate email from the UK’s leading climate expert, Phil Jones, to the UK Met Office and officials:
GLOBAL WARMING Is The Greatest And Most Successful Pseudoscientific Fraud In History | Climatism
THE problem of the 1940’s warming “blip” :
THEY did exactly what Wigley was suggesting, removing more than 0.15 C from 1940′s global temperatures. This tampering is what made the hockey stick possible.
If the present refuses to get warmer, then the past must become cooler …
NASA make up record temperatures in countries where they have no thermometer data. NOAA’s current data in Africa and much of the rest of the world is fake.
THIS enables them to make the fake “Hottest Year Ever” announcements. Memes that have more to do with PR and marketing than actual science:
THE NASA global temperature record has been massively altered over the last 20 years to cool the past and warm the present:
Steve Goddard on Twitter: “The @NASA global temperature record has been massively altered over the last 20 years to cool the past and warm the present.…”
*
NASA GISS : THE DATA SET OF CHOICE FOR THE CLIMATE THEORY OBSESSED MAINSTREAM MEDIA & POLITICAL ELITE!
IT’s not difficult to see why the NASA GISS data set is the preferred go-to for global warming activists, mainstream media, the UN IPCC and virtue-peddling politicians seeking to destroy cheap, efficient energy supply – namely coal-fired power – through the implementation of draconian climate change policy, and proposals like the U.S. Democrats’ “New Green Deal”, that if implemented will annihilate both the U.S. and the global economy and result in total control of every aspect of your life, lifestyle and any freedoms you currently enjoy.
NASA GISS’ Gavin Schmidt wants to use his junk science to control public policy, and says questions from policy makers are “tiresome” :
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER WARNED US OF THE “danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
President Eisenhower January 17, 1961
*
CONCLUSION
FOR so long, climate ‘sceptics’ have been labeled climate/science “deniers”, in crude reference to those who deny the holocaust, with the pejorative used in a broader effort to shut down debate and silence dissent. However, when hard evidence is laid out over alarmist rhetoric, it’s not hard to see who in fact are the real deniers of history and indeed, deniers of science.
EVEN when hard data, “the science” and empirical evidence completely contradict alarmist predictions and forecasts peddled by the mainstream media and grant-driven ‘scientists’, alarmists continue to double-down on their fear-mongering instead of evaluating their theory, adhering to the “scientific method” and admitting that they might just have got it all wrong.
*
GLOBAL WARMING dogma has ruinously snowballed into a $TRILLION dollar religion to be defended at all costs by alarmist ‘scientists’, UNreliables rent-seekers and the climate theory-obsessed mainstream media in order to protect egos, jobs, reputations and access to unlimited “Save The Planet” taxpayer trillions, completely immune to oversight.
TIME to stop the rot for the sake of “science” and Western civilisation that has given us so much to be thankful for, like the dramatic drop in global poverty. Primarily due to the deployment of cheap, reliable and abundant hydrocarbon fuels. Life-giving and poverty-reducing energy sources that the zero-emissions zealots want to replace with sunshine and breezes, forcing us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power.
JUST as socialist central planning failed miserably before it was replaced by free market economies, green central planning will have to be discarded before Australia and other Western nations, crippled by the mad rush into costly and ruinous UNreliables, will see a return to energy security, competitive pricing and a ‘liveable’ existence for our most vulnerable.
LIKEWISE, climate data fraud must be called out and crushed with the scientific method restored to allay dangerous and costly climate change fear and alarmism.
BRUTAL and comprehensive rebuttal by Paul Homewood to the latest climate agitprop out of the taxpayer funded BBC, released in time to further pollute the minds of their readers as they focus on the UN COP24 climate junket in Katowice, Poland.
The BBC have now stopped even trying to camouflage their bias on climate change, with this latest piece of propaganda:
Representatives from nearly 200 countries are gathering in Poland for talks on climate change – aimed at breathing new life into the Paris Agreement.
The UN has warned the 2015 Paris accord’s goal of limiting global warming to “well below 2C above pre-industrial levels” is in danger because major economies, including the US and the EU, are falling short of their pledges.
But scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the leading international body on global warming – last month argued the 2C Paris pledge didn’t go far enough. The global average temperature rise actually needed to be kept below 1.5C, they said.
So how warm has the world got and what can we do about it?
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“Themodels are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
Climate modeler, Oxford University
“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.“
– TimothyWirth,
President of the UN Foundation
***
THE global warming climate change scare has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “Saving The Planet”. Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement of the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about claimed man-made “global warming” would play to quite a number of the Left’s social agendas.
ENERGY rationing and the control of carbon dioxide, the direct byproduct of cheap, reliable hydrocarbon energy, has always been key to the Left’s Malthusian and misanthropic agenda of depopulation and deindustrialisation. A totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of “Saving The Planet”.
STANFORD University and The Royal Society’s resident global warming alarmist and population freak Paul R. Ehrlich spelled out in 1976 the Left’s anti-energy agenda that still underpins the current ‘climate change’ scare :
THE creator, fabricator and proponent of global warming alarmism Maurice Strong, founded UNEP and ‘science’ arm, the UN IPCC, under the premise of studying only human (CO2) driven causes of climate change.
STRONG and the UN’s charter and agenda was clearly laid out before the ‘science’ of climate change was butchered and tortured to fit the global warming narrative…
“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)
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“ – Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that drives the man-made climate change agenda.
LINDZEN’S summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:
“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
•••
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
SCIENCE Matters‘ Ron Clutz on the myth of CO2 as a significant driver of global warming climate change and our weather:
To believe humans are dangerously warming earth’s climate, you have to swallow a bunch of unbelievable notions.
You have to think the atmosphere drives temperature, instead of the ocean with 1000 times the heat capacity.
You have to disregard the sun despite its obvious effects from summer to winter and longer term.
You have to think CO2 drives radiative heat transfers, instead of H2O which does 95% of the radiative work.
You have to think rises in CO2 cause temperatures to rise, rather than the other way around.
You have to forget it was warmer than now in the Middle Ages, warmer still in the Roman era, and warmest of all during Minoan times. And on and on.
The global warmist narrative is full of ideas upside down and backwards, including many reversals of cause and effect.
It is like a massive hot air balloon, so why doesn’t it deflate? Answer: It is because so many interests are served by keeping it alive and pumping up public fears.
WE are constantly told by the Climate Crisis Industry that the “science is settled”. Yet, the main indicator of a so-called climate “crisis” – Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity or ECS – the hypothesised amount of temperature increase per doubling of CO2, keeps shrinking even as carbon dioxide rises.
THEN there are the failed CO2-centric UN CMIP5 climate models. Overheated climate models that do not accord with observed reality, and yet increase IPCC confidence in dangerous global warming despite ever-increasing divergence from satellite and weather-balloon data…
DO politicians even look at empirical data or “the science” anymore? Or does the wicked truth expose their scam, hindering globalist intentions?
THIS eco-scare is strong and will not die quickly. Too many jobs, reputations and egos are now at stake. And, access to unlimited “Save The Planet”taxpayer trillions, completely immune to oversight.
“GLOBAL COOLING gained considerable traction with the general public. But then, instead of cooling as long predicted by manmade climate change advocates, the planet started warming again. Something had to be done to rescue the climate change agenda from utter disaster. Enter Al Gore.”
Although his science is often seriously wrong, no one can deny that Al Gore has a flare for the dramatic. Speaking about climate change in an October 12 PBS interview, the former vice-president proclaimed, “We have a global emergency.” Referring to the most recent UN climate report, Gore claimed it showed that current global warming “could actually extend to an existential threat to human civilization on this planet as we know it.”
Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?
Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would…
“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
“I envisage the principles of the Earth Charter to
be a new form of the ten commandments.
They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
co-author of The Earth Charter
“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.“
– TimothyWirth,
President of the UN Foundation
***
GLOBAL WARMING aka climate change has long abandoned any connection it has with actual science. It is an ideology. A religion. Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott likening it to, “socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.
NOBEL Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever…
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”
PULITZER Prize-winning syndicated columnist, the late and great Charles Krauthammer, articulated the motivation behind modern environmentalism. A movement using the threat of environmental disaster to limit the use of energy, destroy capitalism and advance socialism…
THE mainstream media has been complicit in frantically promoting ruinous climate change alarmism while ‘denying’ any dissenting opinions of the 30+ year-old ‘science’ promulgated by the IPCC – The UN’s (pseudo) scientific body created to advance their stated, one-world government agenda under the guise of “Saving The Planet”.
THE clues to the real agenda of climate change keep rolling in. Harry Wilkinson writes an excellent fact-checking piece on the BBC’s latest internal, totalitarian guidance to not air any dissenting views on climate change.
THIS quote sticking out like the proverbial ‘sore thumb’ as evidence of the global warming climate change political farce that is rapidly destroying western economies and western civilisation…
“The father of the two-degree target, veteran climate alarmist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, has admitted the number is entirely fabricated: ‘Two degrees is not a magical limit; it’s clearly a political goal’. He nonetheless celebrates its cynical effectiveness at motivating international political action.“
“IT would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” ― Joseph Goebbels
FROM the “department of the absurd” comes this out of the global warming theory-obsessed NBC…
Climate change could affect human evolution. Here’s how.
Global warming will likely alter the internal workings of our bodies — and cause a noticeable shift in our appearance.
by Scott Solomon /
Climate change could reduce racial differences, in part, by triggering massive migrations.Emilio Morenatti / AP file
As climate change brings rising temperatures, droughts, shifting patterns of precipitation and longer growing seasons, plants and animals are evolving to keep pace.
As the planet continues to warm, evolutionary changes are expected in other species as well — including Homo sapiens. Climate change will alter the internal workings of our bodies in subtle but significant ways and will likely cause a noticeable shift in our appearance.
INSIDE THE BODY
A warmer climate means malaria, West Nile virus and other diseases long confined primarily to the tropics will spread into temperate zones. As a result, people living in the U.S. and other developed nations will be exposed to these illnesses, and our immune systems will be forced to evolve new defenses. That, in turn, could cause other, noninfectious diseases.
GOTTA love how 1 extra CO2 molecule per every 10,000 atmospheric molecules can change the way we look!
TWITTER’S excellent “Sooky Blessington” with the most viable explanation of what’s going on here…
Without the Alinsky method propaganda campaign, no-one would have any sense that anything unusual is occurring re the weather. It would be a non-conversation. That might be because we live in one of the most stable periods of weather in modern history.
Roger Federer, one of the world’s greatest tennis players, may have become an unwitting spokesman for the effects of climate change on Monday at the U.S. Open.
Federer, who is ranked No. 2, seemed to struggle all night in the heat and humidity at Arthur Ashe Stadium, losing in a fourth-round upset to John Millman, an Australian ranked 55th.
“It was hot,” Federer said. It “was just one of those nights where I guess I felt I couldn’t get air; there was no circulation at all.”
This was the first time Federer, who won the U.S. Open five consecutive times from 2004 to 2008, lost to a player outside the top 50 at the tournament.
To some, the comments by Federer, 37, may sound like sour grapes. But they also underscore a growing problem: increasing nighttime temperatures.
Under climate change, overall temperatures are rising — 2018 is on track to be the fourth-warmest year on record — but the warming is not happening evenly. Summer nights have warmed at nearly twice the rate of summer days. Average overnight low temperatures in the United States have increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit per century since 1895, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
WATCH the blatant fraud uncovered by Heller in this MUST SEE vid:
*
WHILE Heller’s work on the NY area at Ithaca doesn’t explore humidity, his analysis, using USHCN offical Govt data, shows that the number of hot days over 90F are declining as CO2 increases – the opposite of what global warming CO2-theory demands. And, shock news, Heller’s data shows the exact opposite of what the failing NYTimes impugns…
A large percentage of New York Times reporting is fraudulent, and sometimes it is trivial to prove. They are hiding readily available historical data, reporting incorrectly on historical and present data, and claiming trends which are the exact opposite of reality. Scientific and journalistic fraud at its worst.
AS an Aussie, bravo to John Millman for downing the Fed! And, obviously he had to play under the same conditions as the champ. Just maybe, Millman was the better player on the ‘humid’ night in NYC and in better condition than ye olde Rog, God bless him!
AS for the failing NY Times – “Scientific and journalistic fraud at its worst.” – we and the empirical evidence concur!
By Paul Driessen ~
Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?
Climatism 
Recent Comments