Failing Grade

Despite all the catastrophic hyperbole tossed around leading up to the climate mega-conference in Paris, the American public is not paying much attention. For months we have been warned by the prophets of doom, that the United Nation’s climate conference marks the final and best chance for humanity to save itself from certain destruction. We are told that if the 2015 Conference of the Parties (COP21) fails to deliver a major climate change treaty, the world will have missed the last opportunity to mitigate global warming and avert a worldwide disaster. To save ourselves, we simply need our collective governments to agree to impose regulations that change our lifestyles, downgrade our standards of living, and sacrifice our economies. But the alarmist sales job isn’t working, and any binding agreement is highly unlikely to emerge from Paris.

Environmentalists are frustrated. They’ve worked so hard, for so long, to get the U.S. onboard with a binding international climate treaty. So far every attempt has failed, in large part because the American public is not convinced. The main problem with alarmist propaganda of the last two decades is that they can only cry wolf so many times before the public begins to doubt the story. Al Gore’s Academy Award winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” proved to be short on truth. A British court went so far as to identify nine scientific errors in the film, and mandate that it could only be shown in British schools with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

For years Hollywood environmental crusaders such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Redford, Harrison Ford and Sean Penn, have used their fame to try to influence public opinion about global warming. But for all their alarmist drama, a new Washington Post/ABC poll shows that today only about 47 percent believe the government should do more to deal with global warming, down from 61 percent in 2008. According to Schwarzenegger in an interview last week with the Sacramento Bee, it’s all because of a failure to communicate, “I think it is sad the way, you know, the miscommunication about climate change, because so many times, you know, you hear … that the oceans will rise, and the sea levels are rising and the temperature’s rising and the icebergs’ melting, and it’s all stuff that people cannot even relate to,” Schwarzenegger said, “I mean, our brain is not wired that way, that we’re worried about things that are happening in 2050, or 50 years from now. It’s wired about what’s happening today, and no one – even the top environmental officials – really communicates this the right way.” Of course, if the public is too dumb to understand something so important, then governments need to be convinced to make decisions for them, which is why Schwarzenegger, Robert Redford and Sean Penn are taking the stage in Paris this week.

Environmentalists have tried the political route to stir up support. They hoped they could turn global warming into a major campaign issue and elect candidates who agree with their agenda. They spent tens of millions on this endeavor in 2014 – and failed. Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer alone spent $58 million and saw almost every candidate he backed defeated. When his PAC, NextGen Climate Action Committee, realized the millions they spent on climate alarm ads weren’t moving the numbers, they were forced to switch to ads on social issues and the economy. A 2014 Gallup poll showed climate change ranked 13th as an issue of importance, with only 40 percent of voters identifying climate change as either “very important” or “extremely important” to their votes. Only 3% of voters rank climate change as the number one election issue.

 

Mainstream media outlets have provided an echo chamber for climate fear mongering. They enthusiastically play along with every attempt to link global warming to the latest weather pattern or tragedy. This week’s headlines offer great examples; The Clock is Ticking Toward Climate Catastrophe (Yahoo News), Climate Change is a Form of Terror (CNN), COP21: Humanity’s Last-Chance Saloon (Huffington Post), Obama: Climate change could lead to rise in extremism (The Hill), Climate Change: 48-page document could save the planet (CNN.com<http://cnn.com>), If the Republicans Destroy Our Planet, Blame It on the Devil (Haaretz), Faith communities organize to save the planet at COP21 (National Observer). But for all their combined efforts to raise public concern, a poll recently conducted by GlobeScan in 20 top industrial countries showed a 13 point drop since 2009 in those who view climate change as a “very serious” issue.

President Obama, intent on making climate change a legacy issue, has used his bully pulpit to amplify climate alarmism and to demagogue warming deniers. He began his second term with a State of the Union speech claiming climate change is the “greatest threat to the nation.” Then, following the Paris terror attacks, he used the opportunity to make a bizarre reference about Islamic terrorist’s opposition to COP21, “What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be, when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children.” One could almost infer that the President was suggesting the terror attacks in Paris were an attempt to deter world leaders from tackling global warming. A new Economist/YouGov poll shows only 8 percent of Republicans, 19 percent of Independents, and 25 percent of Democrats believe there is any connection between climate change and an increase in terrorism.

Pope Francis triggered new enthusiasm with environmentalists when he took up the mantle of an eco-evangelist. Perhaps by making global warming a religious moral issue, many in the public would finally have a climate change conversion. In anticipation of the Paris climate conference the Pope rolled out his encyclical teaching on global warming earlier this year, and has used every opportunity to implore the world to adopt the Paris accord. His encyclical frames the fight against CO2 emissions as a moral imperative for the Catholic Church. Fossil fuels are characterized as the embodiment of evil. On Sunday he prayed, “For the sake of the common home we share and for future generations, every effort should be made in Paris to mitigate the impact of climate change and, at the same time, to tackle poverty and to let human dignity flourish.” If the Pope’s prayer were answered it would be unfortunate for the poor. The U.N.’s regulation of fossil fuels would have the greatest negative impact on the quality of life for those who are more concerned about immediate nourishment and shelter than anthropogenic climate model projections.

Despite the Pope’s climate sermons, impoverished countries know how much their economies and citizens depend on access to affordable fossil fuels. It’s the key reason they won’t sign on to an equivalent deal without the extracting a long-term financial prize from wealthy nations. The religious dogma hasn’t inspired a host of new believers. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, around 47 percent of Catholics, attributed global warming to human causes, and less than half viewed it as a very serious problem. The demographic groups least concerned about global warming happen to be religious communities – white Catholics and white evangelicals.

So what’s the deal? Why all the climate apathy and global warming denial? Is Arnold Schwarzenegger right – a majority of people are simply too ignorant to understand what they are being told? I don’t believe it’s a communication problem. I believe it’s a science problem, and a global warming solutions problem. Global warming alarmists are masters of propaganda. They have employed the most Orwellian tactics in their attempt to produce a seismic shift in the American conscious over global warming.

The fact that alarmists effectively changed the basic term of the debate from “global warming” to the catch all term “climate change,” even though the science they continue to reference is all about warming, is revealing. First, it should make us all skeptics. If global warming was an undisputed fact, evidenced by Al Gore’s warming predictions actually becoming reality, alarmists wouldn’t need to change the term to “climate change.” It also reveals how shrewd they are with their warming rhetoric. Climate change is a convenient catch all propaganda term for alarmists. It encompasses every weather related event, every storm, every drought. It can be twisted and distorted to mean almost anything. Even war and terrorism can now be blamed on the weather. But after all the manipulative word games, millions of dollars spent on promoting global warming ideology, celebrity prattle, and a U.S. President who claims that global warming is the greatest threat to mankind – public opinion appears to be, at best, stagnant or shifting in the opposite direction.

When 150 world leaders gather to discuss something, that something must a real big deal. But the world is giving a collective yawn to the international confab in Paris. That’s a mistake. We should pay attention, not because the alarmists are correct with their predictions of a global warming Armageddon, but because three quarters of the world’s leaders are attending a meeting for the purpose of inking an agreement to significantly change our quality of life, strangle our economy, eliminate jobs, and provide billions of taxpayer dollars to developing country’s economies in the form of green bribes.

If you aren’t a skeptic about global warming science, you should be a skeptic about global warming solutions. Take a few minutes and browse the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (unfccc.int<http://unfccc.int/>), or their blueprint for sustainable development, Agenda 21 (sustainabledevelopment.un.org<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf>). It’s big government on steroids, imposing international regulations on almost every component of our lives. It uses climate change as an excuse for government to address every Leftist issue imaginable, from wealth redistribution to empowering unions, to feminism. It’s not compatible with the U.S. Constitution, our democracy or our ideals. There are many nuances to the art of twisting the facts to influence opinions and behavior, but political propaganda is most effective when its target audience fails to recognize the persuasive tactics being employed and how they shape the public’s beliefs. It’s been said that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” When it comes to climate propaganda, and meetings like COP21, Americans should all be very vigilant. A binding U.N. climate treaty would prove to be a real man-made global disaster. (David Spady)

Save us from The Chicken Little Orwellian Dictator Wanna-be’s.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

The Chicken Little Hypocrisy Rebuke

Ragnarok will come someday, tomorrow, come someday,tomorrow,come someday. Ragnarok will come someday and we’ll all be killed.

Unless you give all your rights, freedoms, and your money and do exactly as we say when we say it because we say it!

DO as we Say, not as we Do and Do It Yesterday!

“This year, in Paris, has to be the year that the world finally reaches an agreement to protect the one planet that we’ve got while we still can,” said U.S. President Barack Obama on his recent trip to Alaska. Miguel Cañete, the EU’s chief negotiator, has warned there is “no Plan B — nothing to follow. This is not just ongoing UN discussions. Paris is final.”

The Apocalypse is here. Never Let a Crisis, even one you make up, go to waste.

The world is doomed if you don’t submit!

Conventional wisdom holds that negotiators are hashing out a fair allocation of the deep emissions cuts all countries would need to make to limit warming. That image bears little resemblance to reality.

In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth.

Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.

Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.” And lest pressure nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by the initial deadline of March 31 — and most either submitted no plan or submitted one only as the final September 30 cut-off approached.

After all this, the final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond “shame” for noncompliance — a fact bizarrely taken for granted by all involved.

So it’s just The Agenda is The Agenda, and my don’t we look wonderful for “doing something” when in fact it’s all just a gigantic redistribution con.

But MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change calculates the improvement by century’s end to be only 0.2 degrees Celsius. Comparing projected emissions to the baseline established by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 2000 shows no improvement at all.

And therein lies the sticking point on which negotiations actually center: “climate finance.” Climate finance is the term for wealth transferred from developed to developing nations based on a vague and shifting set of rationales including repayment of the “ecological debt” created by past emissions, “reparations” for natural disasters, and funding of renewable energy initiatives.

The issue will dominate the Paris talks. The INDCs covering actual emissions reductions are subjective, discretionary, and thus essentially unnegotiable. Not so the cash. Developing countries are expecting more than $100 billion in annual funds from this agreement or they will walk away. (For scale, that’s roughly equivalent to the entire OECD budget for foreign development assistance.)

Somehow, the international process for addressing climate change has become one where addressing climate change is optional and apparently beside the point. Rich countries are bidding against themselves to purchase the developing world’s signature on an agreement so they can declare victory — even though the agreement itself will be the only progress achieved. (Politico.eu)

The climate change summit in Paris that aims to tackle global warming will itself pump an estimated 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it was claimed today.

Around 50,000 people including world leaders, businesses and activists are expected to travel from across the globe for the two-week conference in Paris which started today.

Most will arrive by plane from as far afield as New Zealand, Sydney and Bermuda, while others will arrive by train and car.

According to calculations by Wired and Steven Stoft of climateParis.org, the average round trip per attendee will be around 9,000 miles.

Taking the fuel consumption of a Boeing 747 – around 16.5 miles per gallon – which the website describes as a ‘happy medium between private jets and bullet trains’, it is estimated around 27 million gallons of fuel will be used by travellers attending the conference. 

This figure was arrived at by multiplying the number of attendees by the average round-trip mileage to get 450million miles then multiplying that by 16.5miles per gallon.

With each gallon of fuel producing around 21 pounds of carbon dioxide, the total released by planes flying to and from Paris is thought to be about 575million pounds (290,000 tons), according to rough calculations.

But given that some planes will very likely carry more than one attendee, this figure is likely to be at the very highest end. 

The total still pales in comparison with the annual global output of 80 quadrillion pounds, meaning the Paris conference equates to around 22 seconds of the world’s production. 

In an opening speech at the summit, Prince Charles warned world leaders that ‘we are becoming the architects of our own destruction’ as he called for immediate action to halt global warming.

The heads of 151 nations have kicked off 12 days of talks in Paris in search of an elusive pact that would wean the world off fossil fuels, making it the largest gathering of global leaders in history.

The Prince of Wales urged them to ‘think of your grandchildren, as I think of mine’ as well as the billions of people without a voice and the youngest generation as they try to secure a new global deal. 

He said: ‘If the planet were a patient, we would have treated her long ago. 

‘You, ladies and gentlemen, have the power to put her on life support and you must surely start the emergency procedures without further procrastination.

‘Humanity faces many threats but none is greater than climate change. In damaging our climate we are becoming the architects of our own destruction. 

‘We have the knowledge, the tools and the money (to solve the crisis).’

Over the next fortnight negotiators from 195 countries will attempt to hammer out a deal that will put the world on a path to prevent temperatures rising by more than 2C above pre-industrial levels and avoid dangerous climate change. 

French President Francois Hollande later echoed his statement by telling leaders that ‘the hope of all of humanity’ rested on their shoulders.

And anyone who stands in their way is evil and wants to destroy mankind, naturally. 🙂 No hyperbole there.

In an opening speech at the conference centre in Paris, the French President said: ‘Never have the stakes of an international meeting been so high because it concerns the future of the planet, the future of life. The hope of all of humanity rests on all of your shoulders.’  

Barack Obama also painted a dire picture of the future without aggressive action to curb carbon emissions, describing submerged countries, abandoned cities and fields that won’t grow.

In a speech, he said: ‘As the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second largest (greenhouse gas) emitter… the United States of America not only recognises our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.’

The U.S. President also called the climate talks an ‘act of defiance’ by the world community following the Islamic State-linked attacks two weeks ago. 

The Islamic Radicals who want to kill you don’t care about your green defiance. Not one bit. As a matter of fact they are making an estimated $5 million dollars a day off of the profits from the oil fields you refuse to bomb because of your environmentalist radicalism. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Chinese President Xi Jinping said an eventual global climate deal must include aid for poor countries and acknowledge differences between developing and established economies. 

Xi, speaking at U.N.-led climate talks near Paris on Monday, said an agreement should also include transfer of climate technology to developing countries.

He said a deal should accommodate national interests, adding: ‘It’s imperative to respect differences’ among countries, especially developing ones.

‘Addressing climate change should not deny the legitimate needs of developing countries to reduce poverty and improve living standards,’ he said.

World leaders had earlier held a moment of silence in honor of people killed in recent attacks in Paris, Beirut, Baghdad, Tunisia and Mali.

The U.N. climate conference in Paris is most likely humanity’s last chance to thwart global environmental disaster, Pope Francis said on Monday, warning the world was “at the limits of suicide”.

The pope, who wrote a major document on the environment last June, made the comment in an hour-long news conference aboard the plane returning him to Rome at the end of a six-day trip to Africa.

The freewheeling conversations have become a trademark of his papacy and the few times he takes direct questions from journalists.

Francis, who visited Kenya, Uganda and the Central African Republic, also said the continent was “a martyr of exploitation” by wealthy countries who lust after its natural resources and try to impose Western values instead of concentrating on development.

The pope was asked if the U.N. climate summit in Paris would mark a turnaround in the fight against global warming.

“I am not sure, but I can say to you ‘now or never’,” he said. “Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.”

He spoke of retreating glaciers in Greenland and low-lying countries at risk from rising sea levels.

“I am sure that the (Paris delegates) have goodwill to do something. I hope it turns out this way and I am praying that it will,” he said. (Daily Mail)

An echo chamber of activist groups and media outlets stands ready to rubber-stamp the final agreement as “historic,” validating the vast reservoirs of political capital spent on the exercise.

It’s a redistribution shell game to make Leftists and Socialists “feel good” about “doing something” thus validating their superiority.

And you get to pay for the privilege of being a serf under their rule.
Worry, they are happy. Don’t worry, they don’t care if you suffer.
It’s all about their power over you and their superiority in their own minds.
They are, after all, Homo Superior Liberalis, and you’re not, SERF.
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Dana Summers
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Follow The Money

Environmentalists like to claim skeptics are making money off hampering global warming regulations, but those same activists are making a lot of money promoting global warming alarmism.

A recent video from The Guardian claims that there is little money or power to be gained from environmental activism. The money behind activism pales in comparison to those of their fossil fuel-financed opposition, according to the video. The video even claims that “most of the money in solar and wind power comes from savings to the consumer.”

In the case of Al Gore, prominently featured in the video, the former vice president has levied his global warming activism from a net worth of $700,000 in 2000 into an estimated net worth of $172.5 million by 2015. He’s not alone in his financial endeavor.

Funding of science, in this particular case, climate change science, is dominated by the federal government. We assert that this will cause recipients of [government] grants to publish findings that are in-line with government policy preferences (i.e., don’t bite the hand that feeds you),” Chip Knappenberger, the assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email.

After a while, the scientific literature becomes dominated by these types of research findings which then produces a biased knowledge base,” Knappenberger said. “This knowledge base is then ‘assessed’ by intergovernmental and federal science committees (i.e., IPCC, USGCRP) to produce authoritative reports that supposedly represent the scientific ‘consensus,’ which is then tapped by the federal government in determining policy and setting regulations, such as the CPP [Clean Power Plan].”

A Cycle of Financial and Political Incest. One feeds the other.

Studies that receive financial support from the public sector don’t have to disclose it as a conflict of interest, even when that support is in the millions of dollars. Recent studies that the Environmental Protection Agency is using to support the scientific case for its Clean Power Plan saw the EPA itself give $31.2 million, $9.5 million, and $3.65 million in public funds to lead authors according to EPA public disclosures.

The author who received $3.65 million, Charles Driscoll, even admitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the result of his study was predetermined, saying “in doing this study we wanted to bring attention to the additional benefits from carbon controls.”

Universities typically received about 50 percent of the money that their researchers get in public funds if their research finds positive results, making them deeply dependent upon federal funding and likely to encourage studies which will come to conclusions that the government wants.

Even counting only private money, environmental groups massively outspend their opposition. Opposition to global warming activism only raises $46 million annually across 91 conservative think tanks according to analysis by Forbes. That’s almost 6 times less than Greenpeace’s 2011 budget of $260 million, and Greenpeace is only one of many environmental groups. The undeniable truth is that global warming activists raise and spend far more money than their opponents.

And money talks and Bullshit Science walks away with “consensus”.

Attempts by governments to encourage solar and wind power have created incentives for corruption that even environmentalists acknowledge. The push to encourage “green” systems has already led to serious corruption, such as the Solyndra scandal, which “crowds out” investment dollars that could be better spent on more workable solutions. (Libertarian Republic)

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA.

THE NARRATIVE IS THE NARRATIVE.

The End. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

We’re Tired of Haters & Deniers

Did you know that Climate “Deniers” and The Tobacco Industry are related? 🙂

Warmist scientists including UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth to Obama: ‘We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.’

Via Politico: ‘Twenty climate scientists called for RICO investigation in a letter to Obama and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The scientists argue that the systemic efforts to prevent the public from understanding climate change resembles the investigation undertaken against tobacco. They draw inspiration from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse who said on the Senate floor that there might be a similar conspiracy here, and a civil trial could provide the tools of discovery needed to find out.’

Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren

September 1, 2015

Dear President Obama,Attorney General Lynch and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture,and biodiversity.

We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking.

Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change–indeed, the world’s response to climate change–is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity–and potential strategies for addressing them–are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014),

Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.

One additional tool–recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)–is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.

See Below

The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research (Brulle,2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010),The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015).

We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation. The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry.

A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.

If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

Sincerely,

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren

David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ

Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park,MD

William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD

Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO

Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL

Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL

Ben Kirtman,

University of Miami, Miami, FL

Robert Dickinson, University of

Texas, Austin, TX

Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY

Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY

Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY

Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford,VT (http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf)

Our “The Sky is Falling!!! We’re all going to Die!!!!” unless you do exactly as we say hasn’t been working so now it’s time for the Hammer of Social Justice and The US Government to beat the infidels into submission.

The “good” Senator from Rhode Island in an Op-Ed in the Washington Post:

Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.

Where’s the science? Oh right, it’s just evil Corporate Oil doing their mustache twirling evil deception. Unlike the disingenuous Chicken Little’s in the Global Cooling/Warming/Change holy mission of salvation. 🙂

Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking. Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a federal judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise.

You mean the ones you probably supported and still take their money?

Well, Liberals are like Orwellian Nazis as they have “often been compared”. 🙂

The Big Tobacco playbook looked something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; (3) relentlessly attack your opponents.

The Global Warming playbook goes something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (Climate Gate, anyone?) (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; “97% Consensus” anyone? (3) relentlessly attack your opponents. Attack “Deniers” with RICO statutes and EPA regulations anyone?

Thankfully, the government had a playbook, too: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies and their associated industry groups, alleging that the companies “engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.”

Is the Tobacco Industry still around? Yep. They just are 1/10 the Lobbying juggernaut they used to be.

Do people still smoke? Yep.

Tobacco spent millions of dollars and years of litigation fighting the government. But finally, through the discovery process, government lawyers were able to peel back the layers of deceit and denial and see what the tobacco companies really knew all along about cigarettes.

You mean the million in lobbying money. And amazing how they can uncover all this and not be able to figure out Benghazi, or the IRS scandal, or Hillary’s Emails? 🙂

In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that the tobacco companies’ fraudulent campaign amounted to a racketeering enterprise. According to the court: “Defendants coordinated significant aspects of their public relations, scientific, legal, and marketing activity in furtherance of a shared objective — to . . . maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for cigarettes through a scheme to deceive the public.”

The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking.

Only in your fervently anti-capitalist Luddite little mind.

In the case of fossil fuels, just as with tobacco, the industry joined together in a common enterprise and coordinated strategy.

Just like the Sky is Falling Global Warming “Consensus” crowd.

He has his own Political Action group: Oceans PAC and he gets his primary support from tech company investors & lobbyists from Comcast.

I created the OCEANS PAC because candidates who support oceans and environmental issues need our support. Indeed, the other side is funded by big polluters who don’t hesitate to put millions of dollars behind their lies. As I’ve said many times – I’m tired of bringing a knife to a gun fight. The OCEANS PAC is one way we can fight back.

And fight we must, because climate change is not a problem that will go away. Climate change is not a problem that can wait. But climate change is a problem that can be solved.  We can and we must leave a healthy environment, which includes healthy oceans, to our children and grandchildren. The public is ready for action; unfortunately, the missing piece is Congress. Congress is sleepwalking through history. It is time for Congress to hear the alarms, roll up our sleeves, and do what needs to be done. It is time to wake up. But for Congress to wake up, it needs more members who will support ocean and environmental issues – OCEANS PAC will support those candidates.

This is certainly not something I can do alone. There are high stakes involved and I need your help. I hope you will accompany me on this new journey, and that I can count on your enthusiastic support as we go forward. 

Sincerely,

Sheldon Whitehouse
United States Senator

So no conflict of interest there. 🙂  All, pure science!

2011 – 2016 PAC Contribution Breakdown

legend Business $775,653 (58%)
legend Labor $212,450 (16%)
legend Ideological/Single Issue $345,195 (26%)

Based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Monday, August 17, 2015.

All, pure science.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00027533

Just pure as the driven snow and twice as virtuous!

In 1998, the Clinton administration was building support for international climate action under the Kyoto Protocol. The fossil fuel industry, its trade associations and the conservative policy institutes that often do the industry’s dirty work met at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute. A memo from that meeting that was leaked to the New York Times documented their plans for a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign to undermine climate science and to raise “questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.”

Climate Gate anyone?

The shape of the fossil fuel industry’s denial operation has been documented by, among others, Drexel University professor Robert Brulle. In a 2013 paper published in the journal Climatic Change, Brulle described a complex network of organizations and funding that appears designed to obscure the fossil fuel industry’s fingerprints. To quote directly from Brulle’s report, it was “a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect the public discussion and distort the public’s understanding of climate.” That sounds a lot like Kessler’s findings in the tobacco racketeering case.

The coordinated tactics of the climate denial network, Brulle’s report states, “span a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts that aim at undermining climate science.” Compare that again to the findings in the tobacco case.

Funny, sounds just like the Global Warming crowd!

The tobacco industry was proved to have conducted research that showed the direct opposite of what the industry stated publicly — namely, that tobacco use had serious health effects. Civil discovery would reveal whether and to what extent the fossil fuel industry has crossed this same line. We do know that it has funded research that — to its benefit — directly contradicts the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science. One scientist who consistently published papers downplaying the role of carbon emissions in climate change, Willie Soon, reportedly received more than half of his funding from oil and electric utility interests: more than $1.2 million.

To be clear: I don’t know whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry. We don’t have enough information to make that conclusion. Perhaps it’s all smoke and no fire. But there’s an awful lot of smoke.

And he knows smoke when he sees it…

Senator Whitehouse stated (On the Iran Deal): “I thank the many Rhode Islanders who have contacted me on every side of this question. I appreciate their thoughtful input.  I’ve decided to support the P5+1 agreement with Iran, not because it assures anything on its own, but because — with persistent watchfulness and effort — it could open a new doorway in the precarious Middle East. I do not see a better credible option.

And since he knows a good deal when he sees it, he must be right about Global Warming! 🙂

It’s all a Vast Right-Wing Capitalist Conspiracy!! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Hook

Warming: The U.N.’s climate chief is scheduled to visit Australia, where she’ll be welcomed by an advisor of the prime minister who isn’t mincing words in explaining to his countrymen what their guest is all about.

Mind you they used Orwellian tactics to change it from “Global Warming” to the non-descript “Climate Change” to avoid the embarrassments of things like it snowing on their conferences or Flagstaff,AZ getting hit with snow in early May.

Maurice Newman, chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbot’s Business Advisory Council, doesn’t seem too thrilled about the visit from Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Writing in the Australian, Newman said the “climate catastrophists” are “opposed to capitalism and freedom” and aim to establish a “new world order under the control” of the United Nations.

The British Telegraph reports that Newman’s critics describe him as a “whacko.” But he is correct: The goal of those who want the world to believe that man’s carbon dioxide emissions are dangerously changing the climate is to pull down capitalism. And that’s not us saying it. Figueres herself has admitted this.

“This is the first time” in history, she said earlier this year, that there’s a chance “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

See The Watermelon analysis.

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/just-say-no-to-watermelons/

Watermelon Environmentalist: Behind all the acronyms and the jargon, they say, is a conspiracy to promote a nakedly political aim – anti-big business; anti-free market; pro-tax increases. In short, green on the outside but red on the inside…

Newman points this out in his op-ed, warning fellow Australians that “the real agenda is concentrated political authority.” Global warming? It’s merely “the hook.”

He also notes that Figueres “is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.”

Newman courts even more criticism when he boldly states that in Figueres’ “authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or disagreement.”

He adds: “Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travelers.”

Such comments will surely get him removed from many cocktail party invitation lists, but the price for being right is often stiff.

Newman also noted that those he describes as “eco-catastrophists”:

• “Won’t let up” and “have captured the U.N. and are extremely well funded.”

• “Will keep mobilizing public opinion using fear and appeals to morality.”

• “Have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.”

Newman could have mentioned, as well, that while many who are aligned with Figueres are motivated, as she is, by a raging desire to quash capitalism, the fight against man-made global warming and climate change has become a religious crusade for more than a few.

Count another U.N. climate chief among them. The freshly resigned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said earlier this year that “the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems, is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.” His religion.

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

The global warming/climate change debate should not be driven by religion or a loathing toward free-market economies. It should be about science.

On that count, the skeptics and doubters have the advantage. As Newman reminds us, “95% of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error.”

Newman did his countrymen a favor by alerting them to Figueres and those who hold similar if not identical beliefs, and push the same false agenda. Now they need to do their part and heed his warning.

James Lovelock, the scientist who brought us the Gaia theory that Earth is a living being.

On MSNBC three years ago, he said that environmentalists have created a “green religion” that “is now taking over from the Christian religion.” He admitted then: “We don’t know what the climate is doing.”

We don’t know what the climate is doing because it doesn’t ask our permission or respond much to our input. To think otherwise is to believe in a fairy tale.
Or a Politically motivated “religion” disguised as “concern” and “science” as most Liberal things are. It’s also the endorsed religion of the Left. This holy writ and holy mantra is Politically Correct and any heretic who strays from the truth must be put down.

Now that’s Science, for you. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

The Science is Settled

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

So 36% for not man-made means The Alarmist have a “consensus” and the “science is settled”. The 64% that don’t believe them must therefore be morons. So time to lie even more and step up the political arm of this control agenda because the facts don’t matter and their sanctimony and “rightness” must be assured.

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

So 24+17 (that’s more than 36 right?) against the IPCC “gods” of “consensus. The scientist in this survey must be complete morons not to bow down to the “the truth” of the Alarmist Wolf Criers. 🙂

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

24+17+10 against the IPCC. So the IPCC “consensus” and The President therefore MUST be right? 🙂

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

24+17+10+5 = We have liftoff! The IPCC and The Global Warming Chicken Littles must be right! 🙂

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

And they use typical condescending and childish ad homimems to quell your disagreement with their ‘superior intellect’ and their ‘superior knowledge’ of the situation which obviously you are too stupid to understand.

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

Yeah, but any scientist who isn’t with the Party Line is a mislead moron who doesn’t speak for the “consensus”.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. (Forbes)

But you’ll never hear that from The Ministry of Truth or our Alarmist President who thinks Global Warming is more important than Iranian  Nukes or the Beheading Terrorists. After all, they aren’t on the Totalitarian Control Agenda so they don’t really matter. 🙂

You must be an idiot to oppose their superiority over you.

Sounds like the average Leftist to me. Now that’s a Consensus… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Ideological Weather

How can you tell that “Global Warming” is about ideology and not science.

Simple look at the contradictions and then the attitude.

November 2013 didn’t feel like November with several wintry blasts after a briefly mild beginning.  The month averaged 3 degrees F below normal (exactly the same as last year, tying with 2008 too for coldest of the 2000s), and we achieved several cold weather milestones.

I was also amused by the Antarctic trip by a bunch of alarmist who were going to prove the ice shelf there was melting and they got stuck in very thick ice for over a week nowhere close to their goal!

Then the news media just talked up their “bravery” and their “determination” and not the fact that they failed miserably.

November 2013 saw three days with high temperatures below 40F (11/24, 11/25, 11/3o), which was the most since 1956.  The two-day period one week ago (Sunday, the 24th -Monday, the 25th) was the coldest since 1970.  The high temperature of 34 that Sunday (Nov. 24) was the coldest high in November since 1987. (WP)

In honor of the 17th year without global warming, The Daily Caller News Foundation has put together seven setbacks for global warming alarmism. 

 

They are:

1) Studies show that the world was warmer than it is today during the Roman Empire and when the Vikings were plundering Europe and North America. In fact, even in the 19th Century, there were discussions surrounding the fact that the Vikings could settle the northernmost reaches of Greenland and North America because there was less ice coverage.

2) During the second week in December, the U.S. saw more than 2000 record low temperatures and record snowfalls, according to the National Weather Service and HamWeather records center. There were 606 record low temperatures, 1,234 low maximum temperatures and 285 record snowfalls across the country. In the meantime there were only 98 high temperature records and 141 high minimum temperature records.

3) Satellite data shows that the polar bears have at least one reason to be happy this year – Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent over last year’s record low coverage. Contrary to Al Gore’s prediction that there would be no polar ice cap by this year, sea ice coverage spanned nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic last year.

4) Global cooling is on the way, according to an increasing number of scientists. German scientists have predicted that based on declining sunspot activity and natural climate oscillation the world will cool over the next century. Temperatures will eventually drop to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.

5) Other scientists have also been coming around to the global cooling side of things. The BBC reported that Professor Mike Lockwood of the Reading University predicts that at the current rate of decline in solar activity, another “Little Ice Age” could envelope Northern Europe.

6) The United Nations climate bureaucracy’s latest global warming report was called “hilarious” by a leading scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Richard Lindzen said the UN’s report “has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence” because they continue to proclaim with ever greater certainty that mankind is causing global warming, despite their models continually being wrong.

“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen said. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”

7) The Senate testimony of Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado completely undercut environmentalists and Democrats trying to claim that global warming was causing “extreme weather.”

“It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Pielke said. “It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” (DC)

Then The Chicken Little’s Step in:

World’s climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

Scientists say the world’s climate is warming faster than feared because previous predictions were too “optimistic” and overestimated the cooling impact of clouds.

As the planet marked its fourth hottest year on record, a study published in the journal Nature found increasing levels of carbon dioxide will lead to thinner ocean clouds and reduce their cooling impact, causing temperature rises of at least 5.6F (3C) over the course of the century. (LT)

2012: A new study shows that average global temperatures could climb 2.5 to 5.4 degrees by 2050 if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.

In one year Armageddon was pushed back 50 years… 🙂

Global Warming Alarmist site: “Six thousand years ago, when the world was one degree warmer than it is now, the American agricultural heartland around Nebraska was desert.

So what Industrial Technology did they have then that made it so hot? Whoops, damn those buffalo farts!

But to understand the effect of nearly 6 Degrees , they say hysterically I refer back to  the same global warming alarmist website:

To see the most recent climatic lookalike, we have to turn the geological clock back between 144m and 65m years, to the Cretaceous, which ended with the extinction of the dinosaurs. There was an even closer fit at the end of the Permian, 251m years ago, when global temperatures rose by – yes – six degrees, and 95% of species were wiped out.

OMG! We’re all gonna die! Quick, everyone do everything the alarmist want, no matter how cracked! The Sky is Falling The Sky is Falling!! OMG WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!

(too much?) 🙂

That episode was the worst ever endured by life on Earth, the closest the planet has come to ending up a dead and desolate rock in space.” On land, the only winners were fungi that flourished on dying trees and shrubs. At sea there were only losers. Warm water is a killer. Less oxygen can dissolve, so conditions become stagnant and anoxic. Oxygen-breathing water-dwellers – all the higher forms of life from plankton to sharks – face suffocation. Warm water also expands, and sea levels rose by 20 metres.” The resulting “super-hurricanes” hitting the coasts would have triggered flash floods that no living thing could have survived.

So the latest cry of Global Warming Nutjobs is if you don’t do as we say you’re all going to be EXTINCT by the end of the century!!

Permian Extinction II or else!

Wow, the reptiles of 252 Million years ago were really industrious bastards.!!

Maybe the Flintstones are true!

So let’s not get hysterical here! 🙂

But you can really tell it’s agenda driven by the response to critics.

Maurice Newman, top business advisor to the Australian Prime Minister pissed all over the Global Warming nutjobs and their response was the usual level of maturity and rationality you’d expect:

“His piece is a mix of common climate change myths, misinformation and ideology,” said Professor David Karoly, from the University of Melbourne, in an article in The Sydney Morning Herald.

I would not choose a person who believes that the Earth is flat to advise Australian shipping or airline businesses on how to plan routes to travel around the world. It is clearly not sensible to have a person who believes that climate change science is a delusion as leader of the prime minister’s Business Advisory Council.”

So if you disagree with them you’re a flat-earther!

Now that’s an mature and rational counter argument don’t you think?

So you know it’s just another level of Liberal Control Freak-ism.

So do as we say because we say or you’ll be extinct!

Nope, no hyperbole there…

Damn those Reptiles!

So hide the Decline… 🙂