• Feb 12, 2019
    Green New Deal Would Kill Almost Everyone, Warns Greenpeace Co-Founder

    Alex Newman

    Green New Deal Would Kill Almost Everyone, Warns Greenpeace Co-Founder

    CALGARY, Canada - The “Green New Deal” proposed by congressional Democrats is a “recipe for mass suicide” and the “most ridiculo scenario I ever heard,” Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore (shown) warned in an exclive interview with The New American. In fact, Dr. Moore warned that if the “completely prepostero” prescriptions in the scheme were actually implemented, Americans could be forced to turn to cannibalism to avoid starvation - and they still would not survive. Other experts such as Craig Rucker, the executive director of the environmental group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), also sounded the alarm about the “green” proposal in Congress, comparing it to Soviet five-year plans and calling it a “prescription for disaster.”

    The so-called Green New Deal is a massive scheme to, among other goals, restructure the U.S. economy. It is being advanced by a coalition of radical communist and socialist Democrats in Congress led by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). A resolution (H. Res. 109) “recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal (GND)” already has 67 co-sponsors in the Hoe. If the scheme outlined in the resolution expressing the “sense of the Hoe” is implemented, it would seek to eliminate air travel, the eating of steaks, the e of hydrocarbons, and more. It would aim to completely end all emissions of CO2 - an essential gas exhaled by every living person and required by plants - over the coming decade.

    Moore, who was one of six international directors of Greenpeace, was flabbergasted that something so ludicro could even be proposed, much less be advanced in the U.S. government. “It is quite amazing that someone that is in government - actually elected to the government of the United States of America - would propose that we eliminate all fossil fuels in 12 years,” he said in an on-camera interview with The New American from Canada. “This would basically result, if we did it on a global level, it would result in the decimation of the human population from 7-odd billion down to who knows how few people.” It would end up killing almost everyone on the planet, he added.

    Worse than mass death would be the way people reacted. “It would basically begin a process of cannibalization among the human species, becae the food could not be delivered to the stores in the middle of the cities anymore,” Moore continued. “The point that bothers me the most is that if you eliminated fossil fuels, every tree in the world would be cut for fuel. There is no other source for heating and cooking once you eliminate fossil fuels. You could e animal dung, if there were any animals left, but the animals would all die too becae they would all get eaten.”

    Moore also slammed the “social aspects” of the Green New Deal proposals such as “paying people who are unwilling to work,” according to a FAQ released by Ocasio-Cortez’ office. “I can’t believe that anyone would write that in a proposal for law in the United States of America,” he said, calling it “jt unbelievable.” Indeed, that language and other half-baked ideas caed nationwide ridicule of Ocasio-Cortez and others involved in phing the “New Deal.” The ridicule got so intense that one of its proponents eventually lied, claiming that mischievo Republicans might have put out a fake Green New Deal document to make Democrats look ridiculo. But then the truth came out, despite the FAQ being removed from Cortez’s congressional website.

    But the absurdity of it all may be a boost to Republicans and President Donald Trump. “We have a situation where something completely prepostero is being backed by a large number of Democratic congressional elected representatives in the United States of America,” Moore said. “This is actually going to put Trump right over the top. I cannot see how this can possibly be negative for him. It can only be positive, becae people recognize when something is prepostero. And I think that is the best word for it.”

    “The best term for it is actually mass-suicidal,” Moore added. “Why would anyone vote for something that was going to result in the death of nearly all humans on Earth?” As far as what Americans could do who support the environment but not mass suicide, Moore urged people not to vote for anyone who would support the “Green New Deal.”

    Speaking at a conference put on by the Economic Education Association of Alberta over the weekend, Moore also explained that so much of what climate alarmists were phing was pseudo-science and easily discredited lies. For instance, carbon dioxide is actually doing great things in terms of greening the planet - after all, it is plant food, Moore said. He also lambasted those who say coral reefs are dying due to alleged man-made global warming, something he said was not true. Noting that trucks need hydrocarbon fuels to bring produce to market in cities, Dr. Moore explained that jt that one problem alone would be absolutely catastrophic if CO2 emissions were ended.

    Moore has since left the Greenpeace he helped found, becae it left him. When the group was founded, “we wanted to save civilization, we didn’t want to destroy it,” he told The New American. “By the time I left Greenpeace, it had drifted into a situation in which all they had left was the green. They kind of dropped the peace, which was the human side of the situation. And now they were characterizing people as the enemies of the Earth - the human species as the enemies of nature, as if we were the only evil species.”

    One of the most outrageo campaigns by Greenpeace, Moore said, was when the leadership - which had no formal science education - decided to try to ban chlorine e worldwide. “Yes, chlorine can be toxic, it was ed as a weapon in World War I,” he said. “But the fact that it is toxic is why it is the most important element in public health and medicine. Adding it to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health… that has saved hundreds of millions of lives through the time that we learned to e chlorine as an anti-bacterial agent.” Nature, he added, is full of toxic materials. 

    In his own keynote address at the conference, CFACT’s Rucker - who famoly boarded Greenpeace ships to “punk” them with propaganda banners reading “ship of lies” and “propaganda warrior” - explained that much of the environmentalist movement has it backwards. The real key to preserving the environment, he said, is free markets, private property, and prosperity. Poor nations do not have the resources to protect the environment. And socialist-ruled nations have the worst environmental track-records of all. Meanwhile, freer and wealthier nations such as the United States, Canada, Japan, and Western Europe have remarkably clean environments.

    In an interview with The New American, Rucker celebrated freedom. “What’s good for people is good for nature,” he said, calling for pro-growth policies that benefit people rather than government- enforced scarcity. “It’s like the old Chinese proverb: When there is food on the table, there are many problems; when there is no food on the table, there is one problem. Societies that do not take care of their people don’t have the resources to take care of the planet.”

    Rucker, a top leader of the non-totalitarian environmental movement, also slammed the “Green New Deal” being advanced in Congress. “It is a horrible idea,” he said, blasting the original New Deal as well. “But I actually think it is more like the Soviet 5-year plan… They want to be off fossil fuels within 10 years. That is insane. It is not that we are embracing fossil fuels, but this is a government-driven objective much like the old Soviet plans were government-driven objectives. It is going to fail. And the problem is, it is going to take a lot of people down with it… This is going to really hurt people. It is a prescription for disaster.”

    Citing University of Maryland biness Professor Julian Simon, Rucker ed a hilario example to illtrate the point. If the ideology of the stainable-development movement were ed 100 years ago, there would be great concern about where humanity was going to get enough whale oil to e as lighting. But of course, since then, electricity and light bulbs have taken the place of whale oil, thereby eliminating the alleged prospect of resources running out. The same concept applies to other resources, too, he said. When the price goes up due to scarcity, people will find substitutes and new ways of getting what they need - at least they will if markets are allowed to operate. “People are not jt mouths, they are also hands and a brain,” he said. 

    He also drew a distinction between the “conservation” ethic, in which man is included in how to protect the planet, and the “preservation” ethic and the “Deep Green ecology” that views man as a “vir on the planet” that needs to be removed. Obvioly, efforts to conserve nature should have the well-being of man in mind, he said.

    Rucker and Moore both served at keynote speakers at the annual “FreedomTalk” conference Economic Education Association of Alberta. This writer gave a speech focing on the indoctrination of children taking place in public schools - and particularly the implications of it for freedom. Other speakers highlighted the problems with the man-made global-warming hypothesis, the looming public pension disaster, and much more.

    Feb 03, 2019
    Wake up young people

    Despite the failure of predictions (Gore’s 10 claims all failed here) and the top 11 climate alarmist claims (updated rebuttal here), democrats and weak kneed republicans are exploring carbon sequester solutions and energy limitations and some even the Green New Deal.

    It is a political hoax and it endangers our future. Electricity prices would rise 3 to 5 fold and more and gasoline prices if the UN suggested carbon taxes were imposed would be $50/gallon. Good bye prosperity.

    See the results where it has already been tried here (northeast states Regional Greenhoe Initiative and California environmental mandates) and abroad.


    Enlarged

    ------------------

    I have two grown children and three grandchildren. I was fortunate to have been brought up in America. Europe has been the first globalization - one world government and anti fossil fuel experiment. it has failed on many levels. You will never hear about it in the MSM which has strong socialist tendencies..

    Unemployment reached a new high in Europe in 2013. Joblessness in the 17-nation EU currency area rose to 12.2 percent in the spring, EU statistics office Eurostat said, marking a new record since the data series began in 1995. The risk is high that will be your future unless you open your mind and...do your homework on government and the economy.

    Deepening unemployment crisis is a threat to the social fabric of the euro zone. Almost two-thirds of young Greeks are unable to find work, exemplifying southern Europe’s ‘lost generation’. In France, Europe’s second largest economy, the number of jobless rose to a record in April, while in Italy, the unemployment rate hit its highest level in at least 36 years, with 40 percent of young people out of work. In Spain, the overall unemployment reached a record 27.2% due to a combination of the progressive big government anti-biness policies and the enviro phed green energy subsidies. This green ph (wind power is not only a health hazard to humans and deadly to birds (killing millions worldwide including many endangered species like eagles and condors), but among the most inefficient of all energy sources) caed energy prices to skyrocket, shutting binesses or forcing manufacturers overseas.

    In Spain, 2.2 jobs were lost for every green job created and only 1 in 10 green job was permanent. In Italy it was 3.4 jobs lost for every temporary green job, Spain ceased subsidization, but the damage has been done. In Germany where electricity prices have doubled, 800,000 homes had their electricity turned off during the last brutal winter, the 5th straight such throwback winter to the Little Ice Age. In the UK 25 to 50% are still in energy poverty. Many pensioners have had to choose between heating and eating. Bet you did not hear about the many tens of thoands of deaths in the cold. The German government remarked that solar provide 0% of the electrical needs that winter. In December 2010, when the UK had the second coldest December since the Little Ice Age in 1659, the massive wind farms produced less than 0.5% of their energy needs.

    Sadly, even as Europe has soured on the green dream and are furioly building coal and gas power plants, our government was ing Europe as a model. After you graduate with the burden of tens of thoands or in some cases well over $100,000 in college loans, you will find it difficult getting the job you need and deserve and the home you dream about. You can thank your liberal progressive teachers and professors and the last progressive administration for misleading you into the direction this country should head and for the way you voted. Academics have tenure and don’t have to worry about losing their jobs. They are ideologues who refe to concede the policies they and the administration in Washington (mostly Academics without real world experience) support, have caed the number of people working today to be lower than in 2008, and will limit the hiring of graduates in the foreseeable future. When I was a college professor, I taught my students how to think not what to think. Is that happening at your school? If not you are not being educated, jt brainwashed.

    Votes have consequences. The health care bill hurting the middle class (insurance was not down $2,500 as promised but up by that amount for most families for less coverage). You will bear the cost of this monstrosity in the future. You will pay for it big time or if you opt out, you paid a penalty. And you will be burdened with supporting social security and medicare becae the government already ed the deductions to pay for its spending spree. Retirees paid for their support but that money is long gone. The ACA took social security and medicare to a whole new level.

    Despite what you have been told, corporations big and small are not evil. Entrepreneurs are demonized for being successful, but they are the job creators. Penalizing them diminishes the potential you have for getting a rewarding job and successful career. You have been lied to since elementary school in your science classes with the liberal green curriculum on climate change that demonizes fossil fuel energy. It is perfectly reasonable to be green minded and work towards conservation of our resources. But CO2 has been incorrectly blamed for the natural cycles of temperatures and weather extremes of drought, flood, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat and cold. It has been called carbon pollution, a term that really should apply to particulate matter, largely removed from even coal plant effluence with scrubbers.

    In fact, EPA’s own charts show a 30% decline in these small particles and ozone the last three pl decades. Natural gas burns clean. The is exporting fuel oil but no thanks to the administration, which has blocked drilling on all federal lands and offshore and has blocked the Keystone Pipeline. It is the heavy drilling and fracking in states on private land that has made the as big as OPEC. After destroying the coal indtry, the radicals at the EPA wanted to stop this and block natural gas by blocking the long ed fracking process. The last administration admitted openly they want $8 gasoline and heating oil to make their renewables cost seem less onero.

    Instead of a health hazard (inconceivable since every breathe you take emits 100 times more CO2 than is present in the atmosphere), CO2 is plant food and has helped greatly improve global crop yields and feed the increasing population. In future stories, we will show you how all the claims made demonizing CO2 have been falsified by real data (see this rebuttal of 11 top alarmist claims here).

    But isn’t there a consens of scientists on global warming? Sure among the scientists and modelers on the receiving end of some of the hundreds of billions in grants - worldwide $2 trillion is spent on this scam. The Green New Deal would cost more than our entire budget - $32 trillion the next decade that would bankrupt our country (especially if combined with Medicare for all) for no benefit and great pain with unreliable, unaffordable energy supply, brownouts and blackouts, a huge rise in taxes, unemployment, a collapsed health care system.

    But among those not feeding at the trough. 31,487 American scientists have signed a petition, including 9,029 with PhDs that concluded “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhoe gases is caing or will in the foreseeable future, cae catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

    The great author and medical doctor Dr. Michael Crichton said about consens:

    “Historically, the claim of consens has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consens of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, becae you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consens. Consens is the biness of politics.”

    This is a critical time for our country. Please help support our efforts to get the truth to the decision makers and save our Country. DONATE button on the left takes you to Paypal. We are working overtime pro bono to try and get the truth exposed, with no help from the media.

    Jan 23, 2019
    Latest Fake Claims About Greenland Ice Loss

    By Paul Homewood

    --------

    It’s worse than we thought, says the Guardian:


    Enlarged

    Greenland is melting faster than scientists previoly thought, with the pace of ice loss increasing four-fold since 2003, new research has found.

    Enormo glaciers in Greenland are depositing ever larger chunks of ice into the Atlantic ocean, where it melts. But scientists have found that the largest ice loss in the decade from 2003 actually occurred in the southwest region of the island, which is largely glacier-free.

    This suggests surface ice is simply melting as global temperatures rise, caing ghing rivers of meltwater to flow into the ocean and ph up sea levels. South-west Greenland, not previoly thought of as a source of woe for coastal cities, is set to “become a major future contributor to sea level rise” the research states.

    “We knew we had one big problem with increasing rates of ice discharge by some large outlet glaciers,” said Michael Bevis, lead author of the paper (no doubt with Butthead) and a professor of geodynamics at Ohio State University. “But now we recognize a second serio problem: increasingly, large amounts of ice mass are going to leave as meltwater, as rivers that flow into the sea.

    The research provides fresh evidence of the dangers posed to vulnerable coastal places as diverse as Miami, Shanghai, Bangladesh and vario Pacific islands as climate change shrinks the world’s land-based ice.

    “The only thing we can do is adapt and mitigate further global warming - it’s too late for there to be no effect,” Bevis said. “This is going to cae additional sea level rise. We are watching the ice sheet hit a tipping point.

    “We’re going to see faster and faster sea level rise for the foreseeable future. Once you hit that tipping point, the only question is: How severe does it get?”

    The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, ed data from NASA’s gravity recovery and climate experiment (known as Grace) and GPS stations scattered across Greenland to analyze changes in ice mass.

    This showed that Greenland lost around 280bn tons of ice per year between 2002 and 2016, enough to raise the worldwide sea level by 0.03 inches annually. If all of Greenland’s vast ice sheet, 3km thick in places, was to melt, global sea levels would rise by seven meters, or more than 20ft, drowning most coastal settlements.


    Enlarged

    When the long term numbers are not scary enough, concentrate on one year’s weather instead!

    I will explain.

    Science Daily has more detail on the Bevis paper here. For some reason, it does not appear on the PNAS site yet.

    Science Daily elaborate on the “faster than 2003” claim:

    Bevis’ team ed data from GRACE and from GPS stations scattered around Greenland’s coast to identify changes in ice mass. The patterns they found show an alarming trend - by 2012, ice was being lost at nearly four times the rate that prevailed in 2003.

    Bevis said a natural weather phenomenon - the North Atlantic Oscillation, which brings warmer air to West Greenland, as well as clearer skies and more solar radiation - was building on man-made climate change to cae unprecedented levels of melting and runoff. Global atmospheric warming enhances summertime melting, especially in the southwest. The North Atlantic Oscillation is a natural - if erratic - cycle that caes ice to melt under normal circumstances. When combined with man-made global warming, though, the effects are supercharged.

    “These oscillations have been happening forever,” Bevis said. “So why only now are they caing this massive melt? It’s becae the atmosphere is, at its baseline, warmer. The transient warming driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation was riding on top of more stained, global warming.”

    But what happened in 2012?

    Due to that weather event, the NAO, Greenland experienced an unually mild year, with in particular a sunny summer.

    Bevis asks:

    “These oscillations have been happening forever. So why only now are they caing this massive melt? “

    Becae we have only been monitoring the melt for the last decade or two!

    We know that global sea level rise was jt as great in the early to mid 20th century, and there is therefore no evidence whatsoever that melting of the Greenland ice sheet was not jt as great back then.


    Enlarged

    Unsurprisingly, therefore, the Surface Mass Balance of the Greenland ice sheet shrank slightly, due to both reduced snowfall and ice melt:


    Enlarged


    Enlarged

    However, that was the exception. Last year, for instance, the SMB grew much more than the long term mean, as it did the year before.

    Bevis’ claim that ice loss in 2012 was greater than in 2003 is based on one year’s weather, and not the long term trend.

    It is worth emphasizing here that the SMB reflects both snowfall and ice melt, but not calving of glaciers. It is, of course, ice melt that Bevis is mainly concerned about here.

    As we can see from the above temperature chart for SW Greenland, with the exception of 2012, temperatures since 2003 are little different to the 1920s to 40s, the last time the AMO was in warm phase, as it presently is.

    There is simply no evidence at all of Greenland’s climate getting any warmer over the long term.

    As for the lurid threats of multi meter sea level rise, according to DMI loss of ice from the Greenland ice sheet (from all caes) since 2003 has accounted for about 0.65mm a year of global sea level rise, little more than 2 inches per century.

    Feb 12, 2019
    If Saving The Climate Requires Making Energy So Expensive, Why Is French energy so cheap?

    Michael Shellenberger, Forbes

    Ask almost any economist and she’ll tell you the same thing: if you want to save the planet from ‘runaway climate change’, you have to make energy expensive.

    “Economics contains one fundamental truth about climate change policy,” wrote Yale University economist William Nordha in 2008, who won the 2018 Nobel Prize for his work. “For any policy to be effective in solving global warming, it mt raise the market price of carbon, which will raise the market prices of fossil fuels and the products of fossil fuels.”

    Vario policies can be ed to make electricity more expensive. For example, you can tax carbon emissions or put in place air pollution regulations.

    However, the most popular way to make energy expensive is to do what Germany has done and that’s to subsidize solar and wind energies through a surcharge (or tax) on electricity

    But such efforts beg the question: why, if making energy expensive is required to reduce emissions, does France generate less than one-tenth the carbon emissions of Germany at nearly half the cost?

    Germany vs. France

    Few nations have done more to make energy expensive in the name of saving the climate than has Germany.

    A new study by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows how Germany, between 2006 and 2017, increased the cost of electricity for hoeholds by 50%.

    Enlarged

    The report, “The Costs of Decarbonization,” documents how the German government made electricity expensive by requiring consumers to subsidize solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy.

    Lower costs of solar panels and wind turbines haven’t allowed Germans to spend less on renewable energy. In fact, they’ve had to spend more.OECD

    This reality will surprise many journalists and other advocates of renewables who have noted how, over the exact same period, the cost of solar panels and wind turbines has declined dramatically.

    It turns out that those lower costs haven’t allowed Germans to spend less on renewable energy. In fact, they’ve had to spend more.

    Becae solar and wind are inherently unreliable and energy-dilute, Germany has had to spend 27% more on things like transmission lines from distant solar and wind farms spread all throughout the country.

    Has expensive German electricity lowered carbon emissions? It hasn’t. The country’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009. A big part of the reason has been due to the country’s attempt to replace nuclear power plants with solar and wind energies.

    In 2018, German carbon emissions declined modestly, but only becae of unually warm weather and - ironically - higher nuclear output (4.9%) which grew more than renewables did (3.1%).

    Promoters of renewable energy subsidies claimed in 2015 that the cost of electricity would peak in 2023, but the new OECD report concludes that electricity prices will increase as long as Germany keeps deploying solar and wind - in other words, indefinitely.

    French electricity costs are jt 59% of German electricity prices. As such, according to the prevailing economic wisdom, French electricity should be far more carbon intensive than German’s. And yet the opposite is the case. France produces one-tenth the carbon pollution from electricity.

    Why? Becae France generates 72% of its electricity from nuclear, and jt 6% from solar and wind.

    For years, Germany has been pressuring France, which has a smaller economy, to follow its lead and shut down its nuclear plants and scale up solar and wind.EP

    Will France Follow Germany?

    For years, Germany has been pressuring France, which has a smaller economy, to follow its lead and shut down its nuclear plants and scale up solar and wind.

    France has increasingly done what Germany wants. According to the Commision de Regulation de L’Energie, Euro29 billion ($33) billion was ed to purchase wind and solar electricity in mainland France between 2009 and 2018.

    But the money spent on renewables did not lead to cleaner electricity, according to a new analysis by my Environmental Progress colleagues, Mark Nelson and Madison Czerwinski.

    In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity has increased. After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was higher than any year between 2012 and 2016.

    The reason? Record-breaking wind and solar production did not make up for falling nuclear energy output and higher natural gas consumption. And now, the high cost of renewable electricity is showing up in French hoehold electricity bills.


    Enlarged

    German electricity is nearly 10 times more carbon-intensive than France’s EP

    According to Eurostat, although French hoeholds pay 41% less than German hoeholds, electricity in France has, over the past decade, been increasing in price much faster than electricity in Germany.

    “French prices have increased 45% since 2009 as compared to 29% in Germany and 25% in the EU,” note Nelson and Czerwinski.

    This is a problem, they note, becae “Expensive electricity acts as a disincentive to electrify transportation, heating, and cooking, which together constitute a larger share of energy, and carbon emissions, than electricity.”

    The two arrive at a shocking conclion: “France could have completely decarbonized its electricity sector had it spent $32 billion on new nuclear plants rather than on renewables like solar and wind.”

    And were France to keep operating Fessenheim, a nuclear plant scheduled to be closed in 2020, start-up a new nuclear plant called Flamanville, build three more reactors the same size, and operate each nuclear plant an average of 85 percent of the year instead of its current average of 70 percent, it could generate sufficient zero-carbon electricity to completely decarbonize its road transportation sector.

    But France appears unwilling to do that. Instead, France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, announced recently that he will stick with plans to reduce the nation’s age of its nuclear plants, increase its output of renewables, and th - necessarily - increase energy prices.

    As such, Macron appears to have learned little from last year’s Yellow Vests protests, which were triggered after he did what economists and Germans alike have long insisted he mt do in order to address climate change: raise gasoline and diesel prices by taxing carbon emissions.

    Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment.”

    Feb 08, 2019
    Climate change alarmists burned by studies showing destructive wildfires in decline

    Global burned area dropped by about 25 percent over the previo 18 years, study shows

    By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Monday, July 30, 2018

    Scenes of Californians fleeing their homes and Greeks swimming out to sea have fueled alarm about climate change fueling deadly wildfires, but recent studies show that such destructive blazes are on the decline worldwide.

    A September 2017 report in the journal Science found that global burned area dropped by about 25 percent over the previo 18 years, a finding consistent with a May 2016 paper published by the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

    “[G]lobal area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago,” said the study by British researchers at Swansea University.

    Even in California, which for years has wrestled with fire devastation, a study in the International Journal of Wildland Fire found that the number of wildfires burning more than 300 acres per year has been tailing off since a peak in 1980.

    “The claim commonly made in research papers and the media that fire activity is increasing throughout the western A is certainly an over-statement,” the authors, Jon E. Keeley and Alexandra D. Syphard, said in The Orange County Register.

    Mr. Keeley is a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, and Ms. Syphard is with the Conservation Biology Institute.

    Such findings appear to fly in the face of widespread reports that human-caed global warming is increasing the severity and frequency of wildfires by fueling drought and higher temperatures.

    “Extreme heat and wildfires made worse by climate change, say scientists,” an Associated Press article proclaimed this week on NBC News.

    “We now have very strong evidence that global warming has already put a thumb on the scales, upping the odds of extremes like severe heat and heavy rainfall,” Stanford University climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh told the AP.

    Yale Environment 360 declared in an Oct. 2 article, “Stark Evidence: A Warmer World Is Sparking More and Bigger Wildfires,” and concluded that “the fires being seen today ... are man-made, or at least man-worsened.”

    This year’s U.S. wildfire season was forecast to be worse than average, and so far it has kept with predictions, with 98 wildfires blackening 4.6 million acres as of Monday, more than the 10-year average of 3.7 million acres, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

    California has been hit hardest, but firefighters made progress Monday. They lifted some evacuation orders on the Carr fire in Shasta County about 150 miles north of Sacramento, the deadliest and most destructive of the blazes, and reached 30 percent containment on the Fergon fire near Yosemite National Park.

    Six people have been killed so far in the California wildfires, including two firefighters, a great-grandmother and two of her great-grandchildren. About 410,000 acres have burned across the state amid unpredictable winds and high temperatures.

    The death toll in Greece rose to 91 on Sunday as wildfires swept through seaside communities, at one point sending dozens of people out to sea to escape the flames engulfing the resort town of Mati, as shown on a dramatic video.

    California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, cited global warming last week as a factor in his proposal to reduce the legal liability of Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the utility company whose equipment was found to have sparked 15 of the state’s 2017 wildfires.

    Mr. Brown and legislative leaders announced amended legislation July 2 to heighten California’s wildfire response, saying the effort “will help prepare the state to deal with the increasingly extreme weather and natural disasters caed by climate change.”

    In a May report, “Indicators of Climate Change in California,” state Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Matthew Rodriguez said extreme weather events like wildfires are “not isolated incidents.”

    “They are suggestive of the significant and increasingly discernible impacts of climate change in California,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “The most dramatic impacts include wildfires that are larger and more frequent, and the most severe drought since recordkeeping began.”

    Others have argued that news coverage of fire disasters has contributed to the perception that wildfires driven by increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are raging out of control, despite evidence to the contrary.

    “[M]any consider wildfire an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses,” said the Royal Society paper. “However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived trends.”

    In the Western United States, the study found that the limited data on fire severity “indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement.”

    What’s responsible for the drop-off? The Science article pointed to an expansion of agriculture production in savannas and grasslands, resulting in a roughly 25 percent decrease in global burned area “despite the influence of climate.”

    The discrepancy was not lost on climate skeptics such as Atralia’s JoNova, who concluded Monday, “Global warming means a global fall in wildfires.”

    Anthony Watts, who runs the Watts Up With That website, added: “Remember when we were told that wildfires would increase due to global warming? Never mind.”

    University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor Clifford Mass said a host of factors may have contributed to this year’s California wildfires, including a modest temperature increase over the past several decades.

    Add to that the drought, an increase of non-native invasive species, a huge influx of homeowners in fire-prone areas and aggressive fire suppression in the first half of the 20th century that left some forests overgrown and ripe for ignition.

    “So there is a lot of talk of climate change ‘supercharging’ fires, but really no proof of it,” Mr. Mass said in an email. “And some fires are clearly NOT associated with climate change, like the wine country fires of last October.”

    His conclion? “I spect climate change is a minor element in the CA wildfires, while fire suppression and human population growth into the wildlands are the dominant elements.”

    See more on the 11 major alarmist claims here. More detail with charts and data is provided in the clicks following each summary.

    Jan 30, 2019
    Global climate change is political not scientific

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamoro to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H. L. Mencken

    “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H. L. Mencken

    Well before the climate change scare started, we were warned in 1961:

    “… [In] the technological revolution during recent decades… research has become central ... complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government ... the solitary inventor ... has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields ... the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly becae of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”
    - President Eisenhower in his Farewell address

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    His words have been proven remarkably prophetic. What follows are quotes from some of the leaders in that movement. It exposes their true motivations and intentions. It proves this is political not scientific.

    ONE WORLD GOVERNANCE IDEAS BASED ON POPULATION AND RESOURCE WORRIES

    The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite , we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
    - The Club of Rome Premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
    - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about jtice and equality in the world.”
    - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    THE E OF MODELS TO HYPE THREATS

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ”The models are convenient fictions that provide something very eful.”
    - Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangero it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
    - Al Gore, Climate Change activist

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
    - Emerit professor Daniel Botkin

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis...”
    - David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ‘The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”

    - David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism.  I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
    - Judi Bari, Principal organizer of Earth First!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the indtrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    - Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environment Programme

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “A massive campaign mt be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”

    - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of indtrialization, we have in the . We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
    - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund, Princeton Professor

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Global Stainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

    - Professor Maurice King

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “We mt make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We mt reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
    - David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastro for to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, becae of what we might do with it.”
    - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

    - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The future is to be [One] World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance.”
    - Former Washington State Democratic governor Dixy Lee Ray

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Urgent and unprecedented environmental and social changes challenge scientists to define a new social contract...a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding.”
    NOAA’s Administrator Jane Lubchenko, when she was president of AAAS in 1999

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” In simpler terms, replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World government and economic control.
    - UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “One has to free oneself from the illion that international climate policy is environmental policy. “It is not. It is actually about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
    - IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    THE FACT THE MODELS AND ALARMIST CLAIMS ARE FAILING MISERABLY IS IGNORED VIOLATING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

    The great Nobel Laureate Physicist Richard Feynman taught students: “If a theory disagrees with experiment (or data), it’s wrong… That simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, or what your name is… If [your hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Einstein schooled his fellow scientists: “A model or a hypothesis cannot ‘prove’ anything. But data can invalidate a hypothesis or model. It takes only one experiment to prove me wrong.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    Enlarged

    “Whenever you hear the consens of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, becae you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consens. Consens is the biness of politics. In science, consens is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely becae they broke with the consens. (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc). There is no such thing as consens science. If it’s consens, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consens. Period.”

    See Dr. Patrick Moore, ecologist, radical environmental activist and co-founder of Greenpeace talk about his journey to the truth and skepticism. He speaks about the benefits of the demonized gas CO2.


    Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout - Dr Patrick Moore

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change. This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don’t appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famo by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.”
    - Stephen Moore, author of Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Future generations will wonder in bemed amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic...on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections...proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the indtrial age.”
    - MIT professor of atmospheric science Richard Lindzen

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    - Nobel Laureate physicist Ivar Giaever changes his mind on global warming, recognizes it as a psuedoscience.

    -------------------

    Above we have shown in their own words how the indoctrination of the world on the alleged perils of global warming evolved.

    My philosophy when I taught college was to show my students how to think - not what to think. As Socrates said, “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” I told my students that data is king, and models are only eful tools. Any model’s output or any theory needed to be examined and validated ing data, and mt always ed with caution.  We have found no evidence here and here and even more here and here) that any of the claims are right.

    See Stephen Moore’ right-on assessment here.

    ------------

    Judith Curry writes:

    Kelly (2008) argues that “a belief held at earlier times can skew the total evidence that is available at later times, via characteristic biasing mechanisms, in a direction that is favorable to itself.” Kelly (2008) also finds that “All else being equal, individuals tend to be significantly better at detecting fallacies when the fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclion which they disbelieve, than when the same fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclion which they believe.” Kelly (2005) provides insights into the consens building process: “As more and more peers weigh in on a given issue, the proportion of the total evidence which consists of higher order psychological evidence [of what other people believe] increases, and the proportion of the total evidence which consists of first order evidence decreases… At some point, when the number of peers grows large enough, the higher order psychological evidence will swamp the first order evidence into virtual insignificance.” Kelly (2005) concludes: “Over time, this invisible hand process tends to bestow a certain competitive advantage to our prior beliefs with respect to confirmation and disconfirmation… In deciding what level of confidence is appropriate, we should taken into account the tendency of beliefs to serve as agents in their own confirmation.  Kelly refers to this phenomenon as ‘upward epistemic ph.’

    I wrote about that same time on Icecap Why Bringing Sanity Back on Climate Change Won’t Be Easy.

    And see the real story about the Paris Accord and Poland UN Climate Summit: Poland_real_story.pdf

    Feb 08, 2019
    The 10 Most Insane Requirements Of The Green New Deal

    The Green New Deal isn’t jt un-American, it’s also completely bonkers.
    By David Harsanyi

    FEBRUARY 7, 2019
    Note: Ocasio-Cortez’s office has taken down their page describing the Green New Deal.

    A number of Democratic Party presidential hopefuls - including Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Julian Castro, and Beto O’Rourke, for starters - have already endorsed or expressed support for the “Green New Deal” (GND). Today, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Edward J. Markey dropped details about her plan.

    It is not hyperbole to contend that GND is likely the most ridiculo and un-American plan that’s ever been presented by an elected official to voters. Not merely becae it would necessitate a communist strongman to institute, but also becae the societal cost are unfathomable. The risible historic analogies Markey and Ocasio-Cortez rely on, the building of the interstate highway system or moon landing, are nothing but trifling projects compared to a plan that overhauls modernity by voluntarily destroying massive amounts of wealth and technology. That is the GND.

    While some of the specifics need to be ironed out, the plan’s authors assure that this “massive transformation of our society” needs some “clear goals and a timeline."The timeline is ten years. Here are some of the goals:

    Ban affordable energy. GND calls for the elimination of all fossil fuel energy production, the lifeblood of American indtry and life, which includes not only all oil but also natural gas - one of the cheapest sources of American energy, and one of the reasons the United States has been able to lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction.

    Eliminate nuclear energy. The GND also calls for eliminating all nuclear power, one of the only productive and somewhat affordable “clean” energy sources available to , in 11 years. This move would purge around 20 percent of American energy generation so you can rely on intermittent wind for your energy needs.

    Eliminate 99 percent of cars. To be fair, under the GND, everyone will need to retrofit their cars with Flintstones-style foot holes or pedals for cycling. The authors state that the GND would like to replace every “combtion-engine vehicle” - trucks, airplanes, boats, and 99 percent of cars - within ten years. Charging stations for electric vehicles will be built “everywhere,” though how power plants will provide the energy needed to charge them is a mystery.

    Gut and rebuild every building in America. Markey and Cortez want to “retrofit every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.” I repeat, “every building in America.” That includes every home, factory, and apartment building, which will all need, for starters, to have their entire working heating and cooling systems ripped out and replaced with...well, with whatever technology Democrats are going invent in their committee hearings, I guess.

    Eliminate air travel. GND calls for building out “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Good luck Hawaii! California’s high-speed boondoggle is already in $100 billion dollars of debt, and looks to be one of the state’s biggest fiscal disasters ever. Amtrak runs billions of dollars in the red (though, as we’ll see, trains will also be phased out). Imagine growing that biness model out to every state in America?

    A government-guaranteed job. The bill promises the United States government will provide every single American with a job that includes a “family-staining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and a pension.” You can imagine that those left in the private sector would be funding these through some unspecified “massive” taxation. On the bright side, when you’re foraging for food, your savings will be worthless.

    Free education for life. GND promises free college or trade schools for every American.

    A salubrio diet. The GND promises the government will provide “healthy food” to every American (becae there are no beans or lettuce in your local supermarket, I guess).

    A hoe. The GND promises that the government will provide, “safe, affordable, adequate hoing” for every American citizen. I call dibs on an affordable Adams Morgan townhoe. Thank you, Ocasio-Cortez.

    Free money. The GND aims to provide, and I am not making this up, “economic security” for all who are “unable or unwilling” to work. Jt to reiterate: if you’re unwilling to work, the rest of will have your back.

    Bon insanity: Ban meat. Ocasio-Cortez admits that we can’t get zero emissions in 10 years “becae we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” The only way to get rid of farting cows is to get rid of beef.

    The GND es the word “massive” to explain the size “investments” (formerly known as “taxes") 13 times. How will we pay for this plan? “The same way we did the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailouts and extend quantitative easing,” say Markey and Cortez, who earned her degree in economics at an institution of higher learning that should be immediately decertified. The plan itself seems to insinuate that billionaires can pay for the whole thing. Of course, best case scenario, it is estimated that instituting a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent would raise a little more than $700 billion over that decade. She does not explain how we’re going to raise the other 20 bazillion dollars it will cost to tear down modernity.

    Cortez and Markey claim that 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal. I’m not sure where that number is derived. But ask them again when government agents come to take out their water heater.


    Cortez demonstrates the failure of our education system which has indoctrinated instead of educated our young people. There is a new movement to go after universities to recover tuition for their failure to educate (they indoctrinate) and prepare students for real world jobs. Students leave and are qualified for jobs as social media trolls, activists and social jtice warriors but not prepared for real jobs. Students leave with debts equivalent to home mortgages, that will delay or deny their future. I only hope this movement grows and we penalize the schools and eat into their precio endowment money to create more balanced and eful education.

    Markey is a typical Massachetts politician (doesn’t matter if they have a D or R after their name) who is jt full of himself. A friend sat in a restaurant and at the table behind him was someone who spoke loudly and ed the word I more times than Obama at his SOTU addresses - it was Ed Markey. His last job before government was Mr. Frosty.

    All this for what?? It really has little to do with climate which is not becoming more severe (see the updated alarmist claim fact check here) and more here and is solely meant to advance the green agenda and give the government more power over every aspect of out life.

    Feb 01, 2019
    The Green New Deal

    H. Sterling Burnett

    The much-hyped Green New Deal (GND) is being phed by a rump group of progressive-socialists in the Democratic Party, including prominent members of the Senate with stated presidential aspirations. If enacted, GND would constitute a complete socialist makeover/takeover of the economic system of the United States.

    With costs in its first 10 years estimated at nearly $50 trillion dollars, GND would be by far the most costly social and economic experiment in U.S. history. For comparison, the United States has accumulated $21 trillion in debt over its 241-year history.

    While recognizing GND would destroy the economy if adopted, I think is it much less dangero as a proposal than the much more modest and varied iterations of a carbon dioxide tax that have been floated by vario members of the Democratic and Republican parties. Why? Simply becae GND is so far-reaching and economically wrenching, so enormo in scope and intrive into peoples’ lives and livelihoods, it is far less likely to be enacted - at least in whole, in one massive piece of legislation- than a tax on fossil fuel e. The public is already ed to paying gasoline taxes at the pump, along with surcharges on electric power bills and to airlines. Imposing a percent charge or dollar fee on fossil fuels, allowing its costs trickle down throughout the economy in the form of higher prices for goods and services, would allow politicians to escape the blame for the enormo damage the tax would do.

    Most people complaining about the higher costs will mistakenly blame binesses for the raising prices, leaving the politicians and bureaucrats whose actions actually necessitated the higher costs scot-free. And if the past is any guide, the mainstream media will eagerly promote this false view of who is really to blame for higher prices.

    GND, by contrast, is in your face. Voters will know whom to blame when it all goes wrong, costs skyrocket, unemployment rises, and electricity reliability declines. Given that the United States has regular, relatively free and fair elections, huge vested economic interests, and a history of periodic political whiplash in response to much more modest policy changes in the past, it would be virtually impossible to pass GND. That is why even the vast majority of the Democratic cauc is not yet supporting it.

    In short, although taxing carbon dioxide emissions would cost billions of dollars, increase unemployment, hurt the economy, and limit personal freedom, it is entirely possible a carbon dioxide could pass. It’s unlikely with the current split Congress and with Donald Trump as president, but some relatively near-future Congress and president could certainly take the plunge.

    GND, by contrast, would impose dramatic, wrenching changes that are simply not politically possible. (For the purposes of this essay, I’m limiting my discsion to the energy and environmental transformation that would be necessary to end fossil fuel e by 2030, though GND is also chock-full of social-jtice and engineering wish list items.)

    Although it is possible to draw up a scenario in which GND could happen, with the stars aligning perfectly and every policy and economic change necessary to meet the goal of eliminating fossil fuels accomplished successfully, the real world is messy. People, politicians, and countries have differing, often competing, aspirations and visions of what the good life entails, and they make mistakes, fail to find expected and desperately needed resources, and miss deadlines. Those factors and the simple physical requirements of eliminating fossil fuels in 11 years mean GND is impossible, for all practical purposes.

    Consider, for example, the massive change to the electric power grid and the U.S. transportation system necessary to replace fossil fuels with renewable power plants and electric vehicles in jt 11 years. The electric grid and the transportation system were built up over 80 years or more. GND calls for replacing all of this in jt a decade.

    To meet current electric power needs, estimates are millions of wind turbines would have to be erected, millions of solar panels installed, and billions of battery packs stored in millions of homes or at tens of thoands of centralized battery farms that would have to be built. Wind turbines would have to cover one-third of the continental United States, or solar panels would probably have to cover more than 20 percent of the countryside, jt to meet current demand. We would also have to erect thoands of additional electric towers and string thoands of additional miles of transmission lines to get the power from the locations where the wind blows and sun shines regularly - which is where the wind and solar farms will have to be built, of course - to the cities and towns where the power is needed. Talk about a devastating impact on wildlife and wilderness!

    Of course, that’s jt to meet the current demand for electric power. If domestic demand grows, we will need even more turbines, panels, and transmission lines than estimated. More likely, the havoc GND is almost certain to cae in the economy would result in the largest stained depression and economic decline in the history of the United States, caing energy demand to fall as it has consistently done during previo recessions and depressions. For GND proponents, that might be a feature and not a bug, though they certainly aren’t going to tell you that.

    Consider also the billions of dollars cities and investors would lose when the coal and natural gas powered municipal power plants and those operated by investor-owned utilities were idled prematurely by force of law. Stock portfolios would plunge, blowing a gigantic hole in retirees’ pension payouts. Taxpayers would likely be on the hook for billions of dollars to companies and investors when they are forced to close fossil fuel power plants before they are paid off and before the end of their productive lives - facilities which vario state public utility authorities licensed and approved. The cost to taxpayers to pay off these stranded assets would be astronomical. Residents of cities with municipal power systems would still be paying off the debt for the bonds ed to build their publicly owned power plants idled by GND long after the federal government stopped them from generating power.

    And that’s jt the effect on electric power. All gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, ethanol, and natural gas powered vehicles would have to be replaced with electric vehicles. A lot of people would surely object to being forced to mothball their vehicles, especially becae the electric vehicles they would be forced into would be smaller, less powerful, less comfortable, more expensive, and unable go long distances without frequent recharging. People care about these factors more than fuel economy, which is why electric vehicle sales still make up less than 2 percent of the car and truck market despite more than a decade of genero government subsidies.

    Transforming the automobile market would require a total revamping of the supply chain from factories to subcontractors. Foreign cars manufacturers would have to buy into GND also, if they wanted to keep selling cars in the United States. Becae other countries wouldn’t be bound by GND strictures, foreign auto manufacturers might decide to abandon the U.S. market for China, India, and elsewhere rather than going through the expensive restructuring and supply chain changes necessary to build only or primarily electric vehicles.

    Proponents of GND admit the technological transformation required to hit the zero fossil fuel target by 2030 would be akin to a wartime effort. As in World War II but on an even larger scale, all manufacturing would have to be directed away from whatever products we build now - blenders, pump jacks, computers, etc.- to the production of millions of wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, batteries, transmission towers and power lines, rail tracks, cars, engines, and associated technologies for our new green economy. The government would be conscripting all factories, and by extension their workers, into GND’s warlike crade against chimeric climate change. And it would all be for naught, becae global greenhoe gas emissions would continue to rise as a result of economic growth in developing countries that are not foolish enough to impose GND on themselves.

    Meeting GND’s goals for home energy efficiency and resource e would require an unprecedented intrion of government agents into our homes. They would have to come into almost every home to ensure each is fitted with the latest in energy efficient appliances, insulation, home heating and cooling systems, and windows. Say good-bye to your gas-powered stove, dryer, water heater, or fireplace, and toss out that propane grill. Those luxuries would have to be sacrificed under GND.

    Under GND, the government would have to get up close and personal in everyone’s life, requiring, for example, people to purchase government-approved TVs, phones, refrigerators, and other home goods that e less energy. The government would regulate what kinds of hoes and neighborhoods people live in, with energy e being the prime factor federal agents will consider in assessing each home or biness. Factors such as picture or sound quality, load capacity, the ability to clean clothes or plates quickly, square footage, styles of windows and doors, drivability of neighborhoods, or any other personal considerations - criteria that are often more important to people than how much energy an appliance or home es when they buy homes and products-would have to take a back seat to the government’s energy-e mandates.

    Then there are the labor and foreign relations impacts of GND.

    Even if all the millions of truck drivers, gas station and convenience store employees, oil and gas field workers, coal miners, workers at chemical refineries and power stations, and others put out of work by the Democrats’s GND could seamlessly transition to jobs building, installing, and maintaining renewable energy technologies, the United States would have to open its borders to millions of additional migrant laborers in order to get the job done in the truncated timeline required. Perhaps this is why many of the same people phing GND also favor an open-border policy and amnesty for illegal immigrants. We simply could not build, manage, and maintain the equipment, tools, vehicles, and appliances needed with the labor force currently residing in the United States. The United States did something similar in the nineteenth century when we imported Chinese laborers to help build the transcontinental railway. In immigration terms, GND would be the transcontinental railway on steroids.

    Of course, the United States would not have to manufacture all the renewable energy equipment and new technologies required domestically. We could import much of it, as we already do, and likely would be forced to do so becae of resource constraints and labor limitations. Importing more batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, and appliances, however, would make our trade deficit vastly bigger than it already is. In doing so, moreover, the United States would simply be offshoring its carbon dioxide emissions instead of reducing them. In fact, that would very likely increase global carbon dioxide emissions and production of vario air and water pollutants as countries with lower environmental standards than our own ramp up production to meet the large increase in U.S. demand for renewable power technologies.

    The GND would also undermine U.S. national security.

    The technologies required to implement GND require tons of minerals and rare earth elements currently unavailable in the quantities required for this transition. Although the United States has many of these critical metals and rare earth elements, federal regulations make mining them virtually impossible. Proponents of GND show little recognition of the limited ability to access these minerals, or indeed, even that they are necessary components of the green technologies the proposal mandates the United States switch to. Under GND, mining is likely to become more difficult, and this is a serio problem from a national security perspective.

    Currently, the United States is 100 percent import-dependent on China, Rsia, and other nations for more than half of the critical minerals that are the foundation of green technologies. There are competing es for these minerals. They are not jt necessary for the powerful magnets ed in wind turbines and to create thin films for solar panels. They are also ed in our country’s advanced defense systems, such as jets, missiles, and radar and guidance systems, as well as more mundane consumer items such as televisions, cell phones, computers, and gaming systems.

    China and Rsia, among the United States’ top geopolitical rivals, have in the past ed their control of critical minerals to extort economic concessions from binesses and countries and political concessions from governments. The United States fought hard to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, seeing such dependence as an economic and national security threat. Thanks to fracking, the United States has become virtually energy-independent, yet GND would once again subjugate Americans to the whims of often-hostile foreign regimes for our energy supply. This would have catastrophic effects on America’s economic health and domestic security.

    For all of these reasons, even if GND were logistically possible, it would be a hard sell politically. Homeowners, drivers, binesses, workers, national security hawks, and those few politicians still truly concerned about government deficits would likely work together to defeat it. Politically and practically, GND is effectively DOA.

    Most politicians probably aren’t abjectly stupid, and th they mt know GND is impossible. Therefore, one mt assume those phing it have an ulterior motive for doing so. To wit, they are proposing the radical GND to make costly carbon dioxide taxes, increased subsidies for green energy technologies, stricter fuel mandates for cars and trucks, stricter energy requirements for appliances, and more stringent emission restrictions on power plants look moderate by comparison. Any gains they make on these fronts show they are willing to compromise to get things done, they’ll say. They’ll take credit for imposing purportedly environmentally beneficial policies, blame binesses for the price increases and increased unemployment the policies cae, all the while shedding crocodile tears over the fact recalcitrant, environmental blackguards in Congress kept them from enacting the true reform needed, the Holy Grail: the Green New Deal.

    H. Sterling Burnett

    Jan 27, 2019
    Global Warming Myth Debunked: Humans Have Minimal Impact on Atmosphere

    By Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge

    U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism

    A shocking statement was made by a United Nations official Christiana Figueres at a news conference in Brsels.Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Indtrial Revolution.”

    She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:

    “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    I was invited to a major political dinner in Washington with the former Chairman of Temple University since I advised the University with respect to its portfolio. We were seated at one of those round tables with ten people. Becae we were invited from a university, they placed with the heads of the vario environmental groups. They assumed they were in friendly company and began speaking freely. Dick Fox, my friend, began to lead them on to get the truth behind their movement. Lo and behold, they too admitted it was not about the environment, but to reduce population growth. Dick then asked them, “Whose grandchild are we trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?”

    All of these movements seem to have a hidden agenda that the press helps to misrepresent all the time. One mt wonder, at what point will the press realize they are destroying their own future?

    Investors.com reminds Figueres that the only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thoand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

    -------------

    By Jay Lehr and Tom Harris

    Global warming activists argue carbon-dioxide emissions are destroying the planet, but the climate impacts of carbon dioxide are minimal, at worst. Activists would also have you believe fossil-fuel emissions have driven carbon-dioxide concentrations to their highest levels in history. The Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency went so far as to classify carbon dioxide as a toxic pollutant, and it established a radical goal of closing all of America’s coal-fired power plants.

    Claims of unprecedented carbon-dioxide levels ignore most of Earth’s 4.6-billion-year history. Relative to Earth’s entire record, carbon-dioxide levels are at historically low levels; they only appear high when compared to the dangeroly low levels of carbon dioxide that occurred in Earth’s very recent history. The geologic record reveals carbon dioxide has almost always been in Earths’ atmosphere in much greater concentrations than it is today. For example, 600 million years ago, when history’s greatest birth of new animal species occurred, atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations exceeded 6,500 parts per million (ppm) - an amount that’s 17 times greater than it is today.

    Atmospheric carbon dioxide is currently only 410 parts per million. That means only 0.04 percent of our atmosphere is carbon dioxide (compared to 0.03 percent one century ago). Only one molecule in 2,500 is carbon dioxide. Such levels certainly do not pose a health risk, as carbon-dioxide levels in our naval submarines, which stay submerged for months at a time, contain an average carbon-dioxide concentration of 5,000 ppm.

    The geologic record is important becae it reveals relationships between carbon-dioxide levels, climate, and life on Earth. Over billions of years, the geologic record shows there is no long-term correlation between atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels and Earth’s climate. There are periods in Earth’s history when carbon dioxide concentrations were many times higher than they are today, yet temperatures were identical to, or even colder than, modern times. The claim that fossil-fuel emissions control atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations is also invalid, as atmospheric concentrations have gone up and down in the geological record, even without human influence.

    The absurdity of climate alarmism claims gets even stranger when you consider there are 7.5 billion people on our planet who, together, exhale 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year, which is almost 10 percent of total fossil-fuel emissions every year. However, we are but a single species. Combined, people and all domesticated animals contribute 10 billion tons.

    Further, 9 percent of carbon-dioxide emissions from all living things arise not from animals, but from anaerobic bacteria and fungi. These organisms metabolize dead plant and animal matter in soil via decay processes that recycle carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. The grand total produced by all living things is estimated to be 440 billion tons per year, or 13 times the amount of carbon dioxide currently being produced by fossil-fuel emissions. Fossil-fuel emissions are less than 10 percent of biological emissions. Are you laughing yet?

    Every apocalyptic pronouncement you hear or read is nothing short of insanity. Their primary goal is not to save plants, humans, or animals, but rather to e climate “dangers” as a jtification for centralizing power in the hands of a select few.

    Note: Portions of this article have been excerpted with permission of the publisher and author of the 2018 book, “The Mythology of Global Warming” by Bruce Bunker, Ph.D. (Publisher: Moonshine Cove). For more information on this topic, the authors strongly recommend this book, which provides some of the very best information about the climate change debate.

    Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (jlehr@heartland.org) is science director of The Heartland Institute. Tom Harris is executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition.

    A co-founder of Greenpeace and a PhD Ecologist Patrick Moore told the senate, “It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number of elites, including politicians who want to make it seem as though they’re saving the world, environmentalists who want to raise money and get control over very large issues like our entire energy policy, media, for sensationalism, Universities and professors for grants. You can’t hardly get a science grant these days without saying it has something to do with climate change.

    It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religio cult all rolled into one, and it’s taken over way too much of our thought process and way too much of our priorities.” See his talk on his journey to honest credible science.

    -----------

    Empty catchwords reveal a mind that’s unwilling to analyze and debate.

    By Thomas Sowell

    In this era when there has been more information available to more people than at any time in the past, it is also true that there has been more misinformation from more different sources than ever. We are not talking about differences of opinion or inadequate verification, but about statements and catchwords in utter defiance of facts.

    Among the most popular current catchwords are “climate change deniers.” Stop and think. Have you ever - even once in your entire life - seen, heard or read even one human being who denied that climates change?

    It is hard even to imagine how any minimally knowledgeable person could deny that climates change, when there are fossils of marine creatures in the Sahara Desert. Obvioly there has been quite a climate change there.

    The next time someone talks about “climate change deniers,” ask them to name one - and tell you jt where specifically you can find their words, declaring that climates do not change. You can bet the rent money that they cannot tell you.

    Why all this talk about these mythical creatures called “climate change deniers”? Becae there are some meteorologists and other scientists who refe to join the stampede toward drastic economic changes to prevent what others say will be catastrophic levels of “global warming.”

    There are scientists on both sides of that issue. Presumably the issue could be debated on the basis of evidence and analysis. But this has become a political crade, and political issues tend to be settled by political means, of which demonizing the opposition with catchwords is one.

    It is much the same story on economic issues. Any proposal to reduce income tax rates is sure to bring out claims that these are “tax cuts for the rich,” based on the “trickle-down theory” that reducing the taxes collected from the rich will cae some of their wealth to “trickle down” to people with lower incomes.

    Here, yet again, all you need to do is think back over your own life, and ask yourself if you have ever - even once in your entire life - seen, heard or read a single human being who advocated this “trickle-down theory.”

    Certainly none of the innumerable fellow economists I have encountered in my 88 years ever advocated any such theory. Nor am I aware of anyone else, in any other walk of life, who has done so.

    Yet there are ringing denunciations of the “trickle-down theory” in books, articles, and in politics and the media. That theory has been denounced as far away as India.

    The next time someone talks about the “trickle-down” theory, ask them to tell you where specifically you can find the writings, videos, or any other evidence of someone advocating that theory. You may get some very clever and creative evasions of your question, but no actual answer.

    One of the best-selling history textbooks did name Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon as having said in the 1920s that letting the rich pay less taxes would allow their wealth to “trickle down” to others. It was one of the very rare examples that actually named a name.

    Unfortunately, what this widely ed history textbook attributed to Andrew Mellon was the direct opposite of what he actually said. In Mellon’s own book, Taxation, he said that wealthy people were not paying enough tax revenue to the government, becae they put their money into tax-exempt securities.

    Mellon called it “incredible” that tax laws allowed someone making a million dollars a year to pay not a cent in taxes, and an “almost grotesque” consequence that people of more modest incomes had to make up the shortfall.

    He understood, however, that higher tax rates did not automatically mean higher tax revenues. So when the tax law changes that he advocated cut tax rates, the income tax revenues actually hit a record high at that time. Moreover, the rich paid more tax revenue and a much higher percentage of all income tax revenues than before.

    Issues in both economics and science can get complicated. But when one side of those issues has to resort to demonstrably false catchwords, that should give a clue.

    Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

    Dec 03, 2018
    Dr. Willie Soon vers the Climate Apocalypse

    By Dr. Jeffrey Foss

    More honesty and less hubris, more evidence and less dogmatism, would do a world of good

    Dr. Jeffrey Foss

    “What can I do to correct these crazy, super wrong errors?” Willie Soon asked plaintively in a recent e-chat. “What errors, Willie?” I asked.

    “Errors in Total Solar Irradiance,” he replied. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change keeps ing the wrong numbers! It’s making me feel sick to keep seeing this error. I keep telling them - but they keep ignoring their mistake.”

    Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon really does get sick when he sees scientists veering off their mission: to discover the truth. I’ve seen his face flh with shock and shame for science when scientists cherry-pick data. It ruins his appetite - a real downer for someone who loves his food as much as Willie does.

    You have got to love a guy like that, if you love science - and I do. I’m a philosopher of science, not a scientist, but my love for science runs deep - as does my faith. So I cannot help but admire Willie and his good old-fashioned passion for science.

    Willie Soon may one day be a hoehold name. More and more he appears at the pointy end of scientific criticism of Climate Apocalypse. In two recent lawsuits against Big Oil, one by New York City and the other by San Francisco and Oakland, Dr. Soon is named as the “paid agent” of “climate change denialism.” As the man who - Gasp! - singlehandedly convinced Big Oil to continue biness as ual.

    Can you even imagine that? I can’t: Big Oil couldn’t turn off its taps in big cities even if it wanted to.

    Putting such silly lawsuits aside, it is a big honor, historically speaking, for Dr. Soon to be the face of scientific rebuttal of Climate Apocalypse, since feeding the developed world’s apocalypse addiction is the main tool of a powerful global political agenda.

    The IPCC - along with the United Nations and many environmentalist organizations, politicians, bureaucrats and their followers - desperately want to halt and even roll back development in the indtrialized world, and keep Africa and other poor countries permanently undeveloped, while China races ahead. They want Willie silenced. We the people need to make sure he is heard.

    Dr. Soon never sought the job of defending against the slick, computer model-driven, anti-fossil fuel certainties of Climate Apocalypse. Willie jt happened to choose solar science as a career and, like many solar scientists, after nearly three decades of scientific research in his case, came to believe that changes in the sun’s brightness, sunspots and energy output, changes in the orbital position of the Earth relative to the sun, and other powerful natural forces drive climate change. In brief, our sun controls our climate.

    Even the IPCC initially indicated agreement with him, citing his work approvingly in its second (1996) and third (2001) Assessment Reports. That later changed, significantly. Sure, everyone agrees that the sun caed the waxing and waning of the ice ages, jt as solar scientists say. However, the sun had to be played down if carbon dioxide (CO2) was to be played up - an abe of science that makes Willie sick.

    Unfortunately for the IPCC, solar scientists think solar changes also explain Earth’s most recent warming period which, they point out, began way back in the 1830s - long before we burned enough fossil fuels to make any difference. They also observed the shrinking of the Martian ice-caps in the 1990s, and their return in the last few years - in perfect time with the waning and waxing of Arctic ice caps here on Earth.

    Only the sun - not the CO2 from our fires - could cae that Earth-Mars synchronicity. And surely it is no mere coincidence that a grand maximum in solar brightness (Total Solar Irradiance or TSI) took place in the 1990s as both planets’ ice caps shrank, or that the sun cooled (TSI decreased) as both planets? ice caps grew once again. All that brings back to Dr. Soon’s disagreements with the IPCC.

    The IPCC now insists that solar variability is so tiny that they can jt ignore it, and proclaim CO2 emissions as the driving force behind climate change. But solar researchers long ago discovered unexpected variability in the sun’s brightness - variability that is confirmed in other stars of the sun’s type. Why does the IPCC ignore these facts? Why does it insist on spoiling Willie’s appetite?

    It sure looks like the IPCC is hiding the best findings of solar science so that it can trumpet the decreases in planetary warming (the so-called “greenhoe effect") that they embed in the “scenarios” (as they call them) emanating from their computer models. Ignoring the increase in solar brightness over the 80s and 90s, they instead enthiastically blame the warmth of the 1990s on human production of CO2.

    In jt such ways they sell their Climate Apocalypse - along with the roll-back of human energy e, comfort, living standards and progress: sacrifices that the great green gods of Gaia demand of if we are to avoid existential cataclysms. Thankfully, virgins are still safe - for now.

    Surely Willie and solar scientists are right about the primacy of the sun. Why? Becae the observable real world is the final test of science. And the data - actual evidence - shows that global temperatures follow changes in solar brightness on all time-scales, from decades to millions of years. On the other hand, CO2 and temperature have generally gone their own separate ways on these time scales.

    Global temperatures stopped going up in the first two decades of this century, even though CO2 has steadily risen. The IPCC blames this global warming “hiat” on “natural climate variability,” meaning something random, something not included in their models, something the IPCC didn’t see coming.

    This confirms the fact that their models do not add up to a real theory of climate. Otherwise the theory would be falsified by their incorrect predictions. They predicted a continuo increase in temperature, locked to a continuo increase in CO2. But instead, temperature has remained steady over the last two decades, while CO2 climbed even faster than before.

    IPCC modelers still insist that the models are nevertheless correct, somehow - that the world would be even colder now if it weren’t for this pesky hiat in CO2-driven warming. Of course, they have to say that - even though they previoly insisted the Earth would not be as cool as it is right now.

    Still, their politically correct commands stridently persist: stay colder in winter, stay hotter in summer, take cold showers, drive less, make fewer trips, fly less, don’t eat foods that aren’t “local,” bury your loved ones in cardboard boxes, turn off the lights. Their list of diktats is big and continuoly growing. 

    Unlike the IPCC, Willie and I cannot simply ignore the fact that there were multiple ice ages millions of years ago, when CO2 levels were four times higher than now. And even when CO2 and temperature do trend in tandem, as in the famo gigantic graph in Al Gore’s movie, the CO2 rises followed temperature increases by a few centuries. That means rising CO2 could not possibly have caed the temperature increases - an inconvenient truth that Gore doesn’t care about and studioly ignores.

    Unfortunately, through their powerful political and media cadres, the IPCC has created a highly effective propaganda and war-on-fossil-fuels vehicle, to herd public opinion - and marginalize or silence any scientist who dares to disagree with it. For better or worse, richer or poorer, my dear, passionate Dr. Soon is one scientist who is always ready to stand in the path of that tank and face it down: anytime, anywhere.

    I’m frightened by the dangers to Willie, his family and his career, due to his daily battles with the Climate Apocalypse indtry. I can’t get it out of my mind that the university office building of climatologist John Christy - who shares Willie’s skepticism of Climate Apocalypse - was shot full of bullet holes last year. But let’s not let a spattering of gunfire spoil a friendly scientific debate. Right?

    Willie’s courage makes me proud to know him, and to be an aficionado of science like he is. When it comes to the long game, my money is on Dr. Willie Soon. We the people hunger for truth, as does science itself. And that hunger will inevitably eclipse our romantic dalliance with the Climate Apocalypse.

    Dr. Jeffrey Foss is a philosopher of science and Professor Emerit at the University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

    ------------

    Current Solar Cycle The 3rd Quietest In More Than 250 Years Of Observation
    By P Gosselin on 26. December 2018

    The sun in November 2018
    By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
    (Translated by P Gosselin)

    Our sun was also very much less active in November than normal, comparing all solar cycles 1-23 up to month no. 120 since since the beginning of the systematic survey in 1755, the first year of solar cycle 1.The latest observed SSN (sunspot number) was a meager 5.9 for the monthly average.

    On 16 days the sun was completely “spotless”. The maximum number over the days of November was 15, which does not mean that there were 15 spots - no, the number indicates that 5 spots were observed in a maximum of 1 spot group.  So there was very low spot activity, only 20% of the average value.


    Fig. 1: The current solar cycle 24 (red) compared to a mean cycle calculated as the average of cycles 1-23 (blue) and cycle 5 (black), which for years was quite similar and observed around 1800.

    Fig.1 clearly shows that we had probably already arrived at the solar minimum at the beginning of 2018 (month 110 in the diagram). Will there be another “flare up” like in SC 5? The probability is rather low.

    A comparison of all the observed solar cycles so far, 120 months into the cycle:


    Fig. 2: The summary (between the observed SSN numbers and the respective mean value (blue in Fig.1) for all cycles up to the current cycle month 120 of SC 24.

    The measurements of Cycle 24 are well recorded. It is very likely that we will stay in the minimum for another year with very little activity. This can also be seen in the solar polar fields, which stagnate at their maximum value. To illtrate this, we have graphically processed them as mean values from the solar northern and southern hemispheres. We always looked at the same time period, between the zero point (it is the respective spot maximum) and 2110 days afterwards, that is the last measuring point of the SC24 on November 27, 2018:


    Fig. 3: The temporal development ( of the polar solar fields of the sun since 1980. The strength in the spot minimum, at the end of the respective graph when the fields become stationary and hardly change, is a good indicator for the activity of the subsequent cycle.

    Figure 3 shows very clearly how hesitantly the increase in the current cycle occurred. The three predecessor cycles showed a much faster development after the zero crossing. Later, SC 24 then settled on a slightly higher value than SC 23. This could mean that SC 25 could become slightly stronger from 2020. But one should not expect too much accuracy from the method. It is clear that SC 25 will by far not become as strong as SC23 and 22, i.e. sub-normally active, see Fig. 2.

    We’ll keep you up to date!

    Also see new papers???” that support the solar changes and likely cooling.

    Sep 03, 2018
    Endangerment Finding delenda est

    Replacing Clean Power Plan with less harmful ACE rule does not fix fraudulent CO2 science

    Paul Driessen

    As the Punic Wars dragged on, Cato the Elder reportedly concluded every speech to the Roman Senate by proclaiming “Carthago delenda est” - “Carthage mt be destroyed.”

    Ample evidence suggests that the Obama era Environmental Protection Agency’s “Endangerment Finding” was devised in violation of basic scientific and transparency principles that ignored or excluded extensive evidence that contradicted its preordained outcome. The EF was then ed to jtify anti-fossil fuel rules that serioly harmed the energy security, jobs, health and welfare of millions of Americans.

    The Finding mt be reexamined. If these contentions are validated, it mt be reversed and demolished.

    In its 2007 Massachetts v. EPA decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that EPA mt determine whether emissions of carbon dioxide and certain other atmospheric gases “cae or contribute” to “air pollution” that may be “reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” If the agency found the answer was yes, then it had to regulate those emissions. The Bh EPA failed to take action.

    However, candidate and President Obama had promised that he would eliminate coal-based electricity generation and “fundamentally transform” America. It was th a foregone conclion that his EPA would quickly find a dire threat existed. On December 7, 2009, EPA issued its Endangerment Finding (EF): that carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other “greenhoe gases” (GHGs) were pollutants that did indeed “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations” of Americans.

    The Obama EPA then promulgated its “Clean Power Plan,” which shut down numero coal mines and coal-fired power plants, eliminated thoands of jobs and severely impacted factories, families and communities across the United States. The CPP also spurred the shift to unreliable wind and solar power.

    However, any CPP climate change, health and welfare benefits are at best undetectable, in part becae the rest of the world - from China, India, Indonesia and Southeast Asia to Atralia, Germany and Poland - continue to build thoands of coal-fired power plants and put millions of vehicles on the road.

    Recognizing this, President Trump pulled the A out of the Paris climate treaty. His EPA has proposed to replace the Obama Clean Power Plan with an “Affordable Clean Energy” (ACE) plan that lets states take the lead in devising GHG emission reduction programs that best serve their individual energy needs.

    These are important steps. But they are not enough, becae they perpetuate the false claim that plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide is a “dangero pollutant.” Even worse, leaving the EF in place would enable any future anti-fossil fuel administration to impose new economy-strangling, welfare-degrading rules.

    Worst of all, leaving the Finding unchallenged and ignoring the way it was concocted and implemented would sanctify some of the most fraudulent and dictatorial Deep State bureaucratic actions in history.

    In devising its EF, the Obama EPA did no new research and made no effort to examine the full range of studies and evidence readily available on natural vers manmade climate change. It jt cherry-picked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports; deliberately excluded studies that contradicted its predetermined finding; and relied on temperature and extreme weather predictions by computer models.

    The IPCC itself had long ago ended any pretense of trying to understand the interplay of natural and human influences on Earth’s climate. Instead, for political reasons, it had decided to foc on human fossil fuel e and GHG emissions as the only important factors influencing modern climate change. Its reports reflect that approach - and ignore the growing and readily available body of contrary studies and evidence, such as volumes of studies summarized by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

    The Obama EPA team even removed one of its most senior experts, who had prepared a contrarian report.  “Your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision,” his supervisor told him. EPA consulted with alarmist scientists and environmentalist groups, but ignored moderates and IPCC critics.

    The computerized climate models relied on by EPA are programmed to reflect the assumption that rising atmospheric CO2 levels are the primary factor determining climate and extreme weather. However, the average prediction by 102 models is now a full 1 degree F above what satellites are actually measuring.

    In fact, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels climbed well above the supposed 350 ppm “tipping point” (they reached 405 ppm in 2017), except for noticeable short-term temperature spikes during El Nino ocean warming events, there has been virtually no planetary warming since 1998 or at least 2002.

    Moreover, Harvey finally ended a record 12-year absence of Category 3-5 hurricanes making landfall. Tornados are no more frequent than in the 1950s. Droughts differ little from historic trends and cycles. Seas are rising at jt seven inches per century, and Antarctic and Arctic ice are largely within “normal” or “cyclical” levels for the past several centuries. Indeed, reports of vanishing Arctic ice go back nearly a century and low ice levels were documented by Francis McClintock and other explorers long before that.

    In many cases, older temperature records were adjted downward, modern records got bumped upward a bit, and government-paid scientists relied on measurements recorded near (and contaminated by) airport jet exhats, blacktop parking lots, and urban areas warmed by cars, heating and AC vents.

    Humans might well be “contributing” to temperature, climate and weather events, at least locally. But there is no real-world evidence that “greenhoe gases” have replaced natural forces or are caing unprecedented climate chaos or extreme weather; no evidence that those emissions are “endangering public health and welfare” or that humans can control Earth’s perpetually fickle climate by controlling emissions.

    Far from being a “pollutant,” carbon dioxide is the miracle molecule without which most life on Earth would cease to exist. The more CO2 in the air, the faster and better crop, forest and grassland plants grow, and the more they are able to withstand droughts, diseases, and damage from insects and vires.

    In fact, a slightly warmer planet with more atmospheric CO2 would be tremendoly beneficial for plants, wildlife and humanity. A colder planet with less carbon dioxide would greatly reduce arable land extent, growing seasons, wildlife habitats, crop production and our ability to feed humanity.

    Equally important, over 80% of energy still comes from fossil fuels - and the countless benefits of those abundant, reliable, affordable fuels (and their CO2 output) exceed the EPA’s alleged “social costs of carbon” and “human health and welfare impacts” by at least 50 to 1, and perhaps as much as 500 to 1.

    On a closely related matter, contrary to the “97% consens” myth, scientific debate continues unabated over recent and future global warming, cooling, storms, droughts, sea levels and other “adverse effects” from oil, natural gas and coal e. Computer models and alarmist climate specialists say the threats are serio. Real-world observations and moderate to skeptical climate experts vigoroly disagree.

    The Obama EPA’s Endangerment Finding ignored all of this. It likewise dismissed the extravagant raw material requirements of expensive wind, solar and biofuel “alternatives” and their adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitats. That makes the 2009 process even more spect and fraudulent.

    There is no demonstrable, much less dire or unprecedented, danger to American health and welfare from continued CO2 emissions. The danger is from anti-fossil fuel policies jtified by the EF and IPCC.

    Simply put, in concocting its Endangerment Finding, the Obama EPA violated the cost-benefit analysis policies and basic standards for honest, open, informed, replicable science. With so much of America’s energy, economy, environment, health and welfare at stake, this cannot be allowed to continue.

    The Trump Administration mt disavow the “CO2 drives climate change” tautology and stop viewing the Endangerment Finding as “established” law and policy. It is no more established or acceptable than were the Supreme Court’s reprehensible 1857 Dred Scott and 1896 Plessy v. Fergon decisions.

    It is time to reexamine the Endangerment Finding, give it the intense Red Team scrutiny it deserves, and relegate it to the dtbin of history. The Endangerment Finding delenda est.

    Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of books and articles on energy, climate change, economic development and human rights.

    Aug 25, 2018
    Join the Fight for Skepticism in Schools

    David Wojick

    Let the fight begin

    In March the Heartland Institute fired a big broadside right into the teaching of climate change alarmism in America’s schools. They began sending Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming directly to many of the Nation’s science teachers. Of course the alarmists went nuts, especially Sen. Sheldon “jail the skeptics” Whitehoe, who denounced Heartland’s bold move in a series of letters to vario education groups.

    My group is now taking the next skeptical step. We are crowd funding the Climate Change Debate Education (CCDE) project. While Heartland’s effort explains skepticism to teachers, our goal is to explain it to the students. You can make donations here.

    Our project will establish a website portal that collects and distributes materials to teach about the climate debate. Once established and given sufficient funding we will also produce new teaching materials. The long term goal is to build a collection that systematically addresses all of the important climate science issues at the appropriate grade levels. Our target audience is not jt teachers, but parents, friends of students and the students themselves.

    There are presently a lot of alarmist websites offering one-sided classroom materials teaching the false dogma of dangero human induced climate change. That this alarmism is highly debatable is nowhere to be seen on these websites. So we want to counter these alarmist websites with one that teaches about the real debate, between alarmism and realistic skepticism.

    Both the Federal government and many advocacy groups maintain websites that distribute alarmist climate teaching materials. These materials teach that dangero human induced climate change is settled science, which is far from true.

    For example, the CLEAN website is funded jointly by NOAA, NSF and DOE. CLEAN stands for Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network. In fact “climate literacy” is code for the false belief that humans are caing dangero climate change. CLEAN says it has over 600 free, ready to e resources suitable for e in secondary and higher education classrooms. They also boast that they are the core of the “Teaching Climate” part of the federal Climate.gov website. This is Government bias targeting children.

    All of CLEAN’s teaching materials are biased and based on this false premise. The reality is that dangero human influence on climate is completely unproven and the subject of intense scientific debate. That only the scary side is being presented as settled science is a severe lack of balance.

    Creating balance in climate science education

    The first step toward creating balance in climate education is to provide teaching materials that properly present the scientific debate as it actually is. We propose a phased approach to this effort. First an implementation phase then, if funding is available, a production phase. Here the goal is to recruit and guide volunteers who will produce highly targeted teaching materials. In particular, there is a need for simple, yet well designed, lesson plans that teach a specific scientific issue to a specific grade level.

    These lesson plans need to be tailored to the state standards, which typically dictate what topics are taught in which grades. There are numero specific scientific issues that need to be taught at different grade levels. Each potential lesson needs to be simple and compact, designed to fit into the mandated curriculum. Moreover, each lesson mt stand alone, becae teaching time is limited.

    Getting around the gatekeepers

    We will also develop short, handout types of materials as a way to get around what we call the gatekeepers. Gatekeepers are doctrinaire people who make it hard to get balance into the classroom. It may be the principal, the teacher’s supervisor or even the teacher.

    Our handouts will be something that a parent or student can bring to class. It is normal for students to bring supplementary materials to class, especially when the topic is controversial. In the case of climate change, surveys have also shown that parents often become involved. As with the lesson plans, these handouts will be highly foced, nonpolitical, and tailored to a specific grade level. Since they will be online they can easily be emailed as well. Th the gatekeepers cannot prevent their distribution.

    Target audiences

    There are three distinct target audiences - teachers, parents and students. Teachers need lesson plans, which are relatively specialized documents. Students need materials written at their grade level. Parents need non-technical information that they can explain to their children or e to confront a gatekeeper. Of course teachers and non-parents can e this information as well. The website will be organized in such a way that each group can find what they need.

    It is important to keep in mind that many K-12 science teachers do not have science degrees, nor do most parents. K-12 is not the place to go into the technical details of climate science. Simplicity is the key.

    Feb 09, 2018
    New England’s needless energy crisis

    By Karen Harbert

    A new study conducted by the independent grid operator in New England includes a stark warning for utilities, politicians and ctomers. While the United States has already become the world’s leading energy producer, ISO New England’s research shows that the region may have to rely on increasing amounts of imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) to meet its future power needs, even though it sits on the doorstep of one of the world’s largest natural gas fields.

    The research is consistent with the region’s lack of natural gas infrastructure that was highlighted in our own report ‘What if Pipelines Aren’t Built into the Northeast’ released last year. This shortage means that the region could face a regular risk of rolling winter blackouts by 2024 and would have to rely on more expensive fuel and overseas LNG to meet peak demand.

    Worse, the problem is so severe that emergency measures will likely be necessary almost every winter by the mid-2020s, with the grid operator estimating that rolling blackouts would be necessary in 19 out of the 23 scenarios they studied.

    ISO New England’s study concluded with a blunt assessment of the problem: “while the e of natural gas for both heating and power generation is growing, the natural gas supply infrastructure is not expanding at the same pace, resulting in natural gas supply constraints in winter. Given the region’s current and growing reliance on natural gas, limitations on the region’s natural gas delivery infrastructure are the most significant component of New England’s fuel-security risk.”

    None of this should come as a surprise to those who have been following the energy debate in New England over the past few years. The region has seen closures of many of its coal and nuclear plants, making it increasingly dependent on natural gas generation. A lack of infrastructure has already led to residential electricity prices that are 44 percent higher than the U.S. average, and 62 percent higher for indtrial ers. New Englanders are also paying 29 percent more, on average, for natural gas.

    The impact of those high prices is significant. Our report found that if additional pipeline infrastructure isn’t built, it will cost New England more than 78,000 jobs and $7.6 billion in regional GDP by 2020.

    Of course, the irony is that neighboring states like Ohio and Pennsylvania sit above the Marcell and Utica Shales, two of the world’s richest gas reserves. Unfortunately, an aggressive and well-funded campaign by extreme activists has fought against and prevented new pipeline projects that proposed to deliver this energy resource to New England markets.

    Projects like the Northeast Energy Direct, Access Northeast and Constitution pipelines could bring abundant and affordable Pennsylvania gas to New England, but activists have successfully lobbied regulators to deny key permits necessary for pipeline construction.

    These misguided efforts have actually worked against regional environmental goals. While renewable sources of energy show great promise, they also require backup sources that mt be quickly scaled up to meet peak demand and pick up the slack when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. People still need fuel to heat their homes and power their binesses, schools, and hospitals.


    Enlarged


    Enlarged

    But becae of a lack of infrastructure, rather than ing cheaper and cleaner domestic fuel from neighboring states, New Englanders are forced to pay more to burn fuel oil and import higher-priced natural gas from overseas to meet their energy needs. Neither of these scenarios makes economic or environmental sense.

    New England needs modern infrastructure to compete. Energy infrastructure is no exception. We applaud the current administration’s foc on revamping our nation’s infrastructure, and hope New England is included. It’s time for state and local lawmakers to face reality and put consumers over extreme special interests to ensure affordable, reliable energy for all of their residents.

    Karen Harbert is the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute.

    WHERE’S THE BEEF?


    Enlarged


    Enlarged

    Feb 06, 2018
    Fake Nobel Prize Winner Blasts Meum For Ties To Billionaire Climate Skeptic

    By Chris White

    A climate scientist infamo for incorrectly claiming he once won the Nobel Prize is criticizing a meum for not being faithful to the truth and facts becae of its association with a billionaire climate skeptic.

    A so-called climate denier does not deserve a leadership position at the American Meum of Natural History, according to Penn State University professor Michael Mann. He was referring to Rebekah Mercer, a wealthy conservative who sits on the meum’s board of trtees.

    ‘A natural-history meum mt be accurate, faithful to the facts and trted by the public,” Mann wrote Monday in an editorial for The News York Times. He urged the meum to distance itself from Mercer, a supporter of President Donald Trump and donator to conservative caes.

    Mann has consistently been called out for falsely claiming to have co-won the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Vice President Al Gore.

    The prize was awarded to Gore that year for his “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change,” according to the panel.

    Mann claimed in his lawsuit in 2012 against conservative pundit Mark Steyn and National Review that he was a Nobel Laureate, but the Nobel committee has consistently rebuked this claim. Mann went on to slam the meum and Mercer for not adhering to the truth and scientific standards.

    “For years, many scientists were hesitant to come out of their labs and speak up for fear that truth-telling would result in personal attacks or threaten their professional credibility,” said Mann, who gained fame for his “hockey stick” graph showing global temperature rise - Gore eventually ed the academic’s graphs in his documentary, “Inconvenient Truth.”

    Mann and a handful of scientists ed a super PAC to get their colleagues to align against Trump during the presidential election over the president’s willingness to “embrace of conspiracy theories, anti-science attitudes, and disregard for experts.”

    The group, Not Who We Are PAC, wasn’t heavily involved during the election, compared to the tens of millions spent by other super PACs. The group has only spent $23,000 on ads targeting Trump, according to federal filings.
    \
    Mann dismissed the idea that the ph against Mercer is a politically partisan issue. He later suggested the meum move to e the Mercer family’s donations “to develop exhibitions and programs that educate the pubic about the climate-denial machine that illuminate its history of ing propaganda to obstruct pro-climate action and the document how we’ve arrived at this current crisis point for the planet.”

    Nov 27, 2017
    In Germany, Reality Is Triumphing Over Political Posturing On Climate

    November 21, 2017/ Francis Menton

    Germany—that’s the place where there really is a 100% consens on the need for immediate action to solve the supposed “climate crisis.” It’s the land of the “Energiewende”—the forced transition to the e of intermittent renewables like wind and solar to generate electricity.  It’s the place where—as I noted in this post back in September -- no major political party has dissented on the need to act on the “climate” issue.  It’s the place that has happily driven its age of renewables to generate electricity up to about 30% of the supply, and therefore its cost of residential electricity up to more than triple the average U.S. price.  It’s a place where anyone questioning the so-called “science” underlying the warming scare can expect to be greeted with derision and scorn.  And yet, somehow reality still seems to be intruding.

    Over the weekend, the talks among political parties in Germany to form a coalition government collapsed.  As of now, nobody seems to know what is going to happen next.  And—even though there is little overt dissent on the virtue of reducing carbon emissions—it seems like the ever-more-evident costs of this “climate” program are starting to drive events.

    Jt to set the table, let me remind readers about the state of the political playing field on this issue in Germany and the rest of Europe and other major countries.  A good background article is this one from Dana Nuccitelli in the Guardian from October 2015, “The Republican Party Stands Alone in Climate Denial.” The article summarizes some work from Norwegian political scientist Sondre Batstrand, analyzing the positions on this issue of all conservative political parties from countries including the A, UK, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Canada, New Zealand, Atralia, and Germany.  The conclion:

    [Batstrand] found that the Republican Party stands alone in its rejection of the need to tackle climate change and efforts to become the party of climate supervillains.

    That’s not the only example of over-the-top rhetoric in the piece.  For example, Nuccitelli quotes Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine on the position of then-candidate Jeb Bh on this issue:

    In any other democracy in the world, a Jeb Bh would be an isolated loon, operating outside the major parties, perhaps carrying on at conferences with fellow cranks, but having no prospects of seeing his vision carried out in government.

    In Germany, a political party needs to get 5% of the vote in an election to get any seats in the Bundestag.  As an indication of how correct Batstrand was, in the previo (2013) election, the only party that could remotely be considered a climate dissenter, AfD, got only 4.7% and no seats.  Another party, FDP—a free market classic liberal party and not really climate dissenters, but legitimately concerned about the costs of “climate” policies—got 4.8% and also no seats.

    In the recent elections in September, those two parties suddenly got, between them, 23.3% of the vote and 24.6% of the seats.  And suddenly Angela Merkel needs one or both of them to form a coalition government.  Oh, and she also needs the Green Party.  How is that playing out?  An impasse!  Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation reports this morning:

    Most remarkable: Germany’s failed and increasingly unpopular climate policies are at the core of the crisis. It also signals the collapse of Germany’s decade-old climate consens.  While the Green Party demanded the immediate shut-down of 10-20 of Germany’s 180 coal power plants, the Liberal Party (FDP) stood by its manifesto promise of a radical reform of the Energiewende, advocating the end to subsidies for renewable energy.

    Experts at the Federal Ministry of Economics had warned participants at the exploratory coalition talks that Germany will miss its legally binding 2020 climate targets by a mile and that trying to achieve its 2030 goals would risk the economic prosperity of the country.  The Ministry also warned that any attempt to force a radical reduction of CO2 emissions :by 2020 would only be possible by partial de-indtrialisation of Germany.”

    Climate biness as ual is no longer an option for the Liberals [aka FDP]. The party fears that a fast exit from coal-fired power generation, as demanded by the Greens, would result in severe social, economic and political problems. A continuation of radical climate policies would affect Germany’s main coal regions, not least in Eastern Germany where the right-wing protest party Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) had gained significant support in the federal elections in September.

    So, if you were to go around the streets of the major cities of Germany and take an opinion survey, you will find very close to one hundred percent agreement on the need to ‘take action’ on climate change immediately.  But what?  Does this mean that we will be putting thoands of coal miners out of a job, and more thoands of utility workers at coal plants out of a job, and driving the cost of electricity from three times the U.S. average to five times or maybe ten, and making our electric grid not work right any more, and by the way also “partially de-indtrializing” Germany?  Wait, you didn’t tell about those things!


    Enlarged

    I’m actually hoping that Chancellor Merkel does a deal with the Greens and maybe the S
    DP, and continues down her road of green folly.  The real world needs some concrete examples of actual disaster to teach a lesson in reality. 

    -----------
    On cue: The Green Empress has no clothes

    By Viv Forbes

    During December 2017, Germany’s millions of solar panels received jt 10 hours of sunshine, and when solar energy did filter through the clouds, most of the panels were covered in snow.  Even committed Green Disciples with a huge Tesla battery in their garage soon found that their battery was flat and that there was no solar energy to recharge it.

    The lights, heaters, trains, TVs, and phones ran on German coal power, French nuclear power, Rsian gas, and Scandinavian hydro, pl unpredictable surges of electricity from those few wind turbines that were not iced up, locked down in a gale, or becalmed.

    Germany has long supported two incompatible ideas: engineering excellence and green totalitarianism.  Angela Merkel’s support of climate alarmism while preaching energy efficiency continues this discordant tradition.

    But King Winter has exposed the weak underbelly of Germany’s energy policy.  Empress Merkel now faces a hostile political climate with no clothes.

    The green energy retreat has started in the green energy movement’s own heartland.

    Further Reading:

    Germany gets 10 hours of Sunshine for December 2017:
    http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/03/dark-days-for-german-solar-power-country-saw-only-10-hours-of-sun-in-all-of-december/#sthash.JBk2C8XQ.dpbs

    Germany’s climate change hypocrisy:
    http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/11/germany-becomes-new-poster-child-climate-change-hypocrisy/

    Wind Turbines produce Zero Global Energy:
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/

    Mugged by Reality - German Climate Consens Collapsing:
    http://mailchi.mp/thegwpf.org/germanys-climate-consens-is-collapsing?e=e1638e04a2

    During December 2017, Germany’s millions of solar panels received jt 10 hours of sunshine, and when solar energy did filter through the clouds, most of the panels were covered in snow.  Even committed Green Disciples with a huge Tesla battery in their garage soon found that their battery was flat and that there was no solar energy to recharge it.

    The lights, heaters, trains, TVs, and phones ran on German coal power, French nuclear power, Rsian gas, and Scandinavian hydro, pl unpredictable surges of electricity from those few wind turbines that were not iced up, locked down in a gale, or becalmed.

    Germany has long supported two incompatible ideas: engineering excellence and green totalitarianism.  Angela Merkel’s support of climate alarmism while preaching energy efficiency continues this discordant tradition.

    But King Winter has exposed the weak underbelly of Germany’s energy policy.  Empress Merkel now faces a hostile political climate with no clothes.

    The green energy retreat has started in the green energy movement’s own heartland.

    Further Reading:

    Germany gets 10 hours of Sunshine for December 2017:

    Germany’s climate change hypocrisy:

    Wind Turbines produce Zero Global Energy:

    Mugged by Reality - German Climate Consens Collapsing:

    Read more.

    Apr 06, 2016
    “…climate change is UN hoax to create new world order”

    Trump gives hope to derailment of the establishment’s plans (both parties) for a New World Order - which would cede our rights and control over our lives including a redistribution of any wealth to the UN.

    Update: see the whole story behind the story in their own words in Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caed Global Warming Advocates/Supporters by C3 Headlines.

    Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famo columnist: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamoro to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” And, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

    We start with Mencken’s quotes becae they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religio; the studio; the famo; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping “the populace alarmed” to further their own personal, selfish goals.

    The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

    Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previo paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose an ‘Agenda’ based on their elite values and self-importance. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

    See the quotes here.

    ---------

    Atralia PM’s adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order

    Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott’s biness advisory council, says UN is ing debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule.

    The Atralian prime minister’s chief biness adviser has acced the United Nations of ing debunked climate change science to lead a new world order - provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.

    Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Atralia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production.

    Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Atralia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders’ summit in Brisbane last year.

    Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s biness advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was ing false models showing stained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.

    “The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Atralian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN....

    “It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a hoehold topic to achieve its objective.”

    Figueres ed an address in Melbourne to urge Atralia to move away from coal, the country’s second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming.

    “Economic diversification will be a challenge that Atralia faces,” she said.

    Abbott has described coal as “good for humanity” and the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future.

    Figueres also urged Atralia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott’s track record.

    At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth.

    At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was “crap”, repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.

    Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: “No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables.”

    Abbott’s office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Sep 23, 2015
    In regards to the false 97% “consens”

    Derek Alker

    Updated: Public and many to most real scientists are unconvinced.

    From: Malcolm Roberts [mailto:malcolmr@conscio.com.au]
    Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 12:07 PM
    To: UQ VC OFFICE
    Cc: John Cook; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; FORBES VIV; Carter Bob; Plimer Ian; Jennifer Marohasy
    Subject: D15/7927: Complaint of serio corruption of science by UQ’s John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

    Dear Professor Hoj:

    As an honours engineering graduate from the University of Queensland I am inquiring of you as to the reasons our university supports the work of John Cook who serially misrepresents climate and science? Specifically, why is our university wasting valuable funds to mislead the public through a free course and by producing associated international video material?  Course

    Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here.

    It details John Cook’s fabrication of an unscientific ‘consens’. Science is not decided by claims of consens. Resorting to claims of consens is unscientific and contradicts the scientific process.

    Fabricating false claims of scientific consens is not honest.

    Science is decided by empirical scientific evidence. John Cook has repeatedly failed to provide any such evidence that e of hydrocarbon fuels is caing the entirely natural climate variability we experience.

    A succinct summary of John Cook’s fabrication of a consens, and of the corruption of science upon which his claims rely and that is furthered by his claims, and of the empirical scientific evidence he blatantly contradicts, are discsed in pages 6-18 of my report to federal MPs Senator Simon Birmingham and Bob Baldwin. It is available at this link

    My seven years of independent investigation have proven that there is no such empirical scientific evidence anywhere in the world. Climate alarm is unfounded and is a purely political construct phing a political agenda. Please refer to Appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7 and 8 at this link.

    John Cook’s core public climate claims are false and blatantly contradict empirical scientific evidence. Please refer to appendix 4 at the same link.

    Further, John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists and I’m wondering if that would make his work a serio offense.

    As you likely know, John Cook works closely with the university’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who reportedly has many serio conflicts of financial interest surrounding his false climate claims. These are discsed on pages 54-59 of Appendix 9 at this link and briefly on pages 16 and 17 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin MP.

    I draw your attention to my formal complain dated Wednesday 10 November 2010 to the university senate about the work of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg misrepresenting climate and science. That was not independently investigated by then Vice Chancellor Paul Greenberg who was subsequently dismissed over another event, reportedly for a breach of ethics. My formal complaint is discsed on pages 57 and 58 of Appendix 9 at this link.

    Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s responses to my request for empirical scientific evidence of human caation of climate variability have repeatedly and always failed to provide such evidence.

    This email is openly copied to both Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook and to reputable Atralian scientists and academics expert on climate and to Viv Forbes an honours graduate in geology from our university. Viv Forbes understands the key facts on climate and on the corruption of climate science by beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm perpetrated falsely by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook.

    Please stop John Cook’s misrepresentations and restore scientific integrity to our university. I please request a meeting with you to discs our university’s role in deceiving the public and to discs restoring scientific integrity. I would be pleased for that meeting to be in the company of John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if that suits you.

    Pages 19-26 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin discs the serio damage to our nation and to humanity and our natural environment worldwide as a result of unfounded climate alarm spread by our university’s staff. I hope that you will fulfill your responsibility for investigating and ending such corruption. To neglect to do so will mean that you condone such damage and dishonesty. I seek confidence that you will restore the university’s scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.

    Yours sincerely,

    Malcolm Roberts

    BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society

    Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAIMM, MAME (A), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (A, At)

    ------------

    The 97% “consens” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

    “The ‘97% consens’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

    Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

    Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consens According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science

    In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2.

    See faulty methodology of Cook study.

    The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consens” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science. See the list here.

    ----------------------

    See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”

    ----------

    See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhoe Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.

    -----------

    From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary

    PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

    SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

    DENIER: Anyone who spects the truth.

    CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

    NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

    DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

    CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

    JUNK SCIENCE: The e of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of caation which simply cannot be jtified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge

    --------

    Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.

    NOTE:

    See all the talks at the latest ICCC9 Conference in Las Vegas in 2014 here.

    Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV.  If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.

    ----------------------

    See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.

    -----------------------

    See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.

    The left loves to reference desmogblog.com when any skeptic produce an analysis or paper challenging CAGW - see the real story about this looney left green PR firm here.

    ---------------

    1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.

    “The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of vario papers. There are many more listings than jt the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”

    The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic caes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.

    See still more annotated here.

    --------------

    Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.

    The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.

    ---------------

    See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.

    Go to and become a member of WeatherBell Analytics here.

    Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here. It’s latest report (2013) details information from almost 4,000 papers.

    Science and Public Policy Institute here.

    Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

    RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

    The Weather Wiz คาสิโนออนไลน์ แจกเครดิตฟรี See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)