SEN. HIRONO: AMERICANS SHOULD ‘BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE AS THOUGH IT’S RELIGION’

Her level of intelligence never has impressed me

Even as she acknowledged its not a religion, Sen. Mazi Hirono (D-Hawaii.) encouraged Americans Tuesday to embrace climate change “as though it’s religion.”

Hirono was speaking to a group of DACA activists at a Center for American Progress organized prayer breakfast. The gathering preceded the group marching to the Supreme Court, where the high court is hearing arguments on President Trump’s effort to end Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals (or, DACA).

Listing action items for the gathered immigration activists, Sen. Hirono included climate change

Sen. Hirono said: “And the third [thing to do] is, leaving our comfort zone. And for a lot of us, protesting, marching, that’s not something that we normally do, but, you know what? These are times that call for us to do those things that we believe in and to march.”

“And not just to march,” she continued, “because that’s important to show solidarity, but then to do those things, such as voter registration, get people to — out to vote so that we can have people here who truly are committed to human rights and environmental rights, climate change, believe in climate change as though it’s a religion (it’s not it’s a science), and all the things that remains to be done and there’s a lot.”

“This is a very divided country,” she said, “these are not normal times.”

Western Hudson Bay Freeze-Up Earlier Than 1980’s Average for Third Year in Row

GlowBULL warming.

This is the third year in a row that freeze-up of Western Hudson Bay (WH) ice has come earlier than the average of November 16 as documented in the 1980s.

Reports by folks on the ground near Churchill confirm polar bears are starting to move onto the sea ice that’s developing along the shore after almost five months on land.

After five good sea ice seasons in a row for WH polar bears, this repeat of an early freeze-up means a sixth good ice season is now possible for 2019-2020.

Who are these ‘11,000 Concerned Scientists’?

Academics and scientists are yet again issuing “consensus” statements on climate change.  In 2017, we were warned by 16,000 scientists across 184 countries that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.”  This past week, BioScience, an academic, peer-reviewed journal from Oxford University Press, found 11,224 scientists, from 153 countries, who signed off on the latest climate change drivel.  Citing a “moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is,” they’ve published the paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.”  In dystopian tone, they’ve issued a demand for Earth’s population to “be stabilized — and, ideally, gradually reduced — within a framework that ensures social integrity.”

With the disclaimer that I’m just a layman who resides in “flyover country,” who are these “11,000 Scientists,” and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter?  Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields — their expertise isn’t inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science.  For example, a physicist won’t teach a graduate-level course in biology, a podiatrist won’t perform open heart surgery, and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing.  How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology, or atmospheric science?  Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link — so I looked.

In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists.  As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports that there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S.  Conversely, this list contains plenty of “experts” who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN, and linguistics.  Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could not care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change — let alone allow him to tell me how to live my life.

This raises the question: “Why did so few meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric scientists sign off on this latest paper?”  Perhaps they know that this is faux science?  

 

Former NSC Director Says Climate Change is ‘Imaginary Threat’ Brainwashing Our Youth

William Happer failed at the chance of his lifetime.

A notorious climate change science skeptic, Happer, 80, recently left the Trump administration after the White House killed his plan to create a panel to challenge government assessments of global warming.

But Happer remains undeterred, confident that President Trump, the most vocal climate change skeptic to occupy the White House, is naturally inclined to come around to the idea……………

Happer drew outrage in 2014 for declaring in an interview that “demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.”

Happer said the statement “was not meant to be in any way anti-Semitic” but that he was sorry he said it.

Nevertheless, he stood by the comparison, invoking his father’s service in the Scottish military in World War II to say that he feels strongly about opposing “fanaticism.”

In keeping up the fight against the mainstream of climate science, Happer faces opposition among an increasing number of Republicans who fear that the party will not be viable if it does not change to appeal to climate-conscious voters, especially young people.

He said he’s held his views on climate change since the early 1990s when he served as director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science in the George H.W. Bush administration.

“I feel bad about the younger generation,” said Happer, who has six grandchildren ranging from middle school- to college-age. “They have been brainwashed. The people who think this is a winning election issue are wrong.”

After leaving his post as a National Security Council senior director, Happer has returned to Princeton, where he is an emeritus physics professor.

He’s also rejoined the CO2 Coalition, an advocacy group he founded that claims rising levels of carbon will benefit the world.

BIG SISTER: Teenage Climate Zealot Greta Thunberg Demands Facebook Censor Her Opponents
Thunberg is considering leaving the social media platform if her opponents aren’t censored.

Well then DLTDHYITAOYWO, sweetiepie.

Climate change activist Greta Thunberg, the “Youth Climate Strike” founder who has been thrust into stardom by globalist oligarchs, is now demanding that her opponents be thrown off Facebook in order to stop supposed “hate and conspiracy theories.”

“I am, like many others, questioning whether I should keep using Facebook or not,” Thunberg wrote in a Facebook post last week. “Allowing hate speech, the lack of fact-checking and, of course, the issues of interfering with democracy… are among many, many other things that are very upsetting.”

“The constant lies and conspiracy theories about me and countless others, of course, result in hate, death threats and ultimately violence. This could easily be stopped if Facebook wanted to. I find the lack of taking responsibility very disturbing,” she added.

Scientocracy Busts Open the Motivation Behind Global Warming Politics

The title of this new book is a play on aristocracy. The science aristocracy is living off its former reputation as honest investigators of the natural world. But now they are largely mean-spirited bureaucrats who don’t hesitate to fake science when it serves their bureaucratic and financial goals. The public, politicians, and the media are mostly scientific ignoramuses easily fooled into believing that fake science is rock-solid science. There is an alliance driven by the money-greed of the science mandarins and the socialist dreams of the political Left. It is not an accident that the many ecological catastrophes predicted by rogue science get political support from the Left.

The book consists of 11 essays by prominent whistleblowers that have waged mostly losing battles with the scientocracy. The editors are Patrick Michaels, a distinguished skeptical climate scientist, and Terence Kealey, a biochemist and former university administrator in Great Britain.

The science establishment has been corrupted by money, specifically federal research grants. A wise President Eisenhower warned about the corrupting effect of money on science in this 1961 farewell address. Money is now more important than science. A big bite of every research grant goes to the university as “overhead.” So the university bureaucracy is intensely focused on bringing in more research grants. For the researcher, money means promotion, status, and the means to engage in expensive research projects.

Greta Thunberg Urges Extinction Rebellion to Break the Law
Greta Thunberg urging lawbreaking
Source Instagram

Greta Thunberg has stated that rules must be broken if they stand in the way of climate action.

Greta Thunberg condemns ‘unlawful’ police ban on Extinction Rebellion climate change protest
‘If standing up for humanity is against the rules then the rules must be broken,’ says teenager

Chris Baynes, Jane Dalton (2 days ago)

Greta Thunberg has called on Extinction Rebellion demonstrators to defy a police order banning them from protesting across London.
The climate change activist spoke out before the group won the go-ahead to take legal action over the order, which has been condemned by human rights groups as unlawful.

“If standing up against the climate and ecological breakdown and for humanity is against the rules then the rules must be broken,” Ms Thunberg wrote on her Instagram account.…

A judicial review of the ban, which the group’s lawyers say is “disproportionate and unlawful” will be held on Thursday afternoon.…

Human rights groups including Amnesty International and Liberty have also criticised the Metropolitan Police over the “heavy-handed” and “chilling” tactic.

Deputy assistant commissioner Laurence Taylor said the ban had been imposed following “continued breaches” of a previous order, which restricted protesters to Trafalgar Square.…

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, distanced himself from the police order and said he had asked senior officers to “find a way for those who want to protest the climate emergency we face to be able to do so legally”….

Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/greta-thunberg-extinction-rebellion-protests-police-ban-climate-change-london-a9158191.html

The Thursday judicial review was deferred until next week, so Extinction Rebellion are still under a ban forbidding them to protest in London.

Extinction Rebellion London: Met Police ‘ban’ on protests will continue over weekend as judge delays judicial review

TRISTAN KIRK Courts correspondent (2 days ago)

Scotland Yard’s controversial “ban” on the Extinction Rebellion protests will stand this weekend after a judge refused to hear a judicial review bid until next week.…

Phillippa Kaufmann QC, representing a collection of activists including Green Party peer Baroness Jenny Jones and Guardian journalist George Monbiot, asked for a fast-tracked hearing  tomorrow to determine the case.

But Mr Justice Dingemans rejected the idea this afternoon, saying he was worried a judge could make a mistake if rushed into a decision.

“I’m wholly unconvinced this is a case where it is right to speed up the process as quickly as that”, he told the High Court this afternoon.

“These are important points, both for the complainants and the defendant, on the construction of a criminal statute.”…

The effect of today’s ruling is that the section 14 order brought in by the Met this week to tackle the Extinction Rebellion ‘autumn uprising’ will continue to stand until 6pm on Saturday………..…

Read more: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/police-ban-on-extinction-rebellion-protests-will-continue-over-weekend-as-judge-delays-judicial-a4264301.html

Extinction Rebellion naturally had no respect for the law, and defied the ban, resulting in at least 1760 arrests including the arrest George Monbiot (the video shows Monbiot laughing as he is dragged away by police – all a big joke to him).

This is not about banning freedom of assembly. The British police appear to have done everything in their power to accommodate Extinction Rebellion’s ongoing right to protest. The rule does not prevent Extinction Rebellion from holding protests elsewhere. All the police asked is that Extinction Rebellion structure their London protests in such a way as to allow ordinary people to continue going about their normal business, a request Extinction Rebellion repeatedly ignored.

Trafalgar Square, where police asked Extinction Rebellion to protest, is one of the most prominent landmarks in London, an important nexus in London’s road system. If you want to cross London Bridge there is a good chance you will drive past Trafalgar Square. Thousands of people see Trafalgar Square every day. But Extinction Rebellion have so far refused to compromise, even a little.

As for Greta Thunberg, she is now on record publicly inciting people to break the law.

Perhaps it is time for President Trump to review whether he really wants a rabble rousing foreigner who has no qualms about inciting mass law breaking and civil disorder running around the USA.

Greta Thunberg’s rally in Canada met by energy worker counter-protests.

When Extinction Rebellion began their global “climate crisis” protests over a week ago, they may have truly inspired citizens to get involved.

Just not in the way they expected.

First, we had Londoners bringing a rapid end to the underground train demonstrations. Then, there are the continuing protests by the Dutch farmers, as their government wants to cut both nitrogen and carbon emissions.

Now, child climate alarmist Greta Thunberg’s climate change rally has been crashed by counter-protest led by truck convoy of oil and gas workers in Canada.

Greta Thunberg joined thousands of protesters marching in Canada’s energy heartland Alberta yesterday as a smaller counter-rally led by a truck convoy of oil and gas workers also converged on the provincial capital Edmonton.

A crowd of several thousand led by indigenous drummers with students, young people and families marched slowly from a downtown intersection towards the Alberta legislature building.

…’We are doing this because our future is at stake,’ Thunberg told the crowd.

‘We will not be bystanders. We are doing this because we want the people in power to unite behind science.

But a counter-protester said: ‘We care for the environment, of course we do. What they need to understand is that we’re hurting and we also need to care about Alberta jobs.’

The honking horns of big rig trucks blared from a nearby thoroughfare, where vehicles emblazoned with ‘We love Canada energy’ signs were driving up and down.

‘When they charged their iPhones last night, that power came from this plant,’ he said, pointing to the former coal-fired Keephills power plant near Edmonton that was being converted to natural gas.

‘Albertans and Canadians are practical people,’ he said. ‘They like real world solutions. Calling for the end of the modern industrial economy, advocating to put millions of people out of work… is not a real world solution.’

The counter-protesters say that they are tired of celebrities.

Glen Carritt, who organized the United We Roll convoy that travelled to Ottawa in February, said a similar convoy will start in Red Deer, Alta., on Friday morning and make its way to Edmonton.

Carritt said the trucks are expected to arrive at the legislature at noon MT, when a climate rally is to begin with Thunberg, 16, who founded the Fridays For Future climate strikes that have galvanized young people around the world.

He said Albertans in the oil and gas sector are frustrated with celebrities visiting the province and telling them how to run their business.

“We in the province of Alberta are tired of celebrities coming into our province and trying to tell us how to run our oil and gas sector,” read a post on the United We Roll Facebook page.

“I am asking everyone connected to the oil and gas industry to come out in unity to show Greta we do not need her yelling at us.”

It seems many Canadians are tired of environmental justice scolds and biased media.

What Do Socialists and Environmentalists Really Want?

This article could really be wrapped up in three sentences. The socialist Democrats of America want to control your money, your land, your home, your power, your water, your food, your education and your health care. They want to control what you do, where you live, where you work, what you drive and what you wear. They even want to control your news and your entertainment. They have almost succeeded on all fronts.

These aren’t new revelations. You have all heard them say it, on the campaign trail and in the recent debates. It gets worse every year as they troll for votes offering free “stuff” to a dumbed down electorate.

Besides wanting to control every aspect of our lives, the socialist Democrats openly advocate for open borders. They want to do away with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE. They want Medicare for all and wipe out private health care for 180,000,000 Americans. One of these insane asylum inmates (AOC) wants to close all of our prisons and let all the violent prisoners loose on society. They want free college for all students and free health care for illegal aliens. They want to take away our guns. They want to repeal the Electoral College so that eight (8) major cities in America, New York, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego and Los Angeles, would control the vote. They want to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar power, an insane idea and impossible. (See: “Why Wind And Solar Can Never Replace Fossil Fuels” by Paul Driessen)

Socialist Democrats and their deep state allies want all this and more, without regard to the consequences, the cost, or the devastating impact on individual freedom. The only thing that stands in their way is President Trump and the 63,000,000 Americans that voted for him. Will it be enough?

Global Warming Honcho Shockingly Honest About Climate Change Policy

I admit it, I am a skeptic. As ironic as it sounds, I am often even skeptical about the skepticism of others. I usually don’t take things at face value. I need to look behind the facade and see what kind of supporting structure it has. Outward appearances can be and often are deceiving, sometimes intentionally so……………

With global warming, much of the data, the foundation for the science, including that from years past, has been adjusted. There are legitimate reasons why particular data points may need adjustment to better reflect reality, but what scientific evidence can prove that the biases of the adjusters have not influenced vast swaths of adjusted data? What scientific evidence is there that the biases of the model builders have not creeped into the models, or that key factors of nature are downplayed or poorly understood? Vested interests want CO2 to be the culprit, so CO2 is the pre-ordained culprit.

Many leaders of the global warming movement have been quite frank about where this is headed, as with  Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of working group 3 of the IPCC: “[…] One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. […] One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

I will take them at their word. It is likely that they are being honest about this at least.

 

DAIRY COWS: TANGLED UP IN THE GREEN NEW DEAL

The Green New Deal, and similar environmental initiatives, have little to do with the environment and much to do with the Left’s desire to control every aspect of our lives. Because everything we do, beginning with breathing, involves emission of carbon dioxide or other “greenhouse gases.” AOC’s Green New Deal specifically proposed, among other things, that all air travel be banned and that all cows be done away with because they produce methane.

People who don’t follow current events closely may think that we who sound an alarm over the dictatorial potential inherent in today’s environmental activism exaggerate the problem. No one, some would assume, could possibly take the Green New Deal’s war on cows seriously.

In fact, it is deadly serious. Today the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an opinion in In the Matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Daley Farms of Lewiston, LLP – 2018 Dairy Expansion Utica Township. Daley Farms wants to expand its dairy operation, which naturally entails having more cows. Daley Farms dutifully went through the permitting process with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the MPCA granted the necessary permits. That wasn’t good enough for far-left organizations like the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, which appealed the MPCA’s grant of permits to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. MCEA argued, among other things, that the agency hadn’t taken into account the methane emissions that more cows would generate.

Shockingly, the Minnesota Court of Appeals found this objection persuasive. It reversed the MPCA’s permit issuance and sent the matter back to the agency for further proceedings. This is what the court said about the gases emitted by cows and global warming:

The MPCA’s response to the MCEA’s comment suggests that it did not consider greenhouse-gas emissions before it denied an [Environmental Impact Statement]. Not only are greenhouse-gas emissions absent from the animal-feedlot [Environmental Assessment Worksheet] form, but they are also missing from the EIS order issued by the MPCA after the public-comment period. The MPCA does not dispute that large dairy-farm operations like Daley Farms emit methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change, and that greenhouse-gas emissions could have the potential for significant environmental effects.8 The MPCA’s reliance on the absence of greenhouse-gas emissions on the animal-feedlot EAW form shows that the MPCA failed to take a “hard look” because it “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.” See CARD, 713 N.W.2d at 832.
***
We acknowledge Daley Farms’ assertion that there is no easy measure for determining the environmental impact from a feedlot permit because of the substantial difficulty and uncertainty in estimating emissions from animal feedlots. See Lightfoot, supra, at 1094 (pointing out that our decision in Holsten “recognizes that certain analyses relevant to climate change, such as determining the impacts of a project’s discrete greenhouse gas emissions or how changes in the climate may affect models used to forecast a project’s environmental effects, are beyond the state of the art”). But although it may be difficult to measure the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions, the MPCA did not offer this as an explanation when it denied the EIS for Daley Farms’ project because it did not consider the issue.
We conclude that the MPCA failed to take a “hard look” at potentially significant environmental effects and its decision lacks “articulated standards and reflective findings.”

If this decision stands, every farmer in Minnesota who wants to add more cows (or other animals, presumably) to his farm will have to pay lawyers to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement that calculates the effect of the additional farm animals on the Earth’s average temperature. I can save them some money: the impact is zero, to however many decimal points you want to work it out to.

Is this a big deal? It certainly is. Daley Farms has been trying since July 2017 to expand its operation. God only knows how much money it has spent already. With the Court’s decision today, Daley Farms will either go several more years, and spend much more money, or else give up on expanding its dairy farm.

The need for endless environmental assessments and filings, and the invitation to lavishly-funded left-wing groups to challenge permits issued by state and federal agencies, explain why we can no longer do anything. We can’t build a dam, we can’t replace a pipeline, we can’t build a power plant (especially a nuclear one). With this decision, we can’t even expand a dairy farm.

Today’s decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals (which may have been justified by a completely different issue that the Court addressed) should be a wake-up call to all Americans that liberals aren’t kidding when they say they want to prevent us from eating meat, or drinking milk or consuming other dairy products, in the name of “climate change.” The battle has been joined, and if normal Americans don’t get engaged, the Left will win. As they did today.

California Turns Off a Lot More Than Just the Lights.

Going solar isn’t necessarily any protection from California’s new “planned” power outages, and local residents and businesses are enduring a lot more than just a few inconveniences.

Bloomberg’s Chris Martin has a story on California’s troubles with one of my favorite headlines ever: “Californians Learning That Solar Panels Don’t Work in Blackouts.” Apparently, many of California’s would-be Earth-savers had no idea that just putting solar panels on their roofs doesn’t mean they’ll have power when PG&E switches it off. As Martin explains:

Most panels are designed to supply power to the grid — not directly to houses. During the heat of the day, solar systems can crank out more juice than a home can handle. Conversely, they don’t produce power at all at night. So systems are tied into the grid, and the vast majority aren’t working this week as PG&E Corp. cuts power to much of Northern California to prevent wildfires.

The only way for most solar panels to work during a blackout is pairing them with batteries. That market is just starting to take off. Sunrun Inc., the largest U.S. rooftop solar company, said some of its customers are making it through the blackouts with batteries, but it’s a tiny group — countable in the hundreds.

Martin quotes Sunrun Chairman Ed Fenster explaining that solar power with local battery storage is “the perfect combination for getting through these shutdowns,” although he fails to mention just what an expensive proposition that is, especially in the rural areas most affected by California’s return to the primitive. Fester, whose company sells those very batteries, expects battery sales “to boom” now that the promised blackouts have begun.

If you’re wondering what that smell is, it’s the scent of crony capitalism — and it stinks.

At UC Berkeley, where you’d expect all this planet-saving to be applauded, at least one student is probably less than thrilled. ABC7 reports that biochem grad student Sarah Morris says that the recent outage — again, a planned and on-purpose outage — “may have destroyed two years of her ground-breaking cancer research, valued at $500,000.” If you’re wondering what its value could have been to cancer victims who now might never receive the benefits of Morris’s research, I suspect you’re not alone.

Is Climate Change Doomsday Coming?

TIME Magazine published an article on June 24, 1974, titled “Another Ice Age?,” stating that “the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing.” This climate theory didn’t last long, as the planet apparently began to warm slightly in the latter 1970s, paving the way for the introduction of a new theory called global warming. Unfortunately, the planet failed to warm up as predicted, so yet another climate theory was created called climate change. This all-encompassing label meant that incidents of heat waves, cold snaps, rain, drought, hurricanes, and so on could all be identified as problems resulting from man-caused climate change.

In a 2005 Gallup poll asking people to identify America’s biggest problem, global warming didn’t even make it into the top ten concerns. Climate change adherents understood that if this lack of concern persisted, they would never achieve their goal of radically reducing fossil fuel use throughout the industrialized world. So marketing efforts to “sell” climate change to an unconcerned public ramped up, starting with Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which earned Gore an Oscar and Nobel Prize. Even though a British court ruled in 2007 that the film “make[s] a political statement and … support[s] a political programme” and contains nine serious science errors, climate change theorists began to use the movie both here and abroad to influence millions of public school students to become believers in man-caused climate change.

One should not be surprised by a 2018 Gallup poll that shows that 70% of Americans aged 18–34 are somewhat or very worried about global warming. Today, 40 states use a public school science curriculum that identifies mankind as the major cause of global warming, so it is clear that the “selling” of global warming continues to be increasingly effective. The fact that majorities of our Millennials and Generation Z embrace the theory of man-caused global warming is beginning to have a dramatic effect in America.

Millennial Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has over 5 million followers on Twitter, recently said the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change. Fighting climate change is an essential part of Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed New Green Deal legislation, which, if enacted, will require the U.S. to nearly eliminate all use of fossil fuels within ten years. Most of the Democrats running for president, the mass media, celebrities, and the Left are all singing the same refrain as Ocasio-Cortez, warning of a rapidly approaching man-caused Climate Doomsday, which can be avoided only by taking immediate and drastic action. For example, at a September town hall on climate change, former vice president Joe Biden said “We have to take combustion engine vehicles off the road as rapidly as we can.”

However, many millions of Americans, especially those over the age of 30, are not so sure that the climate doomsayers have the facts on their side. Therefore, I propose that we have a nationally televised debate on carbon emissions and man-caused climate change. Let Americans hear the relevant facts so they can decide for themselves if we need to completely gut our economy now in order to save the planet later.

Maybe George Soros or Tom Steyer would like to put up a big pot — say, 10 million dollars to the winner, just to make things interesting.

You Don’t Need To Be A Scientist To Be Legitimately Skeptical Of Climate Alarmism
An ambiguous, unverifiable crisis that only the state has the means or authority to combat is a blank check to power.

I am not a scientist. I have no scientific background beyond what I’ve picked up from reading things written by and about actual scientists. So I am, therefore, in no position to critique any scientific theory as a theory.

That said, I am a skeptic when it comes to climate change. To be clear, I don’t doubt that the climate changes — obviously it does. I don’t doubt that human activity has an effect on this change. What that effect is, and to what extent it influences the entire system, I don’t know. As a scientific concept, I have no opinion on climate change.

But it isn’t just a scientific concept. It is a political issue, and that is what I am skeptical of.

You see, I can’t judge from what I don’t know (e.g., climate science), but I can judge from what I do know. I know something of history, something of philosophy, and something of human nature. I can observe what people are doing at the moment and listen to what they actually say.

Doing so, I note that the vast majority of people, including the cause’s most vehement advocates, are no more qualified to judge it scientifically than I am. Does anyone really believe that any of those people marching in Washington have the knowledge and ability to interpret data from a global climate survey? Have they sunk the necessary hours of study and objective research into this subject to be able to say what they say with any certainty, assuming they could ever be certain?

Of course they haven’t. They are going entirely off of what certain experts have told them — namely, a specific selection of experts who have come to their attention because the media has elevated them and political groups have championed and funded them. These climate change apologists are in no position to critically examine these expert claims.

Now, if there is, for instance, a genuine international crisis (e.g., Venezuela), then people have resources to verify it. They can read testimonies and see photos and video of the event, and in the last resort, they can go there to see for themselves. If it is a question of domestic policy, people can consider their own experience and knowledge to judge which approach to, say, taxation seems to be the best.

People cannot do this with climate change. The signs of the crisis come down to weather and to intensely complex reams of data that require specialized knowledge to interpret. The latter is out of reach for almost everyone. The former could be used to justify just about any theory since it is a proverb for unpredictability and changeableness.

If you tell people the earth is getting warmer, they will remember all those hot summer days and snowless winters they experienced and say that warming is very likely. If you tell them it is getting cooler, they will remember the mild summer days and bitter winter nights and say cooling is also very likely.

The fact is, the average voter has no way to adequately judge the question of climate change. Yet he is assured that it is an existential crisis that must be dealt with immediately and by any means necessary. Politicians and media activists are thus urging him to favor certain actions to combat a crisis that he has no way to verify. Worse, this message tends to be directed toward impressionable young people — that is, those with the highest emotions and the least ability to examine these claims.

Average Voters Cannot Verify Climate Change Claims

Now, if there is, for instance, a genuine international crisis (e.g., Venezuela), then people have resources to verify it. They can read testimonies and see photos and video of the event, and in the last resort, they can go there to see for themselves. If it is a question of domestic policy, people can consider their own experience and knowledge to judge which approach to, say, taxation seems to be the best.

People cannot do this with climate change. The signs of the crisis come down to weather and to intensely complex reams of data that require specialized knowledge to interpret. The latter is out of reach for almost everyone. The former could be used to justify just about any theory since it is a proverb for unpredictability and changeableness.

If you tell people the earth is getting warmer, they will remember all those hot summer days and snowless winters they experienced and say that warming is very likely. If you tell them it is getting cooler, they will remember the mild summer days and bitter winter nights and say cooling is also very likely.

The fact is, the average voter has no way to adequately judge the question of climate change. Yet he is assured that it is an existential crisis that must be dealt with immediately and by any means necessary. Politicians and media activists are thus urging him to favor certain actions to combat a crisis that he has no way to verify. Worse, this message tends to be directed toward impressionable young people — that is, those with the highest emotions and the least ability to examine these claims.

That is an extremely dangerous state of affairs for a representative government.

More about Government Control than Science

This ties in with the fact that climate change activists and experts do not act like they are talking about science. As I say, I am no expert, but I do know enough of the subject to know that in science you have to take everything into account, especially anything that seems to tell against your theory. Science is never exactly “settled” because new instruments or new techniques could always present new observations that don’t fit with the common view. This is what happened with the heliocentric theory, Newtonian physics, genetics, and with every other major scientific breakthrough.

So when I see scientists and media personalities talking about “climate change denial,” as if it were a mental illness, accusing those who are skeptical of their theories of being in the pay of oil companies or otherwise arguing in bad faith (overlooking their own government grants and celebrity status in the process, I might add), and inflating the numbers of those who agree with them, it looks highly suspicious. This is not how responsible scientists or politicians behave.

Then there is the proposed solution. There never seems to be a technical solution — for instance, if the Earth’s atmosphere is being flooded with carbon dioxide, perhaps we could find a way to release quantities of a gas that might dilute the greenhouse effect. Much less is there a question of whether a warmer climate might have a net-positive effect, or at least be a manageable problem. No, it’s all certain doom within our lifetime unless we adopt tighter state control. More recently, climate change advocates have been openly calling for socialism as the panacea to the Earth’s ills.

In other words, the proposed solution to what we are told is an existential crisis is, conveniently, to give more power to the very same people who are informing us that this crisis exists………

 

Watch: Extinction Rebellion Spokesperson: ‘Alarmist Language Works’

A spokesperson for the climate change activist organization Extinction Rebellion (XR) said the group makes unsubstantiated predictions of billions of deaths within just a few years because “alarmist language works.”
Grilled by Andrew Neil on the BBC, XR spokesperson Zion Lights found herself admitting there is indeed no scientific basis for claims that billions of people are going to die from climate change.

“I’ve seen some of your activists claim on TV that billions of people are going to die in quite short order. One of your founders, Roger Hallam, said in April, ‘Our children are going to die in the next ten or twenty years.’ What’s the scientific basis for these claims?” Neil asked.

‘There Is No Climate Emergency’: Scientists Call for Reasoned Debate

The message was clear: “There is no climate emergency.”

With those five simple words, a global network of scientists and professionals attempted to inject reasonableness and decorum into what should be a robust discussion about a complex scientific and public policy issue, but has instead degenerated into an ever more intense mud-slinging contest over the years.

People on one side of the argument dismiss their opponents as wild-eyed socialists attempting to leverage public fear and ignorance to further their political agenda. On the opposite side, people dismiss those who disagree with their supposedly settled scientific conclusions as nothing more than knowing shills or ignorant dupes of evil energy interests.

In between those extremes that are so popular with armies of public relations professionals, who shape the messages of public interest groups and professional politicians to maximum effect, are a not-so-quiet silent majority of scientists and professionals who take a more measured, reasoned view of the science when considering the supposed climate emergency some say we’re facing.

A group of 500-some scientists and professionals signed on to the “European Climate Declaration” that was released last week. This simple, short, and understandable statement proposed how analysis of any public policy issue involving complex science should be approached from a reasoned, fact-based perspective………

In a letter sent to António Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations, the leaders of the European Climate Declaration urged the U.N. to “follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics, and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.”

Hundreds of scientists and professionals from 13 European nations signed on to the Declaration, supported by fellow signatories from 10 other countries outside the European Union. I was honored to be asked to be one of the signatories from the United States and most enthusiastically agreed to do so.

There is likely to be much criticism of the professional qualifications of many of the signatories, since many, like me, are not climatologists. And yet, so many people speaking out on the issue of climate change who are convinced there is a climate emergency have so little personal understanding of the science involved in the discussion.

NASA: Climate Changes Due To Shifts In Solar Orbit, Not Human Activity

According to NASA scientists, so-called “climate change” is mostly driven by factors unrelated to human activity. A past study by the agency found the Sun has been the main factor behind changes in the Earth’s climate over the past 1,000 years.

Scientists say our planet’s solar orbit has changed several times over the past centuries. This resulted in a warmer climate in the Middle Ages, or medieval period, and a global cooling in the 14th Century known as the Little Ice Age.

NASA’s findings suggest so-called “man-made climate change” is a political narrative to impose economic control over the global population. The agency has reportedly known about this since 1958. However, its findings seem to have been buried in the archives, while the global push of climate advocacy has taken the forefront of world politics.

According to NASA scientists, so-called “climate change” is mostly driven by factors unrelated to human activity. A past study by the agency found the Sun has been the main factor behind changes in the Earth’s climate over the past 1,000 years.

Scientists say our planet’s solar orbit has changed several times over the past centuries. This resulted in a warmer climate in the Middle Ages, or medieval period, and a global cooling in the 14th Century known as the Little Ice Age.

NASA’s findings suggest so-called “man-made climate change” is a political narrative to impose economic control over the global population. The agency has reportedly known about this since 1958. However, its findings seem to have been buried in the archives, while the global push of climate advocacy has taken the forefront of world politics.

Climate Science’s Myth-Buster
It’s time to be scientific about global warming, says climatologist Judith Curry.

We’ve all come across the images of polar bears drifting on ice floes: emblematic victims of the global warming that’s melting the polar ice caps, symbols of the threat to the earth posed by our ceaseless energy production—above all, the carbon dioxide that factories and automobiles emit. We hear louder and louder demands to impose limits, to change our wasteful ways, so as to save not only the bears but also the planet and ourselves.

In political discourse and in the media, major storms and floods typically get presented as signs of impending doom, accompanied by invocations to the environment and calls to respect Mother Nature. Only catastrophes seem to grab our attention, though, and it’s rarely mentioned that warming would also bring some benefits, such as expanded production of grains in previously frozen regions of Canada and Russia. Nor do we hear that people die more often of cold weather than of hot weather. Isolated voices criticize the alarm over global warming, considering it a pseudoscientific thesis, the true aim of which is to thwart economic modernization and free-market growth and to extend the power of states over individual choices.

Not being a climatologist myself, I’ve always had trouble deciding between these arguments. And then I met Judith Curry at her home in Reno, Nevada. Curry is a true climatologist. She once headed the department of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, until she gave up on the academy so that she could express herself independently. “Independence of mind and climatology have become incompatible,” she says. Do you mean that global warming isn’t real? I ask. “There is warming, but we don’t really understand its causes,” she says. “The human factor and carbon dioxide, in particular, contribute to warming, but how much is the subject of intense scientific debate.”

Curry is a scholar, not a pundit. Unlike many political and journalistic oracles, she never opines without proof. And she has data at her command. She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree. The warming can’t be blamed on industry, she argues, because back then, most of the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were small. In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause. None of the climate models used by scientists now working for the United Nations can explain this older trend. Nor can these models explain why the climate suddenly cooled between 1950 and 1970, giving rise to widespread warnings about the onset of a new ice age. I recall magazine covers of the late 1960s or early 1970s depicting the planet in the grip of an annihilating deep freeze. According to a group of scientists, we faced an apocalyptic environmental scenario—but the opposite of the current one.

But aren’t oceans rising today, I counter, eroding shorelines and threatening to flood lower-lying population centers and entire inhabited islands? “Yes,” Curry replies. “Sea level is rising, but this has been gradually happening since the 1860s; we don’t yet observe any significant acceleration of this process in our time.” Here again, one must consider the possibility that the causes for rising sea levels are partly or mostly natural, which isn’t surprising, says Curry, for “climate change is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon, with so many processes involved.” To blame human-emitted carbon dioxide entirely may not be scientific, she continues, but “some find it reassuring to believe that we have mastered the subject.” She says that “nothing upsets many scientists like uncertainty.”

This brings us to why Curry left the world of the academy and government-funded research. “Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,” she charges. “If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.” These days, the climatology mainstream accepts only data that reinforce its hypothesis that humanity is behind global warming. Those daring to take an interest in possible natural causes of climactic variation—such as solar shifts or the earth’s oscillations—aren’t well regarded in the scientific community, to put it mildly. The rhetoric of the alarmists, it’s worth noting, has increasingly moved from “global warming” to “climate change,” which can mean anything. That shift got its start back in 1992, when the UN widened its range of environmental concern to include every change that human activities might be causing in nature, casting a net so wide that few human actions could escape it.

Scientific research should be based on skepticism, on the constant reconsideration of accepted ideas: at least, this is what I learned from my mentor, the ultimate scientific philosopher of our time, Karl Popper. What could lead climate scientists to betray the very essence of their calling? The answer, Curry contends: “politics, money, and fame.” Scientists are human beings, with human motives; nowadays, public funding, scientific awards, and academic promotions go to the environmentally correct. Among climatologists, Curry explains, “a person must not like capitalism or industrial development too much and should favor world government, rather than nations”; think differently, and you’ll find yourself ostracized. “Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project,” she complains. In other words, “the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.”

“Nowadays, public funding, scientific awards, and academic promotions go to the environmentally correct.”

This has long been true in environmental science, she points out. The global warming controversy began back in 1973, during the Gulf oil embargo, which unleashed fear, especially in the United States, that the supply of petroleum would run out. The nuclear industry, Curry says, took advantage of the situation to make its case for nuclear energy as the best alternative, and it began to subsidize ecological movements hostile to coal and oil, which it has been doing ever since. The warming narrative was born.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration played a role in the propagation of that narrative. Having ended its lunar expeditions, NASA was looking for a new mission, so it built some provisional climate models that focused primarily on carbon dioxide, because this is an easy factor to single out and “because it is subject to human control,” observes Curry. Even though it is just one among many factors that cause climate variations, carbon dioxide increasingly became the villain. Bureaucratic forces at the UN that promote global governance—by the UN, needless to say—got behind this line of research. Then the scientists were called upon and given incentives to prove that such a political project was scientifically necessary, recalls Curry. The UN founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to push this agenda, and ever since, climatologists—an increasingly visible and thriving group—have embraced the faith.

In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others. This extraordinary collusion today allows politicians and commentators to declare that “science says that” carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming, or that a “scientific consensus” exists on warming, implying that no further study is needed—something that makes zero sense on its face, as scientific research is not based on consensus but on contradictory views.

Curry is skeptical about any positive results that might follow from environmental treaties—above all, the 2016 Paris Climate Accord. By the accord’s terms, the signatory nations—not including the United States, which has withdrawn from the pact—have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in order to stabilize the planet’s temperature at roughly its present level. Yet as Curry elaborates, even if all the states respected this commitment—an unlikely prospect—the temperature reduction in 2100 would be an insignificant two-tenths of a degree. And this assumes that climate-model predictions are correct. If there is less future warming than projected, the temperature reductions from limiting emissions would be even smaller.

Since the Paris Climate Accord was concluded, no government has followed through with any serious action. The U.S. pullout is hardly the only problem; India is effectively ignoring the agreement, and France “misses its goals of greenhouse-gas reduction every year,” admits Nicolas Hulot, the French environmental activist and former minister for President Emmanuel Macron. The accord is unenforceable and carries no sanctions—a condition insisted upon by many governments that wouldn’t have signed on otherwise. We continue to live in a contradictory reality: on the one hand, we hear that nothing threatens humanity as much as rising atmospheric carbon dioxide; on the other hand, nothing much happens practically to address this allegedly dire threat. Most economists suggest that the only effective incentive to reduce greenhouse-gas levels would be to impose a global carbon tax. No government seems willing to accept such a levy.

Is there an apocalyptic warming crisis, or not? “We’re always being told that we are reaching a point of no return—that, for instance, the melting of the Arctic ice pack is the beginning of the apocalypse,” Curry says. “But this melting, which started decades ago, is not leading to catastrophe.” Polar bears themselves adapt and move elsewhere and have never been more numerous; they’re less threatened by the melting, she says, than by urbanization and economic development in the polar region. Over the last year or so, moreover, the planet has started cooling, though “no one knows whether it will last or not, or whether it will put all the global-warming hypotheses in question.” According to Curry, the truly dramatic rupture of the ice pack would come not from global-warming-induced melting but from “volcanic eruptions in the Antarctic region that would break up the ice, and these cannot be predicted.” Climatologists don’t talk about such eruptions because their theoretical models can’t account for the unpredictable.

Does Curry recommend passivity, then? Not at all. In her view, research should be diversified to encompass study of the natural causes of climate change and not focus so obsessively on the human factor. She also believes that, instead of wasting time on futile treaties and in sterile quarrels, we would do better to prepare ourselves for the consequences of climate change, whether it’s warming or something else. Despite outcries about the proliferation of extreme weather incidents, she points out, hurricanes usually do less damage today than in the past because warning systems and evacuation planning have improved. That suggests the right approach.

Curry’s pragmatism may not win acclaim in environmentalist circles or among liberal pundits, though no one effectively contests the validity of her research or rebuts the data that she cites about an exceedingly complex reality. But then, neither reality nor complexity mobilizes passions as much as myths do, which is why Judith Curry’s work is so important today. She is a myth-buster.