Words of Wisdom, About Government-induced Climaphobia….

Food for Thought


Scientists are always telling us to “accept nothing, challenge everything, ask for empirical proof”. Lawyers work by a similar creed – “do you have proof of that? If not, there is very little I can do for you”.

Well bear that in mind when you read this little gem:

“The Big Lie – By Alex Epstein

On February 29, 2016

There is an oft-cited comment that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is global warming and that human beings are the main cause.


First of all, this statement itself, even if it were true, is deliberately manipulative. The reason we care about recent global warming or climate change is not simply that human beings are allegedly the main cause. It’s the allegation that man-made warming will be extremely harmful to human life. The 97 percent claim says nothing whatsoever about magnitude or catastrophe. If we’re the main cause of the mild warming of the last century or so, that does not begin to resemble anything that would justify taking away our machine food.


One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.


Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”


This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.


But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.


Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.


The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” —Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .” —Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.” —Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .” —Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.”


This is not about being what opponents label “a global warming denier”. It is simply a plea to break away from the “groupthink” and research and investigate these things for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Look into the backgrounds of these so-called experts/prophets of doom and see where their money is invested, for example. You might be surprised, hopefully shocked.


This idea that “if you are not with us, you are against us”, is bullshit, plain and simple. Consider both sides of the argument, study research methodologies, ask politically incorrect questions to politically correct people, come to a conclusion for yourself when you actually understand what the arguments are about. If you don’t understand it, don’t come to a conclusion, because that is not your conclusion, it is somebody else’s.


Government-induced Climaphobia….It’s a Huge Money-Grab!

Climate of intimidation

The idea only so-called ‘experts’ can debate global warming policies is an attack on free speech




Climate Change protesters
A protester, wearing a Halloween mask, stands near a protest banner during a rally near the Presidential Palace to protest the country’s use of coal to power energy generation power plants which according to them has contributed to pollution Saturday, Oct. 10, 2015 in Manila, Philippines. The protesters are urging the Government to do more to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions which allegedly contributes to global climate change. (AP Photo/Bullit Marquez)

The easiest way to distinguish between a critical thinker and an ideological one is this.

When a critical thinker disagrees with you, he or she thinks you’re wrong.

When an ideologue disagrees with you, he or she thinks you’re evil.

When it comes to discussions about climate change, we have far too many ideologues and far too few critical thinkers.

Far too many self-proclaimed “environmentalists” who want to shut down all debate on the subject because their narrow and rigid ideological minds believe there is only one “correct” position — theirs — which saves them from having to think.

These are the folks who condemn anyone who disagrees with them as “climate change deniers”, a dogwhistle meant to smear anyone who deviates from climate change orthodoxy as the equivalent of a denier of the Holocaust.

I was reminded of this tactic Thursday in the lead-up to a discussion about political responses to climate change in which I was a panelist before a group of Ryerson University MBA students.

My fellow panelist was Andreas Souvaliotis, Executive Chairman of Social Change Rewards Inc. and we both appeared at the invitation of prominent Toronto lawyer Ralph Lean, who organizes a speaker series for Ryerson students.

The problem wasn’t with the students, who asked thoughtful and intelligent questions, nor with my fellow panelist, nor with Lean nor with the students’ professor, Dr. Asher Alkoby, a gracious and open-minded host.

Of course, open-mindedness should be expected in a university setting, but sadly, today that is decreasingly the case as more and more so-called institutions of higher learning replace critical thought with ideological thinking, intellectual laziness and academic decline.

Amusingly, the very mention of the idea on twitter by Ryerson’s MBA program that two non-scientists were about to discuss issues related to climate change was enough to freak out various and sundry self-proclaimed environmentalists, who have appointed themselves the arbiters of who can and who cannot discuss the issue.

Their attitudes, in and of themselves, are insignificant and unimportant.

But they speak to a wider concern that goes to the very heart of our fundamental notions of free speech, critical inquiry and indeed to the essence of the scientific method itself, which is built upon rational skepticism, not the unthinking acceptance of orthodoxy and received wisdom.

Far too often in the climate change debate, the people who will be most affected by government policies to deal with it — meaning all of us — are excluded on the basis that we are not “experts” on climate science.

I have seen this tactic used repeatedly over the years — most disgracefully by some politicians — to intimidate people into silence about expressing their views on climate change and its so-called “solutions” such as carbon taxes, cap-and-trade and wind and solar power.

This claim that climate change is the sole purview of “experts” is not only an attack on free speech and critical inquiry, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about what this debate is really all about.

Because it is not, at its essence, an environmental debate at all, but an economic one.

Governments in our own country and all over the world today are either implementing or contemplating a new tax they have never charged us for before — the emission of industrial greenhouse gases linked to climate change into the atmosphere.

It matters not whether they do it through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, which is simply a carbon tax by another name, albeit less efficient and more open to political corruption.

What matters is that since we — all of us — are the ultimate polluters because we buy the goods and services that fossil fuel energy creates and transports, we will be the ultimate payers of what prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau vaguely refers to as “carbon pricing.”

In other words, what is actually being determined in the climate change debate is what will be our cost of living and our standard and quality of life.

Every citizen has the right to participate in that debate, without fear of being mocked or shouted down because they are not an “expert” on the science of global warming.

Which is why the dogwhistlers, with their specious comparisons of anyone who disagrees with them to Holocaust deniers and their disrespect for critical thinking, must be fought at every turn.

Public Mislead on Climate Impacts….

Public Misled on Climate Impacts
Global warming causes reduced extreme weather
By Tom Harris, International Climate Science Coalition and Dr. Tim Ball | October 18, 2015Last Updated: October 18, 2015 6:35 pm
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore attends a session of the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21, 2015. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images)
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore attends a session of the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21, 2015. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images)
The public is being told by politicians, bureaucrats, and activists that global warming will cause more extreme weather. Yet both the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) have said the exact opposite.

In 2012 the IPCC said that a relationship between global warming and wildfires, rainfall, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events has not been demonstrated. In its latest assessment report (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.

Hoesung Lee (R), the new president of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), speaks to French environmentalist Nicolas Hulot as he leaves the Elysee Presidential Palace in Paris on Oct. 15, 2015, after a meeting with French President François Hollande. (Eric Feferberg/AFP/Getty Images)
Hoesung Lee (R), the new president of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with French environmentalist Nicolas Hulot at Elysée Presidential Palace in Paris on Oct. 15, 2015, after a meeting with French President François Hollande. (Eric Feferberg/AFP/Getty Images)

The 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.”

The NIPCC report “Summary for Policymakers” addressed drought as follows, “Observations from across the planet demonstrate droughts have not become more extreme or erratic in response to global warming. In most cases, the worst droughts in recorded meteorological history were much milder than droughts that occurred periodically during much colder times.”

That there is no trend toward increasing extreme weather is clearly evident in the data. The National Climate Data Center (NCDC) tracks state records for maximum and minimum temperature, precipitation, snowfall, and snow depth, and sometimes hail characteristics, for each of the 50 states, a total of 346 state records since the 1890s. The NCDC records reveal that no extreme weather state records have been set in 2015. Only one was set in 2014, one in 2013, one in 2012, four in 2011. By far the majority of state records were set well before late 20th century warming. For example, New York state’s extreme weather records are spread over the past century, with no recent increase. Here are New York’s records:

Maximum Temperature: 108 degrees F, 1926
Minimum Temperature: -52 degrees F, 1979
Maximum 24-Hour Precipitation: 13.57 inches, 2014
Maximum 24-Hour Snowfall: 49 inches, 1900
Maximum Snow Depth: 119 inches, 1943

Scientists understand that global warming leads to less, not more, extreme weather. The boundary between cold polar air and warmer tropical air marks the position of the polar front. Extreme storms with winter blizzards and heavy rain in spring and fall, including tornadoes and hailstorms, form along the front. The number and intensity of extreme weather events varies with the temperature difference across the front, a parameter referred to as the zonal index.


According to the climate models the IPCC holds dear, global warming will occur fastest in polar regions, thus reducing the zonal index and so also reducing extreme weather.

As documented in climate records—proxy indicators, written records, and the brief instrumental record—extreme weather events have always been with us. For example, British surveyor and explorer Peter Fidler’s “Red River District Report 1819″ notes, “The spring months have sometimes storms of wind and thunder even so early as March within these last years the Climate seems to be greatly changed the summer so backward with very little rain and even snow in winter much less than usual and the ground parched that all summer have entirely dried up …”

The Department of Water and Power (DWP) San Fernando Valley Generating Station in Sun Valley, Calif., on Dec. 11, 2008. In August, President Obama announced a major climate change plan aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the nation’s coal-burning power plants. (David McNew/Getty Images)
The Department of Water and Power (DWP) San Fernando Valley Generating Station in Sun Valley, Calif., on Dec. 11, 2008. In August, President Obama announced a major climate change plan aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the nation’s coal-burning power plants. (David McNew/Getty Images)

If governments truly want to help farmers and others “who live off the land,” they should be preparing for the far more dangerous threat to North American agriculture—cooling.

Contrary to official records, observational evidence from around the world indicates that we are in a period of cooling almost certainly caused by solar changes. This is expected to continue posing a serious threat to prairie agriculture. Canada, the breadbasket of much of the world, is especially at risk. Fifty percent of Manitoba’s crops cannot be grown with a 0.9 degree F overall temperature drop and much of Canadian agriculture is eliminated entirely by a 1.8 degrees of Fahrenheit cooling. It’s a trend made more threatening because governments, misled by decades of corrupted, predetermined science, plan only for warming.

Based on the false premise that there has been an increase in extreme weather caused by global warming, President Barack Obama wants to replace coal, America’s cheapest and most plentiful power source, with other more expensive fuels. It is of concern to all democratic nations when the world’s primary defender of freedom is bent on crippling itself in this way.

The Climate Scare’s ‘Useful Idiots’
Pope, UN Sabotaging Development Goals With Climate Mitigation Focus
Instead of wasting money vainly trying to stop extreme weather from happening, governments should work to harden their societies to these inevitable events by burying electrical cables underground, and reinforcing buildings and other infrastructure. After all, Manhattan businesses that did not lose communications and power during Hurricane Sandy had their cables buried underground.

Yet, according to Climate Policy Initiative, of the almost $1 billion spent globally every day on climate finance, only about 7 percent of it goes to helping people adapt to climate change. This is the real climate crisis that should concern our leaders.

Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. ICSC is not right wing (our participants come from across the political spectrum), is not funded by “big oil,” and there are no lobbyists or “shills” for industry of any sort. Tom Harris has never worked as a lobbyist or PR rep for any company or sector.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Epoch Times.

Government-Induced Climaphobia Based on Faulty, Inaccurate Computer Climate Models.



Written by Dr Tim Ball, Climatologist on 28 Sep 2015

Nearly every single climate model prediction, projection or whatever else they want to call them has been wrong. Weather forecasts beyond 72 hours typically deteriorate into their error bands. The UK Met Office summer forecast was wrong again. broken computer

I have lost track of the number of times they were wrong. Apparently, the British Broadcasting Corporation had enough as they stopped using their services. They are not just marginally wrong. Invariably, the weather is the inverse of their forecast.Short, medium, and long-term climate forecasts are wrong more than 50 percent of the time so that a correct one is a no better than a random event.

Global and or regional forecasts are often equally incorrect. If there were a climate model that made even 60 percent accurate forecasts, everybody would use it. Since there is no single accurate climate model forecast, the IPCC resorts to averaging out their model forecasts as if, somehow, the errors would cancel each other out and the average of forecasts would be representative.

Short term climate forecasts no better than the Old Farmers Almanac

Climate models and their forecasts have been unmitigated failures that would cause an automatic cessation in any other enterprise. Unless, of course, it was another government funded, fiasco. Daily weather forecasts are improved from when modern forecasting began in World War I. However, even short term climate forecasts appear no better than the Old Farmers Almanac, which appeared in 1792, using moon, sun, and other astronomical and terrestrial indicators.

I have written and often spoken about the key role of the models in creating and perpetuating the catastrophic AGW mythology. People were shocked by the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), but most don’t know that the actual instructions to “hide the decline” in the tree ring portion of the hockey stick graph were in the computer code. It is one reason that people translate the Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO) acronym as Gospel in, Gospel Out when speaking of climate models.

I am tired of the continued pretense that climate models can produce accurate forecasts in a chaotic system. Sadly, the pretense occurs on both sides of the scientific debate. The reality is the models don’t work and can’t work for many reasons, including the most fundamental; lack of data, lack of knowledge of major mechanisms, lack of knowledge of basic physical processes, lack of ability to represent physical mechanisms like turbulence in mathematical form, and lack of computer capacity.

Bob Tisdale summarized the problems in his 2013 book Climate Models Fail. It is time to stop wasting time and money and put people and computers to more important uses.The only thing that keeps people working on the models is government funding, either at weather offices or in academia. Without this funding computer modelers would not dominate the study of climate.

Without the funding, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could not exist. Many of the people involved in climate modeling were not familiar with or had no training in climatology or climate science. They were graduates of computer modeling programs looking for a challenging opportunity with large amounts of funding available and access to large computers.

The atmosphere and later the oceans fit the bill. Now they put the two together to continue the fiasco. Unfortunately, it is all at massive expense to society. Those expenses include the computers and the modeling time but worse the cost of applying the failed results to global energy and environmental issues.

Let’s stop pretending and wasting money and time. Remove that funding and nobody would spend private money to work on climate forecast models.

I used to argue that there was some small value in playing with climate models in a laboratory, with only a scientific responsibility for the accuracy, feasibility, and applicability. It is clear they do not fulfill those responsibilities. Now I realize that position was wrong. When model results are used as the sole basis for government policy, there is no value.

It is a massive cost and detriment to society, which is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was specifically designed to do.The IPCC has one small value. It illustrates all the problems identified in the previous comments. Laboratory-generated climate models are manipulated outside of even basic scientific rigor in government weather offices or academia, and then become the basis of public policy through the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

Another value of the IPCC Physical Science Basis Reports is they provide a detailed listing of why models can’t and don’t work. Too bad few read or understand them. If they did, they would realize the limitations are such that they preclude any chance of success. Just a partial examination illustrates the point.


The IPCC people knew of the data limitations from the start, but it didn’t stop them building models.In 1993, Stephen Schneider, a primary player in the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and the use of models went beyond doubt to certainty when he said,“Uncertainty about important feedback mechanisms is one reason why the ultimate goal of climate modeling – forecasting reliably the future of key variables such as temperature and rainfall patterns – is not realizable.”A February 3, 1999, US National Research Council Report said,“Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality and continuity of the records place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results.”

To which Kevin Trenberth responded,

“It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system….This may come as a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t.”

Two Directors of the CRU, Tom Wigley, and Phil Jones said,“Many of the uncertainties surrounding the causes of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking.”

70% of the world is oceans and there are virtually no stations

The Poles are critical in the dynamics of driving the atmosphere and creating climate yet there are virtually no stations in 15 million km2 of the Arctic Ocean or for the 14 million km2 of Antarctica. Approximately 85% of the surface has no weather data.

The IPCC acknowledge the limitations by claiming a single station data are representative of conditions within a 1200km radius. Is that a valid assumption? I don’t think it is.

But it isn’t just lack of data at the surface. Actually, it is not data for the surface, but for a range of altitudes above the surface between 1.25 to 2 m and as researchers from Geiger (Climate Near the Ground) on show this is markedly different from actual surface temperatures as measured at the few microclimate stations that exist.

Arguably US surface stations are best, but Anthony Watts diligent study shows that only 7.9 percent of them accurate to less than 1°C. (Figure 1) To put that in perspective, in the 2001 IPCC Report Jones claimed a 0.6°C increase over 120 years was beyond a natural increase. That also underscores the fact that most of the instrumental record temperatures were measured to 0.5°C.

tball fig 1

Other basic data, including precipitation, barometric pressure, wind speed, and direction are worse than the temperature data. For example, in Africa there are only 1152 weather watch stations, which are one-eighth the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recommended minimum density.

As I noted in an earlier paper, lack of data for all phases of water alone guarantees the failure of IPCC projections.The models attempt to simulate a three-dimensional atmosphere, but there is virtually no data above the surface.

The modelers think we are foolish enough to believe the argument that more layers in the model will solve the problem, but it doesn’t matter if you have no data.

Major Mechanisms

During my career as a climatologist, several mechanisms of weather and climate were either discovered or measured, supposedly with sufficient accuracy for application in a model. These include, El Nino/La Nina (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Dansgaard-Oeschger Oscillation (D-O), Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), among others.

Milankovitch Effect not included in IPCC models

Despite this, we are still unclear about the mechanisms associated with the Hadley Cell and the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), which are essentially the entire tropical climate mechanisms. The Milankovitch Effect remains controversial and is not included in IPCC models.

The Cosmic Theory appears to provide an answer to the relationship between sunspots, global temperature, and precipitation but is similarly ignored by the IPCC.

They do not deal with the Monsoon mechanism well as they note,“In short, most AOGCMs do not simulate the spatial or intra-seasonal variation of monsoon precipitation accurately.”There is very limited knowledge of the major oceanic circulations at the surface and in the depths. There are virtually no measures of the volumes of heat transferred or how they change over time, including measures of geothermal heat.

Physical Mechanisms

The IPCC acknowledge that,“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.”

That comment is sufficient to argue for cessation of the waste of time and money. Add the second and related problem identified by Essex and McKitrick in Taken By Storm and it is confirmed.

Climate research is anything but a routine application of classical theories like fluid mechanics, even though some may be tempted to think it is. It has to be regarded in the “exotic’ category of scientific problems in part because we are trying to look for scientifically meaningful structure that no one can see or has ever seen, and may not even exist.“In this regard it is crucial to bear in mind that there is no experimental set up for global climate, so all we really have are those first principles.

You can take all the measurements you want today, fill terabytes of disk space if you want, but that does not serve as an experimental apparatus. Engineering apparatus can be controlled, and those running them can make measurements of known variables over a range of controlled physically relevant conditions.

In contrast, we have only today’s climate to sample directly, provided we are clever enough to even know how to average middle realm data in a physically meaningful way to represent climate. In short, global climate is not treatable by any conventional means.”

Computer capacity

Modelers claim computers are getting better, and all they need are bigger, faster computers. It can’t make any difference, but they continue to waste money. In 2012, Cray introduced the promotionally named Gaea supercomputer (Figure 2).

It has a 1.1 petaflops capacity. FLOPS means Floating-Point Operations per Second, and peta is 1016 (or a thousand) million floating-point operations per second. Jagadish Shukla says the challenge is“We must be able to run climate models at the same resolution as weather prediction models, which may have horizontal resolutions of 3-5 km within the next 5 years. This will require computers with peak capability of about 100 petaflops.”Regardless of the computer capacity it is meaningless without data for the model.

tball fig 2

Failed Forecasts, (Predictions, Projections)

Figure 3 shows the IPCC failed forecast. They call them projections, but the public believes they are forecasts. Either way, they are consistently wrong. Notice the labels added to Hayden’s graph taken from the Summary for Policymakers. As the error range increase in the actual data the Summary claims it is improving. One of the computer models used for the IPCC forecast belongs to Environment Canada. Their forecasts are the worst of all of those averaged results used by the IPCC (Figure 4).

tball fig 3

tball fig 4

The Canadian disaster is not surprising as their one-year forecast assessment indicates. They make a one –year forecast and provide a map indicating the percentage of accuracy against the average for the period 1981-2010 (Figure 5).

tball fig 5

The Canadian average accuracy percentage is shown in the bottom left as 41.5 percent. That is the best they can achieve after some thirty years of developing the models. Other countries results are no better.

In a New Scientist report Tim Palmer, a leading climate modeller at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading England said:“I don’t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain.”

The Cost – “The sum expended must be well over $100 billion”

Joanne Nova has done most research on the cost of climate research to the US government.“In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies.

These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation. It does not include funding from other governments. The real total can only grow.”There is no doubt that number grew, and the world total is likely double the US amount as this commentator claims.“

However, at least I can add a reliable half-billion pounds to Joanne Nova’s $79 billion – plus we know already that the EU Framework 7 programme includes €1.9 billion on direct climate change research. Framework 6 runs to €769 million. If we take all the Annex 1 countries, the sum expended must be well over $100 billion.”These are just the computer modeling costs.

The economic and social costs are much higher and virtually impossible to calculate.

As Paul Driessen explains“As with its polar counterparts, 90% of the titanic climate funding iceberg is invisible to most citizens, businessmen and politicians.”It’s no wonder Larry Bell can say,“The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from the many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change.”

If it is impossible for a supposedly sophisticated agency like US GAO to determine the costs, then there is no hope for a global assessment. There is little doubt the direct cost is measured in trillions of dollars. That does not include the lost opportunities for development and lives continuing in poverty.

All this because of the falsified results from completely failed computer model prediction, projections or whatever they want to call them.It is time to stop the insanity, which in climate science is the repetition of creating computer models that don’t and can’t work? I think so.“Those who have knowledge don’t predict. Those who do predict don’t have knowledge.” Tzu, Lao (6th Century BC)

See Dr Ball’s website here:drtimball.com

Dr Tim F Ball:

B.A., (Honours), Gold Medal Winner, University of Winnipeg, 1970

M.A., University of Manitoba, 1971

Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), Queen Mary College, University of London (England), 1982Career

1996 to Now – Environmentalist, Public Speaker, Consultant, Author, columnist.

1988-96 Professor, University of Winnipeg

1984-88 Associate Professor, University of Winnipeg

1982-84 Assistant Professor, University of Winnipeg

1977-78 Acting Dean of Students

1972-82 Lecturer, Department of Geography, University of Winnipeg

1971-72 Instructor, Geography Department, University of Winnipeg

Dr Ball has authored more than 80 significant publications.

See list here:


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)


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.

Why the Climate Change Hysteria is Being Pushed, In Spite of Evidence, That it is NOT As They Say!

Climate Crisis, Inc.

$1.5 trillion and Larry Bell book explain how profiteers of climate doom keep the money flowing

Paul Driessen

No warming in 18 years, no category 3-5 hurricane hitting the USA in ten years, seas rising at barely six inches a century: computer models and hysteria are consistently contradicted by Real World experiences.

So how do White House, EPA, UN, EU, Big Green, Big Wind, liberal media, and even Google, GE and Defense Department officials justify their fixation on climate change as the greatest crisis facing humanity? How do they excuse saying government must control our energy system, our economy and nearly every aspect of our lives – deciding which jobs will be protected and which ones destroyed, even who will live and who will die – in the name of saving the planet? What drives their intense ideology?

The answer is simple. The Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! That’s equal to the annual economic activity generated by the entire US nonprofit sector, or all savings over the past ten years from consumers switching to generic drugs. By comparison, annual revenues for much-vilified Koch Industries are about $115 billion, for ExxonMobil around $365 billion.

According to a 200-page analysis by the Climate Change Business Journal, this Climate Industrial Complex can be divided into nine segments: low carbon and renewable power; carbon capture and storage; energy storage, like batteries; energy efficiency; green buildings; transportation; carbon trading; climate change adaptation; and consulting and research. Consulting alone is a $27-billion-per-year industry that handles “reputation management” for companies and tries to link weather events, food shortages and other problems to climate change. Research includes engineering R&D and climate studies.

The $1.5-trillion price tag appears to exclude most of the Big Green environmentalism industry, a $13.4-billion-per-year business in the USA alone. The MacArthur Foundation just gave another $50 million to global warming alarmist groups. Ex-NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Chesapeake Energy gave the Sierra Club $105 million to wage war on coal (shortly before the Club began waging war on natural gas and Chesapeake Energy, in what some see as poetic justice). Warren Buffett, numerous “progressive” foundations, Vladimir Putin cronies and countless companies also give endless millions to Big Green.

Our hard-earned tax dollars are likewise only partially included in the CCBJ tally. As professor, author and columnist Larry Bell notes in his new book, Scared Witless: Prophets and profits of climate doom, the U.S. government spent over$185 billion between 2003 and 2010 on climate change items – and this wild spending spree has gotten even worse in the ensuing Obama years. We are paying for questionable to fraudulent global warming studies, climate-related technology research, loans and tax breaks for Solyndra and other companies that go bankrupt, and “climate adaptation” foreign aid to poor countries.

Also not included: the salaries and pensions of thousands of EPA, NOAA, Interior, Energy and other federal bureaucrats who devote endless hours to devising and imposing regulations for Clean Power Plans, drilling and mining bans, renewable energy installations, and countless Climate Crisis, Inc. handouts. A significant part of the $1.9 trillion per year that American businesses and families pay to comply with mountains of federal regulations is also based on climate chaos claims.

Add in the state and local equivalents of these federal programs, bureaucrats, regulations and restrictions, and we’re talking serious money. There are also consumer costs, including the far higher electricity prices families and businesses must pay, especially in states that want to prove their climate credentials.

The impacts on companies and jobs outside the Climate Crisis Industry are enormous, and growing. For every job created in the climate and renewable sectors, two to four jobs are eliminated in other parts of the economy, studies in Spain, Scotland and other countries have found. The effects on people’s health and welfare, and on overall environmental quality, are likewise huge and widespread.

But all these adverse effects are studiously ignored by Climate Crisis profiteers – and by the false prophets of planetary doom who manipulate data, exaggerate and fabricate looming catastrophes, and create the pseudo-scientific basis for regulating carbon-based energy and industries into oblivion. Meanwhile, the regulators blatantly ignore laws that might penalize their favored constituencies.

In one glaring example, a person who merely possesses a single bald eagle feather can be fined up to $100,000 and jailed for a year. But operators of the wind turbine that killed the eagle get off scot-free. Even worse, the US Fish & Wildlife Service actively helps Big Wind hide and minimize its slaughter of millions of raptors, other birds and bats every year. It has given industrial wind operators a five-year blanket exemption from the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Birds Treaty Act and Endangered Species Act. The FWS even proposed giving Big Wind a 30-year exemption.

Thankfully, the US District Court in San Jose, CA recently ruled that the FWS and Interior Department violated the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws, when they issued regulations granting these companies a 30-year license to kill bald and golden eagles. But the death tolls continue to climb.

Professor Bell’s perceptive, provocative, extensively researched book reviews the attempted power grab by Big Green, Big Government and Climate Crisis, Inc. In 19 short chapters, he examines the phony scientific consensus on global warming, the secretive and speculative science and computer models used to “prove” we face a cataclysm, ongoing collusion and deceit by regulators and activists, carbon tax mania, and many of the most prominent but phony climate crises: melting glaciers, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, disappearing species and declining biodiversity. His articles and essays do likewise.

Scared Witless also lays bare the real reasons for climate fanaticism, aside from lining pockets. As one prominent politician and UN or EPA bureaucrat after another has proudly and openly said, their “true ambition” is to institute “a new global order” … “ global governance” … “redistribution of the world’s resources” … an end to “hegemonic” capitalism … and “a profound transformation” of “attitudes and lifestyles,” energy systems and “the global economic development model.”

In other words, these unelected, unaccountable US, EU and UN bureaucrats want complete control over our industries; over everything we make, grow, ship, eat and do; and over every aspect of our lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties. And they intend to “ride the global warming issue” all the way to this complete control, “even if the theory of global warming is wrong” … “even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect” … “even if the science of global warming is all phony.”

If millions of people lose their jobs in the process, if millions of retirees die from hypothermia because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, if millions of Africans and Asians die because they are denied access to reliable, affordable carbon-based electricity – so be it. Climate Crisis, Inc. doesn’t care.

This global warming industry survives and thrives only because of secretive, fraudulent climate science; constant collusion between regulators and pressure groups; and a steady stream of government policies, regulations, preferences, subsidies and mandates – and taxes and penalties on its competitors. CCI gives lavishly to politicians who keep the gravy train on track, while its well-funded attack dogs respond quickly, aggressively and viciously to anyone who dares to challenge its orthodoxies or funding.

Climate change has been “real” throughout Earth and human history – periodically significant, sometimes sudden, sometimes destructive, driven by the sun and other powerful, complex, interacting natural forces that we still do not fully understand … and certainly cannot control. It has little or nothing to do with the carbon dioxide that makes plants grow faster and better, and is emitted as a result of using fossil fuels that have brought countless wondrous improvements to our environment and human condition.

Climate Crisis, Inc. is a wealthy, nasty behemoth. But it is a house of cards. Become informed. Get involved. Fight back. And elect representatives – and a president – who also have the backbone to do so.

// <![CDATA[
var adData = {google_width: 300,google_height: 250,google_click_url: 'http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa\x3dL\x26ai\x3dCvws_2ebZVe2bDY-6pAO55YnQBcCar5cH0LSmg9sB4PWTia4CEAEg0e2gF2D9oJmB6AOgAaiWp_QDyAEJqQKhCSEiV3upPuACAKgDAaoE1wFP0LlN08IeJlqJVO3_vpoYQKBBcLB1ZLkDzHs0gIvIHTnccrOL09gxVuZ3czKdif2gAz1rSo_6iALBuzrQipPIfzUtzwtqbAWgNp3szsuv2DAbPHw8xg5qOaf5UfLlGkGCcIaKGB4SJpkkFWVHySxb8XRkQ6LHQMZwOQY4NkvcXC96eCx7kb-CKlaqt428K1tp6RDRW1QSu1RjD4AFg51slBbn4H_ZnWNLOLfHrK1GJyIFsHHBzPmlkfffTCddAMEOOXG2VYfqYFDZBjk_FVkO_04qLjKFG-AEAYgGAaAGLoAHwOnYC6gHpr4bqAe1wRvYBwA\x26num\x3d1\x26cid\x3d5GhbqrusyuIlf_n51eJkAuu3\x26sig\x3dAOD64_1uoOyzPXDR8PDzIO0gEjkGImq-Eg\x26client\x3dca-pub-3522377144365482\x26adurl\x3d',google_ait_url: 'https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/conversion/?ai\x3dCvws_2ebZVe2bDY-6pAO55YnQBcCar5cH0LSmg9sB4PWTia4CEAEg0e2gF2D9oJmB6AOgAaiWp_QDyAEJqQKhCSEiV3upPuACAKgDAaoE1wFP0LlN08IeJlqJVO3_vpoYQKBBcLB1ZLkDzHs0gIvIHTnccrOL09gxVuZ3czKdif2gAz1rSo_6iALBuzrQipPIfzUtzwtqbAWgNp3szsuv2DAbPHw8xg5qOaf5UfLlGkGCcIaKGB4SJpkkFWVHySxb8XRkQ6LHQMZwOQY4NkvcXC96eCx7kb-CKlaqt428K1tp6RDRW1QSu1RjD4AFg51slBbn4H_ZnWNLOLfHrK1GJyIFsHHBzPmlkfffTCddAMEOOXG2VYfqYFDZBjk_FVkO_04qLjKFG-AEAYgGAaAGLoAHwOnYC6gHpr4bqAe1wRvYBwA\x26sigh\x3dA36alrXvjgs\x26label\x3d_AITNAME_\x26value\x3d_AITVALUE_',redirect_url: 'http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa\x3dL\x26ai\x3dCvws_2ebZVe2bDY-6pAO55YnQBcCar5cH0LSmg9sB4PWTia4CEAEg0e2gF2D9oJmB6AOgAaiWp_QDyAEJqQKhCSEiV3upPuACAKgDAaoE1wFP0LlN08IeJlqJVO3_vpoYQKBBcLB1ZLkDzHs0gIvIHTnccrOL09gxVuZ3czKdif2gAz1rSo_6iALBuzrQipPIfzUtzwtqbAWgNp3szsuv2DAbPHw8xg5qOaf5UfLlGkGCcIaKGB4SJpkkFWVHySxb8XRkQ6LHQMZwOQY4NkvcXC96eCx7kb-CKlaqt428K1tp6RDRW1QSu1RjD4AFg51slBbn4H_ZnWNLOLfHrK1GJyIFsHHBzPmlkfffTCddAMEOOXG2VYfqYFDZBjk_FVkO_04qLjKFG-AEAYgGAaAGLoAHwOnYC6gHpr4bqAe1wRvYBwA\x26num\x3d1\x26cid\x3d5GhbqrusyuIlf_n51eJkAuu3\x26sig\x3dAOD64_1uoOyzPXDR8PDzIO0gEjkGImq-Eg\x26client\x3dca-pub-3522377144365482\x26adurl\x3dhttp://www.mint.ca%3Frcmeid%3DBWS-BAN_CAN-DYN-RMKT-2014-EN',destination_url: 'http://www.mint.ca?rcmeid\x3dBWS-BAN_CAN-DYN-RMKT-2014-EN',link_target: '_top',google_template_data: {'adData': [{'creationContext': 'WORKFLOW:MINI_FLOW,TEMPLATE_SOURCE:CLIENT_INPUT','Design_0_fontUrl': 'AGBookRoundedProMedium_basic.swf','Design_0_txtColorDisc': '0x666666','trackingUrlQueryParameters': 'rcmeid\x3dBWS-BAN_CAN-DYN-RMKT-2014-EN','Headline_0_productClickOnly': 'TRUE','Design_0_cornerStyle': 'round','Design_0_glowColor': '0x555555','Design_0_priceSize': '18','Design_0_txtColorPrice': '0xb00000','Headline_0_showPrice': 'TRUE','Design_0_nameSize': '11','Design_0_txtColorProduct': '0x006699','Design_0_bgAlpha': '0.2','Design_0_bgGradient': 'TRUE','Design_0_borderColor': '0x777777','Design_0_bgColorAlt': '0xffffff','Design_0_bgColor': '0x006699','Design_0_logoPadding': '1','Design_0_btnShad': 'TRUE','Design_0_btnBevel': 'FALSE','Design_0_btnStyle': 'round','Design_0_btnRollColor': '0x006699','Design_0_btnColor': '0xb00000','Design_0_txtColorCta': '0xffffff','Headline_0_cta': 'Shop now!','Design_0_headlineSize': '16','Design_0_txtColorTitle': '0x006699','Headline_0_txt': 'Coins from the Royal Canadian Mint','Design_0_enforceLogo': 'false','Design_0_logoImageUrl': 'https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id\x3dCICAgKDj7em9HhDGAhiaATIIYvJYlvbybTs','layout': 'MinimalCarousel_1a-2_AutoLayout','Product_0_name': '1 oz. Fine Silver Coin – Canadian Dinosaurs: Albertosaurus – Mintage: 8500 (2015)','Product_0_description': 'Resembles a T-Rex perfect for someone you know who loves dinosaurs! Last coin in series!','Product_0_price': '$89.95','Product_0_regularPrice': '$89.95','Product_0_imageUrl': 'https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/shopping?q\x3dtbn:ANd9GcSlCKAf5BVc-yyBn10ht-X7cFc_C6FhWcuF4Y0LbMt4Xx3j8SM_\x26usqp\x3dCAI','Product_0_url': 'http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa\x3dL\x26ai\x3dCuUV12ebZVe2bDY-6pAO55YnQBcCar5cH0LSmg9sB4PWTia4CEAEg0e2gF2D9oJmB6AOgAaiWp_QDyAEJqQKhCSEiV3upPuACAKgDAaoE1wFP0LlN08IeJlqJVO3_vpoYQKBBcLB1ZLkDzHs0gIvIHTnccrOL09gxVuZ3czKdif2gAz1rSo_6iALBuzrQipPIfzUtzwtqbAWgNp3szsuv2DAbPHw8xg5qOaf5UfLlGkGCcIaKGB4SJpkkFWVHySxb8XRkQ6LHQMZwOQY4NkvcXC96eCx7kb-CKlaqt428K1tp6RDRW1QSu1RjD4AFg51slBbn4H_ZnWNLOLfHrK1GJyIFsHHBzPmlkfffTCddAMEOOXG2VYfqYFDZBjk_FVkO_04qLjKFG-AEAfoFBgglEAEYAIgGAaAGLoAHwOnYC6gHpr4bqAe1wRvYBwA\x26num\x3d1\x26cid\x3d5GhbqrusyuIlf_n51eJkAuu3\x26sig\x3dAOD64_2P6YKH9BA4aVp6H42XmsUNby-2uA\x26adurl\x3dhttp://www.mint.ca/store/coins/1-oz.-fine-silver-coin-ndash-canadian-dinosaurs-emalbertosaurus-em-ndash-mintage-8500-2015-prod2210329%3Flang%3Den_CA%26rcmeid%3DBWS-BAN_CAN-DYN-RMKT-2014-EN\x26client\x3dca-pub-3522377144365482','Product_1_name': '$20 for $20 Fine Silver Coin – Superman','Product_1_description': 'IT\x27S PURE! IT\x27S SILVER! IT\x27S A $20 SUPERMAN™ COIN!','Product_1_price': '$20.00','Product_1_regularPrice': '$20.00','Product_1_imageUrl': 'https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/shopping?q\x3dtbn:ANd9GcS6FuxzfGTZnB_45gftur7E6ZaiWlToZziWT2KH_hI4j0ftU0bi\x26usqp\x3dCAI','Product_1_url': 'http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa\x3dL\x26ai\x3dCla5Q2ebZVe2bDY-6pAO55YnQBcCar5cH0LSmg9sB4PWTia4CEAEg0e2gF2D9oJmB6AOgAaiWp_QDyAEJqQKhCSEiV3upPuACAKgDAaoE1wFP0LlN08IeJlqJVO3_vpoYQKBBcLB1ZLkDzHs0gIvIHTnccrOL09gxVuZ3czKdif2gAz1rSo_6iALBuzrQipPIfzUtzwtqbAWgNp3szsuv2DAbPHw8xg5qOaf5UfLlGkGCcIaKGB4SJpkkFWVHySxb8XRkQ6LHQMZwOQY4NkvcXC96eCx7kb-CKlaqt428K1tp6RDRW1QSu1RjD4AFg51slBbn4H_ZnWNLOLfHrK1GJyIFsHHBzPmlkfffTCddAMEOOXG2VYfqYFDZBjk_FVkO_04qLjKFG-AEAfoFBgglEAEYAYgGAaAGLoAHwOnYC6gHpr4bqAe1wRvYBwA\x26num\x3d1\x26cid\x3d5GhbqrusyuIlf_n51eJkAuu3\x26sig\x3dAOD64_2KGSp7vX9xjQECYfg9tWTER5pduw\x26adurl\x3dhttp://www.mint.ca/store/coins/20-for-20-fine-silver-coin-superman-prod2500015%3Flang%3Den_CA%26rcmeid%3DBWS-BAN_CAN-DYN-RMKT-2014-EN\x26client\x3dca-pub-3522377144365482','Product_2_name': '1 oz. Fine Silver Gold-Plated 6-Coin Subscription – Legacy of the Canadian Nickel (2015)','Product_2_description': 'Sure to be popular! Order your subscription before they are gone!','Product_2_price': '$109.95','Product_2_regularPrice': '$109.95','Product_2_imageUrl': 'https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/shopping?q\x3dtbn:ANd9GcTTWNkD2qhQnuc1A4W-vPJQSVs8alQNOTCfW0KjrpayJfScuuw\x26usqp\x3dCAI','Product_2_url': 'http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa\x3dL\x26ai\x3dChASz2ebZVe2bDY-6pAO55YnQBcCar5cH0LSmg9sB4PWTia4CEAEg0e2gF2D9oJmB6AOgAaiWp_QDyAEJqQKhCSEiV3upPuACAKgDAaoE1wFP0LlN08IeJlqJVO3_vpoYQKBBcLB1ZLkDzHs0gIvIHTnccrOL09gxVuZ3czKdif2gAz1rSo_6iALBuzrQipPIfzUtzwtqbAWgNp3szsuv2DAbPHw8xg5qOaf5UfLlGkGCcIaKGB4SJpkkFWVHySxb8XRkQ6LHQMZwOQY4NkvcXC96eCx7kb-CKlaqt428K1tp6RDRW1QSu1RjD4AFg51slBbn4H_ZnWNLOLfHrK1GJyIFsHHBzPmlkfffTCddAMEOOXG2VYfqYFDZBjk_FVkO_04qLjKFG-AEAfoFBgglEAEYAogGAaAGLoAHwOnYC6gHpr4bqAe1wRvYBwA\x26num\x3d1\x26cid\x3d5GhbqrusyuIlf_n51eJkAuu3\x26sig\x3dAOD64_16waFJmQDUkp86ORjzoel640tDMQ\x26adurl\x3dhttp://www.mint.ca/store/coins/1-oz.-fine-silver-goldplated-6coin-subscription-legacy-of-the-canadian-nickel-2015-prod2290028%3Flang%3Den_CA%26rcmeid%3DBWS-BAN_CAN-DYN-RMKT-2014-EN\x26client\x3dca-pub-3522377144365482','Product_3_name': '1 oz. Fine Silver Coin – Disney Princess – Cinderella (2015)','Product_3_description': 'From the New Zealand Mint! Great present for any Disney princesses fan.','Product_3_price': '$114.95','Product_3_regularPrice': '$114.95','Product_3_imageUrl': 'https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/shopping?q\x3dtbn:ANd9GcSRHqKSiBj6f_hWEnlfk8aVxXmP-lYbskbE3Ujq8XZdRCn3-44\x26usqp\x3dCAI','Product_3_url': 'http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa\x3dL\x26ai\x3dCmvyz2ebZVe2bDY-6pAO55YnQBcCar5cH0LSmg9sB4PWTia4CEAEg0e2gF2D9oJmB6AOgAaiWp_QDyAEJqQKhCSEiV3upPuACAKgDAaoE1wFP0LlN08IeJlqJVO3_vpoYQKBBcLB1ZLkDzHs0gIvIHTnccrOL09gxVuZ3czKdif2gAz1rSo_6iALBuzrQipPIfzUtzwtqbAWgNp3szsuv2DAbPHw8xg5qOaf5UfLlGkGCcIaKGB4SJpkkFWVHySxb8XRkQ6LHQMZwOQY4NkvcXC96eCx7kb-CKlaqt428K1tp6RDRW1QSu1RjD4AFg51slBbn4H_ZnWNLOLfHrK1GJyIFsHHBzPmlkfffTCddAMEOOXG2VYfqYFDZBjk_FVkO_04qLjKFG-AEAfoFBgglEAEYA4gGAaAGLoAHwOnYC6gHpr4bqAe1wRvYBwA\x26num\x3d1\x26cid\x3d5GhbqrusyuIlf_n51eJkAuu3\x26sig\x3dAOD64_0zkRTJkLRvVMwymaM_hnyK5Nxanw\x26adurl\x3dhttp://www.mint.ca/store/coins/1-oz.-fine-silver-coin-disney-princess-cinderella-2015-prod2400011%3Flang%3Den_CA%26rcmeid%3DBWS-BAN_CAN-DYN-RMKT-2014-EN\x26client\x3dca-pub-3522377144365482','Product_4_name': 'The Most Affordable Gold Coin Collection (2014)','Product_4_description': 'Save over $200 on this offer!','Product_4_price': '$89.95','Product_4_regularPrice': '$89.95','Product_4_imageUrl': 'https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/shopping?q\x3dtbn:ANd9GcQlMaWdbMf9pyQriHRIe3b66gNA5odgIMGgkyi-P442sJ5cKhU\x26usqp\x3dCAI','Product_4_url': 'http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa\x3dL\x26ai\x3dCjcFj2ebZVe2bDY-6pAO55YnQBcCar5cH0LSmg9sB4PWTia4CEAEg0e2gF2D9oJmB6AOgAaiWp_QDyAEJqQKhCSEiV3upPuACAKgDAaoE1wFP0LlN08IeJlqJVO3_vpoYQKBBcLB1ZLkDzHs0gIvIHTnccrOL09gxVuZ3czKdif2gAz1rSo_6iALBuzrQipPIfzUtzwtqbAWgNp3szsuv2DAbPHw8xg5qOaf5UfLlGkGCcIaKGB4SJpkkFWVHySxb8XRkQ6LHQMZwOQY4NkvcXC96eCx7kb-CKlaqt428K1tp6RDRW1QSu1RjD4AFg51slBbn4H_ZnWNLOLfHrK1GJyIFsHHBzPmlkfffTCddAMEOOXG2VYfqYFDZBjk_FVkO_04qLjKFG-AEAfoFBgglEAEYBIgGAaAGLoAHwOnYC6gHpr4bqAe1wRvYBwA\x26num\x3d1\x26cid\x3d5GhbqrusyuIlf_n51eJkAuu3\x26sig\x3dAOD64_1fsD1Rh7FuSJLEuTVV29aNOAW1qA\x26adurl\x3dhttp://www.mint.ca/store/coin/the-most-affordable-gold-coin-collection-2014-prod2050058%3Flang%3Den_CA%26rcmeid%3DBWS-BAN_CAN-DYN-RMKT-2014-EN\x26client\x3dca-pub-3522377144365482','Product_5_name': '$20 for $20 Fine Silver Coin – Bugs Bunny','Product_5_description': 'CARTOON ICON FOR ONLY $20','Product_5_price': '$20.00','Product_5_regularPrice': '$20.00','Product_5_imageUrl': 'https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/shopping?q\x3dtbn:ANd9GcQzSlUbDELNNATdVKIj099IdqcIn7stF7mXZeCPNKCA-oMTYCE2\x26usqp\x3dCAI','Product_5_url': 'http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa\x3dL\x26ai\x3dCMJ622ebZVe2bDY-6pAO55YnQBcCar5cH0LSmg9sB4PWTia4CEAEg0e2gF2D9oJmB6AOgAaiWp_QDyAEJqQKhCSEiV3upPuACAKgDAaoE1wFP0LlN08IeJlqJVO3_vpoYQKBBcLB1ZLkDzHs0gIvIHTnccrOL09gxVuZ3czKdif2gAz1rSo_6iALBuzrQipPIfzUtzwtqbAWgNp3szsuv2DAbPHw8xg5qOaf5UfLlGkGCcIaKGB4SJpkkFWVHySxb8XRkQ6LHQMZwOQY4NkvcXC96eCx7kb-CKlaqt428K1tp6RDRW1QSu1RjD4AFg51slBbn4H_ZnWNLOLfHrK1GJyIFsHHBzPmlkfffTCddAMEOOXG2VYfqYFDZBjk_FVkO_04qLjKFG-AEAfoFBgglEAEYBYgGAaAGLoAHwOnYC6gHpr4bqAe1wRvYBwA\x26num\x3d1\x26cid\x3d5GhbqrusyuIlf_n51eJkAuu3\x26sig\x3dAOD64_3yYXhgazaHVX7dqpWwNPWn4LBuRg\x26adurl\x3dhttp://www.mint.ca/store/coins/20-for-20-fine-silver-coin-8211-bugs-bunny-prod2400063%3Flang%3Den_CA%26rcmeid%3DBWS-BAN_CAN-DYN-RMKT-2014-EN\x26client\x3dca-pub-3522377144365482','displayUrl': 'www.mint.ca','destinationUrl': 'http://www.mint.ca?rcmeid\x3dBWS-BAN_CAN-DYN-RMKT-2014-EN'}]}};(function(){var g=this,h=function(a,c,b){a=a.split(".");b=b||g;a[0]in b||!b.execScript||b.execScript("var "+a[0]);for(var d;a.length&&(d=a.shift());)a.length||void 0===c?b=b[d]?b[d]:b[d]={}:b[d]=c},m=function(){var a=l,c=typeof a;if("object"==c)if(a){if(a instanceof Array)return"array";if(a instanceof Object)return c;var b=Object.prototype.toString.call(a);if("[object Window]"==b)return"object";if("[object Array]"==b||"number"==typeof a.length&&"undefined"!=typeof a.splice&&"undefined"!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable("splice"))return"array";if("[object Function]"==b||"undefined"!=typeof a.call&&"undefined"!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable("call"))return"function"}else return"null";else if("function"==c&&"undefined"==typeof a.call)return"object";return c},n=function(a,c,b){return a.call.apply(a.bind,arguments)},p=function(a,c,b){if(!a)throw Error();if(2<arguments.length){var d=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,2);return function(){var b=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);Array.prototype.unshift.apply(b,d);return a.apply(c,b)}}return function(){return a.apply(c,arguments)}},q=function(a,c,b){q=Function.prototype.bind&&-1!=Function.prototype.bind.toString().indexOf("native code")?n:p;return q.apply(null,arguments)},v=function(){var a=t,c=u;function b(){}b.prototype=c.prototype;a.I=c.prototype;a.prototype=new b;a.F=function(a,b,f){for(var r=Array(arguments.length-2),k=2;kb;this.b={};this.f=!1},y=function(a,c){var b=c.n;switch(c.t){case 1:var d=c.d,b=w(a,b);b.h(d);break;case 2:var d=a,e=w(d,b);e.j=!0;x(d,b)}},w=function(a,c){a.b[c]||(a.b[c]={j:!1,g:[],h:null});return a.b[c]},x=function(a,c){var b=w(a,c);if(b.j){for(var d=b.g.length,e=0;e<d;e++)a.sendMessage(c,b.g[e]);b.g=[]}},z=function(a,c){if(a.f){var b={t:2};b.s=a.l;b.n=c;a.send(b)}};u.prototype.registerApplicationHandler=function(a,c){var b=w(this,a);b.h=c;z(this,a)};u.prototype.sendMessage=function(a,c){var b=w(this,a);this.f&&b.j?(b={t:1},b.s=this.l,b.n=a,b.d=c,this.send(b)):b.g.push(c)};var A=function(a){var c,b;h(c||"secureChannel",a,b);a.registerApplicationHandler=a.registerApplicationHandler;a.sendMessage=a.sendMessage;a.isInitialized=a.q};u.prototype.q=function(){return this.f};var t=function(a,c){u.call(this,a,c);this.o=!!window.MessageChannel;this.k=this.a=null;window.addEventListener&&(this.v=q(this.A,this),window.addEventListener("message",this.v,!1))};v();t.prototype.send=function(a){this.o?this.a&&this.a.postMessage(a):(a=this.r?JSON.stringify(a):a,this.k.source.parent.postMessage(a,"*"))};t.prototype.A=function(a){var c;c=a.data;c=this.r?JSON.parse(c):c;if(c.s===this.l&&(this.o?a.source===this.u:a.source.parent===this.u))if(0===c.t){if(B(this,a)){this.f=!0;for(var b in this.b)this.b[b].h&&z(this,b),x(this,b)}}else this.k=a,y(this,c)};var B=function(a,c){if(a.o){a.a=c.ports&&c.ports[0];if(!a.a)return!1;a.a.addEventListener("message",q(function(a){y(this,a.data)},a),!1);a.a.start()}else a.k=c;return!0};var C=window;var D=function(a,c,b){var d;a.addEventListener?a.addEventListener(c,b,d||!1):a.attachEvent&&a.attachEvent("on"+c,b)},E=function(a,c,b){var d;a.removeEventListener?a.removeEventListener(c,b,d||!1):a.detachEvent&&a.detachEvent("on"+c,b)};var F=function(a,c,b){a.google_image_requests||(a.google_image_requests=[]);var d=a.document.createElement("img");if(b){var e=function(a){b(a);E(d,"load",e);E(d,"error",e)};D(d,"load",e);D(d,"error",e)}d.src=c;a.google_image_requests.push(d)};var G=function(a,c){for(var b in a)Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,b)&&c.call(null,a[b],b,a)};var H=.01,I=function(a){var c="";G(a,function(a,d){if(0===a||a)c+="&"+d+"="+("function"==typeof encodeURIComponent?encodeURIComponent(a):escape(a))});return c};var J;n:{var K=g.navigator;if(K){var L=K.userAgent;if(L){J=L;break n}}J=""}var M=function(a){var c=J;return-1!=c.indexOf(a)};var N=function(){return M("Opera")||M("OPR")},O=function(){return M("Edge")||M("Trident")||M("MSIE")},P=N,Q=O;var R=P();Q();if(R&&g.opera){var l=g.opera.version;"function"==m()&&l()};var S=function(a){var c,b="html5-mon",d=1;try{if(d=d||H,Math.random()>>0),ca=0,da=function(a,b,c){return a.call.apply(a.bind,arguments)},ea=function(a,b,c){if(!a)throw Error();if(2<arguments.length){var d=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,2);return function(){var c=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);Array.prototype.unshift.apply(c,d);return a.apply(b,c)}}return function(){return a.apply(b,arguments)}},u=function(a,b,c){u=Function.prototype.bind&&-1!=Function.prototype.bind.toString().indexOf("native code")?da:ea;return u.apply(null,arguments)},fa=Date.now||function(){return+new Date},ga=function(a,b){function c(){}c.prototype=b.prototype;a.ab=b.prototype;a.prototype=new c;a.Ya=function(a,c,f){for(var g=Array(arguments.length-2),h=2;h<arguments.length;h++)g[h-2]=arguments[h];return b.prototype[c].apply(a,g)}};var ha=String.prototype.trim?function(a){return a.trim()}:function(a){return a.replace(/^[\s\xa0]+|[\s\xa0]+$/g,"")},ia=function(a){return Array.prototype.join.call(arguments,"")},ja=function(a,b){return ab?1:0};var v=window;var w=Array.prototype,ka=w.filter?function(a,b,c){return w.filter.call(a,b,c)}:function(a,b,c){for(var d=a.length,e=[],f=0,g=r(a)?a.split(""):a,h=0;h<d;h++)if(h in g){var n=g[h];b.call(c,n,h,a)&&(e[f++]=n)}return e},la=w.map?function(a,b,c){return w.map.call(a,b,c)}:function(a,b,c){for(var d=a.length,e=Array(d),f=r(a)?a.split(""):a,g=0;g<d;g++)g in f&&(e[g]=b.call(c,f[g],g,a));return e},ma=function(a){return w.concat.apply(w,arguments)},na=function(a){var b=a.length;if(0<b){for(var c=Array(b),d=0;dparseFloat(a))?String(b):a}(),wa={},D=function(a){var b;if(!(b=wa[a])){b=0;for(var c=ha(String(va)).split("."),d=ha(String(a)).split("."),e=Math.max(c.length,d.length),f=0;0==b&&f<e;f++){var g=c[f]||"",h=d[f]||"",n=RegExp("(\\d*)(\\D*)","g"),l=RegExp("(\\d*)(\\D*)","g");do{var q=n.exec(g)||["","",""],B=l.exec(h)||["","",""];if(0==q[0].length&&0==B[0].length)break;b=ja(0==q[1].length?0:parseInt(q[1],10),0==B[1].length?0:parseInt(B[1],10))||ja(0==q[2].length,0==B[2].length)||ja(q[2],B[2])}while(0==b)}b=wa[a]=0<=b}return b},xa=m.document,ya=xa&&A?ua()||("CSS1Compat"==xa.compatMode?parseInt(va,10):5):void 0;!C&&!A||A&&9<=ya||C&&D("1.9.1");A&&D("9");var za=function(a,b){for(var c in a)Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,c)&&b.call(null,a[c],c,a)};var E=function(){this.D=new XMLHttpRequest};E.prototype.get=function(a,b){if(this.D&&(0==this.D.readyState||4==this.D.readyState))try{this.D.onreadystatechange=u(this.Fa,this,b),this.D.open("GET",a,!0),this.D.send(null)}catch(c){b()}};E.prototype.Fa=function(a){4==this.D.readyState&&a()};var Aa=function(a,b,c){var d=function(){window.top.location=b},e=new E;c?e.get(a,c):e.get(a,d)},F=function(a,b,c,d){this.la=a;this.Ja=b;this.ma=null;this.fa=c;this.qa=d;this.F=this.ba=this.J=this.G=this.I=!1;this.ca=void 0;this.v=this.N=this.S=null;this.na=this.ea=this.ya=this.La=this.Ba=this.W=this.U=this.ha=this.ta=this.ka=this.Ca=0};F.prototype.Ha=function(){this.U=fa();this.I=!1;Ba(this)};F.prototype.sa=function(){try{this.v&&4==this.v.readyState&&this.G&&(this.W=fa(),this.G=!1,this.v.responseText&&0<this.v.responseText.length&&(this.S="tel:"+this.v.responseText))}finally{Ba(this)}};F.prototype.Xa=function(){this.ha=fa();this.F=!1;Ba(this)};var Ba=function(a){a.J||(a.I||a.G?a.F||Ca(a):(a.F&&(a.F=!1,window.clearTimeout(a.ca),a.ca=void 0),Ca(a)))},Ca=function(a){if(!a.J){a.J=!0;a.ba=!0;var b=0==a.U?0:a.U-a.ka,c=0==a.W?0:a.W-a.ta,d=0==a.ha?0:a.ha-a.Ca,e=a.N&&a.N.D?a.N.D.status:"noreq",f=a.v?a.v.status:"noreq",g=/&ctype=\d+/.exec(a.la),g=g?g[0]:"";a.Ba++;var h=0;0!=a.ya&&0!=a.ea&&(h=a.ea-a.ya);a.ma=["//googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/gen_204?id=ctc_metrics",g,"&dc="+a.na,"&ec="+a.La,"&rc="+a.Ba,"&ct="+h,"&ctc_num="+a.fa,"&ctc_gvn="+a.S,"&ctc_cs_time="+b,"&ctc_gv_time="+c,"&ctc_to_time="+d,"&ctc_cs_status="+e,"&ctc_gv_status="+f].join("");(new E).get(a.ma,u(a.Aa,a));window.setTimeout(u(a.Aa,a),2E3)}};F.prototype.Aa=function(){this.ba&&(this.F=this.G=this.I=this.ba=!1,null!=this.qa?this.qa(this.S||this.fa):window.top.location=this.S||this.fa)};var Da=function(a){var b=fa();a.I||a.G||a.F?a.na++:a.ea=b;var c=!1,d=!1,e=!1;a.I||(a.I=!0,a.J=!1,a.ka=b,a.U=b,d=!0);a.G||null!=a.S||(a.G=!0,a.J=!1,a.ta=b,a.W=b,e=!0);a.F||(a.F=!0,a.J=!1,a.Ca=b,c=!0);c&&(a.ca=window.setTimeout(u(a.Xa,a),2E3));d&&(a.N=new E,a.N.get(a.la,u(a.Ha,a)));if(e)try{a.v=new XMLHttpRequest,a.v.onreadystatechange=u(a.sa,a),a.v.open("GET",a.Ja,!0),a.v.send(null)}catch(f){a.sa()}};aa("ctc_bd",Aa);aa("init_gvc",function(a,b,c,d){return new F(a,b,c,d)});aa("ctc_bd_gv",function(a){Da(a)});var Ea=function(a){a=parseInt(a,10);return isNaN(a)?0:a};var Fa=function(){this.oa=this.oa;this.Sa=this.Sa};Fa.prototype.oa=!1;A&&D("9");!sa||D("528");C&&D("1.9b")||A&&D("8")||qa&&D("9.5")||sa&&D("528");C&&!D("8")||A&&D("9");var G=function(a,b,c){Fa.call(this);this.za=a;this.Oa=b||0;this.Ma=c;this.Ga=u(this.pa,this)};ga(G,Fa);G.prototype.L=0;G.prototype.start=function(a){this.stop();var b=this.Ga;a=void 0!==a?a:this.Oa;if("function"!=p(b))if(b&&"function"==typeof b.handleEvent)b=u(b.handleEvent,b);else throw Error("Invalid listener argument");this.L=2147483647<a?-1:m.setTimeout(b,a||0)};G.prototype.stop=function(){0!=this.L&&m.clearTimeout(this.L);this.L=0};G.prototype.pa=function(){this.L=0;this.za&&this.za.call(this.Ma)};var Ga="StopIteration"in m?m.StopIteration:{message:"StopIteration",stack:""},Ha=function(){};Ha.prototype.next=function(){throw Ga;};Ha.prototype.Da=function(){return this};var H=function(a,b){this.B={};this.j=[];this.$=this.h=0;var c=arguments.length;if(1<c){if(c%2)throw Error("Uneven number of arguments");for(var d=0;d<c;d+=2)this.set(arguments[d],arguments[d+1])}else a&&this.addAll(a)};k=H.prototype;k.ra=function(){return this.h};k.K=function(){I(this);for(var a=[],b=0;b2*this.h&&I(this),!0):!1};var I=function(a){if(a.h!=a.j.length){for(var b=0,c=0;b<a.j.length;){var d=a.j[b];J(a.B,d)&&(a.j[c++]=d);b++}a.j.length=c}if(a.h!=a.j.length){for(var e={},c=b=0;b<a.j.length;)d=a.j[b],J(e,d)||(a.j[c++]=d,e[d]=1),b++;a.j.length=c}};k=H.prototype;k.get=function(a,b){return J(this.B,a)?this.B[a]:b};k.set=function(a,b){J(this.B,a)||(this.h++,this.j.push(a),this.$++);this.B[a]=b};k.addAll=function(a){var b;if(a instanceof H)b=a.R(),a=a.K();else{b=[];var c=0,d;for(d in a)b[c++]=d;c=[];d=0;for(var e in a)c[d++]=a[e];a=c}for(e=0;e<b.length;e++)this.set(b[e],a[e])};k.forEach=function(a,b){for(var c=this.R(),d=0;d=d.j.length)throw Ga;var e=d.j[b++];return a?e:d.B[e]};return e};var J=function(a,b){return Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,b)};var K=function(a,b){this.g=a|0;this.a=b|0},Ja,Ka,La,Ma,Na,Oa,Pa={},Qa=function(a){if(-128a){var b=Pa[a];if(b)return b}b=new K(a|0,0>a?-1:0);-128a&&(Pa[a]=b);return b},O=function(a){isNaN(a)||!isFinite(a)?a=L():a=Ra?(Ma||(Ma=new K(-1,2147483647)),a=Ma):a=0>a?N(O(-a)):new K(a%4294967296|0,a/4294967296|0);return a},Sa=function(a,b){if(0==a.length)throw Error("number format error: empty string");var c=b||10;if(2>c||36<c)throw Error("radix out of range: "+c);if("-"==a.charAt(0))return N(Sa(a.substring(1),c));if(0<=a.indexOf("-"))throw Error('number format error: interior "-" character: '+a);for(var d=O(Math.pow(c,8)),e=L(),f=0;fg?(g=O(Math.pow(c,g)),e=e.multiply(g).add(O(h))):(e=e.multiply(d),e=e.add(O(h)))}return e},Ra=4294967296*4294967296/2,L=function(){Ja||(Ja=Qa(0));return Ja},P=function(){Ka||(Ka=Qa(1));return Ka},Ta=function(){La||(La=Qa(-1));return La},M=function(){Na||(Na=new K(0,-2147483648));return Na};K.prototype.toString=function(a){a=a||10;if(2>a||36this.a){if(this.s(M())){var b=O(a),c=R(this,b),b=Ua(c.multiply(b),this);return c.toString(a)+b.g.toString(a)}return"-"+N(this).toString(a)}for(var c=O(Math.pow(a,6)),b=this,d="";;){var e=R(b,c),f=(Ua(b,e.multiply(c)).g>>>0).toString(a),b=e;if(Q(b))return f+d;for(;6>f.length;)f="0"+f;d=""+f+d}};var Va=function(a){return 0a.compare(Oa)};K.prototype.compare=function(a){if(this.s(a))return 0;var b=0>this.a,c=0>a.a;return b&&!c?-1:!b&&c?1:0>Ua(this,a).a?-1:1};var N=function(a){return a.s(M())?M():(new K(~a.g,~a.a)).add(P())};K.prototype.add=function(a){var b=this.a>>>16,c=this.a&65535,d=this.g>>>16,e=a.a>>>16,f=a.a&65535,g=a.g>>>16,h;h=0+((this.g&65535)+(a.g&65535));a=0+(h>>>16);a+=d+g;d=0+(a>>>16);d+=c+f;c=0+(d>>>16);c=c+(b+e)&65535;return new K((a&65535)<<16|h&65535,c<this.a)return 0>a.a?N(this).multiply(N(a)):N(N(this).multiply(a));if(0>a.a)return N(this.multiply(N(a)));if(Wa(this)&&Wa(a))return O((4294967296*this.a+Va(this))*(4294967296*a.a+Va(a)));var b=this.a>>>16,c=this.a&65535,d=this.g>>>16,e=this.g&65535,f=a.a>>>16,g=a.a&65535,h=a.g>>>16;a=a.g&65535;var n,l,q,B;B=0+e*a;q=0+(B>>>16);q+=d*a;l=0+(q>>>16);q=(q&65535)+e*h;l+=q>>>16;q&=65535;l+=c*a;n=0+(l>>>16);l=(l&65535)+d*h;n+=l>>>16;l&=65535;l+=e*g;n+=l>>>16;l&=65535;n=n+(b*a+c*h+d*g+e*f)&65535;return new K(q<<16|B&65535,n<c?new K(a.g>>>c|d<>c):new K(d>>c-32,0b.a?P():Ta();d=Ua(a,b.multiply(c));return c.add(R(d,b))}if(b.s(M()))return L();if(0>a.a)return 0>b.a?R(N(a),N(b)):N(R(N(a),b));if(0>b.a)return N(R(a,N(b)));for(var e=L(),d=a;0=f?1:Math.pow(2,f-48),g=O(c),h=g.multiply(b);0>h.a||0a?new K(b<<a,this.a<>>32-a):new K(0,b<<a-32)};var Xa=function(a,b){for(var c=[a],d=b.length-1;0<=d;–d)c.push(typeof b[d],b[d]);return c.join("\x0B")};var Ya=/^(?:([^:/?#.]+):)?(?:\/\/(?:([^/?#]*)@)?([^/#?]*?)(?::([0-9]+))?(?=[/#?]|$))?([^?#]+)?(?:\?([^#]*))?(?:#(.*))?$/,$a=function(a){if(Za){Za=!1;var b=m.location;if(b){var c=b.href;if(c&&(c=(c=$a(c)[3]||null)?decodeURI(c):c)&&c!=b.hostname)throw Za=!0,Error();}}return a.match(Ya)},Za=sa,ab=function(a,b){if(a)for(var c=a.split("&"),d=0;d<c.length;d++){var e=c[d].indexOf("="),f=null,g=null;0<=e?(f=c[d].substring(0,e),g=c[d].substring(e+1)):f=c[d];b(f,g?decodeURIComponent(g.replace(/\+/g," ")):"")}},bb=function(a){if(a[1]){var b=a[0],c=b.indexOf("#");0c?a[1]="?":c==b.length-1&&(a[1]=void 0)}return a.join("")},cb=function(a,b,c){if("array"==p(b))for(var d=0;d<b.length;d++)cb(a,String(b[d]),c);else null!=b&&c.push("&",a,""===b?"":"=",encodeURIComponent(String(b)))},db=function(a,b,c){for(c=c||0;cb)throw Error("Bad port number "+b);a.Y=b}else a.Y=null},ib=function(a,b,c){T(a);b instanceof U?(a.w=b,a.w.ga(a.u)):(c||(b=kb(b,pb)),a.w=new U(b,0,a.u))},V=function(a,b,c){T(a);a.w.set(b,c);return a},T=function(a){if(a.Pa)throw Error("Tried to modify a read-only Uri");};S.prototype.ga=function(a){this.u=a;this.w&&this.w.ga(a);return this};var qb=function(a){return a instanceof S?a.clone():new S(a,void 0)},jb=function(a,b){return a?b?decodeURI(a.replace(/%25/g,"%2525")):decodeURIComponent(a):""},kb=function(a,b,c){return r(a)?(a=encodeURI(a).replace(b,rb),c&&(a=a.replace(/%25([0-9a-fA-F]{2})/g,"%$1")),a):null},rb=function(a){a=a.charCodeAt(0);return"%"+(a>>4&15).toString(16)+(a&15).toString(16)},lb=/[#\/\?@]/g,nb=/[\#\?:]/g,mb=/[\#\?]/g,pb=/[\#\?@]/g,ob=/#/g,U=function(a,b,c){this.h=this.b=null;this.l=a||null;this.u=!!c},W=function(a){a.b||(a.b=new H,a.h=0,a.l&&ab(a.l,function(b,c){a.add(decodeURIComponent(b.replace(/\+/g," ")),c)}))};k=U.prototype;k.ra=function(){W(this);return this.h};k.add=function(a,b){W(this);this.l=null;a=X(this,a);var c=this.b.get(a);c||this.b.set(a,c=[]);c.push(b);this.h++;return this};k.remove=function(a){W(this);a=X(this,a);return this.b.O(a)?(this.l=null,this.h-=this.b.get(a).length,this.b.remove(a)):!1};k.O=function(a){W(this);a=X(this,a);return this.b.O(a)};k.R=function(){W(this);for(var a=this.b.K(),b=this.b.R(),c=[],d=0;d<b.length;d++)for(var e=a[d],f=0;f<e.length;f++)c.push(b[d]);return c};k.K=function(a){W(this);var b=[];if(r(a))this.O(a)&&(b=ma(b,this.b.get(X(this,a))));else{a=this.b.K();for(var c=0;c<a.length;c++)b=ma(b,a[c])}return b};k.set=function(a,b){W(this);this.l=null;a=X(this,a);this.O(a)&&(this.h-=this.b.get(a).length);this.b.set(a,[b]);this.h++;return this};k.get=function(a,b){var c=a?this.K(a):[];return 0<c.length?String(c[0]):b};k.toString=function(){if(this.l)return this.l;if(!this.b)return"";for(var a=[],b=this.b.R(),c=0;c<b.length;c++)for(var d=b[c],e=encodeURIComponent(String(d)),d=this.K(d),f=0;f<d.length;f++){var g=e;""!==d[f]&&(g+="="+encodeURIComponent(String(d[f])));a.push(g)}return this.l=a.join("&")};k.clone=function(){var a=new U;a.l=this.l;this.b&&(a.b=this.b.clone(),a.h=this.h);return a};var X=function(a,b){var c=String(b);a.u&&(c=c.toLowerCase());return c};U.prototype.ga=function(a){a&&!this.u&&(W(this),this.l=null,this.b.forEach(function(a,c){var d=c.toLowerCase();c!=d&&(this.remove(c),this.remove(d),0("jserror"==a?Math.random():sb)){var c="/pagead/gen_204?id="+a+tb(b),d="http"+("http:"==v.location.protocol?"":"s")+"://pagead2.googlesyndication.com"+c,d=d.substring(0,2E3);v.google_image_requests||(v.google_image_requests=[]);var e=v.document.createElement("img");e.src=d;v.google_image_requests.push(e)}}catch(f){}},tb=function(a){var b="";za(a,function(a,d){if(0===a||a){var e=String(a);b+="&"+d+"="+("function"==typeof encodeURIComponent?encodeURIComponent(e):escape(e))}});return b};var vb=function(a,b,c,d){d=d||{};d.i=a.Ia;d.t=a.Wa;d.c=b;d.m=c;d.lp=a.Qa;a.experimentId&&(d.e=a.experimentId);a.Ua(d)},wb=function(a){return function(b,c,d){var e={};d&&(e.jsl=d);c&&(e.jsf=c);vb(a,"j",b,e)}},xb=function(a){ub("html5-mon",a)};var yb=/^true$/.test("true")?!0:/^false$/.test("true")?!1:!0,Y=function(a,b,c,d,e,f,g){this.ja=a;this.A=b;(a=this.A.monitoring)&&c&&(this.C={Ia:a.creativeId||-1,Wa:a.templateId||-1,experimentId:a.experimentId,Za:a.reportErrors||!1,$a:a.reportPerf||!1,Ua:c,Qa:a.layoutPath});this.va=t(d)?d:0;this.wa=t(e)?e:0;this.Na=t(f)?f:0;this.da=r(g)?document.getElementById(g):null;this.ia=new G(this.Ta,1E4,this);this.H=[];this.T="";this.aa=null;this.ja.registerApplicationHandler("exit",u(this.ua,this));yb&&zb(this)};Y.prototype.ua=function(a,b){var c=a.d;"array"==p(c)&&(this.H.push(c[c.length-1]),Ab(this,c)?(c=this.ia,c.stop(),c.pa()):0!=this.ia.L||this.ia.start());if(a.o)this.Ra();else if(Ab(this,a.d))if(this.T=a.br||"",this.aa=a.be||null,c=u(this.Ka,this,a.f,a.c,a.r,b),this.C){var d=this.C;try{c()}catch(e){c=wb(d);d=e.toString();e.name&&-1==d.indexOf(e.name)&&(d+=": "+e.name);e.message&&-1==d.indexOf(e.message)&&(d+=": "+e.message);if(e.stack){var f=e.stack,g=d;try{-1==f.indexOf(g)&&(f=g+"\n"+f);for(var h;f!=h;)h=f,f=f.replace(/((https?:\/..*\/)[^\/:]*:\d+(?:.|\n)*)\2/,"$1");d=f.replace(/\n */g,"\n")}catch(n){d=g}}c(d,e.lineNumber,e.fileName)}}else c()};var zb=function(a){v.addEventListener("message",u(function(a){var c=a.data,d=typeof c;("object"==d&&null!=c||"function"==d)&&"-1533252820"==a.data.n&&a.data.er&&this.ua(a.data.er,(z("Chrome")||z("CriOS"))&&!(z("Opera")||z("OPR"))&&!z("Edge"))},a),!1);a.ja.sendMessage("exit-pmcfg","-1533252820")};Y.prototype.Ra=function(){};var Bb=function(a,b){var c;if(c=a.C)c=(new S(b)).w.get("adurl"),c=void 0==c||""==c||"undefined"==c;c&&vb(a.C,"be","1")},Cb=function(a,b){var c=a.A.redirect_url;return c?b?eb(c,"ctype",b):c:(a.C&&vb(a.C,"be","3"),"")},Z=function(a,b){var c=a.A.google_template_data;return c&&c.adData&&c.adData[0]&&c.adData[0][b]},Ab=function(a,b){var c;if(!(c="array"!=p(b))){c=b[b.length-1];var d=Db(a);c=!(a.xa(c)&&c.x<d.width&&c.y<d.height&&0<=c.x&&0c||c>=a.Na)&&d>=g&&d=h&&e=c.length)return c;c="9"}"8"!=c&&"9"!=c||a.Va(a.T);return fb(b,c)};Y.prototype.Va=function(a,b){var c=b||Xa;return function(){var b=this||m,b=b.closure_memoize_cache_||(b.closure_memoize_cache_={}),e=c(a[ba]||(a[ba]=++ca),arguments);return b.hasOwnProperty(e)?b[e]:b[e]=a.apply(this,arguments)}}(function(a){var b={};b.bg=a;ub("bg",b)});var Fb=function(a,b,c,d,e,f,g){Y.call(this,a,b,xb,c,d,e,f);this.Ea=!!g};ga(Fb,Y);Fb.prototype.Ka=function(a,b,c,d){if("t"==c)a:{if("callUrl"==a&&(d=Z(this,a))&&0==d.indexOf("tel:")){a=Cb(this);"http:"==v.location.protocol||0!=a.indexOf("http:")||(a="https"+a.slice(4));Aa(a,d,null);break a}d=this.A.ctc_formatted_phone_number;a=this.A.ctc_click_tracking_url;(b=this.A.ctc_google_voice_url)?Da(new F(a,b,d,null)):Aa(a,d,null)}else{if("l"==c){b=Z(this,a+"_destination");a=qb("https://maps.google.com/maps&quot;);if("directions"==b)b=Z(this,"Store_0_geoCode")||"",V(V(V(a,"daddr",Z(this,"Store_0_address")||""),"geocode",";"+b),"myl","source");else{c=Z(this,"Store_0_featureId")||"";var e=c.split(":"),e=(e=2==e.length?e[1]:"")?Sa(e,16).toString():"";V(V(a,"cid",e),"ftid",c);"store_info"==b&&V(a,"gmm","CgQKAggB")}V(a,"ait",this.A.google_ait_url||"");a=decodeURIComponent(a.toString().replace(/\+/g," "));b=qb(this.A.google_click_url);a?(T(b),b.w.remove("adurl"),""!==b.w.toString()?a=ia(b.toString(),"&","adurl","=",encodeURIComponent(String(a))):(V(b,"adurl",a),a=b.toString())):a=b.toString()}else a=a&&Z(this,a)||Cb(this,b);a=Eb(this,a);Bb(this,a);if(d||this.Ea){if(v.open(a,"_blank"))return;this.C&&vb(this.C,"be","4")}v.top.location.href=a}};new Fb(window.secureChannel,window.adData,Ea("0"),Ea("0"),Ea("0"),"google_ad_58804928808",!1);}).call(this);
// ]]>


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

Pointman has a Way of Making Things Clear. Love this Guy’s Blog! >>>Anti-Climate Scam!

Points of Divergence.

by Pointman

Like most people, I’m diplomatic in my everyday dealings with others since it’s only common politeness and makes obvious sense after all. You say whatever but sometimes what you’re actually thinking might be slightly different. Their bum may actually look a bit bigger in that new outfit but you can see they’re really chuffed with it and they’re looking pretty fetching anyway. Once in a blue moon, you’re obliged to be more direct because the particular circumstances won’t allow the latitude for any dissembling.

One of the few luxuries of writing a blog anonymously, but also one that’s temptingly easy to abuse, is that you can speak your mind. Some of the articles here are a bit too full on for some people’s tastes and for a variety of reasons. Possibly they don’t agree with my take on things, the manner in which it’s being expressed or they simply find me objectionable on general principles – all of which are fair enough as far as I’m concerned. Blogging on the skeptic side is after all an unpaid and voluntary activity, despite what the alarmist propagandists say, so don’t start bitching on about it when you start taking some flak. Just lash it back and anyway, you always know where the exit door is.

I started blogging a number of years ago and in that noble skeptic tradition of upsetting people, no doubt upset people. The sensitivities of the alarmists, I couldn’t give a damn about not only because they’re on a permanent victimhood hair-trigger but also they’re irrelevant to why I blog. As they’re impervious to reason or appeals to any vague notion of simple human compassion, I have no interest in interacting with them publically because quite simply it would be a waste of effort. The only use I have for them is ruthlessly utilising their excesses to the detriment of the “cause”. Degüello will always be the bugle call in any of my dealings with them.

They are not and have never been the target demographic of this blog. That has always been what I categorised as persuadable people. I’m looking to snag the passive believers who always assumed the science was as legitimate as one would expect, but have of late begun to entertain some doubts for whatever reason. By the time the might get to here, they’ve usually found the more technical sites and are perhaps looking for a bit more context.

It’s a peculiarity of the climate wars that the road to Damascus and a conversion to climate skepticism appears to be one-way. All the conversions appear to be from passive belief to some degree of climate scepticism, and seemingly never the other way around. Look around the bios of the major skeptics – every man Jack, and the Janes as well, all travelled that road. That’s why aiming at that particular audience demographic is a reasonable use of blogging effort.

If you’re going to be a blogger, and a campaigning one on an issue that isn’t feather weight, you need to think about two things before every putting quill to parchment; who you’re talking to and why are you talking to them. The first one is your target audience. Get a clear image in your head of who they are and then talk to them. Talking to people who already share your viewpoint has a certain egomania about it. The reality cold shower is that almost nobody reads blogs except people with very specialist interests, so you gotta aim to snag the ones you’ve decided to go after – anything else is vanity blogging.

The second one, the why, means you feel you’ve something to say to them that all the other two hundred bloggers of a sort of similar attitude aren’t, otherwise why are you doing it? They are what I call the points of divergence. Depending on how far those points are from the mainstream or the centre of the little fishy pool you’re dealing with, it’s going to be a solitary business. You’ll be on your own with lots of people standing around doing nothing. A few pals may help out but it can be a lot to ask of any friendship. It’s a long game.

This blog is designed, written and aimed at that ordinary person looking for a plain English discussion of not so much the science, but the politics and I say it unashamedly, the ethics over the very real human impact involved in changing our primary allegiance from humanity to some new-age Earth goddess.

In the beginning I feel I made some sections of the skeptic community uneasy, because I was addressing aspects of the thing they were not really comfortable with. Five years ago, making the moral argument for a realistic approach to environmentalism that didn’t involve killing the poor was too alien an argument that nobody wanted to touch. People were happy as Larry with their evening hobby of squabbling over science papers. The murderous collateral damage of environmental politics on the developing world – which the alarmists would never acknowledge – was also out of the skeptic comfort zone. It was all a bit too close to real-world for the skeptics hygienically ensconced behind their keyboards. There’s never any blood spray on a keyboard.

If you’ve read the about me here, you’ll know it’s why I blog and I also happen to think it’s by far the most powerful argument we can make to the ordinary person, because it’s all about real people suffering preventable hardship and death this very day, not some nebulous century in the future. Anybody can relate to that. However, I soon decided to steer clear of any such arguments for a variety of very practical reasons.

The first one was that at the time nobody was actually interested in it, because it was an obsessively inward-looking community. You may disagree with that assessment but that was the reality at the time. The second one is that the community was comfortable with the quantitative arguments against environmentalism in the form of discussing the science, but the qualitative arguments, no matter at what level they were pitched, had absolutely no traction. The third reason was it’d be too easy to get pigeon-holed as some moral supremacist pontificating from atop his blogging holier-than-thou pulpit, and that’s a suit of clothes a Rufus Roughcut like myself wouldn’t get away with for very long.

In short, the time just wasn’t ripe to advance that type of argument. In the last year, I’ve seen the emergence from obscurity of the ethical arguments against environmentalism become mainstream in the sceptic blogosphere. I think that’s a sign of several things; its growing maturity, it’s wider base of representation and the community’s readiness to engage with the real world rather than stay safely embedded in the cyber one.

A very subtle factor that’s concentrated people’s mind on the damage being done to vulnerable people is the growing scourge of fuel poverty on our own poor. Nobody saw that one coming but looking back, it was inevitable. Finding an elderly person fully clothed in bed for the winter in a house they can no longer afford to heat is a real bloody attitude adjuster. All those people raking in their wind farm and solar panel subsidies are freezing the very life blood out of our most vulnerable. I can only hope they one day end up in the same situation.

I bitterly resented being forced off that ball, especially as the skeptic community seemed to have thrown up their hands and ceded without even a decent fight any moral authority to the alarmists, who to my mind were the ones actually rearranging macro-economics in such a way as to bring about the slowmo genocide in the developing world, which would pander to their Malthusian over-population concerns.

A less controversial argument was that the climate wars had little or nothing to do with science – it was all about politics, which is to say power and money. That was never a minority viewpoint but I think it’s a journey that a lot of newly converted skeptics go on. Some skeptics are welded to the “point out the flaws in the science” approach and they’ll do a few mea culpas and amend their ways, as well as retracting all those crap papers. That’s never once happened. Not once, not ever, and it never will either. Yes, they’ve occasionally been forced to do it but it was always against their will.

There is obviously a place for keeping the science honest but by now most skeptics have noticed that slightly OCD aspects of a lot of skeptic activity. Yes, it’s great ripping the ass out of the weird paper by that rather obscure Prof. Okie from the University of Muskogee, or Dr. Oongo of U of Wallawoora or Phil Witless of the University of Easy Access, but seriously, how many years of that loop are we going to do? Like Richard Lindzen said, they’re all third raters – easy meat. Occasionally I do get the feeling that they’re just cannon fodder being fed to the skeptic blogosphere just to keep it busy, rather than doing something effective in the real world.

The last point of divergence, and the one I think hasn’t really budged in the last five years, is the opinion that alarmist climate science is essentially a criminal enterprise.

Now that I’ve got your attention, just hang on to that adjective “alarmist”.

Every time the make some doom-laden claim, they get given more money. As each prediction fails, it gets pushed on twenty years and nobody cares, because everyone knows you can’t go up against the la cosa nostra verdi. Every time they get caught out saying one thing in public but exactly the opposite in private, they weasel out of it. They do a criminal things like identity theft, and appear to be above the law. They intimidate anyone who stands up to them and get away with it too, and if they can’t get you, they’ll go after your family.

Attempt to speak out about them in the media, all the strings get pulled and whatever platform you were silly enough to imagine you had just disappears beneath your feet. You can kiss goodbye to ever getting anything published again. Stand up to them, you’ll lose not only your reputation, career but your livelihood.

Every time we find a flaw in the science, it somehow always seems to err towards a warmer Earth. That could be an honest error but seriously Boys and Girls, we don’t need to be experts in the bell curve to realise something is up. On any reasonable balance of probability, you’d expect something a bit roughly fifty-fifty. You don’t need to be Descartes to see that one. You sit down at a poker table with someone who is crushing all opposition with every hand all night and there’s one thing you know – they’re cheating.

It’s premeditated, deliberate and totally cynical. Science is their whore, they’ll ride her as they see fit.

We’re into end of days with climate science and a few incidents of late should have disabused you of any lingering hope of any fig-leaf attempt at practising anything vaguely recognisable as serious science. The Karl et al paper was quite frankly a reversion to pulling the entrails out of some small animal and reading the portents for the planet. It’s the new paradigm, theory now mugs the facts. How anyone could have put their name to such an abomination is beyond me. Just to top that depth of degradation, the Royal Society on being challenged on why no global warming for nearly two decades, finally conceded but smugly replied the pause would have to extend to fifty years before they started to entertain a doubt.

Get your head straight about these people, they’re nothing better than just cheap hoods in thousand dollar suits pretending to be respectable.


Tom Harris Speaks Out About Remarks Made by the Pope, and Why it Was Wrong to Make Them!

Tom Harris has used the situation with my son, Joey, to show that the way the climate alarmists are going about pushing senseless solutions, (for problems they can’t prove will ever occur), is harming people here, and now.  This is obscene, and has to stop!   Please read this article, and share!