Naomi Seibt, the 19-year-old anti-Greta from Germany whose climate-skeptical Youtube videos have gone viral, needs your urgent financial help. Without a hearing, German officials have fined her and demanded costs on the ground that in her devastatingly effective videos she has dared to question the Party Line about what officialdom profiteers by presenting as “dangerous” manmade global warming.
Greta (Far Left) vs. Anti-Greta (Center-Right)
As a result of this arbitrary and capricious prosecution and conviction without trial, Naomi has had her earnings cut off. Please donate securely and directly to her Patreon account. May I suggest at least $10 per month? That would be a real life-saver, and would enable Naomi to continue her valuable work.
Naomi was the star of the show at last year’s climate conference held in Munich by EIKE, the European Institute for Climate and Energy. She is an internet influencer with her own popular YouTube channel - so popular, in fact, that the totalitarian censors at YouTube have shadow-banned her channel, cutting her potential income from it by nine-tenths.
James Taylor of the Heartland Institute met Naomi in Munich and invited her to speak at the Heartland Conference in in December 2019 during the U.N. Gaia-worship haj in Madrid. Her five-minute speech attracted ten times as many YouTube hits as mine. Naomi has since been showing the Heartland Institute how to increase its internet presence.
Naomi Seibt speaking at the 2019 Heartland conference in Madrid
Naomi recently received a letter from a functionary at the State Media Authority for North Rhine Westphalia, the region where she lives. The letter informed her peremptorily that, without a hearing, she has been found guilty of the alleged offense of exercising her right of free speech about the climate on YouTube in a manner that the letter described as not being “climate-friendly”.
What was such a value-laden term doing in an official letter from a public authority to its teenage victim?
In a subsequent letter, the Authority demanded a fine of about $400 and costs on top, and instructed Naomi that she must not mention the Heartland Institute in her videos. The insubstantial ground for this attempt at silencing Naomi was that such mentions constituted unlawful product placement under a recently-enacted law of the North-Rhine Westphalia region. he insubstantial ground for this attempt at silencing Naomi was that such mentions constituted unlawful product placement under a recently-enacted law of the North-Rhine Westphalia region.
However the letter makes it clear that a video is held to contravene the new law if it does two things at the same time: it advocates any policy position unacceptable to the Gau (such as opposition to Germany’s crippling Energiewende) and, in the same video, to mention a named product or entity associated with that position (such as the Heartland Institute).
The Authority listed three videos by Naomi that it considered unlawful. In fact, the list demonstrates that the charges against her are false. The Authority trumped them up, inferentially at the behest of “climate-friendly” activists.
In the first of the three specific videos of which the Authority complains, Naomi made plain her opposition the Party Line, but did not break the law because she did not mention the Heartland Institute. At the time she made that video she had not even heard of it.
In the second video Naomi announced to her followers that she was collaborating with Heartland, but did not break the law because in that video she did not advocate any policy position, whether on climate or anything else.
In the third video, Naomi again expressed opposition to the official position on climate, but did not break the law because she did not mention Heartland.
On the facts, not one of these three videos offended against the law as the correspondence from the Authority chartacterises it. The prosecution had no rational basis in fact or in law.
This is yet another instance of a traditional totalitarian tactic: to enmesh all who have publicly and effectively challenged the Party Line on climate in complex and costly legal wrangles, however ill founded, in the hope of muzzling them and cowing everyone else into silence.
Just ask Professor Peter Ridd or Dr Susan Crockford or Dr Tim Ball or Mark Steyn or countless others thus harried and bullied by the lavishly-funded watermelons.
The process is the punishment
Naomi has engaged a lawyer pro bono. She has splendidly demanded that the Authority produce its entire file on this matter, including the identities of those who complained to the Authority about her. She has also demanded copies of all correspondence or conversations between the Authority and such questionable third parties as these.
The Authority has responded by sending a file that has been obviously, in-your-face redacted. It is manifestly reluctant to admit its unsavory links with whatever totalitarian groups had asked its fellow true-believers there to silence Naomi.
The Authority’s notice of prosecution culpably fails either to spell out or in any material respect to comply with Naomi’s right to a fair trial as laid down in the European Human Rights Convention, to which Germany is a signatory.
Naomi would be well within her rights to counterclaim against the Authority for damages for abuse of its power, for contravention of the Convention (which grants her the right to a remedy) and for causing her distress, alarm and offense without the slightest legitimate or reasonable justification.
The Authority’s motto is “Committed to freedom of expression”. Try to keep a straight face.
Bizarrely, the Authority’s motto is “Der Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet”, i.e., “Committed to Freedom of Expression”. Yeah, right. I have seldom come across so striking an example of Orwellian Newspeak. To Orwell’s “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength” we can now add “Silence is Free Speech”.
Fifty years ago, I helped organize Earth Day #1 programs on my college campus, calling attention to serious pollution problems that afflicted much of the USA. Over the ensuing decades, laws, regulations, and changed attitudes, practices and technologies reduced most of that pollution, often dramatically.
I didn’t buy into the 1970 end-is-nigh, doom-and-gloom, billions-will-die hysteria that Ron Stein and Ron Bailey summarize, including the manmade global cooling crisis. I don’t buy it today, either -certainly not this year’s Earth Day focus on the alleged manmade global warming crisis, also blamed on emissions of carbon dioxide, the same gas that humans and animals exhale, and plants use to grow. We’re told the crisis is unprecedented, and poses existential threats to humanity and planet. What nonsense.
But what I find fascinating in all this is the steadfast, often nasty determination of scientists, politicians and interest groups promoting alarmist themes - and profiting immensely from them - to reject and deny any science, history and evidence that undermines their claim that nothing like this ever happened before.
The “highest ever” temperatures are a mere few tenths or even hundredths of a degree above previous records set many decades ago. The United States recently enjoyed a record 12-year respite from Category 3-5 hurricanes, ended finally by Harvey and Irma in 2017. Violent tornadoes were far fewer during the last 35 years than during the 35 years before that, and the complete absence of violent twisters in 2018 was unprecedented in US history. Modern day floods and droughtswere certainly no worse than past floods or the multi-decade droughts that devastated Anasazi, Mayan and other civilizations.
However, alarmists insist, Earth’s climate and weather were stable and unchanging until humans began using coal, oil and natural gas. We must eradicate fossil fuels now, they say, regardless of what biofuel, battery, wind and solar replacements(and mining for raw materials to manufacture them) might have on wildlife, scenery, environmental values or human rights. Their disconnect from reality is astounding.
Equally fascinating is the notion that melting glaciers are something new. It amounts to asserting that everything was just peachy until American, European and Greenland glaciers started melting a few decades ago, threatening us with catastrophic sea level rise. It amounts to claiming the glacial epochs never happened; their mile-high ice sheets never blanketed a third of the Northern Hemisphere, multiple times, with warm periods in between; and seas haven’t risen some 400 feet since the Pleistocene ice age, leaving the entrance to Cosquer Cave and its Paleolithic paintings 115 feet beneath the Mediterranean.
It amounts to claiming the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods never happened, and weren’t followed by the Little Ice Age, when priests performed exorcisms, asking God to keep glaciers from inundating villages in the Alps of Europe. It’s as though we couldn’t possibly be finding what we are finding today.
In the latest example, government and university researchers recently found numerous Viking-era artifacts along a Norwegian mountain pass that had been heavily traveled for at least 700 years, but then was buried beneath the ice and lost to history for 1,000 years. Locals used the rough 2,200-foot-long pass to travel between summer and winter lodgings, while long-distance trekkers used it as a trade route.
Within the treasure trove were tunics, mittens, horse shoes and bits, remnants of sleds used to haul food and gear over winter snow, a small shelter, and even the remains of a dog with a collar and leash. They all came to light because the glacial ice is again receding, as Earth continues its post Little Ice Age warming.
Alarmists insist the warming is due to fossil fuels, and deny that it is just part of natural climate cycles. And much more evidence of past warming and cooling periods has also come to light in recent years.
In 1991, German hikers found the incredible mummified and heavily tattooed remains of “Oetzi the Ice Man” sticking out of the ice in the Oetzal Alps near the Italian-Austrian border, at an altitude of some 10,000 feet. A partial longbow, bearskin hat and other artifacts were found nearby. He had died about 5,300 years ago from an arrow wound and had the blood of four different people on his clothes and weapons. He is further evidence of human habitation in these alpine areas during past warm periods.
Tourists and archeological teams have also discovered parts of shoes, leather clothing, fragments of a wooden bowl and numerous other items from 3000 to 4500 BC (BCE) that have emerged from the alpine ice. They are among the oldest objects ever found in the Alps. A Bronze Age pin, Roman coins and early Medieval artifacts have also been found. They show how these mountain passes and trails, impassible during cold, more glaciated periods, served as vital trade routes in periodic warmer centuries.
Norwegian ice fields show shrinkage and growth patterns similar to those of the alpine glaciers, says Norwegian glacial scientist Atle Nesje. The archaeological findings “seem to fit quite nicely with our glacier reconstructions,” he adds, which helps us understand past, present and future climate changes.
Years of research by Swiss and other scientists have produced similar findings -sometimes human artifacts, but also plant and animal remains, in areas of newly melted ice. In one location in the Swiss Alps, University of Berne geology professor Christian Schluechter found pieces of wood 12-24 inches thick and the remains of a moor. Melting waters had flushed them out from under the glacier. That means the ice there is hardly “perpetual,” he says. There were multiple periods of warmer weather and less ice.
In fact, carbon-14 dating shows ten “clearly definable time windows” over the last 10,000 years - periods when glaciers were limited to regions up to 1,000 feet higher in the Alps than today. This means that, for multiple long streches of time, “the Alps were greener than they are today”, Schluechter concludes.
Inca children sacrificed 500 years ago in Argentina’s Andes have also emerged from melting glaciers.
Off the Florida coast, the Mel and Deo Fisher archeological diving team didn’t just find the famous Spanish galleon Nuestra Señora de Atocha, which sank during a ferocious 1622 hurricane, or only the British slave ship Henrietta Marie, which went down during a 1700 hurricane, after leaving 190 Africans in Jamaica to be sold as slaves. They also found charred tree branches and pine cones from a forest fire 8,400 years ago, when this ocean area 35 miles from Key West was still well above present day sea levels!
Even an entire forest has been discovered, protruding from the melting Mendenhall Glacier near Juneau, Alaska - an area I visited several years ago. Roots, stumps and large segments of entire upright spruce or hemlock trees have already been found across several acres. They are the remains of a forest that thrived there for as long as 2,350 years, until it was buried by glacial ice around 1,000 years ago.
The chronicle of amazing discoveries yielded by melting glaciers goes on and on. Their most important lesson is that our current climate is but a snapshot in time, on a vibrant planet where climate change and extreme weather have been “real” since time began. Only a science-denying climate alarmist would refuse to recognize this. Simply put, there is nothing “unprecedented” about what we are seeing today.
This is dangerous stuff - sacrilegious, even. It pulls the rug from under demands for a post-Coronavirus Green New Deal. It must be suppressed. And frightened climate science deniers are doing their best to keep it out of “mainstream” and social media. Realists must do their best to disseminate climate facts.
Of course, it may be that these past climate changes were caused by carbon dioxide and water vapor from wheezing, snorting horses, oxen and humans - laboring at the edge of exhaustion, doing what our fossil-fuel-powered vehicles and equipment do for us today. But it’s far more likely that the changes were due to a complex and still poorly understood combination of solar and other powerful natural forces.
Climate alarmists may not want to recognize or discuss these natural fluctuations and causes. But the rest of us should, and this historic evidence must be a central part of that discussion.
Improving our knowledge of what these forces are and how they work together will enable us to better predict, prepare for and adapt to future climate changes. Continuing to focus on carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases,” as the primary or sole cause of climate changes and weather events, will ensure that we never get beyond the politically driven climate and energy battles in which we are now engaged.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power; Black death and other books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Co Chief Meteorologist at Weatherbell Analytics, LLC
I have long followed and written about volcanism and its effect on the weather. I have wondered with my colleagues whether undersea volcanism could be playing a role in ocean surface thermal patterns and through that affect our weather.
We wondered whether it played a role in the 2013-2015 warmth in the NPAC that drove two incredible NAM winters like it did in 1916/17, 1917/18, 1919/20, 1933/34, 1963/64, 1977/78, 1987/88, 1993/94, 2002/03, 2004/05 - all cold and big NE snow winters.
We know El Ninos and La Ninas affect global weather patterns (with differences depending on the strength and structure) and the AMO and PDO influence global temperatures, blocking tendencies, and the frequencies of extremes like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods/droughts, snow and ice). But as the great Jerome Namias noted, warm and cold ocean pools that are not really associated with these oscillations can affect the jet stream and weather patterns. These ocean oscillations and transient thermal anomalies are a large part of the analog methods we at apply at WeatherBell.
We wondered if the very strongly positive IOD last summer might be driven by a warm pool that blossomed in the western Indian Ocean. It favored the MJO staying in cold phases from October to early December. At the same time, we observed the NPAC turn warm resulting in early snow and cold as we mentioned above occurred in some of the wildest winters.
But then that pattern flipped as the +IOD collapsed as a 5C warm blob developed in the South Pacific east of New Zealand. The MJO readjusted to the warm phases.
We recently saw this paper that provided some support for that thinking of warm pools and their influence on the weather regimes and their relation to geothermal heat from volcanism.
Hot blobs beneath the sea surface formed by the release of geothermal heat through submarine volcanic eruptions and/or sub-aerially erupted hot volcanic materials including lava flows into the sea are an underestimated natural cause of ocean heat waves. Recent examples include the 2013-2016 North Pacific Blob and the 2018-2019 Southwest Indian Ocean Blob. The present study on the development of a blob in the South Pacific Ocean referred to as the 2019-2020 South Pacific Blob has provided evidence to account for the observed recent warming in Antarctica including a new hottest temperature record on February 6, 2020 and heat wave conditions dramatically changing Antarctica in just 9 days.
At least three volcanic eruptions (Figure 1) have been identified to contribute geothermal heat during August to December 2019 (spring and early summer in the southern hemisphere) to create the South Pacific Blob with an ocean surface temperature maximum attained on December 30, 2019 (Figure 2). Out of these, two were initially submarine volcanoes located in the territorial waters of Tonga and one was an island volcano with a crater just above sea level off the North Island coast in New Zealand waters.
Figure 1 Volcanoes contributing geothermal heat to the 2019-2020 South Pacific Blob.
In August 6-8, 2019 submarine volcano F in the Tofua Arc, Tonga located about 40 kilometers south of Fonualie Island had a major eruption. The detection of this large explosive eruption was assisted by a pumice raft greater than 136.7 km2 in area on the ocean surface captured by imagery from ESA’s Sentinel-2 satellite. In October 13-22, 2019 another submarine volcano erupted destroying Lateiki Island in the Tongan archipelago followed by the birth of a new island 100 m wide and 400 m long in October 30, 2019 which subsequently disappeared beneath the waves in mid-January 2020. Meanwhile in December 9, 2019 the White Island volcano in the Bay of Plenty erupted with a 3.7 km ash plume and hot materials was discharged into the ocean through the eruption cloud.
An examination of NOAA satellite sea surface anomalies map archives has revealed that the South Pacific Blob located about 800 kilometres east of New Zealand attained maximum temperature and largest areal extent in December 30, 2019 (Figure 2). The sea surface temperature was more than 5C above normal.
Figure 2 Sea surface temperature anomalies showing the development of the South Pacific Blob east of New Zealand on December 30, 2019. Source: NOAA
See the 2013/14 warm blob in the NPAC that led to two wild central and eastern winters.
See the west Indian Ocean warm pool that drove the +2 STD IOD late last summer.
See how that drove heavy convection in the Indian Ocean and India and kept the MJO corralled in the cold phases in the late fall.
Meanwhile the NPAC warm pool blossomed as it did in 2013 - leading to ideas about cold in NAM.
But then the IOD dipole faded and the warm blob developed east of New Zealand. The MJO moved into the warm phases with heavy precipitation shifting east, the NPAC warm blob faded and the arctic trough and ++AO took away winter.
Alaska had a top 3 cold winter after the heat of early summer 2019.
Fairbank’s average 2019/20 daytime high was -2.1F, while the daytime low -20F, average daily mean was -11F! The coldest was -43F while the warmest was 31F December 9. 33 days were at or below -30F, 5 fell at or below -40F. The winter average 4.7F below normal, the coldest (3rd) since before (1975/76) the Great Pacific Climate Shift (a shift of the so called Pacific Decadal Oscillation to positive) in the late 1970s when warmer Pacific waters favored warmth in Alaska and western North America.
See how the AO was off the scale positive as the entire arctic atmosphere top to bottom was cold February to March.
Now we see more warm pool action north and south. We will be following this carefully.
Nature is awesome… forecasting is challenging, we have to look up, and globally but are at the mercy of changes from beneath too it appears.
Oceans the biggest reservoir of CO2. A simple experiment - open a can of Coke and let it warm to room temperature. You will see it loses much of its fizz.
At the very least 2 things are obvious, 1) this is showing there is reason to question the origins of COs’s increase (note my words question, not just accept it blindly) and 2) That people pushing economic shutdowns as a way to combat global warming are apparently unaware of this glaring gash in their argument. CO2 is quick to react to changes. That is why you see the big downturns and upturns as the greening northern hemisphere demonstrate plants love of CO2 (solution plant trees) and what happens when they are not there (winter).
I suspect the amount of warmth in the oceans have not yet reached an equilibrium and are still in a positive outsourcing situation But the data is there. Mans output has shutdown, but the warm oceans is there So why the rise if its man.
Timothy Birdnow
This is the first time we had experimental data on this issue and it essentially fails to support the theory that carbon dioxide is being increased in the atmosphere by industrial emissions. It’s actually quite amazing; almost falsifies the whole theory. But we won’t hear anything about this in the mainstream media, and it’s doubtful even in science journals.
From NOAA ESRL
Can we see a change in the CO2 record because of COVID-19?
There have been many inquiries whether we can see in our CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa and elsewhere the slowdown in CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. That drop in emissions needs to be large enough to stand out from natural CO2 variability caused by how plants and soils respond to seasonal and annual variations of temperature, humidity, soil moisture, etc. These natural variations are large, and so far the “missing” emissions do not stand out, but we may see them as the year progresses. Here is an example: If emissions are lower by 25%, then we would expect the monthly mean CO2 for March at Mauna Loa to be lower by about 0.2 ppm. When we look at many years of the difference between February and March we expect March to be higher by 0.74 ppm, but the year-to-year variability (one standard deviation) of the difference is 0.40 ppm. This year the difference is 0.40 ppm, or 0.33 below average, but last year it was 0.52 ppm below average.
Most of the emissions come from urban areas, so that it may be easier to see the effect downwind of cities, although also in that case they need to stand out from natural variations. Only measurements of carbon-14 in CO2 would enable us to cleanly separate fossil sources of CO2 from ecosystem sources and sinks regardless of how variable the latter are.
The only climate model that agrees with observations says there is NO climate emergency. Meanwhile half of the IPCC models are getting hotter than ever before, hence getting further from reality than ever before. A modeling showdown is looming and CLINTEL is a leader among the climate critics. They make a strong plea that in the current health emergency any climate action should be put on hold. “Why construct a false climate crisis on top of a true corona crisis?”
My previous article - ”CLINTEL Manifesto blasts climate scaremongering” - includes the all important graphic showing a dramatic divergence of the IPCC climate model predictions from the satellite temperature readings. The models are all running much hotter than reality.
There is however one major model that agrees with the satellites, that being the Russian model. The reason is simple, yet profound. CLINTEL President professor Guus Berkhout explains it this way: “I have studied Russia’s climate model INM. Unlike IPCC’s models, the Russian INM model predictions fit the measurements remarkably well. A plausible explanation is that it uses a negative cloud feedback: -0.13 W/m2/degree C, while the IPCC models use a large positive cloud feedback: up to + 0.80 W/m2/degree C. This large positive cloud feedback is responsible for the catastrophic IPCC predictions.”
The physics behind this explanation is pretty simple. Warming leads to more water vapor on the air, which causes increased cloudiness. Clouds can then either increase the warming (positive feedback) or decrease it (negative feedback). The scientific question is which occurs? The Russians are finding that it is a negative feedback. Measurements support them.
CLINTEL is an international climate science advisor so it makes sense that they look closely at these findings. Their vision is: “Progress requires Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Scientific Inquiry.” In fact Professor Berkhout has been officially invited by the Russian Academy of Sciences to learn more about the INM model and to share the climate vision of CLINTEL.
Unlike the U.S. and European modelers, the Russian modeling community has not been captured by the alarmists. This has given them the freedom to explore the negative feedback option, which the alarmists have refused to do, at least so far.
Yet even within the alarmist community we see a promising development, as a big fight is shaping up over cloud feedbacks. The IPCC is in the process of writing the latest of its big Assessment Reports, which it does every five years or so, this being the sixth report (AR6). Most of the major alarmist climate models are run to feed into this report.
This time we see that in AR6 about half of these models are running much hotter than they did for the fifth report (AR5). Although the review process is not yet finished, it appears that the AR6 modelers have juiced up the positive cloud feedback. We are not aware of any big new science to support this exaggeration. Has it been done to support the political push for radical zero-carbon laws? The hotter the model the worse the catastrophe it predicts from fossil fuel use, justifying a higher level of panic.
A lot of people within the climate community are questioning this increased global warming in the AR6 model outputs. For one thing it suggests that at least half of the models are wrong, either the half that haven’t become hotter (predicting the same level of panic as in AR5) or the half that have (predicting a higher level of panic as in AR679). In the process the alarmist consensus is coming apart. How the IPCC will handle this schism remains to be seen.
A higher positive cloud feedback may not solve all inconsistencies, but for sure we may state that it is a most unlikely assumption on the modeler’s part. No science compels this choice and measurements strongly advise against it. This opens the door for the empirically confirmed Russian findings, which call into question the entire catastrophe narrative of AR5 and even more AR6.
Professor Berkhout puts it succinctly: “If the Russians are right, the carbon budget - being the amount of carbon mankind may emit before we reach the 1.5 and 2 degree C warming thresholds in The Paris Accord - is very, very large. In other words, there is no problem with continuing CO2 emissions until we have a technologically reliable and economically affordable alternative. Zero emission in 2050 is totally foolish. Looking at the the current health emergency it is a crime against humanity.”
It is ironic, yet fitting, that the “blue sky” fantasy of climate alarmism may be brought back down to earth by clouds. Negative feedback is a truly positive message.
Stay tuned to CFACT to see how this drama unfolds.
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see Available for confidential research and consulting.
I was pleased to see this effort in IBD’s new Issues and Insights effort highlighted below. It is a very much needed addition and we strongly suggest you share and bookmark the story and the site. And financially support their noble and critically important effort.
Let me say something first as an introduction.
Although, I chaired one of the largest departments of meteorology in 6 years in Academia and taught courses at two other colleges and have had 50 years of operational experience with researching and forecasting weather and climate, was Fellow of the AMS, Chair of Weather Analysis and Forecasting committee for the AMS, and elected as a Councilor, I was told by local colleges I was not qualified to teach science. I could tell you many other examples of real scientists being forced out or forced to teach courses like Geography if tenured. Look at GMU for example. Ed Wegman helped expose the climategate saga. He was replaced by environmental radicals and liars. The indoctrination continues. The climate CABAL in government and professional societies and universities controls the message with empty suits as Lead Authors.
Then there is Wikipedia which has used special editors (like Kim Dabelstein Petersen and and William Connolley here) who edit wiki sites that challenge the alarmists position. They change the entries to attack the author or make major changes. They have recently stopped maintaining a list of skeptics. They are hurting as most people get information through search engines that is reducing Wiki coverage. They are begging for donations. Instead please support our site of other sites providing honest science.
The attraction for many is $$$ and plenty of it. Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009,” says the GAO. Not a penny goes to anyone who believes it is mostly natural. All our efforts to expose the truth are volunteer (pro-bono). Help us with a donation if you can (left column). If you have an idea how to fund the good scientists being blocked contact me at jdaleo6113@aol.com. Thanks for the help you gave us in 2019 to cover our costs for maintenance for the first time in a few years.
If you count my contributions at Weatherbell.com, I work on 5 web sites:
Icecap.us
Alarmist Claim Research with rebuttals to the dozen alarmist claims in the news and assessments.
Tropical Hot Spot Research started to show our independent peer-reviewed research showing how natural factors can explain the changes we have observed in 14 different data sets.
and one my college roommate wanted me to start Redneckusa with a look at technology - good and bad ideas. See the latest post here on how Ozone Hole Shenanigans were the warm-up act for Global Warming.
Let me know what you think, suggest new stories and submit your own.
--------------
The Academic Blacklist Climate Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know About
February 28, 2020
16 comments
I&I Editorial
The global warming faithful are always quick with the talking points about a “scientific consensus” that doesn’t exist, and the tale that 97% of scientists say man is causing the planet to overheat. But we’ll never hear them discuss publicly how researchers who don’t agree with the narrative have been blacklisted.
What are they afraid of?
Of course the climate alarmists will never admit such a list even exists. But Roger Pielke Jr., who teaches science, environment, and technology policy at the University of Colorado, says it does.
“A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled ‘climate misinformers,” Pielke recently wrote in Forbes. “The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist.”
Pielke says we know this through a Skeptical Science blogger “named Dana Nuccitelli.” According to Pielke, Nuccitelli believes that Judith Curry should be “unhirable in academia” based on her statements about global warming.
Nuccitelli tweeted that “Curry’s words, as documented… are what make her ‘unhirable.’” Both the blog and Nuccitelli of course deny there’s a blacklist.
The “unhirable” Curry is no crank. She is the former chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and is a fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. She stepped down from her position at Georgia Tech at the insistence of an administrator, she told Pielke. The Earth and Atmospheric Sciences dean had heard from “several activist climate scientists who had a very direct pipeline to the dean’s office, and had expressed their “extreme displeasure” over Curry’s presence at the school, she said.
Curry looked into positions at other universities, interviewed for two, but was never hired. According to her headhunter, “the show stopper” was my public profile in the climate debate.
But there’s no blacklist - nothing to see here, so let’s move on… to Pielke’s father, Roger Pielke Sr. The atmospheric scientist “is also listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist.” The younger Pielke says some statements from the Skeptical Science site that had been obtained through hacking included: “We are HUNTING Pielke,” “We are trying to bring him down,” and “My vote is to take the bastard down!”
What has happened to Curry and Pielke Sr. are not isolated incidents: READ MORE EXAMPLES here.
...
The system is clearly rigged. But the public is not supposed to know this. Only by keeping voters in the dark can the charade continue.
--- Written by J. Frank Bullitt
Issues & Insights is a new site formed by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. We’re just getting started, and we’ll be adding new features as time permits. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide.
_thumb.jpg)
_thumb.jpg)
_thumb.jpg)
_thumb.png)
_thumb.png)
.png){kind=link}
