The Left Uses “Climate Change”, as their “New Religion”!

Why The Left Needs Climate Change

Try this out as a thought experiment: what would happen if, tomorrow morning, we had definitive proof that catastrophic climate change was impossible, wasn’t happening, and would never happen. Would Al Gore breathe a big sigh of relief and say—“Well good; now we can go back to worrying about smoking, or bad inner city schools, or other persistent, immediate problems.”

Of course not. The general reaction from environmentalists and the left would be a combination of outrage and despair. The need to believe in oneself as part of the agency of human salvation runs deep for leftists and environmentalists who have made their obsessions a secular religion. And humanity doesn’t need salvation if there is no sin in the first place. Hence human must be sinners—somehow—in need of redemption from the left.

I got to thinking about this when reading a short passage from an old book by Canadian philosopher George Grant, Philosophy in the Mass Age:

“During the excitement over Sputnik, it was suggested that the Americans were deeply depressed by Russian success. I thought this was a wrong interpretation. Rather, there was a great sigh of relief from the American elites, for now there was an immediate practical objective to be achieved, a new frontier to be conquered—outer space.”

This tracks closely with Kenneth Minogue’s diagnosis of liberalism in his classic The Liberal Mind.  Minogue compared liberals to medieval dragon hunters, who sought after dragons to slay even after it was clear they didn’t exist. The liberal, like the dragon hunter, “needed his dragons. He could only live by fighting for causes—the people, the poor, the exploited, the colonially oppressed, the underprivileged and the underdeveloped. As an ageing warrior, he grew breathless in pursuit of smaller and smaller dragons—for the big dragons were now harder to come by.”

Hence on college campuses today the liberal mind is relentlessly hunting after “microaggressions,” which is pretty pathetic as dragons of injustice go. Environmentalists are still after the fire-breathing dragon of climate change, now that previous dragons like the population bomb have disappeared into the medieval mists—so much so that even the New York Times recently declared the population bomb to have been completely wrongheaded.

Or perhaps a better metaphor for true-believing environmentalism is drug addiction: the addictive need for another rush of euphoria, followed by the crash or pains of withdrawal, and the diminishing returns of the next fix. For there’s always a next fix for environmentalists: fracking, bee colony collapse disorder, de-forestation, drought, floods, plastic bags . . . the list is endless.

The political scientist Anthony Downs diagnosed this aspect of environmentalism in a famous 1972 essay in The Public Interest entitled “Up and Down with Ecology—The Issue-Attention Cycle.”  In analyzing the then fairly new public enthusiasm over environmentalism (though it tended to go by the term “ecology” back then), Downs laid out a five-step cycle for most public policy issues. A group of experts and interest groups begin promoting a problem or crisis, which is soon followed by the alarmed discovery of the problem by the news media and broader political class. This second stage typically includes a large amount of euphoric enthusiasm—you might call this the dopamine stage—as activists conceive the issue in terms of global salvation and redemption.

But then reality starts to intrude. The third stage is the hinge. As Downs explains, there comes “a gradually spreading realization that the cost of ‘solving’ the problem is very high indeed.” This is where we have been since the Kyoto process proposed completely implausible near-term reductions in fossil fuel energy—a fanatical monomania the climate campaign has been unable to shake.

“The previous stage,” Downs continued, “becomes almost imperceptibly transformed into the fourth stage: a gradual decline in the intensity of public interest in the problem.” Despite the relentless media and activist drumbeat and millions of dollars in paid advertising, public concern for climate change has been steadily waning for the last several years.

“In the final [post-problem] stage,” Downs concluded, “an issue that has been replaced at the center of public concern moves into a prolonged limbo—a twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest.”

Activist liberal elites always need a Grand Cause to satisfy their messianic needs, or for the political equivalent of a dopamine rush. For such people, the only thing worse that catastrophic climate change is the catastrophe of not having a catastrophe to obsess over—and use as an excuse to extend political control over people and resources, which is the one-side-fits-all answer for every new crisis that starts through the issue-attention cycle.

Downs did think that the issue-attention cycle would be longer for environmental issues that other kinds of issues like civil rights and crime, for a variety of reasons.  So environmental junkies should chill. They’ll find new ways to get their fix. They always do.

Climate Change Scare, is nothing but a tool, for Wealth Redistribution….

UN Negotiating Text For Climate Agreement Opens Up Gravy Train

How the UN is 'breaking bad' with taxpayer money.How the UN is ‘breaking bad’ with U.S. taxpayer money.In December the United Nations will convene in Paris, for the purpose of hammering out an international agreement on climate change. Reaching an agreement has become a“legacy issue” for President Obama, and his administration is devoting enormous resources towards the successful completion of this task.

In March the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change distributed draft language to serve as options for the agreement that may be decided in December. In a previous IER post I showed how the two climate change goals adopted in the UN text could not be justified, using the UN’s own scientific reports, and how the draft language opened the doors to massive international bureaucracies.

In this post I’ll focus specifically on the enormous wealth transfers from rich to poor countries that are being proposed in the draft—as high as annual transfers in excess of $100 billion from the United States alone, according to some of the language.

To be sure, at this stage these ludicrous suggestions are merely a “wish list,” but average Americans should realize just how much of their money will be on the buffet line when the UN delegates meet in December. In November President Obama already pledged $3 billion for such efforts, and the new UN proposal shows how much more the most zealous advocates have in mind.

The UN’s $100 Billion+ Bonanza

Anyone with the stamina to click on the link and skim through the UN’s draft language will see that the 90-page document is very redundant. However, the following excerpt gives a good sampling of a theme reiterated throughout:

  1. [Scale of resources provided by developed country Parties shall be based on a percentage of their GNP of at least (X per cent) taking into consideration the following:
  2. The provision of finance to be based on a floor of USD 100 billion per year, and shall take into account the different assessment of climate-related finance needs prepared by the secretariat and reports by other international organizations;
  3. Based on an ex ante process to commit quantified support relative to the required effort and in line with developing countries’ needs… [UNFCCC Negotiating Text, p. 43]

Later on, in section 96, the document states, “a. Developed country Parties to provide 1 per cent of gross domestic product per year from 2020 and additional funds during the pre-2020 period to the GCF [Green Climate Fund]…” (bold added).

Thus we see that this negotiating text contains more than a simple pledge for various countries to cap their emissions—it also includes enormous transfers of money from rich to developing countries. If the particular suggestion quoted above from section 96 were to be implemented, it would entail some $175 billion annually in transfers from Americans (because U.S. GDP is currently above $17.5 trillion). Note that this is in addition to conventional foreign aid programs—the UN document makes that clear, elsewhere. The sole (ostensible) purpose of these dedicated funds is to help poorer countries deal with climate change. The recipient countries will no doubt be quite creative in justifying all sorts of infrastructure and other spending projects necessary to combat climate change.

Now, a reasonable reader might think, “Well, supposing the ‘pause’ in global warming continues, they’d probably scale back the funds needed for adaptation, right?” But such common sense would be mistaken. On page 22 of the document we learn that “since adaptation efforts will need to be undertaken far in advance of the temperature rise,” therefore “planning for adaptation and undertaking adaptation should be based on an evaluation of temperature scenarios that are expected to result from particular levels of mitigation action…

In other words, the authors of this proposed treaty language want the transfer spigot turned on with no accountability. So long as they can point to future damages that occur inside a computer simulation, the United States and other wealthy countries will be expected to cough up billions of dollars to fight the computer-projected threat of future climate change damage.

Already, the Green Climate Fund is beefing up staff, with openings ranging from “gender social specialist” to“marketing consultant” whose duties include “helping to shape the brand of the fund.” It is quite clear from the bureaucratic progress of the Green Climate Fund that they mean business (of some kind) and are counting on the money to fund their multiple activities.

Conclusion

The UN has released the Negotiating Text of the possible treaty that may come out of talks in Paris in December. Americans should familiarize themselves with the main items contained in this document. In a previous IER post I showed that the UN document adopts climate change goals that the UN’s own reports can’t justify, and furthermore would create a huge new international bureaucracy.

In the present post, I quoted from the document to show the desire to fund these unaccountable extra-national organizations with an enormous flow of money taken from rich countries. Although the demands are so ludicrous that they should be viewed as a “wish list,” it is nonetheless instructive—and alarming—to see just how expensive they could be. According to one idea contained in the text that the UN has released, the U.S. would be expected to contribute more than $175 billion annually into the giant pot of money. President Obama in November already pledged $3 billion to such an effort. How far do Americans want to go along?

Source

Climate Alarmists Do Not Like Facts….They Only Get In the Way!

Another pre-COP21 Attack by the Shrill

Posted: 16 May 2015 01:08 AM PDT

As we approach Paris COP21 in December, the Alarmists have a problem. The Public are deserting the ranks of the true believers. The planet hasn’t warmed for around 20 years.

As Marine Biologist Walter Stark wrote last year: (Link Quadrant On Line)

Be scared, the experts tell us, be very scared. Well there is certainly cause for concern, but not about those “rising” temperatures, which refuse to confirm researchers’ computer models. A far bigger worry is the corruption that has turned ‘science’ into a synonym for shameless, cynical careerism.

So that the delegates to COP21 have something to fall back on, the Shrill are getting shriller.

Take the attack by Daily Kos’ Judah Freed on International Climate Science Coalition’s Tom Harris.

Tom posted a reply but it disappeared faster than a white ant in sunlight. Curiously, Mr Freed’s piece was titled “Facing the Facts and Fictions of the Climate Change Deniers.” Curious, because Mr Freed’s piece lacked facts and was full of fiction.

Here is some of Mr Harris’ responses. (LINK)

Mr. Freed writes: “Please see through this misleading public relations campaign by paid climate change deniers.”

Tom Harris responds: I am not now, nor have I ever been involved in a “public relations campaign,” paid or otherwise.

Freed writes: “Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) is touting guest editorials across North America that it is “ridiculous” to think that only industry-funded “deniers” are claiming that climate change is not real.”

Harris responds: We are not climate change deniers. Climate change has been “real” since the formation of the atmosphere billions of years ago. We advocate helping people adapt to the sometimes dangerous impacts of climate change and continuing the research so that someday we may be able to forecast future climate states. We have essentially no chance of controlling them, however.

Freed: “What’s ridiculous is that Harris and the ICSC themselves are industry-funded climate change deniers.”

Harris: ICSC funding has been 100% confidential since I took over as Executive Director in March 2008. This is obviously to protect our donors from attacks by aggressive climate campaigners….

How often do the Shrill resort to this untruth. The Alarmists funding far exceeds the pittance that we realists receive.

Harris:  I find it interesting that he seems to have no problem with climate campaigners who share his point of view receiving industry funding. I have no problem with that either, which is why we do not criticize them for it. It would be a motive intent logical fallacy to do otherwise. Indeed, we are jealous of their access to the vast resources of corporations.

Freed: “Harris himself had been the Ottawa operations director of the High Park Group, a Toronto-based public policy and public relations firm specializing in energy industry clients like the transnational Areva nuclear power group, the Canadian Electricity Association, and the Canadian Gas Association.”

Harris: For five months in 2006, I worked for High Park Group out of my basement office in Ottawa. Their clients included solar and wind power companies as well as those Freed names. Would this make them biased in the direction of the climate scare? No, they were just a communications company doing what communications companies do—conducting communications for their clients. I have never been involved in public relations or lobbying.

Freed: “According to geochemist and U.S. National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell, author of The Inquisition of Climate Science (Columbia University Press, 2011), rather than supporting open-minded scientific inquiry, closed-minded “denier organizations like the ICSC know the answers and seek only confirmation that they are right.””

Harris: The exact opposite is the case. ICSC repeatedly calls for “open-minded scientific inquiry” in which all reputable points of view are given a fair hearing. Perhaps Powell was speaking about climate alarmist groups when he spoke about entities that “know the answers and seek only confirmation that they are right.”

Freed: “Harris and the ICSC have promoted a skeptical climate change report produced by the Heartland Institute, identified by SourceWatch and others as a front for the ultra-conservative Koch Brothers, the primary backers of the Tea Party.”

Harris: According to the Heartland Web page http://blog.heartland.org/2014/04/response-to-a-critic-of-climate-realists-and-the-nipcc-reports/:

“None of the NIPCC reports — ZERO — have been funded with corporate money. They are funded by family foundations that have no interest in the energy sector. The Funding for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change reports (see www.climatechangereconsidered.org) comes from two family foundations.”

Note: Heartland have repeatedly stated that the only funding they have received from Koch was $25K for healthcare-related matters, not climate or energy.

It doesn’t matter how many times the funding lies about Heartland are debunked, the Shrill still repeat them. Shame. Another oft repeated falsehood by the Shrill….

Freed: “Harris does not reveal that Dr. Ball today is a paid science policy advisor to oil companies…”

Harris: Dr. Ball has previously explained that this statement is a complete falsehood. The death threats against Ball are, sadly, very real, as are those against some other scientists we work with.

Not content with those slurs, Mr Freed moves on….

Freed: “Among the tactics too often deployed to suppress evidence-based logic and critical thinking, the misleading irrationality and fear-mongering by Harris and ICSC smacks of the McCarthyism in the 1950s that repressed progressive post-war urges for social justice and open democracy.”

Harris: This is a complete straw man argument. We encourage rational thinking and a mature, respectful dialog, taken proper account of the importance of social justice and open democracy, discussions that are free of logical fallacies and name calling. I have written about this often; see http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/5257712-errors-in-thinking-are-sabotaging-climate-change-discussion/, for example.

Freed: “In the eyes of the climate change deniers, apparently, yesterday’s scary reds are today’s greens.

Harris: That may be true for some on our side of the climate debate but it does not apply to me or ICSC since I have never made that point. Indeed, I am not even right wing and regularly criticize Canada’s Conservative government for stupidity and even dishonesty on the climate debate.

Mr Harris may not say “yesterday’s scary reds are today’s greens,” However, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has stated it quite plainly.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, left the Green Movement when the Green Movement was taken over by Refugees from the fall of World Communism (link)

Patrick is the author of Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist in which he wrote that, after the collapse of World Communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the environment movement was hi-jacked by the “political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anticapitalism and antiglobalization than with science or ecology.”

Mr Harris closes with:

So, practically nothing that Judah Freed writes above is correct or even makes sense. It is good to see the attack though, as it shows we are right over the most effective target, the most vulnerable weakness of climate crusaders: the immature and highly uncertain science of climate change. It is revealing that Mr. Freed did not have anything to say at all about any of the science we promote. His piece, the parts that were not completely wrong, was mostly just logical fallacies.

Read all Mr Harris reply – HERE

On the Daily Kos site there is a poll showing that their small readership doesn’t believe fossil fuels are the primary cause of climate change.

Since 1990 Satellites show World not warming as much as the models say.

Posted: 15 May 2015 08:51 PM PDT

The scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville are known throughout the environmental community as being skeptical that climate change (or global warming) will have a catastrophic effect on the earth. The crux of the matter is that their research, using satellite data to measure temperatures in the atmosphere, disagrees with climate models they say that overstates the earth’s warming. (link)

What John Christy and Roy Spencer (who then worked for NASA at Marshall Space Flight Center just down the street from UAH) announced at that press conference on March 29, 1990, was that their study of temperature data from satellites indicated the world was not warming as much as was believed.

Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville appeared before the US Congress Committee of Natural Resources.

Christy said that

  • they agree, that there is climate change;
  • they agree, humans play a role in that climate change;
  • No, they agree, it’s not a catastrophic event.
It was virtually the silver anniversary of Roy Spencer’s career-defining moment. John Christy said he had no idea that a discovery announced in 1990 would not only still resonate 25 years later but would be at the center of a raging debate.
The date was March 29, 1990. That was the day – though unbeknownst to either Christy or Spencer – they publicly became climate change skeptics.

“We had no clue at that time, 25 years ago, we would be in the center of a huge controversy almost 25 years to the day with congressional investigations, the secretary of state, the vice president telling us we don’t even believe in gravity. Who would have thought that 25 years ago?”

“I think we knew it was going to be an important new way of monitoring the climate. But you just never know if something like that is going to have legs scientifically. Whether somebody will come up with a new way of doing it better in two years.

Looking back, I’m kind of surprised this is still the leading way of doing this. Really our only competitors in the field have the same answer we do, very close to the same answer.” (link)

Alabama site AL.com interviewed Christy and Spencer. (LINK)

Eric Schultz / eschultz@al.com)

Some extracts:

AL.com: President Obama recently said that Republicans are going to have to change their opinions on the dangers of climate change. Is this a partisan issue?

Christy: Numbers are numbers. That’s what we produced. Those aren’t Republican numbers or Democratic numbers. Those are numbers. Those are observations from real satellites. Roy and I were the pioneers. We discovered how to do this with satellites before anyone else did. You can see this very strongly in the administration. Secretary of State John Kerry comes out and says it’s like denying gravity. The attack on skeptics was ramped up in the past month.

As this blog has noted before, the Shrill Alarmists are getting shriller.

AL.com: How do you respond to the perception that 97 percent of scientists agree on climate change? (The Wall Street Journal in 2013 reported on the “myth”of the 97 percent).

Christy: The impression people make with that statement is that 97 percent of scientists agree with my view of climate change, which typically is one of catastrophic change. So if a Senate hearing or the president or vice president says 97 percent of the scientists agree with me, that’s not true. The American Meteorological Society did their survey and they specifically asked the question, Is man the dominate controller of climate over the last 50 years? Only 52 percent said yes. That is not a consensus at all in science.

Recently Astrophysicist Dr Gordon Fulks wrote:

Science is NEVER about consensus and belief in any form.  Those who invoke such arguments are operating in the realm of politics and religion, probably because their science is weak.  We would never say that the earth is round because the majority of scientists believe it is.  We would simply produce a photo of the earth taken from the moon!

For those who refuse to understand that science is not a consensus activity, I like to talk about Albert Einstein, Alfred Weggner, Harlen Bretz, Barry Marshall, and Robin Warren, among others.

For those who think that the professional societies are the ultimate authority, I like to remind them that they are really labor unions looking out for the best financial interests of their members.

On renewables.

AL.com: What about the value of renewable energy sources?

Christy: I am for any energy source that is affordable and doesn’t destroy the environment. If carbon dioxide was a poisonous gas, I’d be against it. Carbon dioxide makes things grow. The world used to have five times as much carbon dioxide as it does now. Plants love this stuff. It creates more food. CO2 is not the problem.

On satellite data.

Christy atmosphere temps
Paul Gattis | pgattis@al.com

AL.com: Why is your research using satellite data a more effective way of measuring climate change than surface temperature? After all, humans live on the surface, not in the upper atmosphere.

Christy: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. When you put more of it in the atmosphere, the radiation budget will respond appropriately. It’s just that what we found with the real data is that the way the earth responds is to shed a lot of that heat, not keep it in, which climate models do. So I’d rather base policy on observations than on climate models.

Read More at AL.com

Climate Alarmists: They Hate Facts that Don’t Back Up Their Story, and the People Who Expose Them!

Climate Change | John Roskam
Australian Financial Review 1st May, 2015

In 1987, the American historian and philosopher Allan Bloom wrote a best-selling book, The Closing of the American Mind. It was about the mediocrity and intellectual conformity of American universities. Bloom died in 1992. If he was alive today and writing about Australian universities his book could be titled The Closed Australian Mind.

The reaction of university academics to the Abbott government’s decision to provide $1 million to fund a branch of Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Centre at the University of Western Australia demonstrates all that’s wrong with Australia’s universities. Their culture tends to be distrustful, insular and choked in unthinking intellectual uniformity. That’s why the number of Australian researchers who rival Lomborg’s global renown can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. Probably the closest any Australian comes to having anything like Lomborg’s international standing in the field of philosophy and policy is the ethicist Peter Singer now at Princeton University. (Singer who supports infanticide in some circumstances was voted one of Australia’s most outstanding public intellectuals. He’s also been awarded the Companion of the Order of Australia, the country’s second-highest honour.)

Instead of welcoming a world-class public policy thinker coming to Australia and to their university, academics and students at the University of Western Australia are outraged. The vice-president of the university’s staff association talked of having the funding revoked, while the student guild launched a ‘Say No to Bjorn Lomborg’ campaign.

Lomborg’s problem is he’s a climate “contrarian”. As the The Guardian newspaper has helpfully pointed out a climate “contrarian” is someone who is not a climate “denialist” but who nevertheless says things that “infuriate” people who believe climate change is the world’s most serious and urgent problem. And the reason we know Lomborg is not a “denialist” is because the university’s vice-chancellor says so. At a meeting last week of 150 angry academics the vice-chancellor attempted to placate his staff by reassuring them Lomborg most definitely wasn’t a “denialist” and his institution “had a history of defending its climate change research staff against the most extreme views of climate change deniers”. (There’s no record of the vice-chancellor defining what he meant by the term “denialist”. Presumably his university doesn’t employ any.)

LOMBORG’S BELIEFS

Lomborg believes humans are causing the climate to change and he believes it’s a problem. But he also believes that much of the money spent on fighting climate change would be better spent on overcoming malaria and HIV/Aids and assisting the 700 million people on the planet who don’t have clean water. These views apparently make Lomborg unfit to hold a position at the University of Western Australia. As yet it’s not clear what Lomborg would have to believe to satisfy the staff and students of the university.

In The Closing of the American Mind, Bloom examines how the teaching of humanities has been affected by postmodernism and moral relativism. For Bloom, what’s even worse is that so many academics think the same things and they won’t tolerate anyone disagreeing with them. He tells the story of what happened to him as a student.

“We are used to hearing the Founders charged with being racists, murderers of Indians, representatives of class interests. I asked my first history professor in the university, a very famous scholar, whether the picture he gave us of George Washington did not have the effect of making us despise our regime. ‘Not at all,’ he said, ‘it doesn’t depend on individuals but on our having good democratic values.’ To which I rejoined, ‘But you just showed us that Washington was only using those values to further the class interests of the Virginian squirearchy.’ He got angry, and that was the end of it.”

What Bloom said about the humanities in American universities 30 years ago is true of science in Australian universities today. Those who dare to question whether the science of climate change actually is “settled” provoke anger and name calling from many in Australia’s scientific community.

Australia’s Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty is a leader of that community. He’s another one angry Lomborg is coming to this country. Doherty’s attitude is disappointing but also perplexing. Without contrarian thinkers there wouldn’t be many Nobel Prizes to hand out.

Why Does Wynne’s Granddaughter Deserve Protection, But NOT My Son???

The SELFISH Granny…
Kathleen Wynne is not your friend. She says she wants to let you buy beer in the grocery store and save her granddaughter Olivia from Climate Change but she is not your friend.
Here is how I know.
My son Joey has a diagnosed neurological condition which has made his young life a great trial. He is extremely sensitive to noises and visual stimulations which can trigger seizures and cause serious harm to his health.
His neurological Specialist composed a letter for me to give to Kathleen Wynne describing his condition which I did have delivered to her and to the Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli.
All say that they are concerned and that their ministry will make green energy to protect human health and that they are sure he will be ok. But they can’t say this. And they never tell the wind company not to come to your area because your son will have debilitating health problems for the rest of his life.
We moved to quiet rural area to protect Joey’s health. He has grown up here and at 14 making him leave our home will be devastating to his sense of safety and comfort. He will lose his school friends who have accepted him the way he is. His familiar surrounding will disappear.
Ms. Wynne though, only cares about her granddaughter Olivia. But I wonder what Olivia would say if she knew this? Would this make her feel good about her granny?
Like most innocent children I am sure Olivia would be very upset if she knew that this young boy Joey was going to have an impossible struggle to survive if he had to live surrounded by giant wind turbines at home and at school all day and all night? Where does he go?
I have had no help from my premier. But I have received some kind advice form an unlikely source. The Environmental Review Tribunal coordinator Eva Petrysik – a rare civil servant who seems to actually care suggested I write a pleading letter to the Mr. Dennis Maloney  lawyer for the wind developer at Tory’s LLP.
My son’s personal safety matters. There are thousands of special needs and autistic kids in rural Ontario who will be chronically exposed to wind turbine emissions both noise and visual effects. So which ones does our devoted granny select to protect?  Would you like to make this choice? Is unreliable, low performing, costly and harmful wind energy good enough to ruin these kids’ lives? We have international treaties and organizations to protect children from harm but your premier does not care. She is abusing her power and my son.

The Dark, Cruel, and Ugly Side of Faux-Green Environmentalism

A climate of hate and a license to kill.

by Pointman

Of late we’ve seen a rash of examples showing just how ugly the face of the cult of environmentalism can be. There’ve been calls for the beheading of skeptics and even a wish that their children should kill them. If you’re fresh to what’s laughably called the climate debate, you’ll probably be appalled by such extremist exhortations to do the type of sick things which would quite comfortably fit into the sort of violence porn uploaded to YouTube for wannabe Jihadis and the like to get their rocks off on. However, if you’ve been following the issue for a few years, you’ll know such repulsive and vile sentiments are far from anything new though they are of late stronger.

In previous years, there’s been suggestions that “deniers” should have the word tattooed on their forehead, the targeting and naming of their children by certain verminous types not only in the real world but in the virtual twittering world, appearances in the dead of night of masked people on their front lawns with burning torches in the traditional KKK fashion, there should be climate criminal trials à la Nuremburg and that such deniers should be gathered together in central facilities for re-education, the latter suggestion being made by a second-generation blood relative of JFK, who’d probably be appalled at any genetic connection to such a closet fascist hiding behind the skirts of the Democratic Party and totally disgracing his Irish immigrant lineage.

I suppose he’s someone who’s lived nothing but a lard-arsed privileged life, safely insulated inside a rich clan skating along on a dead man’s reputation without ever putting his ass anywhere near the everyday experience of bagging up groceries in the local supermarket just to make a minimum wage, never mind the risk of getting it shot off in the service of his country. I despise such pointless people who’re totally without any sense of decency and whose whole career is based on feeding off the memory of a better man. I really do. There’s no decency, no sense of decorum about them and without ruthlessly exploiting the familial connection, they’d be nobodies.

There are a number of things to be noticed about such visceral hate speech. I suppose for starters it’s a one way street, if only because only one side owns all the mass propaganda outlets. Once you get outside the free blogosphere and into the mainstream media, climate skeptics who speak their mind are a very small demographic and hunted down enthusiastically by an overwhelmingly yee-haw lynch mob of hang the nigga high liberals of the media in pursuit of the only minority left about whom anything can be said.

You can sense a sort of glee, a certain cathartic joy at actually having the freedom to hurl the sort of vile bigoted slurs that haven’t been publishable in a newspaper for the last half century. The good news is you can’t be punished for it. Indeed, your stock will only rise in the righteous circles you crave so badly to be a part of. Not only can you say horrible things about them, you can even get away with committing criminal offences against them, just ask Peter “identity thief” Gleick. You won’t even get charged.

It’s the new touchy-feely McCarthyite era of the twenty-first century. Just substitute Denier for Commie and it’s all very familiar. Are you now or have you ever been a denier? Let the hearings begin, but not as a committee of Congress but in the full glare of the mainstream media. The results of such a trial by media are exactly the same as those achieved by the Senator from Wisconsin. Blacklisting, deprivation of livelihood, your reputation besmirched and all of it with absolutely no mechanism to defend yourself, never mind any right of reply.

What type of person feels free to indulge in such extremist dialogue?

The most visible is what’s called the troll or cyber bully plying their anonymous trade. They’re mostly personality defectives of one type or another but more often than people might think, they’re actually paid commenters earning a living by trying to close down debate in the blogosphere, usually by inciting a screaming match. To a large extent, that worked in former years, but since the plunge in visitors to alarmist sites they’ve been obliged to move their activities to the skeptic sites, but by now most of those sites recognise them for what they are and keep them on a short leash. If they let them in, it’s just for a bit of fun. Personally, I just don’t let them through the door, though occasionally I like to do a bit of troll baiting when things are slow.

What’s important to note about the trolls, is that they are like a deniable terrorist wing of a supposedly respectable political movement. For instance, the Guardian left comments calling for the beheading of Matt Ridley up on their site for four days, while at the same time deleting other comments protesting about it. More than a few of the more virulent ones are in reality supposedly sane commenters operating under a nom de guerre.

The next demographic would be establishment figures, politicians on the make, climate scientists, troughers sucking up the monetary swill and mainstream journalists. I exclude the alarmist bloggers from this set, since they’re only read by a few devoted acolytes and definitely nobody of any consequence, simply because the content is poor, juvenile, often libellous and suitable only for consumption by the alarmingly thick. You really do have to wipe your feet and wash your hands after visiting one. A little jet set experience on a bidet wouldn’t hurt either …

To a large extent, this grouping indulges in a more subtle form of stereotyping but invariably with the “denier” word unconsciously used as a given. It’s a useful discriminant to spot them. Once they use that word, you know what you’re dealing with; a true believer. They’re the next step up, a bit more respectable than the trolls or bloggers though at times the margin can be pretty slim.

The common denominator they all share is that they’re all activists who’re quite prepared to trash the perceived integrity of whatever profession they’re supposed to be practising in order to advance the “cause”, as it’s referred to in the climategate emails. They’re quite happy to distort, deceive, spin, destroy, pervert and simply lie their heads off because they just know the end justifies any means, and that’s something so many skeptics still find hard to get their head around.

There are one or two of them who like to represent themselves as honest brokers in the middle ground, but when push comes to shove or they’re in the right company and getting their ego stroked, the old denier word soon comes creeping out of hiding.

The last and most dishonourable group would be the people who’ve taken some time to look into the issue, who know the weakness of the alarmist case, know it’s so often a perversion of science, recognise only too well the professional calibre of the people indulging in the hate speech and yet stand still on the side-lines saying nothing. As Burke said, all that’s necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to stand idly by and do nothing. They may not be using the hate speech, but their silence condones it and therefore allows it to grow.

They are the only solution to the problem but as long as they maintain their silence and do not speak out against it, they are a part of the problem.

The last question to ask is why? Why all the hate, why all the venom? For most of them, it’s the anger phase in the death of their belief system and the skeptics are the ones they blame totally for their particular Götterdämmerung, the twilight of the gods or in this case Gaia. The skeptics reflect the sentiment of the common man, whose concerns have been placing worrying about the environment at the bottom of every poll for several years. It’s all our fault, we low creatures destroyed their dreams. Any belief in Gaia is dying because of us.

The real point about unrestricted hate speech is that it’s an enabler. When a non-stop, unrestrained stream of perverted, violent and hateful invective is allowed to be rained down on any group, eventually the words will lead to doing the deeds. We in the West allowed extremist imams to preach violence and we’re now seeing the results of allowing such “free speech”, in the form of home-grown terrorists attacking the societies they were raised in.

What I do know because I’ve seen it before is that there will be consequences from such an accepted environment of casual hate speech. Someone, somewhere, sometime will decide one of the deniers will have to be killed to protect the environment. It’s a prediction but one I feel will eventually happen as the hate speech spirals ever more violently out of control and gives someone a feeling of authorisation to do something murderous to save the planet.

On that day, one or more people will have died and some people’s invective will have to be examined in the light of that tragic event, because there will be no wiggle out using that venerable excuse of a lone demented maniac who had nothing to do with you. You’ll have made him, you’ll have made him feel righteous, you conditioned him, you wound him up, he murdered people – it’ll be on your conscience.

Is there any real chance the people actually responsible for inciting the murder will ever face a court of law for their part in it? Of course not, they’re in that long tradition ofslinking away unpunished and on with their prestigious lives to horizons anew and all is forgotten. Their skirts will be clean and no blood will rub off on their hems.

The more the hate escalates, the more certain it becomes that the sad day is slouching towards us.

©Pointman

We are being Misled by Many of the World’s Climate Scientists….Here’s Why!

Global Temperatures

January 18th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

OR: Why I Should Have Been an Engineer Rather than a Climate Scientist

I’ve been inundated with requests this past week to comment on the NOAA and NASA reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record. Since I was busy with a Japan space agency meeting in Tokyo, it has been difficult for me to formulate a quick response.

Of course, I’ve addressed the “hottest year” claim before it ever came out, both here on October 21, and here on Dec. 4.

In the three decades I’ve been in the climate research business, it’s been clear that politics have been driving the global warming movement. I knew this from the politically-savvy scientists who helped organize the U.N.’s process for determining what to do about human-caused climate change. (The IPCC wasn’t formed to determine whether it exists or whether is was even a threat, that was a given.)

I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend.

I am embarrassed by the scientific community’s behavior on the subject. I went into science with the misguided belief that science provides answers. Too often, it doesn’t. Some physical problems are simply too difficult. Two scientists can examine the same data and come to exactly opposite conclusions about causation.

We still don’t understand what causes natural climate change to occur, so we simply assume it doesn’t exist. This despite abundant evidence that it was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago as it is today. Forty years ago, “climate change” necessarily implied natural causation; now it only implies human causation.

What changed? Not the science…our estimates of climate sensitivity are about the same as they were 40 years ago.

What changed is the politics. And not just among the politicians. At AMS or AGU scientific conferences, political correctness and advocacy are now just as pervasive as as they have become in journalism school. Many (mostly older) scientists no longer participate and many have even resigned in protest.

Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends.

Reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn’t matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error. Who wants to bother with “margin of error”? Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn’t have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo. I said this six weeks ago, as did others, but no one cares unless a mainstream news source stumbles upon it and is objective enough to report it.

In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?

Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?

In what universe do the climate models built to guide energy policy are not even adjusted to reflect reality, when they over-forecast past warming by a factor of 2 or 3?

And where people have to lie about severe weather getting worse (it hasn’t)? Or where we have totally forgotten that more CO2 is actually good for life on Earth, leading to increased agricultural productivity, and global greening?:

Estimated changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL).

It’s the universe where political power and the desire to redistribute wealth have taken control of the public discourse. It’s a global society where people believe we can replace fossil fuels with unicorn farts and antigravity-based energy.

Feelings now trump facts.

At least engineers have to prove their ideas work. The widgets and cell phonesand cars and jets and bridges they build either work or they don’t.

In climate science, whichever side is favored by politicians and journalism graduates is the side that wins.

And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end.

Tom Harris, executive director of ICSC, talks about Suffering People Deserving Priority over Alleged Climate Problems.

ICSC: IPCC focus on stopping global warming and extreme weather is unscientific and immoral

Ottawa, Canada, November 2, 2014: “IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri was right toadvocate “a global agreement to finally reverse course on climate change” when he spoke to delegates tasked with approving the IPCC Synthesis Report, released on Sunday,” saidTom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). “The new direction governments should follow must be one in which the known needs of people suffering today are given priority over problems that might someday be faced by those yet to be born.”

“Yet, exactly the opposite is happening,” continued Harris. “Of the roughly one billion U.S. dollars spent every day across the world on climate finance, only 6% of it is devoted to helping people adapt to climate change in the present. The rest is wasted trying to stop improbable future climatic events. That is immoral.”

ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia and author of Taxing Air explained, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. The hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change is based solely on computerized models that have repeatedly failed in practice in the real world.”

New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor remarked, “U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon often makes unjustified statements about climate change and extreme weather. However, in their still unansweredNovember 29, 2012 open letter to the Secretary General, 134 scientists from across the world asserted, ‘The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 [now 18] years. During this period…carbon dioxide concentrations rose by nearly 9%…The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.”

“Although today’s climate and extreme weather are well within the bounds of natural variability and the intensity and magnitude of extreme events is not increasing, there is, most definitely, a climate problem,” said Carter. “Natural climate change brings with it very real human and environmental costs. Therefore, we must carefully prepare for and adapt to climate hazards as and when they happen. Spending billions of dollars on expensive and ineffectual carbon dioxide controls in a futile attempt to stop natural climate change impoverishes societies and reduces our capacity to address these and other real world problems.”

“The heavily referenced reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change demonstrate that, scientifically speaking, the global warming scare is over,” concluded Harris. “It is time to defund the IPCC and dedicate our resources to helping solve today’s genuine humanitarian problems.”


The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and related policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC encourages effective planning for, and adaptation to, inevitable natural climate variability, and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change. 

ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not limited to, “carbon” sequestration as well as the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy supplies with wind turbines, solar power, most biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources.


For more information about this announcement or ICSC in general, visithttp://www.climatescienceinternational.org,

Wind is Novelty Energy…..Scrap the Climate Change Act!

UK’s Wind Power Debacle Threatens to Leave Brits in the Dark

Owen-Paterson_323885k

Scrap the Climate Change Act to keep the lights on, says Owen Paterson
The Telegraph
Christopher Hope
11 October 2014

The Climate Change Act 2008, which ties Britain into stringent environmental measures, should be suspended – and then scrapped – if other countries refuse to agree legally binding targets, says Owen Paterson MP

Britain will struggle to “keep the lights on” unless the Government changes its green energy policies, the former environment secretary will warn this week.

Owen Paterson will say that the Government’s plan to slash carbon emissions and rely more heavily on wind farms and other renewable energy sources is fatally flawed.

He will argue that the 2008 Climate Change Act, which ties Britain into stringent targets to reduce the use of fossil fuels, should be suspended until other countries agree to take similar measures. If they refuse, the legislation should be scrapped altogether, he will say.

The speech will be Mr Paterson’s first significant intervention in the green energy debate since he was sacked as environment secretary during this summer’s Cabinet reshuffle.

In his address, he will set out an alternative strategy that would see British homes serviced by dozens of small nuclear power stations.

The Climate Change Act 2008, which ties Britain into stringent environmental measures, should be suspended – and then scrapped – if other countries refuse to agree legally binding targets, says Owen Paterson MP

He will also suggest that home owners should get used to temporary power cuts — cutting the electricity to appliances such as fridges for two hours at a time, for example — to conserve energy.

Mr Paterson will deliver the lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank set up by Lord Lawson of Blaby, a climate-change sceptic and former chancellor in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet.

In the speech, entitled “Keeping the lights on”, he will say that Britain is the only country to have agreed to the legally binding target of cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

Campaigners fear that this will bring a big increase in the number of wind farms.

They say that to hit the target Britain must build 2,500 wind turbines every year for 36 years.

Mr Paterson will say that the scale of the investment required to meet the 2050 target “is so great that it could not be achieved”. He will warn that Britain will end up worse off than if it adopted less ambitious but achievable targets. Mr Paterson voted for the 2008 Climate Change Act in opposition and loyally supported it when he was in power.

However, since he left office he has considered the effect of the legislation and has decided that Britain has to change course.

He will argue this week that ministers should exercise a clause in the Act that allows them to suspend the law without another vote of MPs.

In his speech, on Wednesday night, Mr Paterson will state that, without changes in its current policy, large-scale power cuts will plunge homes across the country into darkness.

“Blind adhesion to the 2050 targets will not reduce emissions and will fail to keep the lights on,” he will say. “The current energy policy is a slave to flawed climate action.

“It will cost £1,100 billion, fail to meet the very emissions targets it is designed to meet, and will not provide the UK’s energy requirements.

“In the short and medium term, costs to consumers will rise dramatically, but there can only be one ultimate consequence of this policy: the lights will go out at some time in the future.

“Not because of a temporary shortfall, but because of structural failures, from which we will find it extremely difficult and expensive to recover.”

He will say that the current “decarbonisation route” will end with the worst of all possible worlds.

The Government will have to build gas and coal power stations “in a screaming hurry”.

Britain’s energy needs are better met by investing in extracting shale gas through fracking and capturing the heat from nuclear reactors, Mr Paterson will argue.

He proposes a mix of energy generation based on smaller “modular” nuclear reactors and “rational” demand management. This would see dozens of small nuclear power stations, using reactors that are already fitted into submarines, being built around the country.

Home owners would also have to get used to timed power cuts using special switches that would cut electricity used by appliances.

“Let us hope we have an opportunity to put it into practice,” he will say. “We must be prepared to stand up to the bullies in the environmental movement and their subsidy-hungry allies.

“What I am proposing is that instead of investing huge sums in wind power, we should encourage investment in four possible common sense policies: shale gas, combined heat and power, small modular nuclear reactors and demand management.

“That would reduce emissions rapidly, without risking power cuts and would be affordable. What’s stopping this programme? Simply, the 2050 target is.”

Mr Paterson has spent the past few months visiting rural Tory seats — he visited six in the week after he was sacked by David Cameron in July.

He said he was appalled at the damage to the countryside from new pylons to take electricity from remote onshore wind farms.

This week’s speech will be Mr Paterson’s first intervention since he lost his job in the Cabinet reshuffle in the summer. He is to make another speech on Europe before Christmas as he seeks a more active role on the Right.

Mr Paterson has already set up a think tank called UK2020 to consider new policies on personal taxation, immigration and the economy.

However, his intervention was dismissed last night by Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat Energy and Climate Change Secretary.

Mr Davey said: “Ripping up the Climate Change Act would be one of the most stupid economic decisions imaginable.

“The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that climate change exists while most leading British businesses and City investment funds agree with the Coalition that taking out an ‘insurance policy’ now will protect the UK against astronomical future costs caused by a changing climate.

“The majority of European countries are ready to implement proposals that would see [them] adopt targets similar to our Climate Change Act in a deal the Prime Minister should seal later this month.

“With the USA, China and India also now taking the climate change threat seriously, the global marketplace for green technology is increasingly strong.”
The Telegraph

ed-davey_885751c

Anesthesiologist Tells the Facts About CO2. It is NOT the Demon they Pretend!

American Thinker
October 10, 2014
50,000 dot com
By Charles Battig

Let’s start a new carbon dioxide (CO2) website. Let’s forget unimaginative and puny sites anchored in the mid 300’s. How about “50,000 dot com”? 50,000ppm to be exact…
That is a really big number in view of claims that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and buttressed by Federal judges’ non-scientific rulings. If a 400ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is adjudged by such political entities to be an endangerment to human health, a danger to the environment, and an all-round pollutant, then certainly 50,000ppm must be a vicious killer, no?

Well, no. As a physician practicing the specialty of anesthesiology, my training included the details of human respiratory physiology, and knowledge of the movement of the essential gases in and out of my patients’ lungs. A most basic mechanism of human life is the cycle of oxygen in; carbon dioxide out. What is the exhaled concentration of CO2 in your lungs? Physiology texts give a normal range of 4 to 5 per cent. In the climate change nomenclature arena, that would be expressed as an equivalent 40,000 to 50,000 ppm! Imagine that, your own lungs manufacture the EPA-defined pollutant carbon dioxide at levels one-hundred times that of the air we breathe in. Not only do the innermost parts of your body tolerate chronic exposure to this scary EPA pseudo-pollutant, longevity records confirm our increasing lifespan, in spite of this officially labeled, EPA internal CO2 pollution.

The EPA and Federal agencies have bullied automobile producers into producing cars with ever lower carbon dioxide emissions per mile, yet our own bodies consistently produce high CO2 concentrations with each exhalation. Once our regulatory agencies finally learn the details of basic human respiratory physiology, there will be demands that measures be taken to regulate our bodies’ CO2 output. Perhaps mandatory face masks to capture and neutralize our “polluting” CO2 emissions will be decreed. Such breathing apparatus would be rated on its efficiency in capturing bodily carbon emissions; physical exertion would be limited to “safe” levels since greater exertion causes the body to produce more CO2 than sedentary lack of activity. School children are badgered to mind their “carbon footprints.” Who shall break the news to them and their parents that their own precious bodies spew forth this falsely maligned natural product of human life processes?

Alice in Wonderland would have faced a test of her incredulity were she to have read the non-science, non-sense spewing from governmental agencies, environmental radicals, rent-seeking politicians, and the scientifically illiterate regarding carbon dioxide. And yes, Alice, there really has been no global temperature rise for the past eighteen years and counting. Poor old Humpty Dumpty and his climate computer have had a really great fall, and all the Federal agencies and presidential appointees cannot put all his bits and bytes together again. Alice did give us fair warning, though, in her encounter with the Queen of Hearts and the Queen’s rant of “off with their heads.” One prominent spokesman of the “Regressive Party” has been quoted calling for similar punishment for non-believers of their carbon-dioxide climate hoax.

Charles Battig, MD , Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website ishttp://www.climateis.com

Let’s start a new carbon dioxide (CO2) website. Let’s forget unimaginative and puny sites anchored in the mid 300’s. How about “50,000 dot com”? 50,000ppm to be exact…

That is a really big number in view of claims that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and buttressed by Federal judges’ non-scientific rulings. If a 400ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is adjudged by such political entities to be an endangerment to human health, a danger to the environment, and an all-round pollutant, then certainly 50,000ppm must be a vicious killer, no?

Well, no. As a physician practicing the specialty of anesthesiology, my training included the details of human respiratory physiology, and knowledge of the movement of the essential gases in and out of my patients’ lungs. A most basic mechanism of human life is the cycle of oxygen in; carbon dioxide out. What is the exhaled concentration of CO2 in your lungs? Physiology texts give a normal range of 4 to 5 per cent. In the climate change nomenclature arena, that would be expressed as an equivalent 40,000 to 50,000 ppm! Imagine that, your own lungs manufacture the EPA-defined pollutant carbon dioxide at levels one-hundred times that of the air we breathe in. Not only do the innermost parts of your body tolerate chronic exposure to this scary EPA pseudo-pollutant, longevity records confirm our increasing lifespan, in spite of this officially labeled, EPA internal CO2 pollution.

The EPA and Federal agencies have bullied automobile producers into producing cars with ever lower carbon dioxide emissions per mile, yet our own bodies consistently produce high CO2 concentrations with each exhalation. Once our regulatory agencies finally learn the details of basic human respiratory physiology, there will be demands that measures be taken to regulate our bodies’ CO2 output. Perhaps mandatory face masks to capture and neutralize our “polluting” CO2 emissions will be decreed. Such breathing apparatus would be rated on its efficiency in capturing bodily carbon emissions; physical exertion would be limited to “safe” levels since greater exertion causes the body to produce more CO2 than sedentary lack of activity. School children are badgered to mind their “carbon footprints.” Who shall break the news to them and their parents that their own precious bodies spew forth this falsely maligned natural product of human life processes?

Alice in Wonderland would have faced a test of her incredulity were she to have read the non-science, non-sense spewing from governmental agencies, environmental radicals, rent-seeking politicians, and the scientifically illiterate regarding carbon dioxide. And yes, Alice, there really has been no global temperature rise for the past eighteen years and counting. Poor old Humpty Dumpty and his climate computer have had a really great fall, and all the Federal agencies and presidential appointees cannot put all his bits and bytes together again. Alice did give us fair warning, though, in her encounter with the Queen of Hearts and the Queen’s rant of “off with their heads.” One prominent spokesman of the “Regressive Party” has been quoted calling for similar punishment for non-believers of their carbon-dioxide climate hoax.

Charles Battig, MD , Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website ishttp://www.climateis.com