We Must Fight Back Against Government-Induced Climaphobia! Our lives depend upon it…

OP/Ed: The climate scare’s ‘useful idiots’

firefighters-fire
Industry leaders must stop feeding the fires that are burning down their homes

By Tom Harris

A useful idiot is someone who supports one side of a philosophical debate while unaware of the overarching agenda driving the ideology they promote.

The term was used during the Cold War to describe communist sympathizers in the West. They were accused of viewing themselves as standing for benign socialism and allies of the Soviet Union, when they were actually scorned by the Soviets who used them as tools to help weaken democratic nations.

Climate activists undoubtedly regard many industry leaders as useful idiots on the climate front. Although seriously threatened by the global warming movement, most energy and manufacturing organizations try to appease campaigners by using biased and misleading language that unwittingly supports climate alarmism, destroys jobs, and impairs the well-being of millions.

Here are some examples.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation, sensibly opposes the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP). Yet the Chamber inadvertently promotes it on its website, asserting, “We support efforts to reduce greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions through a comprehensive legislative solution that does not harm the economy, recogniz[ing] that the problem is international in scope…”

The Chamber cites findings by Cato Institute climate experts Chip Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels that the new EPA rule would result in “an estimated 0.018 degrees Centigrade reduction by the year 2100.” The Chamber correctly concludes, “it’s essentially undetectable.”

So why would it advocate “a comprehensive legislative solution” to GHG emissions? The CPP will have no discernible impact on climate and yet, according to Chamber President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue, will “impose tens of billions in annual compliance costs, and reduce our nation’s global competitiveness.” That means any carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction plan that might have significant climatic impact would almost certainly destroy the U.S. economy. A “solution that does not harm the economy” undoubtedly does not exist.

The Chamber’s contention that the “the problem is international in scope” is true only if climate change is being driven by humanity’s GHG emissions. If it isn’t—and the Chamber should do nothing to promote the idea that it is—then climate change is obviously a regional problem, and each region should adapt to whatever is happening in their area, independent of global trends.

Similarly, the 35,000-member United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) officially opposes the CPP but unintentionally supports it in the points they suggest mine workers bring up in their own letters to newspapers and government representatives. For example, the union suggests workers write, “No one can deny that greenhouse gas emissions represent a problem that needs to be addressed.”

The reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change demonstrate that thousands of climate experts dispute the idea that CO2 emissions are a serious problem. UMWA executives are not qualified to judge these scientists wrong, and it clearly sabotages their members’ interests to do so.

Duke Energy, the largest electric power company in the United States, says on its website that it is “committed to finding new ways to confront one of our industry’s biggest challenges – global climate change.” While regulations to restrict CO2 emissions present serious challenges to the industry, trends in an imaginary “global” climate have no impact on the sector.

Yet Lynn Good, Duke’s President and CEO, promised to work with state officials to keep moving toward “a lower carbon future” and said in her April 15 open letter to stakeholders that the company is “advocating for climate change policies that reduce emissions.”

While all corporations must follow applicable government regulations, they are under no obligation to encourage them. Considering that a significant fraction of the power Duke generates comes from natural gas and coal, both significant CO2 sources, it makes no sense for the company to urge tighter CO2 controls. While coal is the primary target of the EPA right now, gas will undoubtedly come under increasing attack as the new rules eliminate coal power.

Arch Coal, one of the world’s largest coal producers and marketers, also has clear reasons to fear the consequences of the global warming scare. Yet in its August 3 press release Senior Vice President of Strategy and Public Policy Deck Slone said, “To truly address the threat of climate change, these [developing] countries will need low-cost, low-carbon mitigation tools for fossil fuels.” Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

While these groups have obviously decided that it is not in their interests to contest the official excuse for the CPP—the supposed threat of CO2 emissions—it is a serious strategic mistake for them to promote it. Effective leaders know that you can never satisfy those whose ultimate agenda includes eliminating you.

Industry must stop acting as useful idiots who feed the fires burning down their homes.


Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

– See more at: http://westmorelandtimes.com/news/17081/17/oped-the-climate-scares-useful-idiots/#sthash.WxjlfBS0.dpuf

Government-Induced Climaphobia….There’s a Reason for it, but it’s NOT the Climate!

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS ARE AS BAD AS HITLER’. YALE HISTORY PROFESSOR GOES FULL GODWIN

If you don’t believe in climate change you’re as bad as Hitler.

There. I’ve just precised a long article which appeared in the New York Times over the weekend with the title The Next Genocide.

Rather worryingly it was the work not of some fruitcake environmental activist but of someone who really ought to know better – a professor of history, at Yale no less, called Timothy Snyder.

It starts dramatically with an Einsatzgruppe commander lifting a Jewish child in the air and saying: “You must die so that we can live.”

This is a classic move from the liberal-left playbook. Sock ‘em with an emotive image which lays out the terms of your argument, viz: every time you say you don’t believe in climate change another baby dies. And, oh, by the way, did I also mention it makes you a Nazi?

Well, I suppose Professor Snyder has got to find some way of selling his books. Really, though, if he’d tried to write a bestseller called Little Red Cook: How To Diet The Mao Great Famine Way or Back To The Land: Rediscover Your Inner Peasant With Pol Pot orDying for Success: 10 No Nonsense Boardroom Tips from Joseph Stalin he could scarcely have misrepresented history to more dubious ends.

Yes, the Nazis were very green. Snyder got that bit right. They passed the first national environmental laws: the Reich Nature Protection Law of 1935. They were big on organic food (Himmler wanted his SS to eat nothing but). They were into animal rights. (In 1933 Goering said that anyone found guilty of animal cruelty or experimentation should be sent to concentration camps. No really). And of course Hitler himself was mostly vegetarian and fiercely anti-smoking.

But where Snyder goes completely wrong is with paragraphs like this:

Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.

His argument is so weird, incoherent and far-off here that you half expect him to go on to explain how it was the Jews who were responsible for the Holocaust and how Churchill provoked World War II.

Certainly, the way he chooses to put  “deniers” in the same category as Hitler could scarcely be further off-beam.

As I put it in Watermelons:

There’s only one side of this debate which believes its cause is so just and urgent that it relieves them of the need to observe any standards of decency. There’s only one side which thinks it’s OK to: rig public enquiries, hound blameless people out of their jobs, breach Freedom of Information laws, abuse the scientific method, lie, threaten, bribe, cheat, adopt nakedly political positions in taxpayer-funded academic and advisory posts that ought to be strictly neutral, trample on property rights, destroy rainforests, drive up food prices (causing unrest in the Middle East and starvation in the Third World), raise taxes, remove personal freedoms, artificially raise energy prices, featherbed rent-seekers, blight landscapes, deceive voters, twist evidence, force everyone to use expensive, dim light bulbs, frighten schoolchildren, bully adults, increase unemployment, destroy democratic accountability, take control of global governance and impose a New World Order.

In other words Professor Snyder, it’s your friends the greens who are the true heirs to Nazism. They’re the ones fomenting the crisis of hysteria which has led to so much bad policy, environmental destruction and human misery.

And the good guys – the heirs to the people who stood up to the Nazis – are all those deniers you so casually malign.

They’re the ones who’ve checked their facts, rejected Malthusianism and pessimism, who recognise that the best hope for the planet is by harnessing human ingenuity and energy, not by trying to constrain and curtail it.

But obviously, you’d need to be a serious historian to be aware of these subtleties.

Tom Harris, Exec. Director of Int. Climate Science Coalition, Talks to John Counsell, of CFRA, in Ottawa.

Tom Harris speaks on Radio, to John Counsell, of CFRA Radio Stn., in Ottawa

I believe this is one of the all time biggest frauds perpetrated on people world-wide. Wealth transference, from rate payers, to governments and rich investors. We are not improving our environment, in any way. There is no net benefit to wind or solar, over traditional energy sources, burned cleanly, especially hydro and nuclear, which are rejected in favour of this “novelty energy”! The corruption inherent in this incestuous relationship between governments and the renewables industry, has to be investigated. It is a scam! We are being robbed blind. Energy poverty is a reality for many people.  Shellie Correia

People All Over the World are Fighting Back Against the Wind Scam!

Forces Marshall in International Revolt Against the Great Wind Power Fraud

storming_the_bastille1-e1318690559144

***

Across the Globe – wherever these things things have been threatened upon rural communities – or the threat has been realised – outrage follows.

One line spun is that the hostility is an entirely English speaking phenomenon. That piffle was firmly skewered by Lilli-Anne Green (an American researcher and documentary film-maker, who has spoken to hundreds of victims around the World) – when she appeared before the Australian Senate:

Lilli-Anne Green – no ‘Green’ Dupe – tells Senate: Wind Farm Health Impacts ‘Universal’

And STT has picked up plenty of examples to the same effect:

Winning Taiwanese Hearts and Minds?

Turkish Court Shuts Down 50 Turbines: Yaylaköy Residents Delighted at 1st Chance to Sleep in Years

Germany’s Wind Power ‘Dream’ Becomes a Living Nightmare

Vestas’ Danish Victims Lay Out the FACTS

Now, that’s not to overlook the fact that the English themselves are just as hostile to the concept of massive streams of government mandated subsidies, being filched from power consumers and taxpayers and used by wind power outfits to literally steal peoples’ homes.

This ripping little website shows just how switched on our British counterparts are – going head-to-head with the most polished band of liars and fraudsters ever assembled in the same tent:http://www.aswar.org.uk/

The site is a cracker; and leaves no room for error about what is – to those gifted with our good friends ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ – patently obvious: THESE THINGS DON’T WORK – on any level.

Here’s a sample of the unassailable from its pages – in relation to an effort by RES to destroy another idyllic part of Ol’ Blighty:

The subsidy farming McAlpine/RES, the same massive group who the BBC’s Panorama accused of setting up the illegal blacklist in the building trade, have put in another application to build four wind turbines in the Warwickshire heritage and wildlife beauty spot of the Upper Swift Valley.

Home-page-no-appeal-2012-banner

This new application, along with bribes for the NIMBYs, will not only receive the same degree of local rejection on the same grounds as the earlier proposal was unanimously rejected but with the encroachment of an intense windfarm landscape in the last two years, there are even more planning reasons now for rejection.

There is no rational energy or economic reason in favour of these wind turbines that steal some 15% of everybody’s bills and stuff the subsidies into the pockets of speculators and rent-seeking landowners – 10% (33% by 2020) in green taxes plus a proportion of the new infra-structure cost of linking turbines to the grid.

ASWAR-Town-Hall.400

How can it be right for companies to be paid twice to three times the going rate for electricity when they are damaging the environment and communities?

The alarmist propaganda in favour of wind turbines relies on the argument that they reduce the UK’s 2% of the world’s man-made CO2 emissions and thereby infinitesimally reduce global warming.

But actually the intermittency of wind makes it necessary to have fossil-fuel back-up spinning the whole time for the National Grid to maintain an even voltage; (electricity cannot be stored) therefore wind turbines don’t even save CO2 anyway. (also the scientists say that GW has not increased since 1997 – seventeen years of stand-still).

aswar-community-rally-250613-660

Mr Lorne Smith from ASWAR (Against Subsidised Windfarms Around Rugby) said:

“The community around Churchover/Cotesbach turned out in force to show their dislike at being victims of the windfarm scam for a second time. With each windfarm job in the UK being subsidised by £100,000 from our electricity bills, and 10 McAlpine/RES staff supporting their propaganda exhibition, there was £1 million of our money walking around Churchover today!”

It is surprising that anybody can support this energy policy that is making this nation globally uncompetitive, driving manufacturing jobs overseas and ordinary people into fuel poverty (a record number of people died from cold last winter), while attacking the asset values of innocent property owners and killing birds and bats (scientists say 900,000 bats are killed by wind turbines every year).

“Surprising”, indeed!

In the latter stages of 2015 – with the scale and scope the fraud laid bare for all to see – continuing ‘support’ for wind power can’t be explained by simple, seasoned ignorance. As Ben Franklin put it:

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid”.

Those that parade as ‘journalists’ – especially at wind-worship cult-compounds – like The Guardian, the BBC – and here at Fairfax and the ABC – they’re clearly working very hard; with obvious success.

But – despite long, sweaty sessions inside their editorial bunkers, aimed at ensuring the public remain blissfully ignorant, too – the FACTS keep bubbling to the surface.

Facts like the obvious impacts caused to health – like constant sleep deprivation – from incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound, that leads to homes being uninhabitable and, therefore, worthless:

Brits to Force £2 Wind Power Outfits to Hold £Millions in Reserve to Pay Damages to Victims & for Decommissioning

Along with every other sensate being on the face of the Earth, the Poles have long-since had enough of being treated as wind industry “road-kill”, too. Hence, this promise made in April this year, by Presidential hopeful, Andrzej Duda:

“… if I am elected to be the President of Poland, I will propose a legislative initiative to introduce safe setbacks of wind parks from people’s dwellings…”

Andrzej_Duda

***

Andrzej Duda
Candidate in the Polish Presidential Elections
Zabkowice Slaskie, 8 April 2015

Fellow Poles!

The recent weeks have brought many intense encounters with people across Poland in the context of this presidential campaign. There have also been numerous opportunities to discuss the maladies encountered by citizens and their everyday worries. It has become apparent that the siting of wind farm developments gives rise to frequent protests, which are heard in hundreds of municipalities in our country.

Poles complain that their voices are being ignored, and large wind turbines that are placed excessively close to dwellings not only ruin the landscape, but also cause a serious reduction in the value of their properties. Furthermore, they bring attention to numerous procedural irregularities. These were also identified by the Supreme Audit Office (NIK) in its July 2014 report. I am sorry to say that the governing coalition of the Civic Platform and Polish Peasants’ Party have successfully prevented, during the last several years, the adoption of measures intended to properly regulate the matter of where wind farms are located.

I do recognise the importance of the issues addressed here. Therefore, I declare that, if I am elected to be the President of Poland, I will propose a legislative initiative to introduce safe setbacks of wind parks from people’s dwellings, ban such developments in municipalities where no zoning plans are currently in place, and, most importantly, to ensure effective participation of society in ongoing administrative proceedings.

Yours faithfully,

Andrzej Duda

[original in Polish available here]

Setting out with a sensible policy, built on common sense and human compassion, Mr Duda was duly elected. No surprises there.

STT hears that hundreds of Australian rural communities are gearing up, too.

The Coalition’s LRET policy is designed by its instigator and head wind industry spruiker – young Gregory Hunt – to see another 2,500 of these things speared into thousands of backyards across the Country. Labor’s insane 50% RET would up the ante, by carpeting the best, most productive and densely populated regions with more than 10,000:

Labor’s Renewable Target is Pure Insanity: the Coalition’s Target is Simply Madness

Given that our political betters are encumbered with ‘tin ears’ and ‘flat feet’, it’s now down to every man, woman and child to fight for what’s rightfully theirs: the ability to live, sleep in and otherwise comfortably use their very own homes.

revolution

Climate Change Rhetoric is Nothing More Than a Cover for Wealth Redistribution.

Nine Experts Slam EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s ‘Clean Power Plan’ Speech
Like a river in Colorado, the EPA is poisoning the climate debate.
by Tom Harris
August 24, 2015
Anyone trying to understand why the climate change debate has become so toxic need look no further than the August 11 speech by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy.

In her presentation at the Resources for the Future (RFF) Policy Leadership Forum, her first public appearance since the August 3 release of the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan“ (CPP), McCarthy demonstrated everything that is wrong with the Obama administration’s approach to the issue. The EPA employs error-riddled interpretations of climate science and economics, and couples this with language designed to trick the public and the press into thinking the plan is something it is not.
————-

A Biased Host

The forum started with an introduction by Dr. Raymond Kopp, RFF’s Energy & Climate Economics co-director, who told the audience:

As many of you know, we’re not an advocacy organization. We’re not cheerleaders for any particular policy or point of view. Our goal is really to provide the best scholarly research to the policy community so it can develop the most efficient, efficacious, affordable, and best public policies possible.

Laudable goals indeed … but Kopp immediately betrayed RFF’s supposed objectives when he next said:

The Clean Power Plan in its current form as a final rule is likely the most significant development in U.S. history with respect to climate change. I don’t think any of us believe otherwise. It is a tremendously substantial rule and one that will have significant impact.

[Developing the rule] took a lot of hard work by many people inside and outside of government and it took an awful lot of leadership and luckily Gina McCarthy was available, ready, and willing to undertake that leadership role and for that we are most thankful.

Addressing McCarthy directly, Kopp concluded:

Thank you for getting the job done, for doing it exceedingly well, and shepherding the Clean Power Plan through all of these hurdles that were necessary to bring it to a final rule today. And, I think, thank you for doing it in an environment where the politics and the rhetoric really make this job as difficult as possible.

Considering Kopp’s remarks, it is not surprising that, according to RFF Forum attendee Dr. Alan Carlin — former EPA senior analyst and manager, and past chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club — “RFF went all out to prevent me from handing out my comments and to keep out any skeptical comments from the Q&A.”

So much for RFF’s claim to not be “cheerleaders for any particular policy or point of view.”

—————

EPA Misrepresents Climate Science

McCarthy started the climate change part of her presentation with a politically correct assertion:

Climate change is one of the most important issues that we face. It is a global challenge but, in many ways, it’s also very personal to all of us because it affects everything and everyone we know and we love.

Climate change is, of course, a regional challenge, not a global one.

There is no super being straddling the planet, experiencing global trends. All that matters is what is happening — increases or decreases in the incidence of floods and droughts, heat waves and cold spells, and so on — in regions where people, plants, and animals are found. For example, what sense would it make for a community to prepare for a global sea level rise if, in that particular region, sea level was falling?

New Zealand-based renewable energy consultant Bryan Leyland pointed out:

Climate change has been a problem to mankind for hundreds of thousands of years. But we survived the last ice age, compared with which, the recent change in climate is but a minor wiggle. The greatest climate risk we face at the moment is a high probability that we are entering a period of cooling comparable to the Little Ice Age.

Many scientists agree with Leyland. For example, Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Connecticut, explained:

The Earth is on a descent into the next 100,000-year ice age. For the moment, the glaciers seem to be in retreat, but they are not remnants of the last ice age. They have been growing during the last 8,000 years.

High-resolution spectroscopy specialist Dr. John Nicol, former senior lecturer of physics and dean of science at James Cook University in Australia, elaborated:

Since 1997, the Earth has not warmed but has, in fact, very slightly cooled even though atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing. McCarthy’s assertion that climate change is “very personal to all of us” clearly demonstrates her emotional rather than the scientific approach to this non-issue.

————–

Gina McCarthy next said:

By now we all know that climate change is driven in large part by carbon pollution and it leads to more extreme heat, cold, storms, fires, and floods.

Referring to carbon dioxide (CO2) as “carbon pollution” is one of the most common rhetorical tricks employed by the Obama administration. In the EPA’s news release announcing the CPP, they referenced “carbon pollution” five times in the release’s first four sentences.

Calling the gas “carbon” encourages the public to think of it as something dirty, like graphite or soot — which really are carbon.

Calling CO2 by its proper name would help the public remember that it is a non-toxic, odorless, invisible gas essential to plant photosynthesis. It is no more pollution than is water vapor, by far the principal greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The EPA website is riddled with this “carbon” deception.

Leyland replied to the EPA chief:

It is shocking that McCarthy does not understand the difference between carbon dioxide — a harmless gas that benefits agriculture — and genuine pollutants like particulates, sulphur dioxide and the like emitted from old obsolete power stations. Modern coal-fired stations do not emit these pollutants.

McCarthy is not fit to head the EPA if she doesn’t know such basic science. Regardless, neither theory nor observations support the EPA chief’s claim that CO2 rise causes “more extreme heat, cold, storms, fires and floods.” Hyderabad, India-based Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy — formerly chief technical advisor for the UN World Meteorological Organization and author of Climate Change – Myths & Realities — said that McCarthy’s statement is “not true”:

Extreme heat, cold, storms and floods are part of natural variation. These are modified by local general circulation patterns existing over different parts of the globe over different seasons.

Nicol also contested McCarthy’s assertion:

Not only is the claim that CO2 is to blame [for increases in extreme weather] wrong, but the contradictory statements regarding these weather events, which are NO different from those of 200 years ago, demonstrates the desperation of lobby groups trying to maintain this myth.

If the world were to warm appreciably due to increasing CO2 emissions, temperatures at high latitudes are forecast to rise the most, reducing the difference between arctic and tropical temperatures. Since this differential drives weather, we should see weaker midlatitude cyclones in a warmer world — and thus fewer extremes in weather, not more.

Indeed, the lack of extreme weather increase with global warming is one of the few areas of agreement between the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). In 2012, the IPCC asserted that a relationship between global warming and wildfires, rainfall, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events has not been demonstrated. In their latest assessment report (Sep 2013), IPCC scientists concluded that they had only “low confidence” that “damaging increases will occur in either drought or tropical cyclone activity” as a result of global warming.

The Sep 2013 NIPCC report concluded the same, asserting:

In no case has a convincing relationship been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in any of these extreme events.

NIPCC report chapter lead author Dr. Timothy Ball, environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, explained that the EPA is taking the approach that American journalist Farhad Manjoo identified in his book True Enough: Learning To Live in a Post-Fact Society:

You create your theory then hire experts. The EPA agenda is political, not scientific.

Climate Change Is Normal

McCarthy then told the RFF Forum:

For farmers who are strained by the drought, for families with homes in the path of a wildfire, for small businesses along our coastlines, climate change is indeed very personal.

Nicol labeled these comments “utter rubbish,” writing:

Farmers do not believe in Global Warming or Climate Change as spruced by the human-caused global warming industry. Farmers have mostly been on their properties since they were children and have also been given detailed accounts of the weather and the seasons from when their great-grandfathers began farming.

This fact upsets those who try to claim that there are obvious changes. Farmers will tell you that the seasons come in cycles and any season we have now has been seen in the past — possibly 100 years ago.

Reddy also replied to McCarthy:

These [phenomena McCarthy lists] are associated with human actions on nature — land use and land cover changes, pollution (air, water, soil, and food) and adulterated foods, etc. For example, recent devastations in Jammu & Kashmir and Himalayan states of India were associated with occupation/building houses on river banks.

—————

McCarthy continued:

We all know that climate change is impacting us today and will continue to get worse if we don’t take action.

The EPA chief knows full well that this is not true.

After intense questioning from Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS) at the September 18, 2013 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, McCarthy admitted that the CPP will have essentially no impact on climate. Hayden agreed:

Even if the restrictions were enacted, the effect on worldwide temperature would be too tiny to measure.

——————

McCarthy Suppresses Open Scientific Debate

McCarthy said:

We are way past any further discussion or debate.

Scientists are as sure that humans are causing climate change as they are that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer. So, unless you want to debate that point, don’t debate about climate change any longer because it is our moral responsibility to act.

Comparing the science linking cigarette smoke and cancer with the science of climate change is ridiculous. Climate science is becoming more uncertain as the field advances — we don’t even know if warming or cooling lies ahead.

University of Western Ontario applied mathematician Dr. Chris Essex, an expert in the mathematical models that are the basis of the climate scare, explained:

Climate is one of the most challenging open problems in modern science. Some knowledgeable scientists believe that the climate problem can never be solved.

The NIPCC reports list hundreds of peer-reviewed science papers that show that much of what we thought we knew about climate is wrong or highly debatable. In particular, the lack of global warming over the past 18 years, a period during which CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen 10%, shows there is something seriously wrong with the human-caused warming theory.

Reddy responded to McCarthy’s statement:

We still need to discuss global warming science since the IPCC is not sure of the correct sensitivity factor that relates anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases to temperature rise.

This is illustrated by the fact that they changed the sensitivity factor [the temperature rise in degrees Celsius forecast to occur due to a doubling of CO2], from 1.95 in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) to 1.55 in their Fifth Assessment Report (2013).

They are merely employing trial and error, and not physical process paths.

Ball points out what the IPCC itself admitted in its Third Assessment Report (2001):

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

John Nicol said of the scientists who support McCarthy’s position:

They are mistaken since they do not have a proper understanding of the spectroscopic behavior of carbon dioxide or its interactions in a mixture of other gases — oxygen and nitrogen.

—————

McCarthy next told the audience that Obama:

… reminded us that, while we are the first generation to feel the impacts of climate change, we are the last that can effectively do something about it.

Nicol answered:

We are not the first people to experience climate change. The Navajo in America, civilizations in the Middle East, and many others moved across continents to escape climate change-related events which were totally the responsibility of Nature and caused huge upheaval.

The changes claimed to be perceived today are, by comparison, trivial.

Carbon dioxide is not causing changes to the climate — Nature causes changes and always has, always will.

Ball asked:

How on Earth did we ever survive the climate change that has gone on for five billion years?

Of course, the idea that we can do something about it speaks to the arrogant godlessness of Obama and the environmentalists. If you get rid of God, you have to play God, and Obama’s angels are the bureaucrats like McCarthy. It’s interesting that another McCarthy, Mary, said: “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, [is] the modern form of despotism.”

————

McCarthy concluded her comments:

Science has spoken on this. A low-carbon future is inevitable. We’re sending exactly the right signals on what, at least EPA believes to be, a future of lower pollution that is essential for public health and the environment.

Nicol replied:

Advocates for the destruction of society and world control of our societies are the actual offenders who have spoken on this.

Real and demonstrable science shows that a low carbon future will have no influence on the world’s climate and will destroy our ability to care for the world’s poor.

Energy is essential for the distribution of health and wealth to the poorer nations. This means that coal-fired power is essential, as recognized by the world’s largest economies, China and India.

Who are we to dictate the living standards of these and other nations?

Leyland added:

The main effect of the drive for a low carbon future is that energy will become more and more expensive and more and more people will die in the winter from the cold and in summer because they cannot afford to run the air conditioning.

The health effects would be seriously negative. The environmental effects will be a reduction in plant growth that could cost the agricultural economy trillions of dollars.

CPP’s Fictitious Health and Financial Benefits

McCarthy made numerous excited claims about the health impacts of the new climate rule:

As a result [of the CPP], in 2030, we are going to be avoiding thousands of premature deaths and hospital admissions, tens of thousands of asthma attacks and hundreds of thousands of missed school days and missed work days.

But the CPP does not regulate pollution. It regulates CO2, which has no detrimental impact on human health.

Only by assuming that enabling the CPP will force the closure of coal-fired electricity stations – and that that will reduce pollution emissions – can one claim the health benefits claimed by McCarthy. As explained by William Yeatman, environmental policy expert and editor of the Cooler Heads Coalition:

[This is] an EPA scam, known as “co-benefits,” by which the agency has justified a number of recent highly politicized regulations.

[T]here are entire sections of the Clean Air Act given to the regulation of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. There is, therefore, neither a public health purpose nor a need for EPA to use a climate plan to regulate particulate matter and nitrogen oxides emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Furthermore, Yeatman demonstrates that the EPA’s methodology for estimating health benefits of the Clean Air Act “is based almost entirely on controversial, ‘secret’ science.” Not only do their forecasts of lives saved make no sense, but the agency refuses to release the data used to make these calculations. Carlin labeled the supposed health benefits of the CPP “dubious if not imaginary,” and asked:

If these benefits actually exist, why has EPA not already obtained them directly and more efficiently using “conventional” pollutant regulations?

McCarthy concluded her presentation by claiming that in 2030, as a result of the CPP:

The average American family will start seeing $85 in annual savings on their utility bills.

This is lunacy. Independent climate researcher Willis Eschenbach demonstrated on Watts Up With That that the CPP will almost quadruple U.S. electricity prices by 2030 if the Obama administration’s latest CO2 rule is fully implemented. As seen in Figure 1 below, Eschenbach calculated that “renewable” capacity per capita accounts for 84% of electricity cost variations between European countries (about €1 trillion has been spent so far in Europe on the installation of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation).

Figure 1: Electricity costs as a function of per capita installed renewable capacity. Wind and solar only, excludes hydropower.

Eschenbach explained:

We get about 4% of our electricity from wind and solar. He [Obama] wants to jack it to 28%, meaning we need seven times the installed capacity. Currently we have about 231 kW/capita of installed wind and solar (see Figure 1).

So Obama’s plan will require that we have a little less than seven times that, 1537 kW/capita. And assuming that we can extend the relationship we see in Figure 1, this means that the average price of electricity in the U.S. will perforce go up to no less than 43 cents per kilowatt-hour [the current average U.S. price of electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour] (This includes the hidden 1.4 cents/kW cost due to the five cents per kilowatt-hour subsidy paid to the solar/wind producers).

In January 2008, Obama, then a candidate for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, told the San Francisco Chronicle that under his energy plan “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Eschenbach and other analysts (for example, here and here) show that the CPP will finally allow the president to fulfill this promise.

Climate Hoax Must Be Confronted

Dr. Jay Lehr, science director at The Heartland Institute, summed up the situation well:

There is no science behind the idea that man controls the climate. Yet, billions of dollars are being diverted from our taxes to scam artists for renewable energy, fallacious mathematical model research, and political rewards.

It is a scam that dwarfs all others that have come before. And this will continue unabated for years to come until the public rises up in dissent.

Rather than just go with the flow or try to game the system to their advantage, industry leaders, scientists, and ordinary citizens must speak out against the climate scare that threatens America. If they do not, operatives such as Gina McCarthy will have free rein to enable the president’s disastrous climate plans.

More Proof that Climate Change Hysteria is a HOAX!

Realities Of Climate Change, Politics And Public Knowledge.

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The minute a small cabal hijacked climate for a political agenda it determined that setting the record straight required political answers. Naomi Klein admitted it wasn’t about the science directly. That fighting climate change was necessary to combat capitalism. This was the objective all along and expressed in 1993 when Senator Wirth admitted,

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …” 


The “right thing” is achieving Maurice Strong’s objective of getting rid of the industrialized nations.

Too many skeptics continue to think that scientific points are going to change the public understanding. Most of the public don’t understand, but, more important, don’t want to understand. I doubt the 75% who failed the Yale Education Climate Change test lost any sleep. Polls, such as those of the Pew Center and overall analysis of trends indicate global warming or climate change are not a concern for most people. I suspect they don’t care because they don’t understand or want to understand. They also know how about the unreliability of weather forecasts, and that is all the science they need. One Pew pollconfirms that the public believes global warming is a political issue. Because of this, politicians and environmentalists with political agendas continue to control the story.James Delingpole puts the amount of money wasted because of this control at $4 billion a day.

Because science is ideally amoral and apolitical most scientists avoid politics, which results in a failure to provide necessary information to open-minded politicians and media. They need this to counter the pseudo-science of the IPCC proponents. They knew what to do from the start. Stephen Schneider set it out succinctly in Discover magazine a year after Hansen appeared before Wirth’s Senate committee and put the entire issue into the political realm.

On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

If this sounds familiar today, it is because it summarizes the words in the recent Encyclical of Pope Francis. Schneider is wrong. There is no decision about right and wrong, which is why the Pope’s connection with climate deceivers contradicts his central role as upholder of truth and is so deeply troubling. It is the rationale Naomi Klein and other use, which is why they brought her on board. It is basic Alinsky; the end justifies the means.

I spoke about the need to counter the false science from a political and social perspective, in my presentation at the First Heartland Conference in New York ten years ago. I pointed out that Gore’s movie was a brilliant piece of propaganda. A view supported by Justice Burton the UK judge who ruled on its use in the classroom.

It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political.

Justice Burton recommended teachers provide balance by also showing The Great Global Warming Swindle. I proudly advised producer Martin Durkin and appeared in the movie. I also warned him that the US media would not run it, as proved the case, although it is now generally available. The problem is that only a small percentage of people watch documentaries on television. Gore bypassed that by using Hollywood to make the movie but also to market it through all their traditional venues. They knew how to achieve Schneider’s goal of getting “broad-based support” and “capturing the public’s imagination.”

Skeptics have, for a variety of reasons, avoided the “Hollywood” approach. It is a major error. We need to realize that tactics are tactics, and that the adage that you fight fire with fire is true. The first thing to do in any strategy is define the problem and the second is to determine the target and thirdly use tactics appropriate to the situation.

The problem is a failure to explain climate science and its abuse in a way a majority can understand. The following points are gleaned from my experience with media interviews, school visits, questions after a presentation, and questions via email. They represent the issues I confront every day. They are the real challenges anybody trying to offset the misinformation about climate and climate change must consider. They are the political dynamics that influence how you help people understand and deal with science issues.

1. People can’t believe a small group of people could mislead the world. Nowadays, the explosion of conspiracy theories because of the Internet, make the idea even more remote and unpalatable. They need to heed world-renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead’s observation.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

This comment implies that “thoughtful” and “committed” are pursuing positive changes. History indicates they are never positive as power centralizes and corrupts and people lose freedoms.

2. People can’t believe scientists would distort, manipulate, or do anything other than proper science. They accept the view that science and scientists are amoral and apolitical. As Mary McCarthy said,

“In science, all facts, no matter how trivial or banal, enjoy democratic equality.”

This is reinforced by the practice of most scientists to avoid politics. The public assumes the silence is a tacit agreement with what is in the media about global warming.

3. It is mostly the politicians who talk about the 97% manufactured consensus. The public asks as happened to me twice on radio this week,

“How come thousands of scientists believe there is global warming and climate change?”

The simple answer is, very few are familiar with the science. They, like most of the public, assume other scientists would not distort, manipulate, or do anything other than proper science. When scientists find out, they are shocked as exemplified in Klaus-Eckert Pulscomment.

Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of

what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.

IPCC proponents promoted and perpetuated this deception through science societies as I explained.

A particularly egregious exploitation was carried out through science societies and professional scientific groups. They were given the climate science of the IPCC and urged to support it on behalf of their members. Certainly a few were part of the exploitation, but a majority, including most of the members simply assumed that the rigorous methods of research and publication in their science were used. Lord May of the UK Royal Society was influential in the manipulation of public perception through national scientific societies. They persuaded other national societies to become involved by making public statements. The Russian Academy of Science, under its President Yuri Israel, refused to participate.

4. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Never in the history of mankind have so many been deceived by so few, with so few facts.” The more you try to counteract what the public knows using scientific facts, the more you lose the battle. If you use scientific facts you must couch them in terms and analogies everybody understands. I know this from 25 years of teaching a compulsory science credit course for Arts students. The abilities and techniques I developed there of explaining climate in ways the public understand made me a double threat to IPCC proponents because I was also qualified.

5. Most people don’t know what is “normal” or “natural” in nature. This made it easy to imply or infer that they were abnormal or unnatural. It works well with the modern practice of “sound bites” in which information is presented without context. Climate change is innately historical and demands context. There are two basic options to counter the problem. Publish the context for each story as soon as possible after it appears. Publish stories of true facts that are outside of people’s comprehension using analogies. For example, alarmists add human scale to stories with analogies. One year they reported Arctic sea ice melted more by an area the size of Texas than the previous year. Texas is 695,662 km2, which is approximately 4.6% of the total Arctic ice of 15 million km2. The change is within the natural annual variability, but Texas is big so it must be a problem.

6. We tell people CO2 isn’t causing the warming but fail to explain why. This is for people who don’t know what a greenhouse gas is or that water vapor is far more important. (Figure 1)

clip_image002

Figure 1 Source: Yale Education Climate Change Test.

We then fail to explain what is the most likely cause. As politicians learn to their peril, you can’t just be against something.

Today they push the global warming claims with increasing deception because the 21stParis Conference of the Parties on climate is scheduled for 7-8 December 2015. They consider it imperative to pass a Kyoto type set of policies. Ironically, one thing that diminishes their chances is continued economic decline, the very objective of Wirth, Klein and the gang. It is ironic because politicians will reset their priorities to promote development, growth, and job creation because they don’t want angry voters. What they will get is angry global warming activists with a political agenda.

Global Warming is Socialism, Through the Back Door! Don’t Fall For It!

George Will: “Global Warming Is Socialism By The Back Door”

George Will sits down with The Daily Caller‘s Jamie Weinstein.

GEORGE WILL: Global warming is socialism by the back door. The whole point of global warming is that it’s a rationalization for progressives to do what progressives want to do, which is concentrate more and more power in Washington, more and more Washington power in the executive branch, more and more executive branch power in independent czars and agencies to micromanage the lives of the American people — our shower heads, our toilets, our bathtubs, our garden hoses. Everything becomes involved in the exigencies of rescuing the planet.

Second, global warming is a religion in the sense that it’s a series of propositions that can’t be refuted. It’s very ironic that the global warming alarmists say, “We are the real defenders of science,” and then they adopt the absolute reverse of the scientific attitude, which is openness to evidence. You cannot refute what they say.

I own a house in Kiawah Island, South Carolina, facing the Atlantic, where the hurricanes come from. After Katrina, the global warming people said, “This is just a sign of the violent weather that’s going to become more common because of global warming.” Well, that certainly interested me. Of course, since then, there’s been a collapse of hurricane activity.

I was a columnist in the 1970s when Newsweek, Time, all sorts of media outlets said the real problem is global cooling. I remember the Washington Post reporting that the armadillos were going south to escape the coming chill, the threat of glaciation over northern Europe. We’ve been through this before. You say, “What happened to global cooling?” They say, “Well, our models were wrong.” Now we’re supposed to risk several trillion dollars of global growth and spending on new models that might be wrong?

One other thing, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a report. The New Yorker, which is impeccably alarmed about global warming, the writer being their specialist began her story something like this: “In a report that should be but unfortunately will not be viewed as the final word in climate science.” Now, just think about that. The final word in microbiology, the final word in quantum mechanics. There are no final words in science. But there you have the deeply anti-scientific temper of the global warming advocacy groups: Final words.

It’s Happening All Over the World. Electricity is Becoming a “Luxury Item”! Energy poverty!

EPA’s war on the poor

Friend,

What happens when government regulations cause more harm than they prevent?

In an important new research article at CFACT.org, senior policy advisor Paul Driessen joins with energy analyst Roger Bezdek to consider EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” and ask, “what effect will the regulation itself have on poor and minority communities?”

The answer is shocking.

“The plan will result in higher electricity costs for businesses and families, lost jobs, lower incomes, higher poverty rates, reduced living standards, and diminished health and welfare, our exhaustive recent study found. This damage will be inflicted at the national level and in all 50 states. The CPP will impact all low-income groups, but hit America’s 128 million Blacks and Hispanics especially hard.”

Obama Administration bureaucrats want to dramatically increase the cost of electricity, despite the fact that these painfully expensive rules will provide little or no meaningful benefit to the climate or the environment.

“The EPA regulations will significantly increase the minority family ‘energy burden’ – the percentage of annual household incomes they must pay for residential energy bills – and thus the number of families driven into energy poverty. Inability to pay energy bills is second only to inability to pay rent as the leading cause of homelessness, so increasing numbers of poor and minority families will become homeless.”

Over the weekend we shared a Hoover Institution piece on Facebook, “When Bureaucrats Get Way With Murder,” which calculates that every $7 to $10 million in regulatory costs induces one fatality through what is called the “income effect.”  The author concludes that excessive regulation is tantamount to “statistical murder.”
When bureaucratic ideologues over-regulate, the law of unintended consequences will take its toll.

Unfortunately, the poorest and most vulnerable among us will find that toll hardest to pay.

For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker
Executive Director

Obama and EPA imperil minority welfare

By Paul Driessen

& Roger Bezdek

The Wind Scam is Much More Financially Detrimental, Than the Windpushers Claimed.

STUDY: WIND FARMS EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE AND POINTLESS THAN YOU THOUGHT

The cost of wind energy is significantly more expensive than its advocates pretend, a new US study has found.

If you believe this chart produced by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), then onshore wind is one of the cheapest forms of power – more competitive than nuclear, coal or hydro, and a lot more than solar.

EIA_LCOE_AEO2013

But when you take into account the true costs of wind, it’s around 48 per cent more expensive than the industry’s official estimates – according to new research conducted by Utah State University.

“In this study, we refer to the ‘true cost’ of wind as the price tag consumers and society as a whole pay both to purchase wind-generated electricity and to subsidize the wind energy industry through taxes and government debt,” said Ryan Yonk Ph.D., one of the report’s authors and a founder of Strata Policy. “After examining all of these cost factors and carefully reviewing existing cost estimates, we were able to better understand how much higher the cost is for Americans.”

The peer-reviewed report accounted for the following factors:

  • The federal Production Tax Credit (PTC), a crucial subsidy for wind producers, has distorted the energy market by artificially lowering the cost of expensive technologies and directing taxpayer money to the wind industry.
  • States have enacted Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that require utilities to purchase electricity produced from renewable sources, which drives up the cost of electricity for consumers.
  • Because wind resources are often located far from existing transmission lines, expanding the grid is expensive, and the costs are passed on to taxpayers and consumers.
  • Conventional generators must be kept on call as backup to meet demand when wind is unable to do so, driving up the cost of electricity for consumers.

“Innovation is a wonderful thing and renewable energy is no exception. Wind power has experienced tremendous growth since the 1990’s, but it has largely been a response to generous federal subsidies,” Yonk stated.

Among the factors wind advocates fail to acknowledge, the report shows, is the “opportunity cost” of the massive subsidies which taxpayers are forced to provide in order to persuade producers to indulge in this otherwise grotesquely inefficient and largely pointless form of power generation.

In the US this amounts to an annual $5 billion per year in Production Tax Credits (PTC). Here is money that could have been spent on education, healthcare, defence or, indeed, which could have been left in the pockets of taxpayers to spend as they prefer.

Instead it has been squandered on bribing rent-seeking crony-capitalists to carpet the landscape with bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes to produce energy so intermittent that it is often unavailable when needed most (on very hot or very cold days when demand for air-conditioning or heating is high) and only too available on other occasions when a glut means that wind producers actually have to pay utilities to accept their unwanted energy. This phenomenon, known as “negative pricing”, is worthwhile to wind producers because they only get their subsidy credits when they are producing power (whether it is needed or not). But clearly not worthwhile to the people who end up footing the bill: ie taxpayers.

Hence the observation of serial wind energy “investor” Warren Buffett, who says: “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

But even this report may underestimate the real costs of wind energy. It doesn’t account for the damage caused to the health of people unfortunate enough to live near wind turbines, as acknowledged officially for the first time in this report produced for the Australian government.

Nor does it account for the environmental blight caused to the landscape – far greater, asChristopher Booker has reported, than that created by the greenies’ bete noire fracking.

When Professor David MacKay stepped down as chief scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) last year, he produced a report comparing the environmental impact of a fracking site to that of wind farms. Over 25 years, he calculated, a single “shale gas pad” covering five acres, with a drilling rig 85ft high (only needed for less than a year), would produce as much energy as 87 giant wind turbines, covering 5.6 square miles and visible up to 20 miles away. Yet, to the greenies, the first of these, capable of producing energy whenever needed, without a penny of subsidy, is anathema; while the second, producing electricity very unreliably in return for millions of pounds in subsidies, fills them with rapture.

Nor yet does it factor in the epic destruction of avian fauna caused by these supposedly eco-friendly devices. According to Oxford University ecologist Clive Hambler:

Every year in Spain alone — according to research by the conservation group SEO/Birdlife — between 6 and 18 million birds and bats are killed by wind farms. They kill roughly twice as many bats as birds. This breaks down as approximately 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per year. And these figures may be conservative if you compare them to statistics published in December 2002 by the California Energy Commission: ‘In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et al (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.’

Because wind farms tend to be built on uplands, where there are good thermals, they kill a disproportionate number of raptors. In Australia, the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle is threatened with global extinction by wind farms. In north America, wind farms are killing tens of thousands of raptors including golden eagles and America’s national bird, the bald eagle. In Spain, the Egyptian vulture is threatened, as too is the Griffon vulture — 400 of which were killed in one year at Navarra alone. Norwegian wind farms kill over ten white-tailed eagles per year and the population of Smøla has been severely impacted by turbines built against the opposition of ornithologists.

Nor are many other avian species safe. In North America, for example, proposed wind farms on the Great Lakes would kill large numbers of migratory songbirds. In the Atlantic, seabirds such as the Manx Shearwater are threatened. Offshore wind farms are just as bad as onshore ones, posing a growing threat to seabirds and migratory birds, and reducing habitat availability for marine birds (such as common scoter and eider ducks).

In Britain, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has belatedly acknowledged the problem – which his Prime Minister’s “greenest government ever” helped create – by promising to rein in green energy subsidies.

The cost of subsidising new wind farms is spiralling out of control, government sources have privately warned.

Officials admitted that so-called “green” energy schemes will require a staggering £9 billion a year in subsidies – paid for by customers – by 2020. This is £1.5 billion more than the maximum limit the coalition had originally planned.

The mounting costs will mean every household in the country is forced to pay an estimated £170 a year by the end of the decade to support the renewable electricity schemes that were promoted by the coalition.

But given the damage that has already done to the British landscape by wind turbines it may well be a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Especially when you consider that this man has already made £100 million out of the scam and that there are no mechanisms to get any of that wasted money back.

Nobel Prize-Winner Speaks Out Against “Gov’t-Induced Climaphobia”!

Climate Depot Exclusive

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.

“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.

Image result for ivar giaever

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize. Giaever is also featured in the new documentary “Climate Hustle”, set for release in Fall 2015.

Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”

But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”

“That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)

“How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.

“Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [Note: Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change. See: Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming]

The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears.

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.

Global Warming ‘a new religion’

Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.

“Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

Concern Over ‘Successful’ UN Climate Treaty

“I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November. I really worry about that. Because the [2009 UN] conference was in Copenhagen and that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position,” Giaever said.

“The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.

“I would say that the global warming is basically a non-problem. Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. It is almost very hard for me to understand why almost every government in Europe — except for Polish government — is worried about global warming. It must be politics.”

“So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue with one exception — we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming. We have to do that or that may take us backwards. People think that is sustainable but it is not sustainable.

On Global Temperatures & CO2

Giaever noted that global temperatures have halted for the past 18 plus years. [Editor’s Note: Climate Depot is honored that Giaever used an exclusive Climate Depot graph showing the RSS satellite data of an 18 year plus standstill in temperatures at 8:48 min. into video.]

The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)

Giaever accused NASA and federal scientists of “fiddling” with temperatures.

“They can fiddle with the data. That is what NASA does.”

“You cannot believe the people — the alarmists — who say CO2 is a terrible thing. Its not true, its absolutely not true,” Giaever continued while showing a slide asking: ‘Do you believe CO2 is a major climate gas?’

“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.

“How can you possibly measure the average temperature for the whole earth and come up with a fraction of a degree. I think the average temperature of earth is equal to the emperor’s new clothes. How can you think it can measure this to a fraction of a degree? It’s ridiculous,” he added.

Silencing Debate

Giaever accused Nature Magazine of “wanting to cash in on the [climate] fad.”

“My friends said I should not make fun of Nature because then they won’t publish my papers,” he explained.

“No one mentions how important CO2 is for plant growth. It’s a wonderful thing. Plants are really starving. They don’t talk about how good it is for agriculture that CO2 is increasing,” he added.

Extreme Weather claims

“The other thing that amazes me is that when you talk about climate change it is always going to be the worst. It’s got to be better someplace for heaven’s sake. It can’t always be to the worse,” he said.

“Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said.

“For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm — but for the previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level,” Giaever said.

“If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued.

“You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added.

“Same thing is for tornadoes. We are in a low period on in U.S.” (See: Extreme weather failing to follow ‘global warming’ predictions: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Droughts, Floods, Wildfires, all see no trend or declining trends)

“What people say is not true. I spoke to a journalist with [German newspaper Die Welt yesterday…and I asked how many articles he published that says global warming is a good thing. He said I probably don’t publish them at all. Its always a negative. Always,” Giever said.

Energy Poverty

“They say refugees are trying to cross the Mediterranean. These people are not fleeing global warming, they are fleeing poverty,” he noted.

“If you want to help Africa, help them out of poverty, do not try to build solar cells and windmills,” he added.

“Are you wasting money on solar cells and windmills rather than helping people? These people have been misled. It costs money in the end to that. Windmills cost money.”

“Cheap energy is what made us so rich and now suddenly people don’t want it anymore.”

“People say oil companies are the big bad people. I don’t understand why they are worse than the windmill companies. General Electric makes windmills. They don’t tell you that they are not economical because they make money on it. But nobody protests GE, but they protest Exxon who makes oil,” he noted.

#

Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears.

In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’

Other prominent scientists are speaking up skeptically about man-made global warming claims. See: Prominent Scientist Dissents: Renowned glaciologist declares global warming is ‘going to be a big plus’ – Fears ‘Frightening’ Cooling – Warns scientists are ‘prostituting their science’

Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming. See: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming: ‘We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated’

Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot’s more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared.I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.

Giaever also told the New York Times in 2010 that global warming “can’t be discussed — just like religion…there is NO unusual rise in the ocean level, so what where and what is the big problem?”

Related Links:

Exclusive: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming – Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Ivar Giaever: ‘Is climate change pseudoscience?…the answer is: absolutely’ — Derides global warming as a ‘religion’

2012: Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Ivar Giaever: ‘Is climate change pseudoscience?…the answer is: absolutely’ — Derides global warming as a ‘religion’ – ‘He derided the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri a peace prize, and called agreement with the evidence of climate change a ‘religion’… the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case: “What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”

When Science IS Fiction: Nobel Physics laureate Ivar Giaever has called global warming (aka. climate change) a ‘new religion’ -When scientists emulate spiritual prophets, they overstep all ethical bounds. In doing so, they forfeit our confidence’

American Physical Society Statement on Climate Change: No Longer ‘Incontrovertible,’ But Still Unacceptable

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/#ixzz3fDoFYSSF