Global Warming Claims are Abject and Blatant Fraud!

By Rich Kozlovich  

I've posted an awful lot of articles, and I've written a lot of articles, about Anthropogenic Climate Change, and from the beginning.  It used to be officially known as Anthropogenic Global Warming, but the world stopped warming about 30 years ago, and all the climate model predictions failed to produce the predicted results.  Which is pretty much true about everything leftists tout.  It must be frustrating to be a leftist/greenie knowing that everything they say and everything they believe is "TRUTH" (followed by a chorus of Hallelujah) and then have reality refute it.  

Reality just won't go along with the program, such as the prediction New York City  would be under water by 2015.  Then again, given the mess these leftist nitwits have made of NYC, would that have been such a bad thing?   

• You might enjoy my friend Paul Driessen's take on this,  Sea level rise – or land subsidence?

Do I believe in small "g" global warming?  Yes, and I also believe in small "g" global cooling, what I don't believe is mankind has anything to do with it, and I absolutely don't believe CO2 is a cause, or is a problem, in point of fact, we're living in a CO2 starved world.   

Judge Alito: 'A pollutant is a subject that is harmful to human beings or to animals or to plants. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is not harmful to ordinary things, to human beings, or to animals, or to plants. It’s actually needed for plant growth. All of us are exhaling carbon dioxide right now. So, if it’s a pollutant, we’re all polluting.' .......... OK, then what is the EPA to do? Well, no problem. They took out their pen and crossed out the numbers that Congress enacted, and they wrote in their own numbers. Amazingly, four of my colleagues said this is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. And therefore, it is OK."

Clearly it's time to eliminate the Chevron Doctrine.  But let's assume for the sake of argument their concept of climate change is true, why then is it necessary for these climate hustlers to have an unending yen for "drifting terminology"?   Their unending use of "weasel words and phrases" lends nothing to truth, or fact, and what can only be described as vague clabber disguising a lack of legitimate explanation.  

I kept a running list of Weasel-Words and Phrases, and you might find them amusing.  You will also notice these words and phrases appear in "all" of these green scare mongering “studies” which make outrageous claims against civilization, and humanity.  Actually, these words and phrases are the same boilerplate stuff turned out by greenies and leftists in general, and it's deliberately vague for every one of their anti-human, anti-capitalist, anti-democracy, and anti-America crusades.  

At the beginning of the Trump administration they demanded bureaucrats show valid data to prove their climate change view that the "science is settled". Not only did they want to know how they arrived at their figures, just as importantly, they wanted to know who did the figuring.  The bureaucrats called this a witch hunt.  

 

One Congressman called this "environmental McCarthyism" and demanded the Trump administration stop trying to intimidate Energy Department employees from carrying out Obama's global warming initiatives.  Well, McCarthy may have been a liar, a drunk, and a really strange man, but it turned out he was also right.  

The federal government was filled with communists, socialists, and fellow travelers, and the VENONA intercepts proved it.  And these bureaucrats provided nothing but fake experts, logical fallacies, incredible expectations, cherry picked data, and false accusations!  Especially about the oil companies, and the media runs with it.  The interesting thing is the oil companies publicly claim they believe in this claptrap.  Now that's a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.  

Let's try and get this right, just once, please.  Global warming, climate change, or what ever term they choose to use in the future is their solutions are insane.  One writer called them "The Lying Devil's Cult of Global Warming", a neo-pagan secular religion, and based on their misanthropic views, they could easily be called scions of Satan.  

What are the two driving forces of all this?    Misanthropic insanity, and greed, all in order to impose a worldwide tyrannous system of governance under the auspices of the most corrupt and incompetent organization the world has have known. The United Nations. 

What could possibly go wrong?

2,500 years of wild climate change in southern Europe

By Joanne Nova September 17th, 2023 174 Comments @CFACT

The new study on stalagmites in caves of the Pyrenees shows that modern climate change is nothing compared to normal fluctuations in the last 2,500 years when it was, at times, much hotter, colder, and more volatile. Rapid shifts between temperatures were common.

The researchers looked at eight stalagmites in four caves and local lake levels, but they also compared their results with other European temperature proxies and reconstructions, and the pattern is consistent across the region. The Roman Warm Period was much hotter than today, and for hundreds of years as well, even though coal plants were rare. Apparently, there was a reason Romans were dressed in togas.

The Dark Ages were very cold, especially around 520 – 550 AD — which may be related to what the researchers call a “cataclysmic” volcanic eruption in Iceland in 536 AD. It was followed by two other massive volcanic eruptions in 540 and  547 AD. This effect is visible in European tree rings, which showed “an unprecedented, long-lasting and spatially synchronized cooling”.

Indeed, the researchers declare that volcanoes and solar variability appear to be the main drivers of the climate in South Western Europe.

So, finally, we see one long continuous proxy record from ancient Greek times through until 2010. The big question is why these sorts of studies are not done everywhere and all the time. It’s not like we don’t have plenty of caves with stalagmites to analyze. If the climate really was “the biggest threat to life on Earth”, why are these extraordinary datasets not the top item on the wish-list of every institution claiming they care about the climate?

There will be more to say about this remarkable paper:

Click to enlarge. Oxygen isotopes are used to estimate temperatures.

Some passages from the paper discuss how these results match other studies from Europe:

The cold event at ca. 540 AD (the coldest of the speleothem record) may be related to a cataclysmic volcanic eruption that took place in Iceland in 536 AD and spewed ash across the Northern Hemisphere, together with the effect of two other massive eruptions in 540 and 547 AD (Sigl et al., 2015). An unprecedented, long-lasting, and spatially synchronized cooling was observed in European tree-ring records associated with these large volcanic eruptions, corresponding to the LALIA period (Büntgen et al., 2016).

Some passages from the paper discuss how these results compare with many other European studies and stark moments in history.

5.2.2. Temperature variability in W Europe and the W Mediterranean during the last 2500 years
There are very few high-resolution speleothem records in Europe covering the CE (Comas-Bru et al., 2020). We compare the Central Pyrenean speleothem composite with nine selected speleothems records in Europe and northern Africa which cover with robust chronology and decadal resolution of the last 2500 years (Fig. 5). One of these records is interpreted as NAO variability (Baker et al., 2015), three are paleo-precipitation reconstructions (Ait Brahim et al., 2019; Cisneros et al., 2021; Thatcher et al., 2022) and the other five are reflecting paleo-temperature variations (Affolter et al., 2019; Fohlmeister et al., 2012; Mangini et al., 2005;  Martín-Chivelet et al., 2011; Sundqvist et al., 2010). Considering these differences in the interpretation and the fact these records are from different regions with different climates (from Sweden to Morocco), dissimilar profiles of paleoclimate variability can be expected. Still, some features are comparable and can be discussed to obtain a super-regional picture.

A. The Roman period in Europe-W Mediterranean. In Europe, particularly in the Mediterranean region, the RP is well-known as a warm period (e.g., McCormick et al., 2012). The average sea-surface temperature in the western Mediterranean Sea was 2°C higher than the average temperature of the late centuries (Margaritelli et al., 2020). Our composite, with high values of normalized  18O values during the whole RP, and particularly from 0-200 AD, agrees with the scenario of warm temperatures (Fig. 5i). Speleothem data from the Balearic Islands (Cisneros et al., 2021) indicate a transition from humid to dry conditions along the Iberian-RP (Fig. 5c). The dry period at the end of the RP in the Balearic record appears in agreement with a new speleothem record from northern Italy (Hu et al., 2022), suggesting that the observed drying trend was a possible contribution to the collapse of the Roman Empire in 476 AD. Record from Morocco (Ait Brahim et al., 2019), contrarily, marks a humid trend at the end of the RP (Fig. 5d). Similarly, an increase in humidity was observed in southern Iberia during the Iberian-Roman Period (Jiménez-Moreno et al., 2013; Martín-Puertas et al., 2009) thus reflecting a large spatial heterogeneity in precipitation during the RP when comparing records from the north and south of the Mediterranean basin.

REFERENCES

Bartolomé, M., Moreno, A., Sancho, C., Cacho, I., Stoll, H., Haghipour, N., Belmonte, Á., Spötl, C., Hellstrom, J., Edwards, R. L., and Cheng, H.: Reconstructing land temperature changes of the past 2,500 years using speleothems from Pyrenean caves (NE Spain), Clim. Past Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2023-54, in review, 2023.

Author

• 
  Joanne Nova

  A prize-winning science graduate in molecular biology. She has given keynotes about the medical revolution, gene technology and aging at conferences. She hosted a children’s TV series on Channel Nine, and has done over 200 radio interviews, many on the Australian ABC. She was formerly an associate lecturer in Science Communication at the ANU. She’s author of The Skeptics Handbook which has been translated into 15 languages. Each day 5,000 people read joannenova.com.au

  View all posts

 

The World's Climate Isn't in Crisis. Get Over It!

By Rich Kozlovich

 

Once again we see this spoiled ignorant brat is nothing but a cat's paw for the international left, and the left has no boundaries, nor valid foundational values, so they change like the wind, and like rust, the left never sleeps, and dupes like Greta are a dime a dozen, and when they're done with her, they'll dump her.  I don't know who's funding her activity, but neither she nor her parents are capable of doing so.  Here's my The Thunberg Syndrome.  Also, here's A complete list of things caused by global warming.  That alone should trigger massive doubt.  

 

Greta Thunberg says Norway's wind farms are an ... - Euronews - Greta Thunberg says Norway's wind farms are an 'unacceptable' violation of human rights. Greta Thunberg is protesting against wind farms built on Indigenous land in Norway. Along with dozens of other activists, the Swedish environmental campaigner blocked entrances to the energy ministry in Oslo on Monday 27 February.....

The Climate Scare Narrative Continues To Collapse, I & I Editorial Board February 14, 2023 29 comments -   Hot, cold, wet, dry, sunny, clear, snow, no snow – it doesn’t matter, it’s caused by global warming, the climate alarmists tell us over and again. Their desperation is palpable, the cords that keep them tethered to reality fraying more than ever, their charade coming apart.  For more than 30 years, the crisis peddlers have carried the narrative that man’s carbon dioxide emissions are creating an existential threat. They’ve cajoled, bullied, lied, deceived, screeched and burned an immense volume of fossil fuels to get their hard-left agenda codified and executive ordered, and they have some successes to refer to. But their efforts have been, and always will be, useless. Despite their insistence, facts tell a story that’s quite different...........

Scientists’ announce record cold due to a warming earth, February 28, 2023 By Jack Hellner -Leftists are pushing an agenda to destroy industries that produce reasonably priced energy by claiming those industries cause an existential threat of warming, that is causing extreme changes to the climate, that is threatening our survival. Record cold temperatures, along with record snow and rain are obviously causing skepticism, so the pushers of the theory decided it was necessary to put out a piece of pure propaganda: that record cold temperatures occur because the earth is warming. I call B.S. From David Knowles in an article published yesterday: California has been hit with an especially cold and wet winter, in which low temperature records have been set and the Sierra snowpack is poised to eclipse its all-time high. 

People claim they can control and predict temperatures 100 years out, yet they somehow failed to predict this wet and cold winter. Their dire predictions in the past have been completely wrong; why should we now enact tyrannical policies based on future predictions?........

Russia’s biggest weapon (and China’s too) is fossil fuel energy

US focus on climate change and fossil fuel suppression is courting a national security disaster 

Hon. Don Ritter, Sc. 

The capacity of a modern economy to produce food and goods for its citizens, and weapons and fuel for its military to project power, are the undeniable twin pillars of global power. Both depend on reasonably priced and readily available energy.

Almost 80% of America’s energy is supplied by oil, gas and coal. Only 20% comes from other sources such as hydropower, nuclear, wind and solar. Even the greenest’ of economies will need fossil fuel backup when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Wind and solar provide 5% of our total consumption and only 2% of the energy to power some 290 million vehicles.

In other words, American literally runs and fights on fossil fuels.

Russia, despite an economy smaller than Italy’s, has shown it could defy all international norms and invade a neighboring country because it has abundant energy.

Weapons, and more weapons. First it was Javelins, then Howitzers, then HIMARS, then anti-missile and drone capability, then longer range ATACMS, then better tanks, now F-16s. Who can tell what the next weapon will be needed to defend against Russian aggression?

Russia has its weapons, too, and they are being paid for by the sale of oil, gas, coal, and fossil fuel-derived products like petrochemicals, fertilizers, etc. Russian missiles, planes, drones, tanks and artillery that shed Ukrainian blood and destroy homes, hospitals and electric-power stations are bought with Russia’s fossil fuel revenues.

Energy is Russia’s greatest weapon as it makes possible all the others. Only with such revenues can Russia continue its devastation of Ukraine. A new Russian offensive is brewing, and it too will be financed by its energy revenues.  Russians from Putin on down are talking about a much longer war because they have the revenues to support one and they don’t have to worry about a citizen-taxpayer revolt or getting reelected.

While the U.S. and Europe have restricted their purchases and consumption of Russian energy, it is sold elsewhere. That energy sells at a discount, but Russia is still earning hundreds of billions of dollars from energy sales and thus able to continue its war for as long as Putin wants. In spite of sanctions, Russia sold over $350 worth of fossil fuels in 2022. In the meantime German keeps its fracking ban.

To achieve peace in Europe and avoid potential wars elsewhere, one would think that America and the West would be increasing their own supply of oil, gas and coal and driving down prices on the global market. Such initiative would also give fence-sitting counties like India and Brazil in the “Global South” alternative sources to substitute for Russian products.

One would also think that the West would understand that its ability to replenish weapons and ammunition being sent to Ukraine and resist aggression, anywhere, like Taiwan for example, is based on production, shipment and fueling with fossil fuels and decidedly not on wind and solar. There will never be and electric tank!

And why not drive down drive down the price that Russia receives for its energy, while providing the economic and military security derived from fossil fuels? The answer from Europe and now America has been an emphatic “no.” Apparently, addressing the computer-modeled “climate crisis” takes priority over national defense, stopping Russian aggression in Europe, and securing reliable, affordable energy to power modern industrial economies and living standards.

The alternative – simultaneously furthering the technology of renewables like wind and solar while building up fossil fuels within an “all of the above” approach – is anathema to those who believe religiously that climate change is an existential threat. Ironically, the same people are happy to substitute U.S. fossil fuels with oil from dictatorships like Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia. They don’t seem concerned that wind, solar and battery supply chains run mostly through Communist China.

An “all of the above” energy strategy would make it harder for Russia to finance its war, save Ukrainian lives and mitigate their suffering. It would show that America was willing to challenge Russia’s energy dominance now and into the future.

Sadly, the very opposite is happening. The U.S. is killing energy transport pipelines, curtailing permitting of refineries and natural gas export facilities, suppressing oil and gas leasing and drilling and, worst of all, stifling longer-term investment in the industry. Driven by an all-encompassing determination to limit CO2 emissions, Europe, and now America, have declared war of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, Russia and China burn oil, gas and coal and emit greenhouse gases at levels that dwarf the West’s.

Governments in Europe and now in America have utterly failed to see that, by suppressing fossil fuels, they are ceding enormous power to countries like Russia, Iran and China – who use those very fossil fuels to strengthen their own economies and military power and threaten others.

Energy has been weaponized and the West is in full energy-disarmament mode. The West is forfeiting its ability to gain peace through strength, with energy being the all-encompassing weapon in national and alliance arsenals.

The Russian people have experienced far greater suffering when total war was being waged on their own territory and millions perished. This time, the Russian people don’t feel the brunt of the war, so the pressure to end it is limited it and Russia’s vast fossil fuel revenues are available to continue it, perhaps for years.

It is doubtful that that support for Ukraine from potentially fickle Western democracies could last that long.

National economies and nations’ militaries still run on fossil fuels. There is no substitute for fossil fuel dominance, even on a longer-term horizon. To believe and act otherwise is suicidal. It’s the real “existential threat.”

Don Ritter holds a Science Doctorate from MIT and served fourteen years on the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce and Science and Technology Committees. He was a National Academy of Sciences Fellow in the USSR, speaks fluent Russian, and was Ranking Member on the Congressional Helsinki Commission and founding Co-Chair of the Baltic States-Ukraine Caucus.

After leaving Congress he created and led the National Environmental Policy Institute. He is a founder and President & CEO Emeritus of the Afghan American Chamber of Commerce, and a Trustee of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC), where he co-chairs the Museum Capital Campaign.

 

How Politics and Money have Corrupted Science

By Adrian Vance June 13, 2017

Since 1988 our federal government has spent over $500 billion in grants and  college-level programs promoting the concepts CO2 heats the atmosphere harmfully and is thus “pollution.”   Restrictions on coal, oil and gas have cost even more. Thankfully, green plants have not accepted this idea as 42% of their dry mass is carbon which they glean it from air where it is only 0.04%, a “trace.”  They use much water as it carries only 1.6 grams of CO2 per liter and only 27% of CO2 is carbon.

Water has become a critical problem in our economy, and an increase of CO2 in the air would reduce the amount of water used to capture it for the green plants that feed and clothe us.  We here document what our leading science association, professional and governmental bodies have to say about this issue nonetheless.

We have demonstrations CO2 does not heat the atmosphere and what of it there is in the atmosphere was held insignificant for 100 years by the American Meteorological Society until the Federal Government started giving them over $1 million most likely to “…get with the program......To Read More....

Propaganda About Global Warming

By Martin Armstrong 9 June 2017

The energy output of the sun I have reported is crashing faster than anyone expected. Normally, when the cycle has changed from global warming to global cooling, it has tended to be more gradual. It appears the energy output of the sun may be now making 100-year lows. We have seen food shortages in Europe and several very cold winters there.

The North Pole has also shifted direction in 2000 and has been moving toward Europe at 55km annually, also a speed never seen before. So while everyone is crying about Trump pulling out of the Paris accord, it should be noted that they would not allow anyone to speak there who disagreed with them. This is no longer about science.

Global Warming seems to have crossed over into some sort of religion and nobody will even look at the data which shows them there is something much larger at stake going on here – the nature of cyclical activity. Dark Ages have taken place also in union with this type of crash in the energy output of the sun.......To Read More...

Oh No! Al Gore is Back!

By Adrian Vance June 7, 2017

 

Albert Gore, Jr. enjoyed being on the Sunday political shows thanks to President Trump having opted out of the Paris Accord on Climate Change.  During several of those appearances, he declared solar and wind generated power have become “…the cheapest!”  This is another lie for which the “warmers” are famous, or notorious.  Let us examine the realities:

If you price solar panels you will find a 100 Watt panel, on sale, now sells for $129.98 including hardware to mount it on your roof or your recreational vehicle.  These units will last perhaps ten years. The 30 year life claims by many are not validated and probably outright lies. Ten years is likely, maybe more, but toward the ends of their lives solar panels weaken annoyingly and produce less and less power, day by day.

Solar panels produce electricity only six hours a day given the glass protective covers which, like a greenhouse, admit energy when the sun angle is above 45 degrees, which is the case for but six hours per day.........All of these figures have been available for 25 years, but the solar and wind promoters continue saying “free power!”  They are consistent with the cry of liberalism of “free everything"........................To Read More...

The Leftist Lie of 97% Consensus on Climate Change Alarmism

By Adrian Vance June 6, 2017

...........believe in man-caused global warming,” is a common refrain by the panic pushing “We’re all gonna die!” people, but this is nonsense.

The story began at Scripps Institute where “CO2 causes global warming” was created by Dr. Roger Revel, who later denied the concept shortly before he died, but it was their Science Librarian, Naomi Oreskes, who created “97%” from a study where she had undergrad students tabulate 928 articles from their collection of science journals.  She instructed them to score those with no conclusion whether or not man’s CO2 was the cause of the claimed atmospheric temperature increase to be in favor of the hypothesis on the assumption that not expressing a negative opinion meant they were believers...........The 100 department Chairs she mailed to would be very aware of from where the money comes and teach “Earth is flat” if their jobs depended on it. None would be questioning the anthropogenic warming hypothesis as it is a full employment program for thousands of Ph.D.s............To Read More....

My Take - I did an article on this some time back entitled, How Many Constitute 97%?, wherein I say:

"Let’s take a look at this. The 97% figure they tout is in reality the views of just 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown scientific discipline. Originally a survey was sent to 10,265 scientists - a credible number - but this is where the story starts to get interesting - only 3,146 responded. It would appear that right from the very beginning they lost approximately 60% of “all” scientists by not responding.  I think it isn't unreasonable to presume they didn't respond because they didn't agree with the basic premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) that mankind was responsible. That leaves 3,146 to make up that 97% figure. Right? Well, actually no, and the story of the fabled 97% gets even better.

Now we need to ask: What did all those 3,146 scientists have to say? We don’t know! Why? Because they apparently didn’t like what almost all of them had to say since the number of “acceptable” responders was whittled down from 3,146 to 77.

Remember they lost approximately 60% of “scientists” right from the get go, and now they’ve dumped another 3,069 leaving 77, and only 75 agreed. Think about this. The percentage of scientists who actually agree (using their own base of 10,265) is only approximately .075%. One might ask why they allowed two “deniers”, or at the very least two not entirely on board with AGW? If they published a claim of 100% even the Warmists would have laughed at them."

The truth is there is no 97% consensus among scientists, in fact there's not even consensus among 97 scientists but a mere 77 and who knows their motives. 

Californians Can’t Continue Global Warming Hoax with 8 ft of Snow in June

By Andrew West June 7, 2017

The past week of Trump-bashing in the mainstream media has been focusing heavily on the President’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord. Of course, the hysteria surrounding the decision has been exaggerated by the liberal media in profoundly disturbing ways, relying on the all-too-frequent scare tactics and guilt trips to push their faulty agenda.  The familiar image of the lonely polar bear on a small piece of ice comes to mind, as well as flawed facts and figures about exactly where our coastlines will be once the “polar ice caps melt”.  No mention has been made, of course, of the Maunder Minimum, the decrease in solar activity, the fact that Killington Ski Resort in Vermont was open for skiing on June 1st, or the fact that California has 8 feet of snow on the ground in the Sierras today, June 7th..........To Read More....

Founder of Weather Channel Schools Stuttering CNN Anchor on Global Warming

Written by Keely Sharp

I thought Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson were the masters of shutting down liberals and their irrational thinking…but I see now that I just hadn’t heard founder of the Weather Channel John Coleman speak.

I watched the clip below of Coleman spoke to a CNN anchor and it made my day so much that I had to watch it twice! The man brings out some GREAT points about the hoax of global warming.

According to Coleman, who is a scientist himself, the scientists who are coming out and agreeing with climate change are basically paid (or should I say bribed) to say they agree with global warming. This in return gives the Democrats fuel for their fire, and they continue to profit off the ignorance of the people......To Read More....

Zeihan on Geopolitics: Some Inconvenient Truths

Editor's Note: For those who've been reading Paradigms and Demographics for some time you know I believe Anthropogenic Climate Change is the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on humanity. I believe in global warming and I believe in global cooling. I don't believe mankind has a thing to do with either of them. 

There are some points in this article with which I disagree but I'm posting it for two reasons. I think Peter Zeihan has interesting insights - but most importantly - I respect the fact he allows his research to form his conclusions, not his ideology, as he's basically a greenie and leans left.   There's another reason.  I like promoting his books.  They're brilliant!  Especially Accidental Super Power.  After reading that book you'll not look at the world in the same way ever again.  RK

VISIT THE ARCHIVES TO RE-READ AND SHARE

U.S. President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the 2016 Paris Climate Accord June 1. In the past 24 hours the media has been, in a word, lively. Trump's decision was an appeal to a base that has hungered for these kinds of dramatic, headline grabbing actions – and the media has not failed in providing the “liberal clamoring” that so energizes Trump’s supporters.

Let's get my personal politics out of the way. I'm a Green. I've got solar panels on my house. I recycle. I drive a Prius. I backpack the Rockies in the summer. I would have handled the Paris Agreement differently, but I certainly agreed with its tenor and thrust. I'm part of the whole "Science is Real" movement because of, you know, the Enlightenment.

I'm not a normal Green, however, because of, you know, the Enlightenment. I can do math. And that means that I'm pretty good at looking into the guts of a topic and sussing out facts and trends that supporters of this or that movement or ideology often find unsettling. Climate change in general and the Paris Agreement in specific are no exception.

As a Green, it might be uncomfortable to admit but the reality is that the market is driving green technology development and application in most economies, especially the United States. If you agree with former President Obama's statement that cities, states and businesses (i.e. the engines of the US economy) are picking up the mantle of leading on responsible climate action, then the market will ultimately decide how well and how long countries adhere to "green" behaviors.

The real inconvenient truth for those condemning Trump for the Paris withdrawal revolves around fossil fuels. They certainly have problems, but fossil fuels don't all pollute equally. The new combined cycle natural gas burning power plants that have been going up in recent years have but half of the emissions of coal, and because natural gas is either a waste product out of the shale fields or can now be produced at roughly $2 per 1000 cubic feet (less than half the forty-year average), it is wiping coal from the board. Most Greens hate natural gas because it is cost-competitive with pretty much everything – especially alternatives – but the bottom line is because of shale natural gas the United States is going to meet its Paris commitments regardless of what happens to the agreement itself. With or without Obama, with or without Trump, with or without the EPA, and largely with or without alternative energy sources.

Alternatives just are not ready to take over baseload capacity, and until that happens we are stuck with fossil fuels. Despite the rise in effectiveness in and demand for solar and wind technologies, another inconvenient truth is that peak daily demand for power in most places is just after sunset, while peak seasonal demand in most places is after sunset in the winter. That desperately degrades the solar argument anywhere that has high solar variation between summer and winter (like most developed countries). I, however, live in Texas – a sunny location where peak supply and demand line up almost perfectly.

 

Between cost and recharge cycle restrictions and safety, battery technology needs at least another decade to work out the kinks before it can really start to square the supply/demand circle. In the meantime, it isn't as if lithium extraction is the most environmentally sound practice; if you like lithium batteries and electric cars in their current incarnation, you have to love strip mining. And always keep in mind that many of the components of your standard cars are recyclable or reusable, but your Tesla's fuel cells – or at present any lithium car battery – are definitely not.

Which brings us back to the Paris deal.

It's unclear what Trump's withdrawal from the Paris accords will have on climate change, because it's unclear what a non-binding agreement like Paris could do in the first place. Critics of the U.S. withdrawal who note the U.S. is joining the ranks of Syria and Nicaragua are inadvertently making the point for me: there's no way a non-binding deal that has members as diverse as Vanuatu, Germany, Brazil, India and Congo is going to be entered into and applied equally across the board. That even the big oil companies – the traditional bugbears of environmentalist nightmares – are on board with the Paris deal shows both how toothless it is but also how much industry has already shifted toward reaching the emissions aims it sets out. And to do so with or without a deal.

I've found it particularly entertaining that many seem to be cozying up to China. CNN went so far to publish a story titled "Has Donald Trump Given the World to China on a Silver Platter?" China being the country that has added more soft coal burning capacity than the rest of the world combined during the past decade. Germany is also often feted as the future of Green politics – despite continually moving away from cleaner fuels like natural gas and nuclear in favor of lignite coal. Yes, Germany has installed loads of solar power capacity, but because the sun does not actually shine in Germany all those panels are in essence giant paperweights. U.S. per capita emissions have been collapsing since shale kicked in; China's have tripled since 1990. Despite Germany's PR sparkle, their emissions reductions have far more to do with demographic decline than alternative energy. In fact, German emissions reductions have actually slowed since they started their solar buildout.

The booming noise of 10,000 pundits and analysts in what has become standard media covfefe misses the forest for the trees. Trump isn't just the poster child for an obnoxious new form of politics, but also for a far deeper geopolitical shift that is already past the point of no return. The question is not if China will lead on climate change, or whether France or Germany will pick up the mantle of Leader of the Free World, but the most critical inconvenient truth is that the era of unipolar global leadership is slipping away from us.

Love or hate the United States, love or hate the global order, the United States created and maintained that order to serve its Cold War interests. The Cold War is long gone, and now the U.S. – quite belatedly I might add – is letting the order go. We are no longer living in an age where the U.S. has the will or ability to continue being the lead on everything, everywhere, all the time.

We're all gaining insight and empathy into the minds of carriage makers in the face of rising automobile production, or whale oil traders at the dawn of the kerosene era. Everything we know for the past 70 years is predicated upon American-instilled international stability. That's the European Union. That's the Communist Party of China. That's Brazilian soy production. That's Toyota. That's the iPhone supply chain. That’s even the Paris Accord. None of them can function without the American-maintained Order. We don't know how to function during such a fundamental paradigm shift.

The end of the Paris Agreement has triggered the ultimate in rear-view-mirror longing. It's a waste of time to mourn a nostalgic view of what America's role in the world once was. Our effort would be far better spent preparing for the Disorder to come.

BOOK PETER FOR YOUR NEXT EVENT

BUY A SIGNED COPY OF ABSENT SUPERPOWER

Elon Musk Threatens to Abandon White House Post Should Trump Dump Paris

By Andrew West June 1, 2017

Donald Trump looks to finally be taking a stance against the global warming hoaxers this week, but not everyone on his team is thrilled. Militant global warming propagandists have, for years, been cramming their bunk science down the throats of the globe, attempting to convert as many people as they can to their pseudo-religion in which the earth’s ice caps are mere moments away from melting into the sea thanks to the amount of cars that we drive. You can blame Al Gore and the left-leaning globalists for the nonsense. Gore, who owns an eco-guilt “carbon credits” company, released the widely promoted film “An Inconvenient Truth” to massive audiences of pre-millennial liberals just in time to spark the movement and, in turn, make himself a pretty penny.......To Read More....

My Take - Another justification for abandoning the Paris Agreement.

Trump to Send Global Warming Hoaxers Packing With Paris Treaty Pullout

By Andrew West May 31, 2017

Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, liberal democrats have long been hiding behind their own faulty science on global warming. The hoax, which has been in full force ever since former Vice President Al Gore released his informercial of a film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, has been a hotly debated subject both in society and within the halls of government. Gore, sensing that science was willing to agree with whatever he was purporting, took advantage of alarmist theories to profit immensely from his own “carbon credit” business in which he preyed upon Americans’ eco-guilt to sell them theoretical forgiveness for they environmental sins. Then, with the release of his liberally popular film, Gore was able to rake in massive piles of cash while tugging at the world’s heartstrings with photographs of sad polar bears swimming......To Read More....

Dear Mr. President: Please Exit Paris

Are you are still wondering whether to Exit Paris? Overseas and US officials, environmentalists and bureaucrats urge you to Remain. But you promised voters you would Exit. Please keep your promises.

Exit Paris isn’t about the environment. It’s about letting us utilize our fossil fuel energy to create jobs, rebuild our economy, and Make America Great Again. It’s about avoiding immense transfer payments from the USA to foreign governments, bureaucrats and parties unaccountable to Trump-voting taxpayers.

Worse, even if the USA Remains, and the repulsive payments flow, Paris offers no help in removing real air pollutants. Carbon dioxide isn’t one of them, by the way: it’s plant food, not poison.

Exit Paris: Business

Some high profile American companies recently signed a note urging Remain. Follow the money. Many leaders of those companies didn’t support your election and voted Hillary. And they expect to get billions from us taxpayers and consumers, for locking up our fossil fuels and switching to renewable energy.

We who voted Trump, your base, want Exit. Just as you promised.

Remain, so that we maintain markets for American energy technologies? Some companies will make off like bandits. The rest of us will get skewered. Global buyers of energy systems understand the benefits of America’s world-beating fossil technologies. They understand the life-cycle value of after-sales support poorly delivered by our international competitors. Trust Chinese warranties? We don’t either.

Why ask corporations about Remain or Exit Paris? They pass Remain-driven energy costs on to consumers. Instead, ask consumers about ever-increasing energy bills. You’ll get a different answer.

Corporations have shareholders in the USA, of course, and some of them elected you. But corporations also have European shareholders. Corporations there must survive political economies aligned with Paris’s unaccountable bureaucratic control of energy, jobs, economic growth and living standards. You have to choose: shareholders, entrepreneurs, consumers and families – or rent seekers and bureaucrats.

Renewable energy lobbyists, Obama holdovers – and misguided souls in your own administration – say Remain, to keep a seat at the table. That’s nonsense. Businesses were flogged by the past administration and no longer recognize their obligations to shareholders, much less to societies they are supposed to serve with reliable, affordable power that creates and preserves jobs.

Those companies responded to incentives in a massively hostile American political economy. Those hostilities represent decades-long campaigns by anti-energy groups that got rich while claiming to represent shareholders, and by foreign governments seeking transfer payments. You promised change.

Exit Paris: Group of Seven

Mr. President, you’ll be pressured mightily at the G7 to Remain Paris. Hugely-invested and conflicted world leaders will give you no peace. Your delegation will hound you. Keep your Exit staff close. Why?

Because America got snookered into signing the Arctic Council’s May 11, 2017, Fairbanks Declaration. Now the same pro-Remain forces will claim America wants that language. What language?

Start with Perambulatory Paragraphs 8 and 9: “Reaffirming the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the need for their realization by 2030.” And this: “U.N. Sustainable Development Goal 13.a: Implement the commitment undertaken by developed country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible.”

They want to take our money, while they shackle our economy. But there’s more.

Paragraph 31 (p. 6): “…we welcome the updated assessment of Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic, note with concern its findings, and adopt its recommendations.…The Arctic states, permanent participants, and observers to the Arctic Council, should individually and collectively lead global efforts for an early, ambitious, and full implementation of the Paris COP21 Agreement….”

Your State Department Obama-carry-overs slipped this one past their boss, Secretary Tillerson – and you, by extension. This is where the real art of the deal comes in. Take a leadership role and terminate this. Don’t get sandbagged. Don’t sandbag the people who voted for you. Resist the pressures you’ll face in Sicily. Anything but Exit Paris undermines your credibility and betrays voter trust and America’s future.

Exit Paris: Diplomacy

One reason cited to Remain Paris and Remain UNFCCC and their climate treaties is to “avoid diplomatic blowback.” There certainly will be that, but it’s a cost far more easily borne than the sum of what we paid yesterday and will be told we must pay tomorrow in lost energy, jobs and money. Follow the money:

Emerging nations want the USA to Remain because they expect billions in cash from us every year – plus free technology transfers – at US corporate, taxpayer and consumer expense. Advanced countries want us to Remain because we will inadvertently fund and sign onto programs that they use to seize ever-greater bureaucratic control over energy, resources, jobs and living standards, within their own borders and ours.

The Chinese want us to Remain because it protects access to our market for energy technologies. Do you believe Chinese press releases and speeches that claim they are switching massively to renewable energy? Neither do we. But we see them building more coal-fired power plants in China, Africa and elsewhere.

Europeans want us to Remain in Paris to ensure that our fossil fuels, energy prices, economy, jobs, living standards and ability to compete globally are as shackled by climate insanity as theirs already are.

Some say Remain Paris for a seat at the table. Will the planet otherwise forget American leadership? Better that the deal crumbles without us making huge transfer payments and shackling our economy. Even better is that you lead America and the world back from the climate hysteria precipice.

Anti-America, anti-energy forces unite at the UN and its UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its director, Ambassador Espinosa of Mexico, spoke recently at Georgetown University – to advocate greater bureaucratic control over energy, natural resources, jobs, living standards and human lives. The past administration was in lock-step with this. You should absolutely be against every part of it.

Exit Paris: Science

Paris is a horrible idea, since unassailable empirical evidence demonstrates that: Carbon dioxide makes plants grow faster and better. Atmospheric CO2 levels trail rather than lead warming. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas. Thanks to carbon dioxide, agricultural productivity has increased over recent decades by over $3.2 trillion. Scientists project up to $10 trillion more in improved crop yields over the coming decades.

Climate science is absolutely not settled. Smart scientists who support you prove there’s no credible path to climate cataclysm due to fossil fuel use and CO2 increases. Doomsayers have gotten rich by peddling false, alarmist, anti-scientific claims, while the rest of us have suffered. This must not continue.

To support Exit Paris, you should reverse the absurd, scientifically unsupportable claim that carbon dioxide “endangers” our welfare. Doing that will substantially remove the ability of subsequent administrations to restore policies that demonize fossil fuels and CO2. Many of the policies addressed and corrected by your recent environmental Executive Order are vulnerable until the endangerment finding disappears. Much of the mischief and job killing of the last eight years can be laid at that doorstep.

Exit Paris, because even outgoing EPA officials admit it will not noticeably affect Earth’s temperature.

Exit Paris: US Politics

Paris intentionally provides for ever-tightening restrictions on American citizens and businesses – thus far with no vote by us or the Senate. Who rewrote our Constitution to allow a president, in his final days in office, to impose such a far reaching treaty on us without our advice, consent, approval or vote?

If you need Exit support of fellow elected officials or a constitutional avenue, submit Remain Paris to the Senate. The measure will crash on that rocky shore, giving you all the support you need to Exit Paris.

Your voters heard you promise to Exit Paris. The support you still enjoy from your voters is because we see that you are keeping your promises. Keep this one, too, Mr. President.

Please Exit Paris. Those who voted for you will remember and approve. Those who detest and resist you will still detest and resist you if you Remain.

Thank you for considering our heartfelt analysis.

Sincerely,

Paul K. Driessen and Mark J. Carr

Driessen is an environmental policy analyst and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death. Carr consults on energy, environmental, transportation and agricultural policy. (To contact President Trump about this vitally important Exit Paris issue, go here to sign CFACT’s Say No to Paris petition.)



 

 

Climate Deal and My Six Day Plan

By Rich Kozlovich,

Marc Morano of Climate Depot sent out this notice "Report: Trump tells ‘confidants’ U.S. will leave Paris climate deals" saying: "Multiple news agencies, including Reuters News, are now reporting that President Donald Trump has privately informed several officials in Washington DC that he intends to withdraw from the UN Paris climate pact".

He went on to say:

"A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) would be a victory for science. Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition." 

“In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed! " 

Marc's notice had a number of links to articles outlining what's going on behind the scenes, and I think this article in AXIOS is particularly interesting as it notes a process I just don't understand.  It's clear this is the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on humanity and it's also clear this is a treaty - which must be ratified by the U.S. Senate - and it hasn't, so why is this so difficult for the Trump administration. 

I've been told the heads of the EPA and Energy Department's transition teams views are identical to my own - so what's the hold up?

1. For me - dumping this mess would have been done on day one, and I would have lined up the best and brightest minds in the world to explain why with press releases daily - and attacked and exposed the junk science of these false scientists and the loony left with real science.
2. On day two I would have ended all grants promoting this junk science and fired anyone in the government who had a hand in promoting it. 
3. On day three I would have issued an executive order giving grants only to those who are now called "deniers" to show exactly how fraudulent this has been, and who has been responsible for it. 
4. On day four - these so-called scientists who've made scientific integrity an oxymoron in order to get on the government grant money gravy train would have done an about face so fast they would have looked like the color guard in a military parade. 
5. On day five I would have ordered the Attorney General to prosecute any and all of these "scientists" who've taken the taxpayer's money and perpetrated scientific fraud.  Fraud is a crime, and I would have started with a criminal investigation of Michael Mann and his "science" regarding the Hockey Stick.
6. On day six I would have begun a faze out of government grant money to researchers since it's become obvious grant money is now the holy grail of science - not truth - and there are far too many Ph.D's willing to say whatever the government wants them to say in order to stay on that gravy train.

Also See:

1. ‘Fraud, Fake…Worthless Words’: NASA’s James Hansen on UN Paris Pact – Trump should take note 
2. Bjorn Lomborg wrote “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all.” 
3. Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours’)
4. Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100
5. Lomborg Blasts UN Paris Treaty’s $100 Trillion Price Tag For No Temp Impact: ‘You won’t be able to measure it in 100 years’ 
6. Bjorn Lomborg on UN climate deal: ‘This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world’
7. Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims
8. Read Full report Here: 

What I really don't understand is this idea Ivanka and her husband are supporters of Anthropogenic Climate Change propaganda - and worse yet - both of them are very influential with her father.  These people have access to the world's information networks far beyond most people and yet they are still incapable of defining this as fraudulent science.  Is it any wonder they lack clarity?

Fire them!

The Truth about the Climate Change Fraud

By Adrian Vance May 20, 2017

This graph of the “CO2 caused heating of the atmosphere is a measure of the lengths the “Global Warming, We’re All Gonna Die!” panic pushers, Al Gore, Dr. Jim Hansen and Dr. Joe Romm, the New York Times “Climate Change Editor,” and even comic relief “Bill Nye The Science Guy” use as “scientific evidence” of the crisis.......To Read More....

Dear Ivanka, Please Consider This

May 12, 2017 By H. Sterling Burnett, Joseph Bast Climate Change Weekly #249

 

If you don’t already subscribe to Climate Change Weekly or other Heartland e-newsletters, you can quickly do so here.

---

NOTE: This week’s lead essay is excerpted from an open letter Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast sent to Ivanka Trump, daughter of and top advisor to President Donald Trump. The essay, published in The American Spectator, explains why the United States should not stay in the Paris climate agreement.

---

Dear Ms. Trump,

Recent news stories report your interest in the climate change issue. I share your deep concern over the future of our planet – it’s an unbelievably beautiful and precious thing, something we must cherish and protect for all of Earth’s creatures and for future generations.

I am writing to urge you to proceed carefully as you explore this subject, because those who claim climate change requires “immediate action” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or even “transforming the world’s economic system,” have often misrepresented the science and economics of this issue. The truth is climate change does not require that we reduce energy consumption or replace fossil fuels with alternative energies.

Your father is right when he questions whether global warming is a genuine “crisis” or a product of hype and exaggeration by various interest groups. He is also right to suggest the issue is being used to extort money from the United States, handicap American businesses, and undermine our economic growth and prosperity. …

Once you look at the underlying science – the same sort of number-crunching you would perform for a complicated business transaction – you will discover there is no scientific case for reducing our use of fossil fuels.

– Joseph Bast
READ MORE: The American Spectator

---

IN THIS ISSUE …
Higher carbon dioxide reduces soil toxins … Arctic sea ice levels not unusual … Proof of pause growing … Poll: Weather forecasters increasingly buck climate consensus

---

HIGHER CARBON DIOXIDE REDUCES SOIL TOXINS

A paper in Chemosphere finds a little-discussed benefit of the effect of increased carbon dioxide on plant growth: At higher levels of carbon dioxide, plants remove greater amounts of toxins from the soil and at a faster pace. Soil contamination by heavy metals, including cadmium and lead, is a serious problem in many parts of the world. In China, it is estimated more than 20 million hectares of land are contaminated.

In controlled tests, the Chinese researchers involved in the study sowed black locust seeds in pots in open-top chambers maintained under ambient carbon dioxide levels of 385 parts per million (ppm) or elevated levels of 700 ppm. At 30-day intervals, 30, 60, and 90 days after the locust seeds sprouted, the researchers collected samples from each treatment. They found black locust grown under higher carbon dioxide levels were “associated with greater removal of heavy metals from … soils relative to ambient CO2 … [with] improvements in the microenvironment suggest[ing] that elevated carbon dioxide could benefit soil fertility … under heavy metal stress.”

That is: The plants studied remove from the soil greater amounts of toxins under conditions of elevated carbon dioxide levels, thus improving the soil’s fertility – its ability to grow crops and other useful plants suppressed under conditions of high heavy metal contamination.

SOURCE: CO2 Science

---

ARCTIC SEA ICE LEVELS NOT UNUSUAL

Satellite monitoring has shown a dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice extent since at least the 1970s, especially in the late summer months. The timing of the start of the satellite measurements has proven unfortunate because it coincided with the end of several decades during which Arctic sea ice extent was generally increasing – so satellite recordings of sea ice began when ice was at high levels, making the subsequent measured decline seem both particularly sharp and unusual. However, long-term sea ice trends show this decline is not unusual and, at least over the past century, has tracked temperature trends in the Arctic.

A new paper in Hydrological Sciences Journal, using a new dataset describing seasonal and annual Arctic sea ice extents for the period 1901 through 2015 from North American, Nordic, and Siberian regions, shows the recent period of Arctic sea ice retreat since the 1970s followed a period of sea ice growth since the mid-1940s, which followed a period of sea ice retreat from the 1910s until expansion began in the 1940s.

SOURCE: Hydrological Sciences Journal

---

PROOF OF PAUSE GROWING

A study in Scientific Reports adds to the growing body of peer-reviewed literature confirming the Earth experienced a hiatus in rising temperatures from at least 1998 through 2012 and links the temperature pause to natural factors, primarily a shift in ocean cycles coupled with changes in cloud distribution. Although NOAA researchers claim there never was a pause in global warming, this study confirms the pause, finds it comparable to a pause in temperatures measured from 1950 through the early 1970s, and says it is clearly recorded in global satellite data sets.

The researchers write: “Compared with the warming trend of the past several decades, the rate of increase of annual average global mean surface temperature (GMST) has experienced a reduction between 1998-2013, known as the hiatus. However, climate models designed to represent the physics and dynamics of the climate system project that GMST continued to rise in the early 2000s.”
The researchers posit the cause of the pause is a large shift in ocean circulation patterns coupled with changes in cloud distribution. The pause in surface warming is also evident in the troposphere and is due to a “transition of internal climate variability…, including interactions between large-scale circulation and cloud distribution.”

SOURCES: Scientific Reports, Geophysical Research Letters (behind paywall), and No Tricks Zone

---

POLL: WEATHER FORECASTERS INCREASINGLY BUCK CLIMATE CONSENSUS

In 2016 the U.K.’s Guardian reported on a survey led by researchers at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication concerning the views of broadcast meteorologists on climate change and humanity’s role in it. The lead author of the survey was Edward Maibach, one of 20 academics who signed on to a letter to U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse arguing climate skeptics should be prosecuted for racketeering.

Nearly all weathercasters who responded to the 2016 survey said they believe climate change is happening, although just 67 percent said they thought humans were responsible for most climate change.

A new survey shows that percentage to be falling. Between 2016 and 2017, the number of broadcast meteorologists who responded to the survey and said they believe humans have caused most or all of the present climate changes fell from 67 percent to less than half, only 49 percent. In 2017, only 15 percent of the meteorologists responding to the survey thought climate change was largely or entirely man-made, falling from 29 percent in 2016. Twenty-one percent of respondents think climate change is more or less equally caused by human activity and natural events, while another 21 percent think climate change has been primarily or entirely due to natural events.

Among broadcast meteorologists, there never was a 97 percent consensus humans are causing dangerous climate change, and evidently even that tide is turning. Today, not even a majority of them support that view. If the views of broadcast meteorologists are any indication, the forces of climate realism are rising.

SOURCES: Jo Nova Blog, 2017 Survey of Broadcast Meteorologists, and The Guardian

Are Microbiologists Climate-Denying Science Haters?

By Alex Berezow — May 4, 2017

Recently, I gave a seminar on "fake news" to professors and grad students at a large public university. Early in my talk, I polled the audience: "How many of you believe climate change is the world's #1 threat?"

Silence. Not a single person raised his or her hand.

Was I speaking in front of a group of science deniers? The College Republicans? Some fringe libertarian club? No, it was a room full of microbiologists.

How could so many incredibly intelligent people overwhelmingly reject what THE SCIENCE says about climate change? Well, they don't. They just don't see it as big of a threat to the world as other things. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of them felt that antibiotic resistance and pandemic disease were the biggest global threats. One person thought geopolitical instability was the biggest concern......To Read More.....

My Take - The article creates a firestorm of comments about the claime  97% of scientists agree on Anthropogenic Global Warming, but that figure is a logical fallacy.....and a lie of omission. The information exposing that fruad has been available for some time so there's no excuse for touting a number we know factually to be inaccurate.   Here's my article, How Many Constitute 97%?

How Many Constitute 97%?

By Rich Kozlovich

(Editor's Note:  Originally posted here on Tuesday, December 23, 2014, but with this constantly being thrown up I felt it worth posting again.  RK)

In order to have clarity on any subject we first need it defined. From the beginning The High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, Al Gore, proclaimed in Pontifical confidence - "The science is settled"! We have been told from the beginning that "97% of scientists agree" that mankind's introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere is warming the globe so dramatically we only had months before we reached the tipping point of no return, therefore "we can't wait", we must act now.

The first thing that struck me about the phrase "97% of scientists agree" was they didn't claim 97% of "all" scientists agree. That should have triggered this question in everyone's mind.

How many constitute 97%?

The number of scientists should have been of more concern than the percentage of scientists. Why? There's a reason statistics is call the arcane science. If there was anything that generates more logical fallacies I don’t know what it is, because you can make statistics say anything you like if you leave important things out.

In July of 2012 Barry Woods wrote an article entitled, "What else did the ‘97% of scientists ’say?" he asks, "I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or scientists who use the phrase ‘97% of scientists’ (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate scientists’) to give weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the public, have any idea of the actual source of this soundbite?”

He goes on to say: “Perhaps a few may say the ‘Doran Survey’, which is the one of the most common references for this ‘97% of active climate scientists’ phrase. In fact, the Doran EoS paper merely cites a MSc thesis for the actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey.”…. “The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of many critiques of the Doran Paper here and offers a very good summary, some other reviews here, here and here”

Let’s take a look at this. The 97% figure they tout is in reality the views of just 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown scientific discipline. Originally a survey was sent to 10,265 scientists - a credible number - but this is where the story starts to get interesting - only 3,146 responded. It would appear that right from the very beginning they lost approximately 60% of “all” scientists by not responding.  I think it isn't unreasonable to presume they didn't respond because they didn't agree with the basic premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) that mankind was responsible. That leaves 3,146 to make up that 97% figure. Right? Well, actually no, and the story of the fabled 97% gets even better.

Now we need to ask: What did all those 3,146 scientists have to say? We don’t know! Why? Because they apparently didn’t like what almost all of them had to say since the number of “acceptable” responders was whittled down from 3,146 to 77.

Remember they lost approximately 60% of “scientists” right from the get go, and now they’ve dumped another 3,069 leaving 77, and only 75 agreed. Think about this. The percentage of scientists who actually agree (using their own base of 10,265) is only approximately .075%. One might ask why they allowed two “deniers”, or at the very least two not entirely on board with AGW? If they published a claim of 100% even the Warmists would have laughed at them.

There are a number of things we take away from this. This mythical figure of 97% of scientists isn’t even 97 scientists and consensus isn’t science, it’s politics and if you “check out the history of science…you will find that scientific discovery is generally made by ignoring the ‘consensus..’  We know the world officially stopped warming 18 years ago in spite of the fact CO2 levels have risen - a rise and fall has been going on all through the Earth's history - and currently only constitutes .037% of our atmosphere, of which humanities contribution to that number is infinitesimally small - we've passed virtually every tipping point they touted and the world’s still here - the oceans haven't risen, the poles haven't melted and all the models predicting a warming disaster have failed or are failing.

 

The Hockey Stick Graph has been shown to be so seriously flawed it has been called fraudulent, and since he lost his SLAPP suit against scientist Tim Ball in Canada he faces “Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.”  

 

Dr. Tim Ball used, what's called in Canada the Truth Defence, also known as the Scorched Earth Defence. All Mann had to do was to "hand over those “hockey stick” r-squared correlation coefficient numbers" to demonstrate the validity of his work.  Why didn't he in Canada and is apparently failing to do so in his SLAPP suit against Styne here in America?

 

As for the statement that "97% of scientists agree", we can now confidently say that figure along with everything else the warmists have presented is so seriously flawed they can be ignored with impunity.  It's clear from their own figures there are only .075% of "some" scientists polled who think mankind is destroying the Earth with carbon dioxide emissions and the only thing that will prevent it is to destroy our modern industrial society, return to nature and live short miserable lives.  And many of the world’s leaders think this is a good idea!  

Did I ever mention in the past you can’t fix stupid? Which in this case couples corruption and insanity