Fighting back is not easy. 1.5 trillion has funded this hoax (including many millions from Exxon and BP), while at the same time they accuse our side of being shills for big oil.
Some are brave to speak out including my friend and superstar Willie Soon, Harvard Astrophysics scientist.
Willie and his former Harvard colleague Sallie Baliunas did some great work early on refuting the hoax. The target was put on their backs and they were viciously attacked. Sallie was the consultant for the TV series Star Trek. She published with colleagues some excellent papers rebutting the idea it had to be CO2 driving climate. They called her work on climate the worst ever published but time has shown it proven to be right. The continuous attacks and an episode when Sallie’s dog was found suspiciously dead in her yard pushed her to an early retirement. Willie stayed engaged and remains prolific and vocal. His office was invaded by Greenpeace who took his computer and they claim it showed he had made $1.2 M in grants over 20 years. Of course this was grant money given to Harvard - of which Willie gets maybe half. You can be sure if Willie sold out and became a ‘player’, he would be getting maybe 50 to 100 times that $60k/year.
I worked for Friends of Science on a project over a decade ago ISPM, where we were to review the latest IPCC report and extract information from the science sections (not the Summary for Policymakers which was written by statesmen and and lead authors on a mission). Some very good scientists were part of the large group of researchers that along with statesman, environmentalists, and even college students, wrote the sections. We spent 6 months on our extraction process intending to show the story was far less certain and far more complicated than the summary implied. We were paid a small amount (maybe $1200) for our efforts. The immediate claim was that the ‘denialist report’ was paid for by big oil. That was not the case. It came from donations to the organization and was a drop in the bucket compared to the millions warmists get from an NSF and NGOs and Foundation funds all run amuck.
Personally I had a few experiences. While at WSI, I was invited to a Museum in Vermont where two of my former students worked to give a talk on Climate Change. A researcher who had a strong warmist opinion objected to my appearance and tried to get me cancelled and even threatened a boycott. The talk went well. He commented in a post afterwards, he could not understand how I could challenge the science and said I must be dirty with coal money.
Later, I was invited by Vermont Public Radio to debate him but he threatened to not show if I was invited and they replaced me with someone who wrote a book on carbon - the element not the gas CO2. I listened on the internet and my nemesis spent his time bashing skeptics most notably Fred Singer.
I was invited to speak at the college I taught at a few years later and was harassed during my talk by an attendee who said ‘that can’t be true’ again and again to what I showed. Finally the Head of the Department told him to hold off on questions to the end where he tried to dominate the Q&A.
Later I received a request from the museum to be part of a ‘lively debate’ on climate change that a women’s group had requested in the area. I could not attend so I arranged for two scientists (a college professor and a NASA scientist who gives talks and chairs conferences worldwide) to be invited. They agreed but the warmist scientist refused to debate them and the museum uninvited our two scientists. The left likes to proclaim diversity of opinion but that is only if your opinion agrees with theirs. That same warmist scientist who blocked the two debates was part to the RICO 20 that signed a petition to take skeptic scientists to court and charge them with RICO violations. They suddenly backed off as someone advised them - most were sitting on tens of millions in grant money - that it could actually be turned on them. That same warmist scientist had a web site with a page proudly listing the tens of millions in grant money he had made in his career in Vermont. That page disappeared from his site.
I did have one successful debate in MA. The NWS Winter Workshop tried to organize a debate and called college professors across the state and they said the time to debate was over - the science was settled. They would come if the topic was what major steps must be taken to combat warming and its results. NWS did find a new professor who had just complete Al Gore’s course. At the start of the debate a hand survey of the attendees showed 75% believed in AGW and 25% were skeptical. After the debate, the numbers flipped roughly to 75% who had become skeptical and 25% who still believed. The flip were similar to the Intelligence Squared debate with Lindzen and Chrichton and Stott versus Ekwurzel, Schmidt and Somerville around 2007.
I given talks at MENSA meetings, at EMA, Rotary Clubs, at other colleges and at professional society meetings which went well.
I debated a UCS environmentalist at the NH Science, Technology and Energy Committee a few years back. He started by saying he was not a modeler but a data guy and went on to spend his hour talking about data from the models!! I was invited to speak in CT at a similar committee and after a member gave a talk on the great things that had done (tyaxes and regulations) to fend off the 12-14F warming and 10 foot sea level rises coming> After they finished, I was supposed to talk. The chair of the committee (DEM) announced an ad hoc press briefing in the hall and asked all the media and other DEMS to join her. I spoke to a smaller receptive group. I got no media coverage.
I am working on potential briefings and seminars. I will let you know. All of these efforts are pro bono and have to be worked into a week where I work 7 days. I do it because frankly i am worried.
-------------------------
UN Boss: Use “Climate Action” to “Transform the World”
By Alex Newman
KATOWICE, Poland - As the most important United Nations “global warming” summit since the 2015 confab in Paris kicked off in Katowice last week, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres (shown) declared that so-called “climate action” offers a “compelling path to transform our world.” Even your “mind” must be transformed, he said. Many other proud socialists, communists, and globalists have also called for using the man-made global-warming hypothesis to transform the world. And they are not kidding.
Photo of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres: Copyright cop24.gov.pl
In fact, the man-made global-warming theorists in attendance at the UN summit here are working to exploit alarmism over the “climate” to restructure every aspect of human life. This includes the economy, industry, governance, and even your thinking, Guterres declared. The sought-after global transformation will also involve more government promotion of feminism, planetary taxes on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a total transformation of governance, and so much more, explained Guterres, a longtime socialist leader who led the Socialist International before becoming UN boss.
But as the wheels come off the bandwagon with top world leaders such as President Donald Trump rejecting the UN alarmism, UN leaders are becoming even more alarmist. One UN chief, UN General Assembly president Maria Espinosa, even claimed mankind was “in danger of disappearing” if humanity refuses to submit to the UN agenda. “We need to act urgently, and with audacity,” she exclaimed. “Be ambitious, but also responsible for the future generations.”
The World Wildlife Fund, a radical group promoting tyranny and globalism under the guise of “environmentalism,” has billboards and fliers here claiming humans are an “endangered species.” Asked whether this was due to abortion and population control, a WWF representative at the booth in the COP24 venue responded that no, it was because of “climate change.”
Guterres, a fervent globalist, ludicrously claimed hurricanes that struck the Caribbean last year were “emergencies” that “are preventable,” as if hurricanes were caused by refusal to submit to carbon taxes quickly enough. Speaking some days afterwards at the COP24 summit, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore made similarly dishonest claims, pointing to everything from snow fall to bad weather to argue that human activity and choice needed to be further curtailed.
“It is hard to overstate the urgency of our situation,” Guterres continued in his fear-mongering speech. “Even as we witness devastating climate impacts causing havoc across the world, we are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption. Nor are we doing enough to capitalize on the enormous social, economic and environmental opportunities of climate action.”
In America, socialists are using virtually the exact same rhetoric. Speaking last week alongside self-described Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, self-styled “democratic” socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for using the “climate” agenda to implement her fringe vision for America. “[We] can use the transition to 100 percent renewable energy as the vehicle to truly deliver and establish economic, social and racial justice in the United State of America,” she exclaimed.
Indeed, globalists and socialists have made clear on repeated occasions that they view the phony “climate crisis” as an “opportunity” to achieve their “social” and “economic” goals - namely, wealth redistribution, government controls over ever-larger swaths of human activity, social engineering, and more. And throughout the conference, that was clearly on display as every globalist special interest group came to link its totalitarian agenda to the “climate” bandwagon.
“Climate action offers a compelling path to transform our world for the better,” Guterres continued. “In short, we need a complete transformation of our global energy economy, as well as how we manage land and forest resources. We need to embrace low-carbon, climate-resilient sustainable development.” For those who are unfamiliar with UN-speak, “sustainable development” is code for government-directed development and global technocratic rule.
All of this can be accomplished through the mechanisms agreed to by Obama and other “leaders” in 2015 at the UN “climate” summit in France. “The Paris Agreement provides a framework for the transformation we need,” Guterres said, calling for “concerted resource mobilization” and “transformative climate action in five key economic areas - energy, cities, land use, water and industry.”
According to the UN boss, all of this transformative action must be geared toward shackling humanity to what is euphemistically dubbed the “green economy.” Reading the descriptions given of this “green” economy, it becomes immediately apparent that it is a lot like the “red economy” of yesteryear. The difference: the justification is primarily “environmental” in nature, rather than relying on the discredited communist “ideology” so tainted in the public mind following the institutionalized mass murder of over 100 million people just in the last century.
The “green” economy “means embracing carbon pricing,” Guterres continued, arguing that the gas exhaled by every human being is “pollution"that must be taxed and regulated. This “green” economy also means vastly increasing the scope of the welfare state and the level of dependence on government among individuals. Those workers whose “sectors” face “disruption” must have “retraining” from government, as well as a “social safety net.” In other words, when you lose your job due to the “green” economy, the government will take care of you and your family - maybe.
Spending some $100 billion per year will provide a “positive political signal.” This money is supposed to go into the UN Green Climate [Slush] Fund to help bribe Third World governments into cooperating with the scheme. More will be required later, naturally. At the moment, the U.S. government is prohibited by law from providing money to this fund, but Obama did it anyway, and the next president may try to do it as well.
“Decisive climate action today is our chance to right our ship and set a course for a better future for all,” Guterres continued. “The transition to a low-carbon economy needs political impetus from the highest levels...We need a full-scale mobilization of young people. And we need a global commitment to gender equality, because women’s leadership is central to durable climate solutions.” Gender policy, feminism, and the indoctrination of children are all key, as countless other UN leaders have also made clear.
Shortly after his initial speech, Guterres gave another, focusing on similar themes, including the “transformation of the real economy” that the UN and its member governments must oversee in energy, industry, nature, cities, and much more. “I count on multiple new transformational commitments from governments, business, finance and civil society in each of these areas,” he added. “To achieve genuine transformation in the real economy, we need national governments to play a crucial role in each of the robust coalitions which will deliver concrete transformative outcomes.”
Finally, the UN Secretary-General made clear that even your mind was in the UN’s cross-hairs. “The Paris Agreement is not a piece of paper. It is a historic compact among nations, a compact to ensure our survival” he said, as if mass murderers who enslaved nations - Kim Jong Un, the Castro regime, Islamic dictatorships, and others like them - were actually nations. “This coming year we must put it to use to transform our economies, our minds, and our future.” This has been a recurring theme with the UN.
All sorts of companies, non-profit groups, “religious” leaders, “civil society” organizations, Big Oil, and others were tripping over themselves to sign on. At an event featuring Guterres and other top UN bosses, for example, a number of globalist mega-banks with trillions of dollars in combined lending vowed to “put their balance sheets to work” in advancing the warmist agenda. “It shows that banks are becoming increasingly ready to take the bold steps needed to play our part in achieving a low-carbon economy,” said ING CEO Ralph Hamers, one of many cronies jumping on the bandwagon.
Critics and scientists, though, were outraged at all the talk of transformation, citing the pseudo-science underpinning the whole effort. “Why do all the scientists and politicians and rent-seekers continue to play the games of the urgent need to stop CO2 from rising by changing to ‘renewable’ energies while Paris is literally burning because people cannot afford to pay more taxes for nothing in return?” wondered astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
In a statement to The New American, Dr. Soon slammed the anti-energy movement for attacking reliable, cheap and abundant energy while people are in dire need. “How about the energy needs of Africa, India, China and South America: can they all really live purely from the ‘clean’ energy of the Sun and Wind?” he asked. “This is truly a sad tale of third rate scientific studies and fake evidence dressing up to rob the world of cheap and abundant energy.”
Even President Trump slammed the effort to fundamentally transform the world under the guise of climate, too. “The Paris Agreement isn’t working out so well for Paris. Protests and riots all over France,” said Trump on December 8, trolling the UN summit and embattled French President Emmanuel Macron. “People do not want to pay large sums of money, much to third world countries (that are questionably run), in order to maybe protect the environment. Chanting ‘We Want Trump!’ Love France.”
As the UN global-warming alarmists finalize their “rule book” for implementing the UN Paris Agreement and restructuring the world, opposition is growing in tandem worldwide. Trump, incoming Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, the anti-warmist tax revolt in France, and other developments hung like a cloud over the COP24 in Katowice. But as has become clear, a wide range of totalitarians from all over the world - socialists, globalists, communists, Islamists, and others - are all hoping to weaponize the “climate” alarm they cooked up to advance their dangerous agenda.
It is not too late to stop them. But Americans must act now.
See how the energy activists has hurt our country in this report CHAMBER BLASTS ANTI-FOSSIL FUEL ACTIVISTS FOR COSTING ECONOMY OVER $91 BILLION IN LOSSES: The Chamber of Commerce and trade unions took aim at anti-fossil fuel activists in a scathing report that concluded that the form of environmentalism slowed economic activity by over $91 billion in the U.S. in 2018.
“Taken together, anti-energy activism has helped prevent at least $91.9 billion of economic activity in the United States, which is larger than the entire economies of 12 states,” according to the report, “Infrastructure Lost: Why America Cannot Afford To ‘Keep It In the Ground’”
-------
Watch Dr. Don Easterbrook address the Washington State Senate committee on Climate Change in 2013.
Update: Please see this email by Federico Pecchini that draws on Tony Heller’s work captures a lot of what has been done and the reasons to ‘Gruber’ (MIT’s Jonathan Gruber who advised Obama on health care and how to sell it with the complicit media’s help to the public who are ‘stupid’ ) the world and industry on the issue the elitists have invented to control the masses Should_Global_Warming_be_our.pdf.
This is something Eisenhower warned about in his Farewell address:
“The prospect of domination of the nations scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
The story that follows is what happens when they attempt to enforce it and people feel the pain.
Call for more NHS resources as elderly people and women among most vulnerable
By Denis Campbell Health policy editor
Snow in Derbyshire last December. The temperatures last winter are thought to have been partly to blame for the excess deaths. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA
There were 50,100 excess deaths in England and Wales last winter, when there was a prolonged spell of extreme cold, making it the highest number since 1976, figures have shown.
The Office for National Statistics said flu and the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine were key reasons for the rise of excess winter deaths in 2017-18.
The deaths occurred during the NHS’s most serious “winter crisis” for many years. A lack of staff and beds meant all types of health services, particularly hospitals, were unable to cope with both the number of patients needing treatment and the severity of many of their conditions.
Women and people aged over 85 were among those most likely to die last winter, although the rate of winter deaths among males aged up to 64 doubled in just a year, the ONS found. A third of the deaths were due to serious breathing difficulties, including flu, asthma and bronchitis.
The 50,100 excess deaths were about 15,000 (45.1%) more than those that occurred in 2016-17 and double the total in 2015-16.
Nick Stripe, a specialist in health analysis and life events at the ONS, said: “It is likely that last winter’s increase was due to the predominant strain of flu, the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine and below-average winter temperatures.”
Doctors and groups representing older people said too little was being done to keep older people warm and safe, and to give the NHS the resources it needs.
Caroline Abrahams, Age UK’s charity director, said: “A toxic cocktail of poor housing, high energy prices and ill-health can make winter a dangerous time for many older people, and tragically it is the oldest and those who are the most vulnerable who particularly suffer the consequences.
“Last winter, there were nearly 46,000 excess winter deaths among people aged 65 and over - a shocking 92% of all excess deaths - equating to 379 older people a day. These distressing figures are now the highest we’ve seen in over 40 years.”
Dr Nick Scriven, the president of the Society for Acute Medicine, said the figures raised concerns about the persistent winter problems being encountered across the NHS every year.
The NHS was operating year-round under such pressure that it was in a state of “eternal winter”, he said. As a result, “by the time winter actually hits, it leaves hospitals struggling to cope, having been maxed out all year round”.
He said the NHS was not well-equipped to deal with its many challenges, which included “an older, frailer population with increasingly complex medical problems, a lack of funding across health and social care to meet demand, a recruitment crisis and persistently poor performance.
“Ultimately, despite reassurances from the government and NHS leaders that enough funding has been made available and the service is coping with the additional demands placed on it, the reality is clearly different given these statistics.”
See this on how cold kills far more than heat from last year.
---------
French PM suspends fuel tax hike
After weeks of mass protests, government backs down.
By ZOYA SHEFTALOVICH 12/4/18
French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe on Tuesday announced a six-month suspension of a controversial fuel tax rise.
The climbdown comes after three weeks of mass demonstrations by the Yellow Jackets movement against the planned tax increase.
An earlier government concession in the form of a tax tweak - suspending carbon taxes during periods of high petrol prices - failed to get Yellow Jackets off the streets.
Macron decided to suspend the fuel tax hikes late Monday, AFP reported, after his government spent the day meeting leaders from all of France’s political parties.
Seventy-two percent of the French back the Yellow Jackets, according to a weekend survey, while Macron’s approval rating has dropped to 23 percent and Philippe’s to 26, according to a new IFOP poll.
Videos from Tony Heller and Dr. Richard Keen as an Intro:
Anthony Watts:
From But Now You Know. There is most certainly a pattern to climate change...but it’s not what you may think:
For at least 114 120 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us...but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.
(A timeline of claims follows, updated to 2014)
1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again - New York Times, February 1895
1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers...deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation...scientific fact...surely disappearing.” - Los Angeles Times
1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age - New York Times, October 1912
1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada: - Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, - Chicago Tribune
1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age"- Washington Post
1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age - New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” - Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” - The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise - New York Times, March 27th, 1933
1933 - “...wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather...Is our climate changing?” - Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.” - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise...Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities throughout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” - Chicago Tribune
1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right...weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” - Washington Post
1952 - “...we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” - New York Times, August 10th, 1962
1954 - “winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” - U.S. News and World Report
1954 - Climate - the Heat May Be Off - Fortune Magazine
1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” - New York Times
1969 - “...the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” - New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1969 - “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” - Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 - “...get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters - the worst may be yet to come...there’s no relief in sigh” - Washington Post
1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years - Time Magazine
1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” - Washington Post
1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” - Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 - “...the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure...mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” - New York Times
Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age
1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable - New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” - U.S. News and World Report
1981 - Global Warming - “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” - New York Times
1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that the greenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. - Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context
1989 - “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” - Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing - in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” - Senator Timothy Wirth
1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” - U.S. News and World Report
1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony ...climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” - Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” - Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” - Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
2006 - “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree...” - Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT
2006 - “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always...warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” -Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
2006 - “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” - Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
2007 - “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” - Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007
2008 - “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress” - Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA, see above for Hansen quotes
Section updated by Anthony Watts:
2009 - Climate change: melting ice will trigger wave of natural disasters. Scientists at a London conference next week will warn of earthquakes, avalanches and volcanic eruptions as the atmosphere heats up and geology is altered. Even Britain could face being struck by tsunamis - “Not only are the oceans and atmosphere conspiring against us, bringing baking temperatures, more powerful storms and floods, but the crust beneath our feet seems likely to join in too,” - Professor Bill McGuire, director of the Benfield Hazard Research Centre, at University College London, - The Guardian, Sep 2009.
2010 - What Global Warming Looks Like. It was more than 5C (about 10F) warmer than climatology in the eastern European region including Moscow. There was an area in eastern Asia that was similarly unusually hot. The eastern part of the United States was unusually warm, although not to the degree of the hot spots in Eurasia. James Hansen - NASA GISS, August 11, 2010.
2011 - Where Did Global Warming Go? “In Washington, ‘climate change’ has become a lightning rod, it’s a four-letter word,” said Andrew J. Hoffman, director of the University of Michigan’s Erb Institute for Sustainable Development. - New York Times, Oct 15, 2011.
2012 - Global warming close to becoming irreversible-scientists. “This is the critical decade. If we don’t get the curves turned around this decade we will cross those lines,” said Will Steffen, executive director of the Australian National University’s climate change institute, speaking at a conference in London. Reuters, Mar 26, 2012
2013 - Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating. The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way. New York Post, Dec 5, 2013
2014 - Climate change: It’s even worse than we thought. Five years ago, the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change painted a gloomy picture of our planet’s future. As climate scientists gather evidence for the next report, due in 2014, Michael Le Page gives seven reasons why things are looking even grimmer. - New Scientist (undated in 2014)
The actual Global Warming Advocates’ chart, overlaid on the “climate change” hysterics of the past 120 years. Not only is it clear that they take any change and claim it’s going to go on forever and kill everyone, but notice that they even sometimes get the short-term trend wrong…
Worse still, notice that in 1933 they claim global warming has been going on for 25 years...the entire 25 years they were saying we were entering an ice age. And in 1974, they say there has been global cooling for 40 years...the entire time of which they’d been claiming the earth was getting hotter! Of course NOW they are talking about the earth “warming for the past century”, again ignoring that they spent much of that century claiming we were entering an ice age.
The fact is that the mean temperature of the planet is, and should be, always wavering up or down, a bit, because this is a natural world, not a climate-controlled office.
See also:
150 Years of Global Warming and Cooling at the New York Times
It’s tragic issues with wildfires the last two years are the result of radical governmental and environmental policies/inaction. The people in the path of these fast moving infernos and the brave firefighters trying to save lives and property are suffering because of bad state government and greed by large NGOs.
CA Gov. Jerry Brown Vetoed Bipartisan Wildfire Management Bill in 2016
Last year, as all Hell was breaking loose in California as residents were burned out of their homes, neighborhoods and businesses, Gov. Jerry Brown was jetting around the world spouting climate change propaganda, and calling this California’s ‘new normal.’
“With climate change, some scientists are saying Southern California is literally burning up, and burning up as maybe a metaphor or a description not just to the fires right here, but what we can expect over the next years and decades,” Brown said.
RELATED:
Nov. 13, 2018 - CA Gov. Jerry Brown Vetoed 2016 Wildfire Management Bill While CA Burned
Aug. 12, 2018- California Wildfires Caused By Radical Environmentalists, Not Climate Change
Aug. 6, 2018 - California burns: The “new normal” thanks to Obama Era Environmental Regulations
Aug. 9, 2018 - CA Gov. Jerry Brown Vetoed Bipartisan Wildfire Management Bill in 2016
July 9, 2018- Jerry Brown’s California: Socialist, Climate-Conscious Open Borders Utopia
Today, as California burns once again under torrential wildfires, many Californians have been asking why the dramatic increase in wildfires in the last five years… that is everyone except Governor Jerry Brown. Governor Brown claims that year-round, devastating fires are the “new normal” we must accept.
Megan Barth and I reported Monday:
“Supporting Obama-era regulations have resulted in the new normal: an endless and devastating fire season. Obama-era regulations introduced excessive layers of bureaucracy that blocked proper forest management and increased environmentalist litigation and cost - a result of far too many radical environmentalists, bureaucrats, Leftist politicians and judicial activists who would rather let forests burn, than let anyone thin out overgrown trees or let professional loggers harvest usable timber left from beetle infestation, or selectively cut timber.”
Mismanaged, overcrowded forests provide fuel to historic California wildfires, experts say. The 129 million dead trees throughout California’s forests are serving as matchsticks and kindling.
Jerry Brown, busy mulling ways to prevent the end of the world, took the Clinton and Obama-era gross regulations a step even further when he vetoed a bipartisan wildfire management bill in 2016.
At the request of the City Council of Laguna Beach, Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa), authored SB 1463 in 2016, a bipartisan bill which would have given local governments more say in fire-prevention efforts through the Public Utilities Commission proceeding making maps of fire hazard areas around utility lines.
California fires produced as much pollution in 2 days as all the state’s cars do in a year
Laguna Beach went through four fires sparked by utility lines in the last ten years, and has done as much in the way of prevention as they could afford. The bill would have allowed cities to work with utilities to underground utility lines, and work with the Public Utilities Commission to develop updated fire maps by requiring the PUC to take into consideration areas in which communities are at risk from the consequences of wildfire, not just those areas where certain environmental hazards are present.
Moorlach’s bill came about when on February 2, 2016, the PUC served the final version of Fire Map 1, and the City of Laguna Beach was not placed within the low-risk margins of the Utility Fire Threat Index.
Gov. Brown vetoed SB 1463, despite being passed by the Legislature, 75-0 in the Assembly and 39-0 in the Senate. That tells you this was political. The Governor’s veto message did not properly address why he vetoed the bill. Brown claimed that the PUC and CalFire have already been doing what Moorlach’s bill sought to accomplish. How on earth could Brown kill this bill when the state was burning down?
“SB 1463 would have not only safeguarded Laguna and other high fire-risk communities in Orange County, but would have helped other vulnerable communities throughout the state that are often threatened by wildfires caused by sparks from shorted or fallen utility lines,” Sen. Moorlach said in a statement following the surprise veto. “The Governor’s veto impedes the necessity to more urgently address the California Public Utilities Commission’s focus on identifying high risk areas that should be prioritized for appropriate mitigation measures.”
California fires produced as much pollution in 2 days as all the state’s cars do in a year.
After SB 1463 was killed by Gov. Brown, Sen. Moorlach and his brilliant staff had an epiphany: Redirect the state’s accumulated cap-and-trade funds into wildfire prevention.
Authored in 2018, the new Senate Bill 1463, aptly named “Cap and Trees,” would continuously appropriate 25 percent of state cap-and-trade funds to counties to harden the state’s utility infrastructure and better manage wildlands and our overgrown and drought-weakened forests, Moorlach recently wrote in a San Francisco Chronicle op ed.
The idea was to actually reduce the state’s highest source of greenhouse gas emissions, curb the impacts of future wildfires and prevent unnecessary damage to life and property, the new SB 1463 fact sheet reported.
However, SB 1463 was killed in the radical Senate Environmental Quality Committee by Democrats, even though there was no opposition to it. The killing was purely political, with no regard given to the people of the state.
Cap and Trade was a scheme born out of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, known as AB 32, which charged the California Air Resources Board with lowering greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In addition, AB 32 requires the ARB to inventory GHG emissions in California, and approve statewide GHG emissions limits.
Sen. Moorlach’s second version of SB 1463 would also have required the California Air Resources Board to include greenhouse gas emissions from wildland and forest fires in their updated Scoping Plan. The ARB does not actually track GHGs - they just estimate. The ARB is extorting millions of dollars from California businesses on their best guesses.
It is estimated that “for every 2 to 3 days these wildfires burn, GHG emissions are roughly equal to the annual emissions from every car in the entire state of California,”
USA Today/Reno Gazette reported in 2017. Last year, there were more than 9,000 major wildfires which burned over 1.2 million acres. Several of the large fires were caused or exacerbated by sparking utility lines.
The problem is that the Air Resources Board Scoping Plan ignores the most egregious of all GHG emission problems - manmade wildfires. Instead, the ARB spends a substantial amount of cap and trade funds on high-speed rail, which literally increases GHG emissions and eliminates large carbon sinks. The ARB has a history of diverting funds to pet projects and programs that have little or nothing to do with actually reducing GHG emissions.
The Senate Environmental Quality Committee, responsible for killing Moorlach’s SB 1463, has a radical environmentalist/preservationist as the committee consultant. In the only bill analysis done on SB 1463, this is the drivel she wrote:
“...natural disasters that emit GHGs (such as wildfires) occurred before climate change, will continue to occur as the climate continues to change, and will persist even if mankind ultimately solves the problem of climate change.”
“While science can now conclusively attribute individual extreme events to climate change, it is important to distinguish that extreme events like the recent wildfires in California are a symptom of climate change, not the cause.”
“The overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that climate change is anthropogenic, meaning human activity has caused the rising GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and, therefore, increasing average global temperatures and the extreme events climate change causes.”
“To include GHG emissions from natural disasters in the state’s inventory that tracks progress towards California’s climate goals, even ones that are made worse by climate change, betrays the fundamental scientific understanding that human activity is responsible for climate change.” (Her emphasis, not mine) 04/19/18- Senate Environmental Quality
Jerry Brown’s Exploitation of California Events
“There is no hope for the truth when world leaders like Governor Brown of California (he runs the 19th largest economy in the world) can present such utterly false information in pursuit of a political agenda,”
“Since civilization emerged 10,000 years ago, we haven’t had this kind of heat condition, and it’s going to continue getting worse and that’s the way it is.” - Jerry Brown
Jerry Brown’s Real Legacy
Remember when Gov. Jerry Brown said the world needs ‘brain washing’ on climate change. Sounding indeed brainwashed, Brown said, “The problem… is us. It’s our whole way of life. It’s our comfort… It’s the greed. It’s the indulgence. It’s the pattern. And it’s the inertia.”
Brown screeched in 2015 that California has an overpopulation problem, and the ongoing drought was proof that the explosion of population in California has reached the limit of what the states’ resources can provide. “We are altering this planet with this incredible power of science, technology and economic advance,” Brown told the publisher of the Los Angeles Times. “If California is going to have 50 million people, they’re not going to live the same way the native people lived, much less the way people do today...You have to find a more elegant way of relating to material things. You have to use them with greater sensitivity and sophistication.”
Brown has managed to divert the fawning, slobbering California media away from his actual responsibilities as California Governor, and instead has them focused on hysteria, doom, gloom, and intangibles like “climate change.”
---------------------
Marc Morano and Craig Rucker add:
California’s wildfires are a horrific tragedy. At last report 63 people are dead, 631 missing and 11,862 structures have been destroyed. We hold those lost and suffering in our thoughts and prayers.
Not unexpectedly, Governor Jerry Brown would have us believe the harm caused by California’s wildfires is the result of climate change. But that is false.
As CFACT’s Marc Morano explains through extensive coverage at Climate Depot, California’s rain and drought are historically normal. In fact, the total U.S. acreage burned by wildfires is actually down in recent years.
That said, there are anthropogenic roots to this catastrophe. But they are not the human causal links Governor Brown points to.
Rapid population growth, extensive development, poor water management, and most critically, irresponsible forest management are principally to blame.
Green activists blocked forest clearing in the name of species protection, leaving California with 129 million dead trees, clogging 8.9 million acres.
If government actually wanted to promote the rapid and uncontrolled spread of deadly wildfires, it would be hard-pressed to find a better approach. Once again the Greens find themselves on the wrong side of the implacable law of unintended consequences, as the very species they profess to care about, are incinerated before our eyes.
Governor Brown, if you are still searching for the anthropogenic link to California’s tragic fires, I expect somewhere in the governor’s mansion there’s probably be a mirror.
---------
California Gov. Brown Shirks Blame for Devastating Wildfires
Liberal California Gov. Jerry Brown has never been one to take personal responsibility. He has made a career out of blaming others for his and the failures of extreme left-wing policies.
It comes as no surprise that just one day after Pres. Donald J. Trump criticized the state for the gross forestry mismanagement linked to surging wildfires, Gov. Brown was quick to blame climate change and climate deniers.
“Managing all the forests in everywhere we can does not stop climate change. And those who deny that are definitely contributing to the tragedies that we’re now witnessing, and will continue to witness in the coming years,” Brown reportedly said. “We’re fighting nature with the amount of material we’re putting in the environment, and that material traps heat, and the heat fosters fires, and the fires keep burning.”
But it’s an inconvenient truth that Gov. Brown and his merry band of West Coast liberals have imposed radical environmental regulations that run contrary to appropriate forest management.
Pres. Trump has cited the Democrat laws designed to protect species such as the Spotted Owl that effectively ended the ability of loggers to clear-cut swaths of forests. Clear-cutting acted as a deterrent to wildfires spreading over vast areas because it cut off the fuel supply.
Under Pres. Clinton, old-growth trees were protected from logging and that effectively ended the timber industry’s ability to clear-cut in 1994. More far-left policies also ended grazing by cattle and other farmers.
“(Prior to 1994) mostly fuels were removed through logging, active management - which they stopped - and grazing,” Bob Zybach, a reforestation consultant with a Ph.D. in environmental science, reportedly said. “You take away logging, grazing, and maintenance, and you get firebombs.”
While these policies may have been well-intentioned, Democrats pushed through solutions that caused much greater problems. Now, those habitats and species they sought to protect are completely destroyed, thousands of Californians have been displaced and the death toll continues to rise.
In 2005, the Western Governors Association released a report that warned such policies would have dire consequences.
“Over time the fire-prone forests that were not thinned, burn in uncharacteristically destructive wildfires, and the resulting loss of forest carbon is much greater than would occur if the forest had been thinned before fire moved through,” the WGA reportedly stated. “In the long term, leaving forests overgrown and prone to unnaturally destructive wildfires means there will be significantly less biomass on the ground, and more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
But these mostly Republican governors from cattle and farmland states were dismissed and no fact-based actions were taken to restore logging as an effective means of forest management.
But perhaps the larger problem with regards to wildfires is that the left-leaning media appears ready to come to Gov. Brown’s defense even while liberal journalists know he is dead wrong. A prime example is the New York Times that is changing its tune after they criticized the end of clear-cutting in 2012.
“The U.S. Forest Service estimates that more than 190 million acres of public land are at risk of catastrophic fires, including 60 percent our national forests. Too many trees, too much brush, and bureaucratic regulations and lawsuits filed by environmental extremists are to blame,” The New York Times stated in 2012. “Timber harvests have plunged more than 75 percent from 12 billion board feet per year to less than 4 billion board feet per year. The result: historically large ponderosa pines which grew in stands of 20 to 55 trees per acre now grow (and burn) in densities of 300 to 900 trees per acre.”
At the time the article was published, the NY Times stated that wildfire devastation escalated from 81,043 fires burning 1,329,704 acres in 1998 to 74,126 fires burning 8,711,367 acres in 2011. The NY Times attributed the incredible uptick in lost habitats to the failed policies started by Clinton and pushed further by radical liberals.
These days, the NY Times is simply trying to support any claim by any Democrat because the failed newspaper has zero interest in fact-based reporting. Rather than stand by its claims made six years ago, the NY Times trolls out a liberal writer to make an odd claim that Pres. Trump is somehow incorrect. A recent piece misleads by pointing readers to forest thinning rather than clear-cutting. Dead brush and twigs may be the root cause of a wildfire, but stopping a wildfire means cutting off its fuel supply. That fuel is trees, particularly pine trees.
“Researchers are attributing at least part of the difference to climate change because in a warming world vegetation dries out faster and burns more easily,” NY Times writer Kendra Pierre-Louis states.
The NY Times writer goes on to try and shift blame to the federal government, claiming the state of California doesn’t own much of the impacted land. Either naive or just “dishonest,” as the president often says of the publication, the regulations apply to state and federal agencies alike.
Liberals ended the most effective tool to stop wildfires - clear cutting - and bog down anyone who tries to take precautionary measures through proper forest management. Perhaps Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said it best.
“Every year we watch our forests burn, and every year there is a call for action,” Sec. Zinke reportedly said. “Yet, when action comes, and we try to thin forests of dead and dying timber, or we try to sustainably harvest timber from dense and fire-prone areas, we are attacked with frivolous litigation from radical environmentalists who would rather see forests and communities burn than see a logger in the woods.”
-----------
More and more people have left the squalor of the sanctuary cities and high property costs and taxes and move to beautiful wooded areas they put themselves in greater danger given the eco fanatics control.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation Dr. Richard Lindzen
Over half a century ago, C.P. Snow (a novelist and English physical chemist who also served in several important positions in the British Civil Service and briefly in the UK government) famously examined the implications of ‘two cultures’:
A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists.
Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?
I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question - such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? - not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had.
I fear that little has changed since Snow’s assessment 60 years ago. While some might maintain that ignorance of physics does not impact political ability, it most certainly impacts the ability of non-scientific politicians to deal with nominally science-based issues. The gap in understanding is also an invitation to malicious exploitation. Given the democratic necessity for non-scientists to take positions on scientific problems, belief and faith inevitably replace understanding, though trivially oversimplified false narratives serve to reassure the non-scientists that they are not totally without scientific ‘understanding.’ The issue of global warming offers numerous examples of all of this.
I would like to begin this lecture with an attempt to force the scientists in the audience to come to grips with the actual nature of the climate system, and to help the motivated non-scientists in this audience who may be in Snow’s ‘one in ten’ to move beyond the trivial oversimplifications.
At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus, global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1C since the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. On the other hand, weather extremes involve temperature changes of the order of 20C. Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming. Crudely speaking, they result from winds carrying warm and cold air from distant regions that are very warm or very cold. These winds are in the form of waves.
The strength of these waves depends on the temperature difference between the tropics and the Arctic (with larger differences leading to stronger waves). Now, the models used to project global warming all predict that this temperature difference will decrease rather than increase. Thus, the increase in temperature extremes would best support the idea of global cooling rather than global warming. However, scientifically illiterate people seem incapable of distinguishing global warming of climate from temperature extremes due to weather.
In fact, as has already been noted, there doesn’t really seem to be any discernible trend in weather extremes. There is only the greater attention paid by the media to weather, and the exploitation of this ‘news’ coverage by people who realize that projections of catastrophe in the distant future are hardly compelling, and that they therefore need a way to convince the public that the danger is immediate, even if it isn’t. This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it.
In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use.
Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem.
However, this hardly stops ignorant politicians from declaring that the IPCC’s claim of attribution is tantamount to unambiguous proof of coming disaster.
--------
Cherry picking is always an issue. Thus, there has been a recent claim that Greenland ice discharge has increased, and that warming will make it worse. Omitted from the report is the finding by both NOAA and the Danish Meteorological Institute that the ice mass of Greenland has actually been increasing. In fact both these observations can be true, and, indeed, ice build-up pushes peripheral ice into the sea. Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence.
Conclusion
So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust. in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all - certainly as concerns ‘official’ science.
There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5C of warming, although the 1C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history. As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’.
