climate fear mongers
Jihadis and Warmunists….Both want to Destroy Our Way of Life!
September 28, 2014
Jihadis and Warmunists: Brothers Under the Skin
By Clarice Feldman
Watching the parade of the naïve, the far left, and their energy-hogging celebrity manipulators marching in New York City this week, I was struck by how much these true believers had in common with jihadis, a notion reinforced by Purdue Professor Louis Rene Beres’ description of jihadis in Gatestone Institute and my friend “Ignatz’s’” comment at Just One Minute.
Both movements seem to these authors to be a means of denying death and change and making the mortal, immortal and the insignificant individual life, a significant force when massed with others.
If this is true — and I think it is — we cannot defeat these irrational movements in the ordinary ways. New strategies are called for.
Jihadis
Beres’ argument (and you should read it all to fully understand it) is, in sum, that the bloody depredations of jihadism provide its adherents with a “delusion of immortality” and a “religious justification” for erotic satisfaction.
If this is the case, he says, we cannot stifle its advance by treating terrorism simply as a normal striving for land or politics or strategy. It’s a different kind of enemy.
Among more “normal” conflict scenarios, America, Europe and Israel now need to consider mega-threats of both unconventional war and unconventional terrorism. Faced with determined adversaries — who are not only willing to die, but who actively seek their own “deaths” in order to live forever — Washington and Jerusalem should finally address the what needs to be done in addition to military remediation.
Sustained and selective armed force against IS and related Jihadist targets is certainly necessary and appropriate. However, it is also important to remind our leaders that force always needs to be combined with reinforcing efforts to convince these terrorists that their expected martyrdom is ultimately just an elaborate fiction.
Jihadists, in killing Americans, Israelis, and all other “unbelievers,” may not even intend to commit evil, so much as to do themselves and Allah good — and to do so with an absolute purity of heart. In their view, waging Holy War can never be shameful; it can only be heroic.
Going forward, our main task should be to systematically undermine these fantasies and doctrinal “underpinnings.” In conjunction with the recommended nuanced persuasions of military firepower, it can be done.
Warmunists
The New York demonstration, full as it was of communist organizers and sympathizers, inspired one wag to argue the marchers really were warmunists — that is, far left-wingers posing as environmentalists. (Any question respecting their commitment to environmentalism and keeping the planet clean were resolved by shots of the mounds of trash they left behind while purporting to save the planet.)
Ignatz made observations about the marchers which strike me as related to Beres’ comments about jihadis:
Lefties love to talk about revolution, “cause change” fundamental transformations, progress, etc., but they are the most retrograde reactionaries imaginable. They want a one-time revolution to cement and codify utter stasis.
People who talk about change are scared to death of the creative destruction of free markets. People who worship Darwinian progress, which after all implies millions of extinctions, want to save every single evolutionary cul-de-sac of a species they can find living in some pothole or cave somewhere. Their desire to somehow fix our climate to an optimum they have arbitrarily decided is in all our interests is obvious. Less obvious is their desire for the tranquility and stultifying sameness of socialism, not because it’s fair but because it’s predictable and controllable and therefore not as disruptive and scary. They seek the perennial childlike state of someone else supplying their security while they indulge their pleasures, presumably because they regret ever having to grow up.
These fools of all ages are on a children’s crusade to compel the adults of the world to create an actual real-world Neverland for them where nothing ever changes, they’ll never age and they can pretend they’re somehow going to be the magical ones picked by fate to cheat death.
The jihadis’ “heresy” charges against those who oppose their tyranny is simply another version of the warmunists’ “treason”. If you had any doubt about that, here’s Robert F Kennedy, Jr, who disproves his existential claims about climate warming by flying in private planes to warn us we will perish if we don’t stop using conventional energy.
Kennedy lamented in an interview with Climate Depot, [he]is not permitted by law to “punish” or to imprison those who disagree with him — and this, he proposed, is a problem of existential proportions. Were he to have his way, Kennedy admitted, he would cheer the prosecution of a host of “treasonous” figures — among them a number of unspecified “politicians”; those bêtes noires of the global Left, Kansas’s own Koch Brothers; “the oil industry and the Republican echo chamber”; and, for good measure, anybody else whose estimation of the threat posed by fossil fuels has provoked them into “selling out the public trust.” Those who contend that global warming “does not exist,” Kennedy claimed, are guilty of “a criminal offense — and they ought to be serving time for it.”
Just as Eric Hoffer warned us a half century ago about all mass movements in his book The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements such movements thrive in climates where individual opportunities are limited. He said then that they had not had much purchase in the United States because capitalism and our Constitution permitted so much advancement and freedom. Don’t the warmunists and the jihadis imperviousness to reality and fact share a common root? Doesn’t the drive of both to convert us all to their way of thinking echo Hoffer’s belief that the death denier “strengthen[s] his own faith by converting others”? Can you think of a better explanation, for example, of Kennedy’s tyrannical wish?
As anti-capitalist laws and regulations cooked up by this administration impoverish the middle class and shrink it while expanding the numbers now on the dole and pc restrictions of free speech in the workplace and colleges strangle us, do you suppose the climate for pernicious mass movements will grow or will it shrink?
I think we need to redouble our efforts to separate fact from fiction here and abroad even as we undertake warfare in the Middle East and to strengthen free markets and free speech rights here even though to do so means challenging in every available forum the ridiculous notions of the adherents of both of these mass movements.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/9_27_2014_18_33.html##ixzz3Ef1vqfKg
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Windweasels Lie about Noise they are Creating With Their Useless Wind Turbines!
Moyne Shire Council Rubberstamps AGL’s Macarthur Wind Farm Noisewash
September 28, 2014 by
The nightmare that is AGL’s Macarthur wind farm began operating in October 2012 – the first 30 fired up then. All 140 giant 3MW Vestas V112s kicked into gear in about February 2013.
Ever since, the locals have been driven absolutely insane with incessant low-frequency noise and infra-sound.
AGL (aka “Australia’s Greatest Liars”) have been running interference in relation to noise problems from the very start.
The incompetent bunch of goons that they hired to do the acoustic work lost and fudged data and, when challenged about data that went missing, blamed flat batteries more than once.
Macarthur residents hired their own careful, independent acoustic engineers to do proper methodical studies into noise impacts, which included full spectrum testing – something that AGL and its pet acoustic consultants have not done and will never do. The low-frequency testing done by AGL used the same method discredited by Steve Cooper a while back.
STT has seen the work done by the locals’ acoustic experts and – without a shadow of a doubt – it demonstrates that the noise levels generated do not and will never satisfy the noise conditions of AGL’s planning consent.
Now AGL have managed to get the Moyne Shire Council to rubber-stamp its acoustic white-wash in order to allow it to claim compliance with the noise conditions of its planning consent. But the lawyers for the Council – as well as the outfit charged with reviewing AGL’s noise report – had trouble working out what the “vague” and “unduly complicated … wording of the planning permit” actually meant, so advised that the best way to determine compliance was with a vote on it, according to the Council’s Agenda:
As Maddocks have advised, (Confidential Attachment 6) the noise compliance issue for the Macarthur Wind Farm has been unduly complicated by the wording of the planning permit. For example, the permit wording is so vague it is unclear whether Council is required to make a resolution regarding noise compliance. However in order to be transparent and to act in the most appropriate manner as the responsible authority, Maddocks recommends to Council that a resolution is the best means of addressing the noise compliance issue.
There. Isn’t it so much simpler when sticky situations that might see a wind farm operator called to account are settled on a show of hands. Settled that is, by people who aren’t acoustic experts and don’t, apparently, even know what the terms of the noise conditions they’re meant to be applying mean (their lawyers didn’t). And, instead of being “transparent”, the Council kept the correspondence from its lawyers pointing out that the conditions were “unduly complicated” and “vague” confidential (Attachment 6). So much for open and transparent government.
When it came to the Council meeting AGL didn’t have it all its own way. Former Mayor, Councillor Jim Doukas ripped into AGL and gave his fellow members a right-royal-rocket for their complicity in allowing AGL to operate with impunity.
Moyne councillor slams Macarthur wind farm noise review
The Standard
Anthony Brady
25 September 2014
A MOYNE Shire Councillor has hit out at the operators of the huge Macarthur wind farm, saying they should be “tied to a tree and flogged with a whip”.
In a fiery address to the council’s meeting on Tuesday night, Cr Jim Doukas refused to accept a peer review commissioned by the shire which found company AGL was operating the 140-turbine wind farm within noise guidelines.
“It is the biggest load of garbage I’ve ever read in my life and AGL should be tied to a tree and flogged with a whip,” Cr Doukas said.
He said the noise readings taken by AGL’s consultants were “insignificant” and “outside the guidelines” and questioned how a peer reviewer could find them compliant.
“For anyone who reads this and says this is a fair and honest report is just not right and should be ashamed. “We as a council should not make the determination on the report here tonight. We haven’t gone out to the public.
“No one in Australia who is involved in the wind energy industry, whether they support it or not, has had the chance to look at this and make comment and I think there are wiser heads out there than ours.
“As for those who are objectors, they are entitled to make comment and address council on the issue.
“If we support this tonight we deny them their right and I don’t think that’s right. We are shoving it down their throats and forgetting about the community and, for me, that’s just not on.”
But Cr Mick Wolfe disagreed with the outburst, saying people had already had a chance to comment.
“It’s time for this to go through. We’ve got our report and it’s been reviewed, the facts are in there,” Cr Wolfe said.
“We’ve heard from others alleging corruption, fraud, failure — you name it.
“Everything that AGL or the testers try to do that’s not in favour of the opponents they slam them with some pretty serious allegations.
“They (the opponents) have had a chance to come to any council meeting and show us their data.
“They are hiding it, they are holding it and not releasing it and I don’t know why. Come forward with it.”
The council agreed with the report’s findings that the wind farm is complying with noise levels, but has called for further monitoring within 12 months.
This follows advice from the peer reviewer that noise emissions can change over time as faults develop within the turbines and parts need replacing.
A spokeswoman for AGL yesterday welcomed the council’s confirmation of the report.
She said AGL had already carried out more than 40,000 hours of noise monitoring at Macarthur which was “well beyond” the level required under the shire’s planning permit.
The Standard
Compliant or not, the suffering caused by AGL’s turbines is real; and was documented by STT Champion, Anne Schafer in a community survey. Here’s a link to the survey. And see our post here.
One of AGL’s numerous victims, STT Champion Annie Gardner wrote this cracking letter to the Editor of The Standard – praising Jim Doukas for doing his job; and slamming the goats that pass for local government representatives for failing to do theirs.
To the Editor,
The affected residents of this district are extremely grateful for the unconditional support given by Councillor Jim Doukas (“Moyne Councillor slams Macarthur wind farm noise review 25.9).
Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the remainder of Moyne Shire Council who have been elected with a duty of care to protect the health of ALL residents.
Moyne Shire Council are in receipt of hundreds of health complaints as a result of the acoustic emissions from the turbines at the Macarthur wind farm, but have done NOTHING to protect us from this serious harm to our bodies.
As Councillor Doukas rightly claims, we have been denied our right to comment on the noise peer review. I have requested on several occasions to have a copy of this peer review forwarded to me, but these requests have been constantly denied by a council withholding information.
Councillor Wolfe shows his ignorance when he claims residents have had plenty of time to address council and hand over our noise data. It is not that simple, as any lay person isn’t able to comprehend acoustic data, and I doubt any councillors would be trained in acoustics.
Just prior to the council meeting on Tuesday, when Moyne Shire finally released the peer review report, I requested Council forward to our independent acoustic expert, all documentation relating to the peer review, in order that he may compile a report to immediately present to Council. This report, with additional damning evidence, will prove that the Macarthur Wind Farm is NOT COMPLIANT with government noise guidelines.
I also requested Council defer confirming compliance of the wind farm, until our acoustic expert is able to present his report to the Council. This request was obviously ignored.
In the name of openness and transparency, surely Moyne Council could have waited to read the resident’s acoustic expert report which will surely blow any claim of compliance of the Macarthur wind farm, out of the water.
We ask Moyne Shire, WHERE HAS DEMOCRACY GONE?
ANN and ANDREW GARDNER
PENSHURST, Victoria
“Earth Friendly Energy”, is not as Clean or Green as they Claim!
Perhaps because solar panels and industrial wind farms lack emissions, they seem “clean.” Despite their pristine appearance, however, these “green” electricity sources hammer Mother Nature — often fatally.
Southern California’s Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System.
Consider the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in California’s Mojave Desert. As Carolyn Lochhead wrote on September 7 in the San Francisco Chronicle, Ivanpah occupies 3,500 previously untouched federal acres. It features 300,000 mirrors that focus sunlight on three 40-story towers of power. Inside, 900-degree temperatures yield steam, propel turbines, and generate electricity for140,000 homes.
Ivanpah’s environmental toll is stunning:
• BrightSource Energy, the project’s owner, could have rehabilitated a brownfield, an abandoned commercial site, or a decommissioned military base. Instead, BrightSource developed 5.5 square miles of virgin desert.
• Lochhead reports that “scientists now say desert soils contain vast stores of carbon that are unleashed by construction of solar facilities.”
• Tortoises native to that area became refugees once BrightSource relocated them en masse.
• Kit-fox dens were flattened during construction.
• Monarch butterflies and birds should avoid Ivanpah at all costs. Those who traverse its highly concentrated sunbeams often ignite. Center for Biological Diversity ecologist K. Shawn Smallwood told the California Energy Commission last July that Ivanpah will roast an estimated 28,380 birds annually.
This MacGillivray’s Warbler suffered fatal burns at the Ivanpah solar plant in October 2013. Photo: Associated Press/U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Ivanpah cost $2.2 billion, including a $1.6 billion federal loan. For its next trick, BrightSource envisions a bigger installation near Joshua Tree National Park — within a migratory path for protected peregrine falcons, golden eagles, and some 100 other bird species.
Meanwhile, environmentalists call wind power as benign as a summer breeze. In fact, wind farms have become avian killing fields. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service reports that “wind turbines may kill a half a million birds a year.” Wind blows away another 600,000 bats annually, primarily through lung hemorrhaging. While these “flying vampires” look scary, most are insectivores and vegetarians. Bats actually serve mankind by pollinating crops and devouring mosquitoes. Fewer bats mean more mosquitoes. Swell.
USF&WS explains also that “eagles appear to be particularly susceptible. Large numbers of golden eagles have been killed by wind turbines in the western states,” as have smaller numbers of bald eagles. Team Obama — which could not care less about America’s beautiful, majestic national symbol — almost never prosecuteswind companies for violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Even worse, Obama is granting wind-farm operators 30-year federal eagle-killing permits, to continue their mayhem — all in the name of “clean” energy.
Long before they are installed — which itself consumes open fields — windmills abuse the Earth.
To evaluate any energy technology, “we must remember that it’s a process, starting with mining the materials necessary for the machines,” Alex Epstein notes in his forthcoming Penguin book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Epstein observes that windmill manufacturing requires “hazardous substances like hydrofluoric acid in order to get usable rare earth elements.”
The Daily Mail’s Simon Parry toured Baotou, China, a source of neodymium, the main ingredient in wind turbines’ electromagnets. He discovered “a five-mile wide ‘tailing’ lake. It has killed farmland for miles around, made thousands of people ill, and put one of China’s key waterways in jeopardy.”
This toxic lake in Baotou, China, is filled with pollution from neodymium factories, which are crucial to wind-turbine production.
Parry added:
This vast, hissing cauldron of chemicals is the dumping ground for seven million tons a year of mined rare earth after it has been doused in acid and chemicals and processed through red-hot furnaces to extract its components.
The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water and a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs.
For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one hour, but those who live in Mr. Yan’s village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same poison every day.
Environmentalists should stop hallucinating about “sustainable” power sources that unleash puppies and rainbows at no cost to air, water, habitat, and wildlife. “Clean energy” hurts nature. Those who believe otherwise live in Fantasyland.
— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.
Politicians Should Be Jailed for Pushing the “Unreliable Renewables” scam!
Lunacy of Wind & Solar Power Policy: Political Incompetence or Conspiracy?
September 26, 2014 by
John Kutsch heads up the Thorium Energy Alliance an outfit that aims to see power generated using thorium enjoy a place at our reliable energy table.
Thorium is an abundant silver-gray element named for the Norse god of thunder. It’s less radioactive than the uranium used to power conventional nuclear plants; it produces less waste; and is more difficult to turn into nuclear weapons.
Advocates like Kutsch want to adapt traditional nuclear plants to use thorium as a fuel or replace them with a completely new kind of reactor called a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor, or LFTR (pronounced “lifter”). The LFTR would use a mixture of molten chemical salts to cool the reactor and to transfer energy from the fission reaction to a turbine.
Kutsch argues that such a system is more efficient and safer than existing plants, which use pressurized water to cool uranium fuel rods and boiling water or steam to transfer the energy they create. Kutsch says: “A molten-salt reactor is not a pressurized reactor. It doesn’t use water for cooling, so you don’t have the possibility of a hydrogen explosion, as you did in Fukushima.”
Kutsch and other advocates say that a thorium-fueled reactor burns hotter than uranium reactors, consuming more of the fuel. Kutsch says that “Ninety-nine percent of the thorium is burned up. Instead of 10,000 pounds of waste, you would have 300 pounds of waste.”
STT isn’t about to weigh into the debate about thorium, but we’re on the same page as Kutsch when he slams into the lunacy of wind power.
Here’s a video of John belting into the infantile logic of trying to rely upon power sources delivered at crazy, random intervals. Oh and it comes with a “PG” warning: John’s frustration at our political betters leads to one or two “F” bombs.
blob:https%3A//www.youtube.com/b6668f91-9d89-49a1-9a99-190b7f2f361a
The Facts That Climate Alarmists Ignore! CO2 is NOT Evil!
|
||||
| London, 25 September: A new paper published in the prestigious journal Climate Dynamics find that the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on global temperatures is likely to be even smaller than previously thought.
Earlier this year, in a widely discussed report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, climate researcher Nic Lewis and science writer Marcel Crok put forward a new estimate of the Earth’s climate sensitivity based on observational data, finding that it was much less alarming than suggested by computer simulations of the Earth’s climate. Now, Lewis and well known American climate science professor Judith Curry have updated the Lewis and Crok report estimates using the latest empirical data, a more sophisticated methodology and an approach to accounting for uncertainties that has been described by one independent reviewer as “state of the art”. Their findings fully support the modest estimates of climate sensitivity and future warming given in the Lewis and Crok report, and compared with that report make it look even less likely that the substantially higher estimates based on computer simulations are correct. “Our results, which use data from this year’s IPCC fifth assessment report, are in line with those of several recent studies based on observed centennial warming and strongly suggest complex global climate models used for warming projections are oversensitive to carbon dioxide concentrations,” said Nic Lewis.  Best sensitivity estimates are medians (50% probability points). Ranges are to the nearest 0.05°C
Nicholas Lewis & Judith A. Curry (2014) The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates, Climate Dynamics 25 September 2014 Abstract  Full paper of the accepted manuscript is available, along with data and code here |
Communists Masquerading as Environmentalists…..Watermelons!
Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda
September 23rd, 2014 – 4:31 pm
Communists along with a few environmental groups staged a “People’s Climate Rally” in Oakland, California on Sunday, September 21, in conjunction with the larger “People’s Climate March” in New York City on the same day.
Wait — did I say communists? Isn’t that a bit of an exaggeration?
Well…no.
At the New York event, many people noticed that gee, there sure are a lot of communists at this march. But in Oakland — always on the cutting edge — the entire “climate change” movement at last fully, irrevocably and overtly embraced communism as its stated goal. Any concerns about “optics” or operating in “stealth mode” were abandoned.
The “climate change” “crisis” is now nothing but the latest justification for “total revolution” and getting rid of capitalism forever.
Yes, capitalism itself is the problem. The primary message of the People’s Climate Rally was this: Climate change is caused by capitalism, and merely attempting to reform capitalism will not stop global warming; it is impossible to work within the existing system if we want to save the planet. We must replace it with a new social and economic system entirely.
Until recently, those attacking the capitalist system as the cause of global warming were intentionally a little vague as to what will replace it if we are to solve the problem. But on Sunday in Oakland, that curtain was drawn back and the new system was finally revealed: Communism. Or at least hardcore socialism as Marx defined it — the necessary transitional phase before true complete communism (i.e. no private property, no families, no individualism). Most countries we tend to think of as “communist” actually self-defined as “socialist”: The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example, was (as its name reveals) socialist. I point out this detail in case anybody reading this article thinks that the “socialism” advocated at the rally was merely some kind of squishy soft-hearted semi-capitalism; no, it is the same type of socialism one finds in places generally thought of as communist.
Below you will find irrefutable proof that communist ideologies, organizations and phraseologies have completely moved to the forefront of the “climate change” movement. (I was originally tempted to say that the communists, as they are wont to do, have merely “co-opted” environmentalism. But that would imply that the goal of global warming scaremongering was something other than “destroying capitalism” in the first place. At this point I now know that destroying capitalism has always been the goal; the only thing that changed on Sunday is that the mask was dropped.)
This proof will necessarily entail posting a lot of photographs; in situations like this, the only way to conclusively demonstrate a point is through repetition of evidence. One could summarize the evidence with a few shorthand images, but that would leave open the possibility that the case was being overstated. To quash that counter-argument before it arises, I will post lots and lots and lots and lots of images from all over the rally, from the sponsors, to the attendees, to the booths, to the speakers, to show beyond any doubt that the entire rally was thoroughly saturated with communism and socialism to the point where these ideologies were the overarching theme of the event.
Ready? All the photos below were taken at the People’s Climate Rally in Oakland on September 21, 2014.
As you enter the rally you encounter booths hosted by Socialist Action, a Trotskyist/Marxist group…
…and the Communist Party USA, a Marxist-Leninist political party who like to think of themselves as the communists, since they’ve been around for almost a century…
…and the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, a Maoist political cult devoted to overthrowing the United States in a total revolution.
Along the way, you encounter the rally’s attendees, carrying signs advocating concepts like…
…”eco-socialism,” which I nominate as “word of the day,” since the theme of the rally was the fusion of ecology with socialism.
“Another Big, Fat, straight, Midwestern, White Man for WORLD REVOLUTION.”
“Capitali$m is Destroying the Environment.”
Do I even need to point out that socialist and communist countries like China, the Soviet Union, North Korea and elsewhere have absolutely appalling environmental histories, past present and future, which far exceed in ecological destruction anything encountered in capitalist societies? No, I don’t need to point that out, because you already know it. You do — but apparently the people at this rally live in a fantasy world where “socialism” is the opposite of “pollution.”
“Capitalism is Killing the Planet. FIGHT FOR A SOCIALIST FUTURE!” This same message from the International Socialist Organization, a self-professed Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist revolutionary group, was also prominent at the New York climate march.
If you enter the rally from the other side, you encounter
The Socialist Alternative, one of the few socialist parties to actually have a member elected to public office in mainstream society…
…The Democratic Socialists of America, a comparatively mild-mannered group who want to make America communist via peaceful democratic transition instead of the violent revolution advocated by most other extreme left revolutionary parties….
…and Freedom Socialist, a lesser-known group who nonetheless managed to gain control of the coveted “socialism.com” URL which they use to promote their radical feminist version of communism in “the living tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky.”
Many of these Marxist, communist and socialist groups, by the way, were official sponsors of the event. They weren’t hangers-on — they helped to organize the rally.
Children were encouraged to hang out in the protest’s kid-friendly zone, where they could draw their own signs promoting “revolution.”
Had enough? Sorry. I apologize. Because we’re just getting started with the proof that communists dominate the narrative of the climate change movement.
Everywhere I turned, I encountered people with the message, “System Change, Not Climate Change.” If anything, this was the motto of the entire rally.
Anyone Who Believes We Are In A Climate Catastrophe, I Think Is Deluding Themselves”…Dr. Caleb Rossiter
Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming
Climate Statistics Professor Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University: ‘Obama has long been delusional on this issue. Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe I think is deluding themselves.’
Rossiter on his conversion to a climate skeptic: ‘You are very isolated on the Democratic Party on the left — one is, I am — for having this conclusion of analysis…I would say since 2004 I’ve been very lonely. I’ve been lonely working on the Hill for the Democratic Party.’
Rossiter on Gore’s film: ‘I think it’s a wonderful teaching tool because it shows how we don’t do science. Gore’s irresponsible.’
On Gore winning the Nobel: ‘Worst Nobel Prize for peace since Henry Kissinger.’
Rossiter: ‘My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe. It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree rise in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause.’
Climate Depot Exclusive
As President Obama attends the UN Summit climate summit in New York City, a fellow member of his Democratic Party, who is also a scientist, is publicity renouncing the Presidents climate change claims as “delusional.” Rossiter reversed his view on man-made climate change and now says belief in a climate catastrophe is “simply not logical.”
Climate Statistics Professor Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University, is an outspoken anti-war activist, has a flawless progressive record on a range of political issues – and he is a climate skeptic. Rossiter is a former Democratic congressional candidate and he campaigned against U.S. backed wars in Central America and Southern Africa.
In an exclusive interview for the upcoming documentary Climate Hustle, Rossiter, an adjunct professor in American University’s Department of Mathematics and Statistics, explained how he converted his views from accepting to challenging the so-called “consensus” on climate change after examining the scientific evidence. Rossiter has taught courses in climate statistics and holds a PhD in policy analysis and a masters degree in mathematics. (Note: The upcoming climate documentary will reveal how politically progressive scientists and other former warmists are now challenging the “consensus” claims of man-made global warming. See: Watch Now: Morano on TV (humbly) promotes new climate film: ‘We are going to have the greatest climate documentary of al-l-l-l-l ti-i-i-ime!’)
“If we had this interview ten years ago, I would have said I never thought about climate and I assumed all the scientist’s reporting and telling a president and a prime minister in England are right,” Rossiter explained. (Note: Rossiter was joined this week by one of President Obama’s own scientists in expressing skepticism on global warming. See: Obama’s Own Scientist Runs Cold on Warming – Outs Himself as a Skeptic! – Physicist Dr. Steven E. Koonin, Undersecretary for Science during Obama’s first term and former professor of theoretical physics at Caltech)
When Rossiter called global warming “unproved science” in a Wall Street Journal OpEd in May 2014, he found that his credentials as a long-time progressive could not trump his climate skepticism. He was immediately terminated due to his ‘diverging’ climate views from his 23 year fellowship at the liberal group Institute for Policy Studies. See: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’
Rossiter, whose research has focused on the construction of climate models and the statistical evidence of extreme weather, started to suspect that climate-change data was what he termed “dubious” 10 years ago while teaching statistics at American University.
“So, doubling carbon dioxide, the higher you get, the less effect you get. So logically, in a complex system, like atmosphere, you’re going lot of feedbacks that you don’t have much forcing at a certain point. We really don’t know. It’s very hard to model, models are run way past their usefulness, because they are tuned,” Rossiter explained.
As a progress anti-war Democrat, Rossiter has found his climate skepticism ostracized him.
“I would say since 2004 I’ve been very lonely. I’ve been lonely working on the Hill for the Democratic Party. I thought I was the only person in the room with all my colleagues and all the members of Congress on our foreign affairs committee who held these views about the weakness of the data on climate change and the need to keep Africa developing,” he said.
Obama is ‘delusional’ on climate change
Rossiter has declared: “My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe.”
“Obama has long been delusional on this issue,” Rossiter declared.
“Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe I think is deluding themselves,” he explained.
He mocked President Obama’s claim that his Presidency will slow the rise of the oceans.
“So when President Obama says, ‘this will be the time that the water started to recede because I’m elected’, that reminds me of King Canute — who took all his advisers to the shores of England and said ‘see how powerful I am? Tell the waters to go out’ and the tides were coming in,” Rossiter said.
Rossiter is disgusted by the way political leaders have portrayed climate science.
“I find it irresponsible, but I find that’s what politicians do, try to seize onto one cause and show the other effect without looking at the other possible intervening variables that’s what we do all the time,” Rossiter said.
Excerpts of Rossiter’s interview adapted from the upcoming Climate Hustle documentary (set for early 2015 release):
As a man of the political Left, Rossiter has felt lonely with his climate skepticism.
“You are very isolated on the Democratic Party on the left — one is, I am — for having this conclusion of analysis — I don’t call it a belief because I feel that I am analyzing — and you’re very isolated in the conservative circles if you believe as Newt Gingrich did for a very brief period that you need to have carbon trading to control this threat,” Rossiter told Climate Depot’s Marc Morano in the interview.
Rossiter bristles when asked about Al Gore and his film “An Inconvenient Truth.”
“Worst Nobel Prize for peace since Henry Kissinger,” Rossiter declared.
Rossiter gives Gore’s film a failing grade in science.
“I think it’s a wonderful teaching tool because it shows how we don’t do science,” he explained.
“Gore’s irresponsible. He pretends carbon dioxide is driving temperature when temperature is driving carbon dioxide. He does all these crazy things, he vilifies people. He does nothing different, from what the president of our country, president Obama, advised by John Holden, the top scientist in the county does every day,” he said.
Rossiter sees Al Gore as a political centrist.
“I had battled Mr. Gore so much in the 1980’s. He is a Dixie — he is part of the Democratic Leadership Council, conservative on foreign policy, as proved by his opposition to us in all these issues,” Rossiter explained.
Rossiter chastised his colleagues on the political Left for “hopping into bed” with Gore when it comes to climate change.
“I know why the left is supporting Al Gore on this when they didn’t on anything else, it’s because it give them the lever to move away from an industrial society to what they call a postindustrial society,” he said.
Progressive using global warming issue to ‘dismember the carbon-driven capitalism’
Rossiter says the political Left in the U.S. is using climate fears to achieve a “welcome license to dismember the carbon-driven capitalism.”
“They want to use the concern about the climate catastrophe is what they called Archimedes giant lever to move away from industrialization toward this postindustrial non-fossil fuel, non-corporate world,” he said.
Rossiter dismisses CO2 as the climate control knob.
“We always, as humans, are looking for cause-and-effect but it’s extremely difficult to find a complex system like the Earth’s climate of over thousands years,” he explained.
“It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree rise in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause,” he said. (Note: Other scientists agree. See: Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’)
Rossiter had harsh words for the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC and its claim that they were 95% certainty of human caused climate change.
“When the IPCC uses words like very likely, like 95% likely or somewhat like, about 90% — that’s an alarm bell for people who know statistics. We never use those words — 95% certainty — unless we have a standard deviation and we are estimating how often we get within two standard deviations of the mean. That’s the nature of statistics,” he explained.
When Rossiter called global warming “unproved science” in a Wall Street Journal OpEd, he found that his credentials as a long-time progressive could not trump his climate skepticism. He was immediately terminated due to his ‘diverging’ climate views from his 23 year fellowship at the liberal group Institute for Policy Studies. See: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’
“At the Institute of Policy Studies I was obviously very lonely because nobody would debate me and finally fired me for having an article in Wall Street Journal,” Rossiter said.
“Two days later I was handed my walking papers from 23 years association with that think tank,” he added.
“They felt that it was best that I’ve been terminated because my views on African development and climate change and climate justice were divergent from theirs. So I’m willing to express my opinions and have them come out. This is the first time I’ve expressed an opinion that was alien to the left,” he said.
Rossiter says the left has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to dissent on global warming.
“One item out of everything that is the agenda for the institute policy studies I’ve expressed disagreement with and I’m gone,” he noted.
Rossiter’s failure to follow his colleagues on the Left on the claims of global warming has left him isolated.
“What we are supposed to do as professors is follow the data to our conclusion, and then put it out there to be debated,” he explained.
But his colleagues refuse to debate global warming.
“I have been invited the Union of concerned scientists, Greenpeace, Institute for policy studies, random members of Congress who I knew I worked up there on the Hill, to come to my classes to A.U. to debate — they simply refused,” he said.
Rossiter says refusal to debate is part of a strategy.
“There was an agreement among the groups who believe strongly that there’s the catastrophic climate change not to debate, and not to engage in a debate because it gives a credit to those of us who have questions about the certainty which they operate,” he said.
“It is absolutely true that the money available for global warming statements and research is driving academia right now and people line up to get it. I know it from scientists. I know it’s absolutely true,” he noted.
“But it’s nothing new. If you were here 100 years ago and I was in the psychology department, I’d be telling you about the science of craniology – that black people are stupider than white people, that West Europeans are smarter and more creative than Eastern Europeans — and this is called phrenology,” he said.
“And all the data and statistics that they could line up supported it, and everybody believed it. And anybody outside phrenology didn’t believe it. Academia is no different from anywhere else. We wimp out when we are under pressure; we do,” Rossiter said.
More Rossiter quotes appearing in Climate Hustle:
Rossiter pressure in academia to conform on global warming: “It is deadly to your career to be a young dissenter. But a young person, I can tell you by being here on the campus, if you’re in the sciences and environmental studies you are going to be seen as such a kook (if you are a climate skeptic). It will definitely hurt you. See, I don’t care! I don’t give a monkey’s uncle. I’m old enough that I’m just going to say what’s on my mind. I’ll get by, but if I were early in my career, I know that I would be tagged as a kind of crazy, extremist, denialist, and it would hurt my academic career; there’s no question about it.
Rossiter on IPCC: For the IPCC to say nothing else can explain (global warming except mankind’s CO2) is the opposite of what we do in science. We are trying to test the known hypothesis that there is no effect to anthropogenic warming. And in order to do that, you have to have data that removes all the other causes — factors out all the other elements, and isolate yours. It is simply not true; it is simply not true that you can only model how temperature has changed from 1850 to today using a doubling of carbon dioxide levels. I can model it for you with baseball statistics from that same period, if you give me enough time to scrub the models.
Related Links:
Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’
UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report – Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’
This man, Bobby Jindal, Exposes the Truth Behind Skyrocketing Energy Costs….Outrageous
Another Reason We Have to Fight Agenda 21! This is happening worldwide!
ENERGYNEWS
Bobby Jindal: How the ‘Radical Left’ Uses Energy Costs to Control Americans
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal speaking at The Heritage Foundation to a group of reporters about his new energy plan. (Photo: Steven Purcell)
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal yesterday accused the Obama administration of making energy more expensive with the goal of making Americans more dependent on government.
“The Left, they like to tell us they are the ones [who] are following science and we’re the science deniers,” Jindal said to a small group of reporters after delivering a speech at The Heritage Foundation to debut his energy jobs plan. “But I think overall, their approach to energy is telling.”
The Republican governor said the “radical” Left wants energy to be scarce and expensive because it empowers the federal government to be more involved in Americans’ lives.
Doing so, the potential 2016 presidential candidate said, essentially allows the Obama administration to decide what kind of car you drive, what kind of home you live in, what kind of education your children receive, what kind of health care insurance is adequate for you, and what size soda you can drink.
Right now, Jindal said, America “is on the road to failure.” He said:
It’s war on coal today; it’s going to be a war on natural gas tomorrow—it’s a war on any natural energy source. [The Left] wants it to be scarce; they want it to be expensive. You can see it in their actions, you can see it in their policies.
Jindal, elected governor of Lousiana in 2008 after two terms in Congress, has presided over a state hit by the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico while still recovering from Hurricane Katrina.
The Left wants energy to be scarce and expensive. You can see it in their actions, you can see it in their policies. -@BobbyJindal
He cited what he called the Left’s “startling” views on natural gas.
“When [natural gas] was 13 dollars, boy they loved it. As soon as it became affordable, all of the sudden they decided they didn’t like it so much,” Jindal said.
>>> What Contributes to Gas Prices and Solutions to Help
Nicolas Loris, a Heritage economist who specializes in energy policy, agreed that some liberals initially supported natural gas “as a bridge fuel to take us to renewables.” But because the revolution in shale gas provided an abundance of cheap natural gas, he said, “that bridge became a lot longer than they anticipated.”
“While it may be bad news for other sources of energy,” Loris added, “the low-cost energy is great news for American families and businesses.”
>>> Commentary: Obama May Be Bypassing Congress on Climate
Jindal also cited regulations on carbon dioxide as proof of an “ideologically extreme” agenda by President Obama and other liberals. He said:
“For much of the Left, the whole debate about [carbon dioxide] is really a Trojan horse because these are folks that never did want a free market. This was a group that was always looking for an excuse to impose more government regulation, more government oversight. … This is just their latest vehicle to do it.”
Jindal’s energy plan, co-authored by Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, is called “Organizing Around Abundance: Making America an Energy Superpower” and promises to usher in an “unprecedented” era of energy development and job growth.
Here are the main points:
1. Promote responsible development of domestic energy resources and construct infrastructure to transport it.
2. Encourage technological innovation of renewables and emerging energy without picking winners and losers. In other words:Stop giving taxpayer-funded handouts to politically preferred energy sources and technologies. Let the market work.
3. Unlock the economic potential of the manufacturing renaissance by putting America’s energy resources to work.
4. Eliminate burdensome regulations such as the Obama administration’s increased carbon dioxide restrictions on power plants.
5. Bolster national security by ending policies that ban the exporting of natural resources.
6. Pursue “no regrets” policies that reduce carbon dioxide emissions without punishing the U.S. economy by putting it at a disadvantage to those of other nations.
Loris gave points to the Jindal-Flores plan for building on “what we see and know to be successful” when it comes to American energy production.
“Free market policies that open access, remove handouts and peel back burdensome regulations will reward risk-taking, stimulate economic growth and provide Americans with affordable energy,” he said.
What the nation shouldn’t pursue, Loris added, is a policy of reducing carbon dioxide.
“That assumes carbon emissions are a problem,” he said. Instead, “we can recognize that free markets that reward technological innovation can fuel the economy and reduce emissions.”
Watch this video for Jindal’s complete public remarks at The Heritage Foundation.
Famous Climate Alarmists Frequently Resort to Blatant Lies to Create Fear!
Margaret Atwood, Elizabeth May, Naomi Klein: Climate handmaids fail—to tell the truth
Perpetuating the massive deception of a planetary climate emergency
It goes without saying that most rational people with a reasonable amount of common sense worry about pollution and want to keep our environment healthy and habitable. So why do the radical environmentalists and the man-made climate change/anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmist crowd choose to outright lie about the problems facing us?
The UN’s IPCC, the extreme-green groups, the mainstream media, the UN-dependent scientists, academia, and politicians are all perpetuating the massive deception of the unproven hypothesis of man-made climate change/anthropogenic global warming, and use it as supposed evidence of a cataclysmic global emergency demanding extreme measures and the surrender of our rights, freedoms, and money.
The AGW movement, a quasi-religious, political, ideological one, is supported by many celebrity acolytes who, by virtue of being famous people, garner huge publicity for the cause whenever they parrot the climate change dogma. This high-minded entertainment fodder has ripple effects that are far from trivial. Mindless celebrity regurgitation of the man-made climate change/AGW catechism, in the seeming absence on their part of any serious effort to study the issues, has grave consequences that affect people, the environment, the economy, wildlife, human rights, and democracy. The celebrity flag-waving on behalf of the AGW movement also serves to exacerbate the corruption of science and the scientific method for political purposes. That’s when things get dangerous and evil. Michael Crichtonexplained:
“When we allow science to become political then we are lost. We will enter the internet version of the Dark Ages, an era of stifling fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better.”
Celebrated author and poet Margaret Atwood has over half a million Twitter followers; Elizabeth May is an MP and the leader of the Green Party of Canada; Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, and bestselling author. The three of them enjoy extensive national and international media exposure and public speaking opportunities. They are high-profile Canadians who have earned fame, honours, public respect and trust. They choose to voice their opinions on the subject of man-made climate change/AGW, a matter of public interest, on a variety of public platforms.
That being the case, shouldn’t the moral onus be on them to get at all the facts before they presume to preach to the people? Don’t they have an ethical duty to do their best to tell the truth if they want to try to influence public opinion and policy with their lecturing, moralizing, castigating, laying blame, and telling us how to live?
Atwood, May, and Klein appear to believe that the unproven hypothesis of made-made climate change/AGW is a fact beyond doubt. They tend to ascribe any and all weather events to AGW, even though the five standard global datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, UAH, RSS, NCDC, comprising two satellite and three terrestrial datasets) that measure global warming have not recorded any increase for the last 18 years. Apparently, Atwood, May, and Klein are not aware of this 18-year-long development, or if they are, they choose not to mention it—because if they did, their doom-and-gloom exhortations would fall flat. They don’t explain that climate changes all the time, always has, always will—it’s natural.
The three celebrities demonize “carbon” and carry on about our “carbon footprint” and “carbon credits” and “carbon pollution” but never explain what they mean by “carbon.” They don’t seem to know, or choose not to acknowledge, that the “carbon” involved in the climate change debate is carbon dioxide (CO2), a harmless, invisible trace gas (constituting 0.04% of the atmosphere), vital to life on earth. Carbon dioxide is plant food—not a pollutant. And since they don’t mention that there hasn’t been any warming for 18 years, they also don’t tell you that during that time, the levels of carbon dioxide (allegedly the cause of global warming) have gone up. That’s a rather inconvenient fact if you want to demonize CO2 as the driver of man-made global warming/climate change!
Margaret Atwood: Hell on earth, a scary scenario
Last November, Margaret Atwood published an odd article on climate change in Huffington Post, in which she asserted:
“Conditions around the world are being altered much faster than was formerly predicted…It’s a scary scenario, and we’re largely unprepared.”
If, by “formerly predicted,” Atwood is referring to the dire prognostications of the UN’s IPCC faulty climate models, the truth is that every single one of them has actually turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Undeterred, Atwood doubles down and fast forwards the occurrence of the predicted conditions (she does not specify what they are) that have failed to materialize, providing no sources for her claims. The truth is that whatever weather and climate events have occurred within the last decade and a half cannot be blamed on AGW, because there hasn’t been any warming for 18 years and counting.
In the same article, Atwood makes a bizarre, not to mention irresponsible and naive suggestion. In reference to absorption of excess rainfall, she opines that “In cities, depaving could help.” (What? Would she advocate “depaving” and turning her hometown Toronto into Muddy Yorkagain?) Atwood obviously does not seem to know (or care?) that a major source of particulate pollution is unpaved roads!
Margaret Atwood regularly tweets about things related to “climate change,” by which she means man-made climate change. For example, in one tweet she asserts that climate change is partly “at root of Toledo water pollution.” In another, she urges her 529,000 Twitter followers to sign and re-tweet a petition to phase out “carbon pollution to zero,” lest “climate change accelerate beyond our control, threatening our survival.” She is also joiningDavid Suzuki’s Blue Dot tour (she’s an honourary member of the board of the David Suzuki Foundation), designed to “see every Canadian’s right to live in a healthy environment legally recognized” (emphasis added—sounds reasonable, but you can be sure that whatever “legally” really means, it will probably entail “depaving,” along with edicts, diktats, and intrusive, Big Brother smart-controls on how you may live your life).
Margaret Atwood is a President of the Rare Bird Club of BirdLife International and she has tweeted about saving vultures from poisoning, and spoken out about protecting Amherst Island (and Ostrander Point) in Ontario from industrial wind turbines:
“I was horrified to hear of the proposal to blanket Amherst Island with wind turbines…The need to reduce our carbon footprint is widely known, but the destruction of rare natural habitat and species is not the way to do it. Amherst Island is the wrong place for a windfarm. It is a very wrong place.”
Of course, as anyone who has taken a good look at the wind energy industry knows, there is no right place for the useless satanic white windmills, whichkill birds and bats in catastrophic numbers wherever they are located. Why doesn’t Atwood tell the whole truth about how all industrial wind turbines brutally slice and dice any avian creatures that get in their way (ironically while actually adding to CO2 emissions)? What kind of activist bird lover is she? And doesn’t she see all the other devastating environmental, social, and economic evils the monster machines represent? (Talk about “depaving”! Each industrial wind turbine requires an 800-ton concrete platform, and that is just the beginning of howun-green those useless, eco-dirty things really are.)
The terrible irony is that Margaret Atwood has written novels about dystopian worlds, and that with her AGW activism she seems to be helping to create a real one. She says her novels are “speculative fiction” about worlds that “could really happen.“ Atwood has written that speculative fiction can:
“…explore proposed changes in social organisation, by showing what they might actually be like for those living within them. Thus, the utopia and the dystopia, which have proved over and over again that we have a better idea about how to make hell on earth than we do about how to make heaven.”
But Atwood seems unable to recognize that the man-made climate change movement, in which she is a celebrity activist, and the AGW ideology for which she is a high-profile advocate, have been deliberately conceived and engineered as the phoney rationale for a dystopian UN objective (“hell on earth”), as outlined in its master plan for world governance, Agenda 21. This plan would curtail, if not eliminate, not only our democratic rights but also our country’s very sovereignty; it’s a plan to inventory and control everything and everyone on the planet. And this plan not only “could really happen”—it really is happening right now; in fact, it began to be slowly, stealthily implemented more than 20 years ago.
That is the real “scary scenario.”
Margaret Atwood and all the other AGW celebrity acolytes seem to be completely oblivious to the big picture as they go about aiding and abetting the greatest scientific deception of our time. Atwood has written: “There’s a new term, cli-fi (for climate fiction, a play on sci-fi), that’s being used to describe books in which an altered climate is part of the plot.” With her high-profile AGW activism she is helping to perpetuate the real-life AGW climate fiction—a fiction that in Ontario has already cost billions of dollars in the name of green energy, diverted attention and resources from genuine, urgent problems facing us, inflicted untold suffering on people, stalled the economy, blighted the environment, killed wildlife.
Those are real “hell on earth” consequences.
Elizabeth May: Giving voice to nonsense
Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, claims:
“The Green party is the only party that bases its policies on evidence. That is why we may take positions ahead of the “group-think” curve…We have been consistent about climate policies, while other parties treat the greatest threat to our children’s future as a passing fad.”
If May’s claim about her party’s evidence-based policies is true, and she sees it as her job “to communicate the science,” why hasn’t she admitted that the evidence and science show that there has not been any global warming for 18 years? It appears that May is “consistent about climate policies” to the extent that she consistently and mindlessly (as in “group-think”) repeats false, long-ago debunked predictions (“greatest threat to our children’s future”), while apparently failing to understand, or deliberately ignoring, the latest scientific findings.
In an April interview on CBC TV, Canada’s national broadcaster, Elizabeth May lauds the IPCC, which is actually a political body masquerading as a scientific one, for part three of its Fifth Assessment Report:
“It’s science, it’s evidence, it’s not someone’s opinion…based on evidence, based on science, these aren’t a group of people who get together and look in a crystal ball…this is scientific warnings that are based on what is happening now.”
As we have mentioned, all of the climate model predictions the IPCC uses to formulate its reports for policy makers—predictions which are actually nothing more than opinions, the equivalent of looking into a crystal ball—have failed. None of the climate models have agreed with the observed data, i.e. the hard scientific evidence.
Does May not know this, or is she deliberately obfuscating the truth? Either way, it doesn’t make her look good. And by “what is happening now,” does she mean that the “serious threat,” with which she tries to scare Canadians, and “the risk for security, the risks of failed states, the risk of a collapse of civilization” are actually unfolding now, at a time when global warming, supposedly the cause of all the doom-and-gloom, has not happened for 18 years? If there hasn’t been any global warming for almost two decades, how can whatever is “happening now” have been caused by it? May’s rhetoric, misinformation, and apocalypse-mongering are deeply irresponsible, reckless, and harmful.
In the interview (see it to believe it), and in what seems like a breezily sanctimonious, arrogant, holier-than-thou tone, Elizabeth May goes on to make the astonishing statement that “99.5% of the scientists who know the issue” agree that climate change is man-made. This claim has been debunked many times over (and just like Pinocchio’s nose, the original phoney statistic of 97% seems to get bigger every time someone cites it). And yet, here is Elizabeth May on national television telling viewers something that is simply not true. Perhaps she thinks she’s in good company because everyone from President Obama down with a vested interest in maintaining the fiction continues to make the same bogus claim. Needless to say, and as usual, the CBC interviewer, in this case Peter Mansbridge—probably because he isn’t informed but given his position certainly ought to be—doesn’t challenge her on the untruth.
And it gets worse. May says that the “denier industry was invented by the fossil fuel industry lobby.” She seems to be proud of her knowledge of “the science,” as she calls it:
“I learned the climate science when I was a senior policy advisor for the Minister of the Environment in the 1980s. We were looking at all the science that was coming in from all around the world, and it was before anyone had “invented”* the idea that there was doubt. The “invention”* of doubt was a product of the fossil fuel lobby that decided after the Earth Summit and after the Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed…then they decided, oh oh, this could cut into profits, we’d better invent doubt…”
*[May employs air quotes.]
What’s astonishing here is May’s smug, self-satisfied conviction that the doubt could only have been manufactured by an avaricious, manipulative fossil fuel industry bogeyman, and not perhaps have come out of the rigorous research of honest climate scientists, (as, for example, Canadian Dr. Tim Ball), who adhere to the scientific method in which healthy, questioning, intelligent scepticism plays an indispensable role. And, if she really does know “the science” as she claims, why is she not telling the truth that there are sound scientific findings out there that invalidate the AGW hypothesis?
May also displays an unbelievably patronizing attitude about people who question the fiction that she promotes:
“So when I talk to people who aren’t convinced, I’m very respectful because I understand that a lot of good people have gotten one little bit of information that seems plausible and have allowed that to morph into their head into some level of large-scale doubt about the science. If we had a lobby that wanted to deny the laws of gravity and the media decided to give them equal voice…that’s the level of the science debate. We shouldn’t be giving voice to nonsense.”
Wow! Look at the poor saps who have that one little “plausible” thing morph into a huge, doubtful balloon in their heads! Let’s censor the ones who let it fester and want to talk to the media about it! Who is actually being granted a national platform and given voice to nonsense here? The irony is that the mainstream media, including our taxpayer-funded national broadcaster the CBC, have given scant, if any voice to the fine scientists and other experts who have not been corrupted into toeing the party line of man-made climate change.
Elizabeth May is a national political figure who holds herself out to be an expert who knows “the science,” but seems to be getting away with disseminating serious misinformation, with the CBC’s vaunted Peter Mansbridge uttering nary a peep of a challenge. This is a national disgrace. Pity the young people, because as she indicates in the interview, she speaks to (indoctrinates?) them in places where they are a captive audience, as she puts it, and they are forced to listen to her nonsensical, apocalyptic view of their future.
Naomi Klein: A death sentence for the planet
In the media and in her latest book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, Naomi Klein does a good job as an AGW alarmist, with what some might even say is histrionic fear mongering. A sampling:
“…keep warming below catastrophic levels,” “…this crisis continues to be existentially terrifying,” “…in the midst of a climate emergency,” “…we’re on a four-to-six-degree temperature trajectory. To be in decade zero, and out of time,” “…a clear and present danger to civilization, “…a death sentence for the planet,” “…a weapon of mass destruction,” “…the road we’re on…will lead us to a greater brutality..to a world of a kind of disaster apartheid I think we caught a glimpse of with Hurricane Katrina.”
When it comes to the climate, Klein also seems to have a problem understanding or telling the truth. She claims to have “immersed myself in the science and politics of climate change.” But she doesn’t appear to be interested in facts: “It’s that I don’t want quibbling about the science. This is how a lot of the debate gets derailed. I don’t want to be derailed with quibbles about how many hurricanes there were in 2012.” (Could that be because, inconveniently, statistics show that there have been a lot less hurricanes and other extreme weather events than the AGW believers claim to be the consequences of man-made climate change?) In a recentCBC radio interview, she quotes Michael Mann, “the famed climate scientist” of the Hockey Stick debacle who employed statistical tricks to produce a misleading graph of global warming history—the graph was used extensively as a propaganda tool to fuel the man-made global warming hype. Perhaps Klein doesn’t know that two Canadian researchers exposed the manipulations:
What they found was that 99% of the time you could process random data using Mann’s techniques and it would generate a Hockey Stick shape. This meant that Mann’s claim that the Hockey Stick graph represented an accurate reconstruction of the past climate was in tatters.
Given Klein’s Jewish heritage, it’s hard to understand how she can use the odious term “deniers,” with its terrible allusion to the Holocaust, when referring to the learned climate scientists and others who have demonstrated that the scientific data do not support the hypothesis of man-made global warming/climate change: “We focus too much on climate deniers,” she says. The use of this nasty ad hominem label has led to outrageous excesses, such as a sickening ad for the upcoming climate march in New York City, wherein it’s implied that respected scientists, other experts, and ordinary people who think for themselves and who happen not to agree that the scientific data support the unproven hypothesis of man-made climate change are tolerant of genocide.
Klein advocates “deep changes to our political and economic system.” She says, “Core inequalities need to be tackled through redistribution of wealth and technology” and bemoans that we seem to be “incapable of responding collectively to an existential crisis and incapable of acting collectively for a greater good.” The socialist/communist plan of action she’s apparently advocating appears to be in line with the UN’s Agenda 21 objectives, which Canadian Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (now resident of communist China when he’s not being fêted in Toronto by celebrity and former Canadian governor-general Adrienne Clarkson as “a true Canadian gem” who “invented the environment”) took a lead in formulating when he said:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
That would be a real death sentence for the planet.
The grave consequences of celebrities thinking that star power doesn’t need the truth
Of course, Margaret Atwood, Elizabeth May, and Naomi Klein aren’t the only Canadian celebrities chastising us for not “believing in” the religion of man-made climate change or doing enough about it. There are many others, including the publicly-lionized David Suzuki, another pseudo-expert on climate science whose shocking and appalling lack of knowledge on the subject was exposed to world-wide ridicule on Australian national television last September. (Watch the video or read the transcript here.)
Do any of the celebrities ever stop to think about the damage they cause by failing to do their homework and study the issues before recklessly and irresponsibly taking their uninformed opinions on the road?
Do they have any inkling that what they say, write, tweet, or sing in public forums may help to bring about and sustain, for example, the miserable realities of trying to live amidst industrial wind turbines which have been forced on rural residents as a direct result of the deception of man-made climate change posing a planetary emergency, thus supposedly necessitating special, draconian, democratic-rights-robbing legislation which gives the wind industry unprecedented rights to despoil prime farmland, expropriate land, kill wildlife, adversely affect people’s health, destabilize the electrical grid, fracture communities, devalue property, and allows it to enjoy 20-year guaranteed, significantly above-market returns on investment, courtesy of the taxpayers?
People are suffering badly for a big, celebrity-enabled lie, and losing their rights, their jobs, their homes, their communities, their environment, their way of life, their money.
Celebrity acolytes and advocates of man-made climate change, with their hysterical exaggerations, outrageous fear mongering, blatant misinformation, and bald-faced untruths have to take a good look at themselves and their role in the terrible consequences of helping to propagate the greatest scientific deception of all time.
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 
