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.
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.
Would Galileo buy global warming? Today,
the Church of Manmade Global Warming holds that man's sin of materialism is causing the Earth to burn up. ... The adherents
to the theory of manmade global warming have computer models and everything that take into account all sorts of factors,
except the one that may matter most — solar activity. Still, some of us heretics believe the Sun, not the
Earth, determines the Earth's temperature. After all, in any other religion, the notion that man is more
powerful than the Sun would be cause for ridicule.
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.