Global Warming? Climate Change? Debunking the hooey.

[Sinnerman]

My friends, you know me to be neither rash nor impulsive. I'm not given to wild, unsupported statements. And I tell you that we must evacuate this planet immediately!
- Jor-El, Superman I


I could make an argument that the climate change alarmist scientist don't deserve their diploma's and that they appear totally unprofessional, based on the leaked emails showing how they admit to lying about data and they personally and professionally attack other scientists who disagree with them.

But I want you to look at their own cost-benefit analysis for a moment and tell me what makes more sense. If you accept the dubious science, and some here do, you probably want to take action. So, you decide that based on the scale and severity of the problem, you'll need to spend a trillion dollars a year doing something. Maybe reducing car emissions or industrial emissions. You'll want to shut down all coal fired power plants and hope that energy can be replaced by something cleaner. So you'll need to invest in something cleaner. Maybe build a 100 new hydro-electric dams.

While you are making your plans and doing the cost-benefit analysis, and preparing to shut down 20 coal power plants, India and China are building 2000 coal fired power plants. India and China are building 500 miles of new roads every day. China and India are building 3000 new automobiles each day. China and India are adding 1000 new drivers each and every day. For every mitigation effort you take on, China and India move in the opposite direction at over 100 times the rate you are moving, or that you hope to move in a best case scenario where lawyers and politicians don't delay your actions for decades.

What is the result of your cost-benefit analysis? It turns out the global warming alarmists have already made that analysis and they stated that everything we could possible do in the U.S. would accomplish nothing, other than draining the economy and bankrupting the country. It could never offset what two other large countries are doing, not to mention what a couple hundred other countries are doing that also contributes to the negative side of the equation.

So why are we having this discussion? If all the skeptics suddenly concede to alarmist thinking, and agree to take action, there is no action that will accomplish anything. We would still see things getting worse, according to the alarmists cost-benefit analysis.



Here is my best advice to all climate change alarmists;


If A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z.
X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut.

- Albert Einstein

 

[Sinnerman]

Activists demand UN ‘revoke’ credentials of ‘climate deniers’ in Paris – Claim ‘Climate Hustle’ film is ‘full of lies’ – without seeing it – Warn skeptics may ‘derail’ UN treaty

Read more: Activists demand UN ‘revoke’ credentials of ‘climate deniers’ in Paris – Claim ‘Climate Hustle’ film is ‘full of lies’ – without seeing it – Warn skeptics may ‘derail’ UN treaty | Climate



___________________________________________________________________________________________________



Roger Revelle, Al Gore’s Mentor Believed Global Warming Science Seriously Flawed

Another version of this story has been posted before. This one includes a video clip of John Coleman which is well worth seeing. He says that Revelle, Gore's mentor, gave a talk at Bohemian Grove and apologized for the mistake he had made -he said that global warming wasn't a problem after all.

Roger Revelle & Al Gore: Coleman's Video Report, 3/6/09
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../40867912.html

Revelle was a powerful man, a noteworthy scientist and a significant force in San Diego in the 1950s. There is no doubt he is largely responsible for the respect given Scripps Institute of Oceanography and for locating the University of California at San Diego, UCSD, in La Jolla.

While serving as Director of Scripps, Revelle and one of his researchers wrote the first modern scientific paper that linked carbon dioxide released into the air from the burning of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect and the warming of temperatures. This triggered an avalanche of research that eventually became the impetus behind the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the entire global warming movement.

In the 1960s Revelle moved to Harvard to establish a Center for Population Studies. There is where Professor Revelle encounter student Albert Gore. He involved Gore and his class mates in tabulating the data from a carbon dioxide study. Gore was so impressed he wrote about it in his 1992 book, " Earth in the Balance ". That became the story for the movie "an Inconvenient Truth". The Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize and some people say 100 million dollars came from that effort. There is no doubt Roger Revelle had a major impact on Vice President Gore's life.

But there is a twist. In 1988 Roger Revelle was having major second thoughts about whether carbon dioxide was a significant greenhouse gas. He wrote letters to two Congressmen about it. And in 1991 he co-authored a report for the new science magazine Cosmos in which he expressed his strong doubts about global warming and urged more research before any remedial action was taken.

At that point Mr. Gore pronounced Revelle as senile and refused to debate global warming. He continues to refuse to debate today. Many offers of 10s of thousands of dollars have been made such a debate. Today Gore sequestered the media at this event and set forth rules, no questions, no interviews.

I have learned that in 1991 Roger Revelle made a speech at the high powered, very private Summer enclave of powerful men and politicians at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California, where he apologized that his research sent so many people in the wrong direction on global warming.

He worried about the political fallout from the UN IPCC and Al Gore. A man named Donn Michael Schmidtman who lives in the San Francisco area was there that day and remembers the Revelle speech very well. He has told about it in some detail.

So think of the irony. Today Al Gore received the first Roger Revelle award, an honor named after the man who sent Gore on his global warming campaign.

But the truth is; Revelle realized that it was a false alarm and the science was flawed before he died.

Revelle died of a heart attack in 1991.

It would be interesting to know if Revelle had lived whether he would have approved of this award tonight or perhaps be joining me at the International conference of global warming skeptics in New York next week.





To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow

 

[Sinnerman]

Public opinion turning against global warming alarmists

Global Warming Hoax - Leading Scientists Debunk Climate Alarmism

http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/b...imate-alarmism


Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

Anthropogenic Global Warming - Fact or Hoax? An editorial by James A. Peden

Major Scientists Confirm: Global Warming Panic Is a Hoax

Moonbattery ​

 

[Sinnerman]

Climatologists are no Eisteins says his successor

Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of "most brilliant physicist on the planet." Dyson has filled it.

Freeman Dyson

So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn’t come along with it. The reason he’s a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.
"I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic," Dyson said.

Dyson came to this country from his native England at age 23 and immediately made major breakthroughs in quantum theory. After that he worked on a nuclear-powered rocket (see video below). Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

"I just think they don’t understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

"The models are extremely oversimplified," he said. "They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds."

Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO-2 into the atmosphere during that decade.

That was vindication for a man who was termed "a civil heretic" in a New York Times Magazine article on his contrarian views. Dyson embraces that label, with its implication that what he opposes is a religious movement. So does his fellow Princeton physicist and fellow skeptic, William Happer.

"There are people who just need a cause that’s bigger than themselves," said Happer. "Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous."

To show how uncivil this crowd can get, Happer e-mailed me an article about an Australian professor who proposes — quite seriously — the death penalty for heretics such as Dyson. As did Galileo, they can get a reprieve if they recant.

I hope that guy never gets to hear Dyson’s most heretical assertion: Atmospheric CO-2 may actually be improving the environment.

"It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation," Dyson said. "About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO-2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil"

In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO-2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.


"They’re absolutely lousy," he said of American journalists. "That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed."

I know why: They’re lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about "consensus" among climate scientists.

The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters.

"It was similar in the Soviet Union," he said. "Who could doubt Marxist economics was the future? Everything else was in the dustbin."

There’s a lot of room left in that bin for the ideas promulgated by people dumber than Dyson. Which is just about everyone.

ADD: This quote from the great H.L. Mencken captures perfectly the religious nature of those in the climate cult:

"The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable."[/

[video=youtube;JTSxubKfTBU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU&feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

[Sinnerman]

When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’


By Jay Richards
Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Filed under: Science & Technology, Big Ideas, Culture, Government & Politics, Public Square


Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd.




A December 18 Washington Post poll, released on the final day of the ill-fated Copenhagen climate summit, reported “four in ten Americans now saying that they place little or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment.” Nor is the poll an outlier. Several recent polls have found “climate change” skepticism rising faster than sea levels on Planet Algore (not to be confused with Planet Earth, where sea levels remain relatively stable).

Many of the doubt-inducing climate scientists and their media acolytes attribute this rising skepticism to the stupidity of Americans, philistines unable to appreciate that there is “a scientific consensus on climate change.” One of the benefits of the recent Climategate scandal, which revealed leading climate scientists manipulating data, methods, and peer review to exaggerate the evidence of significant global warming, may be to permanently deflate the rhetorical value of the phrase “scientific consensus.”

Even without the scandal, the very idea of scientific consensus should give us pause. “Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That pretty much sums up the dilemma. We want to know whether a scientific consensus is based on solid evidence and sound reasoning, or social pressure and groupthink.

Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. Many false ideas enjoyed consensus opinion at one time. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often shapes the thinking of scientists so strongly that they become unable to accurately summarize, let alone evaluate, radical alternatives. Question the paradigm, and some respond with dogmatic fanaticism.

We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are always cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone somewhere—easily accessible online—that thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best disregarded.

So what’s a non-scientist citizen, without the time to study the scientific details, to do? How is the ordinary citizen to distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? Conversely, how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Are we obligated to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?

Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, maintains, and communicates the ostensible consensus. I don’t know of any exhaustive list of signs of suspicion, but, using climate change as a test study, I propose this checklist as a rough-and-ready list of signs for when to consider doubting a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be suspicious.

(1) When different claims get bundled together.

Usually, in scientific disputes, there is more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there’s the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There’s also the claim that human emissions are the main cause of it, that it’s going to be catastrophic, and that we have to transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different assertions with different bases of evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn’t evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet, Newfoundland become a popular place to tan, and that wouldn’t tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.

There’s a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There’s even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four propositions are frequently bundled together, so that if you doubt one, you’re labeled a climate change “skeptic” or “denier.” That’s just plain intellectually dishonest. When well-established claims are fused with separate, more controversial claims, and the entire conglomeration is covered with the label “consensus,” you have reason for doubt.

(2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate.

Personal attacks are common in any dispute simply because we’re human. It’s easier to insult than to the follow the thread of an argument. And just because someone makes an ad hominem argument, it doesn’t mean that their conclusion is wrong. But when the personal attacks are the first out of the gate, and when they seem to be growing in intensity and frequency, don your skeptic’s cap and look more closely at the evidence.

When it comes to climate change, ad hominems are all but ubiquitous. They are even smuggled into the way the debate is described. The common label “denier” is one example. Without actually making the argument, this label is supposed to call to mind the assertion of the “great climate scientist” Ellen Goodman: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious.

(3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line.

The famous Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union is often cited as an example of politics trumping good science. It’s a good example, but it’s often used to imply that such a thing could only happen in a totalitarian culture, that is, when all-powerful elites can control the flow of information. But this misses the almost equally powerful conspiracy of agreement, in which interlocking assumptions and interests combine to give the appearance of objectivity where none exists. For propaganda purposes, this voluntary conspiracy is even more powerful than a literal conspiracy by a dictatorial power, precisely because it looks like people have come to their position by a fair and independent evaluation of the evidence.

Tenure, job promotions, government grants, media accolades, social respectability, Wikipedia entries, and vanity can do what gulags do, only more subtly. Alexis de Tocqueville warned of the power of the majority in American society to erect “formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.” He could have been writing about climate science.

Climategate, and the dishonorable response to its revelations by some official scientific bodies, show that scientists are under pressure to toe the orthodox party line on climate change, and receive many benefits for doing so. That’s another reason for suspicion.

(4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish.

Though it has its limits, the peer-review process is meant to provide checks and balances, to weed out bad and misleading work, and to bring some measure of objectivity to scientific research. At its best, it can do that. But when the same few people review and approve each other’s work, you invariably get conflicts of interest. This weakens the case for the supposed consensus, and becomes, instead, another reason to be suspicious. Nerds who follow the climate debate blogosphere have known for years about the cliquish nature of publishing and peer review in climate science (see here, for example).

(5) When dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent.

Besides mere cliquishness, the “peer review” process in climate science has, in some cases, been consciously, deliberately subverted to prevent dissenting views from being published. Again, denizens of the climate blogosphere have known about these problems for years, but Climategate revealed some of the gory details for the broader public. And again, this gives the lay public a reason to doubt the consensus.

(6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented.

Because of the rhetorical force of the idea of peer review, there’s the temptation to misrepresent it. We’ve been told for years that the peer-reviewed literature is virtually unanimous in its support for human-induced climate change. In Science, Naomi Oreskes even produced a “study” of the relevant literature supposedly showing “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” In fact, there are plenty of dissenting papers in the literature, and this despite mounting evidence that the peer-review deck was stacked against them. The Climategate scandal also underscored this: The climate scientists at the center of the controversy complained in their emails about dissenting papers that managed to survive the peer-review booby traps they helped maintain, and fantasized about torpedoing a respected climate science journal with the temerity to publish a dissenting article.

(7) When consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists.

A well-rooted scientific consensus, like a mature oak, usually needs time to emerge. Scientists around the world have to do research, publish articles, read about other research, repeat experiments (where possible), have open debates, make their data and methods available, evaluate arguments, look at the trends, and so forth, before they eventually come to agreement. When scientists rush to declare a consensus, particularly when they claim a consensus that has yet to form, this should give any reasonable person pause.

In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.” In the real 1992, however, Gallup “reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.” Seventeen years later, in 2009, Gore apparently determined that he needed to revise his own revisionist history, asserting that the scientific debate over human-induced climate change had raged until as late as 1999, but now there was true consensus. Of course, 2009 is when Climategate broke, reminding us that what had smelled funny before might indeed be a little rotten.

(8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus.

It makes sense that chemists over time may come to unanimous conclusions about the results of some chemical reaction, since they can replicate the results over and over in their own labs. They can see the connection between the conditions and its effects. It’s easily testable. But many of the things under consideration in climate science are not like that. The evidence is scattered and hard to keep track of; it’s often indirect, imbedded in history and requiring all sorts of assumptions. You can’t rerun past climate to test it, as you can with chemistry experiments. And the headline-grabbing conclusions of climate scientists are based on complex computer models that climate scientists themselves concede do not accurately model the underlying reality, and receive their input, not from the data, but from the scientists interpreting the data. This isn’t the sort of scientific endeavor on which a wide, well-established consensus is easily rendered. In fact, if there really were a consensus on all the various claims surrounding climate science, that would be really suspicious. A fortiori, the claim of consensus is a bit suspicious as well.

(9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution.

In Newsweek’s April 28, 1975, issue, science editor Peter Gwynne claimed that “scientists are almost unanimous” that global cooling was underway. Now we are told, “Scientists say global warming will lead to the extinction of plant and animal species, the flooding of coastal areas from rising seas, more extreme weather, more drought and diseases spreading more widely.” “Scientists say” is hopelessly ambiguous. Your mind should immediately wonder: “Which ones?”

Other times this vague company of scientists becomes “SCIENCE,” as when we’re told “what science says is required to avoid catastrophic climate change.” “Science says” is an inherently weasely claim. “Science,” after all, is an abstract noun. It can’t say anything. Whenever you see that locution used to imply a consensus, it should trigger your baloney detector.

(10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies.

Imagine hundreds of world leaders and nongovernmental organizations, science groups, and United Nations functionaries gathered for a meeting heralded as the most important conference since World War II, in which “the future of the world is being decided.” These officials seem to agree that institutions of “global governance” need to be established to reorder the world economy and massively restrict energy resources. Large numbers of them applaud wildly when socialist dictators denounce capitalism. Strange philosophical and metaphysical activism surrounds the gathering. And we are told by our president that all of this is based, not on fiction, but on science—that is, a scientific consensus that human activities, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, are leading to catastrophic climate change.

We don’t have to imagine that scenario, of course. It happened in Copenhagen, in December. Now, none of this disproves the hypothesis of catastrophic, human induced climate change. But it does describe an atmosphere that would be highly conducive to misrepresentation. And at the very least, when policy consequences, which claim to be based on science, are so profound, the evidence ought to be rock solid. “Extraordinary claims,” the late Carl Sagan often said, “require extraordinary evidence.” When the megaphones of consensus insist that there’s no time, that we have to move, MOVE, MOVE!, you have a right to be suspicious.

(11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with uncritical and partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as objectively as possible.

Do I really need to elaborate on this point?

(12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus.

A scientific consensus should be based on scientific evidence. But a consensus is not itself the evidence. And with really well-established scientific theories, you never hear about consensus. No one talks about the consensus that the planets orbit the sun, that the hydrogen molecule is lighter than the oxygen molecule, that salt is sodium chloride, that light travels about 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum, that bacteria sometimes cause illness, or that blood carries oxygen to our organs. The very fact that we hear so much about a consensus on catastrophic, human-induced climate change is perhaps enough by itself to justify suspicion.

To adapt that old legal aphorism, when you’ve got decisive scientific evidence on your side, you argue the evidence. When you’ve got great arguments, you make the arguments. When you don’t have decisive evidence or great arguments, you claim consensus.

Jay Richards frequently writes for the Enterprise Blog and is a contributing editor of THE AMERICAN.

 

[prove-all]

The Paris Climate Summit Is About Money, Power and an Economic Revolution

President Barack Obama said he personally came to the conference “as the leader of the world’s
largest economy and the second-largest emitter to say the U.S.A. not only recognizes our role
in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.”
Obama: Climate Change 'Act of Defiance' Against ISIS

The president encouraged the world’s leaders to stop burning oil and other fossil fuels,
saying that the best way to combat Islamic State terrorism in Syria and Iraq is to sign
a climate deal that will stop the world from warming.

It would be an “act of defiance” against terrorism, he said.

The talks are, however, about money and power. They are about fomenting a revolution.
And they are geopolitics at its most cutthroat.

In February, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
revealed the real motivation behind the Paris climate talks. She said:

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

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

The Paris climate summit is about revolutionizing the world’s economic system,
and turning into Capitalism.

As Pope Francis said on Monday: [The world is headed toward “suicide” ]
if a climate agreement isn’t reached.
World headed toward 'suicide' if no climate agreement: pope | Reuters

“Africa is a victim,” he said. “Africa has always been exploited by other powers …
there are some countries that want only the great resources of Africa.
But they don’t think about developing the countries, about creating jobs.
Africa is martyr, a martyr of the exploitation of history.”

As a result, Africa is “mired in poverty and social injustice,” he said.
This has to change. A dying world justifies extreme action, according to Pope Francis.

Capitalism has increased inequality and [caused the destruction of the environment]
for “profit at any price” he told a crowd earlier this year.
Capitalism is “the dung of the devil,” he said.
Pope Francis: Critic of capitalism since 1990s - Sep. 21, 2015

But the pope is just one force behind the Paris summit—albeit a powerful one
the various climate-change protests taking place around the world.
They are filled with anti-capitalist, socialist and increasingly openly Communist activists.
And these people are not just hangers-on; they are the [protest organizers].
https://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/09/23/climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/

“System Change, Not Climate Change” is the message behind this movement.
Many call themselves “ecosocialists.” looking for a revolution
ABOUT | System Change Not Climate Change

the keynote speaker at last year’s massive People’s Climate Rally in Oakland said:

What we are facing is a systemic problem. A [conflict between two systems].
Communist Agenda Behind Climate Change Movement - Breitbart

First is the environmental system, which sustains life on Earth. Then there is the
economic system of capitalism that is attacking the stability of our environment.
Capitalism and a healthy environment cannot coexist! …

[W]e’re going to have to disrupt and transform the capitalist system.
That is why we say, “System Change, Not Climate Change”!

According to mainstream environmentalists, America’s economic system is rooted
in colonialism and slavery and based on exploitation. And it needs to be destroyed.

So it is more than odd that a U.S. president would so strongly embrace a movement
whose stated purpose is to destroy the economic model that defines America’s way of life.
It is this blatant anti-capitalism/ anti-Americanism purveying the climate-change movement
that led previous administrations to reject the Koyoto Protocol talks and other environmental agreements.

America has nothing to gain at these talks,But still, President Obama pushes for an agreement.

The United States is an economic powerhouse. It is also an energy powerhouse.
It is a world leader in terms of coal, oil and natural gas resources. Energy supplies
are so abundant that costs are near multi-decade lows.

Of the world’s 3 billion barrels of available petroleum inventories, more than 2 billion
of those barrels are located in the U.S. according to the International Energy Agency.

This inexpensive and abundant energy gives America a huge economic advantage over
other nations. It keeps heating and transportation costs down, it fuels industry, and it
subsidizes living standards. And perhaps just as importantly, the cost for all that oil,
gas and coal stays mostly right at home in America—building the economy and providing jobs.

From a competition standpoint, limiting fossil-fuel usage makes little sense for America.
But from a European perspective, it could be a big advantage.

For resource-constrained Europe, fossil fuels are not only more expensive,
but imported—meaning the money goes to the Saudis or Russians.

European businesses are already paying high-cost energy prices. In Germany,
electricity costs are roughly three times the cost in America. If America wants
to voluntarily handicap itself, so much the better from Europe’s perspective.

https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/...-about-money-power-and-an-economic-revolution

 

[Sinnerman]

Global Warming / Climate Change Hoax - Dr. Roy Spencer
[video=youtube;ExgKJpJyDXQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ExgKJpJyDXQ[/video]

 

[Sinnerman]

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (High Quality Version)

[video=youtube;-sHg3ZztDAw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-sHg3ZztDAw[/video]


.

 

[Sinnerman]

Professor Bob Carter torpedoes the "scientific consensus" on the climate HOAX

[video=youtube;JpfMM3bVbhQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JpfMM3bVbhQ[/video]

 

[Sinnerman]

Former NASA Scientists... Global Warming Hoax

[video=youtube;aEaFzhoS67I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aEaFzhoS67I[/video]

 

[Sinnerman]

The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie

[video=youtube;52Mx0_8YEtg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=52Mx0_8YEtg[/video]

 

[Sinnerman]

Climategate 'hide the decline' in depth explanation by Stephen McIntyre 1/3

[video=youtube;JlCNrdna9CI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JlCNrdna9CI[/video]

 

[Sinnerman]

Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case

[video=youtube;0gDErDwXqhc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0gDErDwXqhc[/video]

 

[Sinnerman]

Climate Scientists Laugh at Global Warming Hysteria

[video=youtube;C35pasCr6KI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C35pasCr6KI[/video]

 

[Sinnerman]

Climate Scientist Murry Salby Demolishes the Global Warming Alarm

[video=youtube;HeCqcKYj9Oc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HeCqcKYj9Oc[/video]

 

[Sinnerman]

Climate Scientist PANS Global Warming Hysteria Part 1

[video=youtube;ZMiuv6f9hd4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZMiuv6f9hd4[/video]

 

[Sinnerman]

Freeman Dyson: Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society

[video=youtube;8xFLjUt2leM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8xFLjUt2leM[/video]

 

[Sinnerman]

In the remake, Keanu Reeves plays the part of Klaatu, a global warming alarmist, who has plans to kill all humans on Earth in order to stop global warming.

__________________________________________________ ___________________________

Helen Benson: I need to know what's happening.

Klaatu: This planet is dying. The human race is killing it.

Helen Benson: So you've come here to help us.

Klaatu: No, *I* didn't.

Helen Benson: You said you came to save us.

Klaatu: I said I came to save the Earth.

Helen Benson: You came to save the Earth... from us. You came to save the Earth *from* us.

Klaatu: We can't risk the survival of this planet for the sake of one species.

Helen Benson: What are you saying?

Klaatu: If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives. There are only a handful of planets in the cosmos that are capable of supporting complex life...

Helen Benson: You can't do this.

Klaatu: ...this one can't be allowed to perish.

Helen Benson: We can change. We can still turn things around.

Klaatu: We've watched, we've waited and hoped that you *would* change.

Helen Benson: Please...

Klaatu: It's reached the tipping point. We have to act.

Helen Benson: Please...

Klaatu: We'll undo the damage you've done and give the Earth a chance to begin again.

Helen Benson: Don't do this. Please, we can change. We can change.

Klaatu: The decision is made. The process has begun.

Helen Benson: Oh God.

 

[Sinnerman]

Darn that Lex Luthor. He was in cahoots with the global warming alarmists. He couldn't get a nuclear weapon to cause half of California to drop into the ocean, so he probably created some sort of global warming accelerator to raise sea levels. That diabolical genius. I wonder if it's too late to get in on the ground floor of Costa Del Lex.

__________________________________________________ _______________________________________

Lex Luthor: Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.

Lex Luthor: Everything west of this line is the richest, most expensive real estate in the world: San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco. Everything on THIS side of the line is just hundreds and hundreds of miles of worthless desert land, which just so happens to be owned by...

[Whaps Otis with his pointer]

Otis: Uhhh... Lex Luthor Incorporated.

Lex Luthor: Now, call me foolish, call me irresponsible, but it occurs to me that a 500 megaton bomb planted at just the proper point would, uh...

Superman: Would destroy most of California. Millions of innocent people would be killed. The west coast as we know it would...

Lex Luthor: Fall into the sea.

Lex Luthor: [Gives a little wave with his hand] Bye-bye, California. Hello, new west coast. My west coast.

[Otis overlays map with new map]


Lex Luthor: Costa Del Lex. Luthorville. Marina del Lex. Otisburg... Otisburg?

 

[Sinnerman]

A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax


by Alan Caruba
March 31, 2014

http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-...-warming-hoax/

“It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,” says Dr. Tim Ball in his new book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”.

Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988.

Several UN conferences set in motion the hoax that is based on the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing a dramatic surge in heating the Earth. IPCC reports have continued to spread this lie through their summaries for policy makers that influenced policies that have caused nations worldwide to spend billions to reduce and restrict CO2 emissions. Manmade climate change—called anthropogenic global warming—continues to be the message though mankind plays no role whatever.

There is no scientific support for the UN theory.

CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earth’s atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet.

“Science works by creating theories based on assumptions,” Dr. Ball notes, “then other scientists—performing their skeptical role—test them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it.”

“The atmosphere,” Dr. Ball notes, “is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system.” No computer model put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be.

Most of the reports were created by a small group of men working within the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and all were members of the IPCC. The result was “a totally false picture supposedly based on science.”

The revelations of emails between the members of the CRU were made available in 2009 by an unknown source. Dr. Ball quotes Phil Jones, the Director of the CRU at the time of the leaks, and Tom Wigley, a former director addressing other CRU members admitting that “Many of the uncertainties surrounding the cause of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking.”

The IPCC depended upon the public’s lack of knowledge regarding the science involved and the global warming hoax was greatly aided because the “mainstream media bought into and promoted the unproven theory. Scientists who challenged were denied funding and marginalized. National environmental policies were introduced based on the misleading information” of the IPCC summaries of their reports.

“By the time of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, the politics and hysteria about climate change had risen to a level that demanded clear evidence of a human signal,” notes Dr. Ball. “An entire industry had developed around massive funding from government. A large number of academic, political, and bureaucratic careers had evolved and depended on expansion of the evidence. Environmentalists were increasing pressure on the public and thereby politicians.”

The growing problem for the CRU and the entire global warming hoax was that no clear evidence existed to blame mankind for changes in the climate and still largely unknown to the public was the fact that the Earth has passed through many natural cycles of warmth and cooling. If humans were responsible, how could the CRU explain a succession of ice ages over millions of years?

The CRU emails revealed their growing concerns regarding a cooling cycle that had begun in the late 1990s and now, some seventeen years later, the Earth is in a widely recognized cooling cycle.

Moreover, the hoax was aimed at vast reductions in the use of coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power to produce the electricity on which all modern life depends. There was advocacy of solar and wind power to replace them and nations undertook costly programs to bring about the reduction of the CO2 “fossil fuels” produced and spent billions on the “green” energy. That program is being abandoned.

At the heart of the hoax is a contempt for mankind and a belief that population worldwide should be reduced. The science advisor to President Obama, John Holdren, has advocated forced abortions, sterilization by introducing infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water and food, and other totalitarian measures. “Overpopulation is still central to the use of climate change as a political vehicle,” warns Dr. Ball.

Given that the environmental movement has been around since the 1960s, it has taken decades for the public to grasp its intent and the torrents of lies that have been used to advance it. “More people,” notes Dr. Ball, “are starting to understand that what they’re told about climate change by academia, the mass media, and the government is wrong, especially the propaganda coming from the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

“Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.” When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.

Worse, however, has been “the deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying scientific method and research” to pursue a political objective. Much of this is clearly unlawful, but it is unlikely that any of those who perpetrated the hoax will ever be punished and, in the case of Al Gore and the IPCC, they shared a Nobel Peace Prize!

We are all in debt to Dr. Ball and a score of his fellow scientists who exposed the lies and debunked the hoax; their numbers are growing with thousands of scientists signing petitions and participating in international conferences to expose this massive global deception.



— Alan Caruba

Best known these days as a commentator on issues ranging from environmentalism to energy, immigration to Islam, Alan Caruba is the author of two recent books, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy" and "Warning Signs", both collections of his commentaries since 2000 and both published by Merril Press of Bellevue, Washington. His commentaries are posted on many leading news and opinion websites, and frequently picked up and shared by blogs as well. Posted daily on his blog site, http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com, known as "Warning Signs", the founder of The National Anxiety Center's commentaries enjoy widespread popularity. The Center is a clearinghouse for information about 'scare campaigns' designed to influence public opinion and policy.
​