Communists Masquerading as Environmentalists…..Watermelons!

September 24, 2014 / 1957chev / 2 Comments

Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda

September 23rd, 2014 – 4:31 pm

Communists along with a few environmental groups staged a “People’s Climate Rally” in Oakland, California on Sunday, September 21, in conjunction with the larger “People’s Climate March” in New York City on the same day.

Wait — did I say communists? Isn’t that a bit of an exaggeration?
Well…no.

At the New York event, many people noticed that gee, there sure are a lot of communists at this march. But in Oakland — always on the cutting edge — the entire “climate change” movement at last fully, irrevocably and overtly embraced communism as its stated goal. Any concerns about “optics” or operating in “stealth mode” were abandoned.

The “climate change” “crisis” is now nothing but the latest justification for “total revolution” and getting rid of capitalism forever.
Yes, capitalism itself is the problem. The primary message of the People’s Climate Rally was this: Climate change is caused by capitalism, and merely attempting to reform capitalism will not stop global warming; it is impossible to work within the existing system if we want to save the planet. We must replace it with a new social and economic system entirely.

Until recently, those attacking the capitalist system as the cause of global warming were intentionally a little vague as to what will replace it if we are to solve the problem. But on Sunday in Oakland, that curtain was drawn back and the new system was finally revealed: Communism. Or at least hardcore socialism as Marx defined it — the necessary transitional phase before true complete communism (i.e. no private property, no families, no individualism). Most countries we tend to think of as “communist” actually self-defined as “socialist”: The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example, was (as its name reveals) socialist. I point out this detail in case anybody reading this article thinks that the “socialism” advocated at the rally was merely some kind of squishy soft-hearted semi-capitalism; no, it is the same type of socialism one finds in places generally thought of as communist.

Below you will find irrefutable proof that communist ideologies, organizations and phraseologies have completely moved to the forefront of the “climate change” movement. (I was originally tempted to say that the communists, as they are wont to do, have merely “co-opted” environmentalism. But that would imply that the goal of global warming scaremongering was something other than “destroying capitalism” in the first place. At this point I now know that destroying capitalism has always been the goal; the only thing that changed on Sunday is that the mask was dropped.)

This proof will necessarily entail posting a lot of photographs; in situations like this, the only way to conclusively demonstrate a point is through repetition of evidence. One could summarize the evidence with a few shorthand images, but that would leave open the possibility that the case was being overstated. To quash that counter-argument before it arises, I will post lots and lots and lots and lots of images from all over the rally, from the sponsors, to the attendees, to the booths, to the speakers, to show beyond any doubt that the entire rally was thoroughly saturated with communism and socialism to the point where these ideologies were the overarching theme of the event.

Ready? All the photos below were taken at the People’s Climate Rally in Oakland on September 21, 2014.
As you enter the rally you encounter booths hosted by Socialist Action, a Trotskyist/Marxist group…
…and the Communist Party USA, a Marxist-Leninist political party who like to think of themselves as the communists, since they’ve been around for almost a century…
…and the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, a Maoist political cult devoted to overthrowing the United States in a total revolution.

Along the way, you encounter the rally’s attendees, carrying signs advocating concepts like…
…”eco-socialism,” which I nominate as “word of the day,” since the theme of the rally was the fusion of ecology with socialism.
“Another Big, Fat, straight, Midwestern, White Man for WORLD REVOLUTION.”
“Capitali$m is Destroying the Environment.”

Do I even need to point out that socialist and communist countries like China, the Soviet Union, North Korea and elsewhere have absolutely appalling environmental histories, past present and future, which far exceed in ecological destruction anything encountered in capitalist societies? No, I don’t need to point that out, because you already know it. You do — but apparently the people at this rally live in a fantasy world where “socialism” is the opposite of “pollution.”
“Capitalism is Killing the Planet. FIGHT FOR A SOCIALIST FUTURE!” This same message from the International Socialist Organization, a self-professed Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist revolutionary group, was also prominent at the New York climate march.

If you enter the rally from the other side, you encounter
The Socialist Alternative, one of the few socialist parties to actually have a member elected to public office in mainstream society…
…The Democratic Socialists of America, a comparatively mild-mannered group who want to make America communist via peaceful democratic transition instead of the violent revolution advocated by most other extreme left revolutionary parties….
…and Freedom Socialist, a lesser-known group who nonetheless managed to gain control of the coveted “socialism.com” URL which they use to promote their radical feminist version of communism in “the living tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky.”

Many of these Marxist, communist and socialist groups, by the way, were official sponsors of the event. They weren’t hangers-on — they helped to organize the rally.
Children were encouraged to hang out in the protest’s kid-friendly zone, where they could draw their own signs promoting “revolution.”

Had enough? Sorry. I apologize. Because we’re just getting started with the proof that communists dominate the narrative of the climate change movement.

Everywhere I turned, I encountered people with the message, “System Change, Not Climate Change.” If anything, this was the motto of the entire rally.

Anyone Who Believes We Are In A Climate Catastrophe, I Think Is Deluding Themselves”…Dr. Caleb Rossiter

September 24, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

Climate Statistics Professor Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University: ‘Obama has long been delusional on this issue. Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe I think is deluding themselves.’

Rossiter on his conversion to a climate skeptic: ‘You are very isolated on the Democratic Party on the left — one is, I am — for having this conclusion of analysis…I would say since 2004 I’ve been very lonely. I’ve been lonely working on the Hill for the Democratic Party.’

Rossiter on Gore’s film: ‘I think it’s a wonderful teaching tool because it shows how we don’t do science. Gore’s irresponsible.’

On Gore winning the Nobel: ‘Worst Nobel Prize for peace since Henry Kissinger.’

Rossiter: ‘My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe. It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree rise in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause.’

By: Marc Morano – Climate DepotSeptember 23, 2014 12:29 AM with 8 comments

Climate Depot Exclusive

As President Obama attends the UN Summit climate summit in New York City, a fellow member of his Democratic Party, who is also a scientist, is publicity renouncing the Presidents climate change claims as “delusional.” Rossiter reversed his view on man-made climate change and now says belief in a climate catastrophe is “simply not logical.”

Climate Statistics Professor Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University, is an outspoken anti-war activist, has a flawless progressive record on a range of political issues – and he is a climate skeptic. Rossiter is a former Democratic congressional candidate and he campaigned against U.S. backed wars in Central America and Southern Africa.

In an exclusive interview for the upcoming documentary Climate Hustle, Rossiter, an adjunct professor in American University’s Department of Mathematics and Statistics, explained how he converted his views from accepting to challenging the so-called “consensus” on climate change after examining the scientific evidence. Rossiter has taught courses in climate statistics and holds a PhD in policy analysis and a masters degree in mathematics. (Note: The upcoming climate documentary will reveal how politically progressive scientists and other former warmists are now challenging the “consensus” claims of man-made global warming. See: Watch Now: Morano on TV (humbly) promotes new climate film: ‘We are going to have the greatest climate documentary of al-l-l-l-l ti-i-i-ime!’)

“If we had this interview ten years ago, I would have said I never thought about climate and I assumed all the scientist’s reporting and telling a president and a prime minister in England are right,” Rossiter explained. (Note: Rossiter was joined this week by one of President Obama’s own scientists in expressing skepticism on global warming. See: Obama’s Own Scientist Runs Cold on Warming – Outs Himself as a Skeptic! – Physicist Dr. Steven E. Koonin, Undersecretary for Science during Obama’s first term and former professor of theoretical physics at Caltech)

Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’

When Rossiter called global warming “unproved science” in a Wall Street Journal OpEd in May 2014, he found that his credentials as a long-time progressive could not trump his climate skepticism. He was immediately terminated due to his ‘diverging’ climate views from his 23 year fellowship at the liberal group Institute for Policy Studies. See: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’

Rossiter, whose research has focused on the construction of climate models and the statistical evidence of extreme weather, started to suspect that climate-change data was what he termed “dubious” 10 years ago while teaching statistics at American University.

“So, doubling carbon dioxide, the higher you get, the less effect you get. So logically, in a complex system, like atmosphere, you’re going lot of feedbacks that you don’t have much forcing at a certain point. We really don’t know. It’s very hard to model, models are run way past their usefulness, because they are tuned,” Rossiter explained.

As a progress anti-war Democrat, Rossiter has found his climate skepticism ostracized him.

“I would say since 2004 I’ve been very lonely. I’ve been lonely working on the Hill for the Democratic Party. I thought I was the only person in the room with all my colleagues and all the members of Congress on our foreign affairs committee who held these views about the weakness of the data on climate change and the need to keep Africa developing,” he said.

Obama is ‘delusional’ on climate change

Rossiter has declared: “My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe.”

“Obama has long been delusional on this issue,” Rossiter declared.

“Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe I think is deluding themselves,” he explained.

He mocked President Obama’s claim that his Presidency will slow the rise of the oceans.

“So when President Obama says, ‘this will be the time that the water started to recede because I’m elected’, that reminds me of King Canute — who took all his advisers to the shores of England and said ‘see how powerful I am? Tell the waters to go out’ and the tides were coming in,” Rossiter said.

Rossiter is disgusted by the way political leaders have portrayed climate science.

“I find it irresponsible, but I find that’s what politicians do, try to seize onto one cause and show the other effect without looking at the other possible intervening variables that’s what we do all the time,” Rossiter said.

Excerpts of Rossiter’s interview adapted from the upcoming Climate Hustle documentary (set for early 2015 release):

As a man of the political Left, Rossiter has felt lonely with his climate skepticism.

“You are very isolated on the Democratic Party on the left — one is, I am — for having this conclusion of analysis — I don’t call it a belief because I feel that I am analyzing — and you’re very isolated in the conservative circles if you believe as Newt Gingrich did for a very brief period that you need to have carbon trading to control this threat,” Rossiter told Climate Depot’s Marc Morano in the interview.

Rossiter bristles when asked about Al Gore and his film “An Inconvenient Truth.”

“Worst Nobel Prize for peace since Henry Kissinger,” Rossiter declared.

Rossiter gives Gore’s film a failing grade in science.

“I think it’s a wonderful teaching tool because it shows how we don’t do science,” he explained.

“Gore’s irresponsible. He pretends carbon dioxide is driving temperature when temperature is driving carbon dioxide. He does all these crazy things, he vilifies people. He does nothing different, from what the president of our country, president Obama, advised by John Holden, the top scientist in the county does every day,” he said.

Rossiter sees Al Gore as a political centrist.

“I had battled Mr. Gore so much in the 1980’s. He is a Dixie — he is part of the Democratic Leadership Council, conservative on foreign policy, as proved by his opposition to us in all these issues,” Rossiter explained.

Rossiter chastised his colleagues on the political Left for “hopping into bed” with Gore when it comes to climate change.

“I know why the left is supporting Al Gore on this when they didn’t on anything else, it’s because it give them the lever to move away from an industrial society to what they call a postindustrial society,” he said.

Progressive using global warming issue to ‘dismember the carbon-driven capitalism’

Rossiter says the political Left in the U.S. is using climate fears to achieve a “welcome license to dismember the carbon-driven capitalism.”

“They want to use the concern about the climate catastrophe is what they called Archimedes giant lever to move away from industrialization toward this postindustrial non-fossil fuel, non-corporate world,” he said.

Rossiter dismisses CO2 as the climate control knob.

“We always, as humans, are looking for cause-and-effect but it’s extremely difficult to find a complex system like the Earth’s climate of over thousands years,” he explained.

“It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree rise in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause,” he said. (Note: Other scientists agree. See: Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’)

Rossiter had harsh words for the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC and its claim that they were 95% certainty of human caused climate change.

“When the IPCC uses words like very likely, like 95% likely or somewhat like, about 90% — that’s an alarm bell for people who know statistics. We never use those words — 95% certainty — unless we have a standard deviation and we are estimating how often we get within two standard deviations of the mean. That’s the nature of statistics,” he explained.

When Rossiter called global warming “unproved science” in a Wall Street Journal OpEd, he found that his credentials as a long-time progressive could not trump his climate skepticism. He was immediately terminated due to his ‘diverging’ climate views from his 23 year fellowship at the liberal group Institute for Policy Studies. See: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’

“At the Institute of Policy Studies I was obviously very lonely because nobody would debate me and finally fired me for having an article in Wall Street Journal,” Rossiter said.

“Two days later I was handed my walking papers from 23 years association with that think tank,” he added.

“They felt that it was best that I’ve been terminated because my views on African development and climate change and climate justice were divergent from theirs. So I’m willing to express my opinions and have them come out. This is the first time I’ve expressed an opinion that was alien to the left,” he said.

Rossiter says the left has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to dissent on global warming.

“One item out of everything that is the agenda for the institute policy studies I’ve expressed disagreement with and I’m gone,” he noted.

Rossiter’s failure to follow his colleagues on the Left on the claims of global warming has left him isolated.

“What we are supposed to do as professors is follow the data to our conclusion, and then put it out there to be debated,” he explained.

But his colleagues refuse to debate global warming.

“I have been invited the Union of concerned scientists, Greenpeace, Institute for policy studies, random members of Congress who I knew I worked up there on the Hill, to come to my classes to A.U. to debate — they simply refused,” he said.

Rossiter says refusal to debate is part of a strategy.

“There was an agreement among the groups who believe strongly that there’s the catastrophic climate change not to debate, and not to engage in a debate because it gives a credit to those of us who have questions about the certainty which they operate,” he said.

“It is absolutely true that the money available for global warming statements and research is driving academia right now and people line up to get it. I know it from scientists. I know it’s absolutely true,” he noted.

“But it’s nothing new. If you were here 100 years ago and I was in the psychology department, I’d be telling you about the science of craniology – that black people are stupider than white people, that West Europeans are smarter and more creative than Eastern Europeans — and this is called phrenology,” he said.

“And all the data and statistics that they could line up supported it, and everybody believed it. And anybody outside phrenology didn’t believe it. Academia is no different from anywhere else. We wimp out when we are under pressure; we do,” Rossiter said.

More Rossiter quotes appearing in Climate Hustle:

Rossiter pressure in academia to conform on global warming: “It is deadly to your career to be a young dissenter. But a young person, I can tell you by being here on the campus, if you’re in the sciences and environmental studies you are going to be seen as such a kook (if you are a climate skeptic). It will definitely hurt you. See, I don’t care! I don’t give a monkey’s uncle. I’m old enough that I’m just going to say what’s on my mind. I’ll get by, but if I were early in my career, I know that I would be tagged as a kind of crazy, extremist, denialist, and it would hurt my academic career; there’s no question about it.

Rossiter on IPCC: For the IPCC to say nothing else can explain (global warming except mankind’s CO2) is the opposite of what we do in science. We are trying to test the known hypothesis that there is no effect to anthropogenic warming. And in order to do that, you have to have data that removes all the other causes — factors out all the other elements, and isolate yours. It is simply not true; it is simply not true that you can only model how temperature has changed from 1850 to today using a doubling of carbon dioxide levels. I can model it for you with baseball statistics from that same period, if you give me enough time to scrub the models.

Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change: ‘I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess’ – Lovelock Reverses Himself on Global Warming

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’

‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Climate Scientist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’

German Meteorologist reverses belief in man-made global warming: Now calls idea that CO2 Can Regulate Climate ‘Sheer Absurdity’ — ‘Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us’

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report – Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’

Flashback: Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’

What a Relief…..We are Not to Blame! (Climate Alarmists will deny anyway!)

September 22, 2014September 22, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Surprising PNAS paper: CO2 emissions not the cause of U.S. West Coast warming

Anthony Watts / 3 mins ago September 22, 2014

The rise in temperatures along the U.S. West Coast during the past century is almost entirely the result of natural forces — not human emissions of greenhouse gases, according to a major new study released today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Northeast Pacific coastal warming since 1900 is often ascribed to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, whereas multidecadal temperature changes are widely interpreted in the framework of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which responds to regional atmospheric dynamics. This study uses several independent data sources to demonstrate that century-long warming around the northeast Pacific margins, like multidecadal variability, can be primarily attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. It presents a significant reinterpretation of the region’s recent climate change origins, showing that atmospheric conditions have changed substantially over the last century, that these changes are not likely related to historical anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, and that dynamical mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also apply to observed century-long trends.

From a Seattle Times newspaper story: (h/t Dale Hartz)

The vast majority of coastal temperature increases since 1900 are the result of changes in winds over the eastern Pacific Ocean, the authors found. But they could find no evidence that those weather patterns were themselves being influenced by the human burning of fossil fuels.

…

Since the ocean is the biggest driver of temperature changes along the coast, the authors tracked land and sea surface temperatures there going back 113 years. They found that virtually all of the roughly 1 degree Celsius average temperature increase could be explained by changes in air circulation.

“It’s a simple story, but the results are very surprising: We do not see a human hand in the warming of the West Coast,” said co-author Nate Mantua, with NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center. “That is taking people by surprise, and may generate some blowback.”

Source: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024601865_climateweatherstudyxml.html

The paper:

Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change, 1900–2012

James A. Johnstone and Nathan J. Mantua

Abstract

Over the last century, northeast Pacific coastal sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and land-based surface air temperatures (SATs) display multidecadal variations associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, in addition to a warming trend of ∼0.5–1 °C. Using independent records of sea-level pressure (SLP), SST, and SAT, this study investigates northeast (NE) Pacific coupled atmosphere–ocean variability from 1900 to 2012, with emphasis on the coastal areas around North America. We use a linear stochastic time series model to show that the SST evolution around the NE Pacific coast can be explained by a combination of regional atmospheric forcing and ocean persistence, accounting for 63% of nonseasonal monthly SST variance (r = 0.79) and 73% of variance in annual means (r = 0.86). We show that SLP reductions and related atmospheric forcing led to century-long warming around the NE Pacific margins, with the strongest trends observed from 1910–1920 to 1940. NE Pacific circulation changes are estimated to account for more than 80% of the 1900–2012 linear warming in coastal NE Pacific SST and US Pacific northwest (Washington, Oregon, and northern California) SAT. An ensemble of climate model simulations run under the same historical radiative forcings fails to reproduce the observed regional circulation trends. These results suggest that natural internally generated changes in atmospheric circulation were the primary cause of coastal NE Pacific warming from 1900 to 2012 and demonstrate more generally that regional mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also extend to century time scales.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/09/16/1318371111.abstract

“Watermelons”, as James Delingpole so aptly describes them, Green on the Outside, & Red on the Inside!

September 22, 2014September 22, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Communists coming out of the Green Closet.

Image source: Oliver Darcy/TheBlaze

Christopher Monckton is presently in Australia. Previously he has said: (link – WUWT)

So at last the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year because they’d captured it. Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.

Patrick Moore who will soon visit Australia, co-founder of Greenpeace, left the Green Movement when it was infiltrated by communists: (link)

The collapse of world communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall during the 1980s added to the trend toward extremism. The Cold War was over and the peace movement was largely disbanded. The peace movement had been mainly Western-based and anti-American in its leanings. Many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas.

Further:

Progressives are very resilient, so when Soviet communism finally collapsed after 70 years of world wide tyranny, progressives and liberal Democrats pushed the existential green movement to the forefront, which was in reality the same old exhausted red communism in a new disguise.

The “Green” Movement tried to disguise their “Red” Socialist/Communist ideas, however, now they are coming out of the closet.

The New York “Climate” March, as reported by the Blaze had socialists elements spread through it. (link)

Dozens of signs denouncing capitalism were spotted at the demonstration, often held by self-proclaimed socialists.
“Capitalism is destroying the planet,” a sticker on one woman’s shirt read, “We need revolution, nothing less.”

Image source: Oliver Darcy/TheBlaze

Members of the Socialists Workers Party also manned a table, passing out flyers attempting to make “the case for ecosocialism.”

This man, Bobby Jindal, Exposes the Truth Behind Skyrocketing Energy Costs….Outrageous

September 21, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal speaking at The Heritage Foundation to a group of reporters about his new energy plan. (Photo: Steven Purcell)

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal yesterday accused the Obama administration of making energy more expensive with the goal of making Americans more dependent on government.

“The Left, they like to tell us they are the ones [who] are following science and we’re the science deniers,” Jindal said to a small group of reporters after delivering a speech at The Heritage Foundation to debut his energy jobs plan. “But I think overall, their approach to energy is telling.”

The Republican governor said the “radical” Left wants energy to be scarce and expensive because it empowers the federal government to be more involved in Americans’ lives.

Doing so, the potential 2016 presidential candidate said, essentially allows the Obama administration to decide what kind of car you drive, what kind of home you live in, what kind of education your children receive, what kind of health care insurance is adequate for you, and what size soda you can drink.

Right now, Jindal said, America “is on the road to failure.” He said:

It’s war on coal today; it’s going to be a war on natural gas tomorrow—it’s a war on any natural energy source. [The Left] wants it to be scarce; they want it to be expensive. You can see it in their actions, you can see it in their policies.

Jindal, elected governor of Lousiana in 2008 after two terms in Congress, has presided over a state hit by the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico while still recovering from Hurricane Katrina.

The Left wants energy to be scarce and expensive. You can see it in their actions, you can see it in their policies. -@BobbyJindal

He cited what he called the Left’s “startling” views on natural gas.

“When [natural gas] was 13 dollars, boy they loved it. As soon as it became affordable, all of the sudden they decided they didn’t like it so much,” Jindal said.

>>> What Contributes to Gas Prices and Solutions to Help

Nicolas Loris, a Heritage economist who specializes in energy policy, agreed that some liberals initially supported natural gas “as a bridge fuel to take us to renewables.” But because the revolution in shale gas provided an abundance of cheap natural gas, he said, “that bridge became a lot longer than they anticipated.”

“While it may be bad news for other sources of energy,” Loris added, “the low-cost energy is great news for American families and businesses.”

>>> Commentary: Obama May Be Bypassing Congress on Climate

Jindal also cited regulations on carbon dioxide as proof of an “ideologically extreme” agenda by President Obama and other liberals. He said:

“For much of the Left, the whole debate about [carbon dioxide] is really a Trojan horse because these are folks that never did want a free market. This was a group that was always looking for an excuse to impose more government regulation, more government oversight. … This is just their latest vehicle to do it.”

Jindal’s energy plan, co-authored by Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, is called “Organizing Around Abundance: Making America an Energy Superpower” and promises to usher in an “unprecedented” era of energy development and job growth.

Here are the main points:

1. Promote responsible development of domestic energy resources and construct infrastructure to transport it.

2. Encourage technological innovation of renewables and emerging energy without picking winners and losers. In other words:Stop giving taxpayer-funded handouts to politically preferred energy sources and technologies. Let the market work.

3. Unlock the economic potential of the manufacturing renaissance by putting America’s energy resources to work.

4. Eliminate burdensome regulations such as the Obama administration’s increased carbon dioxide restrictions on power plants.

5. Bolster national security by ending policies that ban the exporting of natural resources.

6. Pursue “no regrets” policies that reduce carbon dioxide emissions without punishing the U.S. economy by putting it at a disadvantage to those of other nations.

Loris gave points to the Jindal-Flores plan for building on “what we see and know to be successful” when it comes to American energy production.

“Free market policies that open access, remove handouts and peel back burdensome regulations will reward risk-taking, stimulate economic growth and provide Americans with affordable energy,” he said.

What the nation shouldn’t pursue, Loris added, is a policy of reducing carbon dioxide.

“That assumes carbon emissions are a problem,” he said. Instead, “we can recognize that free markets that reward technological innovation can fuel the economy and reduce emissions.”

Watch this video for Jindal’s complete public remarks at The Heritage Foundation.

Famous Climate Alarmists Frequently Resort to Blatant Lies to Create Fear!

September 20, 2014 / 1957chev / 3 Comments

Margaret Atwood, Elizabeth May, Naomi Klein: Climate handmaids fail—to tell the truth

Perpetuating the massive deception of a planetary climate emergency

It goes without saying that most rational people with a reasonable amount of common sense worry about pollution and want to keep our environment healthy and habitable. So why do the radical environmentalists and the man-made climate change/anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmist crowd choose to outright lie about the problems facing us?

The UN’s IPCC, the extreme-green groups, the mainstream media, the UN-dependent scientists, academia, and politicians are all perpetuating the massive deception of the unproven hypothesis of man-made climate change/anthropogenic global warming, and use it as supposed evidence of a cataclysmic global emergency demanding extreme measures and the surrender of our rights, freedoms, and money.

The AGW movement, a quasi-religious, political, ideological one, is supported by many celebrity acolytes who, by virtue of being famous people, garner huge publicity for the cause whenever they parrot the climate change dogma. This high-minded entertainment fodder has ripple effects that are far from trivial. Mindless celebrity regurgitation of the man-made climate change/AGW catechism, in the seeming absence on their part of any serious effort to study the issues, has grave consequences that affect people, the environment, the economy, wildlife, human rights, and democracy. The celebrity flag-waving on behalf of the AGW movement also serves to exacerbate the corruption of science and the scientific method for political purposes. That’s when things get dangerous and evil. Michael Crichtonexplained:

“When we allow science to become political then we are lost. We will enter the internet version of the Dark Ages, an era of stifling fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better.”

Celebrated author and poet Margaret Atwood has over half a million Twitter followers; Elizabeth May is an MP and the leader of the Green Party of Canada; Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, and bestselling author. The three of them enjoy extensive national and international media exposure and public speaking opportunities. They are high-profile Canadians who have earned fame, honours, public respect and trust. They choose to voice their opinions on the subject of man-made climate change/AGW, a matter of public interest, on a variety of public platforms.

That being the case, shouldn’t the moral onus be on them to get at all the facts before they presume to preach to the people? Don’t they have an ethical duty to do their best to tell the truth if they want to try to influence public opinion and policy with their lecturing, moralizing, castigating, laying blame, and telling us how to live?

Atwood, May, and Klein appear to believe that the unproven hypothesis of made-made climate change/AGW is a fact beyond doubt. They tend to ascribe any and all weather events to AGW, even though the five standard global datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, UAH, RSS, NCDC, comprising two satellite and three terrestrial datasets) that measure global warming have not recorded any increase for the last 18 years. Apparently, Atwood, May, and Klein are not aware of this 18-year-long development, or if they are, they choose not to mention it—because if they did, their doom-and-gloom exhortations would fall flat. They don’t explain that climate changes all the time, always has, always will—it’s natural.

The three celebrities demonize “carbon” and carry on about our “carbon footprint” and “carbon credits” and “carbon pollution” but never explain what they mean by “carbon.” They don’t seem to know, or choose not to acknowledge, that the “carbon” involved in the climate change debate is carbon dioxide (CO2), a harmless, invisible trace gas (constituting 0.04% of the atmosphere), vital to life on earth. Carbon dioxide is plant food—not a pollutant. And since they don’t mention that there hasn’t been any warming for 18 years, they also don’t tell you that during that time, the levels of carbon dioxide (allegedly the cause of global warming) have gone up. That’s a rather inconvenient fact if you want to demonize CO2 as the driver of man-made global warming/climate change!

Margaret Atwood: Hell on earth, a scary scenario

Last November, Margaret Atwood published an odd article on climate change in Huffington Post, in which she asserted:

“Conditions around the world are being altered much faster than was formerly predicted…It’s a scary scenario, and we’re largely unprepared.”

If, by “formerly predicted,” Atwood is referring to the dire prognostications of the UN’s IPCC faulty climate models, the truth is that every single one of them has actually turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Undeterred, Atwood doubles down and fast forwards the occurrence of the predicted conditions (she does not specify what they are) that have failed to materialize, providing no sources for her claims. The truth is that whatever weather and climate events have occurred within the last decade and a half cannot be blamed on AGW, because there hasn’t been any warming for 18 years and counting.

In the same article, Atwood makes a bizarre, not to mention irresponsible and naive suggestion. In reference to absorption of excess rainfall, she opines that “In cities, depaving could help.” (What? Would she advocate “depaving” and turning her hometown Toronto into Muddy Yorkagain?) Atwood obviously does not seem to know (or care?) that a major source of particulate pollution is unpaved roads!

Margaret Atwood regularly tweets about things related to “climate change,” by which she means man-made climate change. For example, in one tweet she asserts that climate change is partly “at root of Toledo water pollution.” In another, she urges her 529,000 Twitter followers to sign and re-tweet a petition to phase out “carbon pollution to zero,” lest “climate change accelerate beyond our control, threatening our survival.” She is also joiningDavid Suzuki’s Blue Dot tour (she’s an honourary member of the board of the David Suzuki Foundation), designed to “see every Canadian’s right to live in a healthy environment legally recognized” (emphasis added—sounds reasonable, but you can be sure that whatever “legally” really means, it will probably entail “depaving,” along with edicts, diktats, and intrusive, Big Brother smart-controls on how you may live your life).

Margaret Atwood is a President of the Rare Bird Club of BirdLife International and she has tweeted about saving vultures from poisoning, and spoken out about protecting Amherst Island (and Ostrander Point) in Ontario from industrial wind turbines:

“I was horrified to hear of the proposal to blanket Amherst Island with wind turbines…The need to reduce our carbon footprint is widely known, but the destruction of rare natural habitat and species is not the way to do it. Amherst Island is the wrong place for a windfarm. It is a very wrong place.”

Of course, as anyone who has taken a good look at the wind energy industry knows, there is no right place for the useless satanic white windmills, whichkill birds and bats in catastrophic numbers wherever they are located. Why doesn’t Atwood tell the whole truth about how all industrial wind turbines brutally slice and dice any avian creatures that get in their way (ironically while actually adding to CO2 emissions)? What kind of activist bird lover is she? And doesn’t she see all the other devastating environmental, social, and economic evils the monster machines represent? (Talk about “depaving”! Each industrial wind turbine requires an 800-ton concrete platform, and that is just the beginning of howun-green those useless, eco-dirty things really are.)

The terrible irony is that Margaret Atwood has written novels about dystopian worlds, and that with her AGW activism she seems to be helping to create a real one. She says her novels are “speculative fiction” about worlds that “could really happen.“ Atwood has written that speculative fiction can:

“…explore proposed changes in social organisation, by showing what they might actually be like for those living within them. Thus, the utopia and the dystopia, which have proved over and over again that we have a better idea about how to make hell on earth than we do about how to make heaven.”

But Atwood seems unable to recognize that the man-made climate change movement, in which she is a celebrity activist, and the AGW ideology for which she is a high-profile advocate, have been deliberately conceived and engineered as the phoney rationale for a dystopian UN objective (“hell on earth”), as outlined in its master plan for world governance, Agenda 21. This plan would curtail, if not eliminate, not only our democratic rights but also our country’s very sovereignty; it’s a plan to inventory and control everything and everyone on the planet. And this plan not only “could really happen”—it really is happening right now; in fact, it began to be slowly, stealthily implemented more than 20 years ago.

That is the real “scary scenario.”

Margaret Atwood and all the other AGW celebrity acolytes seem to be completely oblivious to the big picture as they go about aiding and abetting the greatest scientific deception of our time. Atwood has written: “There’s a new term, cli-fi (for climate fiction, a play on sci-fi), that’s being used to describe books in which an altered climate is part of the plot.” With her high-profile AGW activism she is helping to perpetuate the real-life AGW climate fiction—a fiction that in Ontario has already cost billions of dollars in the name of green energy, diverted attention and resources from genuine, urgent problems facing us, inflicted untold suffering on people, stalled the economy, blighted the environment, killed wildlife.

Those are real “hell on earth” consequences.

Elizabeth May: Giving voice to nonsense

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, claims:

“The Green party is the only party that bases its policies on evidence. That is why we may take positions ahead of the “group-think” curve…We have been consistent about climate policies, while other parties treat the greatest threat to our children’s future as a passing fad.”

If May’s claim about her party’s evidence-based policies is true, and she sees it as her job “to communicate the science,” why hasn’t she admitted that the evidence and science show that there has not been any global warming for 18 years? It appears that May is “consistent about climate policies” to the extent that she consistently and mindlessly (as in “group-think”) repeats false, long-ago debunked predictions (“greatest threat to our children’s future”), while apparently failing to understand, or deliberately ignoring, the latest scientific findings.

In an April interview on CBC TV, Canada’s national broadcaster, Elizabeth May lauds the IPCC, which is actually a political body masquerading as a scientific one, for part three of its Fifth Assessment Report:

“It’s science, it’s evidence, it’s not someone’s opinion…based on evidence, based on science, these aren’t a group of people who get together and look in a crystal ball…this is scientific warnings that are based on what is happening now.”

As we have mentioned, all of the climate model predictions the IPCC uses to formulate its reports for policy makers—predictions which are actually nothing more than opinions, the equivalent of looking into a crystal ball—have failed. None of the climate models have agreed with the observed data, i.e. the hard scientific evidence.

Does May not know this, or is she deliberately obfuscating the truth? Either way, it doesn’t make her look good. And by “what is happening now,” does she mean that the “serious threat,” with which she tries to scare Canadians, and “the risk for security, the risks of failed states, the risk of a collapse of civilization” are actually unfolding now, at a time when global warming, supposedly the cause of all the doom-and-gloom, has not happened for 18 years? If there hasn’t been any global warming for almost two decades, how can whatever is “happening now” have been caused by it? May’s rhetoric, misinformation, and apocalypse-mongering are deeply irresponsible, reckless, and harmful.

In the interview (see it to believe it), and in what seems like a breezily sanctimonious, arrogant, holier-than-thou tone, Elizabeth May goes on to make the astonishing statement that “99.5% of the scientists who know the issue” agree that climate change is man-made. This claim has been debunked many times over (and just like Pinocchio’s nose, the original phoney statistic of 97% seems to get bigger every time someone cites it). And yet, here is Elizabeth May on national television telling viewers something that is simply not true. Perhaps she thinks she’s in good company because everyone from President Obama down with a vested interest in maintaining the fiction continues to make the same bogus claim. Needless to say, and as usual, the CBC interviewer, in this case Peter Mansbridge—probably because he isn’t informed but given his position certainly ought to be—doesn’t challenge her on the untruth.

And it gets worse. May says that the “denier industry was invented by the fossil fuel industry lobby.” She seems to be proud of her knowledge of “the science,” as she calls it:

“I learned the climate science when I was a senior policy advisor for the Minister of the Environment in the 1980s. We were looking at all the science that was coming in from all around the world, and it was before anyone had “invented”* the idea that there was doubt. The “invention”* of doubt was a product of the fossil fuel lobby that decided after the Earth Summit and after the Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed…then they decided, oh oh, this could cut into profits, we’d better invent doubt…”

*[May employs air quotes.]

What’s astonishing here is May’s smug, self-satisfied conviction that the doubt could only have been manufactured by an avaricious, manipulative fossil fuel industry bogeyman, and not perhaps have come out of the rigorous research of honest climate scientists, (as, for example, Canadian Dr. Tim Ball), who adhere to the scientific method in which healthy, questioning, intelligent scepticism plays an indispensable role. And, if she really does know “the science” as she claims, why is she not telling the truth that there are sound scientific findings out there that invalidate the AGW hypothesis?

May also displays an unbelievably patronizing attitude about people who question the fiction that she promotes:

“So when I talk to people who aren’t convinced, I’m very respectful because I understand that a lot of good people have gotten one little bit of information that seems plausible and have allowed that to morph into their head into some level of large-scale doubt about the science. If we had a lobby that wanted to deny the laws of gravity and the media decided to give them equal voice…that’s the level of the science debate. We shouldn’t be giving voice to nonsense.”

Wow! Look at the poor saps who have that one little “plausible” thing morph into a huge, doubtful balloon in their heads! Let’s censor the ones who let it fester and want to talk to the media about it! Who is actually being granted a national platform and given voice to nonsense here? The irony is that the mainstream media, including our taxpayer-funded national broadcaster the CBC, have given scant, if any voice to the fine scientists and other experts who have not been corrupted into toeing the party line of man-made climate change.

Elizabeth May is a national political figure who holds herself out to be an expert who knows “the science,” but seems to be getting away with disseminating serious misinformation, with the CBC’s vaunted Peter Mansbridge uttering nary a peep of a challenge. This is a national disgrace. Pity the young people, because as she indicates in the interview, she speaks to (indoctrinates?) them in places where they are a captive audience, as she puts it, and they are forced to listen to her nonsensical, apocalyptic view of their future.

Naomi Klein: A death sentence for the planet

In the media and in her latest book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, Naomi Klein does a good job as an AGW alarmist, with what some might even say is histrionic fear mongering. A sampling:

“…keep warming below catastrophic levels,” “…this crisis continues to be existentially terrifying,” “…in the midst of a climate emergency,” “…we’re on a four-to-six-degree temperature trajectory. To be in decade zero, and out of time,” “…a clear and present danger to civilization, “…a death sentence for the planet,” “…a weapon of mass destruction,” “…the road we’re on…will lead us to a greater brutality..to a world of a kind of disaster apartheid I think we caught a glimpse of with Hurricane Katrina.”

When it comes to the climate, Klein also seems to have a problem understanding or telling the truth. She claims to have “immersed myself in the science and politics of climate change.” But she doesn’t appear to be interested in facts: “It’s that I don’t want quibbling about the science. This is how a lot of the debate gets derailed. I don’t want to be derailed with quibbles about how many hurricanes there were in 2012.” (Could that be because, inconveniently, statistics show that there have been a lot less hurricanes and other extreme weather events than the AGW believers claim to be the consequences of man-made climate change?) In a recentCBC radio interview, she quotes Michael Mann, “the famed climate scientist” of the Hockey Stick debacle who employed statistical tricks to produce a misleading graph of global warming history—the graph was used extensively as a propaganda tool to fuel the man-made global warming hype. Perhaps Klein doesn’t know that two Canadian researchers exposed the manipulations:

What they found was that 99% of the time you could process random data using Mann’s techniques and it would generate a Hockey Stick shape. This meant that Mann’s claim that the Hockey Stick graph represented an accurate reconstruction of the past climate was in tatters.

Given Klein’s Jewish heritage, it’s hard to understand how she can use the odious term “deniers,” with its terrible allusion to the Holocaust, when referring to the learned climate scientists and others who have demonstrated that the scientific data do not support the hypothesis of man-made global warming/climate change: “We focus too much on climate deniers,” she says. The use of this nasty ad hominem label has led to outrageous excesses, such as a sickening ad for the upcoming climate march in New York City, wherein it’s implied that respected scientists, other experts, and ordinary people who think for themselves and who happen not to agree that the scientific data support the unproven hypothesis of man-made climate change are tolerant of genocide.

Klein advocates “deep changes to our political and economic system.” She says, “Core inequalities need to be tackled through redistribution of wealth and technology” and bemoans that we seem to be “incapable of responding collectively to an existential crisis and incapable of acting collectively for a greater good.” The socialist/communist plan of action she’s apparently advocating appears to be in line with the UN’s Agenda 21 objectives, which Canadian Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (now resident of communist China when he’s not being fêted in Toronto by celebrity and former Canadian governor-general Adrienne Clarkson as “a true Canadian gem” who “invented the environment”) took a lead in formulating when he said:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

That would be a real death sentence for the planet.

The grave consequences of celebrities thinking that star power doesn’t need the truth

Of course, Margaret Atwood, Elizabeth May, and Naomi Klein aren’t the only Canadian celebrities chastising us for not “believing in” the religion of man-made climate change or doing enough about it. There are many others, including the publicly-lionized David Suzuki, another pseudo-expert on climate science whose shocking and appalling lack of knowledge on the subject was exposed to world-wide ridicule on Australian national television last September. (Watch the video or read the transcript here.)

Do any of the celebrities ever stop to think about the damage they cause by failing to do their homework and study the issues before recklessly and irresponsibly taking their uninformed opinions on the road?

Do they have any inkling that what they say, write, tweet, or sing in public forums may help to bring about and sustain, for example, the miserable realities of trying to live amidst industrial wind turbines which have been forced on rural residents as a direct result of the deception of man-made climate change posing a planetary emergency, thus supposedly necessitating special, draconian, democratic-rights-robbing legislation which gives the wind industry unprecedented rights to despoil prime farmland, expropriate land, kill wildlife, adversely affect people’s health, destabilize the electrical grid, fracture communities, devalue property, and allows it to enjoy 20-year guaranteed, significantly above-market returns on investment, courtesy of the taxpayers?

People are suffering badly for a big, celebrity-enabled lie, and losing their rights, their jobs, their homes, their communities, their environment, their way of life, their money.

Celebrity acolytes and advocates of man-made climate change, with their hysterical exaggerations, outrageous fear mongering, blatant misinformation, and bald-faced untruths have to take a good look at themselves and their role in the terrible consequences of helping to propagate the greatest scientific deception of all time.

Germany’s Largest Newspaper, Gets Clued in About the Climate Scam!

September 18, 2014 / 1957chev / 2 Comments

“Self-Inflicted Apocalypse Fascination”! Germany’s Leading Daily Fed Up With End-Of-World Scenarios, Climate Catastrophe!

By P Gosselin on 17. September 2014

Germany’s major media takes a landmark step, one could argue.

At their Die kalte Sonne site, geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and chemist Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt point out a recent article appearing in Germany’s no. 1 daily by circulation (2.5 million), Bild. Apparently the Axel Springer publication is getting fed up with all the global warming catastrophe nonsense.

Note that Bild is the world’s 6th largest newspaper.
=================================

Bild daily has had enough of the climatic end of the world “Apocalypse? No!”
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt

Bild daily has had enough of the constant screaming of alarm, and expressed it in very clear terms on September 11, 2014:

World refuses to end: Apocalypse? No!

Ozone hole, bird flu, Mayan curse or El Niño: How occupational pessimists, esoteric eggheads, astro-kooks and eco-freaks constantly want to talk us into the end of the world.

For 30 years we feared the ozone hole that had exposed us without protection to insidious UV rays: Until Wednesday. Then all of a sudden the UN announced: The ozone layer is well on its way to regeneration. This was not the first time that creepy end-of-world scenarios turned out to be a mix of fear-mongering and self-inflicted apocalypse fascination, […]

4. Climate change is melting the poles

Hardly anything in science is more at loggerheads than the question of to what extent man causes climate change. It’s an undisputed fact that the amount of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ in the air has risen strongly since industrialization, recently at a record level, and also the rise in global mean temperature (currently globally at 0.13°C per decade). But on the other hand the warnings of the dramatic melting of the poles and horror flooding of the poor Pacific islands have proven to be exaggerated. Currently the sea level is rising 3.2 mm per year. And the melting at the poles? Last summer the sea ice area in the Arctic compared to a year earlier rose 60%. 20 ships had to be rescued by ice breakers.”

Read the entire article at bild.de.

=======================================

Adding to Vahrenholt’s and Lünings piece, in its article Bild brings up 8 once claimed end-of-world scenarios that never came true: 1) acid rain/forest die-off, 2) Mayan Calendar, 3) 2014/2015 El Niño, 4) poles melting/climate change, 5) bird flu, 6) Nostradamus, 7) 1910 Haley’s Comet, and 8) nuclear inferno.

Bild sarcastically ends the part about the climate catastrophe with a photo of a semi-submerged Brandenburg Gate with the caption:

The Brandenburg Gate has remained completely spared by the ‘worst environmental catastrophe since Chernobyl’.”

Glad to see Bild is taking this step when it comes to the kooky climate catastrophe. It served them well, but now they are moving on.

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/17/self-inflicted-apocalypse-fascination-germanys-leading-daily-fed-up-with-end-of-world-scenarios-climate-catastrophe/#sthash.mMSRDIdP.dpuf

Michael Mann has been Left at the Altar, by his “Science” Friends!

September 17, 2014September 17, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Quote of the week: The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken

Anthony Watts

Mark Steyn writes:

[Tuesday] marked a not unimportant court deadline in the upcoming Mann vs Steyn trial of the century, and I wouldn’t want to let it pass without comment. Ever since this tedious suit was launched by Doctor Fraudpants in defense of his global-warming hockey stick, Michael Mann’s supporters have insisted that it’s not, as I and my fellow defendants have insisted, about free speech. Instead, as they see it, it’s about science finally fighting back against a sustained assault by Koch-funded “denialists”. This sub-headline encapsulates the general line:

Michael Mann is taking a stand for science.

Gotcha. Michael Mann is not doing this for Michael Mann, or even for Michael Mann’s science, or even for climate science. He’s doing it for science. Mann is science and science is Mann.

A few weeks ago, you’ll recall, the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other notorious right-wing deniers all filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech. They did this not because they have any great love for me, but because their antipathy to wackjob foreign blowhards is outweighed by their appreciation of the First Amendment – and an understanding of the damage a Mann victory would inflict on it. After noting the upsurge of opposition to Mann, Reuters enquired of Catherine Reilly (one of his vast legal team) whether there would be any amici filing pro-Mann briefs:

I asked Reilly if the professor would have any supporting briefs next month when he responds to the defendants in the D.C. appeals court.

“At this point, we don’t know,” she said.

Ms Reilly was a pleasant sort when I met her in court over a year ago, but she struck me as a formidable opponent. So I naturally assumed that the above was what what the political types call “lowering expectations”. As I wrote:

I would be surprised if Mann didn’t have any supporting briefs. I was in court when Ms Reilly’s genial co-counsel made his argument for Mann, which was a straightforward appeal to authority: Why, all these eminent acronymic bodies, from the EPA and NSF and NOAA even unto HMG in London, have proved that all criticisms of Mann are false and without merit. So I would certainly expect them to file briefs – and, given that Mann sees this as part of a broader “war on science” by well-funded “deniers”, I would also expect briefs from the various professional bodies: the National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, etc. As pleasant as it is to find my side of the court suddenly so crowded, I’m confident Mann will be able to even up the numbers.

Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann. The self-appointed captain of the hockey team is playing solo. As Judith Curry wrote last month:

The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken.

As yesterday’s deafening silence confirms. If you’re defending Michael Mann, you’re not defending science, or defending climate science, or theories on global warming or anything else. Defending Michael Mann means defending Michael Mann – and it turns out not many people are willing to go there.

===========================================

More here: http://www.steynonline.com/6565/the-lonesomest-mann-in-town

This development is very telling, and is the moment that the tide of consensus receded and left Mann out standing in his field.

Wind Power is the Key to Poverty for Citizens and Insecurity in our Energy Sector.p

September 12, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Robert Bryce: Want to live in Stone-Age Poverty? Then tie your future to Wind Power

September 12, 2014 by stopthesethings

Robert Bryce picked the wind power fraud for what it is from the very beginning.

In his 2010 book “Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future” (Public Affairs), Bryce skewered every one of the myths relied upon by the wind industry to peddle its wares; and went on to predict the massive benefits of the US shale gas revolution – in terms of both cheap energy – operating as a boost to a flagging economy – and as a method of reducing CO2 emissions in the electricity sector.

We’ve covered some of his recent writings on US energy policy and the wind power fraud (see our posts here and here and here). Bryce recently published another cracking book “Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Catastrophists Wrong” (Public Affairs) that loads up on the nonsense that is US energy policy today: we covered a review of Bryce’s latest by the New York Times in this post.

In this video, Robert lays out the key arguments as to why cheap, reliable sparks are critical to the growth, wealth and development of Nations. While access to power is something we – in the developed world – smugly take for granted, for the billion or so at the bottom of the development heap it is the ONLY path out of poverty. And for those struggling to escape deprivation and darkness, the answer is most certainly not insanely expensive and unreliable wind power. To the contrary, reliable and affordable power is a guarantee of both wealth and freedom.

Energy policy has been over-run by “green” ideologues who are determined to ensure that the poorest remain that way by wedding the world to the fiction that wind power provides a meaningful answer to growing energy demand, while “solving” the climate change “problem”. Tune in to Robert as he skewers that – and other – wind industry myths.

Climate Alarmists are Not to be Taken Seriously! They are Scammers!

September 9, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

An economist’s bad climate advice

You are here: Home › All Posts › An economist’s bad climate advice

September 7, 2014 by Alan Caruba,

If I need my car repaired, I do not take it to a dentist. If I am seeking advice about the climate I check out what climatologists and meteorologists are saying, at least those who have not sold their souls to the global warming/climate change hoax.

On September 3rd, The Wall Street Journal published a commentary by Edward P. Lazeartitled “The Climate Change Agenda Needs to Adapt to Reality: Limiting carbon emissions won’t work. Better to begin adjusting to a warming world.”

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! It’s cooling, not warming.

Apparently Mr. Lazear is unaware that the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for seventeen years. A visit to

www.climatedepot.com or a subscription to the Heartland Institute’s monthly Climate & Environmental News or a copy of its policy studies, “Climate Change Reconsidered”, would help him understand why he’s wrong. Check out www.climatechangedispatch.com as well for the latest commentaries.

Perhaps his error should be forgiven because Mr. Lazear is an economist. He was the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors (2006-09) and head of the White House Committee on the Economics of Climate Change (2007-08). Presently he is a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow.

He’s not a fool, but like a lot of academics who lack a background in science, he has been fooled by the legion of global warming/climate change charlatans from Al Gore through the ranks of organizations such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that depend on maintaining the hoax.

Mr. Lazear has fallen for the greatest lie ever; the assertion that greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, are warming the Earth. The hoaxers are calling the past seventeen years “a pause” in warming, but it is actually an indicator that the Earth is on the cusp of the next ice age. The period in between ice ages is calculated at 11,500 years and we are at the end of the current interglacial period.

“The Obama administration is instituting a variety of far-reaching policies to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change. Are any of these capable of making a difference?” asked Mr. Lazear. “Simple arithmetic suggests not.” Up to this point I was very pleased with his conclusion, but then he wrote “Given this reality, we would be wise to consider strategies that complement and may be more effective than mitigation—namely, adaptation.”

Humans have been adapting to the climate—the weather—since they emerged as homo sapiens about 195,000 years ago.

What Mr. Lazear wants the U.S, to do is limit “carbon emissions” but admits that “The economics also work against a major transformation in the technology of producing power, either mobile or stationary. Coal is cheap. Natural gas is becoming even cheaper.”

The primary flaw in his commentary is simply that more carbon dioxide is a good thing. As the primary gas utilized by all vegetation, more means greater crop yields and healthier forests. What carbon dioxide doesn’t do is “trap” heat long enough to lower the Earth’s temperature. It represents a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere.

The Earth is not a greenhouse with a glass roof. The amount of heat in the atmosphere is totally dependent on the amount of heat the Sun produces. In its current cycle, it is producing less.

“Carbon math,” wrote Mr. Lazear, “makes clear that without major effort and a good bit of luck, we are unlikely to control the growth of emissions enough to meet the standards that many climate scientists suggest are necessary.” Those scientists are usually on college or university faculties where securing federal and other grants to study a warming that is not occurring leads to urging limits on carbon dioxide. Others are just huge liars who, like Al Gore, have been making predictions of warming that have not and are not coming true.

There’s another reason why there will be more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It involves two of the most swiftly developing nations in the world, China and India, both of whom are building coal-fired plants to generate electricity as fast as they can. This is happening while the Environmental Protection Agency has been engaged in an all-out war on coal that has closed several hundred U.S. plants. If an especially cold winter occurs, the demand for electricity to warm homes and other facilities may overload a system that has been diminished in scope.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the driving force behind the global warming hoax. It is holding a climate change summit on September 23. Guess who won’t be attending? Chinese president Xi Jinping, India’s prime minister, Narenda Modi, and for good measure, Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel. Others whose leaders will not be attending include Canada, Japan, and Russia.

In typical fashion, always predicting climate conditions decades from now, the United Nations, according to a report in The Guardian, “is warning of floods, storms and searing heat from Arizona to Zambia within four decades, as part of a series of imagined weather forecasts” to publicize the climate summit.

All of the forecasts made by a legion of climate charlatans in the 1980s and 1990s turned out to be WRONG.

You cannot trust the UN’s World Meteorological Organization which like the IPCC is just part of a vast matrix of groups that have been so severely corrupted by the global warming/climate change hoax that one must exercise caution when hearing its forecasts. If they are for anything beyond two weeks hence, you would be wise to be dubious.

Mr. Lazear is just one of many, often with distinguished careers in other fields than meteorology or climatology, who have bought into the hoax and who declaim the need to reduce carbon dioxide. He’s wrong. The others are wrong.

And you need to educate yourself to avoid being afflicted by various government policies intended to advance the hoax. To start with, do not vote for any politician who talks of global warming/climate change or uses the term “sustainability.”

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/09/07/an-economists-bad-climate-advice/#sthash.Pkjvx1cg.dpuf

	How The Climate Grif… on There is NO Global Warming…
	Bob Bateman on Government-Induced Climaphobia…
	William Hooi on Germany’s Renewable Energy Dis…
	Jessica on Issues for Landowners to Consi…
	Raymond on Poorest Families Left Powerles…

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

Climate alarmists