Political Climate
Mar 26, 2019
Indignant climate campaigners terrified of proposed scientific debate

By Larry Bell

Before even thinking about squandering one hundred trillion dollars on an insane economy-collapsing Green New Deal premised upon an end-of-world climate catastrophe, let’s take a very hard look at the so-called “settled science” nonsense. The Trump White House plans to convene a National Security Council review panel headed by Princeton emeritus professor of physics Dr. Will Happer to do exactly that.

One of the loudest, shrillest, most unsettled voices of protest against science scrutiny is emanating from Dr. Michael Mann, the author of a cobbled-together and thoroughly debunked “hockey stick” graph first used by the IPCC and Al Gore to gin up the climate Armageddon alarm.

A March 20 article co-authored by Mann and Bob Ward in The Guardian equated the planned NSC panel to Stalinist repression.

Accordingly, a great place to begin this investigation is to revisit scandalous Climategate email exchanges between members of Mann’s hockey team along with readily available public records I have previously written about in numerous Forbes and Newsmax articles.

Tom Crowley, a close Mann colleague, wrote, “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

Yet friendship aside, Mann’s hockey shtick graph co-author Raymond Bradley clearly drew the line regarding another research paper jointly published by Mann and colleague Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia.

Bradley wrote,

“I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year [climate] reconstruction.”

Nevertheless, Michael Mann sanctimoniously attacked Will Happer’s scientific credentials to chair the NSC’s panel because “[he] has not published any research on climate change in a reputable science journal.”

By “reputable,” Mann is obviously referring to publishers that exclusively post research papers endorsed by the Climate Crisis Cartel and its IPCC sponsors.

An email from Jones to Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports, said, “Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW [global warming] is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.”

Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported this connection be represented in IPCC reviews, “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital - hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”

Top cyclone expert Christopher Landsea demanded that the IPCC refute Trenberth’s scientifically unsupportable but highly publicized claim of a global warming-hurricane link following a deadly 2004 Florida storm season. Receiving no response, Landsea resigned as an invited 2007 IPCC report author.

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann marked “Highly Confidential” discussed keeping two papers published in Climate Research from being in that next IPCC report. Jones wrote: Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested, “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

Trenberth’s associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research warned in another email to Mann, “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive ... there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC ... “ Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another email to Mann, “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

Writing to Phil Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying, “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.”

Thorne prudently observed in a separate email, “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

Another scientist worries, “.... clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”

Still another observed, “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences, “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably....”

Oh Mann!

I understand your angst about where your rebounding hockey puck may wind up.

Mar 24, 2019
Feds push climate alarmism to our children

By David Wojick

As our children skip school to chant climate alarmist slogans, you may wonder “Where do they get this stuff?” Of course they get some of it from their teachers, but these teachers get a lot of it via the U.S. Federal Government.

The sad fact is that a number of federal agencies either maintain or fund websites that specifically exist to push alarmist teaching materials. In many cases these alarmist materials are also federally funded. The Trump Administration has done very little to stem this flow of propaganda to our children.

Here is a partial list of Federal or federally funded websites pushing alarmist educational materials for kids:

1. Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network (CLEAN).

Bills itself as A collection of 700+ free, ready-to-use resources rigorously reviewed by educators and scientists. Suitable for secondary through higher education classrooms. CLEAN is funded by grants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy.

2. US Global Change Research Program “Resources for Educators.”


The USGCRP is funded by 13 federal agencies. It also produces the hyper-alarmist National Climate Assessments.

3. NOAA’s ”Teaching Climate.” (A massive website)

NOAA’s Climate.gov website is completely alarmist. In fact they define alarmism as so-called “Climate literacy.”

4. NASA’s ”Climate Kids” (Another huge site)

Includes games and videos for young children. Here is part of the green message: “Some of the ways you can help may have to wait until you are a little older - like choosing an energy-efficient car, installing solar panels on the roof of your house, or choosing a green career.”

5. The National Ocean Service’s ”Talking to Children about Climate Change.”

Alarmist materials for teachers, beginning in elementary school.

6. ”Teaching about Climate Change” from Carlton College, sponsored by NSF

Carleton is another massive alarmist site that includes both teaching teachers how to teach alarmism and classroom materials for doing so.

7. ”Climate Change Live” with many federal “partners”.

CCL advertises itself as a “distance learning” site.

8. ”Climate Change Activities” from UCAR, sponsored by NSF.

UCAR is a consortium of universities that runs NSF’s multi-billion dollar National Center for Atmospheric Research.

9. ”Climate and Global Change” by the National Earth Science Teachers Association, sponsored by NASA and NOAA.

NESTA is solidly alarmist.

10. ”Climate Change” from AAAS, sponsored by NSF.

Includes alarmist material for all grades, including kindergarten.

11. “Climate Change and Human Health Lesson Plans” by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH.

Promotes various health scares based on climate change alarmism.

In contrast to these federal propaganda sites, there is at this time no website that focuses on teaching children about skepticism and the real scientific debate over climate change. It is no wonder that they believe false alarmism.


Dear Dr. Joe,

Yes, it is disappointing that President Trump has not been able to change some of the outrageous behavior of federal government agencies.

The climate propaganda programs need to stop NOW.

Our local American Meteorological Society chapter still references the NASA climate propaganda site as their authority for hysteria, based on repeated recommendations from Phil Mote’s OCCRI at Oregon State University.  But I think that the Oregon AMS at least suspects that it may not be a good way to argue science.  Unfortunately, none of the officers of the local chapter have adequate training in science to be able to distinguish real from fake science, especially when the fake science is promoted by a young woman, Kathy Dello, who works for Mote.  Neither the President nor the Vice President of the chapter have formal training in meteorology.  Yet President Steve Pierce keeps referring to himself as a “meteorologist,” when presenting the weather on local TV.

Here is the comment that I left for the article below:

Propagandizing children is simply wrong, VERY WRONG.

Children need to be taught how to think not what to think. Climate science provides a wonderful opportunity to teach children how science really works and how to resist the overwhelming propaganda that they will be told is the Real McCoy.

First and foremost, science is not an exercise in consensus and authority. It is an exercise in careful logic and robust evidence. That is why the great physicist, Richard Feynman, characterized science as “a belief in the ignorance of the experts.” That is why the motto of the first scientific society, the British Royal Society, is “Nullius in Verba” or “Take no one’s word for it”. And that is why Aristotle characterized arguments from authority and consensus as ‘logical fallacies.’

For instance, we don’t argue that the world is round, because everyone agrees that it is. We simply present a photo of Dr. Harrison Schmitt standing on the moon with a round earth in the background. (Schmitt is the only scientist to ever walk on the moon. He has a PhD in Geology from Harvard and works with me as a Director of the CO2 Coalition.)

Yet most of the arguments in favor of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming insist that people believe in the coming apocalypse, because 97% or 99% or all scientists do. What nonsense! Why do you suppose they do that in lieu of the evidence? That’s easy.  They don’t have convincing evidence!

All they have is a vague correlation between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and slightly rising atmospheric temperatures since World War Two. Although atmospheric CO2 apparently rose continuously during this period, the global temperature anomaly only rose for two of the seven decades and only after a notable shift in the Pacific Ocean called the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977. Could our oceans be responsible for the shift? Sure! It is easy to show that our oceans contain 99 to 99.9% of the mobile heat on this planet.

But what about the infallible ‘Climate Models’ that are supposed to be able to predict our climate out a century using mathematical methods similar to weather models? With weather models barely accurate out a week, it should seem preposterous that the similar climate models work out to 5,200 weeks! And indeed the climate models badly fail verification tests.


My colleague, Professor of Mathematical and Theoretical Physics Gerhard Gerlich, perhaps said it best:

“To derive climate catastrophes from these computer games and to scare Mankind to death is a crime.”

It is especially criminal to involve children in the climate fraud.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA

Mar 20, 2019
Media Touts ‘Clear Sign of Human-Caused Climate Change.’ Here Are the Facts.

Marc Morano

Daily Signal

Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has made another attempt to convince the public of global warming, but his latest analysis has climate scientists once again refuting his claims.

On Tuesday, Borenstein cited AP analysis that found hot temperature records in the U.S. were being broken twice as often as cold temperature records. He concluded that this is “a clear sign of human-caused climate change.”

Borenstein wrote:

The AP looked at 424 weather stations throughout the Lower 48 states that had consistent temperature records since 1920 and counted how many times daily hot temperature records were tied or broken and how many daily cold records were set. In a stable climate, the numbers should be roughly equal. Since 1999, the ratio has been two warm records set or broken for every cold one. In 16 of the last 20 years, there have been more daily high-temperature records than low.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

He went on to cite various climate scientists:

The AP shared the data analysis with several climate and data scientists, who all said the conclusion was correct, consistent with scientific peer-reviewed literature and showed a clear sign of human-caused climate change. They pointed out that trends over decades are more robust than over single years.

He concluded:

The analysis stopped with data through 2018. However, the first two months of 2019 are showing twice as many cold records than hot ones.

But the scientists he cited don’t speak for all climate scientists. Some, in fact, are dismissing his “clear sign” analysis.

Climatologist John Christy told me that Borenstein framed the data wrongly:

The occurrence of both record highs and record lows is declining. Record-low events are simply declining more rapidly than record highs. The drop in record lows is associated with development around the weather stations, which causes low temperatures to increase more than highs for a variety of reasons.

Most climate change activists cite the greenhouse gas theory-that man-made gases are causing changes to the Earth’s temperature. Christy noted that this theory predicts an increase in frequency of record-breaking temperatures. Yet the exact opposite is happening in the U.S. ‘the frequency of those temps is declining’.

The cause? Christy says it’s likely “urbanization and natural variability.

He added: “I’ve actually done this same analysis for the 682 [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] stations with at least 105 years of record since 1895. It is clear that the occurrence of both record high and record lows has declined since 1895, thanks to many records set from the 1920s to 1954.”


He continued:

The AP… is spinning the story by only noting that record lows are fewer than highs now - but the real story is that in the U.S., both extremes are falling. This is consistent with the decline in number of days greater than 100 [degrees] Fahrenheit (or 105 Fahrenheit or 95 Fahrenheit, etc.). The differential decline in record temps is inconsistent with [greenhouse gas] theory, which predicts an increase in record highs and higher TMax in general.


Note: the decline in both heat and cold records was shown even in Borenstein’s post.


Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. expressed skepticism of the AP analysis as well:

Without assessing the role of increased urbanization and other land-use changes… changes in atmospheric aerosols overhead, microclimate around observing site, changes in heights of observations, and concurrent trends in surface air humidity, it is not robust to attribute any changes in extreme temperatures to just human-added atmospheric CO2.

He added: “We have published on each of these subjects but work remains mostly ignored.”

Borenstein’s claims are also countered in the peer-review scientific literature. A 2018 analysis found that multiple recent studies and long-term data refuted claims that there had been an increase in heat waves. In addition, a 2013 paper published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology found that U.S. extreme heat waves have decreased since the 1930s.

It’s also important to note that recent temperatures are not at all unusual, with 2018 continuing a several-year cooling trend. The media-hyped “hottest year” claims do not hold up to scrutiny. Princeton physicist Will Happer ridiculed such claims and explained that “alleged record warmings are tenths of a degree or less, comparable to the statistical error”.

Borenstein, the chief climate reporter for the Associated Press, has a long history of promoting dubious climate claims and essentially lobbying the public to “believe” that man-made climate change is a dire emergency and that government “solutions” are needed.

He has repeatedly recycled Antarctic melt fears despite contrary evidence, and unscientifically claimed that “climate change” has made the Earth “weirder” and “downright wilder.”

Americans who rely on the Associated Press for climate news and information are being misinformed. The AP is serving up nothing short of rank climate propaganda.

Page 1 of 631 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »