"Mankind has a moral obligation to be a responsible steward of Earth for the good of future generations. Protecting and preserving our earth's ecosystems must remain a high priority for citizens of every nation.
However, we oppose the alarmist agenda employed by most global warming “evangelists.” In many cases, their agendas are based upon questionable scientific data and erroneous claims about global climate change. They claim the “science is settled” when, in fact, it is not. Scientists do not agree on the cause of climate change, the role of carbon dioxide (CO2), the degree to which man contributes to atmospheric CO2, and whether global warming is anything other than a naturally occurring phenomenon.
Global climate changes have been occurring for centuries. Global warming is most likely occurring today. But there is much evidence to suggest that temperature fluctuations are part of a natural cycle of climate change, not man-made causes. To conclude that man bears the brunt of the blame for rising temperatures is morally irresponsible and politically reckless. Nature itself produces the greatest contributions to climate change." - GlobalClimateScam.com
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition - Commonsense About Climate Change
A coalition formed by Scientists, Professors, Doctors and specialists
"To represent accurately, and without prejudice, facts regarding climate change; to provide considered opinion on matters related to both natural and human-caused climate effects; and to comment on the economic and socio-political consequences of climate change."
Climate Change Is UN-Led Hoax To Create 'New World Order': Australian Prime Minister's Chief Business Adviser May 9 2015 | From: RT
The Australian Prime Minister's chief business adviser says that climate change is a ruse led by the United Nations to create a new world order under the agency's control.
The statement coincided with a visit from the UN's top climate negotiator.
Maurice Newman, chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's business advisory council, said the UN is using false models which show sustained temperature increases because it wants to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.
"It's a well-kept secret, but 95 percent 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," he wrote in an opinion piece published in The Australian newspaper on Friday, without providing evidence.
"The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook,” he said, adding that the UN is against capitalism and freedom and wants to create a “new world order.”
The adviser's inflammatory comments coincided with a visit from UN climate chief Christiana Figueres.
According to Newman, Figueres is:
"on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming."
Communist China, she says, "is the best model.”
Figueres was in Australia to discuss practical climate change action, urging the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production. She also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December.
But that call is unlikely to be heeded. During November's G20 meeting in Brisbane, Abbott warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided prioritize the cutting of carbon emissions over economic growth.
Abbott, who called the science behind climate change “crap” in 2009, also repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body in Australia.
The prime minister has been reluctant to take part in climate change politics, trying but failing to keep it off the agenda at last year's G20 summit.
Both Abbott's office and the United Nations have so far declined to comment on Newman's statements.
A well-known climate change skeptic, Newman has made similar provocative comments in the past, calling the notion a “myth” and a “delusion.”
In February, he criticized renewable energy policies. Citing British charity Age UK, he stated that elderly citizens in Britain often die of “winter deaths” because they can't afford power. He blamed renewable energy policies which drive up the price of energy.
However, when asked about his claim by The Guardian, the charity sent back a statement which referenced high energy costs, but failed to mention anything about renewable energy.
Just a few months earlier, in November 2014, Newman cited a Scottish government-commissioned study which allegedly said that for every job in the renewable sector, 3.7 jobs were lost elsewhere.
However, the report itself made no mention that it was commissioned by the government.
In fact, the government called the study “misleading,” adding that the industry would actually have the opposite effect on jobs.
According to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the global mean temperature could rise by up to 4.8° Celsius (40.6° Fahrenheit) this century alone. The prediction is seen as a recipe for droughts, floods and rising seas.
Comment: Aside from all of the post-statement twaddle, it is in the very least interesting to see such matters considered in a public mainstream media outlet. While there are mixed sentiments in the above, a formerly taboo viewpoint has at least been forced into the mainstream.
The Climate Change Industry And The Hoax Of Global Warming May 2 2015 | From: FreedomOutpost
This is not just Amerika - but worldwide. Hundreds of billions have already been spent around the globe on a deliberately manufactured panic.
I am not sure who coined the term "climate change industry," but it is an apt description of the snake oil salesmen who have become billionaires on the unfounded and irrational fear of debunked global warming and of climate change based on manufactured consensus science.
The climate has been changing for millennia in cyclical periods dominated by either unusually cold or unusually hot temperatures.
It is convenient to the promoters of the climate change industry to purposefully confound weather events with climate.
Having declared that the "science is settled," the global warming scaremongering environmentalists are moving on to the next target of limiting our property rights and freedoms via carbon footprint and draconian, coal-industry destructive EPA regulations.
After all, the number one threat to national security has been declared to be climate change.
It is not the crushing, out-of-control debt; it is not the planned and unchecked flood of immigrants into countries around the world, changing the demographics and eliminating sovereignty to the benefit of global elitist control; it is not ISIS beheading Christians and occupying the formerly liberated towns and provinces in Iraq; and it is not Iran, with its nuclear bomb program, threatening to wipe Israel off the map - Israel, our ally, and the only sane patch of reality in the Middle East.
The climate change industry has admitted through a Freudian slip that their agenda of climate change is "disrupting national economies, costing us dearly today and even more tomorrow."
Of course, climate has been changing, and we are in a cooling period now, but truth cannot impede the liberal political advocates' agenda of taxing rich countries more, spreading the wealth, and destroying our economy in the name of protecting the Earth.
The climate change industry has managed to transform a natural phenomenon of climate change into a global disaster that needs to be addressed by bureaucrats through fundamentally changing how we live, what we own, how our economies are run, by carbon footprint taxation, Smart Growth, Green Growth state and local programs around the world, and through weather modification spraying of chemicals into the atmosphere.
This spraying of chemicals (chemtrails) is really affecting the weather and the growing season for agriculture, reducing yield. The climate change industry has become such a religion of environmentalism gone berserk that they are now trying to ban farming.
Electricity costs are going up, smart meters that catch on fire have been installed everywhere in order to control people's energy consumption and in-home ambient temperature, and many electricity generation plants are scheduled to be closed due to draconian EPA regulations.
The government's all-out assault to redress climate change through regulatory planning and financial control is having a serious impact on our economy, the coal industry, the oil industry, and on everybody's lives.
The hypothesis that rich nations caused climate change by burning fossil fuels to produce energy has never been proven by IPCC's computer modeling.
The fact that now the hypothesis changed its name from global warming to climate change in the face of obvious 18 years of global cooling is enough evidence that the purveyors of the industry of climate change are desperate but are not giving up.
There is never a shortage of young, idealistic rioters-for-hire who, for a nominal fee will demonstrate anywhere against global warming, even in Quebec in the snow. Fleecing rich countries with carbon taxes is too lucrative a scam to give up the agenda.
The real reason behind the global warming scare and why the United Nations' alarmists have been driving us into forced submission of environmentalist stewardship is that they want capitalism destroyed and replaced with their vision of a utopian communist economy that has never worked across the centuries.
These progressives have a problem with the Industrial Revolution, with "fossil fuels" (They are not so fossil, since the earth keeps producing them), with the only successful economic model that has provided generous income to all these hot-air spewing, idle bureaucrats, who have nothing better to do than meet in exotic locales planning the destruction of the goose that lays the golden eggs that feed their exorbitant lifestyles, salaries, bonuses, and pensions.
Christina Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.'s Convention on Climate Change, disclosed the real reason for the climate change industry when she told us that they are not interested in saving the world from global warming Armageddon, but they want to destroy capitalism:
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution."
The beguiling simplicity of the first sentence of an article in last week’s Dominion Post by Wratt, Reisinger & Renwick (WRR) about the IPCC’s view of climate change masks deep ambiguity and confusion about what precisely the dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) hypothesis is all about.
In that sentence WRR say that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and human influence on the climate system is clear.”
The statement that warming of the climate system is unequivocal; it depends entirely on the time period considered.
For instance, mild global warming occurred between the end of the Little Ice Age (say 1860) and now, and also between 1979 and 1997. However, it is also true that cooling of a degree or two has occurred since the peak of the Mediaeval Warm Period (say 900 AD), and also since the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8000 years ago.
Planet Earth is therefore clearly on a long-term cooling trend within which the 20th century multi-decadal warmings that the IPCC focuses on represent weather variability and oceanographic-atmospheric oscillations more than they do long-term climate change.
It is also the case that no statistically significant warming has occurred since 1997, an 18 year-long period during which atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased by 10%. That 10% increase represents fully 30% of all the human-related emissions since the start of the industrial revolution – all for no warming.
Which brings us back to the real hypothesis that we wish to test. It is not, as WRR seem to believe, that “warming of the climate system (is) happening” but specifically that “dangerous global warming will be caused by human-related carbon dioxide emissions”.
Science is about testing hypotheses, and the facts related above are a primary test of the DAGW hypothesis as just stated. The hypothesis fails that, and many other, empirical tests.
In addition, there is another primary hypothesis that WRR have failed to address, which is the simplest hypothesis that explains all the facts – called by scientists the null hypothesis. Given the highly variable nature of both weather and climate through time, the simplest hypothesis is that “observed modern changes in the climate system, or in plants and animals affected by it, are due to natural causes unless and until specific evidence indicates otherwise”.
Neither WRR nor their favoured IPCC scientific sources describe any evidence whatever that invalidates that hypothesis.
WRR’s innocuous first sentence continues “…. human influence on the climate system is clear”.
Well, of course, for we can’t imagine a single scientist who would dispute that statement.
For example, the building of towns and cities alike replaces natural vegetation and land surfaces with industrial materials, thus providing a heat trap for solar radiation and causing the local warming that is termed the urban heat island effect.
Similarly, in the countryside, farmers cut down dark-coloured native vegetation and replace it with light-coloured crops such as wheat. These fields now reflect more incoming solar radiation than did the native forest, which results in local, human-induced cooling.
Adding up the various human warming and cooling influences around the globe must result in a figure that represents the net human effect on global temperature. But the effect is so small that it has yet to be calculated accurately, let alone measured; indeed, we do not even know whether the net human effect worldwide is one of warming or cooling.
The issue then is not one of “is there human influence” on climate, but of “how great is the human influence and is it warming or cooling?”?
As summarised in the reports of both the IPCC and NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), thousands of scientists have expended hundreds of billions of dollars researching this question since 1988 (formation year of the IPCC) without any evidence emerging that the human effect exceeds the natural, random variations above and below the lineal trend-line employed to portray the global temperature signal, or that any of the manifold changes in the natural world around us today are being caused by human-related carbon dioxide emissions.
Given that it has taken us 824 words to dissect and correct just the single opening sentence of the WRR article, readers will appreciate that it would take nearly a book to adequately discuss, and in many instances correct, the remainder of their tendentious article.
For interested readers, we have provided a point by point commentary on the eleven points enumerated by WRR at this web address - http://tinyurl.com/m8e5bag. Here, we conclude by offering just a brief summary statement of the remainder of the WRR article - which is this.
WRR (and the IPCC) present many statements of fact with which we, and many other scientists, agree. In interpreting those facts, however, WRR fail to use them to test the DAGW hypothesis, fail to disprove the null hypothesis, often treat evidence in an anecdotal way, and reveal a partiality for adopting alarmist environmental projections from deterministic computer models that have failed to make correct predictions.
UN Climate Change: 1,000 Scientists Say No September 19 2014 | From: JonRappoport
It’s a shocking 321-page report assembled by The Climate Depot:
"More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”
It names names. It lists reasons for the dissent.
Reality is engineered consensus. But when that doesn’t work, “experts” just assert there is a consensus when there isn’t.
"What the hell, let’s just say that ‘everybody agrees’ manmade warming is destroying Earth and we have ten minutes to solve it, and let’s get our friends in the press to shut out the naysayers. You know, media blackout.”
Science is supposed to be about evidence and proof, not consensus. But that idea is now laughed out of court. Science is about PR and who sits on the important thrones.
Which is why the UN is holding Climate Summit 2014 in New York in a few days. Yes, the city that never sleeps will be hosting the gala and also kicking off Climate Week NYC 2014.
And then there is this. The UN Secretary General has appointed Leonardo DiCaprio a “messenger of peace, with a special focus on climate change.” Messenger of Peace. Wow. Will Leo appear out of a cloud hovering above the Chrysler Building? Will an angel anoint Leo? Will anybody call the Ghostbusters?
Will Obama show up and read from the teleprompter, “The science is settled, the science is settled…”
Will a CIA drone zoom over Times Square and launch gluten-free electromagnetic love bombs on the adoring crowds?
Will a blimped-out Al Gore waddle into the UN General Assembly hall, trailing fumes from his jet and casting oil leases to a few favored ambassadorial hustlers?
The latest climate science tells us that upcoming freezing weather or boiling hot weather are both reasonable inferences from the basic Climate Change hypothesis. This is, logically speaking, a new brand of tautological “research.” Round and round it goes, inside its bubble.
"Useful predictions? We don’t need no stinkin’ useful predictions. We just need dupes, and we got plenty of them.”
Here are a few excerpts from the boggling Climate Depot report:
“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”
— UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”
— Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the [UN] IPCC.”
— Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.”
— South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
“In December 8 2009, 166 scientists from around the world wrote an Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General rebuking the UN and declaring that ‘the science is NOT settled.’”
“On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS [to] revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: ‘Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.’”
Consensus on manmade global warming? Are you kidding?
The “consensus” is in favor of something else: staging and maintaining a media blackout to conceal the dissenters, to pretend they don’t exist, to pretend “the science is settled.”
Leo DiCaprio, messenger of peace. We’re living in a cartoon of a cartoon.
The Scandal Of Fiddled Global Warming Data June 25 2014 | From: TheTelegraph
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record.
Comment: But the cooked-up man-made global warming data sure does play into the hands of the cabal. It's just what the Doctor ordered for gaining more power, control and theft of money - forcing the stupid sheeple to pay 'carbon taxes' and such.
A scene from 'The Day After Tomorrow': in reality, officially approved scientists fudge the data
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.
Founder Of The Weather Channel On How The Global Warming Scare Began
March 27 2014 | From: ChemtrailsNorth
KUSITV9, 12, March, 2014. A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate. John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years and years.
This is a presentation by John Coleman, an American TV weatherman and founder of The Weather Channel. He now works as a broadcast meteorologist at KUSITV9 in San Diego. He calls global warming “the greatest scam in history.”
Climatists Must Be Pushed Off The Earth Day Stage 21 March 2012 | From Scoop
Activists need to refocus on known environmental problems
Ottawa, Canada, April 20, 2012: “Climatism, the misguided belief that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are destroying Earth’s climate, has overwhelmed the environmental movement,” said Steve Goreham, Executive Director of the Chicago-based Climate Science Coalition of America (CSCA) and author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense and the 21st century’s Hottest Topic. “If activists want to be taken seriously on Earth Day, then they must divorce themselves from this extreme form of environmentalism and focus only on problems we know to be real.”
Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) which is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada observed, “Climatism is damaging the credibility of the environmental movement and diverting governments, concerned citizens and corporations away from solving important air, land and water pollution challenges. It is no coincidence that, as the weak scientific foundation of the climate scare is revealed, the public’s interest in environmental issues in general is plummeting. For their own credibility, indeed for their survival as a meaningful movement, practical environmentalists must cut climatists loose.”
“Despite the failure of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming, there is a very real climate problem,” said ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in Queensland, Australia and author of Climate: the Counter Consensus. “It is the risk associated with natural climate phenomena, including short term events such as floods and cyclones, intermediate events such as drought and longer term warming and cooling trends.”
“The great danger posed by current global warming hysteria is that it distracts attention and resources away from development of sound policies of adaptation to the natural climate variations that are a certain part of our future,” explained Carter. “That only 5% of the world’s spending on climate is dedicated to adaptation (ref: October 27, 2011, Climate Policy Initiative report) is a travesty of the first order.”
New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor added, “All sensible people are environmentalists. Besides the affinity most of us feel towards the natural world, we rely on the environment for the security and well-being of our societies. It's important to reduce, re-use and recycle so as to minimize pollution and protect species at risk. Those are the right reasons for Earth Day, not concerns about the forecasts of unverified climate models that have little meaningful connection with the real world.”
Goreham sums up, “The world spent $240 billion reducing our carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 and more than $1 trillion over the last ten years. This means that twice as much is annually spent on “decarbonization” than total global foreign aid, while billions continue to live in poverty, without electricity, proper sanitation or clean drinking water, and millions die each year from disease. The proponents of Earth Day need to reassess their priorities.”
50 Top Astronauts, Scientists Sign Letter Slamming NASA For Promoting Man-Made Climate Change Dogma 28 March 2012 | From InfoWars
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
Humans Are NOT To blame For Global Warming, Says Greenpeace Co-Founder, As He Insists There Is 'No Scientific Proof' Climate Change Is Manmade
February 27 2014 | From: DailyMail
Patrick Moore has poured cold water on manmade global warming theories
The Canadian said that a hotter earth would actually be better for humans
He said that there's 'no actual proof' of manmade global warming
Moore was a member of campaign group Greenpeace for 15 years
There is no scientific proof of man-made global warming and a hotter earth would be ‘beneficial for humans and the majority of other species’, according to a founding member of environmental campaign group Greenpeace.
The assertion was made by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986, to U.S senators on Tuesday.
He told The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: ‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.
If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.’
Moore pointed out that there was an Ice Age 450million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher. He said: ‘It is extremely likely that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.’
Humans, he added, just aren’t capable of predicting global temperature changes.
MIT Professor Exposes Climate Change Hysteria
January 17 2014 | From: StoryLeak
“Global warming, climate change – all these things – are just a dream come true for politicians.The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense” – MIT Professor Richard Lindzen.
A world-renowned climate expert is speaking out against the government’s ridiculous and continued climate change hysteria.
Speaking in regards to Massachusetts’ new $50 million climate change proposal, MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, a leading figure in the climate change movement, pointed out the absurdity of blaming every weather event on global warming and climate change.
“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” Lindzen told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”
Although supporting the theory of man-made global warming, Lindzen admitted that rhetoric from the political class and green movement has been nothing more than over-the-top “catastrophism.”
“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastrophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.”
Even more surprising, Lindzen goes on to point out the government’s obvious use of climate change alarmism to push greater state control, even warning over politicians’ use of “crony capitalism.”
“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” Lindzen said.
The growing number of failed predictions from alleged global warming experts has only cooled the public’s belief in recent months.
From 2007 to 2009, Al Gore hysterically warned that the North Pole would be completely “ice-free” by 2013. Instead, 2013 experienced record breaking cold and major growth in Arctic ice.
Similarly, Gore made desperate warnings over the danger of increased hurricanes during the same time period. Climate scientists had trouble explaining the record low hurricanes that followed soon after.
In his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance,” Gore went on to claim that global warming would soon wipe coastal areas of Florida off the map in as little as a few decades. Sea level statistics taken 18 years later revealed Gore’s predictions to be completely inaccurate.
White House Science Adviser John P. Holdren, who made failed predictions of global cooling in his 1977 book Ecoscience, blamed the recent “polar vortex” on global warming. Researchers soon uncovered a 1974 Time Magazine article where scientists claimed a cold polar vortex was the result of global cooling instead.
Climate change alarmists have become so crazed in their beliefs that some have attempted to equate skepticism with racism, claiming any denial of global warming is a “sickness” in need of “treatment.”
Unsurprisingly, major environmental issues such as the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster are completely ignored by Gore and company. Given the massive amount of money Gore has continued to make from generating climate fear, it seems unlikely that any real disaster unable to generate cash will receive proper attention.
See the full story with further links at: StoryLeak
Scientists Occupy Wall Street Journal 3 February 2012 | From Scoop.co.nz
A group of expert climate researchers has rounded robustly on 16 scientists who complained in the Wall Street Journal
( No Need to Panic About Global Warming ) that presidential candidates should understand that the statement that "nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming" is not true.
The initial complaint used Auckland academic Dr Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research - and a vocal critic of some aspects of climate change science - as a poster boy for its argument that "many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted-or worse". GA_googleFillSlot("Scoop_Super-Rectangle");
It said that when Dr de Freitas published a peer-reviewed article in 2003 "with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years" members of a "warming establishment" mounted a determined - though unsuccessful - campaign to have him removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. The op-ed page piece also re-visited "Climategate" allegations against another New Zealander, Dr Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the climate analysis section of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.
But a sharply-worded response has now been published in the WSJ - signed by Dr Trenberth and over 30 other scientists from Australia, Canada, Britain, France and the USA - and referred to the group of 16 as the "climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology".
"Most of these authors have no expertise in climate science," it said. "The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert". Observations showed unequivocally that the planet was getting hotter, and computer models had shown that during periods when there was a smaller increase of surface temperatures, "warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean". It pointed out that a quote attributed to Dr Trenberth was used out-of-context and misrepresented .
New Top Scientists’ Statement: ‘No Need To Panic About Global Warming’ From InfoWars.com
New consensus is that there’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy
Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2012
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Special Report Presented To UN Summit - A-Z Climate Exposé From BreakingViewsNZ
The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim -- from A-Z -- the claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing, and in many instances the claims are moving in the opposite direction. The global warming movement is suffering the scientific death of a thousand cuts. This Climate Depot special report categorizes and indexes the full range of climate developments in a handy A-Z reference guide. The A-Z report includes key facts, peer-reviewed studies and the latest data and developments with links for further reading, on an exhaustive range of man-made global warming claims.
Lord Monckton Provides Evidential Proof Of The Climate Change Scam From PrisonPlanet.com
Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Lord Christopher Monckton went further than ever before in his vehement opposition to the elitists running the climate change scam, calling for the UN to be shut down and for fraudulent peddlers of global warming propaganda like Al Gore to be arrested and criminally prosecuted.
Monckton said that those who are threatening to shut down economies, bankrupt nations, and deepen the problems of the third world by implementing draconian policies in the name of global warming should be indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned “for a very long time”.
“The fraudsters and racketeers from Al Gore to the people at the University of East Anglia who have been making their fortune at the expense of taxpayers and the little guy,” should be criminally charged, said Monckton, in response to the climategate scandal.
“We the people have got to rise up worldwide, found a party in every country which stands for freedom and make sure we fight this bureaucratic communistic world government monster to a standstill – they shall not pass,” he added.
Monckton said that the United Nations should be “closed down,” adding that he talked to a senior UN ambassador in Canada who told him that he no longer saw any purpose in the UN and it exists “only to enrich itself at the expense of the nations it claims to serve, it’s time it was brought to an end.”
“We would all save billions if we shut down the UN and just about all of its hideous bureaucracy,” said Monckton.
Lord Monckton emphasized how the emails released as a result of climategate prove that global warming alarmism was still prevalent in public but behind closed doors, warmist scientist are admitting that the “deniers” as they label people like Monckton are correct.
“Publicly they’re saying the science is settled, we’re all doomed unless you close down the economies of the west, whereas privately they’re saying to each other ‘we’ve got it wrong, none of this adds up and it’s a travesty that we can’t explain it’.”
Soros Mouthpiece Calls On Google To Police “Conspiracy Theories” From InfoWars
Stanford scholar wants search engines to flag global warming, vaccine skepticism as thought crimes
Former fellow of George Soros’ Open Society and current Stanford University scholar Evgeny Morozov has called on Google and other search engines to become thought crime enforcers, by providing warnings about websites that contain “conspiracy theories” such as the belief, held by a majority of Americans, that global warming is not primarily man-made.
Morozov, whose biography confirms him as a well-connected insider, decries in a Slate piece how the Internet is a useful tool for “People who deny global warming” as well as “the anti-vaccination movement,” calling on Google to provide a “socially responsible curated treatment” that would marginalize such beliefs by amending search results.
His solution is to, “Nudge search engines to take more responsibility for their index and exercise a heavier curatorial control in presenting search results for issues like “global warming” or “vaccination.” Google already has a list of search queries that send most traffic to sites that trade in pseudoscience and conspiracy theories; why not treat them differently than normal queries?
Marc Morano: Scientific Case For Man-Made Global Warming Fears Is Dead From BreakingViewsNZ
Many of the proponents of man-made global warming are now claiming that climate change is worse than they predicted. According to an Oct. 18, 2011, Daily Climate article, global warming activists claim that the "evidence builds that scientists underplay climate impacts," and "if anything, global climate disruption is likely to be significantly worse than has been suggested.
But a forthcoming Climate Depot A-Z Climate Reality Check report on the failure of the science behind man-made global warming theory will shatter any such illusions that the climate is "worse than we thought." Recent scientific data and developments reveal that Mother Nature is playing a cruel joke on the promoters of man-made climate fears. The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim, the scientific case for man-made climate fears has collapsed. The only thing "worse than we thought" is the shoddy journalism of the mainstream media, which parrots global warming activists' baseless talking points.
Consider these facts:
The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers; the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007; polar bears are thriving; the sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping; cholera and malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions; Mount Kilimanjaro-melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover; global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more as many scientists are predicting global cooling is ahead; deaths because of extreme weather are radically declining; global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows; the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined; the oceans are missing their predicted heat content; big tornadoes have dramatically declined since the 1970s; droughts are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind; there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather; scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement; the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists; and scientists continue to dissent at a rapid pace.
Even President Obama has been criticized by former Vice President Gore for failing to do enough when it comes to climate change legislation. The now-defunct congressional climate bill failed because the Democrats realized it was political suicide. The new political expediency in Washington is global warming skepticism. The U.N. global warming treaty process lies in shambles.
The promoters of man-made climate fears are now reduced to claiming -- as University of California, Berkeley, professor Richard Muller did last week -- that any warming trend equals some sort of "proof" of man-made warming. Those of us who laugh at Gore's mythical "climate crisis" tip our hat to Obama for not pushing very hard for the Congressional Climate Bill and for being so tepid at U.N. climate conferences.
Of course, Obama is still threatening to unleash the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate that harmless trace essential gas we exhale from our mouths -- CO2 -- but that effort will most likely wait until after the next presidential election.
As for Gore and the U.N.'s scientific claims, it has been quite a joy to watch the entire man-made global warming fear movement disintegrate before our eyes. A movement that had the divisive Gore as its face was bound to fail. A movement that utilized the scandal-ridden U.N. -- which is massively distrusted by the American people -- as the repository of science was doomed to fail. Gore is now reduced to pointing to every storm, flood, hurricane or tornado as proof of man-made global warming.
But a scientific moment of clarity is now prevailing: The U.N. and Congress do not have the power to legislate, tax or regulate the weather.
Professor emeritus of biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London explained the crux of the entire global warming debate when he rebutted the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver.
"As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets," Stott wrote.
To put it bluntly, the great man-made global warming catastrophe that was predicted has been canceled! And that is a victory for science.
Marc Morano is publisher of Climate Depot and a former staff member of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Top Scientist Resigns From Post – Admits Global Warming Is A Scam
As reported by the Gateway Pundit : Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.
From the Telegraph (because for some reason the Liberal Media here in the U.S don't like this stuff getting out).
The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave . It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…
New, Convincing Evidence Indicates Global Warming Is Caused By Cosmic Rays And The Sun - Not By Humans FinancialPost.com August 26th 2011 - Source Article
The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.
The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — – demonstrate that cosmic rays can seed clouds, and that the more that cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere, the cloudier it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.
The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”
But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.
“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.
The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.
Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.
CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.
This website is optimised for viewing in Mozilla Firefox