By Art Horn

On May the 2nd Huffington Post published a story by Shoshana Zuboff titled “When Global Warming Ate My Life”. In the story she describes how she and her husband moved to a small town in Maine to escape the busy world and raise their two kids in a protected environment where they would learn “respectful down-to-earth values”. That all fine and good, I spent some of the best years of my youth in Maine and still return there as often as I can. It is a wonderful place. After describing the idyllic life they enjoyed there for many years she then goes on to say that on one fateful night, “global warming crashed our party in paradise”.

On a summer night in 2009 a lightning bolt struck her through a window and set their home on fire and burned it to the ground. Obviously she is very lucky to be alive. It was a tragic event that might have been prevented by lightning rods on the roof. I don’t know if they had them or not. The idea of the lightning rod is to take control of any lightning bolt that comes near a home. The sharp point of the rod will attract the bolt and then conduct it by way of a wire down to the ground instead of having it hit randomly somewhere on the house. In any event, she then proclaims that because her house was hit by lightning and burned to the ground that she is now a victim of global warming. I can understand the great sense of loss that she and her family experienced and for sure it was a terrible thing that happened but to blame global warming is a mighty big stretch.

First of all she apparently has been reading Time Magazine or the Huffington Posts “Green” section too much. Perhaps she has been watch too many TV programs on The National Geographic Channel that are continually condemning our way of life for our sin of creating global warming. Whatever the reason, the flavor of the story is that she is completely sold on the man made global warming catastrophe story. She states that a study by the NASA Goddard Institute (The Goddard Institute for Space Studies, GISS) estimates that a 1 degree Celsius rise in global temperature will cause a 5-6% increase in lightning frequency. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the last place I would go for reliable studies about future trends of anything being that they are also predicting an 82 foot rise in sea level if the earth warms 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. There has been no temperature increase for 15 years despite large increases in carbon dioxide. The rate of sea level rise is not accelerating. Sea level rise is the same as it has been for the last 100 years and in fact it has slowed over the last 5 years. GISS has also been caught altering data to enhance temperature trends to make it appear that global warming is much more severe than it actually is. This is an ongoing effort at GISS. Even if there has been a 5-6% increase in lightning frequency (there is no data available to support this) it would in no way confirm that the bolt that struck her house that evening was caused by that increase. In reality it was just a random and unfortunate act of nature.

Maine Annual Temperatures 1895-2011 (Enlarged)

In the story Ms. Zuboff goes on to state that the earth has warmed by 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1802. The more generally accepted figure is 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming since 1850. She then goes on the say that Maine has warmed a whopping 1.9 degrees Celsius (3.4 degrees Fahrenheit) in the last 100 years! I don’t know where she got that figure, maybe from the World Wildlife Fund or Greenpeace, but it is completely wrong. The actual amount of warming in the last 100 years in Maine is zero degrees. Don’t take my word for it, you can calculate it yourself at Climate at a Glance U.S. Statewide Analysis. Go down the state of Maine, click on it and follow the instructions on how to plot the temperature trend for the last 100 years, you’ll find no warming at all.

Ms. Zuboff’s story is another in and endless number of tails about our struggle to survive in a hostile world. From the earliest humans to today, mankind has always been in a struggle with nature. Go pet a nice furry and cuddly polar bear, it will be the last thing you ever do. For most of human history we have been fighting to survive what nature throws at us. It has been an epic struggle to beat back the weather to keep us from freezing to death, dying in floods and hurricanes, starving from drought or being hit by lightning. For most of our existence we have been trying to defeat nature.

Over 150 years ago we discovered oil and along with the earlier discovered coal, we revolutionized the world with these abundant fuels. Oil and coal were the principal weapons that we used and continue to use to defeat nature. Like it or not, nature will kill you if you give it a chance. The incredible affluence that oil, coal and natural gas provided us after world war two offered us protection against nature like never before. As prosperity increased our vulnerability to the ravages of nature declined. With this decrease in vulnerability our attitude towards that which had been trying to destroy us changed. From this great affluence the environmental movement was born in the 1960s. The movement preached that it wasn’t nature that was at fault for death and destruction, it was us. The tables had been turned. Now we were the killers, not nature. Fast forward to the current time and the environmental movement has grown so much that it permeates all of our schools and advertising. You can’t go anywhere without being told you must “go green”.

From her story it appears that Ms. Zuboff has indeed been a victim but not of global warming, but of the indoctrination of the environmental movement. She says “Now I know that no one of us can keep our children safe”. That is a lesson that humanity learned a long, long time ago, long before there was any talk about global warming. Nature has always been a threat to our well being and it always will be. She an her family were the tragic victims of a random act of nature and no amount of going green, carbon taxes or government regulation could have stopped it. Global warming did not eat here life, nature did, just as it always has. PDF

By Dr. Tim Ball

Claims of a consensus was an early sign climate science was political. It was used to support official science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a public relations campaign to offset and divert from bad science, inadequate data, and incorrect assumptions. It’s in use again as the science of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis fails and people are not persuaded.

Many scientists were fooled, including James Lovelock, a central figure to environmentalism with his Gaia hypothesis. In 2007 he said,

“Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic.”

Recently he revised his view;

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books - mine included - because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.” “We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.”

How could a reputable scientist be so wrong?

Some words have different meanings for the public than for professionals. For example, calling someone a skeptic is considered derogatory, yet it’s a necessity for a scientist. When warming became climate change skeptics became deniers, a nasty ambiguous word. It means you refuse to acknowledge information, but it’s specifically used for a few who deny the holocaust, arguably the most horrendous event in history.

There’s a negative implication to the word consensus. If you’re not part of it you’re out-of-step, stupid, antisocial, or all three. There’s no consensus in science. Even in politics it’s rare to assign a number to a consensus. Apparently to pretend credibility current users say there’s a 97 percent consensus about IPCC climate science.

Numerical measures of the consensus argument appeared early in climate As I recall, approximately 6000 people associated with the IPCC represented the original consensus. That number decreased to 2500 today, but they’re still the consensus according to RealClimate, the web site about which Michael Mann wrote in a 2004 email,

“...the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing (sic) the PR battle. That’s what the site is about.”

A 16 December 2004 entry asks,

“Is there really “consensus” in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change?”

Evidence used was the now discredited study of Naomi Oreske that claimed of 928 articles selected objectively by a three word google search, 100 percent supported IPCC science.

On 22 December 2004 there’s another RealClimate insight;

We’ve used the term “consensus” here a bit recently without ever really defining what we mean by it. In normal practice, there is no great need to define it - no science depends on it. But it’s useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation. The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports, in particular the working group I report (there are three WG’s. By “IPCC”, people tend to mean WG I).

This admits consensus is unnecessary in science, but necessary for climate science “for public presentation” or propaganda.

It’s another circular argument that pervade IPCC science and politics. For example, they hypothesize that CO2 causes temperature increase, program a computer model accordingly, then say the model proves that CO2 increase causes temperature increase. RealClimate says,

“The main points that most would agree on as “the consensus” are:

1.The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 C in the past century; 0.1 to 0.17 C/decade over the last 30 years (see update)) [ch 2]
2.People are causing this [ch 12] (see update)
3.If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate [ch 9]
4.(This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it)

I’ve put those four points in rough order of certainty. The last one is in brackets because whilst many would agree, many others (who agree with 1-3) would not, at least without qualification. It’s probably not a part of the core consensus in the way 1-3 are.”

So the consensus is their IPCC Reports.

Here are the facts of the consensus today.

1.The rise of 0.6 C has an error of 0.2C or 33 percent - which is scientifically meaningless. Phil Jones a senior member of the IPCC produced the number. The earth is not warming any more.
2.The only evidence people are the cause is in their computer models.
3. Temperature increase precedes CO2 increase in every single record anywhere, except in their computer models.
4.An application of the precautionary principle.

RealClimate said about consensus,

“In normal practice, there is no great need to define it - no science depends on it.”

But climate science of the IPCC and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia was not normal practice: a political consensus was their only hope. As Michael Crichton said,

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Sounds familiar; the science is settled, and the debate is over because there’s a consensus.

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

Climate scientists’ claims of email death threats go up in smoke

by: Christian Kerr
From: The Australian, May 3, 2012

CLAIMS that some of Australia’s leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign have been debunked by the Privacy Commissioner.

Timothy Pilgrim was called in to adjudicate on a Freedom of Information application in relation to Fairfax and ABC reports last June alleging that Australian National University climate change researchers were facing the ongoing campaign and had been moved to “more secure buildings” following explicit threats.

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

Environmentalists compared their opponents to mass murderers long before the Heartland Institute
By Brendan O’Neill

The climate-sceptical Heartland Institute has driven environmentalists mental this morning by unveiling an advertising campaign which, in the words of the Washington Post, is “in incredibly poor taste”. The ads, promoting an upcoming Heartland conference, show some of the crazier people who buy into climate-change alarmism – such as the Unabomber, Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden – alongside the words, “He still believes in global warming. Do you?” That is actually a tiny bit funny. Though according to easily offended green-leaning hacks it is outrageous to “compare belief in global warming to mass murder”. It is mad, they say, to “link terrorism and murder” with “global warming belief”.

Okay, yes, it is not the most sophisticated advertising campaign in world history. But I don’t remember greens getting their panties in a bunch on the 700,000 previous occasions (that’s a rough estimate) when non-belief in global warming was likened to being a terrorist, a Nazi, or Beelzebub. Indeed, greens - including some of those who choked on their muesli this morning when they heard about Heartland’s advert antics - are world experts in comparing their critics to Hitler and other assorted nutjobs.

Consider the leading British green who said climate-change deniers should be held responsible for the “coming” “Holocaust” and thus might have to be banged up for their complicity in mass murder. “I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead”, he mused. The popular eco-magazine Grist has called for “some sort of climate Nuremberg” to try the “bastards” who deny climate change. When they aren’t being likened to Hitler, climate-change sceptics are being lumped in with those who appeased him. Chris Huhne says climate change is our generation’s “Munich moment” and anyone who fails to campaign against climate change is a perfect fit for Winston Churchill’s description of an “appeaser” - “someone that feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last”.

Other greens have described climate change as a calamity that will make “genocide and ethnic cleansing look like sideshows at the circus of human suffering”, with the implication being that anyone who doesn’t tackle it is an appeaser or an enabler of massive amounts of evil. As to Heartland’s comparison of belief in global warming with being a terrorist - well, what about the endless claims by greens that if we don’t tackle climate change then there will be more war and terror, because “global warming could destabilise struggling and poor countries… creating breeding grounds for terrorists”? Rough translation: fail to tackle global warming and you’re nurturing terrorism.

Heartland doesn’t have a monopoly on evoking mass murder and terror as a way of rubbishing its opponents. That art was perfected by greens first. Yet judging by today’s fracas, where it is okay to compare climate-change sceptics to mass murderers, it is not okay to compare greens to mass murderers. Is that right?

Before you celebrate Earth Day, you should take a look at the facts about earth day and the real motivations. You see it is all about power, control and Maltusian philosophy that the earth has limited resources and too many people and that the world through some organizing force (farce) like the UN should remedy that.

In Eco Tyranny, meteorologist Brian Sussman (story below) writes that the environmentalist movement isn’t about protecting the environment at all, it’s about destroying private property, controlling behavior, and expanding government - and the Obama administration has a secret plan to further all of it.

As Earth Day 2012 occurs on Sunday, April 22, Alan Caruba offers a selection of quotes from leading figures in the environmental movement that are worth reading so that you can draw your own conclusions:

In a recent story penned here, I provided perspective on the movement and their real motivations.

David Evans, who consulted for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) 1999-2005 and 1998-2010, and was a believer in AGW until the evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself in 1998 to 2006, when he became a skeptic.

“The AGW scam involves a “regulating class” of believers, consisting of the UN, western governments, major banks and finance houses, NGOs and greenies, totalitarian leftists, government-funded scientists, academia, renewables corporations and the mainstream news media. Against them are the doubters: independently-funded scientists, private-sector middle class, and amateurs. The regulating class does not try to hide its belief that it is cleverer and morally superior. Their solution is regulation of the whole world’s economy by themselves, which was the object at the failed Copenhagen climate conference. On climate change, the regulating class has won over the leadership of most professional and business organizations by lobbying and pressure.”

---------

Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation

“The free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

---------

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, visited Australia in July 2011. In referring to the ideological orientations of those individuals and organisations who have significant financial and other vested interests in propagating the ‘Doctrine. of anthropogenic induced climate change, President Klaus said: “They want to change us, to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences, they want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. What is endangered is freedom, the climate is okay.”

After noting that today’s human-induced climate change alarmists are the ideological descendents of the zero and negative population growth advocates of the 1970s who erroneously forecast that human population pressures would lead to increases in global poverty and growing shortages in resources, President Klaus went on to add: “They hate us, the humans, they consider us selfish and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them. I used to live in a similar world - called communism - and I know that it led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced.”

Even the Royal Society has taken a Malthusian direction, and should no longer be regarded as credible on science.

SEEN IN THEIR OWN WORDS:HERE Here are just a few examples:

> Maurice Strong, senior advisor to Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary-General who chaired the gigantic (40,000 participants) “U.N. Conference on Environment and Development” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 , who was responsible for putting together the Kyoto Protocol with thousands of bureaucrats, diplomats, and politicians, stated: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse....isn’t it our job to bring that about"]

> “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention...and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or...one invented for the purpose.” Quote by the Club of Rome.

> Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues, seconded Strong’s statement: “We have 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.”

> Richard Benedick, a deputy assistant secretary of state who headed policy divisions of the U.S. State Department, stated: “A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

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

> “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” - Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

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

> Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” - Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC

> “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, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

> IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer in November 2010 admitted “one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” Instead, climate change policy is about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”

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

> “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.” - Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

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

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

> “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

> “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide (we are now at 6.8 billion), destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” - Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

> “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit (THE REASON FOR THE PUSH TO ALTERNATIVE GREEN ENERGY WHICH WOULD CAUSE COSTS TO SKYROCKET AND MAKE ITS USE UNAFFORDABLE).

> “Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.” - Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

> “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

> “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.” - Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

> “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.” - United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

> “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

> “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

> “One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” - Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

> “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

> “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

> “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

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

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

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

> “Climate Change will result in a catastrophic, global seal level rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.” - Greenpeace International (It has risen less than 7 inches in 100 years and is decelerating)

> “We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.” - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

> “The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human species has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution. Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.” - Rene Dubos, board member Planetary Citizens

> “A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.” - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

> “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced - a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.” - UN Agenda 21

> “Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time."- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

> “In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.” - Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General

> “Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.” - Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute

See top 15 most ridiculous enviro claims here.

Also see this. PLEASE NOTE THE DATE…
A United Nations meeting on the environment opened Monday with an official forecast that the world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now. Lack of such action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust” --Ecological Disaster Feared, Reuters, 11 May 1982.