WHAT THE GREEN NEW DEAL IS REALLY ABOUT — AND IT’S NOT THE CLIMATE

Watts Up With That?
By Allan M.R. MacRae,
B.A.Sc., M.Eng.

On July 4, 2019, I published the article “THE COST TO SOCIETY OF RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM”.
 
There was a reason why this article was published on July 4. My article begins:

Ever wonder why extremists attack honest scientists who oppose global warming and climate change hysteria? Ever wonder why climate extremists refuse to debate the science?
IT IS BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISM WAS NEVER ABOUT THE SCIENCE – IT WAS ALWAYS A FALSE NARRATIVE, A SMOKESCREEN FOR THE TOTALITARIAN OBJECTIVES OF THE EXTREME LEFT.

Some people may think this was statement was inaccurate, or that I was being unfair. However, one week after my article was published, Democratic New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, fully verified my statement. He said, as written in the article below:

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said… … “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” Chakrabarti added.

Following is another excerpt from my July 4 article that demonstrates how utterly impractical the Green New Deal is – the Green New Deal is energy and economic lunacy – it cannot work:

Read more

Heat Wave Hysteria Coming Soon

 US data beginning in 1985, shared by Bjorn Lomborg. Rising blue line: percentage of deaths attributable to the cold. Orange line: percentage attributable to heat.


Donna Laframboise 
Big Picture News

In many parts of the world, we’ve just endured an extra snowy winter followed by a cool, delayed spring. But wait for it. When hotter weather arrives it will take no time at all for media outlets to start ‘educating’ us about heat waves and dangerous climate change.

In anticipation of those ‘news’ stories, here’s an inoculation: Cold weather kills far more people than does hot weather. If we truly care about weather-related suffering and sorrow, heat waves should be near the bottom of our priority list.

On his Facebook page, Bjorn Lomborg is calling our attention to a research paper published last year in Environment International. It contains marvelous news. In 7 out of 10 countries studied, heat-related deaths have decreased since 1985.

The researchers conclude that improved health care and infrastructure (aka increased access to air conditioning), have made us less likely to die from the heat. Normal, everyday upgrades are outpacing heat-related risks. As living standards improve, higher temperatures become less life threatening.

But the news isn’t so rosy on the other side of the ledger, where most deaths connected to extreme temperatures actually occur. Depending on the country and the time frame under discussion, the ratio of cold deaths to heat deaths varies. Since Table 3 of this study includes data for all 10 countries for the years 2000-2004, the numbers below are pulled from that column.

During this five-year period no deaths in Ireland were linked to heat, but 9.34% of all deaths were attributed to cold temperatures. (Compared to the 1980s, cold-related deaths in Ireland have fallen dramatically.) 

Read more

‘Global Warming’ Not Scary Enough, Alarmists Rebrand ‘Climate Crisis

Thomas D. Williams, PhD
Breitbart

Since the expressions "global warming" and "climate change" do not frighten people enough, activists are proposing a shift in language to "climate crisis" or "environmental collapse," with the help of advertising consultants.

Neuroscience research suggests that "global warming" and "climate change" do not produce a powerful enough reaction in people, whereas "climate crisis" got "a 60 percent greater emotional response from listeners" according to a recent study.

Environmental lobbying has reportedly yielded a 15-point increase in the share of Americans who believe that climate change is a serious problem, but activists are looking for ways to boost that number still further by using more explosive language.

Enter SPARK Neuro, an advertising consulting firm that measures physiological data such as brain activity and palm sweat to quantify people's emotional reactions to stimuli.

SPARK Neuro fixed electroencephalography (EEG) devices to the heads of 120 volunteers to gauge the electrical activity coming from their brains. At the same time, a webcam monitored their facial expressions and sensors on their fingers recorded the sweat produced by heightened emotions.

The group, which was evenly divided among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, listened to audio recordings of six different climate phrases. "Global warming" and "climate change" performed the worst, beaten hands down by "climate crisis," "environmental destruction," "weather destabilization," and "environmental collapse." 

Read more

William Lind looks beneath the global warming narrative

Watts Up With That?

Summary: William Lind takes a sharp and accurate look at the politics of climate change. In modern America, always look beneath the glossy surface of narratives in the news.

A March 15 article by Larry Kummer at the Fabius Maximus website discusses how global warming advocates have misused a worst-case scenario to generate panic. Titled “About the corruption of climate science”, Kummer’s article details how politicians are misrepresenting climate projections, especially one called RCP 8.5. That their goal is to create fear should not surprise us: from the government’s perspective, fear is a growth industry.

Russell Kirk called conservatism “Politics Of Prudence" and prudence suggests we should pay some attention to climate change, or, to be more precise, increasing volatility in weather. That is something we can observe happening. Conservatives’ belief in stewardship means we owe it to future generations to hand them a planet in at least as good condition as we received from our forefathers. Reducing our own consumption, including of fossil fuels, is desirable.

But the Left seeks far more. In fact, its goal is nothing less than total control of every aspect of human life, which we call “totalitarianism”, justified by fear of climate change. Since everything a person does, including breathing, affects the climate, if climate change is a huge threat, someone needs to control everything. That “someone” should obviously be whoever is most concerned about the climate, i.e., the extreme environmentalists and the larger coalition of which they are part, the culturally Marxist Left.

Read more

Facebook Teams up With Mainstream Media to Directly Censor News Websites

Joe Quinn
Sott.net

Several days ago I received a Facebook notification that content shared on the French Sott.net website Facebook page (Les Signes des Temps) had been "rated false by an independent fact-checker."

Clicking on the notification produced this pop-up window...

...where I was informed that fr.sott.net shared content that had been reviewed by someone called 'Les Décodeurs du Monde' and that they found it to be "false". Included was a link to the offending article on the fr.sott.net FB page, a link to and "additional reporting" page at 'Les Décodeurs du Monde', and text telling me that:

"To fight false news, Facebook reduces the distribution of misleading content while also showing additional reporting on the same topic.

Pages and websites that repeatedly publish or share misleading content will see their overall distribution reduced, their ability to monetize and advertise removed and their ability to register as a news page removed.

Deleting the misleading content won't affect these outcomes."

Here's a screenshot of the Sott.net article on the fr.sott.net FB page: 

The offending article on French Sott.net is a summary of a Breitbart article, based on an interview with the co-founder of Greenpeace and outspoken critic of man-made global warming, Patrick Moore.

In the offending Breitbart interview, Moore explained how fear and guilt are leveraged by proponents of climate change and noted how "green" companies parasitize taxpayers via favorable regulations and subsidies, ostensibly justified by the aforementioned narrative's claimed threats, all while "enjoying propagandistic protection across news media."

"And so you've got the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public. You've got the media echo chamber - fake news - repeating it over and over and over again to everybody that they're killing their children. And then you've got the green politicians who are buying scientists with government money to produce fear for them in the form of scientific-looking materials. And then you've got the green businesses, the rent-seekers, and the crony capitalists who are taking advantage of massive subsidies, huge tax write-offs, and government mandates requiring their technologies to make a fortune on this. And then, of course, you've got the scientists who are willingly - they're basically hooked on government grants. When they talk about the 99 percent consensus [among scientists] on climate change, that's a completely ridiculous and false number."

Moore also warned that the narrative of anthropogenic global warming is an existential threat to reason:

"It is the biggest lie since people thought the Earth was at the center of the universe. This is Galileo-type stuff. If you remember, Galileo discovered that the sun was at the center of the solar system and the Earth revolved around it. He was sentenced to death by the Catholic Church, and only because he recanted was he allowed to live in house arrest for the rest of his life.

So this was around the beginning of what we call the Enlightenment, when science became the way in which we gained knowledge instead of using superstition and instead of using invisible demons and whatever else, we started to understand that you have to have observation of actual events and then you have to repeat those observations over and over again, and that is basically the scientific method."

Read more

Youth Strike Movement For Climate Change is an Immensely Deceptive Globalist Propaganda Campaign

In This Together

Recently we have all been asked to celebrate the youthful commitment to 'save the planet' personified by the 'Youth Strike 4 Climate .' Hundreds of thousands of children, across the world, have been involved in various forms of strike action in protest against humankind's heating of the planet through our CO2 emissions. Many were given leave from their lessons to 'demonstrate.' This has been widely welcomed by the political class. Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and Nicola Sturgeon were but a few of the leading politicians supporting this 'coordinated day of action.

Particularly delighted was the President of the EU Commission Jean Claude Juncker. He tweeted his support and a committed a quarter of the EU's annual budget for programs to 'mitigate' against man made climate change. That's an annual expenditure of more than €36bn, based upon the EU's 2015 figures. As ever with the EU, it is difficult to know precisely how much of your tax money they spend or where they spend it. They haven't independently audited their budget accounts for more than 20 years, preferring their own 'in house' auditors. Wouldn't we all? 


While mass absenteeism presented a bit of a problem for schools, who should record a child's absence for any reason other than illness as 'unauthorised,' the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) union were also supportive. Despite some 'official concerns,' clearly there was tacit acceptance of the strike from government education departments around the world.

All of which begs some interesting questions. Whose idea was it that schoolchildren as young as 5 yrs old should get involved in political protest? Who coordinated the 'day of action?' What were they protesting for (or against) and, most importantly, who funded it and why? Whose Idea Was It?

Allegedly the YouthStrike4Climate came about largely due to the efforts of 16yr old Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg. Greta staged her own school day walkout and formed her solo picket line outside the Swedish Parliament in the lead up to Swedish elections. Just two days before the elections, and only two weeks after starting her solitary protest, international media organisations the world over, such as the BBC, were already extolling the virtues of her 'struggle.' An incredible piece of global media manipulation by one so young.

Greta's achievements are truly staggering. Not only has she delivered a moving Ted Talk (owned by Chris Anderson's tax exempt Sapling Foundation, whose publishing company Future plc apparently settled out of court for violation of U.S online child protection laws) but also gave an 'educational talk' to the United Nations at the COP24 climate change summit. Her international government connections and use of social media to spread her message around the world is incredible. Especially seeing as she was just 15 when she began her protests. In the 8 months since opening her Twitter account (in June 2018), she has amassed 195,000 followers and her various videos have been shared millions of times.

Perhaps her amazing global reach is understandable when we consider that Greta's rapid emergence upon the World stage didn't just 'happen,' but rather appears to have been carefully coordinated by grown ups. Her initial protest fortuitously coincided with the publication of her mother's book. Greta's mum, the opera singer Malena Ernman, worked with PR man Ingmar Rentzhog, who promoted her publication.

Rentzhog, coincidentally, launched his climate change social media campaign group "We Don't Have the Time" the same day that Greta first started her protest. Making a tidy sum along the way.
 
Read more

See also: Dark Green series - Part 1

Scientists Are Hatching Mad Plans to Geoengineer Earth to Save Us from Global Warming

Barry Brownstein, fee.org

Some scientists are warn geoengineering will have unintended consequences.

Harvard scientists have proposed flying more than 4,000 missions every year, dumping particles to geoengineer the planet out of global warming.

Harvard’s Gernot Wagner wants to save the world from global warming. His method? Develop a new type of plane that will fly more than 4,000 missions a year dumping particulates into the stratosphere.

Wagner and his colleague Wake Smith call the proposed plane “SAI Lofter (SAIL).” Anonymous individuals at “Airbus, Atlas Air, Boeing, Bombardier, GE Engines, Gulfstream, Lockheed Martin, NASA, Near Space Corporation, Northrup Grumman, Rolls Royce Engines, Scaled Composites, The Spaceship Company, and Virgin Orbit” provided input.

Estimates for SAIL’s design and operation seem sophisticated but are fabricated. Wagner and Smith admit, “No existing aircraft design—even with extensive modifications—can reasonably fulfill [their] mission.”

Wagner and others believe that scientists can calculate how many particulates will be needed to cool the Earth to a desired temperature.

Wagner and Smith are not alone in their geoengineering dreams. As early as 2006, Paul J. Crutzen, Nobel laureate in chemistry, called for “stratospheric geoengineering research.” Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to experiment via balloons spraying “a fine mist of materials such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere.” Wagner, Keith, and Keutsch are all part of the Solar Geoengineering Research Program at Harvard.

Geoengineering is gaining global traction. Last fall, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report saying geoengineering could be used as an emergency “temporary remedial measure.”

Spraying aerosols in the stratosphere would “mimic what large volcanoes do.”

In 1815, Mount Tambora in Indonesia erupted, spewing “millions of tons of dust, ash, and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, temporarily changing the world’s climate and dropping global temperatures by as much as 3 degrees.” As the particulates moved around the global atmosphere, “1816 became the year without a summer for millions of people in parts of North America and Europe, leading to failed crops and near-famine conditions.”

No doubt, Wagner and others will tell you careful calculations will limit global cooling to just the right degree. Skeptics might conclude otherwise: scientists blinded by unlimited hubris are partnering with crony capitalists to threaten humanity.

To be sure, some scientists warn geoengineering will have unintended consequences. MIT’s Daniel Cziczo, an atmospheric scientist, warns that geoengineering could destroy the ozone layer. Without the ozone layer, photosynthesis would be difficult, the food chain would be destroyed, and life on Earth would perish. In this case, unintended consequences would be apocalyptic.

Read more

'Experts' attribute EVERY kind of weather to 'global warming' in attempts to validate it

John Nolte
Breitbart

 "So no matter what happens, no matter how cold or warm or temperate it is, everything proves Global Warming is fer real."

America enjoys a winter filled with tons of snow and frigid cold weather and out pops the Climate Hoaxsters to assure this kind of weather only further proves our planet is getting, uhm... warmer. This current Climate Hoaxster freak out is largely in reaction to President Trump's tweet earlier this week mocking the Climate Hoaxsters.

"In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded," he tweeted. "What the hell is going on with Global Warming? Please come back fast, we need you!"

Naturally, this launched a million reactionary headlines from our oh-so objective, unbiased, not-at-all left-wing media.

"Look at This Embarrassing F*cking Moron," screamed Esquire.

"Debunking the utter idiocy of Donald Trump's global warming tweet," pouted CNN.

"Here's Why the Crazy Cold Temperatures Prove Global Warming is Real," Forbes says reassuringly.

"What Trump keeps getting wrong about Global Warming," the Washington Post helpfully reports.

But here is my personal favorite headline from, where else?, NBC News.... "Yes, it can be this cold outside in a time of global warming." 

Read more

What an Engineer Finds Amazing About the Claims of Arctic and Antarctic Melting

Ronald D Voisin 
wattsupwiththat.com

It’s just amazing how we as a society can let global group-think ideas have fantastically large continued public traction when direct scientific observation utterly refutes the very basis of the ideas.  Can not the alarmist scientific folks (I’m thinking here of Mann, Alley, Schmidt, Hansen, etc.) be just a little bit honest about what is actually going on?

Sea level rise is widely reported every single day as an imminent man-made climatic disaster.  Portions of Greenland melt, and portions of Antarctica melt. are presented as proof-positive that human burning of fossil fuels is causing the Earth to overly warm and therefore causing these melts…which will lead to coastal inundation…and we must therefore change our ways at any cost.

However, it just so happens that these same portions of Greenland and Antarctica melt are now known to be situated over highly active geothermal sites…and that 100% of the observed melt is easily and readily attributable to current enhanced geothermal heat release.

Read more

Ocean indicators suggest CO2 isn’t the strongest driver of climate

Anthony Watts
Watts Up With That?

From the website CO2 is Life:

The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global Warming…Rules Out CO2 as the Cause



Source

We have mentioned countless times on this blog that the warming oceans are evidence that CO2 is not the cause of global warming. To understand the climate you must first understand the oceans. The oceans control the global climate. As the oceans warm, they warm and alter the humidity of the atmosphere above them. The problem is, as we have pointed out countless times, CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18µ.

LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate or warm the oceans. Visible radiation, mainly from the high energy blue end of the spectrum does. CO2 is transparent to incoming visible radiation. The energy stored in the atmosphere and land is insignificant when compared to the oceans. The oceans contain 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere, so small changes to the oceans can mean big changes in the atmospheric temperature. The oceans also produce vast amounts of CO2 (20 x the amount man produces), and the most abundant and potent greenhouse gas, water vapor.

The warming oceans are evidence that CO2 ISN’T the cause of the recent warming. Oceans are warmed by more incoming radiation reaching them, and that is in fact what has been happening (Click Here). It is extremely easy to explain the recent warming due to natural causes, explanation that is backed by the evidence (Click Here), not just uneducated highly biased and conflicted opinions.

Read more

Groupthink drives global warming zealotry

Anthony Watts
Watts Up With That?

A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) shows that both the science and policy of the climate debate are shaped and driven by an almost flawless example of classical Groupthink.

Written by one of Britain's leading newspaper columnists Christopher Booker, the report is based on research by Professor Irving Janis, the American psychologist who is famous for his theory of "Groupthink". But as Booker explains, Janis never looked at the application of his theory outside the policy areas he was interested in:

"Janis's focus was on decision-making in the foreign policy arena. However, as soon as you look, you see that his ideas apply elsewhere. The climate debate is a case in point - all of the characteristic 'rules' of groupthink are there: warmist ideas can't be tested against reality, and so to ensure they are upheld as the truth, they have to be elevated into a 'consensus' and anyone who challenges them must be crushed. These are precisely the features that Janis used to define Groupthink."

So just as Groupthink led to the policy disasters of Pearl Harbour, the Bay of Pigs fiasco and Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam war, attempts to suppress serious debate of climate science and the policies that are being promoted as solutions are leading to irrational behaviour, costly policy blunders and corruption on an unprecedented scale. This will only end when groupthink eventually bumps up against reality.

As Booker puts it in his conclusions:

"Every South Sea Bubble ends in a crash. Every form of Groupthink eventually has its day. This is invariably what happens when human beings get carried along by the crowd, simply because they have lost the urge or ability to think for themselves."

Christopher Booker: Global Warming - A Case Study in Groupthink (pdf)

The book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes is available on Amazon (out of print, but used editions are available)

Convincing climate sceptics that change is a problem

Scott Adams
Scott Adams's Blog

I don't know much about science, and even less about climate science. So as a practical matter, I like to side with the majority of scientists until they change their collective minds. They might be wrong, but their guess is probably better than mine.

That said, it is mind-boggling to me that the scientific community can't make a case for climate science that sounds convincing, even to some of the people on their side, such as me. In other words, I think scientists are right (because I play the odds), but I am puzzled by why they can't put together a convincing argument, whereas the skeptics can, and easily do. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

As a public service, and to save the planet, obviously, I will tell you what it would take to convince skeptics that climate science is a problem that we must fix. Please avoid the following persuasion mistakes.
1. Stop telling me the "models" (plural) are good. If you told me one specific model was good, that might sound convincing. But if climate scientists have multiple models, and they all point in the same general direction, something sounds fishy. If climate science is relatively "settled," wouldn't we all use the same models and assumptions?

And why can't science tell me which one of the different models is the good one, so we can ignore the less-good ones? What's up with that? If you can't tell me which model is better than the others, why would I believe anything about them?
2. Stop telling me the climate models are excellent at hindcasting, meaning they work when you look at history. That is also true of financial models, and we know financial models can NOT predict the future. We also know that investment advisors like to show you their pure-luck past performance to scam you into thinking they can do it in the future. To put it bluntly, climate science is using the most well-known scam method (predicting the past) to gain credibility. That doesn't mean climate models are scams. It only means scientists picked the least credible way to claim credibility. Were there no options for presenting their case in a credible way?

Just to be clear, hindcasting is a necessary check-off for knowing your models are rational and worthy of testing in the future. But it tells you nothing of their ability to predict the future. If scientists were honest about that point, they would be more credible.
3. Tell me what percentage of warming is caused by humans versus natural causes. If humans are 10% of the cause, I am not so worried. If we are 90%, you have my attention. And if you leave out the percentage caused by humans, I have to assume the omission is intentional. And why would you leave out the most important number if you were being straight with people? Sounds fishy.  

Read more

Despite Denial, Data Shows Global Temperatures Are Dropping Fast

Anthony Watts
Watts Up With That?

All global temperature data sets confirm that global temperature has fallen rapidly in recent months as the recent El Nino ended.

Guest essay by Dr David Whitehouse, The GWPF Science Editor

Over the last couple of years there have been many articles about how they have been record-breakers in global temperature. It’s often sold as a simple ‘the planet is getting warmer only because of us’ story. As I have discussed before the concurrent El Nino was dismissed by some climate scientists as having an insignificant contribution to that record. However, there is a great deal of confusion and diversity in the assessment of its contribution. Some scientists maintain that it was the recent very strong El Nino that elevated the temperature to record levels.

Nevertheless some maintain that warm records would have been broken without the El Nino (although the significant contribution made by the highly unusual warm “Pacific Blob” is usually ignored).

As the 2015/16 El Nino started to wane wiser heads said the records would fade along with it, “No El Nino, no record,” they said, showing that the El Nino was responsible for edging the years to be records.
It is obvious that the world is cooling after the El Nino and nobody knows how much it will as global temperatures bottom out. So the time is right, one would have thought, to monitor that cooling process and see what can be deduced to set the recent record warm years into their proper context.

In doing so it seems that you can write a straightforward article, clearly one that can be revisited in the coming months with new data, present some current data, discuss the caveats surrounding it, and still get criticised, especially about what the article did not say. Cut and past comments and quotes blossomed in many blogs, sloppy statistics are banded about, along with not a little hubris wrapped up in ignorance and gratuitous use of the ‘denier’ label.

David Rose’s article in the Mail on Sunday simply reported what has happened recently to the Lower Tropospheric temperature over land. This data set responds more quickly to temperature changes that other sets which follow suite later. Land temperatures heat up and cool down quicker. They show the El Nino spike very clearly and the possible return to pre El Nino temperatures.

Some have said the article is flawed because it has cherry-picked the particular data used, some have even said “extreme cherry-picking,” implying it is the only data set that shows the global temperature drop. This is nonsense.

Read more
 

Global warming fraud: NOAA shows record warming where NO temperature stations exist

Adapt 2030
YouTube

NOAA shows record warm temperatures where there are no temperature monitoring stations or ocean buoys, that is straight up fraud. From Africa, Middle East and Antarctica, all made up data. All the while second most snow for Northern Hemisphere and RSS land stations show strong cooling and the sunspots are gone from our Sun three years early on the regular 11 year solar cycle.

NOAA September Temperature Fraud
"The Abnormal Warmth That Prevailed In The First Half Of The 20th Century" deleted 1970's cooling
October Global Temperature Down a Little from September
www.drroyspencer.com/
International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS)
Record Global Cooling Over The Last Eight Months
Global 2 meter anomalies
Sun spotless again 11/20
Northern hemisphere historical snow cover

Spectacular Drop In Global Average Satellite Temperatures

Roy Spencer
Global Warming Policy Forum 

Second largest 2-month drop in global average satellite temperatures– Largest 2-month drop in tropical average satellite temperatures.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2016 is +0.34 deg. C, down 0.21 deg. C from the May value of +0.55 deg. C (click for full size version):

This gives a 2-month temperature fall of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record…the largest was -0.43 deg. C in Feb. 1988.

In the tropics, there was a record fast 2-month cooling of -0.56 deg. C, just edging out -0.55 deg. C in June 1998 (also an El Nino weakening year). [...]

The rapid cooling is from the weakening El Nino and approaching La Nina conditions by mid-summer or early fall.

Read more

Full page ad in NYT today slams Attorney Generals climate witch hunt

Watts Up with That?

Today, CEI sponsored a full-page advertisement in The New York Times highlighting abusive efforts by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, and a coalition of other “AGs United for Clean Power” to silence the speech of more than 100 businesses, nonprofits, and private individuals who question the AGs’ positions on climate change. Published as an open letter, the ad features signatures from 43 organizations, legal experts, and individuals who value Americans’ First Amendment rights and believe they should be protected.

 Full text below. View the ad as a full color PDF here.

 Read more

Retired German Climate Scientist: “No Man-Made Signal Found” …”Climate Protection A Dangerous Ideology”

P Gosselin
No Tricks Zone

The website of the German Employers Association (DAV) has posted a comprehensive interview by Holger Douglas with physicist and climate scientist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, concerning the role of CO2 on the world’s climate.

Lüdecke, who has authored numerous climate science publications in climate science journals, is sure that the role of CO2 on climate is grossly overstated and riddled with alarmist hype.

Polar bear population “growing”

On polar bears, Lüdecke says there is “no trace” of the animal disappearing due to climate change and that the polar bear population has in fact been climbing. Moreover, the polar bear has been around for “hundreds of thousands of years“.

Climate sensitivity much weaker than assumed

On the subject of the greenhouse effect and radiation outwards into space, Lüdecke reminds that the climate system involves countless, poorly understood complexities, such as cloud cover and water vapor. In the interview he tells:

Water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas, and acts to enhance the warming effect. We call this feedback, as the warming is magnified more by it then it is alone by the radiation effect. But the other assumption claims: The opposite is correct! More water vapor in the air leads to more clouds that cool.”

On which effect is true, Lüdecke tells the DAV:

The theory of a feedback is not confirmed by measurements. According to the theory, the altitudes over the tropics at about 5 to 7 kilometers are supposed to be showing a clearly measurable heating zone that is referred to as the ‘Hot Spot’. No one has found it. Everything points to the pure radiation effect being weaker and not enhanced.”

No human fingerprint

The retired, independent physicist then tells the DAV that “man’s influence on the climate still cannot be filtered from the climate noise even today” and that today’s climate and weather changes are no different than what was observed hundreds of years ago, citing the IPCC itself:

There is not a single bit of scientific justification to claim: Here we are seeing unusual climate developments that can be only attributed to humans.”

Lüdecke suspects that the cyclic nature of climate natural climate change is caused mainly by the sun’s activity, naming the De Vries/Suess 200-year cycle and the 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle as examples.

He also confirms the recent “18-20 year” global warming pause and reminds us that in geological terms, the Earth today in fact finds itself in a ice age period, which is typically defined as one that sees the poles frozen over – as is the case today.

On proxies the retired climate scientist says that care has to be exercised in interpreting the data they yield. The DAQV asks whether there is a relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration. Lüdecke replies:

No, there’s nothing to see there.”

CO2 concentration in fact historically low

Lüdecke also points out that today’s atmospheric CO2 levels are in fact close to historical lows, and that elevated concentration bring a number of advantages to the ecosystems, foremost a greener planet with better plant growth.

Also, man’s CO2 emissions pale against those from the oceans and natural environment.

Ocean acidification “an alarmist myth”

On whether the threat of ocean acidification exists, Lüdecke dumps cold water on that claim:

No, ocean acidification is another myth of the alarmists. Every chemists you talk to on ocean acidification being a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 will roll his eyes. […]
Also the supposed sensitivity of corals to CO2 in sea water is an alarmist myth.”

“Dangerous, undemocratic ideology”

At the very end of the interview, Lüdecke comments on climate protection as a movement:

Here I allow myself to state very clearly: Climate protection has nothing to do with protecting nature. Climate protection is a dangerous, undemocratic ideology.”

In the next post, we will look at what Prof. Lüdecke says in the rest of the interview concerning climate models and the energy trend in Europe.

Original source: www.deutscherarbeitgeberverband.de/aktuelles/2016/2016_04_11_dav_aktuelles_interview-luedecke.html 
 

Real global warming could be unleashed by a hidden technology most people don't even know exists

Natural News 

Depending on whom you ask, so-called "free energy devices" are either a total hoax or a systematically suppressed technology that's being kept away from the public. There's a lot of interesting ground to cover on this subject of "over unity devices," but that's not the point of this article. Instead, let's look at an unintended side effect of free energy devices that even the free energy proponents don't usually realize exists.

And here it is: if free energy technology were to be developed and openly shared with the world, it would very rapidly lead to runaway global warming. I don't mean by emitting greenhouse gasses because obviously such devices don't burn fossil fuels. What I mean is literal, actual WARMING: the production of heat that's released into the atmosphere. Joules and BTUs, in other words.

Where would all this heat come from? From the work performed by the devices, obviously. And if these devices really produce energy from nothing (or from zero point energy, a parallel universe, or whatever), then they are introducing heat into this world that didn't exist here to begin with. "Over-unity" also means "new heat" that's dumped directly into the environment, and all physical work generates heat, which means engines, pumps, vehicles, generators and everything else that runs on free energy devices simultaneously produces heat.

Read more

The myth of the 97% climate change consensus

Watts Up With That?

What is the origin of the false belief – constantly repeated by President Obama, the media and others – that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

Claims continue to be made that “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” That’s what Secretary of State John Kerry told graduating Boston College students. It’s what President Obama said in his State of the Union address and a recent tweet.

There’s just one problem – aside from the fact that this assertion is being used to help justify policies and regulations that are closing down fossil fuel power plants and crippling our economy. The claim is completely bogus. As Heartland Institute president Joe Bast and climate scientist Roy Spencer make clear in this article, the papers used to create and perpetuate the 97% claim are seriously and fundamentally flawed. The alleged consensus simply does not exist; much less does it represent anything remotely approaching 97%.

---

By Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer

The myth of the climate change 97%

What is the origin of the false belief that nearly all scientists agree about global warming?

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer

Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama and others frequently claim that climate change will have “crippling consequences,” and that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” In reality, the assertion is science fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and exercises in counting abstracts from scientific papers – all of which have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source is Naomi Oreskes. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles and to have found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years, while none directly dissented. Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” influences but left out “dangerous” – and excluded scores of articles by prominent scientists who question the consensus. She also failed to acknowledge that a study published in the journal Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Read more

The scandal of fiddled global warming data

Red Pill Network

 

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

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster.

But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

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

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