The suppression of opposing viewpoints doesn't add credibility to an argument.
Global warming is currently such a fashionable political cause that the people who
doubt its dire ramifications are being ostracized and squelched by environmental
activists and their friends in the so-called news media. But the validity of global warming
is still up for debate, because there are plenty of reasons to question the one-sided arguments
coming from the political left and the rash presuppositions of environmental activists.
There is no reason to quibble about global warming any further, because the warming has
already stopped, all by itself.
is our freedom as Americans, particularly the freedom of speech, which generally allows us to express our views without fear of government sanction."
— United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, October 28, 2015.
return of pseudo-science. What is going on is nothing more than modern-day Lysenkoism, named after Soviet biologist Trofim
Lysenko, who had rejected Mendelian inheritance and the evolutionary theory of natural selection, and believed that acquired characteristics
of a plant (like grafting of fruit trees) would be inherited by later generations. Lysenko was unable to win his arguments by the
empirical evidence or sound theory but, since Stalin liked his ideas, it was made illegal to have any other opinion. [...] Lysenkoism is
now used in a metaphorical way "to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined
conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives." The problem for those who have been
predicting climate catastrophe for the past 25 years is that their predictions have been very far from actual experience, and they are
losing credibility with the public (if not the fawning media and political class). [...] The reason the climate Lysenkoists are so vitriolic
in their denunciation of those of us who question is that most of them depend in one way or another on government grants or employment that
would disappear if it was determined there was no crisis at hand.
and Environmental Propaganda. [Scroll down] This collusion among activists, foundations and attorneys
general seeks to silence, bankrupt and defund organizations that challenge their catechism of climate cataclysm. These
conspirators want to deprive us of our constitutional rights to speak out on the exaggerated and fabricated science,
coordinated echo-chamber news stories, and pressure group-driven policies that impair our livelihoods, living standards,
health, welfare and environmental quality. But we will not be intimidated or silenced.
Alarmism and the Muzzling of Independent Science. Last week, the attorney general of a tax shelter —
the US Virgin Islands — subpoenaed the Competitive Enterprise Institute. This was part of a campaign to
intimidate climate realists and to shake down, and possibly shut down, the energy industry. The campaign was launched
by a number of Democrat Attorneys General and Al Gore, colluding with trial lawyers and other special interests, under the
guise of investigating ExxonMobil. As bizarre as these moves are, they are just an escalation of 30 years of
persecuting distinguished scientists who disagreed with Al Gore's climate change fantasies.
Victory in the War For Free Speech. One of the most sinister developments of our time is the Left's use of both
criminal investigation and mob harassment to suppress dissent. An outrageous instance of this trend is the effort by 20
Democratic state Attorneys General to investigate ExxonMobil and others for criminal "fraud," i.e., carrying out research
that doesn't support the hysterical exaggerations of the Climatistas. One of the leaders of this attempt to suppress
scientific debate is California's Attorney General, Kamala Harris. She has initiated a purported investigation into
"whether Exxon Mobil Corp. repeatedly lied to the public and its shareholders about the risk to its business from climate
change — and whether such actions could amount to securities fraud and violations of environmental laws.
Kamala Harris is running for the Senate. As part of her campaign, she has sought press coverage of her attacks on "dark
money," i.e., money the Democrats don't control. Harris has demanded that conservative 501(c)(3) organizations file
their federal IRS Form 990s, including Schedule B, which identifies donors, with her office. Her obvious intent was
either to publicize the names of donors, which are confidential under federal law, so that they could be threatened by
liberals, or else to shut them up herself through bogus investigations.
email shows website Climate Feedback plans a propaganda push under guise of #StandWithScience. I've received
this from two independent sources, which is said to be from a mailing list being circulated, and I believe it to be
genuine. Climate Feedback is a website that rates news stories on climate on their "factuality", but it has one major
flaw: it is entirely one-sided, biased, and without checks or balances. You have to apply, and they decide if
you get into the club or not. Of course, skeptical scientists need not apply based on their mission statement.
Big Bad Brother Becomes the 'Heckler'. Will Big Brother impose mandatory treatment for individuals with climate
change denial disorder? Are treatment programs for weight loss, addictions to alcohol, drugs, sex, pornography, and
assorted phobias at risk of being banned by government? No way, you say. Think again. [...] The powers that be
are aligned against those who question official climate change orthodoxy. Speaking of hot house gases, watch Sen.
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is Jewish, lecture a Catholic priest for "disagreeing" with the Pope's tweets, which Boxer
affirms as climate change catechism. This follows Boxer telling a philosopher that his opinion is a toxic emission
since he's not a "scientist" of the Pope's caliber.
Eric Schneiderman colluding with other AGs in an illicit war on Exxon? New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman and other state AGs are probing ExxonMobil — but maybe they're the ones who should be
investigated. E-mails obtained by a free-market think tank (the Energy & Environment Legal Institute) show Schneiderman
& Co. colluded with two activists last month just before the AGs rolled out their anti-Exxon campaign. A top Schneiderman
aide even tried to keep the press in the dark about the role of one activist, Matt Pawa. Pawa was also in the loop for a
January meeting by various groups — Greenpeace, the Working Families Party, the Rockefeller Family Fund —
to plan how to "delegitimize [Exxon] as a political actor," smear it publicly as "corrupt" and steer away investors.
A.G.'s Colluded With Eco-Nazis to Punish Political Opponents. Emails obtained by the Energy & Environment Legal
Institute (E&E Legal) show that the offices of New York Democratic Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and those of other
politically aligned AGs, secretly teamed up with anti-fossil fuel activists to launch investigations against groups whose
political speech challenged the global warming policy agenda. These emails, obtained under open records laws, shed
light on what followed after a January meeting, reported by the Wall Street Journal on April 14, in which groups funded
by anti-fossil fuel Rockefeller interests met to urge just this sort of investigation and litigation against political opponents.
activists accused of 'collusion' on Exxon probe amid new emails. State Democratic officials are facing mounting
accusations they secretly coordinated with climate activists to investigate whether ExxonMobil hid the truth about global
warming, as new documents show the collaboration went deeper than previously thought. Emails obtained and released by
the Energy & Environment Legal Institute show a number of state attorneys general and their staff received advice and
guidance from environmental activists at a March 29 meeting in New York, on the same day as a major press conference.
bombshell: Attorneys General worked with Green groups to punish political opponents. Emails obtained by
the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) show that the offices of New York Democratic Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman and those of other politically aligned AGs, secretly teamed up with anti-fossil fuel activists to launch
investigations against groups whose political speech challenged the global warming policy agenda. These emails,
obtained under open records laws, shed light on what followed after a January meeting, reported by the Wall Street Journal on
April 14, in which groups funded by anti-fossil fuel Rockefeller interests met to urge just this sort of investigation
and litigation against political opponents.
RICO-style Prosecution of Global Warming Skeptics. [Scroll down] The summary for this whole situation
couldn't be more simple. Al Gore has been at the beginning, middle and end of this so-called global warming crisis.
In the late 1980s, he was immediately faced with the inconvenient truth of science-based criticisms from skeptic climate
scientists, and to this day, neither he nor scientists within the IPCC are open to engaging in scientific debate with skeptic
climate scientists. To distract the public from this problem from the start, it appears an accusation was invented that
is the same one seen today — say skeptics are paid by 'Big Coal & Oil' to manufacture doubt about a settled discussion,
and say this mimics what shill experts did for 'Big Tobacco.' During this whole time, however, not one shred of evidence
has been provided to the public proving skeptic climate scientists were paid to lie.
Left Is Coming for You Next. [Scroll down] The attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Claude Earl
Walker, has issued a subpoena to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank that has been
critical of a great deal of global-warming scholarship. This is part of a coordinated campaign by Democratic attorneys
general, including those in New York and California, to prosecute persons and institutions with nonconforming views on global
warming, with special attention being given to Exxon and to groups that it may have supported financially. The subpoena
against CEI is a pure fishing expedition, a search for anything that might be potentially embarrassing that can be used as
part of the public-relations campaign rather than as part of a prosecution, the prosecution bit being tricky because there
isn't much of an argument that any laws have been broken.
Attack on Us All. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank that has been a loud
and trenchant critic of global-warming activism, is under subpoena by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands, who
demands that the organization produce a decade's worth of communication on the subject of global warming. Intending no
slight to our friends and CEI and the fine work they do (some of which NRO has published), this isn't about libertarian
exegesis of meteorological data, but rather an attempt to fry up a much, much bigger fish: Exxon. Exxon was, in
the past, a substantial donor to CEI; presumably, communication with Exxon is no small part of what the subpoena hopes to uncover.
Big Green Criminalizes Climate Science. Big Green is big business. The global renewable energy market is
estimated at over $600 billion. Obama's stimulus boondoggle alone blew around $50 billion on green energy. Annual
spending is somewhere around $39 billion a year and that's just the tip of the Big Green iceberg. California carbon
auctions are climbing into the billions. And the endgame is a national and a global carbon tax that will allow Big Green
to take money out of the pockets of every single human being. Environmentalism isn't a hippie with a cardboard sign.
It's multinational corporations and big banks. It's environmental consultants padding the bill for every government
project. It's subsidies that get carved up ten different ways into highly profitable investments at taxpayer expense.
It's brand greenwashing and useless recycling programs. It's a dime, a dollar or a hundred dollars added to every bill.
AGs, climate change groups colluded on prosecuting dissenters, emails show. In the hours before they took the
stage for their March 29 press conference, Democratic attorneys general received a secret briefing from two top
environmentalists on pursuing climate change dissenters. Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the
Climate Accountability Institute's Matt Pawa spent 45 minutes each providing talking points behind the scenes on "the
imperative of taking action now" and "climate change litigation," according to a cache of emails released over the weekend by
the free market Energy & Environmental Legal Institute.
Nye: Throw 'climate deniers' in jail. Galileo was jailed for heresy when he spoke against the theory that
the Earth was the center of the universe. Thankfully, the Catholic Church no longer calls for imprisoning scientists or
politicians who question popular opinion — only some Social Justice Warriors still demand jailing heretics.
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) posted a video to YouTube on Thursday with Bill Nye 'The Science Guy,'
discussing whether "climate deniers" and energy CEOs should be jailed like war criminals. [Video clip]
a scientist': Palin slams Bill Nye over global warming stance. The former Alaska governor, at a panel Thursday
[4/14/2016] on Capitol Hill, ripped the TV star's credentials and accused him of intentionally using his stature to spread
what she described as an alarmist agenda on global warming. "Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am," Palin said at a
screening of "Climate Hustle" on Capitol Hill, according to an account in The Hill. "He's a kids' show
actor. He's not a scientist."
Michael E. Kraft Wants To Punish Climate Deniers. Who is Michael E. Kraft? Does it really matter,
because, he seems to be saying what most Warmists think, namely, yeah, there's a First Amendment and all, but, some things
are more important, so, it's OK to violate their free speech rights. For the record, he is professor emeritus of
political science and public and environmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.
global warming assault on free speech. Mark Twain, noticing that some things lie beyond the meddling of man,
observed that "everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it. Now someone has. The attorney
general of the U.S. Virgin Islands thinks he has found the way to silence, once and for all, the debate over global warming,
or climate change, or whatever the radicals-that-be are calling the scheme this week. Global-warming jeremiahs are
determined to intimidate, frighten and eventually fine or put in prison anyone who says the wrong thing about this best laid
scheme of government. They're determined to eliminate traditional sources of energy and replace them with politically
correct but unreliable sources of energy, such as wind and solar power. That's the beginning.
Nye, the science guy, is open to criminal charges and jail time for climate change dissenters. Bill Nye "the
science guy" says in a video interview released Thursday [4/14/2016] that he is open to the idea of jailing those who deviate
from the climate change consensus. [...] Mr. Nye's comments come with a coalition of liberal attorneys general pursuing
companies that challenge the consensus of catastrophic climate change. Critics fear the campaign could chill research
and free speech. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker raised concerns about a government crackdown on
dissent when he issued a subpoena last week to the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute for its climate-related
research and documents. About about the potential for a "chilling effect," Mr. Nye said, "That there is a
chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change, I think that is good."
Barbara Boxer Attacks Catholic Priest For Questioning Global Warming. California Democratic Sen. Barbara
Boxer went after a Catholic priest in a Wednesday [4/13/2016] hearing for supposedly questioning the pope's statements on the
dangers of man-made global warming. "So do you disagree with the pope when he says that climate change is one of the
biggest issues," Boxer asked Father Robert Sirico of the conservative Acton Institute. [...] Boxer, who is Jewish, was trying
to get Sirico to say he disagreed with the pope on global warming. Last year, Pope Francis published an encyclical
blaming humans for global warming and calling the Earth "an immense pile of filth."
reveals secret meeting by environmentalists to target Exxon, oil industry. Environmentalists backing a Big
Tobacco-style government probe of oil companies plotted their strategy for targeting companies like ExxonMobil at a
closed-door meeting in Manhattan earlier this year, according to a Wall Street Journal report. The report sheds new
light on an evolving campaign against the fossil fuel industry that has drawn in several attorneys general who are now
May Ignore First Amendment to Prosecute Climate Skeptics. President Barack Obama's hostility to the free flow
of information, open debate, and views contradicting his own appears to have no bounds. The most recent evidence for
this is Attorney General Loretta Lynch's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She said the Justice
Department has discussed pursuing civil action against companies, organizations, and individual scientists who continue to
debate the question of whether humans are causing catastrophic climate change. The FBI has been tasked with investigating
participants in an ongoing scientific debate. This should shock civil libertarians and the general public alike.
Indicators The Left [Doesn't Care] About Freedom. [#2] Government Crackdowns on Climate Change "Deniers.
Are you concerned that slashing and burning the Western economy in order to stop man-made global warming might be a mistake
based on the level of uncertainty surrounding anthropogenic global warming? The Obama administration wants you fined or
imprisoned. Seventeen state attorney generals as well as federal attorney general Loretta Lynch have expressed interest
in prosecuting Exxon Mobil for fraud for giving money to pro-free market think tanks that have cast doubt on theories of
and the Climate Non-Debate. Wikipedia, known as the "people's encyclopedia," has proven to be anything but a
reliable source in regards to the debate concerning the causes and possible consequences of climate change. [...] Wikipedia
has emerged as an influential tool used by climate alarmists against climate change realists, who are unwilling to accept
political proclamations there is an indisputable consensus humans are causing catastrophic climate change. Dogmatic
climate doomsters ignore Wikipedia's rules and spend days plowing through reams of Wikipedia pages to track down and purge or
alter any entry daring to challenge the view humans are responsible for global warming.
AGs to Waste Tax Dollars on 'Climate Fraud' Investigations. Displaying the hubris previously reserved for gods
and heroes in Greek tragedies and failed tyrants throughout history, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, speaking on
behalf of 16 Democratic attorneys general with the confidence of having received a revealed truth, pronounced, "[W]e know
what is being done to the planet. There is no dispute. ... The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real; it is a
threat to all the people we represent. The occasion for Schneiderman's declaration was a press conference held by state
attorneys general and failed presidential candidate Al Gore, announcing the states were jointly investigating various
companies in the fossil fuel industry and groups they funded, including universities, think tanks, and other research
institutes, to determine whether they had committed fraud when they published papers, delivered presentations, or made public
comments daring to dispute AGW.
through investigation. Everyone loves a winner, especially the winner himself. Reaching the top of the
heap is a full-time job and once there, the successful feel entitled to stay there. That's why political inquisitions
are in full bloom across Barack Obama's Washington. Fearing challenge over from climate change to religious advocacy,
defenders of government authority are giving the third degree to groups that question the political orthodoxy. That's
not the American way, and fortunately an engaged citizenry is pushing back. Environmentalism has evolved into a form of
nature worship, and protecting "Spaceship Earth," the '60s-era notion of eco-friendly globalism, has become a favorite cause
of the governing class. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch's admission of government interest in prosecuting global
warming skeptics emerged last week when Claude Walker, the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands, subpoenaed records
of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) that concern the free-market think tank's talent for pointing out the
contradictions in the "science" about the nature of forces controlling the planet's temperatures.
Model Atmosphere and Global Warming. Last month, Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified before the Senate
that the Department of Justice that she is considering taking legal action against energy industries dubious of the dire role
of carbon emissions to change the climate. And Democratic attorneys general from numerous states are in hot pursuit of
global warming heretics.
AG's Have Begun a War Against the First Amendment. Last week, a line was crossed in the ongoing campaign of
liberals to criminalize freedom of expression. The attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands subpoenaed a decade of
materials and work by a private advocacy group that had dared to question the orthodoxy of climate change. The group is
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the attorney general is Claude E. Walker, who had recently signed on to a campaign
of over a dozen attorneys general to ferret out so-called climate change "deniers." It is possible that CEI was being
targeted by Walker precisely because one of its attorneys, Hans Bader, had criticized New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman, who was leading the campaign.
Here is an example of the rhetoric that is currently in circulation: Climate-change
deniers deserve punishment. Dismissal of well-established climate science has parallels to decades of debate
over tobacco use and its effects on health. Tobacco companies long denied any causal relation between smoking and
disease even when their own studies showed the opposite to be true. Similarly, some fossil fuel companies for decades
publicly rejected established climate science and the role of burning fossil fuels in anthropogenic climate change while
their internal studies confirmed both. The tobacco companies eventually paid a steep price for their actions. [...]
Some ask whether such inquiries should be limited to fossil fuel companies. What about extending the liability, they
say, to certain think tanks and advocacy groups? Some such groups have been heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry
and have misrepresented climate change risks to the public. That might be a tougher sell, given rights to free speech,
but it could be given consideration.
attorneys general, conspiring against free speech is a crime. Federal law makes it a felony "for two or more
persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or
because of his/her having exercised the same)." I wonder if U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, or
California Attorney General Kamala Harris, or New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have read this federal statute.
Because what they're doing looks like a concerted scheme to restrict the First Amendment free speech rights of people they
don't agree with. They should look up 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, I am sure they each have it somewhere in their offices.
Islands AG Goes After Private Climate Skeptic Group. As Sarah Noble at the Independent Sentinel notes "This is
particularly shocking because they are going after a think tank, not an oil or gas company. Think about that!" But,
should we be shocked? This is the direction of the Cult of Climastrology, which is made up primarily of Progressives
(nice fascists), and, despite their calls for tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism, they are wholly intolerant of any
belief, fact, and opinion that doesn't jibe 100% with theirs, and are willing to use abusive tactics, tactics they decry when
others use them, to get their way. They will use the power of government as one method.
studies rebut climate change consensus amid government crackdown on dissent. The latest government crackdown on
climate dissent, exemplified by last week's subpoena of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, comes amid a surge of
scientific research that pokes holes in the catastrophic climate change consensus. Even as Virgin Islands Attorney
General Claude E. Walker demanded the free market think tank's climate research and communications, a rising tide of evidence
has challenged the narrative that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are driving floods, drought and other
disasters. As of March 27, researchers had published 133 "consensus-skeptical" papers this year, bringing to 660 the
number of such studies appearing since January 2014, blogger Kenneth Richard wrote on the skeptics website NoTricksZone.
Let's Prosecute Climate-Change Fraud — and Start with the Scaremongers. I've got three ideas:
[#1] United States v. Al Gore. Ten years ago, the former vice president of the United States launched an
extraordinarily lucrative career by selling climate doomsday. While promoting his Oscar-winning documentary, An
Inconvenient Truth, he made a shockingly false statement. He said that unless the world took "drastic measures" to
reduce greenhouse gases, it would reach a "point of no return" in ten years. Ten years have passed. Is there a
scientific consensus that the world has reached a "point of no return?" No? Gore's documentary grossed almost
$50 million worldwide. I'd suggest that number as a starting point for damages.
Into Silence on Global Warming. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is getting subpoenaed by the attorney general of the
U.S. Virgin Islands to cough up its communications regarding climate change. The scope of the subpoena is quite broad, covering
the period from 1997 to 2007, and includes, according to CEI, "a decade's worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other
documents regarding CEI's work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information." My first reaction to this
news was "Um, wut?" CEI has long denied humans' role in global warming, and I have fairly substantial disagreements with CEI on the
issue. However, when last I checked, it was not a criminal matter to disagree with me.
Climate Change Inquisition. Speaking out against conventional wisdom is dangerous. Throughout history,
few crimes have been more severely punished than heresy. We'd like to believe that, in this more enlightened age, we've
left behind barbaric practices like the Inquisition. We laugh at the ignorance of the small minds who punished Galileo
and Socrates for pursuing unpopular truths. But the Inquisition is alive live and well, having traded in its implements
of torture for expensive suits and legal briefs. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a free market think tank
known for its willingness to challenge economic orthodoxy, has been served with a subpoena to release documents related to
its research on climate change. Like many organizations on the right side of the aisle, CEI has not bought into the
idea of anthropogenic global warming, and has routinely challenged the so-called consensus position. Apparently in 21st
century America, dissent has become illegal.
Climate Inquisition New Target. In a truly outrageous abuse of his authority and a misuse of the law, the
attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Claude E. Walker, has served a subpoena on the Competitive Enterprise Institute
(CEI) demanding documents related to CEI's research on global "climate change." Walker is part of a network of state "AGs
United for Clean Power" who have formed a grand inquisition to go after those that they claim have lied about climate change —
which is a contentious, and unproven scientific theory.
Bill Nye, Millennials Are Not All Climate Alarmists. On a nightly show following the Wisconsin primary, science
celebrity Bill Nye ("the science guy") argued that the Republican Party will need young people to win in November, and that
the vast majority of millennials believe in climate alarmism. As a conservative millennial, I deny his sweeping
generalization, and the data back me up. Nye lamented that the Republican candidates for president are all "deniers,"
and argued that the campaign has yet to pivot to real issues. Then he made the ridiculous claim, saying the gap
between alarmists and "deniers" is almost entirely generational.
Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against 'Climate Change Disbelievers'. Beginning in 1478, the Spanish
Inquisition systematically silenced any citizen who held views that did not align with the king's. [...] As an old adage
says, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. So we now have a new inquisition underway in
America in the 21st century — something that would have seemed unimaginable not too long ago. Treating
climate change as an absolute, unassailable fact, instead of what it is — an unproven, controversial scientific
theory, a group of state attorneys general have announced that they will be targeting any companies that challenge the
catastrophic climate change religion. Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman said "The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real." He went on to say that if companies are committing
fraud by "lying" about the dangers of climate change, they will "pursue them to the fullest extent of the law."
The Green Witch
Hunt. Led by agenda-setting New York State and radical left-winger Al Gore the progressive persecution of
climate change skeptics by the states is underway. Top law enforcement officers in several states are joining with the
Chicken Littles of green activism to weaponize the scientifically dubious argument that human activity is not only changing
the earth's climate but that unprecedented world catastrophe awaits unless draconian, economy-killing carbon emission
controls are imposed more or less immediately. The litigation offensive has nothing to do with justice. It is
aimed at forcing those few remaining holdouts in the business community who stubbornly cling to science to confess their
thought crimes and submit to the know-nothing Left's climate superstitions. It is part of modern-day environmentalism's
ongoing assault on knowledge, human progress, markets, and the rule of law.
Thing Happened on the Way to the Climate Inquisition. The Climate alarmists are losing it. As each year
of the "hiatus" passes — now over a decade of no warming — climate change warriors become more unhinged.
[...] In fact, global warming long ago ceased becoming just a cause. It has morphed into a religion, and the faithful
followers of this religious sect require all to believe. I would liken the religion of climate change, not to Christianity
or Judaism, but more akin to radical Islam. There can be no global warming atheists or even agnostics. All must
believe — all must convert — or pay the price.
State Attorneys General Form Coalition 'to Protect and Expand' Climate Change Agenda. Seventeen attorney
generals from around the United States have formed a coalition "to protect and expand progress the nation has made in
combating climate change" in a first of its kind partnership of law enforcement officials. Virginia Attorney General
Mark Herring announced that he would be joining the coalition in a press release Tuesday [3/29/2016].
attorneys general to police climate change dissent. A coalition of Democratic attorneys general in 16 states
announced Tuesday an unprecedented campaign to pursue companies that challenge the catastrophic climate change narrative,
raising concerns over free speech and the use of state authority to punish political foes. Standing beside former Vice
President Al Gore, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said the state officials are committed to "working together on
key climate-related initiatives," including queries into whether fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil have committed fraud
by deceiving the public and shareholders about the impact of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
justice. Scientists don't use the term "consensus," despite the regular use of the term by politicians who
promote government-mandated action to stop alleged human-caused climate change. The scientific method has little space for
opinion, and no room at all for the democratic process. Yet it's that "consensus" that has U.S. Attorney General Loretta
Lynch investigating whether the Justice Department can and should sue scientists and others who question the human-caused
climate change assumptions. Last week, Ms. Lynch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she has discussed
the potential for bringing civil action against those who question human-caused climate change science, who include esteemed
scientists — Nobel laureates among them.
Ballistic. In Iran there are mullahs who safeguard Islam's sacred law, in America there is a president who
thinks he is a law unto himself. Iran wants to nuke Israel and the U.S., and Obama is nuking the Constitution.
That's why the news that Attorney General Loretta Lynch reviewed the possibility of pursuing civil action against climate change
skeptics ("deniers") was as disturbing as the report that Iran recently tested two ballistic missiles. [...] Then again, the
president has already admonished those who contradict his beliefs concerning climate change by warning them if they don't
agree with him "[They]'ll be pretty lonely." What Obama didn't expound upon was whether or not a climate change skeptic ends
up lonely inside or outside a courtroom.
Left Is Embracing Orwellian Policies to Go After 'Climate Deniers'. Just when we thought liberalism can't get
any more authoritarian, the Obama administration reminds us that it can. Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently confirmed
that she had "referred" the "matter" of whether climate change "deniers" should be brought to court on racketeering charges to
the FBI. Yes, that's right. If you happen to disagree with the administration's views of global warming, you could
face a civil suit accusing you of fraud and corruption. This represents a breathtaking corruption of the law. Laws
designed to catch mafia figures on corruption charges could be twisted to punish Americans whose only crime is to contest the
Obama administration's view of climate change.
General Lynch Looks Into Prosecuting 'Climate Change Deniers'. In news that should shock and anger Americans, U.S. Attorney General
Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday [3/9/2016] that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing
civil actions against so-called "climate change deniers," but she has "referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for
which we could take action." Lynch was responding to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who urged Lynch to prosecute those who
"pretend that the science of carbon emissions' dangers is unsettled," particularly those in the "fossil fuel industry" who supposedly have
constructed a "climate denial apparatus."
Obama Administration's Idea of a Crime. ...is not, apparently, violating federal laws and regulations and State
Department procedures in a manner that exposes thousands of classified documents to our enemies. No, that isn't the sort of
conduct that is likely to draw an indictment from Loretta Lynch's Department of Justice. Obama's DOJ is more interested in
trying to jail scientists who point out the rather obvious flaws in the government's desperate effort to convince Americans that
global warming is our greatest threat.
'Impeachable' if Obama Actually Prosecutes Climate Skeptics. President Obama has already demonstrated a willingness to "use the
instruments of power" to target his political opponents, so Loretta Lynch's acknowledgment the Justice Department is exploring legal action
against global warming skeptics isn't surprising, Charles Krauthammer said tonight [3/10/2016]. "We know that in principle it will do it
and has done it," Krauthammer said on Thursday's [3/10/2016] Special Report.
Lynch: DOJ Has Discussed Whether to Pursue Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers. Attorney General
Loretta Lynch acknowledged Wednesday [3/9/2016] that there have been discussions within the Department of Justice about possibly
pursuing civil action against so-called climate change deniers. "This matter has been discussed. We have received
information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could
take action on," Lynch said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations.
Current State of Climate Alarmism. When their less committed followers, including Democrat congresspersons, Senators,
editors of major media outlets, liberal billionaires etc., suspect foul play, the alarmist core throws a fit and demands that they
stop thinking, acting, and most of all listening to the "deniers." Amazingly, the followers obey, even though some of them are
extremely smart and experienced. Apparently, these people do not notice that the so-called "climate scientists" have no scientific
achievements outside of the insular "climate science," and that whatever honors they received were given either by their non-distinguished
peers or by politicized bodies (Heinz Awards, MacArthur Foundation Awards, etc.). The "scientific consensus" is not an argument but
passive-aggressive acknowledgement of a lack of arguments, and their allegations of a denial machine, secretly funded by "fossil fuels,"
are just conspiracy theories. The alleged 97% agreement is closer to election results in the former Soviet Union than to the opinions
of actual scientists.
Correctness Is A Mask For Leftists' Intellectual Insecurity. 2015 will undoubtedly go down as the year the Left's efforts to impose its
absolutist ideology went well beyond targeting lecturers and graduation speakers invited to colleges. In late spring, the University of California
distributed a guide to forbidden classroom phrases, including "America is the land of opportunity" and "America is a melting pot," to faculty at each
of its 10 campuses. Later in the year, George Mason University professor Jagadish Shukla and 19 others went national with a letter to
President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, demanding they criminally prosecute any company or organization that denies climate change.
5 of Bernie Sanders' Most Ridiculous Ideas. [#3] Prosecuting so-called "climate deniers." Sanders, who shares
former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore's passion for preaching brimstone and fire on climate change, has called for the
prosecution of climate change skeptics. The climate change issues section of his website reads, "Bring climate deniers to
justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change. It is an embarrassment that Republican politicians, with few exceptions,
refuse to even recognize the reality of climate change, let alone are prepared to do anything about it. The reality is that
the fossil fuel industry is to blame for much of the climate change skepticism in America."
The Editor says...
On the contrary, I would say it is the facts that are "to blame" for global warming skepticism.
Please note that the "fossil fuel industry" has never contributed one dime to this web site.
on the Obama Years. [Scroll down] College professors who challenge the concept of manmade global warming put their
careers at risk. Recall the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee who initiated an "investigation" of climate
scientists and professors, and expressed contrarian views by sending letters of inquiry to their respective university presidents.
Likewise, politicians who question the (often subjective) science become the targets of hostile media types. When inappropriate
data manipulation by climate scientists is exposed, the story dies. And the president of the United States is fond of ostracizing
those who challenge the science or one of his regulatory remedies. [...] Suffice to say that climate politics is a perfect vehicle for
the anti-growth, limited-horizon policies of the left. After all, slower growth necessarily follows unilateral disarmament on
Demand Obama Prosecute Climate Realists. Unable to convince Americans of the alleged dangers of man-made global
warming using evidence or the scientific method — or even billions worth of tax-funded propaganda and manipulation —
a group of self-styled climate scientists want a new weapon to make you believe their controversial theory: government coercion
and even prosecution of climate heretics. In a letter to Obama and his attorney general, a team of 20 professors, echoing the
recent factually challenged ramblings of Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), urged the administration to start prosecuting
climate realists under the anti-mafia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). In other words the debate is
not really over after all, if the threat of prosecution must be employed in an attempt to end the allegedly non-existent debate.
Deals Blow To Warmists On Trial For Blocking Oil Train. [Scroll down] Instead of claiming "climate
change', they should have done it for the danger these trains pose to explode. They might have found some sympathy from
non-climate change believing people, and the judge may have allowed it at the end. The law is the law, though, and if one is
going to break it to "protest", one must be ready for the consequences, which could include a few years in jail.
Climate Trial Starts Monday In Lynwood, WA. Five community members who blocked the path of an explosive oil
train in Everett last year will finally go to trial in Snohomish County on Monday [1/11/2016]. In a surprise ruling Judge
Anthony E. Howard has allowed the defendants to argue that their actions were justified by the threat of climate change.
This is the first time a U.S. court has heard a 'necessity defense' in a case relating to climate action.
and the Insanity of the Liberal Mind. The fight against anthropological global warming, manmade climate change,
or what normal people simply refer to as "weather", has been a cause celebre of the left since Al Gore jumped onboard the
gravy train a decade ago. Much like other liberal causes, this war has become a religion for its proponents. However,
environmentalists have become religious fanatics who pronounce the science "settled" and consider any views to the contrary
blasphemy. They urge the prosecution of skeptics including one Democratic senator suggesting that "climate denial" should
be made a "crime against humanity."
Penn: Climate Deniers Were Invented By Fox News. Top international global warming expert Sean Penn has given
his verdict on the COP21 Paris climate conference: everything's going to be OK because both his kids drive Priuses and
because climate change "deniers" don't actually exist.
Cruz Is Exactly Right on Climate Change. [Scroll down] The term "climate denier" was deliberately chosen
by the alarmist establishment as an insult to make skeptics look as weird and marginalized as Holocaust deniers.
was tossed out of the tribe': climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed. It is safe to predict that when
20,000 world leaders, officials, green activists and hangers-on convene in Paris next week for the 21st United Nations
climate conference, one person you will not see much quotedis Professor Judith Curry. This is a pity. Her record of
peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none, and in America she has become a public
intellectual. But on this side of the Atlantic, apparently, she is too 'challenging'. What is troubling about her pariah
status is that her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone
funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis. Some consider her a heretic.
to Jim Jones and the Cult of Climate Change. A group of 20 university professors want to get the federal government to
prosecute climate change doubters. The group posted a letter to the White House in September and matched those who are doubtful
concerning man-made global warming to the tobacco industry. The group's idea are similar to those used against the tobacco industry
from 1999 until 2006. That RICO investigation played a role in preventing the tobacco industry from maintaining the deception of
Americans about the hazards of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds
that are becoming apparent as in the Exxon case, it is important that the misdeeds be stopped so that America can get on with the important
business of finding the truth about climate change.
Schneiderman's Climate Inquisition. Few citizens would
include "climate change" among New York State's top law-enforcement priorities. Few, that is, except the one citizen who happens
to be New York's attorney general: Eric Schneiderman. [...] The use of government prosecutorial power to silence those who deviate
from climate-change orthodoxy is an emerging goal of the green lobby. In recent months, more than 40 environmental groups as well
as all the Democratic presidential candidates have called on U.S. attorney general Loretta Lynch to conduct a federal probe of
Exxon — though the politicians and pressure groups cannot specify any crimes that the firm committed.
The Climate Change Inquisition Begins.
According to The New York Times, its sources "said the inquiry would include a period of at least a decade during which Exxon Mobil
funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science." See what they did there? To have a different view of climate
science is to "undermine" it because there is no scientific study of the climate except that which they agree with.
York AG Tries to Criminalize Scientific Dissent on Climate Change in Soviet-Style Investigation. Everyone
reading this should do the attorney general of New York, Eric T. Schneiderman, a big favor: buy a copy of the U.S.
Constitution, highlight the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights with a bright yellow or orange Sharpie, and mail him a
copy. Schneiderman obviously needs a remedial lesson in the fact that the government is banned from censoring or
restricting speech, and certainly has no business "investigating" Americans, including corporations, for their views
on — of all things — a contentious scientific theory. The New York Times is reporting that
Schneiderman has subpoenaed extensive financial records, emails and other documents of Exxon Mobil to investigate whether
the company "lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risk might hurt the oil
business." In addition to ignoring the First Amendment, Schneiderman is apparently unaware that the claim that the
world is endangered by a warming climate is a scientific theory, not a proven fact.
Levin slams the Left's
political witch hunt on Exxon Mobil. New York has launched a political witch hunt into Exxon Mobil for not promoting
the Left's climate change policies. NY Attorney General, Eric T. Schneiderman, has begun a sweeping investigation of
Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how those
risks might hurt the oil business, the New York Times reports. This is what happens when you don't worship the same idols
that the Federal Government does. They criminalize your dissent.
Oil Is Not Big Tobacco: Why The Witch Hunt Against Exxon Is Absurd. Back in the 1970s the more pressing concern was the coming of a
great global cooling, a new "little ice age" that would cause crops to fail and spread famine worldwide. In 1961 the New York Times reported
that "an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder."
According to this Newsweek report from April, 1975, scientists proposed to deal with the danger of Global Cooling by melting the arctic ice cap by
covering it with black soot. And this 1975 story from the AP has the priceless line: "The panel reported that without doubt, colder
climate will come."
war against Exxon Mobil. If you care about free speech, you should pay attention to the campaign now being
waged against Exxon Mobil. More than 50 environmental and civil rights groups have written Attorney General Loretta Lynch
urging her to open a "federal probe" of the giant energy firm. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have also joined the
chorus. The charge is that Exxon Mobil "systematically misled the public" on climate change, even as its executives
recognized the dangers. New York's attorney general has already launched an investigation.
Exxon Inquisition. Having failed in their shakedown of Chevron, New York Democrats are turning their attention
to Exxon, with the office of state attorney general Eric Schneiderman attempting to prosecute Exxon for holding naughty views
on the subject of global warming. Earlier this week, Exxon was served with a subpoena demanding at least a decade's worth of
financial records relating to Exxon's own climate research and its relationship with outside activist groups that have opposed
U.S. entry into the Kyoto protocols and criticized arguments for certain regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
This is a flat-out campaign aimed at punishing a corporation for having a policy disagreement with Democrats.
Attorney General Launches Political Witch Hunt Against Exxon Mobil. Have you ever declined to promote the
Democrat agenda while engaging in commerce? You might be under criminal investigation. There's a lot of talk in
Washington these days about over-criminalization and the need for criminal justice "reform." However, while Congress pursues
an agenda of emptying the prisons of violent criminals, they are overlooking the true threat of over-criminalization —
political witch hunts on the part of liberal government officials against companies and individuals who don't obey their religion
of global warming.
Calls Senate Environment Chairman 'Cray' for Doubting Climate Change. [Scroll down] "And the planet is
warming; 99 percent of scientists have said it's warming. And we've got the Republican chairman of the Senate Energy and
Environment Committee carrying a snowball into the Senate chambers to show that there is still snow and that climate change isn't
happening. I am not making that up. That's what happened. That's what happened. That's crazy," Obama said.
The Editor says...
Yes, 99 out of 100 hand-picked Democrat scientists who live on federal funding would agree that global warming
is very dangerous and needs lots of research.
Chapter in Climate McCarthyism. The climatistas are entering their desperado phase, with calls to suppress all
deviations from green orthodoxy. We saw recently the ludicrous call for a RICO investigation of climate skeptics, and the
more recent charge that Exxon "suppressed" early findings about global warming (nicely debunked today by SeekingAlpha).
Now comes Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse calling for the speech of climate skeptics to be suppressed because it is "fraudulent," that is,
it disagrees with him, so the government has the right and authority to shut it down. Seriously, that's his argument.
The RICO Case Against Exxon Is
Toothless. Allegations that Exxon committed fraud regarding climate change communications are groundless.
There isn't any evidence that the company misrepresented the science, whether willingly or not. While the stock might be
struck temporarily by a headline or rumor, a prosecution and its associated financial cost are extremely unlikely.
reply to Physics Today (that they won't even acknowledge). I've been made privy to an email exchange with the
editor of Physics Today regarding a rebuttal letter to a badly botched article by Spencer Weart that ignored a good portion
of climate history. So far, editor Marty Hanna seems to be ignoring his own policy on right of reply for properly
formatted and sourced letters.
Climate Change and Leftist
Hypocrisy. Scientific research has value when there are "schools of thought" in science. If some scientists doubt
climate change and others believe that climate change is global cooling and others think that any climate change is natural and not
man-made — and if there are others who believe in man-made global warming — then there is a purpose and a value
to research. What climate change research really means is the heavy-handed use of taxpayer-funded leftist totalitarianism in the
institutional bureaucracies of academia, whose sole purpose is to propagandize the gullible with specious reasoning, with the heavy
stamp of "Official Science."
French Meteorologist Persecuted for Debunking Climate Hysteria. Just months before the massive United Nations
"Climate Change" summit hosted by the French government is set to take place in Paris, France's top meteorologist is blowing
the whistle on the hysteria surrounding alleged man-made global-warming theories. Blasting the UN's controversial climate
agenda and the corruption of science to serve radical political goals, chief weatherman Philippe Verdier with state-funded
broadcasting giant France Televisions said the world had been taken "hostage" by misleading data peddled by politicians and
climatologists. He also touted the benefits of climate change, especially to France, and blasted "renewable energy."
Almost three weeks later, the Associated Press discovers this story. French
weatherman fired after slamming climate conference. A weather forecaster for French state television has been
fired after releasing and promoting a book criticizing politicians, scientists and others for what he calls an exaggerated
view of climate change.
Top Weatherman Hired By Kremlin After Being Fired For Questioning Global Warming. France's top weatherman has
found a new gig after being fired in November for questioning global warming in his new book: he's working for Russian
state-owned media. French news outlet Le Figaro reports Philippe Verdier is covering the United Nations climate summit in Paris
for Russia Today France. Verdier has a daily news segment dedicated to covering what goes on during the U.N. climate talks.
Kerry: Bar Global Warming Skeptics From Elected Office. As is often said at children's parks all over the country, two can play this game.
So we propose here that no climate change alarmist or uncritical believer in the man-made global warming story should hold high, medium or even low public office.
It makes sense. Almost all of those who meet these descriptions are either: 1) political opportunists who are simply saying the right things to a
voting bloc or some other group whose support they're courting, or 2) the sort of folks who haven't given the issue enough thought, in most cases because they
don't want to. Spare us the nonsense about "6,000-plus peer reviewed studies" and the new perennial favorite "97% of scientists say man is warming the planet."
The first is either a poorly done study or con job, and the second is ... either a poorly done study or con job.
The Editor says...
When a global-warmist is challenged by a skeptic, the first thing the warmist does is investigate the skeptic's academic and scientific credentials,
and then discount the skeptic's opinion when the credentials don't meet the warmist's standards. Politicians are then hesitant to offer an
opinion on global warming / extreme weather / climate change, because the ridicule will follow immediately. And now we see Secretary Kerry
ridiculing politicians for their reluctance to offer an opinion.
down the debate about climate change. Are you skeptical of human-caused global warming or climate change like many respected
scientists and climate experts? Then you should be prosecuted like a Mafia mob boss, according to 20 academics at ivory towers
such as Columbia, Rutgers and the University of Washington. Apparently, these professors either don't believe in the First Amendment
or are profoundly ignorant of the basic rights it protects. They recently wrote an open letter to President Barack Obama and Attorney
General Loretta Lynch asking for anyone who questions the climate-change dogma to be criminally prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, because they have "knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change."
top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change. Every night, France's chief weatherman has
told the nation how much wind, sun or rain they can expect the following day. Now Philippe Verdier, a household name for
his nightly forecasts on France 2, has been taken off air after a more controversial announcement — criticising the
world's top climate change experts. Mr Verdier claims in the book Climat Investigation (Climate Investigation)
that leading climatologists and political leaders have "taken the world hostage" with misleading data.
Judges plan to outlaw
climate change 'denial'. [Scroll down] "The most important thing the courts could do," he said, was to hold a
top-level "finding of fact", to settle these "scientific disputes" once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal
for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed "science" again. Furthermore,
he went on, once "the scientific evidence" thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all
governments to make "the emissions reductions that are needed", including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global
warming in its tracks. The fact that it could be seriously proposed in the highest courtroom in the land that the law
should now be used to suppress any further debate on what has become one of the most contentious issues in the history of
science (greeted with applause from the distinguished legal audience) speaks volumes about the curious psychological state to
which the great global warming scare has reduced so many of the prominent figures who today exercise power and influence over
the life of our Western societies.
Cult Of Climastrology Wouldn't
Look To Actually Ban "Climate Denial", Would They? [Scroll down] Warmists demand that the only science to be taught in schools
is one sided, being more akin to indoctrination than scientific inquiry. They refuse to follow the Scientific Model. They band together
and assail any scientist who refuses to bow to the CoC. They yammer on about getting the US Department of Justice to file RICO (Rackateer [sic]
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, originally designed to prosecute the Mafia) charges against non-believers. They call for jail and
death for Skeptics. Simply outlawing Skepticism is fully and wholly believable, and something that Warmists very much want to do.
who urged government to sue climate skeptics gets millions from taxpayers. A key signatory of a petition calling for government to
sue companies that question climate change has pulled the letter from his institute's website amid revelations his family reaped $500,000 in
salary and benefits last year from the government-funded organization. The controversy started after George Mason University climatologist
Jagadish Shukla and 19 other scientists signed a letter on Sept. 1 urging lawsuits against companies like Exxon for, the petitioners claim,
intentionally misleading about climate change.
scientists want to prosecute global warming skeptics under the RICO Act. Twenty individuals from academia and
research labs who refer to themselves as "scientists" have penned a letter to President Obama asking him to prosecute global
warming skeptics under the same law that the government uses to convict mafia dons and drug kingpins. The racketeering
statute RICO is generally used against organized crime, but it has been used in the past to prosecute pro-life groups.
(Supreme Court finally ruled that the government couldn't do this.) In the letter, the "scientists" tell the president
that people who disagree with them are criminals and should go to jail.
An Instance of Warmist
Corruption. We have often written about the fact that the world's governments pour billions of dollars annually
into the global warming project, the object of which is to increase the powers of government. And yet governments, the
main parties that stand to benefit from the warmists' campaign, pretend that their money is somehow innocent, while any private
entity that supports climate research is suspect. Alarmist scientists have gone so far as to urge the Obama administration
to prosecute criminally scientists who disagree with them.
These 20 Scientists Want to Make it a
Crime to Disagree with Them. I think it is important to publicize these names far and wide: [List] These
20 people, who nominally call themselves "scientists", have written a letter to President Obama urging him to use the RICO statute
to prosecute people who disagree with them on climate science, essentially putting scientific agreement in the same status as organized
crime. If they can't win the scientific debate with persurasion, they will win it with guns.
new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics. Scientists have many important roles to play in
preparations for the upcoming UN Conference on Climate Change in Paris. Some are working hard to clarify uncertainties in the
science, others on developing and evaluating alternative climate policies. One group of climate scientists is trying a
different approach. Dismayed by what they see as a lack of progress on the implementation of climate policies that they
support, these 20 scientists sent a letter to the White House calling for their political opponents to be investigated by the
scientists who want to use RICO to prosecute AGW 'deniers' have a big problem. Legions of pro-global warming
people, including Pope Francis, President Obama, and nearly all of the mainstream media essentially beg us to trust them
about the settled science, despite the existence of highly detailed climate assessments compiled by skeptic climate
scientists. The egregious tragedy of this situation is that so many pro-global warming people have been blatantly misled
about immoral "corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of
climate change" when no such evidence proving it exists, and when evidence is so easily found on how the accusation stems
from one highly questionable source.
Global warming RICO letter writers may have opened Pandora's Box. Finally, we may be getting some cosmic
justice for the gang of warmists who have spread hysteria over their shaky theory of global warming. Owing to an outrageous
act of witch-hunting dissenters, a congressional investigation has begun, and who knows what it will uncover? It was an
outrage when a group of 20 scientists published a letter to President Obama and AG Lynch demanding RICO prosecution of those
who question the theory of global warming, based as it is on models that have failed to accurately predict the Earth's climate
for the last 19 years. Not only is criminalizing scientific investigation a bad idea, but the underlying contention
that skeptics are funded by greedy polluters is false, a myth deliberately spread by the gang that profits from hysteria[.]
Denying global warming should be a crime — literally! Are you a flat earther? You know, someone who
doubts the reality of man-made global warming. If you are, you might find yourself in need of a lawyer — at least
that could be the case if the recommendations of a group of professors ever become reality. A group of 20 university professors
are hoping the federal government will prosecute global warming skeptics. They expressed this idea in a letter to the Obama
[administration] earlier this month where they compared those who doubt man-made global warming to the tobacco industry: [...]
Stylebook boots term 'climate change deniers'. The Associated Press (AP) today announced a change to its famous
stylebook, discouraging the use of the terms "climate change deniers" and "climate change skeptics" in favor of an
alternative: "climate change doubters." The switch in terminology, noted the wire service in an online posting,
solves a number of problems encountered by journalists writing on this divisive topic. "Scientists who consider themselves
real skeptics — who debunk mysticism, ESP and other pseudoscience, such as those who are part of the Center for
Skeptical Inquiry — complain that non-scientists who reject mainstream climate science have usurped the phrase
skeptic," notes the AP posting under the byline of Vice President and Director of Media Relations Paul Colford. And
that's only the beginning of the clash that motivated this AP change.
Demands Criminal Investigation of Climate Change Skeptics. A scientist calling on the federal government to
prosecute those who question his position on global climate change has paid himself and his wife millions of dollars in
federal grant money, public records show. George Mason University meteorologist Jagadish Shukla was the lead signatory to
a letter sent this month to the president and the attorney general asking them to use federal racketeering laws to prosecute
"corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change."
puts Warmists in the Dock. [Scroll down] Another swath of Steyn's evidence concerns the University of
East Anglia Climate Research emails that were hacked into and published in 2009, resulting in the "Climategate" scandal.
These communications give credence to the claim that there is or was a "Big Climate" mafia headed by Michael Mann —
a group as eager to protect its fame and grant-producing turf as Michael Corleone was to defend his crime syndicate.
Fortunately, Mann and company "only" employ stigma, blackballing, and control of peer-reviews to achieve their objectives.
Two cases in point: In 2014 Dr. Judith Curry, former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the
Georgia Institute of Technology observed that her "challenge to the [climate change] consensus has precluded any further
professional recognition." She also mentioned that she worries about younger scientists without tenure protection.
That same year the 79-year-old distinguished professor Lennart Bengtsson was forced by "enormous group pressure" to resign "for the
sake of [his] health and safety" from the advisory board of a think tank that promoted rational skepticism about global warming.
Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics. Scientists from several universities and research centers even
asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that "have knowingly
deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America's response to climate
change." RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against
scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called "consensus" on global warming. The
scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in
a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.
Science — And Then There's Dr. Ben Carson's Real Science. California Gov. Jerry Brown calls Dr. Ben
Carson a science denier for not buying into his global warming agenda. Would that be the same Dr. Carson with a degree in
neurosurgery and a science school named after him? Horning in uninvited on Carson's presidential campaign, Brown sent
Carson a letter questioning the latter's skeptical stance on global warming. The letter, complete with a thumb drive
of a United Nations report, questioned Carson's motives and condescendingly concluded: "Please use your considerable
intelligence to review this material. Climate change is much bigger than partisan politics." Then Brown called
Carson a "climate-science denier" in a retweeted tweet from his press office.
Times: Climate Deniers Have "an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler's". And there you
have it: if you follow the Scientific Method, if you want scientists to be honest, if you want them to follow long
established scientific principles, if you have a problem with falsified/adjusted data, if you want to see the raw data, well,
hey, you are almost Hitler! Even though Hitler shared most of the same views and political ideology as today's Progressives.
[...] So, if you refuse to join the CoC [Cult of Climastrology], you're the ghost of Hitler. This is all about shutting down
debate, demonizing one's opponents in the most horrific manner. Someone else did that back in the 1930's and 1940's.
I wonder who?
Brown to Carson: Here's climate change
evidence. Ben Carson says there's no convincing research to prove that man plays a role in climate change. So
California Gov. Jerry Brown has sent the retired neurosurgeon a U.N. report so he can brush up on the subject.
The Editor says...
The IPCC report is a political document published by the United Nations, which has the ultimate goal of world domination (just like the
Muslims and the Communists). One report from the U.N. is neither a substitute for, nor a rebuttal of, objective scientific evidence.
Obama in Alaska: Climate-change deniers
'are on their own shrinking island'. "The time to heed the critics and the cynics and the deniers is past," [President Obama]
told delegates to an international conference on climate change in the Arctic [8/31/2015]. "The time to plead ignorance is surely past.
Those who want to ignore the science, they are increasingly alone, they are on their own shrinking island." He used the backdrop of
America's only Arctic state to emphasize the need for this country and others to move, and move fast, to reduce carbon emissions, to pursue
cleaner energy sources and to stop relying on "unstable parts of the world" for oil.
The Editor says...
If he wants to "to stop relying on 'unstable parts of the world' for oil, why is he opposed to drilling
in ANWR, offshore drilling in
the Gulf of Mexico, the Keystone XL pipeline,
blasts 'lazy' critics of carbon rules. President Obama's controversial move to limit
carbon emissions from power plants sparked a backlash on Capitol Hill and across the country within
hours of its release Monday [8/3/2015], with lawsuits challenging the rules already filed and Republicans
vowing to block the plan by any means necessary. A coalition of 15 states — including
Democrat-led Kentucky — say they'll sue the Environmental Protection Agency over the regulations,
known as the Clean Power Plan and intended to cut carbon emissions from power plants by at least 32 percent
Clinton Calls Out GOP Climate Change Deniers in New 'Stand With Reality' Video.
Hillary Clinton today attacked the Republican presidential contenders who deny "the settled science
of climate change" and laid out two renewable power goals in a new video that outlines part of her
plan to tackle global warming. [...] "You don't have to be scientist to take on this urgent
challenge that threatens us all. You just have to be willing to act," she continues.
The Editor says...
Global warming at the rate of one degree per century is not an urgent problem, nor does it threaten us all.
In fact, it doesn't threaten anybody, especially since it has now stopped, all by itself.
Don't Have To Be Venal and Creepy To Work In Climate Science. But It Certainly Helps. It's almost as if
the mere fact of being a prominent climate change believer is such a powerful get-out-of-jail-free as to render you
immune to all criticism, let alone appropriate punishment for your bad behaviour. [...] Almost everyone is on the make
or the take, in one way or another; the science is so dodgy that manipulation and fabrication have become the norm; the
financial stakes are so high and the positions taken so entrenched that nobody has any option but to close ranks and
try to shut down valid criticism by whatever means necessary.
scientists investigating melting Arctic ice may have been assassinated, professor claims. Professor Peter
Wadhams said he feared being labelled a "looney" over his suspicion that the deaths of the scientists were more than
just an 'extraordinary' coincidence. But he insisted the trio could have been murdered and hinted that the oil
industry or else sinister government forces might be implicated. The three scientists he identified — Seymour
Laxon and Katherine Giles, both climate change scientists at University College London, and Tim Boyd of the Scottish
Association for marine Science — all died within the space of a few months in early 2013.
Blasio Flies to Vatican to Deliver Environmentalism Speech. Pope Francis has been
pushing hard on the issue of climate change, having issued a recent 184-page papal encyclical
largely blaming climate change on fossil fuels and human activity. He also said that developed,
industrialized countries bore the most responsibility for the problem. De Blasio referenced the
encyclical, asserting that it "burns with urgency," while lauding the Pope, saying he had "awakened
people across the globe to the dangers we face as a planet." De Blasio loftily stated, "The
encyclical is not a call to arms. It is a call to sanity."
The Editor says...
Really? Can you comprehend what's on this page and
still imply that it's insane to doubt global warming?
laureate's 'Emperor's New Clothes' speech about global warming. At the July 3 Nobel
laureates conference on Mainau Island, 30 of the 65 attendees signed a media-reported letter urging
action against global warming. Not reported by the media: the attendees listened to Norway's 1973
Nobel physics laureate, Ivar Giaever, give a truth-telling "Emperor's New Clothes" speech. [...] Giaever
was saying that the fraction-of-a-degree differences in temperature upon which global warming theory is
based are as invisible as the Emperor's new clothes.
McCarthy and Obama's Totalitarians. The Soviet system had a long and cruel record of
perverting psychiatry to abuse political dissidents. Labelling many thought-criminals "insane," the
communist regime institutionalized them under horrifying conditions in mental hospitals and force-fed them
dangerous and mind-shattering drugs. [...] And now enter the leftist totalitarians of the Obama stripe.
While anti-Soviet ideas caused dissidents to be confined to psychiatric institutions in the Soviet Union, the
soil is now being fertilized for the same process in the American leftist land of Alinskyite hope and change.
Head Gina McCarthy is Simply Not Normal! Yesterday [6/23/2015] the White House held the "White
House Public Health and Climate Change Summit" to explain why man made climate change puts public
health at risk and that more needs to be done to mitigate that threat. Of course first they
have to prove their hypothesis that there is man made climate change. According to EPA chief Gina
McCarthy anybody who disagrees or is skeptical of the climate change hypothesis is not a normal human being.
Union 2.0 — The Environmental Protection Agency. Former President Richard
Nixon is an ancestral RINO — Republican In Name Only. The wobbly GOP wing that insists on
delivering us Diet Democrat policies. So it was in 1970 when President Nixon signed an executive
order creating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Chief: 'Climate Deniers' Aren't Normal Human Beings. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
told an audience Tuesday gathered at a White House conference "normal people," not "climate deniers"
will win the debate on global warming. McCarthy's remarks came as she was talking about the
reasons why the EPA put out a report on the negative health impacts global warming will have on
public health. She said the agency puts out such reports to educate the public, not answer
critiques from global warming skeptics.
climate-change doubters lost a papal fight. Pope Francis was about to take a major
step backing the science behind human-driven global warming, and Philippe de Larminat was determined
to change his mind. [...] After securing a high-level meeting at the Vatican, he was told that,
space permitting, he could join. He bought a plane ticket from Paris to Rome. But five days before
the April 28 summit, de Larminat said, he received an e-mail saying there was no space left. It came
after other scientists — as well as the powerful Vatican bureaucrat in charge of the academy —
insisted he had no business being there. "They did not want to hear an off note," de Larminat said.
Francis blasts global warming deniers in leaked draft of encyclical. A draft of a
major environmental document by Pope Francis says "the bulk of global warming" is caused by human
activity and calls on people — especially the world's rich — to take steps to
mitigate the damage by reducing consumption and reliance on fossil fuels. In words likely to
anger some of his conservative critics, the pope backs the science of climate change, saying "plenty
of scientific studies point out that the last decades of global warming have been mostly caused by
the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide and others)
especially generated by human action." "The poor and the Earth are shouting," reads the draft
of the encyclical, the first of its kind dedicated to the environment.
top adviser blasts US climate skeptics. Pope Francis' closest adviser castigated conservative climate change
skeptics in the United States Tuesday [5/12/2015], blaming capitalism for their views. Speaking with journalists,
Cardinal Oscar Rodr$#237;guez Maradiaga criticized certain "movements" in the United States that have preemptively come
out in opposition to Francis's planned encyclical on climate change.
The Editor says...
Would a TV station hire a weatherman just because he used to be an advisor to the Pope? How then is he
so well qualified to forecast the weather 100 years from now, and to squelch any dissent?
Pope's Confused Climate Communique. On April 28, Pope Francis hosted a one-day
conference, "Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity: The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and
Sustainable Development." Unfortunately, the conference was less a discussion and more a
lecture to the world on the evils of capitalism and the "fact" fossil fuel use causes increasing
poverty and inequality and is destroying the planet. [...] The game was rigged from the outset.
Only climate alarmists were on the pope's guest list. For the pope and his invitees, the
debate was over.
Alinsky, Climate Scientist. If Alinsky were alive today, he would likely fit right in
with the current activist climate scientists. [...] "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon,"
apparently a favorite tactic of climate activists. It's far easier to submit a barrage of ridicule
or to sling labels like "denier" at people than to engage in thoughtful scientific debate —
especially if the facts are not in your favor.
Takes Cheap Shot at Florida Gov. Rick Scott During Sparsely Attended Everglades Speech. The thinly
veiled insult came during the president's speech at the Florida Everglades, which only a small handful of
Floridians attended. The speech was televised by Al Jazeera America but none of the major cable news
networks, according to Mediaite. As the president made his case for taking action on climate change,
he scoffed at one denier in particular who supposedly refuses to even allow the words "climate change" to be
said in his state. A key component of the left's strategy to impose their policies on the populace
is to mock and ridicule those who don't go along with the program. The idea is to force everyone into
accepting their hard-left agenda through peer pressure.
I Said So'. What should be done to those who question the belief that human activity
is causing catastrophic global climate change? Environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
(nephew of the late president) recently said some of such people are "treasonous" and should be in
jail with other criminals. Similarly, climatologist James Hansen, who was NASA's top climate expert
for over a decade, said questioners of the hypothesis should face criminal trial for "high crimes against
humanity." For Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria, however, prison
is not punishment enough. In 2012, he said: "I propose that the death penalty is appropriate
for influential GW [Global Warming] deniers."
'climate change deniers'. Failing to convince the public that global warming is an
urgent cause for concern, hysterical fear-mongers are turning to the armory of tyrants, and
demanding punishment for those they call "deniers," consciously inking Holocaust denial. The recent
rebranding of their cause as "climate change" creates a certain awkwardness, as nobody denies that climate
has and always will change. Glaciers, after all, covered a good part of the northern tier of the
United States, carving out the Great Lakes, for example. Nonetheless, the hysterics demand that
"climate change deniers" be punished, even killed, and the call extends from the spittle-flecked fanatics
to the usually sober New York Times. Christopher Monckton, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, has
compiled a valuable list of those calling for the abrogation of free speech and punishment of dissidents.
and Envy. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., whose uncle was president of the United States, has
led a difficult life including heroin addiction, sex addiction, and a wife who committed suicide. A
dedicated environmental activist, Kennedy wants climate change deniers and skeptics put in jail as the
equivalent of war criminals. Kennedy's life illustrates how people seek refuge from their difficulties
and frustrations by adopting fanatical environmental beliefs. When the Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg
published a book skeptical of environmental dogma, environmental activists, including John Holdren, now
Obama's science advisor, spared no effort to destroy Lomborg's reputation and career by publishing an
11-page collective rant denouncing Lomborg in Scientific American magazine.
call to arrest climate "deniers". Adam Weinstein, of the Gawker, has added his voice
to the growing list of greens, who demand a brutal authoritarian response to the vexing problem of
people who have a different opinion.
Museums Urged to Cut Ties With Kochs. Dozens of climate scientists and environmental groups are calling
for museums of science and natural history to "cut all ties" with fossil fuel companies and philanthropists like the
Koch brothers. A letter released on Tuesday [3/24/2015] asserts that such money is tainted by these donors'
efforts to deny the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.
FEMA becomes the thought
police. Among the myriad things the Federal Emergency Management Agency does, like
screw up disaster response, take long lunches, and provide work for the otherwise unemployable, is
providing money the states for disaster mitigation. [...] Now FEMA has decided you have to think the
to States: No Climate Planning, No Money. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is
making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will
approve disaster preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard mitigation plans that
address climate change. This may put several Republican governors who maintain the earth isn't
warming due to human activities, or prefer to do nothing about it, into a political bind. Their
position may block their states' access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds.
targets climate change skeptic governors, could withhold funding. The Obama administration has issued new
guidelines that could make it harder for governors who deny climate change to obtain federal disaster-preparedness funds.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's new rules could put some Republican governors in a bind. The rules say that
states' risk assessments must include "consideration of changing environmental or climate conditions that may affect and
influence the long-term vulnerability from hazards in the state."
to deny funds to warming deniers. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it
tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve
disaster-preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard-mitigation plans that
address climate change. This may put several Republican governors who maintain that the Earth
isn't warming due to human activities, or prefer to take no action, in a political bind. Their
position may block their states' access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds. In the
last five years, the agency has awarded an average $1 billion a year in grants to states and
territories for taking steps to mitigate the effects of disasters. "If a state has a climate
denier governor that doesn't want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done
because of politics," said Becky Hammer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council's
water program. "The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state" because
of his climate beliefs.
Please Stop Whining? Climate alarmists are so frustrated by their losing the
debate — both in public opinion of the importance of "climate change" as an issue and in
climate data itself — that their response to even the most docile of questioning is to
belittle the questioner and, after saying "Trust me, I'm a scientist," bombard readers with misuse
of statistics and misleading implications. The most recent example comes from Mark Buchanan, "a
physicist and science writer," who penned an obnoxious little screed for Bloomberg View attacking
hedge-fund manager Cliff Asness of AQR Capital for having the temerity to write a paper questioning
alarmist claims of impending climate doom.
says climate-change deniers should pay political price. Former Vice President Al Gore
on Friday [3/13/2015] called on SXSW attendees to punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians
should pay a price for rejecting "accepted science." Gore said smart investors are moving away
from companies tied to fossil fuels and toward companies investing in alternative energy.
steadfast in 'witch hunt' of doomsday-denying climate scientists. Democrats may be
flustered after a week of being accused of engineering an anti-science "witch hunt," but they aren't
backing down from their investigations into the financial backing of climate change researchers who
challenge the movement's doomsday scenarios. Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, the ranking Democrat
on the House Natural Resources Committee, told National Journal this week that he may have been guilty
of overreach even as he defended his probe into the funding sources of seven professors, now known as
the "Grijalva Seven."
warn of 'chilling effect' from Democrat's probe of climate research. The American
Meteorological Society is warning a top House Democrat that singling out funding provided to certain
climate scientists "sends a chilling message to all academic researchers." The meteorological
society said it is committed to transparency, but took issue with letters sent by Rep. Raúl
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) this week asking universities to provide documents on the funding that was
provided to seven professors for climate research.
The Liberal Circus.
We no longer live in an age of debate over global warming. It has now transmogrified well beyond Al
Gore's hysterics, periodic disclosures about warmists' use of faked data, embarrassing email
vendettas, vindictive lawsuits, crony green capitalism, and flawed computer models. Now Congressman
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, has taken the
psychodrama to the level of farce in a two-bit McCarthyesque effort to demand from universities
information about scientists who do not embrace his notions of manmade global warming. Where
are the ACLU and fellow Democratic congressional supporters of free speech and academic freedom to
censure such an Orwellian move?
The Warmish Inquisition.
[Scroll down] Christopher Monckton is a famous scourge of the Clime Syndicate, and they expend
a lot of energy attempting to marginalize him as a kook and a weirdo, including strange claims that
his hereditary viscountcy, conferred on his grandfather by HM The Queen on February 12th 1957 (if
you'll forgive a little peer review), is not a real peerage. Willie Soon, on the other hand, is
inside the system: He has a part-time gig at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
If Soon were to get away with publishing papers with Monckton in peer-reviewed journals, there's no telling
what other scientists might follow. Let Soon pull that off, and, before you know it, the settled
science could get all unsettled. So it was necessary to make an example of him.
Shameful Climate Witch Hunt. Let the climate inquisition begin. The ranking Democrat
on the House Natural Resources Committee, Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, has written to seven
universities about seven researchers who harbor impure thoughts about climate change. One of the
targets is Steven Hayward, a blogger, author and academic now at Pepperdine University (as well as
an occasional contributor to National Review). As Hayward puts it, the spirit of the inquiry is,
"Are you now or have you ever been a climate skeptic?"
Warming McCarthyites Are Even Targeting Believers. Here's what happens when a climate
researcher doesn't fully conform to the global warming narrative: He becomes the target of a
congressional inquisition. Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at Colorado University's Center for
Science and Technology Policy Research, announced on his blog Wednesday that he is "one of seven
U.S. academics being investigated by U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva," an Arizona Democrat who is the
ranking member of the House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.
Congressman on Witch Hunt Against Climate Scientists. On his blog this morning, Roger
Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, a respected climate scientist, reveals that he was one of
seven academics being being investigated by Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House
Committee on Natural Resources. Grijalva wants to know all university financial disclosure
policies that are applicable to Pielke, detailed information about any sources of external funding
and grants he may have received, as well as any communications related to external funding. He
also wants copies of any speeches and testimony before lawmakers Pielke has delivered, as well as
salary and travel expense information.
I am Under
"Investigation". So far, I have been contacted by only 2 reporters at relatively small
media outlets. I'd say that the lack of interest in a politician coming after academics is
surprising, but to be honest, pretty much nothing surprises me in the climate debate anymore.
Even so, there is simply no excuse for any reporter to repeat incorrect claims made about me, given
how easy I am to find and just ask.
Smeared by Media and Greenpeace for Debunking Global Warming. A not so funny, but somewhat
predictable, event occurred after Dr. Matt Briggs co-authored a major peer-reviewed climate physics paper
that exposed significant errors in the billion-dollar computer models used by the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). Briggs and his colleagues were smeared by the New York Times, the
Guardian, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe because the revealed errors suggest that
there is no climate crisis after all.
Reporters told to stop covering 'irrelevant' climate change critics. A new study of
how environmental reporters cover global warming and climate change reveals that they see the issue
as one America has endorsed and, as a result, no longer include critics in their reports because
they are "generally irrelevant." And the orders are coming from editors. What's more, the
study from George Mason University found that climate change reporters are weaving their coverage into
stories on broader issues to get around editors who don't want a lot of reports on global warming.
Nye Hits 'Unglued' Viewers Who Object to Blaming Blizzard on Climate Change. A severe
winter storm about to strike the northeast is caused by global warming? That's the unsurprising
suggestion by climate change enthusiast Bill Nye on MSNBC, Monday [1/26/2015]. The TV personality
appeared on The Cycle to discuss the New England Patriots and Deflategate. Changing the subject, he
condescendingly asserted, "I just want to introduce the idea that this storm is connected to climate change.
I want to introduce that idea. I know there will be certain viewers who will become unglued."
Meet Bill Nye,
The Anti-Science Guy. The unique achievement of science has been its ability to correct
itself. Every conclusion is subject to testing and independent confirmation — and
it is open to being overthrown by any cantankerous skeptic who can put together the data to disprove
it. But this only happens when respected, famous figures — or some guy who's been on TV
a lot — don't try to set themselves up as unquestionable authorities. It only happens to
the extent that "skeptics" are not rebranded as "deniers" and then thrown out of the discussion.
That's what Bill Nye is trying to do, and that makes him an anti-science guy.
at Stake in Mann v. National Review. [Scroll down] [Michael] Mann is indulging here in a
dangerous game — in a petty and quixotic attempt to recruit the nation's courts to his
side and to forestall any criticism of himself and his work. If the First Amendment is to be worth
the paper it is written on, those courts should refuse to be co-opted. Rather, they should dismiss
the case as soon as is possible, reminding us as they do that, in America, robust public debate is
not actionable, but worthy of celebration instead.
vs. Mann and the 'Toilet' D.C. Justice System. More than two years have passed since
Penn State University professor Michael Mann filed a defamation lawsuit against Steyn and other
conservatives for criticizing his global warming research. At a hearing in the D.C. Court of
Appeals on Tuesday, Steyn was just a spectator. He decided not to join his co-defendants National
Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Rand Simberg in filing an appeal to get the
lawsuit thrown out. Steyn wants a trial. "I took a decision not to appeal," Steyn told the
Washington Free Beacon following the hearing. "The reason is I've been in this toilet of D.C.
justice long enough and I would like to get onto the trial. If he wants a trial, I take him
at his word."
the mainstream media won't tell you about global warming. Between the recent "deal"
with China, reports of Obama taking climate action via executive fiat, and the debate over keystone,
global warming has been over the mainstream media recently. But instead of debating whether or not
the global warming hypotheses is a valid threat to the Earth, the media starts with the premise that
the theory is real and anybody who contests global warming is the equivalent of people who don't
believe the holocaust actually happened, they are called deniers. The "LA Times" refuses to print
letters that disagree with global warming, CNN openly mocks them on air, the NY Times ran a cartoon
suggesting climate change skeptics should be stabbed to death, and MSNBC and CBS only interview
climate change believers on their programs.
Weather-related Fatalities. Deaths from natural disasters are traditionally considered
"acts of God," or "acts of nature," beyond human control. This view is being challenged in a French
trial where prosecutors have charged a small-town mayor with manslaughter for deaths caused by storm
flooding. The precedent of criminalizing weather-related deaths would delight climate-change
activists who increasingly call for criminal trials of anyone skeptical of their agenda.
Religious Fanatics. In order to galvanize those concerned about the environment, the
Democrat priests invented first global cooling, then global warming, then climate change, and —
most recently — climate disruption. By ensuring that grants and other funding vehicles
go only to those who toe the government line, dissenting voices are mocked, suppressed, censored, and
tarred as "deniers".
Climate Name-Calling. Eric Schmidt always seemed a decent guy but we never had reason
to ask if he was especially brave. Then came his long interview on a Washington radio show late
last month, the closing minutes of which featured a caller's inquiry whether Google was still
"supporting ALEC, which is that fund lobbyist in D.C. that are funding climate change deniers."
chief: Climate skeptics 'sad'. Environmental Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy on Thursday [9/25/2014] made a
forceful case for action on climate change, arguing moves should be made not "despite the economy" but "because of it."
McCarthy ripped climate skeptics for bashing the administration's signature rule on carbon pollution from power plants, saying
it's "sad" they would "hide behind the word 'economy' to protect their own special interests." [...] If President Obama doesn't
take action, McCarthy argued, then the U.S. will be pushing global temperatures up with the rest of the world, damaging the
economy in the process.
Rose Baffled Anyone Could Oppose Liberal Policies on Climate Change. An adamant Charlie Rose, on Thursday night [9/25/2014],
was astounded that there could be any opposition to the fight against climate change as he blurted: "Where is the resistance?!
What stands in the way of something that clearly threatens the planet?" During a discussion with the foreign minister of
France, on his PBS show, Rose asked Laurent Fabius what "progress is being made" at Climate Week at the United Nations General
Assembly. In his response Fabius unveiled a new and improved politically correct term to be used by the environmental left
as he told Rose: "I don't speak about climate change. I speak about climate disruption." This made sense to
Rose as he offered: "[climate] change is too soft a word."
Proposed Regulation Would Significantly Hurt Access to Electricity. When talking about
energy and environmental policy, it is a bit troublesome to watch just how recklessly big-government
environmentalists unfairly and erroneously accuse individuals and organizations of the pro-free
market persuasion of being "climate deniers." Instead of engaging in thoughtful, substantive
discussion, many of these environmental activists oftentimes resort to this tactic of public shaming
in order to eliminate debate and to bully individuals and groups into supporting an ever-expansive
federal regulatory scheme.
Chief: Denying Climate Change 'Makes You a Member of the Flat Earth Society'. Shawn Donovan, director of the Office of Management
and Budget, said on Friday [9/19/2014] that if you don't believe in climate change and support federal spending to fight it, you believe the
earth is flat. "The failure to invest in climate solutions and climate preparedness doesn't get you membership in a fiscal conservatives
caucus," Donovan said at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C. "It makes you a member of the Flat Earth Society."
Kennedy Jr., Aspiring Tyrant. Blissfully unaware of how hot the irony burned, Robert Kennedy Jr. yesterday [9/21/2014]
took to a public protest to rail avidly in favor of censorship. The United States government, Kennedy lamented in an interview
with Climate Depot, 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. [...] 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."
real sea change should occur on campus. Recently, several liberal professors visited
Gov. Rick Scott to brief him on the "closed" science of global warming. Never mind that many
scientists will tell you that science is never closed or settled. These professors — like many in
the media, academia and in Hollywood — will continue to scream the sky is falling until they force
more polluters out of business and cause the loss of more American jobs. Should you be one of
those scientists who dares to question global warming, you stand the chance — like Galileo and
Copernicus when they went against the settled science of the Church and were branded heretics — of
paying a price that could range from ridicule and censorship to the loss of your career.
Billionaire: 99.5% of Americans Are Not 'Super Sophisticated'. Billionaire hedge-fund
manager Tom Steyer attempted to explain why there is still a sizable portion of Americans that do
not buy in to global warming alarmism by, basically, generalizing virtually all of America as not
"super sophisticated." [...] Steyer's sweeping generalization is not a new excuse made for why
liberal ideas are not shared by a large swath of the electorate. Coming from a side of the political
isle that prides itself on ending "hate" and precluding judgment on those that are not like them,
many wealthy liberal activists have been quick to make harsh conclusions about any group of people
with whom they disagree.
rally around think tank, publication being sued for global warming views. News outlets, advocacy groups and
fellow think tanks are jumping to the defense of a conservative-leaning D.C. policy center and publication being sued for
libel by a scientist who didn't like what they had to say about his work on global warming. [...] Critics say the suit
threatens to violate constitutionally protected rights to opinion and fair comment, particularly in an area of scientific debate.
heated war of words, my money is on Mark Steyn. [Mark] Steyn's apparent offense is
that he dared to challenge the scientific orthodoxy on climate change, and he did it most
colorfully. This is somewhat ironic since [Gene] Lyons is himself noted for his acerbic
barbs, aimed mostly at poor country bumpkins and rich Republicans.
news organizations back National Review, think tank in climate libel case. A who's who
of news organizations, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, have sided with the conservative
National Review and the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute in a libel lawsuit brought against
them by climate scientist Michael Mann. Mann contends that the magazine and the think tank both
libeled him by publishing articles alleging that he has intentionally manipulated climate data.
Both defendants are seeking to have the case dismissed under a statute that prevents nuisance lawsuits
intended to silence critics. The matter is currently before the D.C. Superior Court.
top PR companies rule out working with climate deniers. Some of the world's top PR
companies have for the first time publicly ruled out working with climate change deniers, marking a
fundamental shift in the multi-billion dollar industry that has grown up around the issue of global
warming. Public relations firms have played a critical role over the years in framing the debate
on climate change and its solutions — as well as the extensive disinformation campaigns
launched to block those initiatives. Now a number of the top 25 global PR firms have told the
Guardian they will not represent clients who deny man-made climate change, or take campaigns seeking
to block regulations limiting carbon pollution.
In Praise of Hate
Speech. Someone has petitioned the UK Government's Home Office demanding that the term "denier" be
classified as "hate speech." ["]We the undersigned request that the offensive terms, 'climate denier', 'denier',
'denialist' and other variants being used to harass sceptical scientists or other people who do not ascribe to the
hypothesis of man made climate change or man made global warming be classified as hate speech in accordance with the
Public Order Act 1986. Scientists and others should not be subjected to hateful, offensive names in order to
diminish their standing or to make them accept a consensus view.["]
of an Ominous American Climate Change. A new "nationally representative survey" has concluded that the
number of Americans who still have free minds is now low enough to warrant intensifying the psychological warfare in
order to finish them off for good. In fact, if this study from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication can be trusted — and with unbiased
names like those, what's not to trust? — life will be getting hotter for those frustrating American holdouts
who insist on thinking for themselves when there are so many qualified experts ready to provide them with all the
pre-packaged thoughts they need.
"Sometimes one must look to sources outside the United States
to get a better perspective on what is happening." No
denying climate change deniers. People who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid
known as global warming — climate change are not just "deniers"; we are
guilty of a "nihilistic refusal" to address the issue. So says a Washington Post
editorial commenting favorably on Monday's Supreme Court ruling that allows the Environmental
Protection Agency, under certain limits, to proceed under the Clean Air Act to regulate major
sources of greenhouse-gas emissions. The actual nihilists are those who refuse to accept any
scientific information that undermines their claim that the globe is warming and humans are
responsible for it. Cults are like that. Regardless of evidence contradicting their
beliefs, cultists persist in blind faith.
moment I became a climate skeptic. [Scroll down] One item got my attention. It said: "Projections
based on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios suggest warming over the 21st Century at a more
rapid rate than that experienced for at least the last 10,000 years." I called the professor, one
of the authors of the report, for a clarification (he remains nameless because we were off the record).
"If global warming is caused by man-made emissions," I asked, "what accounts for the world warming to this
same level 10,000 years ago?" There was a long silence. Then the professor said, "Are you serious?"
I admitted that I was. The professor loudly informed me that my question was stupid. The
panel's conclusion was indisputable science, arrived at after years of research by a conclave of the
world's leading climate scholars. Who was I to dispute it?
Mocks Climate Change Skeptics: It's Not Some 'Liberal Plot'. President Obama spoke to
the League of Conservation Voters Wednesday night [6/25/2014] about climate change, and he took a few minutes
to mock Republican climate change skeptics who state very openly they "don't believe anything
scientists say" and actually believe it's a "hoax" or a "liberal plot."
Warming Witch Hunt Continues With Caleb Rossiter. The latest victim of climate
McCarthyism is Caleb Rossiter, who, until his op-ed challenging the "consensus" on climate change
was published in the Wall Street Journal, was a Democratic academic who briefly forayed into
politics but was content to crusade against U.S. support for dictators and against the use of
anti-personnel land mines. In that op-ed, Rossiter called himself an "Africanist." He not only
questioned the science behind climate change warnings but the impact of abandoning fossil fuels on
human progress on a continent that's lowest in production of carbon emissions and the neediest in
terms of economic development. For his questioning of climate orthodoxy, Rossiter, an adjunct
professor at American University, was sacked via email from his position with the Institute for
At Commencement, Obama Mocks Lawmakers Who Deny
Climate Change. President Obama, appearing emboldened after his recent move to cut carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, on
Saturday [6/14/2014] ridiculed members of Congress who deny climate change or plead scientific ignorance as an alibi for avoiding an uncomfortable truth.
Used Commencement Speech To Attack Americans Who Disagree With Him. President Obama
delivered the commencement speech at UC Irvine over the weekend and used the occasion to go on the
attack against Americans who don't agree with his climate change policies. Not only did he call
those skeptical of global warming theory the derogatory term "deniers" he also told the graduates
that we are a threat to their existence. [...] If anyone is a threat to our future it's Obama, not
people who don't buy into global warming theory.
police, Big Green environmentalists are turning America into a First Amendment-free
zone. America is rapidly becoming a First Amendment-free zone, thanks to the growing
power of the PC police in the media and on campus and among Big Green environmentalists in the
nonprofit community. American University adjunct professor and veteran self-described
"progressive activist" Caleb Rossiter is the latest victim, thanks to an article he wrote for the
Wall Street Journal opinion pages questioning global warming. Rossiter's sin was describing
global warming as an "unproved science" and advocating that developing African nations be allowed
to adopt the same "all-of-the-above" energy policies as the U.S. follows.
pushes global warming agenda in commencement speech. Obama told those in attendance
that they must respond now to protect children and future generations — a theme he has repeated
after announcing in recent weeks new rules for reducing carbon emission for plants that burn fossil
fuel. "We also have to realize, as hundreds of scientists declared last month, that climate
change is no longer a distant threat but 'has moved firmly into the present,'" said Obama in the
ongoing effort by him and his supporters to win the debate on global warming and its possible
causes. "The overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change, including some who
once disputed the data, have put the debate to rest."
Flunks his Climate Science 101 at University of California, Irvine. Denying climate
change is like saying the moon is made of cheese, President Obama has said in his latest attempt to
persuade an unconvinced world that "global warming" is the most urgent crisis of our time. [...]
"I'm not a scientist." Possibly the only factually accurate words in the president's entire speech.
McCarthyism claims yet another victim. Climate McCarthyism has claimed another
victim. Dr Caleb Rossiter — an adjunct professor at American University, Washington
DC — has been fired by a progressive think tank after publicly expressing doubt about
man-made global warming.
'Absolutely' Wants to 'Just Go Off' on Climate Deniers in Congress. In the clip that aired on CBS Sunday
morning [6/8/2014], Obama stressed the national security implications of catastrophic climate change. "We're
obviously concerned about drought in California or hurricanes and floods along our coastlines and the possibility of more powerful
storms or more severe droughts. All of those things are bread-and-butter issues that touch on American families," Obama
said. "But when you start seeing how these shifts can displace people — entire countries can be finding
themselves unable to feed themselves and the potential incidence of conflict that arises out of that — that
gets your attention."
The Editor says...
Even if Mr. Obama's assertions were plausible, and they are not, nobody is displaced by the weather.
(If that were true, who would have returned to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina?) No country will face famine after
a one-degree temperature change. No wars will be fought over changes in the weather.
Barack H. Obama knows that he can make rash pronouncements of this sort and nobody will challenge him.
Cracks Down on Scientists Who Talk About Climate Change. Meteorologists are paid to
talk expansively about the weather. But in Canada, they have to choose their words a little more
carefully. The government has made it clear that none of the meteorologists on its payroll should
be talking about climate change, according to a new report. It's unclear how long this rule has
been in effect, but Environment Canada, the government entity that shares weather and meteorological
information publicly, explained its position in a statement to us. "Our Weather Preparedness
Meteorologists are experts in their field of severe weather and speak to this subject.
Questions about climate change or long-term trends would be directed to a climatologist or other
applicable authority," said Danny Kingsberry, a spokesman for Environment Canada.
Taxpayers Paid $5.6 Million for
Climate Change Games. Taxpayers paid more than $5 million to create climate change games, including voicemails
from the future warning that "neo-luddites" will kill global warming enthusiasts by 2035. Columbia University's Climate Center
has received $5.7 million from the National Science Foundation for the university's "PoLAR Climate Change Education Partnership," to
"engage adult learners and inform public understanding and response to climate change." Based on the theory that games "motivate
exploration and learning of complex material," the school created "Future Coast," a website that features hundreds of made up
voicemails painting a dire picture of the future as a result of climate change.
[sic] Says Climate Alarmists Used 'McCarthy' Tactics Against Him. Meteorologist
Lennart Bengtsson claims that after he joined a non-profit which expressed doubt in the global
warming alarmist movement, he suffered a persistent campaign of hate and vitriol from alarmist
scientists. He resigned from the group on May 14, citing fears for his health and safety. Broadcast
news networks ignored Bengtsson and his claims while continuing to report on climate change.
The Climate Change Fundamentalists.
Any dissent from the fundamentalists' doomsday prophesies if their radical prescriptions to save humanity and Mother
Earth are not followed is regarded as heresy. Charge the well-funded climate change "deniers" with committing
"criminal negligence" for "their willful disregard for human life, "says Lawrence Torcello, a philosophy professor at
the Rochester Institute of Technology. After all, heretics must be punished.
or truth! Can you even tell the difference? Speaking of settled science, it is easy
to convince people it is settled when you control what gets published and what doesn't. On Friday,
it was revealed that an academic journal called Environmental Research Letters rejected a paper
that questioned how sensitive the climate is to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The rejection
said the report was "harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse
from the climate skeptics media side." In other words, the report questioned climate change
orthodoxy and therefore could not be published. This would worry people who had an open mind, but
most people will never even hear about it just like they won't hear about the record-setting
Antarctic ice sheet.
II And The Rise Of Climate McCarthyism. A noted researcher who questioned the
climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases says his paper is not being published for ideological
reasons and because it might fuel doubt in the climate change story.
McCarthyism: The Scandal Grows. Professor Lennart Bengtsson — the scientist at the
heart of the "Climate McCarthyism" row — has hit back at his critics by accusing them of
suppressing one of his studies for political reasons. The paper, which Prof Bengtsson wrote with
four co-authors, suggested that climate is probably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than is
admitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that more research needs to be done
to "reduce the underlying uncertainty". However, when submitted for publication in the leading
journal Environmental Research Letters, the paper failed the peer-review process and was rejected.
Science as McCarthysim. One of the most
telling features of climate science is just how few climate scientists changed their minds as the
evidence changed. The pause in global temperature in the last 15 years or so has
been unexpected. Now we know why: Yesterday, Bengtsson dropped a bombshell. He
was resigning from the think tank. In his resignation letter, Bengtsson wrote: ["]I have
been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has
become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct
my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety...["]
McCarthyism: The Scandal Grows. Professor Lennart Bengtsson — the scientist
at the heart of the "Climate McCarthyism" row — has hit back at his critics by accusing
them of suppressing one of his studies for political reasons. The paper, which Prof Bengtsson
wrote with four co-authors, suggested that climate is probably less sensitive to greenhouse gases
than is admitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that more research needs to be
done to "reduce the underlying uncertainty". However, when submitted for publication in the leading
journal Environmental Research Letters, the paper failed the peer-review process and was rejected.
Science Defector Forced to Resign by Alarmist 'Fatwa'. Professor Lennart Bengtsson — the
leading scientist who three weeks ago signalled his defection to the climate sceptic camp by joining the board of
the Global Warming Policy Foundation — has now dramatically been forced to resign from his position.
His views on the weakness of the "consensus" haven't changed. But as he admits in his resignation letter, he has
been so badly bullied by his alarmist former colleagues that he is worried his health and career will suffer.
and unsettled science. The NY Times calls this report "totally alarming." The only
thing alarming is that an American college professor wants anyone who disagrees with the premise of
manmade global warming to be thrown in jail. This report was prepared by the US Global Change
Research Program. Funded with a huge annual budget of $2.5 billion, not much less than the
budget of the state of Delaware, their vision is, "A Nation, globally engaged and guided by science,
meeting the challenges of climate and global change." Interesting statement. They are guided by
science, where very little is actually settled, yet they too assume that climate change is a settled fact.
change scientist claims he has been forced from new job in 'McCarthy'-style witch-hunt. A
globally-renowned climate scientist has been forced to step down from a think-tank after
he was subjected to 'Mc-Carthy'-style pressure from scientists around the world.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, 79, a leading academic from the University of Reading, left the high-profile
Global Warming Policy Foundation as a result of the threats, which he described as 'virtually unbearable'.
The group was set up by former Tory Chancellor Lord Lawson and are sceptical about radical policy
changes aimed at combating global warming.
Orthodoxy. There is something odd about the global-warming debate — or the
climate-change debate, as we are now expected to call it, since global warming has for the time
being come to a halt. I have never shied away from controversy, nor — for example, as
chancellor of the exchequer — worried about being unpopular if I believed that what I was
saying and doing was in the public interest. But I have never in my life experienced the extremes
of personal hostility, vituperation, and vilification that I — along with other dissenters,
of course — have received for my views on global warming and global-warming policies.
Bellamy OBE — Global Warming Victim. It's funny that those who stress the
scientific credentials of the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) use very unscientific and
indeed political ways and means to silence all contradictory — or even skeptical —
views about it. For example, AGWT activists, scientists and even some MPs have written to the BBC
begging it not to give "airtime" to AGWT skeptics or critics. [...] Indeed individuals in America have
even argued that AGWT skeptics should be prosecuted or criminalized — quite literally!
Will there now be a Gulag built for those who dare to question the complete and total truth of the AGWT?
Climate Inquisitor. In a free and open society, the correct way to respond to the accusation
that one's work is "intellectually bogus and wrong" is to attempt a rebuttal, not to file a lawsuit.
Obama shuts down debate.
Increasingly, however, it seems that the "shut up and move on" trope has become the go-to response of
liberals on a number of serious topics they'd rather not have to discuss in open debate. Climate
change? We're told there's 100 percent agreement among scientists that the climate is changing,
human activity is the cause and America should upend its economy to stop it from happening.
ignores sold-out global warming 'skeptic' conference. Climate scientists skeptical of claims
that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet gathered in Germany this month for a major,
now sold-out climate conference, which the media has opted not to cover. In early April, the European
Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) hosted its seventh Climate Conference in Mannheim, Germany.
The two-day conference featured prominent climate scientists including Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, physicist Nir Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and physicist Henrik
Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute.
Fiona Stanley Says Skepticism Is Like "Child Abuse". The issue became politicized when Leftists
started using the "science" to push their far left political agenda. Interesting that she has no problem
denigrating people who do not agree with the science and the scientists, most of whom do not even have degrees
in climate science, or even meteorology, to use a Warmist talking point. And, it is meant to tell skeptics
to shut up.
Torquemada Invades America.
This nation of free and open inquiry has been seized by totalitarians who refuse to entertain other points of view.
The debate about global warming is over[,] say adherents of this position. When, if ever, has the
debate about any scientific issue been over?
Big Bucks in Climate Change. What we usually hear about when the subject is climate
change is stuff meant to scare you out of your socks. Rising oceans, violent storms, draughts,
famines, plagues of locusts, and so forth. The implied alternative is austerity so severe —
no cars, rationed electricity, smaller houses, once-a-week cold showers, etc. — that people are
inclined to think, "Well, that will never happen," and tune out. Secretary of State John Kerry is a
believer and a scold of those who are called "deniers" to smear them as akin to those who believe
the Holocaust never happened.
Thought police on patrol. Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000
signatures was delivered to The [Washington] Post, demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived
the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that heresy. The column ran as usual. But I was
gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of
ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public
discourse any and all opposition.
'smear campaign' against professor who dared to disown 'sexed up' UN climate dossier. The professor who
refused to sign last week's high-profile UN climate report because it was too 'alarmist', has told The Mail on Sunday
he has become the victim of a smear campaign. Richard Tol claims he is fighting a sustained attack on his
reputation by a key figure from a leading institution that researches the impact of global warming. Prof Tol said:
'This has all the characteristics of a smear campaign. It's all about taking away my credibility as an expert.'
The Liberal Gulag.
Adam Weinstein, whose downwardly mobile credibility has taken him from ABC to Gawker, called for literally imprisoning
people with the wrong views about global warming, writing, "Those malcontents must be punished and stopped"; [...] Mr.
Weinstein specifically called for political activists, ranging from commentators to think-tank researchers, to be locked in
cages as punishment for their political beliefs. "Those denialists should face jail," he wrote. [...] At the
risk of being repetitious, let's dwell on that for a minute: The Left is calling on people to be prosecuted for
speaking their minds regarding their beliefs on an important public-policy question that is, as a political matter,
the subject of hot dispute. That is the stuff of Soviet repression.
The freedom not
to question climate change. The goal of eliminating fossil fuels would inevitably reduce civilization to
a thin veneer of culture over a primitive hunting-gathering society. So with such huge consequences, it would seem
a reasonable request to have a debate about the validity of the science which demands such earth-shattering changes from
society. But free debate is the last thing that climate-change proponents want. Instead, they want everyone
to accept "settled science" and move on to the "solution." [...] The earth's climate is changing now, in 2014, just like
it has always been changing. Climate is a dynamic, not a static system. Ergo, climate change in itself
does not prove anything.
Smearing Climate Skeptics.
As even die-hard enthusiasts for the global warming scare campaign begin to admit that they are losing the battle to keep the
public alarmed, it is time to examine how this doomsday movement has been sustained for two decades. [...] Despite widespread
cries from enviro-activists and reporters that skeptics are given unwarranted attention, when is the last time you saw a global
warming news report where skeptic climate assessments were thoroughly spelled out? And how many times have you seen that
done in the twenty-year history of this issue?
scientists refuse to debate global warming 'skeptics' in the media. Dan Weiss, the director of climate strategy
at the liberal Center for American Progress, refused to appear on Fox Business to debate climate skeptic Marc Morano last week.
Morano runs the blog Climate Depot, where he reports on environment and climate news. Weiss was set to debate Morano on
the show "The Independents" but "refused to debate directly with Morano, and chided [the show] for airing his views," according
to the Fox Business show.
Change 'as Certain as Auschwitz,' Claims Guardian. Global warming 'deniers' are as bad as 'Holocaust deniers'
because climate change is as "as certain as Auschwitz", a Guardian columnist, Nick Cohen, has claimed. Anyone who
disagrees with this is a "bed-wetting kidult", he says. Oh, and also, climate change deniers are a bit like people
who believe in aliens.
Arguments Only A Liberal Could Believe. [#2] We're all going to die because man is causing global warming!
Proof? It's science! Granted, no one can explain the science that proves global warming. But, science isn't about
science, it's about repeating the word "science" over and over again like a magic incantation. [...] Why do you hate science so
much? Why do you want polar bears to die?
Philosophy Professor: Jail 'Denialist' Climate Scientists for Criminal Negligence. Scientists who don't believe in catastrophic
man-made global warming should be put in prison, a US philosophy professor argues on a website funded by the UK government. Lawrence
Torcello, assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, writes in an essay at The Conversation that climate
scientists who fail to communicate the correct message about "global warming" should face trial for "criminal negligence".
Bob Beckel Battles Climate
Denier on Hannity: You Know Better Than That!' "There is no scientific proof that we're causing climate change," [Patrick] Moore
declared, stressing that he does believe the planet is getting warmer, just not that humans are primarily responsible. [Bob] Beckel called
out Moore for abandoning his environmentalist roots, saying he "sold out" to profit off of large companies that exacerbate climate change with
their carbon output. When Moore protested, saying CO2 goes into "the trees and the food that we eat" rather than the atmosphere, Beckel
shouted, "Come on Patrick, you know better than that. That's what you tell your clients."
Climate Change Faith Costs Apple, Shareholders. Apple CEO Tim Cook has told global warming skeptics to "get out of this
stock." But in essence, he did more than that. He told every Apple shareholder to take a hike and waved potential investors
away. When Cook met with shareholders Friday [2/28/2014], he lost his usual business cool when a group proposed that the company
be more open about its environmental activism as well as transparent about costs it incurs as it increases its dependence on renewable
energy. "If you want me to do things only for ROI (return on in vestment) reasons, you should get out of this stock," Cook snapped back.
Personal Score-Settling Is the New Climate
Agenda. Surely, some kind of ending is upon us. Last week climate protesters demanded the silencing of Charles Krauthammer for
a Washington Post column that notices uncertainties in the global warming hypothesis. [...] These are indications of a political movement
turned to defending its self-image as its cause goes down the drain. That's how thoroughly defunct, dead, expired is the idea that
humanity might take charge of earth's atmosphere through some supreme triumph of the global regulatory state over democracy, sovereignty,
nationalism and political self-interest, the very facts of political human nature.
The Original Sin of Global Warming.
[Scroll down] This is the original sin of the global warming theory: that it was founded in a presumption of guilt against industrial
civilization. All of the billions of dollars in government research funding and the entire cultural establishment that has been
built up around global warming were founded on the presumption that we already knew the conclusion — we're "ravaging
the planet" — and we're only interested in evidence that supports that conclusion. That brings us to where we are
today. The establishment's approach to the scientific debate over global warming is to declare that no such debate
exists — and to ruthlessly stamp it out if anyone tries to start one.
Climate change advocates try
to silence Krauthammer. Charles Krauthammer says it right up front in his Washington Post column: "I'm not a global warming believer.
I'm not a global warming denier." He does, however, challenge the notion that the science on climate change is settled and says those who insist
otherwise are engaged in "a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate." How ironic, then, that some environmental activists launched
a petition urging the Post not to publish Krauthammer's column on Friday. Their response to opinions they disagree with is to suppress the speech.
Cartoon Suggests 'Climate-Change Deniers' Should Be Stabbed to Death. As far as cartoonists at the New York Times are concerned, if you
are skeptical about climate change, you should die. Preferably in a violent manner. [...] Yes — even killing a climate-change
knuckle-dragger is illegal, at least for now. But give the oh so tolerant true believers more time. All crimes are justified when
one is saving the world.
NY Times publishes
cartoon about killing global warming 'deniers'. When apocalyptic cults turn murderous, they become a danger to the public.
The warmist cult, frustrated by the failure of nature to back-up their prophecies of doom, apparently is turning to homicidal fantasies, and
venting them in the pages of the New York Times.
Climate Parasites: The Answer to
'Climate Change Deniers'. It is a basic principle of psychological warfare that the side that controls the language of the argument
controls the argument. Barack Obama's own website is using this PsyWar technique by calling opponents of his cap and trade agenda "climate
change deniers." He has also used the financial resources of the federal government, such as whitehouse.gov, to marginalize everybody who
doesn't agree with him as a climate change denier. Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse, Harry Reid, and Peter DeFazio also have followed Joseph
Goebbels's advice to the effect that if you tell a big lie vigorously and often enough, people will believe it. All have used the phrase
"climate change deniers," on websites paid for by the federal government, to spread the message that anybody who opposes the cap and trade scam
is a knuckle-dragging troglodyte.
Why Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change.
In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the "Flat Earth Society" for
doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. [...] But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In
ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We
are among today's scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat
Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?
Climate-Change Skeptics Have a
Right to Free Speech, Too. I find myself tugged in two directions by the latest ruling in the defamation suit filed by climatologist
Michael Mann. A professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, Mann has long been an object of ire among climate-change skeptics.
Now it seems they have let their ire get out of hand.
GOP lawmakers accuse EPA of
muzzling scientists on climate regulations. Republican leaders on the House Science Committee are accusing the Environmental Protection Agency
of disregarding science in its push to impose carbon dioxide limits on power plants. Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and 20 other
Republican lawmakers sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Thursday, claiming the agency has "muzzled" members of
its independent science advisory board.
warming advocates should take out their earplugs. Having a rational conversation about public policy issues is becoming increasingly
difficult because so many advocates will brook no disagreement, even if their positions are contradicted by facts or logic. Instead of engaging
the argument, they demonize those who disagree with them as corrupt, ignorant, racist or worst [sic]. They use these ad hominem
attacks, in turn, to justify their refusal to compromise. The result is that urgent problems grow steadily worse. Environmental
issues often provide vivid examples of this process, especially if the issue is global warming.
Appoints Radical Activist as Head of 'Scientific Integrity'. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy
yesterday [11/25/2013] appointed a top staffer with the environmental activist group Union of Concerned Scientists to serve as the
agency's top objective referee on scientific integrity issues. McCarthy's selection of Francesca Grifo raises troubling concerns
about EPA rushing headlong into anti-science environmental activism. Grifo led so-called scientific integrity efforts at the
Union of Concerned Scientists. While Grifo led such efforts, the UCS attempted to suppress scientific democracy and dissent,
expressing outrage that a Congressman who is skeptical of the UCS' asserted global warming crisis was allowed to be a member of the
House Science Committee.
Science, Belief and Policy.
The number of people who understand the issues and who are, to varying degrees, sceptical of what they see as an unnecessarily alarmist view based
on incomplete evidence is not really known, but it is substantial; probably much smaller than the mainstream, but then science is about assessing
evidence rather than taking a democratic vote. It is difficult to be objective, of course, but I see a large number of sceptics who are
really what Matt Ridley has termed 'lukewarmists'. They know that higher levels of carbon dioxide will have some effect on temperature
but see no evidence either that this is the dominant effect or that current costly political prescriptions are likely to have any worthwhile
impact. For this, they are criticised by many and vilified as 'deniers' by their more zealous opponents.
What The Know-Nothings Know. They know that the
world has been warming due to humanity's awfulness, even as it has cooled for the last 15 years or more, and their only answers involve hiding
evidence. They know global warming and cooling have never naturally happened before, because they left that data out of their computer runs.
They know that solar activity has nothing to do with global temperatures. They know that anyone who points these matters out is "anti-science."
They know that only science paid for by liberals is "settled," and that to question evidently cooked "science" makes one equivalent to a Holocaust "denier."
One religion is enough.
We are all aware of the climate enthusiasts, who advocate quite substantial, and costly, responses to what they see as irrefutable evidence
that the world's climate faces catastrophe. By employing a sanctimonious tone against people who do not share their view, they show
their true colours: to them the cause has become a substitute religion. Increasingly offensive language is used. The most
egregious example has been the term "denier". We are all aware of the particular meaning that word has acquired in contemporary parlance.
It has been employed in this debate with some malice aforethought. An overriding feature of the debate is the constant attempt to intimidate
policy makers, in some cases successfully, with the mantras of "follow the science" and "the science is truly settled".
Who are the true denialists? People have the nasty habit of
giving their opponents names. Those who are convinced that humans are wrecking the world by burning fossil fuels call those who don't believe them
"denialists." It implies that they are close to the Holocaust deniers, and so are clearly beyond the pale. I have come to the conclusion that they
are wrong. The true denialists are those who believe in global warming, and who will go to any lengths to deny the evidence against that position.
The Press Endures Obama's Unrequited Love.
A recent, glaring example of how some of today's journalists have debased their profession was the decision by Paul Thornton, editor of The Los Angeles
Times letter's section, to openly refuse to publish any letters from skeptics about the global warming hoax that blames "climate change" on human
activity, not the Sun, oceans, and other natural factors.
It's a Cooked Book. The AP itself
uses the term "climate skeptics," which is less pointed than "denialists" but is still problematic. The purported opposition between
"skeptics" and adherents to "the scientific consensus" is nonsensical, for skepticism is at the very heart of the scientific method.
When the data call a theory into question, a scientist revisits the theory. Instead, the panel is employing the antiscientific method:
It "is expected to affirm" the theory "with greater certainty than ever." And look how the AP sums up that theory: "that humans are
cooking the planet by burning fossil fuels and cutting down CO2-absorbing forests." That's science fiction, not science.
Al Gore: 'There needs to be
a political price' for climate 'denial'. Former vice president Al Gore on Monday [9/23/2013] called for making climate
change "denial" a taboo in society. "Within the market system we have to put a price on carbon, and within the political system,
we have to put a price on denial," Gore said at the Social Good Summit New York City.
The Editor says...
Next year, perhaps it will be called the Double-Plus Good Summit.
climate panel: Hmm, how can we selectively edit these inconvenient truths? [A]nyone who doesn't immediately and vigorously seize upon the
eco-radicals' predetermined conclusions about the imminent catastrophes climate change — as well as their recommendations that we must quickly
and forcefully self-depress our economies from the top down, spending money we don't have and making people poorer — is forever destined to be
lumped into the oh-so-heinous category of a stubbornly flat-earth-society, knuckle-dragging climate "denier."
Uncivil scientists thwart Cliff Mass' climate-change
debate. [Cliff] Mass is an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington. He has been troubled for years
by the way the subject of global warming can turn typically even-headed scientists into politicized, tribal warriors. As he sees it,
there are the vast majority of scientists, including himself, who think human-caused global warming is a reality. But some in this
group, frustrated at political inaction, have begun hyping the effects of climate change beyond what the science supports. "It has
taken on some of the traits of orthodoxy, in that it can't be questioned," Mass says.
Man Made Climate Change Arguments Don't Survive
Scrutiny. Proponents of man-made climate change are being challenged more and more by scientists who don't buy into the climate catastrophe scare.
The arguments used to dismiss the challengers range from calling the non-believers names such as president Obama's "flat earthers" and his use of the term "denier"
which is meant to equate non-believers with holocaust deniers, very un-presidential.
Who are the real deniers? Global warmers are
forever calling those of us who disagree with them 'deniers.' This thinly veiled reference to the Holocaust and the murder of six million
people is far from appropriate. Do skeptics deny the Holocaust and the science? Of course not, but it brings up an interesting question:
Time for the BBC to ban the 'D' word?.
Personally I don't believe in banning words — but I do believe in intellectual and moral consistency. You'd never hear an organisation as
eggshell-treadingly right-on as the BBC use pejorative terms for Jews or black people or homosexuals or sufferers of cerebral palsy. So why, pray, does it
feel it can persist in using the deliberately offensive term "denier" to write off anyone who is sceptical about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
All Barack and No Populist Bite. On Tuesday [8/13/2013], I visited the
offices of two local congressmen: Cincinnati's Steve Chabot and Northern Kentucky's Thomas Massie. My self-appointed mission was to observe
appearances by protesting members of Organizing for Action, the now supposedly "independent" entity which until late last year ran President Barack Obama's
presidential campaigns. All of OFA's protest visits "just so happen" to target 135 Republicans characterized as "climate deniers." As a result,
on Wednesday, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, one of the very few real heroes in what used to be the world's greatest deliberative body, announced an
investigation into whether OFA has violated the Hatch Act's prohibition against engaging in political campaign activities.
For 'Action August" Little Obamanists harangue "Climate Deniers". The
cadre serving under the banner of Organizing for America have declared this month "Action August," and the marching orders were issued for the Little
Obamanists to stage rallies and blizzard their neighborhoods with flyers and postcards about Global Warming. [...] Key to Action August is the effort
to shame members of Congress who oppose the president's environmental agenda, but also to stick them with the label: "Climate Denier."
Climate Change 'Deniers' Not Welcome at
Interior — Secy. Jewell. DOI Secretary Sally Jewell told employees today that combatting climate change is a "privilege" and "moral imperative,"
adding: "I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior," E&E News PM reports. Such moralizing would be funny
were it not for the chilling effect it is bound to have in an agency already mired in group think.
Climate Change Speech Ignores Science & EU Experience. President Obama was playing to his most extreme "green" constituency in his climate
and energy speech at Georgetown University today, blasting global warming skeptics as "flat-earth society" ostriches with their heads in the sand.
President Obama said he does not have "patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real."
Is Climate Change Our
No. 1 Crisis, Mr. President? Global temperatures have been flat for 16 years — a curious time to unveil a grand, hugely
costly, socially disruptive anti-warming program. Now, this inconvenient finding is not dispositive. It doesn't mean there is no global
warming. But it is something that the very complex global warming models that Obama naïvely claims represent settled science have trouble
explaining. It therefore highlights the president's presumption in dismissing skeptics as flat-earth know-nothings. On the contrary.
It's flat-earthers like Obama who refuse to acknowledge the problematic nature of contradictory data.
The Global Warming Fraud. Newspapers, magazines, television programs,
classrooms, and conversations all over America are awash in fraud which is being covered by the mantle of "science." The birth of the Global
Warming Fraud can be traced to a conference organized by anthropologist Margaret Mead, in 1975. [...] Anyone who dares to challenge this sacred
majesterium of "science" is a heretic and an ignoramus, according to advocates of The Global Warming Fraud. Nobody wants to be called
stupid, much less really be stupid.
Howard Dean on climate realists: "Run 'em over".
The former Governor noted it was the 10th anniversary of his campaign speech and talked about the progress he's seen in that time — such as the ability
to fight back against people who say "crazy" things. "I heard a great program on CurrentTV yesterday about people who deny climate change, and I'm in favor of
what their solution was," Dean said. "We don't have to talk to them anymore about stuff that's not true and this propaganda that's a lie. We're just
going to run 'em over. And that's exactly what we're going to do."
Team Obama calls global
warming doubters 'crazy'. The president's recently formed grass-roots campaign operation revealed Thursday that it plans
to attack Republicans who question radical global warming hype, dubbing them "crazy" purveyors of "far-fetched conspiracy theories."
In a fundraising memo from President Obama's re-election campaign manager, Organizing for Action slammed "climate deniers" and their
doubts, which Jim Messina compared to the nutty things a crazy uncle would say at Thanksgiving dinner.
Climate Change Conversation
Aborted. An editorial essay by American Chemical Society (ACS) officers Bassam Shakhashiri and Jerry Bell (Science
5 April 2013) extends a gracious invitation for a "respectful conversation" about Climate Change. Yet when I tried to
respond, the editors of Science refused to print it. So much for "conversation."
Eco taxes are
nonsense if the earth isn't warming. Mysteriously, anything can be produced as evidence of global warming — hot
weather, cold weather, wet weather and dry. Climate change has become a religion and any diversion from the orthodox view is pounced
on as evidence of heretical wickedness. Those who beg to differ about the global warming creed are held up as wicked rather than
Global Warming: One
NASA Scientist Vs. More Than 20. The most famous NASA scientist is James Hansen, the political activist and expert on the
Venusian atmosphere who sounded the man-made global warming alarm at a 1988 congressional hearing. He's just one man, but the media and the
political left have made him out to be an infallible voice on climate change. We live in a society where dissent from the left-wing
narrative is not tolerated. So it's no surprise that more than 20 retired NASA scientists and engineers are not getting the same
media treatment that a single doomsayer whose quarter-of-a-century-old prediction has not come to pass.
Global warming takes a vacation.
Those who dare assert the Earth's temperature isn't on a perilous rise are derided as "deniers." For liberals, the climate debate
has ended, and it is an unquestionable article of faith that mankind's carbon-dioxide emanations have set the stage for rising oceans,
devastating hurricanes and disasters on a scale never before seen. To say otherwise is unthinkable, and that has created a
dilemma. It's not actually getting warmer.
Scientist Gets Fired for Telling the Truth. Something's amiss at the Department of Interior. Eight government
scientists were recently fired or reassigned after voicing concerns to their superiors about faulty environmental science used for policy
decisions. Which begs the question, "Are some government agencies manipulating science to advance political agendas?"
How to Destroy Science:
Cast Self-Interest as Public Interest. [Bruce] Alberts is obviously a scientist with broad interests — or, depending on
your point of view, a know-it-all who is spread very thin. According to his website, he has managed to collect 16 honorary degrees and
currently serves on 25 non-profit boards. Yet this busy man still finds the time to lecture our political leaders. He wants them
to stop denying the science of climate change. Apparently, Alberts thinks that the politicians should shut up and listen to brilliant
scientists, like himself, who really understand these things.
Professor Calls for Death
Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'. It is as inevitable as the rising of the sun; the Left, when thwarted in their quest for power,
suggests the use of lethal force to compel those who disagree. There is a nauseating litany of murders done by our betters in their pursuit of
the Benthamite vision of "the greatest good for the most people" — which in their minds equates to collectivization and socialism.
You have Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Margaret Sanger, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot. Now we can add one more name to the list: Professor Richard
Parncutt, Musicologist at Graz University in Austria.
Professor Demands Death Penalty for Global Warming Skeptics and the Pope. Richard Parncutt is an Austrian professor of Music, which
makes him an expert on global warming, who originally hails from Australia, but in true progressive style is ashamed of Australia. [...] Parncutt
also hates Israel and Mormons, and wants a global wealth tax. And even though he is opposed to the death penalty in the case of mass murderers,
he's willing to consider an exception for people he really disagrees with.
Richard Parncutt Calls for Death Penalty for Global Warming Hoax Deniers. Hardcore global warming ideologues are not just kooks, but evil
kooks. If that sounds like hyperbole, check out the final solution Australian expat Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in
Austria, advocates for those who won't drink the Kool-Aid voluntarily: ["]I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential
Richard Parncutt: Musicology
Prof. Changes His Tune For Christmas. After exposure of his death-penalty dissertation on several sceptical blogs yesterday, Prof.
Richard Parncutt took down and rewrote the page on the University of Graz website. I have reproduced his reconsidered Christmas message to the
climate debate below. He makes much of his membership of human rights organisation Amnesty International.
Earth First! Moonbats Call for "Eco-Assassinations". If Professor Richard Parncutt's
demand that global warming deniers be executed didn't convince you that enviromoonbats are not just flaky but evil, maybe Earth First!'s call for
"eco-assassins" will work. Enthralled by the terrorist activities of their hero and role model Ted Kaczynski, EF! is forming a splinter group
explicitly devoted to not eschewing violence. A list of targets is provided, complete with addresses and phone numbers, mainly featuring CEOs of
companies that provide society with the energy it requires to function.
Earth First Calling for Creepy Mock "Assasinations" hideout. So, they collect information on where
their targets live and work, and invite their moronic cadre of tree huggers to target them. Of course, the first thing this does is send the
message of "we know where you live." But, I think the more sinister note is that the left has a history of carrying out assassinations at an
peer ejected from UN climate talks for denouncing protocol. Lord Monckton of Brenchley was thrown out of the United Nations
climate change talks in Doha last night. [...] After a short speech, in which he was booed, he was escorted out of the meeting by UN
guards. He is understood to have claimed there is no global warming in the last sixteen years, and therefore the science needs
to be reviewed. Claiming to represent Asian coastal nations, he is understood to have said: "In the 16 years we have
been coming to these events there has been no global warming at all." [...] He has been banned for life from UN climate talks.
Report finds Labor Department's green jobs
program failing. The news media loves the Democrats and they are constantly making fun of Republicans for doubting evolution and global warming.
I submit to you that believe in green jobs programs is the scientific equivalent of flat-Earthism. And I have the numbers to prove it. They have the blind
faith and the insults. We have the evidence.
The Anti-Free-Speech Brigade. Last week 18,000 people
signed a petition demanding that a publicly-funded television station 'never again' report on a particular point-of-view. [...] Here's what that petition
said: ["]Immediately investigate the NewsHour segment featuring climate change denier and conspiracy theorist Anthony Watts for violations of PBS
standards on accuracy, integrity, and transparency, and recommend corrective action to ensure that such reporting never again occurs on PBS.["] If I
were serving as ombudsman I doubt I would take seriously anyone who couldn't make their point in a professional and polite manner. Was it really
necessary to insult Watts, who runs the most-read climate change blog in the world? What purpose was served by labeling him a climate change denier
and a conspiracy theorist? And shouldn't people who hurl such accusations be required to supply some sort of proof?
Skeptics Are Thrashing The Alarmists In The Global Warming Debate. Rarely will global warming alarmists step into the ring
for a live debate that people can watch. There are good reasons for this. When you remove alarmists from the protection of a
fawning liberal press and subject them to a debate on equal terms without media filters, embarrassing things tend to happen.
NZ Justice shows courts are useless in a
science debate. [Scroll down] What's unnerving about this is that if "authority" is determined not by behavior, logic or
quality of reasoning, but simply by government decree, then the court becomes a de facto arm of the government — because only
people who are funded by the government (all "climate scientists" are funded by government) can give evidence that the court recognizes.
Who can criticize and hold government or statutory authorities to proper standards? Not the citizens, for they are not "qualified".
Be Skeptical of Skeptic's Skepticism of
Skeptics. Anyone who starts out by using the hate-speech term "Climate Deniers" — laden with political overtones of Holocaust
denial — cannot expect to be taken seriously as an objective scientist. Despite this promise of "Climate Scientists' Answers", only
four peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists are cited among the 41 references at the end of the article. And the implicit notion that "Climate
Deniers" are non-scientists while true-believers are "Climate Scientists" is also unreasonable. Many eminent climate scientists are skeptical of the more
extremist claims made by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. We shall cite some of their work in this response to the Professor's unscientific article.
Kerry: Climate Change 'As
Dangerous' as Iran's Nukes and Possibility of War. The situation facing the planet because of climate change is "as
dangerous" as the possibility of war over Iran's nuclear activities, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) told the U.S. Senate on Wednesday
[8/1/2012]. Delivering what his office described as "a major address and current assessment of the global climate change
challenge," Kerry acknowledged and bemoaned the success of those who question the notion of human-induced global warming. He
compared skeptics to flat-earthers and decried what he called a "concerted assault on reason."
Letter from R.C.E. Wyndham To the Bishop of Exeter. [Scroll down to
page 17] The ethical considerations arise from the activities of propagandists when
• they seek to howl down any form of questioning or dissent,
• they use threatening vilification as a propagandist tool,
• they damage the careers of those who have the temerity to question their dogma,
• they wilfully and knowingly misrepresent data,
• they wilfully and knowingly suppress contra-indicative data,
• they claim data to be authentic and rigorous when, in reality, it is cherry picked
from partisan environmentalist propaganda material,
• they undermine scientific method by refusing to disclose and share data/methodology [...]
Professor fired after expressing
climate change skepticism. Oregon State University chemistry professor Nicholas Drapela was fired without warning three weeks ago and
has still been given no reason for the university's decision to "not renew his contract." Drapela, an outspoken critic of man-made climate
change, worked at the university for 10 years.
The '96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists. We all need to ask why the MSM didn't
find the red flags I describe in these pieces — 45 all together. The smear — in its successful form — goes back to
1996, but we need to find out more about its '91-'95 time period.
Lord of the Skeptics. [Scroll down]
Whenever inconvenient facts don't fit the desired narrative, out come the nasty names. Skeptics are called things like "birthers,
baggers and blowhards," "love letter truthers," racists, extremists, "transcripters," "planet wreckers," flat-earthers, deniers,
crack-smokers, and crackpots — in order to mock, ridicule, and shut them up, Alinsky-style.
Skeptics — If You Can't Beat 'Em, Shrink 'Em! For nearly three decades, certain U.S., U.K., and U.N. activists,
like NASA's James Hanson, have tried to sell governments on draconian centralized economic policies supposedly to save the planet.
Anyone disagreeing — regardless of credentials and reasoning — becomes the target of rhetorical terrorism.
But the skeptical resistance is so strong and growing so rapidly — not just in the public, but also among scientists —
that the alarmists increasingly show signs of both despair and loss of self-control.
compared their opponents to mass murderers long before the Heartland Institute. [Scroll down] Consider
the leading British green who said climate-change deniers should be held responsible for the "coming" "Holocaust" and thus
might have to be banged up for their complicity in mass murder. "I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at
future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from
starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead", he mused. The popular eco-magazine Grist has called for "some sort of
climate Nuremberg" to try the "bastards" who deny climate change. When they aren't being likened to Hitler,
climate-change sceptics are being lumped in with those who appeased him.
Eco Crowd Growing Desperate — and Dangerous
lose steam, tempers. Writing for Forbes.com, [Steve] Zwick has called on so-called "climate deniers" to be treated like virtual
war criminals: "We know who the active denialists are — not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create
the lies," he writes. "Let's start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let's make them pay. Let's let their houses
burn until the innocent are rescued. Let's swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let's force them to bear the cost of rising
food prices. They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?" Those who disagree with him are not merely
mistaken, they are malevolent, unworthy even of persuasion through honest debate. Instead, "denialists" deserve only to have their homes
razed. This is becoming a more and more common feature of environmentalist rhetoric.
The Editor says...
Imagine the narcissism of a person who believes that he (or anyone else) could break the climate.
Calls For Burning Down Skeptics' Homes. Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick
calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet
another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.
Global Warming's Reckless Rhetoric.
An acclaimed environmental studies professor contends that those who do not believe that humans are causing global warming are mentally ill
and need to be "treated," according to a recent story at American Thinker. Keri Norgaard teaches at the University of Oregon and
is the author of Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions and Everyday Life. In her book she compares global warming skepticism
to racism, arguing that there is a "cultural resistance" that keeps some people from acknowledging that humans are responsible for global warming.
This condition, she claims, "... must be recognized and treated" as an aberrant sociological behavior.
The Religion of Global Warming. [Scroll down] Global
warming is harsh toward skeptics, heretics, and other "deniers." One of the most dangerous features of the global warming religion is its level of
intimidation of the heretics, the non-believers. For example, former Vice President Al Gore called skeptics "global warming deniers."
Many climatologists have been intimidated into silence, or have had calls to punish them go out.
The Science of Half-Baked Ideas.
The more we learn about climate science, the more we learn what a shabby, back-of-the-envelope business it is. Dr. Michael Mann,
the climate science poster boy who simplified the global climate of the last millennium into a hockey stick, just came out with a book
to remind us how anyone who disagrees with him is a shill for dark forces.
'Fakegate': Climate Change
Fanatics Wage War on Dissenters. The rise of environmentalism, however, has generated a war on science, first by distorting it,
and then by propagandizing the 'findings', studies' and resulting claims based on them." The Heartland Institute, as a leading voice,
led the effort to debunk the hoax through its sponsorship of six international conferences featuring scientists and others who presented papers
demonstrating "that 0.038 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere had little or no "greenhouse" effect on the Earth's climate or weather events."
Heartland's six International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCC) attracted scientists worldwide, who employed science rather than
pseudo-science in their presentations.
Statement by The
Heartland Institute on Gleick Confession. Earlier this evening [2/20/2012], Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in
the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit
and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views. Gleick's crime was a serious one. The documents he admits
stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated
their privacy and endangered their personal safety.
Global warming's desperate
caper. For believers in a science that supposedly is "settled," global-warming advocates are awfully
concerned about the need to silence dissent. Last week, the ethics chairman for the American Geophysical Union
resigned in disgrace over his role in a black-bag job meant to intimidate the Heartland Institute, one of the most
effective voices questioning the anti-carbon-dioxide orthodoxy.
Conspiracy. When did it become received media wisdom that global warming skepticism was all the
work of shadowy right-wing groups lavishly funded by oil companies? As best we can tell, it started with
a 1995 Harper's magazine article claiming to expose this "high-powered engine of disinformation." Today
anyone who raises a doubt about the causes of global warming is accused of fronting for, say, Exxon, whatever
want climate change in young minds. [Scroll down] The NCSE and other groups instead will
launch a public relations effort. If it is successful, climate change skeptics could become a small
minority and might be derided for their beliefs. Some already have faced persecution. Last week,
Reuters news service reported that actor and conservative economist Ben Stein filed a $300,000 lawsuit against
Japanese manufacturer Kyocera after, he said, the company booted him from an advertising campaign when it
learned he doesn't subscribe to the theory that humans are responsible for climate change.
Dissent on global warming has been
shut down from the start. The odd thing about the great debate on global warming is that there
never really was a debate. As soon as the global warming scare exploded on the world in 1988, to its
promoters there could be no argument about it. The scientists who that year set up the UN's Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were already convinced beyond doubt that 'human-induced climate change' was a
reality. Al Gore was soon already pronouncing 'the science is settled'.
seize computers of skeptic blogger in England. The first blogger to break the Climategate2 story
has had a visit from the police and has had his computers seized. Tallbloke's Talkshop first reported on
CG2 due to the timing of the release being overnight in the USA. Today he was raided by six UK police
(Norfolk Constabulary and Metropolitan police) and several of his computers were seized as evidence.
Warming: the Guilty Men. [Scroll down] How did they get away with this stuff? It's a
question I find myself asking time and again of all those establishment figures using every manner of dirty
trick to promote the Man Made Global Warming scam. As we saw with Appeasement and we saw again with the
Euro, foremost among these dirty tricks is a relentless campaign to discredit those who disagree with them by
implying that they are mad, extreme, out-of-touch, unrepresentative, ill-informed.
The New Deniers.
The recent publication of a report by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy
of Sciences prompted a number of editorial pieces that repeated this "consensus of scientists"
argument. Typically, the pieces presented or summarized no data in support of the catastrophic
predictions, nor did they even acknowledge alternative explanations for whatever warming the earth
may be experiencing.
The Warmists Strike Back.
Science is supposed to be about truth, not what the party says is truth. The modern science establishment
is increasingly resembling George Orwell's Ministry of Love; two plus two equals five, if we say so!
After all, ignorance is strength! Now stop that dissent.
plan to demonize catastrophic climate change skeptics. Al Gore invented the
internet. He and Tipper were the basis for Erich Segal's book, Love Story. He grew up
and worked in tobacco fields, he was pro-life before he was pro choice, and his mother sang him to
sleep as an infant with "Look for the Union Label." Now, he is creating more lies, the big
lie, the evil formula: Call people indefensible names so they shut up.
scepticism is the new racism' says Gore. Just as "racist" has been honed over the
decades by liberal-lefties for casual use as a deadly weapon against anyone who disagrees them, so
"climate denier" has become the new leftist shorthand for "evil, wrong, uncaring, right-wing —
and almost certainly funded by Big Oil." In both cases, the intent is the same: to close down
the argument by implying that your opponent is so morally compromised that his case isn't even worth
Global warming skeptics are this generation's racists. One day climate change skeptics will be
seen in the same negative light as racists, or so says former Vice President Al Gore. In an
interview with former advertising executive and Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky broadcast on
UStream on Friday, Gore explained that in order for climate change alarmists to succeed, they must "win the
conversation" against those who deny there is a crisis.
Perry and Global
Warming. Last week Rick Perry questioned the prevailing orthodoxy on global warming. There
was, as is easy to imagine, no shortage of warmists waiting to pounce.
biased climate science reporting isn't biased enough' claims report. As Biased BBC notes, it
has been five years since the BBC officially abandoned all pretence that it was adopting a neutral position
on "Climate Change". In a 2007 BBC Trust policy report, it wrote: ["]The BBC has held a high
level seminar with some of the best scientific experts (on whose and what measurement) and has come to the
view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of consensus.["]
This anti-heretic policy it has been pursuing with Torquemada-like fervour ever since.
U Loses Bid to Stifle Critic. James Delingpole, a take-no-prisoner blogger with the Daily Telegraph,
has been a relentless critic of the university and the professor at the heart of the scandal, Phil Jones.
In an attempt to curb Delingpole's blog posts, the university lodged a complaint with the UK Press Complaints
Commission, an independent body. The Commission's decision, just out, is a crushing repudiation of the
university's attempt to manage dissent that could strike a blow for free speech everywhere.
Pop Went the Climate Bubble. The
New York Times' editorial writers have apparently spent the last 11 months in a Rip Van Winkle-like state
of unconsciousness when it comes to climate change. Monday's [10/18/2010] lead editorial, "In Climate
Denial Again," railed about the 19 of 20 or so Republican Senate candidates who do not "accept
the scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for global warming."
Smearing Global Warming
Skeptics. Meteorologist blogger Anthony Watts normally talks about the crumbling science of
man-caused global warming, but recently described an uninvited office guest demanding to know about his
alleged "big oil funding." The charge that only the lure of big money causes people to question
warmist gospel is old, but, turns out, of highly questionable origin.
Objective: Silence the global-warming
skeptics. A noted skeptic of "man-made climate change" says attempts are being made to ban
individuals like himself from testifying before political committees. Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com
has testified numerous times on Capitol Hill in regards to alleged "climate change," and was even the
communications director for Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) on the minority staff for the U.S. Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works. But he says he drew the ire of one individual when he was asked to testify
in the state of Louisiana. According to Morano, Commissioner Foster Campbell of the Louisiana Public
Service Commission was none too happy after engaging in a debate with Morano over climate change.
Dissent on Global Warming. [In 2007], the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen called for the
decertification of weathermen who were skeptical of manmade global warming. Grist Magazine's staff
writer David Roberts said that his solution for the "bastards" who were members of what he termed the global
warming "denial industry" is, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are
really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes
trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg."
Silencing The Critics. A recent poll of 530 climatologists in 27 countries showed 34.7 percent
of interviewees endorsed the notion that a substantial part of the current global warming trend — which
might see temperatures rise by a degree or two, on average, by century's end — is caused by man's
industrial activities: driving cars and the like. More than a fifth — 20.5 percent —
rejected this "anthropogenic hypothesis." Half were undecided.
A Major Contributor To Climate Science Effectively
Sidelined By Climate Deceivers. I was saddened to hear that Ernst Georg Beck died after a battle
with cancer. I was flattered when he asked me to review one of his early papers on the historic pattern
of atmospheric CO2 and its relationship to global warming. I was struck by the precision, detail and
perceptiveness of his work and urged its publication. I also warned him about the personal attacks and
unscientific challenges he could expect. On 6 November 2009 he wrote to me, "In Germany the
situation is comparable to the times of medieval inquisition."
Climatologist Invited, then Uninvited to Rally. On Wednesday, August 25, I was invited by
Environment America to speak at its September 8 press conference on "Extreme Weather in Delaware", to
promote the release of their new report on the subject at Legislative Hall. Ms. Hannah Leone was pleased
to have me speak because my "knowledge on climate change and weather would be a great asset to the event."
On Friday, August 27, I was uninvited from the event by Ms. Leone, who noted that "I believe it is in the
best interest of the success of our report that you do not participation [sic] in this event"...
Blowing Up the Climate Skeptics.
This is where communism and socialism ultimately lead — even of the eco-variety. You don't get
with the program; you get exterminated.
Change Group Apologizes for Violent Video. Emaciated polar bears clutching to melting icebergs.
Smokestacks fading to reveal wind turbines and clear air. These are the kinds of images you typically
see in a TV spot for climate change awareness or clean energy use. But exploding children? That's
precisely what's depicted in a new ad released Friday [10/1/2010] by British clean energy group 10:10,
ironically titled "No Pressure."
of the two ancient principles of natural justice long recognized in British law is audiatur et altera
pars. Hear the other side too. It's certainly cheaper, and it's probably right."
Monckton of Brenchley 17,000 People Who Don't Exist.
Apostles of the Global Warming religion claim their "science" is "settled" and that there is no disagreement
in the scientific community on man-made global warming. Well, there are over 17,000 verified signatures
by PhD scientists who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. It's call the Oregon Petition.
James Cameron Backs Out of Global Warming Debate HE Organized. Multi-millionaire filmmaker
James Cameron on Sunday backed out of a global warming debate that he asked for and organized. For
those that haven't been following the recent goings on concerning Nobel Laureate Al Gore's favorite
money-making myth, an environmental summit was held this weekend in Aspen, Colorado, called AREDAY, which is
short for American Renewable Energy Day.
Politicizing the climate science debate has
boosted alarmism. [Scroll down] Those of us who do not support the idea that human
greenhouse gas emissions are dangerously warming the planet are usually condemned by main stream media
as being ultra-conservative, ill-informed, anti-environmentalists, when the press acknowledges us
Depot's Marc Morano Takes on ABC News' Dan Harris. We've all sort of known the media have been in
the tank for the global warming alarmist movement. For evidence, look no further than a March 2008
segment that aired on ABC "World News" attacking leading climate skeptic, University of Virginia environmental
scientist Professor Emeritus Fred Singer.
unscientific method. The prophets of global warming continue to lament as their carefully crafted
yarn unravels before their eyes. Ross McKitrick, an intrepid economics professor from the University of
Guelph in Ontario, Canada, has tugged apart the thin mathematical threads that once held together the story of
climate change. Recent attempts to silence Mr. McKitrick illuminate the extent to which the alarmists
have abandoned proper scientific method in their pursuit of political goals.
Warming Is Just Latest Misuse Of Science.
On climate issues, as on many other issues, the biggest argument of the left has been that there is no argument.
The word "science" has been used as a magic mantra to shut up critics, even when those critics have been scientists
with international reputations as specialists in climate science.
Global Warming Farce Crashes Down.
It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the skeptics as whores of the energy industry, swaddled in
munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW. Actually, the precise opposite is
true. Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate-modeling enterprises and a
vast archipelago of research departments and "institutes of climate change" across academia. It's where
the money is. Skepticism, particularly for a young climatologist or atmospheric physicist, can
be a career breaker.
Take a letter, Maria...
As predicted, the bishops of the Church of Man-Made Climate Change have directed their flock to begin attacking The
Great Satan — newspapers that have the hardihood to report and/or editorialize on the hardy har har
that is "global warming." Whence it originated is yet to be divined. But this correspondent
received four different versions of what's basically an e-mail form letter — astroturf, as it's
known in this cyber age.
scientists plot to fight back at skeptics. Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science
underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved
said needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skeptics.
In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences
say they are tired of "being treated like political pawns" and need to fight back in kind.
Theories, Facts, and
'Denialism': [Scroll down slowly] The climate is constantly changing. That is a
fact. The notion that climate change is caused by human activities is a theory that seeks to explain
the fact. By calling the theory a "fact," climate change scientists have effectively foreclosed the
possibility of further discussion. After all, only a fool argues about facts, right? This
seemingly obvious ruse has been surprisingly effective, and the whole business hinges on the words used.
Time to Turn Up the Heat
on the Warmists. At one time some would call them "deniers." The more generous called them
"skeptics." But now, increasingly, it appears that they can be called something else: sane. Yes,
the climate has certainly changed. Even in the mainstream media, the less liberal organs are waking up.
slams climate sceptics. US President Barack Obama on Friday [2/19/2010] rebuked climate change
sceptics who argue that piles of snow dumped on the US during a frigid winter cast doubt on global warming science.
EPA Scientist Silenced in Coverup.
Monday's declaration by the Environmental Protection Administration that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases endanger public health is apparently a regulatory fraud. It was made after EPA regulators refused
to consider a report from a leading EPA scientist rejecting the theory that emission of greenhouse gases
causes global warming.
meltdown. Climate alarmists conjured a world where nothing was certain but death, taxes and
catastrophic global warming. They used this presumed scientific certainty as a bludgeon against the
skeptics they deemed "deniers" — a word meant to have the noxious whiff of Holocaust denial.
All in the cause of hustling the world into a grand carbon-rationing scheme.
Jones Finally Proves Al Gore Right — The Debate Is Over. Now that Climategate
ringleader Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no global warming (man-made or otherwise) since at
least 1995, and that the world was warmer in medieval times than now, I only have one question. Where
do the so-called global warming skeptics go to get their reputations back?
The Climate Change Propaganda
Machine. In the last several weeks we have learned several new facts about climate change
research. First, climate scientists' motives are biased. Second, scientists actively
discussed how to achieve political ends through their research. Third, and more disturbingly,
the public has learned of discarded data, attempts to keep opposing views silent, and total political
adherence to an ideology.
threatened for climate change views. Recently I interviewed professor Tim Ball on my TV show. Ball
is a highly qualified and experienced academic with an expertise in historical climatology who rejects most of the
current hysteria around climate change and global warming. He is a modest, gentle man who, in spite of his
enormous work in the field and the chairing of inquiries and commissions into environmental causes, is now
libelled, slandered, abused and threatened for his opinions.
and the Scientific Method: True to their mission as the organs of the liberal establishment,
Time magazine and the New York Times ran stories in the midst of the great snowmageddon warning
us against drawing any politically incorrect conclusions. ... Note how the Times contrasts "skeptics of
global warming" with "climate scientists." Bill Nye the Science Guy, appearing on MSNBC, used the same
tactic, accusing skeptics about manmade global warming of "denying science."
Nye 'The Science Guy': Denying Climate Change 'Unpatriotic,' 'Inappropriate'. Challenging
someone's patriotism is a pretty hefty charge to level in the political arena, based on the response when
Barack Obama's patriotism was challenged during the 2008 election cycle. However, there seems to be a
different set of rules when it comes to questioning the authenticity of the manmade global warming argument
in the wake of record-setting snowfall in the Mid-Atlantic.
Climategate: Failure of a Blind and
Biased Mainstream Media. It's beyond belief that the mainstream media can't see the devastating
importance of the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) known as Climategate. The blindness
cancels the claim they're society's watchdog. ... The mainstream media willfully ignore the massive deception
just as they have the political exploitation of climate science. In fact, most led or joined attacks on
scientists who dared to point out the problems.
should be steamed. The [Climategate] e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was
twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This
allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of
their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.
Chestnuts Roasting on a Copenhagen Fire.
Despite Rep. Ron Paul's call for members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of more than 32,000 U.S.
scientists — including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s — who believe humans likely have little
or no part in the creation of "global warming," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs justified the White
House's position and waved away opposition by tritely retorting that most people believe in global warming.
A recent survey, however, found Americans' belief in global warming has declined and is at a 12-year low.
Who are 'flat-earthers' on global warming?
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has taken the route of many who would rather call names than have a serious
debate about "climate change." He characterizes those who question "settled science" members of the
"flat-earth" society. When people resort to name-calling it is a sign they have lost an argument.
in the Classroom? The mainstream media has for too long dominated the information being
disseminated about global warming. Some people have long-term loyalty to television news programs,
newspapers, or magazines. Any opinion that varies from their source is unacceptable. Some
people have been so completely indoctrinated with the climate catastrophe story, they can't stand to
hear anything else. For them my story of global warming will be met with closed doors and
afoot for high priests. The global warming scam is in trouble because neither the globe nor
the thermometer will cooperate. ... The church [of global warming] is rattled by the embarrassing disclosure
of certain e-mail messages between prominent global-warming scientists, revealing what was suspected but not
proved before, that skeptics of the theory are systematically ignored and shunned.
Global Warmists Caught
Red-Handed. [Scroll down slowly] Our friends in the editorial sanctum sanctorum of the
Wall Street Journal pored over all the damning emails. They found dissenting scientists (Global
Warming skeptics, as they are called) being blacklisted and suppressed. For instance, Michael Mann,
director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, emailed likeminded Global
Warmists advising them to isolate and ignore scientists and scientific journals that publish the views
of the skeptics.
theology. Belief in global warming had long had a tinge of theology about it, a form of
cultism that adherents and defenders elevated to a holy crusade. Any who questioned the orthodoxy
were branded as heretics. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that climatechange skepticism is "treason"
and exhorted that "we need to start treating [skeptics] as traitors." In 2007, the Weather Channel's
Heidi Cullen said that meteorologists who were skeptical of man-made global warming should be decertified.
The e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit reveal systematic attempts by high
priests of this religion to silence scientists who disputed their rigged findings.
Security Stops Journalist's Questions About ClimateGate. A Stanford Professor has used
United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him "inconvenient questions" during a
press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen. Professor Stephen Schneider's
assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop
filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was
launching a book.
When You're Out of Arguments, Call in
the Heat. Global warming alarmist Stephen Schneider gave a press briefing in Copenhagen today
[12/11/2009]. No one was impolite enough to remind Schneider of the days when he claimed the world
was about to be destroyed by global cooling...
The Supporting Cast — Thought Police Anyone?
The most insidious activity included controlling climate information through Wikipedia. When I ask students how many
use Wikipedia for their research all hands go up. I know most media rely on it. Most have no idea how the
material is entered or edited. William Connolley knew and exploited the opportunity. ... His activities are shocking.
He established himself as an editor at Wikipedia and with a cadre (I use the term deliberately) of supporters he controlled
all entries relating to climate, climate change and the people involved. This included putting up false material
Wikipedia Meets Its Own
Climategate. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, had an article in yesterday's Wall Street
Journal drawing attention to the rise of "online hostility" and the "degeneration of online civility."
He (and coauthor Andrea Weckerle) suggested ways in which we can "prevent the worst among us from silencing the
best among us." I agree with just about everything that they say. But there is one problem that
Mr. Wales does not go near.
Censor Climate Skeptics in Congress. The Democratically-controlled Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming held a hearing yesterday [12/2/2009] to examine the science behind global warming.
Two climate experts from the Obama administration testified, but when Republicans asked to have a global-warming
skeptic at the hearing, Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) refused to allow it.
EPA Lawyers: Cap-And-Trade
'Fatally Flawed'. After stifling a report questioning the science behind climate change, the
EPA is censoring two of its lawyers for saying the proposed solutions are also problematical. The
debate isn't over. It's being suppressed. In the proud tradition of EPA whistle-blower Alan
Carlin, whose leaked study blew the lid off the EPA's hyped and flawed science behind climate change, two
EPA lawyers, Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, have produced a Web video titled "A Huge Mistake." In it
they say cap-and-trade in general and the Waxman-Markey bill in particular are the wrong answers anyway.
Wiki for Me but
Not for Thee. Some of you may have followed Wikipedia's contribution to the global warming campaign at
ClimateAudit and elsewhere, about which I wrote extensively in the draft manuscript of Red Hot Lies. ... Now I
see in an e-mail from a colleague at the Common Sense Alliance that "Wikipedia is about to delete the 'global warming
hysteria' page I set up."
Energy Secretary Chu's War On
Business. Part of the climate-change mantra is that the debate is over and the science is settled.
Just to make sure, environmental groups have sought to pressure businesses to go green or at least keep silent.
Now it would appear the whole weight of the federal government is being thrown behind this campaign to coerce and
silence real and potential opposition.
The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic.
[Scroll down] One of President Barack Obama's first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in
government, and science. The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in,
exclaiming, "As administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted
in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming
transparency." In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing
that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over." Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. [Alan]
Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency.
The Decline of Thinking. The
political establishment's response to the global warming doubts raised by EPA researcher, Alan Carlin, is
remarkable. The mantra chanted by one EPA official — and dutifully echoed across the
media — is that Mr. Carlin "is not a scientist." This fact, of course, has not kept
Al Gore from becoming the patron saint of the environmental religion. (Gore received his PhD in
which of the recognized sciences?) An assertion of this sort is evidence of the anti-intellectualism
that has metastasized across academia and spread to other venues of expression.
Cap-and-suppress. [Scroll down]
Moreover, the report said, "Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until 2030)
there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most
of the available data." Which is why President Obama and the Democrats are rushing their blatantly socialistic and
massively expensive cap-and-trade bill through Congress. They want it to become law before the global-warming theory
unravels completely. So if Americans don't speak up now, they will be saddled with this multitrillion-dollar
monstrosity that purports to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Green Jackets, Brown Shirts.
[Al] Gore didn't come right out and call global warming skeptics Nazis while addressing an audience at Oxford University in
England. But then, he didn't have to. By simply violating Godwin's Law — which essentially says
that an argument dies the moment someone makes a comparison to Nazis — in the way he did, Gore labeled anyone
who opposes his agenda a fascist. While the former vice president was delivering his sermon, the British were
busy creating a para-police squad that will enforce government-imposed carbon dioxide emissions limits.
Albert — the
Not-So Great — Gore. Think what you want about George W. Bush, but he did do
this: he saved us from a Gore Presidency. ... The Stormtroopers of the Global Warming Party do not want
to "discuss" whether the planet is warming or cooling or whether the process is natural or man made. Their
"science" is just as immutable and absolute as, say, the Aryan Science of the Nazis or the weird genetic
theories of Lysenko in Stalinist Russia. That is to say, the science of global warming is driven
exclusively by political ideology — intolerant political ideology.
Mind-boggling Extremism of Obama "Science Czar" John P. Holdren. As part of his series of
profiles on President Barack Obama's many policy "czars," last night FOX News host Sean Hannity looked at the
new "Science Czar", John P. Holdren. ... The longtime Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental
Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, Holdren is no stranger to controversy. As
Hannity pointed out in his segment, Holdren has been quoted as calling the United States the "meanest of wealthy
countries." He has also, according to Hannity, "left the door open" to prosecuting "global warming deniers."
Ignores Inconvenient Truths. John Hinderaker of Poweline has alerted everyone to the release of the
suppressed EPA Carlin/Davidson report along with incriminating emails by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
President Obama and his administration have again been appropriately exposed. Obama's intent can no longer be in
question, and his deceptive activities are instructive as to the role the United Nations will play in his plan to
address the use of American wealth.
EPA scientist breaks silence, speaks on Fox News. Alan Carlin, the senior EPA research analyst
who authored a study critical of global warming that was suppressed by agency officials, has broken his
silence and spoken on Fox News about his situation. Carlin told "Fox & Friends" Steve Ducy and Gretchen
Carlson that his most important conclusion in the study was that the U.S. should not rely upon recommendations
of the UN in making policy decisions regarding global warming.
Faith-Based Science, Indeed.
Dr. Carlin's paper is substantial and deserves to be read in its entirety. But his takeaway is clear:
the best explanations for global temperature fluctuations are changes in the amount of energy emitted by the sun,
and, especially, oscillations in the temperatures of the oceans. The explanatory power of CO2 levels is much
weaker, and, over the past decade, almost non-existent. So why, when the House has just passed a "global
warming" bill, is this report only available via a leak from CEI?
More information about the EPA
(none of it favorable) can be found here.
Censorious Left's Global Warming Denier Deniers. While President Obama says that global warming
"science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear" and Krugman says the "warming deniers" have "contempt for
hard science," the record reveals a different story. If anyone has contempt for hard science, it is the
[Paul] Krugman leftists, who, either because of their political agenda or ideological predispositions, refuse
to acknowledge — let alone consider — opposing opinions, even when they come from "hard
Consensus or censorship?
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted a "finding" to the White House Office of Management and Budget
that will force the Obama administration to decide whether to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean
Air Act. If adopted, new laws and regulations will likely follow that have the potential to change our
lifestyles and limit our freedoms. None of these laws and regulations will be preceded by debate.
They will be imposed on us by fundamentalist politicians and scientists who have swallowed the Kool-Aid and
declared global warming as fact — end of discussion.
bear expert barred by global warmists. Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be
taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group ... will
be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by
man-made global warming. ... But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay
away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those
of the rest of the group.
Game of Global Warming Hide-and-Seek. In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the
Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of
greenhouse gases. ... But Carlin's study didn't fit the blame-human-activity narrative, so it didn't make
the cut. ... The EPA now justifies the suppression of the study because economist Carlin (a 35-year veteran
of the agency who also holds a B.S. in physics) "is an individual who is not a scientist." Neither
is Al Gore. Nor is energy czar Carol Browner. Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi.
'O'ministration conceals environmental
report. A report has surfaced that the Environmental Protection Agency is suppressing an
internal study that undermines the administration's position on global warming. As the EPA wraps up its
proposed rule-making process that seeks to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant harmful to human life,
Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says the federal agency has suppressed a critical
EPA's internal nightmare over global warming: Part 1. A source inside the
Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the
economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in
evaluating the danger of CO2. The source, who chooses not to be identified for fear of retaliation,
said that Carlin was rebuffed in his attempt to introduce scientific evidence that does not accord
with the EPA's view of global warming, which largely relies on IPCC reports. The source also saw
Carlin's report and said that it was 'based on 8 points of peer-reviewed, recent and relevant
scientific publications' that cast doubt on the wisdom of regulating CO2 as a pollutant.
Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is
today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental
Protection Agency. Internal EPA email
messages, released by
CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of
pressure to support the Administration's agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.
The Climate Change Climate Change.
As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is
preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian
politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming. ... It turns
out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job
smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate
roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S. ... New Zealand last
year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The Planet Cools
While Romm Burns. According to blogger Joe Romm of Climate Progress, websites and writers
daring to question greenhouse gas orthodoxy are guilty of endangering the "health and well-being of countless
billions of people." And in a surprisingly erratic response to recent criticism, the dangerous "deniers"
this modern day prophet of doom singles out for suppression are American Thinker and its new environment
The Politics of Global
Warming. [The global warming alarmists have used this] strategy to execute an orchestrated
agenda over the last two decades:
• Announce a disaster
• Cherry pick some results
• Back it up with computer modeling
• Proclaim a consensus
• Stifle the opposition
• Take over the process and control the funding
• Roll the policy makers
Global Warming Skeptic
Takes Center Stage. As we saw last week when Democrats squashed the efforts to have Lord
Monckton side-by-side with Al Gore before Congress and the American media, global warming advocates
are reluctant to provide any venue for their "science" to be subject to scrutiny or debate. With such
deliberate obstruction, it is hard to see how their "science" is little more than propaganda.
Obamamotive. The Obama
administration has recently announced new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and automobile emissions
standards. These new standards are intended to save us from man-made "climate change" or "global
warming." The leftists in power like to declare that the science of global warming is indisputable and
there is a "scientific consensus" as to the reality of global warming. What they are really saying is
that they don't want it disputed.
shun facts, blow hot air on climate change. Former Vice President Al Gore's appearance on Capitol Hill on
Friday [4/24/2009] capped four days of testimony that elevated climate alarmism over sound science. Unfortunately,
compliant news media allow Gore's bloviating to obscure the "inconvenient truths" that would greatly unsettle his
eco-political agenda. Federal legislators are now poised to move forward with punitive anti-emissions schemes
such as cap-and-trade that ignore important and highly relevant new studies.
Science a slave to
expediency. The notion that human activity has an alarming influence on climate is based on
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports and spurious claims about a scientific consensus.
Independent scientists who question these claims are accused of being in the pay of the energy industry
and of believing that the notion of man-made climate change is a conspiracy.
change "morality". The climate "crisis" is a "moral issue that requires serious debate," Al Gore
proclaimed in an April27 AlGore.com blog post. His conversion to the Anglo-American tradition of robust debate
came a mere three days after the ex-VP refused to participate in a congressional hearing with Lord Christopher Monckton,
former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Republicans had invited Monckton to counter Gore's testimony
before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. But Gore froze like a terrified deer in headlights, and Chairman
Henry Waxman told the UK climate expert he was uninvited.
House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated. Democrats Refuse
to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing. UK's Lord Christopher
Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused
to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at high profile global warming hearing on
Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats
rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton
said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England
Thursday afternoon. "The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the
Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. "They are cowards."
"Silencing" the skeptics -- literally. Capital
punishment for "global warming deniers". I have compared global warming alarmism as a kind of
religion, complete with its own versions of sin, repentance, atonement, ritual (kids go through recycling
drills) and indulgence (purchase carbon offsets to compensate for your private jet travel). Now it
turns out that there's another element: a desire to kill heretics.
Beware of blood lust on the Left. It seems there are
more than a few global warming fanatics these days whose patience is wearing thin with those of us who refuse
to endorse repeal of what the true believers view as three of the 20th century's greatest evils -- privately
owned cars that empower people to go where they please, suburbs that let them permanently escape city life,
and free market capitalism that produces a wider prosperity than seen anywhere else in human history.
So we increasingly hear such folks muttering darkly about things that remind of Robespierre's cure for
Are Greens Tipping
the Debate Away from what Really Matters? In 2006 a retired software executive insisted to me
that we had only 10 years to do something dramatic about climate change (because that's what James Hansen had
told him). When I gently suggested that 10 years was not a scientific number but rather an
arbitrarily political one, the executive accused me of being anti-science.
How the world was bullied into silence: One of
the most disturbing aspects of the global warming scam is the number of prominent people and entire segments of society
bullied into silence. Consider the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson ... .
Children, and the Alarmists' Strange Qualifications Game. Alarmists constantly whine that
eminent physicist Freeman Dyson and thousands of other scientists are simply unqualified (usually adding
much worse things than that) to express their skepticism on climate alarmism, and yet frightened children
who have been goaded into expressing their opinion are voices that the alarmists insist must
be heard on this topic.
Exploiting the Prevailing Insanity. Even
as the science mounts, almost daily, against man-caused global warming, this valid, credible science is totally
ignored by the government and the full range of the worldwide news media. Articles supporting the fraud appear
frequently in newspapers and on radio and TV reports, but hardly a peep is heard about the science debunking it.
Deceitfully Claims Climate Conference Disharmony. You'd expect a gathering of over 700
reputable scientists, economists, and policy makers tackling an issue as topical and media-hyped as global
warming to be big news. And you know it would be, had the goal of their discussions and presentations
been to parrot and propagate the conclusions of the alarmist mainstream. But instead, attendees of the
International Conference on Climate Change arrived on Sunday prepared to put anthropogenic warming claims to
the test, and for their sins the publicity they received ranged from none to insulting.
Global Warming Skepticism:
It is worth noting that anyone even remotely skeptical of the standard model of global warming faces an
almost insurmountably quixotic task. The view that human industrial and other economic activity is filling
the air with carbon dioxide and causing the planet's temperature to rise is taught to nearly all the
nation's children and has been for years. It continues to be taught all the way through high school
and into college. It is endlessly reported in the newspapers and on the evening news broadcasts.
It is repeated on the Weather Channel and is the subject of frequent cable television
specials and documentaries.
You've Got to Have Heartland.
Environmentalists just respond to the arguments of these careful, logical, soft-spoken scientists with ridicule
and derision, claiming quite wrongly that the scientific debate is over, and these "deniers" should just shut
up, or be shut out. Quite to the contrary, what the scientists at the Heartland conference have
demonstrated beyond dispute is that at a minimum the scientific debate is just warming up, so to speak.
I think they have demonstrated quite clearly already that the alarmist warm-mongers are just wrong.
No wonder the environmentalists don't want to debate. These are brown shirt tactics effectively
just shouting down any opponents and preempting debate.
How to Think Sensibly, or Ridiculously,
About Global Warming. Unfortunately, the green warriors substitute propaganda for persuasion, insist that
there is no debate about the science of climate change, and demonize any scientist who dares dissent from their views.
They advocate putting the U.S. and the world on an energy starvation diet, to the exclusion of a wider and more moderate
range of precautions that might be taken against global warming. Underlying this effort is a sense of panic over two
things: the collapse of the Kyoto Protocol, and frequent polls showing that Americans aren't buying into
Warming Rope-a-Dope. Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is
going to destroy our planet. Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have
been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil. The Washington Post asserted on May 28, 2006
that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of manmade climate fears.
The Farce of Global
Warming. Wholesale acceptance of human-caused global warming does not, in fact, exist.
Indeed, many scientists believe that the highly politicized global warming scare is one of the greatest
scams inflicted on the planet. They hold it responsible for enforced political restrictions on
legitimate scientific inquiry and dissent and feel that a deliberate attempt has been made to silence
prominent atmospheric and climate scientists who offer legitimate criticism.
Global warming is not our
fault ... it's nature. Dr Jim Buckee says he feels like a heretic, persecuted for his views and treated like
an outcast. His crime? Being a climate change sceptic. Next week the former chief executive of the oil and
gas firm Talisman, who has a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Oxford, will try to convince others that climate
change has nothing to do with human activity. During a lecture at the University of Aberdeen he will argue that, far
from warming, the Earth is set to enter a 20-year cooling period.
The Anthropogenic Global Warming
Doctrine: I have been collecting some of the insults levelled at AGW sceptics: cash-amplified flat-earth
pseudo-scientists; the carbon cartel; villains; refuseniks lobby; polluters; a powerful and devious enemy; deniers;
profligates; crank scientists. The list is endless. I remember the reaction of a Canadian scientist who
dared to ask critical questions at a meeting on global warming. He was totally taken aback by the virulent
reaction, "it was as if I was back in the Middle Ages and had denied the Virgin Birth". A common slur is also
that all sceptics are in the pockets of the oil industry.
'Santa' Klaus Takes on Global
Warming. [Scroll down] Enter the Barack Obama administration. Between new "Climate Czar" Carole
Browner and Science Advisor John Holdren, the True Believers are now taking over Federal policy on energy and the
weather. (The weather? Yes! We are now blessed with an official bureaucracy tasked to change the
weather. It includes NASA Goddard Space Center's James Hanson, who believes that CEOs of energy companies "should
be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature" if they spread foul skepticism about global warming.)
The U.N.'s Global Warming Muzzle.
When the United Nations insists that man-made global warming is now proved beyond doubt, it's practicing one of the few
things it has proved itself good at: censorship of dissenting viewpoints.
Our New Established
Religion: What is interesting about the debate — what sets is apart from almost every
other scientific investigation in the last two centuries — is that within no more than a few years,
several people announced that the issue was no longer a debate at all. Despite the fact that climate
scientists were still analysing data, revising models and indeed revising modelling methods, it was proclaimed
publicly that there was no longer any doubt; the issue was resolved; it had been proved beyond a doubt that the
world was getting warmer, humans were to blame, and the world was facing a major catastrophe as a result.
Truth is Conveniently Missing
from Global Warming Debate. Whenever anyone refuses to debate an issue and repeatedly asserts
the "debate is over," red flags should go up. Al Gore, who brought his man-made global warming
message to Austin on October 1st , claims the debate is over. But as MIT Professor Richard
Lindzen says, this is "a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual
the Warmest in History Isn't. Here's another reason why people don't trust newspapers. ... When
it comes to global warming, newspapers play up stories that reinforce the prevalent the-sky-is-falling belief
that global warming is human-caused and catastrophic. But if a study or scientist does not portend the
end of the world as we know it, it rarely rates as news.
BBC Shunned Me For Denying Climate
Change. For years David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected
botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was
appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been
out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and
environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn't believe in man-made global warming.
Next Up for
Nationalization: the Internet. Network neutrality, or net neutrality, is the
beneficent-sounding name for sweeping new government regulatory power that would prohibit Internet service
providers from innovating in their own networks. ... Yet the greatest danger of network neutrality may be the
outright censorship of speech that it promises. Here's an example: University of Sunderland
professor Alex Lockwood says nationalization of the Internet is one way to get a handle on the problem, in
his view, of scientists skeptical of global warming who use the Internet to disseminate their research.
His reasoning shows how easily the rationale for regulation can creep from network structure to content
Greens are the enemies of
liberty. Imagine a society where simply speaking out of turn or saying the "wrong thing" was
openly discussed as a crime against humanity, and where sceptics or deniers of the truth were publicly
labelled "criminals", hauled before the press and accused of endangering humanity with their grotesque
Global Warming Alarmists Sabotage
Wikipedia Entries. "Wikipedia is in the hands of zealots," says Lawrence Solomon, a respected
journalist with Canada's National Post and an avowed environmentalist who is disturbed about deliberate
misinformation wherever he finds it. Solomon reports, in an entry on his blog page, that the biographies
of global warming skeptics on the Wikipedia Web site are being "dive-bombed" by a cadre of global warming
alarmists who trawl the site.
The price of dissent
on global warming. When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn't believe what
we were being told about global warming, I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist
and I have to follow the directions of science, but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to
voice my opinions.
Warming Censored. Global warming crusader Al Gore repeatedly claims the climate change
"debate's over." It isn't, but the news media clearly agree with him. Global warming skeptics
rarely get any say on the networks, and when their opinions are mentioned it is often with barbs like "cynics"
or "deniers" thrown in to undermine them. Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from
ABC, CBS and NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it's mankind's fault.
feeds the darkest temptation. [Scroll down slowly] Why is [Clive] Hamilton so strongly
drawn to the global warming crusade? Why is it so many former Marxists and almost everyone of the Left
is so attracted to the cult of man-made warming, with its call to force us into eco-virtuous lives? Why
is it, say, that the former editor of the Communist Party of Australia's newspaper, NSW University's Associate
Professor David McKnight, not only now preaches global warming, but demonises sceptical scientists as enemies
of the revolution, likening them this week to Holocaust deniers and tobacco lobby shills, and suggesting they
were so corrupt they'd been bought off by Big Oil?
unite! In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting
the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to
the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now
controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement. Still, the number of climate change
skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures — they're
going down, not up.
voice of dissent declared valid. There is something odd about the ferocious amount of energy
expended suppressing any dissent from orthodoxy on climate change. After all, the climate cataclysmists
have won the war of public opinion — for now, at least — with polls, business, media
and Government enthusiastically on board. So, if their case is so good, why try so fervently to
extinguish other points of view? There is a disturbingly religious zeal in the attempts to silence
critics and portray them as the moral equivalent of holocaust deniers.
Global warming hysteria: how the pendulum has swung.
It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This
corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by
almost 5%. The greenhouse hypothesis — which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous
global warming — is clearly invalidated by these data. As if that were not enough, a leading computer modelling team
has recently published a paper in Nature which acknowledges what climate rationalists (the so-called "sceptics") have
always asserted. Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessments, any human influence on global temperature is so small
that it cannot yet be differentiated from natural cycles of climate change.
Confessions of a Global Warming Skeptic: To me the
global warming debate merits caution because (1) The debate feels more fanatical than other debates, say, about health
care or the war in Iraq. I sense some unconscious emotional forces at work, including an in-group mentality.
(2) There are likely hidden agendas. What was once a scientific debate has migrated into the political realm,
where stakes are high in research funding, corporate profits, political careers, and possibly even geopolitical strategy.
Skeptics Shed Needed Light on Truth.
When global warming alarmists condemn skeptics as "deniers," that is an unscientific and socially dangerous
characterization. Skeptics are not the enemy. On the contrary, they are crucial to science because
they help us search for truth. Scientific theories exist to be verified or proven false.
Yes, global warming "is just
propaganda". Most readers don't want endless scare stories about climatic doom, accompanied by authoritarian
lectures about their carbon footprints. They're hungry for a variety of opinions. Unfortunately only 1% of
the huge number of articles on climate change in the posh London newspapers deviate from the official line of the
Intergovernmental Panel. That's not my reckoning. It comes from researchers at Oxford University who
complain about the more balanced reporting in the not-so-posh papers, with a deviancy rate of 23%. They say
it has 'skewed public understanding of human contributions to climate change'. In other words, kindly abandon
the journalistic principle that different points of views should be heard on controversial matters, or else a lot of
dreadful people out there (you or me) may not truly believe that climate change is their fault.
Global warming has
paused. Unfortunately, many scientists appear to forget that weather and climate also are controlled
by nature, as we witness weather changes every day and climate changes in longer terms. During the last
several years, I have suggested that it is important to identify the natural effects and subtract them from
the temperature changes. Only then can we be sure of the man-made contributions. This suggestion
brought me the dubious honor of being designated "Alaska's most famous climate change skeptic."
People Who Don't
Buy Into Global Warming Alarmism Are "Traitors?" "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that
we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the
environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse
from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors." The
reality is that despite all the hype, favorable press, celebs that rant about global warming, etc., the
global warming alarmists are losing the public relations war.
Kennedy Jr: Treat Global Warming Infidels As Traitors. The penalty for treason is death.
Robert Kennedy Jr. is thus, in calling for treating them as traitors, advocating death for his policy opponents.
Will we see any media outrage? Doubtful, as the author of this particular fluff piece found the comment
unworthy of further consideration.
No smoking hot spot.
I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am
the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with
the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. But since 1999 new evidence has seriously
weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty
conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As
Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Hansen Says GW Skeptics Should Be Tried.
NASA astronomer James Hansen, one of the most visible and vocal proponents of alarmist global warming theory,
has called for criminal trials against scientists, corporate executives, and public policy advocates who
disagree with him.
Climate mafia has us
fooled. Vested interests have hijacked the climate debate, and taken Australia's future hostage.
The ransom they demand? Simple agreement or, at the very least, compliance. Voices of dissent face
derision. Legitimate questions are met with ridicule. But with many of the squabbling forces of
power in this country now apparently united in their enthusiasm for an emissions trading scheme, it is more
important than ever that we go back and examine the basis of their campaigns.
Climate Skeptics Say Debate Stifled.
The head of the U.N. panel on climate change compared him to Hitler. Another leading scientist called him a
parasite. A third described his latest book as a "stealth attack" on mankind. The list of allegations
against Bjoern Lomborg, one of the world's leading climate change skeptics, almost reads like an indictment for
sceptics in an unholy row. If you really want to know what it's like to be a 16th-century
heretic, try saying you're a bit sceptical about man-made global warming. Temperatures do seem to have
gone up a little, even though environmentalists acknowledge that we might be in for a cool spell now. Still,
no one has convincingly proved that all this is definitely man's fault. Try saying that in polite circles
and it's like saying you're partial to roasted babies.
by intimidation: Not all the world shares Dr. Hansen's vision of imminent ecological
Armageddon. Serious minds, seriously disinterested in the subject, throw up caveats all the time.
They question the models of climatological speculation; they question the peculiar mix of man-made and other
likely sources of climate dynamics; they question some of the data gathering and some of its interpretation;
and they question the very maturity of the highly complex, and experimentally deficient science of global
warming itself. They seriously question, too, the massive policy prescriptions that are being insisted
upon as necessary in response to the scientific determinations of man-made global warming.
The Union of Concerned Scientists: Its Jihad
against Climate Skeptics. Among the activist groups seeking to stifle dissent in the global warming debate,
none has been more vocal — or more effective at attracting media attention — than the Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS). But UCS is a master of political tactics, not an advocate for the scientific community.
The Union of Concerned Propagandists.
I know quite a few climatologists and meteorologists and the ones I know have been courageously refuting the
global warming fraud for years, even decades. Beyond them, thousands of comparable scientists have signed
petitions and statements to the effect that global warming was and is a hoax.
Globe may be cooling on
Global Warming. Dr. Phil Chapman wrote in The Australian on April 23. "All those
urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do
if we are facing global cooling instead." Chapman neither can be caricatured as a greedy oil-company
lobbyist nor dismissed as a flat-Earther. He was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology staff physicist,
NASA's first Australian-born astronaut, and Apollo 14's Mission Scientist.
'consensus' a fiction. Former Vice President Al Gore claimed there's no legitimate objection to
the catastrophes he and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict. All this received
much media coverage and support from politicians and government bureaucrats, who stand to gain control if we
heed their warnings. The problem is, there's no scientific consensus for doomsday claims, let
alone that drastic remedies are needed. Growing numbers of global warming science skeptics are making
their opposition known. They include experts in climatology, oceanography, geology, biology,
environmental sciences and physics, among others.
Over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the
scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming. This is a hypothesis that
remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical
explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings. No equations have been shown to explain the
relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been
made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested.
This article is much more interesting than the synopsis might lead you to believe. The American
Physical Society and Global Warming. [The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley writes,] "The editors of
Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July
2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment
of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines."
Out the Junk (Science): When Al Gore and his global warming alarmists take over, one of the first
citizens they'll slap in a prison and charge with crimes against the (green) state will be Steven J.
Milloy, founder and publisher of the popular Web site JunkScience.com. For 12 years, JunkScience.com
has worked to debunk the bad science that has been used to advance the harmful or merely silly political and
social agendas of environmentalists that have led to things such as bans on DDT and incandescent light bulbs.
'Algoreism' For the Masses. Algoreism
is based first and foremost of the principle of the Big Lie. That is, if you tell a lie often enough, it
transmogrifies into truth. The bigger the lie, the better. And to push the lie forward, you make
every attempt to cut off reasonable debate.
warming not settled; skeptical view should be heard. This Earth has been warming up or cooling off through
its entire history. The idea that we can stop these cycles is ludicrous. The global warming we have recently
experienced is well within the norms we have experienced in recorded history.
Global warming on hiatus.
Since there has actually been no global warming since 1998, that means there would be an almost two-decade span where
concentrations of GHG emissions, most notably carbon dioxide, continued to intensify in the atmosphere, without global
temperatures following suit. These researchers aren't climate "deniers." They say their findings — based
on cutting-edge computer modelling techniques still in their infancy — are a refinement of existing climate
models. Prior to this study, anyone impertinent enough to point out, contrary to the Al Gore Nation,
there hasn't been any global warming for a decade was apt to have their head shot off by climate hysterics.
Blessed are the sceptics.
In 1633 Galileo Galilei was hauled before the religious authorities of his day, the Inquisition, for daring to concur with
Copernicus that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and also that it orbited the sun rather than the other way
around. For his pains, he was placed under house arrest and forced to recant. Today we are faced with a newer
religion known as environmental activism which has insinuated itself into some aspects of science. It shares some
of the intolerance to new or challenging ideas with the old. Immolation at the stake is no longer fashionable but
it has been replaced by pillory in the media.
The slick trick behind
global frauding: In Al Gore's America, any "global warming denier" is guilty until proven
innocent. He or she must have been bought off by Big Oil. Skeptics, no matter how well-qualified,
must prove the negative about really silly alarmist hogwash. And whenever some prediction is falsified,
the warm mongers have an explanation: it's just a temporary glitch in the data. Oh, yes, we were
wrong about 1998, but just wait till 2050! The excuses are endless.
Good science isn't about
consensus. If you listen hard to the global warming debate you will hear people at every level
tell us that they don't want to hear any more talk, they want action. I feel that the actions I have
seen proposed, such as carbon caps and carbon trading, are likely to be unnecessary, expensive and futile
unless there is much stronger evidence that we are facing a global environmental crisis, whether or not we
have brought it about ourselves.
Academic cool on
warming. Professor Aitkin told The Australian yesterday he had been told he was "out of his
mind" by some in the media after writing that the science of global warming "doesn't seem to stack
up". He says critics who question the impact of global warming are commonly ignored or attacked
because "scientist activists" from a quasi-religious movement have spread a flawed message that "the
science is settled" and "the debate is over".
Warming Doubters Strike Back. Every few years, some group of scientists, egged on by the media, is
persuaded to warn mankind of some new danger facing the human race. This triggers the anxiety that always
floats just below the conscious level in most people, and serves the purposes of the media by generating several
months of gratifying headlines. It also serves the purposes of the scientists, by giving them months of
flattering publicity, not to mention the financial rewards that accompany scientific papers on the subject.
The excitement dies down in due course, but there is always some new peril being discovered. Remember the
ozone hole? And whatever happened to acid rain?
NY Climate Conference:
Journey to the Center of Warming Sanity. If you rely solely on the mainstream media to keep
informed, you may not have heard that the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change concluded in New York
City on Tuesday [3/4/2008]. And if you have heard anything — this being primarily a forum of
skeptics — it was likely of a last gasp effort by "flat-Earthers" sponsored by right-wingers in the
pockets of big-oil to breathe life into their dying warming denial agenda. Well, having just
returned from the 3 day event, I'm happy to report that the struggle against the ravages of
warming alarmism is not only alive, but healthier than ever.
Opening Remarks at the 2008 International
Conference on Climate Change. The alarmists think it's a "paradox" that the more people learn
about climate change, the less likely they are to consider it a serious problem. And incidentally,
70 percent of the public oppose raising gasoline prices by $1 to fight global warming, and 80 percent
oppose a $2 per gallon tax increase, according to a 2007 poll by The New York Times and CBS News. I've
got news for them: Reducing emissions by 60 to 80 percent, which is what the alarmists claim
is necessary to "stop global warming," would cost a lot more than $1 a gallon.
media snowjob on global warming: [Scroll down] The bias is that whatever the IPCC and its
defenders claim, the Washington Post and most other outlets report without scrutiny. Meanwhile, the
motives and sources of all sceptics are instantly suspected and derided.
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.
The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control
of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored
satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant
alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists — in order to convey the
impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed 'unusual
warming' based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007,
completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate
any human influence.
Global climate change has natural
causes. Over the past two decades the concepts of man-made global warming and man-made climate change have
come to be accepted as reality. It is repeated every day, in the papers, on TV, in schools and universities. Many
governments, and the United Nations, have declared their faith that Man is causing global climate change. But is it
true, or is it just another extraordinary popular delusion?
The Sloppy Science of Global Warming: Contrary
to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our
recent warmth — not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time
scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming
could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one
possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also
coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Not Worth The Paper
It's Scribbled On. The irony here is that global-warming alarmists are fond of using assertions
about expertise and consensus as clubs to beat their critics over the head. Unless you are an atmospheric
scientist, you aren't supposed to express even an opinion about the assertions of, say, Al Gore or the
filmmakers behind The Day After Tomorrow. And when scientists do, indeed, step forward to question
the supposed consensus about an impending global catastrophe, the alarmists attempt to assassinate their
character or compare them to Flat-Earthers. Only the minority of scientists who subscribe to the
entire alarmist agenda are said to be credible. They say this is science. It is precisely the
opposite of science.
Uncertain science dogs climate debate. In an
often bitter debate, sceptics argue the science on climate change is not settled. Instead, they say
international government climate change policies will cost billions to solve a problem that in all
probability does not exist.
Environmental extremism must be put in its place
in the climate debate. Many people are starting to realize that much of what they've been told
about climate change by governments, the United Nations and crusading celebrities is simply wrong. Not
surprisingly, the assertion that "the science is settled" in a field the public is coming to understand is both
immature and quickly evolving, is triggering growing public skepticism. Alarmists respond by upping the
ante, making even more extreme and nonsensical forecasts, which in turn further fuels healthy public disbelief.
Scientific Consensus on Global
Warming: This booklet summarizes the results of international surveys of climate
scientists conducted in 1996 and 2003 by two German environmental scientists, Dennis Bray and
Hans von Storch. More than 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries provided
numerical answers each time the survey was conducted. All responses were anonymous.
Saying "No" When Everyone Else Is Saying
"Yes": There is no dramatic warming of the earth. There is no indication
of a near-future warming. Carbon dioxide (CO2) plays such a minimal role in the
atmosphere that an increase would have no effect beyond the very beneficial boost in the
growth of forests, crops, and everything else that is truly green. Indeed,
climatologists will tell you that CO2 increases follow, not precede, warming
cycles. They are not a trigger. They are a response.
Global Warming Suit
Infringes Free Speech. A global warming lawsuit by Eskimos seeks to impose conspiracy liability
on oil and power companies for giving money to groups that question the degree of humanity's role in global
The Global-Warming McCarthyites. Newsweek magazine, which tells us in a recent edition about
a "well-funded," global-warming "denial machine," is itself something of a trashing machine, a journalistic
pretender that mistakes smear for substance. The article not only fails to make so sweeping a case, but
skips over a fact that the rawest newsroom rookie should have picked up — namely, that the Chicken Littles
have outspent the cited think tanks and other groups in trying to inflict everyone with the willies,
scientific exactitude be hanged.
GM Exec Stands by Calling Global
Warming a 'Crock'. General Motors Corp Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made
dismissing global warming as a "total crock of s---," saying his views had no bearing on GM's commitment
to build environmentally friendly vehicles. Lutz, GM's outspoken product development chief, has been
under fire from Internet bloggers since last month when he was quoted as making the remark to reporters
A Total Crock
of Doo-Doo! News coverage of Mr. Lutz's politically incorrect "crock-of-doo-doo"
declaration caused me to wonder just how many American business executives harbor the same opinion
about global warming, but are too cowardly to utter the words in public? How many parrot the
environmental slogans du jour and spout platitudes about corporate social responsibility
because they would rather appease the activists than fight to protect their companies and shareholders
from the scourge of eco-socialism? I will be keen to watch these corporate Neville Chamberlains
squirm when manmade global warming takes its place in the Guinness Book of World Records under
the category "Biggest Fraud Perpetrated on Mankind."
The Dangerous Rise of Carbon Fundamentalism:
The sheer volume of articles, the vicious language and the retranslation of so many social and cultural trends — divorce,
obesity, gender conflict and much else — into terms of carbon footprint suggests that something more fundamental is going
on. Most obviously, the extreme language — comparing academics who disagree about interpretation of data to Hitler
or to Holocaust deniers — is indicative of a profound if subtle reframing of climate change. One does not debate
Hitler: the use of such language indicates a shift from helping the public and policymakers understand a complex
issue, to demonizing disagreement, especially regarding policies favored by the scientific community.
I was on the global warming gravy train. I devoted six
years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change
and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty
conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now skeptical.
31,000 U.S. Scientists Deny Man-Made Global Warming. In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon
Institute for Science and Medicine, posted his first Global Warming skeptic petition, on the Institute's website. Robinson's
petition states a truth: "There is no convincing evidence that human release of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases is
causing or will cause, in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's
climate." What do these approx 32,000 scientists believe has caused the earth's warming since 1850 if it isn't CO2? He
points to the sun. Robinson notes that over the past 150 years the sunspot index has predicted the Earth's temperature
changes — with 79 percent accuracy — about ten years before they happen. The sunspots actually
predicted the 2007 global temperature decline; the index turned down in 2000. The computer models didn't foresee it.
Effect: You'd think this would be a rich time for debate on the issue of climate change. But
it's precisely as sweeping change on climate policy is becoming likely that many people have decided the time
for debate is over. One writer puts climate change skeptics "in a similar moral category to Holocaust
denial," another envisions "war crimes trials" for the deniers. And during the tour for his film "An
Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore himself belittled "global warming deniers" as unworthy of any attention.
The Forces of Climate Sanity: Unfortunately for
the "debate is over" crowd, as more data arrives it continues to contradict everything they predict, and therefore the
anti-free market policy proposals that they and their econo-moron political masters believe. We should not forget that
the global warming alarmist movement is in no small part simply another attack on first world economies brought to you by
some of the same politicians and unions who tried and failed to destroy free trade in the past decade.
scientists may still be wrong. To shut down debate is unscientific. Science progresses by
observation and deduction, by setting up hypotheses and testing them. Allowing one view to be pushed
forward with no dissent sets a precedent that will stifle innovative thinking. Whatever Al Gore may
believe, there is an even more inconvenient truth: he could be wrong.
Debate Isn't Over. If you must declare a debate over, then maybe it's not. And if you have
to gussy up your agenda as "our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level," then it
deserves some skeptical examination.
Skeptics Help Us Search for Truth.
When global warming alarmists condemn skeptics as deniers, it is an unscientific and socially dangerous
characterization. Skeptics are not the enemy. On the contrary, they are crucial to science because
they help us search for truth. Scientific theories exist to be verified or proven false. Thomas
Huxley, a famous nineteenth-century English biologist, explained, "Skepticism is the highest of duties; blind
faith the one unpardonable sin."
of scientific doubt about climate catastrophe. I am a denier, a pejorative term applied to those
of us who reject the now discredited report that 99 percent of climatologists agree that we are in a
period of accelerated global warming, and that the debate is over. I am in good company. The
deniers include those scientists who are directly involved in actual measurements of global temperatures, or
those who base their positions on solid science, as opposed to those who base their opinion on computer
Science Organizations' 'Consensus'
Statements Do Not Reflect Members' Views. The American Geophysical Union, world's largest
organization representing earth and space scientists, has issued a new statement on the causes and consequences
of recent climate change and possible responses. Similarly, in the past few years Royal Society, National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), and American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing a
so-called consensus view that human activities are driving global warming. What you don't hear is that
these societies never allowed member scientists vote on these climate statements. Essentially, in each
case only two dozen or members on ad hoc committees and governing boards of these institutions produced
the "consensus" statements.
U.N. Blackballs International
Scientists from Climate Change Conference. The United Nations has rejected all
attempts by a group of dissenting scientists seeking to present information at the climate
change conference taking place in Bali, Indonesia. The scientists, citing pivotal
evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their
opposition to the UN's alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Professor Spreads False Warming
Stories. University of Montana forestry professor Steven Running has interjected
himself into the global warming debate by actively lobbying for expensive greenhouse gas
restrictions and criticizing those who oppose his view. In the October 25
Missoula Independent, Running labeled "ridiculous" those who have publicly corrected
his many false and misleading statements about global warming.
Not So Hot. If a scientific
paper appeared in a major journal saying that the planet has warmed twice as much as previously thought, that
would be front-page news in every major paper around the planet. But what would happen if a paper was
published demonstrating that the planet may have warmed up only half as much as previously thought?
Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate. Just
days before former Vice President Al Gore's scheduled visit to testify about global warming
before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate
between prominent scientists [in March 2007] ended with global warming skeptics being voted
the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.
Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic. During today's
hearing, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted
Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a threatening e-mail from a
group of which EPA is currently a member. The e-mail threatens to "destroy" the career of a climate
Send Letter to UN: Give Up Futile Climate Change Battle. If a former vice president with
absolutely no formal scientific training in climatology or meteorology makes a statement about the world coming
to an end due to rising temperatures, media will fawn over him like teenyboppers in the presence of Elvis
Presley. Yet, if more than 100 scientists from around the world send a letter to the Secretary General
of the United Nations urging him and his organization to stop wasting time, resources, and money fighting a
futile climate change battle, crickets will be heard in newsrooms around the country.
bias proves to be a Gray area. It's not that [Dr. William] Gray is a media pariah. His
annual forecast on the number of hurricanes is dutifully reported and prominently displayed. But when
Gray talks about global warming — he's on the record as a strong skeptic of man-made global
warming — the media barely notice.
When Political Correctness Becomes Conventional
Wisdom: Bill Gray has testified on global warming before Congress. He has given speeches,
written articles and done all he can think of to get his message out. Yet, he has been ostracized by his
colleagues, cut off from government funding and invested more than $100,000 of his own money to keep his
research going — all because he contends that global warming is a fraud. "I am of the opinion
that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people," he says. "I've been in
meteorology over 50 years. I've worked [very] hard, and I've been around. My feeling is some
of us older guys who've been around have not been asked about this. It's sort of a baby boomer, yuppie
Of The Hurricane: Colorado State University says it'll no longer promote the work of Dr. William
Gray. Is it really a cost-cutting move or are CSU and eco-fascists trying to silence the godfather of
hurricane forecasting? The university says its decision is based solely on the burdens of keeping up with
media requests and inquiries about Gray's work that overwhelm a lone media staffer. It says the decision
has nothing to do with the fact that Gray, professor emeritus of CSU's atmospheric department, has been an
effective voice offering inconvenient truths debunking Al Gore's climate disaster theories.
hurricane forecaster says global warming 'grossly exaggerated'. The studies continue to mount:
Global warming is likely to blame for producing more powerful hurricanes and endangering the earth's
ecosystems. Nonsense, William Gray said Tuesday. "There's been so much hype," the Colorado State
University storm prognosticator said. "But I don't think there's a real problem. I think global
warming has been grossly exaggerated."
Meteorologist Documents Warming Bias
in U.S. Temperature Stations. New research suggests the temperature stations used to
calculate statistics on temperatures in the United States are wrong and show more warming than has
actually occurred. Unfortunately, the scientists who compute the nation's average annual temperature
seem to have little interest in obtaining accurate information.
Fall in weather deaths dents climate
warnings. Green scientists have been accused of overstating the dangers of climate change by researchers
who found that the number of people killed each year by weather-related disasters is falling. Their report suggests
that a central plank in the global warming argument — that it will result in a big increase in deaths from weather-related
disasters — is undermined by the facts. It shows deaths in such disasters peaked in the 1920s and have been
declining ever since.
Baby, it's so cold
outside. Devastating man-made global warming is here, they insist, and causing terrible,
terrible suffering. They sound so very sure of it that you'd think they could pick, ooh, dozens
of examples of this present cataclysm that are so obvious, so incontrovertible, that sceptics like me will
slink back into our irresponsibly airconditioned homes, flushed from shame and an eerily hot sun.
ABC Attacks NASA Skeptic with
'Incensed' Scientists. Offer any skepticism of global warming and the media quickly line up
experts to discredit you. That's exactly what happened on "World News with Charles Gibson" on May 31.
Correspondent Bill Blakemore's report was about a "controversy" over recent skeptical remarks made on NPR
by NASA administrator Dr. Michael Griffin.
NASA Global Warming Soap Opera Takes Dramatic New
Twist. NASA scientist and global warming alarmist James Hansen who has received a quarter
of a million dollars in grant money from Teresa Heinz Kerry's left-wing Heinz Foundation, and thereafter
publicly endorsed Heinz's husband John Kerry for president in 2004, has given more than 1,400 on-the-job
interviews presenting a global warming alarmist point of view.
Alarmism Undermines Sound Policy.
The fact that the press has appointed Jim Hansen, whose opinion is anything but objective, the savior of
civilization shows just how unscientific the global warming debate has become.
Abusing the Public Trust. Monday [6/23/2008], James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
Studies (GISS), addressed Congress and brought a new twist to his tired global warming song and dance routine.
Hansen now seems to be calling for the chief executives of Big Oil to be tried for high crimes against humanity.
Their crime? Spreading doubt about global warming. Actually, it is Hansen who is guilty.
Guilty of abusing the public trust.
warming scientist: 'This is the last chance'. Exactly 20 years after warning America
about global warming, a top NASA scientist said the situation has gotten so bad that the world's only hope is
drastic action. Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic
will be free of sea ice in the summer.
The Editor says...
What a relief! This means that in ten years, we can completely ignore every prediction
Mr. Hansen makes, or has already made, because there will still be plenty of ice at the North
A Desperate Man.
In another example of junk science run amok, NASA scientist James Hansen wants oil executives put on trial for
giving "misinformation" about his global warming theory. Is this where society is headed? If so,
we are headed for a dangerous place. Only in totalitarian systems is dissent a criminal offense.
Hansen's comment is revealing. It's the sort of declaration made by a desperate man trying to hang on to
his declining relevance.
The Editor says...
Put me on trial, Mr. Hansen. Where will this trial take place... in a NASA courtroom? While I'm
defending my skepticism, I think I can prove that NASA itself is a complete waste of money and should
Twisting Science to Fit
the Global Warming Template: The global warming crowd does not take kindly to being contradicted,
either by critics or data. Of course, critics can be defamed and data can be skewed. But unless the
critics can be silenced, they can fight back and expose phony data. When it begins to look like predictions
of doom are not turning out sufficiently catastrophic, a full Orwell is called for. The media mobilize their
templates to completely re-cast the information.
Climate hysteria now invading our
homes and businesses. In a public and government relations coup of unprecedented proportions,
governments world-wide have been frightened into bowing before "so-called" romantic environmentalists, a
well-funded but misguided movement that has thoroughly distorted the public policy debate. Anyone who
questions their dogma is to be silenced, shunned and disgraced.
warming: the bogus religion of our age. Genuine science is about gathering evidence and
testing the veracity of theories, not cheerleading for a particular ideology. That is what is so disturbing
about the current debate on global warming. Healthy scepticism, which should be at the heart of all
scientific inquiry, is treated with contempt. … [Environmentalism] is intolerant of dissent; those who
question the message of doom are regarded as heretics, or 'climate change deniers', to use green parlance.
A Denier's Confession:
Global warming is more alarmist than alarming. I confess: I am prepared to
acknowledge that the world has been and will be getting warmer thanks in some part to an
increase in man-made atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. I acknowledge this
in the same way I'm confident that the equatorial radius of Saturn is about 60,000 kilometers:
not because I've measured it myself, but out of a deep reserve of faith in the methods of the
scientific community, above all its reputation for transparency and open-mindedness.
call this a consensus? More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers.
When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens
the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or
sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies. My series set out to profile the dissenters —
those who deny that the science is settled on climate change — and to have their views heard.
To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments.
Attacking the Messenger: The Left
Unhinged by The Fox News Channel. The most recent tactic used against the number
one cable news channel, Fox News, has been a campaign by activist and filmmaker Robert Greenwald.
Through the website, www.foxattacks.com, Greenwald is going after advertisers, like Home Depot
to get them to pull their ad dollars from The Fox News Channel because they dare to present an
opposing view regarding the role of humans in global warming. … Their testiness is especially
evident after the "Live Earth" debacle. They are scrambling to regain some sense of decorum
on the discussion of Global Warming.
warming zealots are stifling scientific debate. Tonight's airing of The Great Global Warming
Swindle and the associated discussion on [Australian] TV should be a hoot. … Three scientists with a
more rational view to the doomsday hype were invited to appear on the panel and have now been uninvited
as they do not dance to the drumbeat of disaster. There is a VIP section of the audience with
loopy-left greens and social commentators.
Update: Up against the warming
zealots. When I agreed to make The Great Global Warming Swindle, I was warned a middle-class
fatwa would be placed on my head. So I wasn't shocked that the film was attacked on the same night
it was broadcast on [Australian] ABC television last week, although I was impressed at the vehemence of
the attack. I was more surprised, and delighted, by the response of the Australian public. The
ABC studio assault, led by Tony Jones, was so vitriolic it appears to have backfired.
film hits back at Gore. From the moment it hit the airwaves on a British television station on
March 8, The Great Global Warming Swindle has generated both praise and outrage because of its theory
that scientists, politicians and the media have conspired to scare people into believing that humans are
causing climate change.
Censoring Global Warming
Skeptics. Bob Ward, John Houghton, Myles Allen and the others who advocate censoring scientific
opinion should reconsider the meaning of the statement Allen made in this piece: "Science is about the
arguments." Precisely. And you can't have arguments if one side can keep the other from speaking.
Chilling Intolerance for Free
Speech on Global Warming. The debate is now over, according to the world's top science experts,
Al Gore and Britain's environmental minister. Those who question if that's a fact are no longer
simply nay-sayers or skeptics. They are flat-earthers, "known liars," and war criminals. Worse
than the name-calling, environmentalists, the media, and even scientists are attempting to stifle other
scientists with differing opinions on climate change.
up the Heat on Gore. Global warming is what William James called a "moral equivalent of war" that
gives political officials the power to do things they could never do without a crisis. … This explains Gore's
relentless talk of "consensus," his ugly moral bullying of "deniers" and, most of all, his insistence that
because there's no time left to argue, everyone should do what he says. Isn't it interesting how the same
people who think "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" when it comes to the war think that dissent when
it comes to global warming is evil and troglodytic?
Inside the Church of Global Warming:
When ex-vice president Al Gore started saying, in a time of war, that global warming was a more important issue
for us all to focus upon than international terrorism, I placed even more focus on the issue. With the
help of the scientific community, those who have reservations on the magnitude of reported man made global
warming, I wrote two compelling articles meant to spark further debate on where we should prioritize this issue
when the nation is at war. I was literally assailed by the fanatics of the global warming community.
The Great Global Warming
Swindle: A juicy new documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has just been broadcast
[3/8/2007] on the UK's Channel 4. Based on the thesis presented in the book The Chilling
Star by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, the documentary claims that humans have absolutely no control
over Global Warming and that all the hype about it is simply propoganda inspired by the huge amounts of money
given to what's become a popular cause.
Echo Chamber. Death threats. Harassing phone calls. Threatening e-mails. Such
was a day in the life of Drew Johnson a few weeks ago. His crime? Johnson is president of the
Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a free-market think tank that broke one of the juiciest stories
of 2007. … Unfortunately for Johnson, it meant enduring days of attacks from liberals — even
though the facts of the story came directly from public records.
Just the facts. The chorus of
cheers that on Feb. 2 greeted the release of a summary of findings by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change is only the latest example of a hardening political consensus around a subject on which there is
still scientific debate. What has happened is that climate change and the human role therein have now
become a kind of orthodoxy that you question at your peril if you are a scientist or a politician.
A Cool Look at Global Warming:
The more one examines the current global warming orthodoxy, the more it resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism.
It is a great story, and a phenomenal best seller. It contains a grain of truth — and a mountain of nonsense.
And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed. We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to
be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really do need to
save the planet.
Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming -- Now Skeptics. Following the U.S.
Senate's vote today on a global warming measure, it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite
remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic
man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names
included [in this article] are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to
oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven "consensus"
on man-made global warming.
Gore fans abuse, threaten Gore foes. Gore's
defenders also spewed venomous e-mails. They sent the [Tennessee Center for Policy Research] nearly
3,000 Gore-related messages that exhibited the very bigotry the Left routinely denounces. These
offensive, often-vulgar, and occasionally unschooled comments reveal the vitriol behind much of today's
"progressive" rhetoric. … Such anti-intellectual intimidation reflects the high-octane hate that fuels
so much Leftist discourse. … Remember this whenever liberals crow about diversity, tolerance,
'Dissent' Authors Oppose Dissent. The Boykoff
brothers urge that it's unethical to allow experts skeptical of global warming into news stories. But
when you turn to Jules Boykoff's college biography page, you discover that much of his writing is devoted to
protesting the "suppression of dissent" in America, including by ... the mass media.
Now it's really getting ugly. Scientists
threatened for 'climate denial'. Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate
change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community. They
say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and
environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide
emissions. Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has
received five death threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting
age of reason, the brouhaha over global warming can leave you cold. History shows that scientists
are not always right. Sometimes they get caught up in the non-scientific enthusiasms of their time.
History also shows that one of those enthusiasms, which crops up constantly, is a desire to believe in the
approach of some kind of apocalypse. Of course, I have no way of knowing if the carbon crusade is a case
in point. But it shares some of the characteristics of previous apocalyptic movements, which provides
grounds for cool scepticism.
True Lies, The Sequel:
Five Western governors have joined forces to fight global warming by limiting carbon dioxide emissions. But
all they'll be limiting will be the economies of their states and the free speech of skeptics. … The silencing
of skeptics of global warming's imminent danger, the extent of human causation, and the cost-effectiveness of
things like Kyoto, is apparently part of the initiative.
a closer look at Al Gore's truth: When you compound the probabilities, the claims of
environmentalists such as Gore begin to look less and less certain. In fact, in their
unwillingness to brook dissent or countervailing theories, they seem less like scientists and more
like the fundamentalists they otherwise scorn.
Gore under the
spotlight. Gore and his friends oddly insist the debate is over and consensus has been reached
on the subject. The striking fact we find in exploring the subject is, however, the extent of disagreement
among scientists on the question of human agency in climate change. Gore might wrap himself in the mantle
of science, but he is not a scientist. He belongs to a class of
people — politicians — least trusted by the public.
on the Rocks. A backlash in the scientific community has begun. Last week, New
York Times veteran science reporter William Broad filed a devastating article about scientists
who are "alarmed" at Gore's alarmism; Gore's account of global warming goes far beyond the evidence.
The dissents from Gore's extremism, Broad explained, "come not only from conservative groups and
prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists" who have "no
political ax to grind."
Is there global
warming 'truth'? There is little disagreement in the media that Al Gore is greatly responsible
for bringing the subject of man-made global warming into the public glare. ... Science and politics have
co-existed in an uneasy relationship for a very long time. The reason is simple. In science
"truth" is meant to be independent of human preferences and its discovery occurs through the scientific method
of conjectures and refutations.
Climate change, Gore
and Hitler. Scientists are part of the consensus if they find that human-induced global warming
is just as bad as others say it is, or if it is a bigger problem than others say it is. But if they find
that is not such a serious problem, they're no longer part of the consensus. They're denialists.
Millionaire businessman Richard Branson is allowed to offer $25 million for research on carbon emissions
but if the American Enterprise Institute pays scientists $10,000 to examine a recent UN report, that's
bribery and corruption.
A very modest proposal. As Michael Crichton pointed out, when folks start talking about consensus
among scientists, they're talking politics, not science. Nobody goes around claiming there's a consensus
of experts when it comes to the laws of thermodynamics or asks the U.N. to decide if there's any validity to
DNA. Only with global warming are we supposed to put it to a vote, and then abide by the results of a
Comparing Global Warming Denial to Holocaust Denial: In her last column, Boston Globe columnist
Ellen Goodman wrote: "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust
deniers ..." This is worthy of some analysis. ... The Ellen Goodman quote is only the beginning of what is
already becoming one of the largest campaigns of vilification of decent people in history — the global
condemnation of a) anyone who questions global warming; or b) anyone who agrees that there is global warming
but who argues that human behavior is not its primary cause; or c) anyone who agrees that there is global
warming, and even agrees that human behavior is its primary cause, but does not believe that the consequences
will be nearly as catastrophic as Al Gore does.
What Explains the Increasing Fury of Global
Warming Alarmists? What's behind the shameless demagoguery and character assassination being
heaped on climate change "deniers"? What's behind the chilling calls for "Nuremberg trials" for
dissenting scientists? Why has the Green rhetoric escalated to lynch-mob proportions?
Global warmers getting
desperate. The perpetration of a hoax follows a fairly well-established pattern. First,
the initial propaganda stage. As skepticism increases to the point the hoax may be foiled, desperation
sets in. The second stage begins by attacking the skeptics. America is entering the second stage,
and it's not very pretty.
Warming Skeptics Shunned. The political climate isn't good for scientists with dissenting views on global warming, leaving some
researchers to fear that honest research could be blackballed in favor of promoting a "consensus" view.
A dispute erupted this week in Oregon, where Gov. Ted Kulongoski is considering firing the state's climatologist
George Taylor, who has said human activity isn't the chief cause of global climate change.
Sees Momentum Shifting Toward Global Warming Skepticism. Politicians who build
campaigns around "alarmist" global warming claims are themselves becoming quite alarmed because
of growing skepticism, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said. … "Politicians who are using this
to run for office are panicking because the scientists have totally reversed themselves on this
issue," he asserted.
Nonsensus in Scientific Matters. The concept of consensus means little more than a majority of
opinions on a given matter. In politics this is the best we can do in making decisions to proceed with
political actions. In the scientific world consensus is meaningless, and often unscientific, and worse,
often wrong. Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof is not science.
Global-warming skeptics cite
being 'treated like a pariah'. Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are
increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian
views about global warming. "In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward
disaster, you are treated like a pariah," said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall
Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy.
the real climate 'deniers'. Today, let's attack the real global warming "deniers." The
affluent, First World, Kyoto crackheads, who condemn anyone who questions their hysterical "apocalypse now"
rhetoric as being no better than a Holocaust denier. Their rhetoric is morally repugnant and disgusting.
Plus, they're fools. They carry on as if coal, oil and natural gas are evil, instead of being a product
of the natural world that has enabled civilization to flourish and saved more lives than any of them ever will.
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard
Facts? Why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years
say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no
clothes on? Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions
of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.
Global Hot Air: The
political Left's favorite argument is that there is no argument. Their current crusade is to turn "global
warming" into one of those things that supposedly no honest and decent person can disagree about, as they have already done
with "diversity" and "open space." The name of "science" is invoked by the Left today, as it has been for more than
two centuries. After all, Karl Marx's ideology was called "scientific socialism" in the 19th century. In the
18th century, Condorcet analogized his blueprint for a better society to engineering, and social engineering has been the
agenda ever since.
"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
— Phil Jones
in a reply to climate skeptic Warwick Hughes *
The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific
Consensus: [There is] a societal instability that can cascade the most questionable suggestions of
danger into major political responses with massive economic and social consequences. ...Some of the
reasons for this instability are: the existence of large cadres of professional planners looking for work, the
existence of advocacy groups looking for profitable causes, the existence of agendas in search of saleable
rationales, and the ability of many industries to profit from regulation, coupled with an effective neutralization
of opposition. It goes almost without saying that the dangers and costs of those economic and social
consequences may be far greater than the original environmental danger.
Global warming pipedream: A few
years ago, then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit said those skeptical of the global-warming doomsdayers are
"un-American" and part of a "conspiracy." Yesterday [1/15/2004], former Vice President Al Gore, speaking
in New York amid record-low temperatures, blasted President Bush as a "moral coward" for not taking a more
active stand against the imaginary global-warming scenario.
inconvenient scientist. Al Gore delivered the kickoff lecture, and, 10 years later, he
reiterated [Stephen] Schneider's directive. There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed,
more than once. Again, the same message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They
are simply untrue. I ask you: Are these convincing arguments?
Fact sheet on Global
Warming: There is less consensus about climate change within the scientific community
than reported. Some scientists believe temperatures are warming and human action is the dominant
cause. Others will accept data that seems to indicate warming but attribute this to solar
phenomena or natural cycles. Still others challenge the tools and methods of data gathering
that are the foundation for claims of warming. Indeed, even the basic measurement of today's
temperature can vary widely when measured from the ground and from satellite.
Global warming: a few skeptics still
ask why it's happening. Amid mounting evidence that temperatures are rising on planet Earth,
the "skeptics" and "agnostics" are a smaller band than they used to be. Yet those who do still
harbor doubts about a looming global-warming crisis are quietly continuing to test alternative ideas about
how climate works and what, if not the burning of fossil fuels, might be causing the temperature creep.
Climate of Fear: Global-warming
alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to
heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural
gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in
the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the
source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about
skeptic is simply man of reason. Unfortunately, life is more about circles and cycles than
straight lines. Global warming is taking on the aspect of a religious belief rather than science.
No matter what happens — hot or cold, wet or dry — it's blamed on global warming. And,
like the Darwinians, the global-warming folks treat dissenters as if they were evil heretics.
Global Warming is More Scare than
Science. On June 13 , USA Today declared that "The debate's over: Globe is
Warming." That's another headline you can ignore. The world has been warming ever since
the last Ice Age, but it is not rapidly warming in ways that threaten our existence, nor warming in
a way that requires the industrialized nations to drastically cut back on their use of energy to
avoid the many scenarios of catastrophe the Greens have been peddling since the 1980's.
still up for debate. So, "the debate is over." Time magazine says so. Last
week's cover story exhorted readers to "Be Worried. Be Very Worried," and ABC News concurred in
several stories. So did Montana's governor, speaking on ABC. And there was polling about
global warming, gathered by Time and ABC in collaboration.
"I don't like the word
'Balance'" — Says ABC News Global Warming Reporter. ABC News Reporter
Bill Blakemore declared "I don't like the word 'balance' much at all" in global warming coverage
at a journalism conference in Vermont over the weekend. Blakemore, who reported on August 30,
2006, "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" on global warming,
said he rejects 'balance' in order to justify excluding any skeptics of manmade catastrophic global
warming from his reporting. He made his remarks at Friday's panel discussion at the Society
of Environmental Journalists annual conference in Burlington.
Global-warming theory and the
eugenics precedent. "Global Warming" had a precursor in capturing the hearts and minds of the
world. Michael Crichton, in his novel "State of Fear," brilliantly juxtaposes the world's current
political embrace of "global warming" with the popular embrace of the "science" of eugenics a century
ago. For nearly 50 years, from the late 1800s through the first half of the 20th century,
there grew a common political acceptance by the world's thinkers, political leaders and media elite that
the "science" of eugenics was settled science. There were a few lonely voices trying to be heard in
the wilderness in opposition to this bogus science, but they were ridiculed or ignored.
Book review Hot Talk, Cold
Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate. S. Fred Singer is a distinguished
astrophysicist who has taken a hard, scientific look at the evidence. … Singer's masterful
analysis decisively shows that the pessimistic, and often alarming, global warming scenarios
depicted in the media have no scientific basis. In fact, he finds that many aspects of any
global warming, such as a longer growing season for food and a reduced need to use fossil fuels for
heating, would actually have a positive impact on the human race. Further, Singer notes how
many proposed "solutions" to the global warming "crisis" (like "carbon" taxes) would have severe
consequences for economically disadvantaged groups and nations.
Global hot air, Part II:
Propaganda campaigns often acquire a life of their own. Politicians who have hitched their wagons to the
star of "global warming" cannot admit any doubts on their part, or permit any doubts by others from becoming
part of a public debate. Neither can environmental crusaders, whose whole sense of themselves as saviors
of the planet is at stake, as they try to stamp out any views to the contrary.
Global hot air, Part III: If
you take the mainstream media seriously, you might think that every important scientist believes that "global
warming" poses a great threat, and that we need to make drastic changes in the way we live, in order to avoid
catastrophes to the environment, to various species, and to ourselves. The media play a key role in
perpetuating such beliefs. Often they seize upon every heat wave to hype global warming, but see no
implications in record-setting cold weather, such as many places have been experiencing lately.
True believers preach
global warming with alarming zeal. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for
Policy-makers has stated there is 90 percent certainty that there is an anthropogenic component.
Sounds good, but that is nowhere near certain in scientific terms.
prove...". Climate expert Richard S. Lindzen of M.I.T. has indicated that the vast amount
of government research money available for studies of "global warming" can discourage skeptics from being vocal
about their skepticism. This is not peculiar to studies of "global warming." Many people who
complain about the corrupting influence of money never seem to apply that to government money.
Global Warming Gag
Order. Washington has no shortage of bullies, but even we can't quite believe an October 27
letter that Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe sent to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson. Its
message: Start toeing the Senators' line on climate change, or else. … Its essential point is that
the two Senators believe global warming is a fact, and therefore all debate about the issue must stop and
ExxonMobil should "end its dangerous support of the [global warming] 'deniers.'"
Trying to Shut Down Climate Debate, Skeptics Say. Climate change skeptics — and journalists
who report on them — have become the target of a campaign aimed at stifling legitimate debate at a time
when Congress is planning an aggressive new environmental push. This is the assessment of environmental
scientists and free market advocates who see a concerted effort to silence and de-fund think tanks that
publish material challenging "prevailing global warming orthodoxy."
The Global Warming Inquisition and the
Suppression of 'Skeptic' Heresy. Imagine living in a world where no one is allowed to think
independent thoughts or take independent actions. Only pre-approved human response would be acceptable.
To break the rule and engage in forbidden thought would result in terrible retribution, perhaps leading literally
to ones destruction. That's the kind of world apparently desired by the global warming Chicken Littles.
It seems they are prepared to do anything to achieve it. Case in point is an outrageous letter to
ExxonMobil Chairman Rex Tillerson on October 27, 2006. The letter was sent by two United States
Senators, Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).
of warming. You remember evolution, right? That's one of those great unchallengeable
orthodoxies of our era — an orthodoxy that is about to run head-first into another supposedly
unchallengeable orthodoxy, climate change. Because, I would assume, to believe that millions
of types of fish, butterflies, rodents, polar bears and a myriad of other species will be completely
and utterly wiped off the face of the Earth by global warming is to also believe that these animals are
creatures entirely without the ability to adapt or evolve.
A Skeptic's Guide To Debunking
Global Warming Alarmism: Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the
theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why
temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions
could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the
temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to
fear a coming ice age.
Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority
of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send
our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts,
epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that even most believers in the global warming theory
would call this misleading at best. "The vast majority of the world's scientists" don't even work
on climate. Among those scientists who do, "the vast majority" DO NOT claim "we have just
ten years to avert a major catastrophe."
What's so hot about fickle
science? Alas, the science isn't so solid. In the '70s, it was predicting a new ice
age. Then it switched to global warming. Now it prefers "climate change." If it's hot,
that's a sign of "climate change." If it's cold, that's a sign of "climate change." If it's 53
with sunny periods and light showers, you need to grab an overnight bag and get outta there right now
because "climate change" is accelerating out of control.
Chill out over global warming. You'll
often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society. Why not give it a whirl?
Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.
[If you intentionally ignore evidence and opposing viewpoints, then you are engaged in something other
Climate of Fear: How can a barely discernible,
one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public
acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims
about future catastrophes? The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus
a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements
about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for
policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political
stakes. After all, who puts money into science — whether for AIDS, or space, or
climate — where there is nothing really alarming?
Storm Hits Weather Community Over Climate
Expert's Global Warming Claims. The Weather Channel is standing by a climatologist who is taking
some heat after blogging that TV weather forecasters skeptical about man-made global warming theories should
lose their professional certification. Climate expert Heidi Cullen defended herself last week in The
Weather Channel's One Degree Climate Change blog after questioning the fitness of meteorologists who disagree
with her conclusions.
More Hot Air on Global Warming.
Voltaire once said, "I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it."
Apparently the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen believes "If you don't agree with me, you should be silenced,
censured, and ostracized." The central point to all this brouhaha is the debate over global warming.
And there in is the essence of the problem. It remains a debate.
Weather Channel Host Shows Climate Alarmists'
Ugly Side. Heidi Cullen, a Weather Channel meteorologist who hosts the station's alarmist weekly
program The Climate Code, created a media stir on January 18 by calling on the American
Meteorological Society (AMS) to decertify meteorologists who disagree with her alarmist global warming views.
Let the great debate
on climate continue. It is profoundly unscientific to say the debate is over and that sceptics
are not only wrong on the facts but morally unhinged — as demonstrated by the unsubtle and offensive
epithet "denier". It was scepticism that led Copernicus to challenge contemporary orthodoxy and
assert that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. Today's scepticism could well prove that
man-made carbon emissions are not the sole, or even primary, driver of climate change — a conclusion
radically unsettling to those who believe that humanity is a destroyer rather than an improver of the Earth.
Science, Politics and Death:
The enemies of humanity ... want to move technology another step downward and energy production another step
backward by diminishing even the use of hydrocarbon energy. To accomplish this, they have contrived three
lies. These are the lies of hydrocarbon shortages, human-caused global cooling, and human-caused global
warming. Their allies in the press, government, foundations and business have heavily promoted these lies
over the past several decades.
Global Warming: Fact,
Fiction and Political Endgame. Did human industrial output somehow increase 55 percent
during those two years, and then decline by that amount in 2004? Of course not. For the record,
NOAA concluded that the fluctuation was caused by the natural processes that contribute and remove CO2 from
the atmosphere. Al Gore would be hard-pressed to explain NOAA's findings within the context of his
apocalyptic thesis, and he would be hard-pressed to convince any serious scientists that his Orwellian
solutions could correct such fluctuations. This is because his thesis is based largely on
warming dissenters few at U.S. weather meeting. Joe D'Aleo was a rare voice of dissent this
week at the American Meteorological Society's annual meeting in San Antonio. D'Aleo, executive director of
the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, a group of scientists, doesn't think
greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of global warming and climate change. Researchers who hold
such contrary views do not appreciate being lumped together with flat-Earthers. They are legitimate
scientists who question the mainstream, but they are a distinct minority.
genuine threat or a political bandwagon? Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party,
said: "We are being led to believe that there is a scientific consensus that global warming exists
when, in fact, the science used to support the theory stresses uncertainty at best. "In the 1970s,
there was a serious debate about whether we were entering a new Ice Age and the cause back then was based on
emissions. Now, those same emissions are allegedly the cause of global warming.
Don't Let the Facts Get in the Way. I find myself continually annoyed at the absolute certitude
cultural elites have toward global warming and man's causation. In almost every media presentation dealing
with the issue all questions are banished, and to question the "consensus" is tantamount to heresy. Why
just the other day on NPR I heard a reporter/prosecutor sound amazed that the Bush administration ever had the
temerity to question the science behind global warming.
Why liberals fear
global warming far more than conservatives do. The usual liberal responses — to
label a conservative position racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic or the
like — obviously don't apply here. So, liberals would have to fall back on the one
remaining all-purpose liberal explanation: "big business."
sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world. Two climate change sceptics, who believe
the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and
bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade. The Russian solar physicists
Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert,
Warming Models Labeled 'Fairy Tale' By Team of Scientists. A team of international scientists
[in May 2002] said climate models showing global warming are based on a "fairy tale" of computer
projections. The scientists met on Capitol Hill to expose what they see as a dearth of
scientific evidence about global warming.
warming is still a fear, not a fact. Every flood, drought or cyclone is seen through the prism of
the continuing debate about global warming. And there are those prepared to play on people's fears with
exaggerated and simplistic claims that demean the debate and the depth of scientific inquiry that is being
conducted on the issue. Tim Flannery's article in Tuesday's Age provided a good example of
this. To take just one point, it is nonsense to suggest, as Flannery did, that the present drought is the
worst in 1000 years. Whenever someone claims that a weather event is the worst since records began, it is
important to remember that reliable climate records only go back for a century at best.
The Latest Global
Warming Claims Are Flawed and Inflated. The release of five gloom-and-doom
articles on global warming and climate change, timed just as the Democratic Party was
settling on a nominee, was no accident. Nor was it surprising that those articles
should contain major flaws, inflated claims, and sweeping generalizations. But
what remains unanswered is how this stuff continues to make it through the scientific
review process and editorial boards of major newspapers and magazines.
Sky Is Falling! Or Is It? Modern-day Chicken Littles would like you to believe
that the sky is falling — or, more precisely, that the atmosphere is dangerously
overheating. But they are wrong.