The Theology of Climate Change

religionFor a long time I have intended always to carry a small notebook with me when I go to second-hand bookshops to take down a list of the most boring titles ever published. Frequenters of such shops will know what I mean: A History of Banking in Costa Rica 1880 – 1915, Cattle Breeding in Marshland, that kind of thing. Oddly enough, a list of boring titles might in the end be very interesting, in obedience to one of the three purported laws of dialectical materialism: that of the transformation of quantity into quality.

Alas, I have never succeeded in carrying such a notebook with me, not even once. Another notebook I have thought of keeping, but never managed to keep, is one in which to write down the most boring or unreadable paragraphs ever written. Today I happened across a worthy entry to such a notebook in the British Journal of Psychiatry. Full marks (for persistence and determination) for anyone who can read right through to the end of the following:

‘Photovoice’, a community-based participatory research methodology, uses images as a tool to deconstruct problems by posing meaningful questions in a community to find actionable solutions. This community-enhancing technique was used to elicit experiences of climate change among women in rural Nepal. The current analysis employs mixed methods to explore The subjective mental health experience of participating in a 4-to 5-day photovoice process focused on climate change. A secondary objective of this work was to explore whether or not photovoice training, as a one-time 4- to 5-day intensive intervention, can mobilise people to be more aware of environmental changes related to climate change and to be more resilient to these changes, while providing positive mental health outcomes.

The timing of the publication of this wretched paragraph and its associated ‘study’ could hardly have been more unfortunate, for I am sure that Nepali women have something more pressing on their mind at the moment than climate change. Geological change probably seems more important to them now.

The paragraph I have quoted was truly representative of the intellectual quality and honesty of what followed. ‘Climate change,’ say the authors, ‘is the largest global health threat of the 21st century and, despite limited empirical evidence, it is expected directly and indirectly to harm communities’ psychosocial well-being.’ This is not so much science as it is religion, in which the god worshipped is the bringer-bout of future catastrophe, a kind of Kali, whose destructiveness must be appeased by word, puja and sacrifice.

The abysmal level of what is written can be gauged in a table in the paper that is headed ‘Examples of participants’ accounts of the effects of climate change on their mental health and well-being, and useful adaptive strategies.’ It is divided into two columns: ‘Theme’ and ‘Quote,’ in the latter of which one of the subjects of the experiment, if that is what is what it was (ideological indoctrination might be a better term), is quoted, whether representatively or not it is impossible to say. Ten women took part, half of them from upper castes, and half of them from the Dalits, those whom we once called untouchables. Since Dalits were quoted six times out of the eight, and only five Dalits took part, at least one, and I suspect more, were quoted more than once.

Read rest…

Continue Reading 2 Comments

How Can So Many World Leaders Be So Wrong?

cartoonIn a recent Daily Caller article, Michael Bastach took note of “25 Years of predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’.” This is the message that the Earth is warming rapidly and, if we don’t abandon the use of fossil fuels for power, it will arrive to wreak destruction on the human race and all life on the planet.

It is astounding how many past and present world leaders are telling everyone this despite the total lack of any real science, nor any actual warming—the Earth has been in a natural cooling cycle since 1997!

At the heart of the global warming—now called climate change—”crisis” has been the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that has been issuing apocalyptic predictions since its inception in 1988. None of its predictions have come true. How could they, based as they are on the false science of computer models, not that based on observable climate events and trends?

To this day our own government through its meteorological agencies has been caught manipulating the data gathered over the years to conform with the “warming” scenario. The worst has been the Environmental Protection Agency which is engaged in an effort to shut down coal-fired utilities and access to every other energy source on which we depend to power the nation.

Despite this national and international effort, mostly likely based on the liberal ideology that there are too many humans on the plant and dramatic ways must be found to reduce that number. In the past these anti-humanity advocates could depend on famine, disease and wars to kill off millions, but in the modern world that has become less of a threat.

One libertarian think tank, the Heartland Institute, has been leading the battle against the global warming/climate change hoax for a decade. As a Heartland policy advisor I have had a front row seat. In June, Heartland will sponsor the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change bringing together some of the world’s leading scientists to recommend that it is time for Congress to “take a fresh look at climate science”, “explore better science-based policies for energy and the environment”, and, bluntly stated, to “start over on the question of global warming?”

It did not surprise me to learn that Heartland had dispatched staff to Rome when the Pope announced he too was joining the “climate change” advocates despite its lack of any basis in science. The group garnered tons of international media coverage by simply presenting the truth. You can find out more about them here,  It didn’t take long for Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University professor and ‘special advisor” to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, to write a commentary condemning global warming “deniers” that appeared on a Catholic website called Pewsitter.

Sachs took particular aim at The Heartland Institute and, despite not attending its Rome press conference or any of the presentations the experts provided, did not hesitate to identify Heartland as having been supported for years by the Koch brothers, known for the support of conservative groups and causes.

Joseph Bast, Heartland president, does not let such cheap shots pass by. “The Heartland Instituter has received just $25,000 from a single organization, a charitable foundation affiliated with the Koch brothers during the past 15 years. Our annual budget is approximately $7 million. Even that small gift was earmarked for our work on health care reform, not global warming. Why does Sachs mention the ‘Koch brothers’ unless his intention is to smear an independent organization by falsely implying a much larger or somehow Improper  level of support from some singularly unpopular billionaires?”

Bast got to the heart of the war being perpetrated by the either misinformed or deliberately lying world leaders of the climate change hoax. “The dishonesty of Sachs’ reference to The Heartland Institute would be startling, coming from a person of Sachs’ stature, if this sort of misrepresentation of facts weren’t so common in the debate over climate change. President Obama sets the tone. Comparing global warming realists to members of the ‘flat earth society’ and rather ominously calling on his supporters to ‘hold climate change denier’s feet to the fire.'”

“Sachs has had a long and distinguished career as an academic and in various government agencies,” said Bast, “but on this issue he is letting his liberal ideology cloud his judgement. His short essay reveals a disturbing lack of knowledge about climate science and compassion toward the billions of people in the world who will be harmed by the UN’s plans to make energy more expensive and less reliable.”

“Sachs ends his essay with a call on people of all faiths to ‘fulfill our moral responsibilities to humanity and the future of Earth.’ That responsibility starts with truth-telling. Sachs and his colleagues on the left haven’t reach the starting line yet.”

It doesn’t matter if it is the Pope, the President of the United States, or the UN Secretary General if the assertion that the Earth is warming when it is not or that coal, oil and natural gas must be abandoned to “save the Earth.” Whether from ignorance or a dark hidden agenda, the whole of the global warming/climate change is aimed at harming billions, many of whom need the power that this hoax would deny to everyone.


Continue Reading 5 Comments

Chris Christie talks global warming, Hillary Clinton on immigration

christieAs he meets with voters on his two-day jaunt through New Hampshire, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been fielding questions on everything from climate change to deflate-gate. …snip…

Global warming came up on Thursday, at the Cheshire County Republicans Lincoln Day dinner. There, the New Jersey governor took a strong stand on climate change that sets him apart from the other Republicans running or thinking of running for president. He said, “I think global warming is real. I don’t think that’s deniable. And I do think human activity contributes to it.”

And earlier Thursday, during a meet and greet in a Sunapee, New Hampshire bar, Christie said of Hillary Clinton’s remarks on immigration, “I quite frankly think her position is extreme.” Clinton, in Nevada this week, called for a path to citizenship, saying, “Not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly supporting a path to citizenship. Not one. When they talk about legal status, that is code for second-class status.” Since she made that statement, Sen. Lindsey Graham, who cosponsored the bipartisan Senate immigration bill, rose to her challenge and said as president, he would veto any immigration bill that didn’t include a path to citizenship.

Full article

Continue Reading 2 Comments

The Iceman Cometh?

sunPresident Obama, Al Gore and other alarmists continue to prophesy manmade global warming crises, brought on by our “unsustainable” reliance on fossil fuels. Modelers like Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt conjure up illusory crisis “scenarios” based on the assumption that carbon dioxide emissions now drive climate change. A trillion-dollar Climate Crisis industry self-servingly echoes their claims.

But what if these merchants of fear are wrong? What if the sun refuses to cooperate with the alarmists?

“The sun is almost completely blank,” meteorologist Paul Dorian notes. Virtually no sunspots darken the blinding yellow orb. “The main driver of all weather and climate … has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. Not since February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots.”

“Going back to 1755, there have been only a few solar cycles that have had a lower number of sunspots during their maximum phase,” Dorian continues. This continued downward trend in solar sunspot cycles began over 20 years ago, when Earth stopped warming. If it continues for a couple more cycles, Earth could be entering another “grand minimum,” an extended period of low solar activity.

That would mean less incoming solar radiation, which could have a marked cooling effect ‚Äì as happened during previous decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The “Maunder Minimum” lasted 70 years (1645-1715), the “Dalton Minimum” 40 years (1790-1830); they brought even colder global temperatures to the “Little Ice Age.”

Solar activity is in free fall, Reading University (UK) space physicist Mike Lockwood confirms, perhaps “faster than at any time in the last 9,300 years.” He raised the likelihood of another grand minimum to 25% (from 10% three years previously). However, he claims a new little ice age is unlikely.

“Human-induced global warming is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles,” Professor Lockwood insists. That warmist mantra may keep him from getting excoriated for even mentioning solar influences. But it ignores Earth’s long history of climate change.

And what if Lockwood is wrong about human influences and the extent of a coming cold era? Habibullo Abdussamatov, director of Russia’s space research laboratory and its global warming research team, is convinced another little ice age is on its way. (See pages 18-21 of this report.) That would be LIA #19.

A couple degrees warmer, with more carbon dioxide in the air, would be good for humanity and planet. Crops, forests and grasslands would grow faster and better, longer growing seasons over larger areas of land would support more habitats, wildlife, agriculture and people – especially if everyone has access to ample, reliable, affordable energy, especially electricity, and modern farming technologies. Most people, including the elderly, can easily handle such warmth, especially if they have air conditioning.

But a couple degrees colder would bring serious adverse consequences for habitats, wildlife, agriculture and humanity. Though geologists say we are overdue for one, this does not mean another Pleistocene ice age ‚Äì with glaciers obliterating forests and cities under mile-thick walls of ice across North America, Europe, Asia and beyond. Maybe Lockwood is right, and it won’t be a full-blown Little Ice Age d√©j√† vu.

However, Antarctic sea ice just set a new April record. Ice conditions are back to normal in the Arctic. Winters have become longer, colder and snowier. With less meltwater, sea levels are barely rising.

Moreover, a 2-degree drop in average global temperatures would shrink growing seasons, cropland and wildlife habitats. Agriculture would be curtailed across Canada, northern Europe and Russia, putting greater pressure on remaining land to feed hungry families without turning more habitats into cropland. Governments might even have to stop mandating corn for ethanol and devote the land to food crops.

Our ability to feed Earth’s growing population would be seriously impaired, especially since the same factions that wail about fossil fuels, fracking and “dangerous manmade climate change” also despise the chemical fertilizers, insecticides, biotechnology and mechanized farming that would enable us to get far more food per acre under colder conditions, even if crops are starved for plant-fertilizing CO2.

Generally colder conditions can also bring more unpredictable storms and cold snaps during shortened growing seasons. That happened frequently during the last Little Ice Age (1350-1850), resulting in frequent crop failures and bouts of hunger, malnutrition, starvation and disease in much of Europe.

Worst of all, cold kills. Modern homes and buildings with affordable heat make it easy to survive even brutal winters in comfort. However, carbon taxes, restrictions on coal and natural gas, renewable energy mandates and other ill-conceived programs have sent electricity and home heating prices soaring.

When energy is rationed, expensive and unpredictable, businesses lay people off or close their doors. Forced to go on welfare, people’s health and well-being suffer. The elderly are especially susceptible. In Britain, many pensioners now ride buses or sit in libraries all day to stay warm, while others burn used books in stoves (they are cheaper than coal or wood). Thousands die of hypothermia, because they can no longer afford proper heat.

In Germany, Greece and other countries, rising energy costs have caused a surge in illegal tree cutting, as desperate families try to stay warm. Hungry, unemployed families are also poaching wildlife. Meanwhile, forests of wind turbines generate minimal expensive electricity but do slaughter millions of birds and bats every year, leaving crops to be eaten by hordes of insects, across Europe and the United States.

These realities portend what will likely happen on a far larger scale, if we do enter another prolonged cold era under anti-fossil fuel rules imposed in response to global warming hysteria. The specter of widespread turmoil, rising death tolls and climate refugees by the millions could become reality.

And still alarmists say, even if temperatures aren’t rising, we should force developed nations to curtail their energy use and living standards ‚Äì and modernize developing countries in a “sustainable” manner. We should use the “climate crisis” to “move the world in a greener, more equitable direction.”

As though wind, solar and biofuel energy and widespread organic farming are sustainable, under any objective standard. As though government elites have a right to tell poor countries what level of development, what energy technologies, what farming methods they will be “permitted” to have ‚Äì and what level of poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death they must continue to suffer.

Ending this insanity must begin with the climate scientists and modelers. They are taking our tax dollars and promoting constant scare stories. They owe it to us to be objective, transparent and willing to discuss and debate these issues with those who question human influences on climate change. They owe it to us to get the predictions right, so that we can be properly prepared, especially if the iceman cometh again.

That means basing their models on all the forces that determine global temperature and climate fluctuations: the sun, cosmic rays, deep ocean currents, volcanoes and other natural forces, as well as the 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere that is carbon dioxide. It means comparing predictions with actual (non-averaged, non-manipulated) real-world observations and data. If the improved models still do not predict accurately, it means revising hypotheses and methodologies yet again, until they square with reality.

Meanwhile, our politicians owe it to us to start basing energy and environmental policies on reality: on how Earth’s climate and weather actually behave ‚Äì and on how their policies, laws and regulations affect job creation and preservation, economic growth and opportunities, and human health and welfare, especially for poor and minority families, and even more so for the poorest people on our planet.

<iframe width=”590″ height=”332″ src=”″ frameborder=”no” scrolling=”no” noresize marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″></iframe>


Continue Reading 3 Comments

Tory Majority Means Full Speed Ahead For UK Shale Revolution

PowerThe Conservative Party’s victory in the UK General Election means that it will be able to put its own man in at the top of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The result of the election should help to move forward the establishment of an onshore shale gas industry in the UK as the Conservatives are fully behind drilling for shale gas in the country. –Jon Mainwaring, Rig Zone, 8 May 2015

David Cameron’s 2014 commitment to go ‘all out for shale gas’ may have been a controversial one, but now he has secured power this could be huge news for the oil and gas industry in the UK.  —Oil Voice, 8 May 2015

A key part of our long-term economic plan to secure Britain’s future is to back businesses with better infrastructure. That’s why we’re going all out for shale. It will mean more jobs and opportunities for people, and economic security for our country.—David Cameron, 10 Downing Street, 13 January 2014

The Conservative Party manifesto 2015 says it will continue to support shale gas in Britain. It says that its tax cuts have encouraged “the birth of a new industry, shale gas, which could create many thousands of jobs.” It promises to  continue  supporting the safe development of shale gas, and ensure that local communities share the proceeds through generous community benefit packages. It also commits to the creation of a Sovereign Wealth Fund for the North of England, so that the shale gas resources of the North are used to invest in the future of the North.—OESG News, 14 April 2015

A majority government is an opportunity to fix Britain’s broken energy department. Forget ill-conceived green commitments. Our economy will wither and die unless we find a way to harness our onshore fossil fuel resources. The jobs and industrial growth created by shale in the US should be enough motivation to exploit our own resources. The country cannot afford to fall into the trap set by the climate change zealots who would see our great oil and gas companies bankrupted on the evidence of some questionable scientific assumptions. –Andrew Critchlow, The Daily Telegraph. 9 May 2015

I want to make it clear that if there is a Conservative Government in place we will remove all subsidy for on-shore wind and local people should have a greater say. This would end the growth of on-shore wind and if that’s what you care about you must vote Conservative. ‚ÄìDavid Cameron, County Times, 7 May 2015

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Proposed Alaskan habitat will do little to stop polar bear deaths

habitatA quiet little story that appeared on Reuters mid-week came and went with little fanfare. Before a U.S. district court, a coalition of oil industry groups and Alaska Natives successfully won an order to vacate the government’s polar habitat that was designated in 2013. And while the Obama administration plans to appeal that ruling, the decision to “list large swathes of the Arctic as necessary for the conservation” of polar bears has been rescinded. And for good reason.

Every ten years, for periods of 2-3 years, polar bears literally die from starvation. The cause? Thick spring ice conditions in the Southern Beaufort regions of Alaska, which prevents the polar bears from eating. But the Obama administration is determined to overturn that ruling even though the move wouldn’t protect these large mammals from dying.

Dr. Susan J. Crockford, a zoologist and polar bear expert with more than 35 years experience, writes that if successful, “the Obama administration’s recommendation to Congress that they approve a proposed Arctic wildlife refuge area on Alaska’s North Slope … would not protect polar bears from the starvation deaths due to thick spring ice conditions.” These deaths occur in the region for 2-3 years out of every 10 since at least 1960, when tracking began. (See map for designated habitat area)

Crockford notes that the the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) already provides substantial protection for Southern Beaufort and Chukchi Sea polar bears, and this extra layer of designation may have other implications for Alaska’s North Shore. She lays out four important issues related to the proposed ESA critical habitat designation for polar bears that are often overlooked.

First, Crockford notes that the primary cause of polar bear deaths in the Southern Beaufort region is the cyclical nature of thick spring ice, usually lasting 2-3 years every 10 years, and occurring relatively close to shore. Second, very few polar bears spend their time near the shore in Alaska, because “most females den out on the sea ice, not on land.” In fact, the “bears that den onshore in that region are the ones most at risk from decadal bouts of thick spring ice.”

Third, the United States is “uniquely aggressive attitude toward designating Arctic marine mammals as ‘threatened with extinction’ due to the predicted effects of man-made global warming, even though the US has the least amount of sea ice habit of all nations” situated around the North Pole. And finally, the MMPA of 1972 already offers a “massive amount of protection to polar bears (considered a marine mammal): the MMPA assumed ALL marine mammals are, or may be, at risk of extinction due to human activities.”

Crockford believes a “few influential people” believe that the MMPA of 1972 has not provided sufficient protection for polar bears and are not stringent enough to do so moving forward. But neither the MMPA nor the new ESA habitat designation can “protect polar bears from the large number of deaths by starvation they suffer due to thick spring ice conditions every 10 years or so in this region.”

If implemented, the new ESA habitat designation would be one of the nation’s largest in history, and would be a first step in hampering new oil and gas exploration in the Arctic’s North Shore. This is something that environmentalists, and the Obama administration, have been clamoring for and see the polar bear, and to some extent the ringed seal, as a means of reaching their shared goal: shutting down oil and gas exploration in the Arctic. Which would make Russian President Vladimir Putin a very happy, and wealthy, man.

And while having an area marked off as a critical habitat won’t prevent current Arctic drilling, it does hamper a company’s ability to expand if the regulatory agency determines that it would be detrimental to an animal’s natural surroundings. In environmental parlance, it’s the first step in pushing a so-called ‘critical habitat’ toward national park or refuge status, which allows the government to prohibit current, and future, economic activity.


Continue Reading

UK Climate Minister Voted Out, Green LibDems Wiped Out

cartoonBritain’s Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey has lost his seat to the Conservative party, in an election night that has seen the Liberal Democrats presence in the House of Commons decimated. —The Mirror, 8 May 2015

David Cameron has won the general election with an outright majority after Labour was virtually wiped out in Scotland and the Liberal Democrat vote collapsed. Mr Cameron hailed the “sweetest victory” as his party secured the 323 seats needed to form a government without needing to go into coalition. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader. Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor was the biggest scalp of the night, losing his Leeds seat to the Tories. —The Daily Telegraph, 8 May 2015

The Prime Minister has pledged to stop future government funding to windfarm projects including the delayed inquiry and to give local people the final say ‚Äì if he is re-elected today. Mr Cameron pledged to stop the windfarm project and any other on-shore windfarms within Montgomeryshire if he was elected to take a second term in Government. He said: “I want to make it clear that if there is a Conservative Government in place we will remove all subsidy for on-shore wind and local people should have a greater say.” –Ben Goddard, County Times, 7 May 2015

Speculation is growing that energy and climate change department’s days of independence could be numbered. A government source said that if David Cameron is re-elected, he is likely to fold it into the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, where the government has more staff with commercial experience. –John Collingridge and Danny Fortson, The Sunday Times, 5 April 2015

New government will have to address capacity shortfalls to avoid blackouts.  Avoiding a power blackout will be one of the first priorities for whoever forms the next government, a leading consultant has suggested. Critics argue that a focus on renewables has left Britain’s power network now dangerously short of spare capacity. –Andrew Critchlow, The Daily Telegraph, 8 May 2015

Continue Reading 5 Comments

The UN is using climate change as a tool not an issue

Christiana FigueresChristiana FigueresIt’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising.

We have been subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years.

In January 1970, Life magazine, based on “solid scientific evidence”, claimed that by 1985 air pollution would reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth by half. In fact, across that period sunlight fell by between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. In a 1971 speech, Paul Ehrlich said: “If I were a gambler I would take even money that ­England will not exist in the year 2000.”

Fast forward to March 2000 and David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, told The Independent, “Snowfalls are now a thing of the past.” In December 2010, the Mail Online reported, “Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain”.

We’ve had our own busted predictions. Perhaps the most preposterous was climate alarmist Tim Flannery’s 2005 observation: “If the computer records are right, these drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia.” Subsequent rainfall and severe flooding have shown the records or his analysis are wrong. We’ve swallowed dud prediction after dud prediction. What’s more, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which we were instructed was the gold standard on global warming, has been exposed repeatedly for ­mis­rep­resentation and shoddy methods.

Weather bureaus appear to have “homogenised” data to suit narratives. NASA’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record was revised, after challenge, to only 38 per cent probability. Extreme weather events, once blamed on global warming, no longer are, as their frequency and intensity decline.

Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?

In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”

In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.

Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or ­disagreement.

Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travellers. As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: “Even if the ­(climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

Having gained so much ground, eco-catastrophists won’t let up. After all, they have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House. They have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media (the ABC and Fairfax in Australia) to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.

They will continue to present the climate change movement as an independent, spontaneous consensus of concerned scientists, politicians and citizens who believe human activity is “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming. (“Extremely likely” is a scientific term?)

And they will keep mobilising public opinion using fear and appeals to morality. UN support will be assured through promised wealth redistribution from the West, even though its anti-growth policy prescriptions will needlessly prolong poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy for the world’s poorest.

Figueres said at a climate ­summit in Melbourne recently that she was “truly counting on Australia’s leadership” to ensure most coal stayed in the ground.

Hopefully, like India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Tony Abbott isn’t listening. India knows the importance of cheap energy and is set to overtake China as the world’s leading importer of coal. Even Germany is about to commission the most coal-fired power stations in 20 years.

There is a real chance Figueres and those who share her centralised power ambitions will succeed. As the UN’s December climate change conference in Paris approaches, Australia will be pressed to sign even more futile job-destroying climate change treaties.

Resisting will be politically difficult. But resist we should. We are already paying an unnecessary social and economic price for empty gestures. Enough is enough.

Maurice Newman is chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council. The views expressed here are his own.


Continue Reading 8 Comments

Hollywood’s climate hypocrites

dicaprioHollywood and global-warming panic have always been a natural match. After all, who can tell you better to cut back on your wasteful ways better than a high-flying multimillionaire movie star with the carbon footprint of a Tyrannosaurus rex? 

It’s never mattered that the stars have all the scientific expertise of Pee-wee Herman. They’re just so good-looking and famous, who cares? PBS broadcast a 10-hour series in 1990 entitled “Race to Save the Planet.” The show’s host was Meryl Streep, who proclaimed: “By the year 2000 … the Earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there will be enormous calamities in a very short time.”


It’s bad enough that they don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s worse that they’re sheer hypocrites while preaching their nonsense. A private jet burns as much fuel in an hour as a car does in a year. The 48,000-pound Gulfstream G550, which can fly from Chicago to Rome with 15 passengers, burns through more than 400 gallons of fuel per hour. 

Exhibit A is Leonardo DiCaprio, who lectures, “If we don’t act together, we will surely perish.” Radar Online reported in April that DiCaprio boarded a private jet six different times within six weeks last year. But the charade continues. A partnership between DiCaprio and Netflix was announced in March to create yet another series of propagandist environmental documentaries.

The Media Research Center has a new report on “Climate Hypocrites and the Media That Love Them.” Take Julia Roberts, who recently made a video for Conservation International playing a big role: “Some call me nature. Others call me Mother Nature. I’ve been here for over four and a half billion years. 22,500 times longer than you. I don’t really need people, but people need me. Yes, your future depends on me. When I thrive, you thrive. When I falter, you falter. Or worse. But I’ve been here for eons. I have fed species greater than you, and I have starved species greater than you.”

The loathing of the human race is a constant green theme. But it’s not hard to find photos of Roberts climbing in and out of private jets. In fact, for a while she even co-owned a private jet. 

Woody Harrelson is such a tree-hugger that he told CBC News in Canada that he’d “like to see it get to the point where we never use trees to make paper because to me it’s just a barbaric way to make it. … It’d be nice to just stop using the forest.” But at the Cannes Film Festival in 2008, when Harrelson realized that he had left his vegan belt and shoes behind, he had them flown to France from California.

At least John Travolta offers self-awareness, that when he said global warming is a “very valid” issue, he added “”I’m probably not the best candidate to ask about global warming because I fly jets.” Travolta owns five jets and has flown tens of thousands of miles in the air. He thinks the answer may be “other planets,” a natural suggestion for a Scientologist.

These celebrities don’t take tough questions well. When asked about DiCaprio’s hypocrisy, actor Mark Ruffalo shot back: “Oh, brother, that is a question you shouldn’t be asking here today because that defies the spirit of what this is about.” He added that anyone who attacks DiCaprio is “a coward or an ideologue” because “Leonardo DiCaprio’s voice carries farther than any one of those politicians, even the president.”

If that’s true, blame a star-dazzled media elite that never cares one whit about hypocrisy.


Continue Reading 10 Comments

Australia PM advisor says climate change a UN-led ruse

newmanNewmanAustralian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s top business advisor on Friday claimed climate change was a ruse encouraged by the United Nations to create a new authoritarian world order under its control.

Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, said the real agenda was “concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook”.

In a column for The Australian newspaper to coincide with a visit by UN climate chief Christiana Figueres, he added that the world had been “subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years”.

“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 percent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error,” he said, without providing evidence.

Newman, a former chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is a known climate change sceptic but he went further Friday by accusing the UN of being involved in a scam.

“Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model,” he wrote.

“This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

Figueres, in charge of getting a global emissions reduction agreement in Paris in December, was in Australia to meet business leaders and the public to discuss practical climate change action.

Read rest…

Continue Reading 2 Comments

Bill Belichick vs. Bill Nye: Wells Report Discredits Science Guy’s Analysis

nyeWhen Bill Belichick alleged that atmospheric conditions played naturally depressurized footballs back in January, he elicited widespread ridicule in the news media. But the release of the Wells Report affirms his analysis, however rudimentary, as correct.

“I’m not too worried about coach Belichick’s competing with me,” Bill Nye “the Science Guy” told Good Morning America in January. “What he said didn’t make any sense.”

But the Wells Report noted that every ball tested by referees at halftime of the AFC Championship Game—Colts balls and Patriots balls—displayed significantly reduced air pressure. Furthermore, the scientific firm employed by the Wells Report found, just as Bill Belichick said back in January, that balls lost about a pound or more of pressure by halftime.

“We found that once the footballs were on the field over an extended period of time, in other words, they were adjusted to the climatic conditions and also the fact that the footballs reached an equilibrium without the rubbing process, that after that had run its course and the footballs had reached an equilibrium, that they were down approximately one-and-a-half pounds per square inch,” the Patriots head coach maintained to media jeers. “When we brought the footballs back in after that process and re-tested them in a controlled environment as we have here, then those measurements rose approximately one half pound per square inch. So the net of one and a half, back to a half, is approximately one pound per square inch, to one and a half.”

Ted Wells paid the scientific firm Exponent to run the same type of experiments that Dr. Belichick and his lab assistants performed. “According to Exponent,” the Wells Report informs, “based on the most likely pressure and temperature values for the Patriots game balls on the day of the AFC Championship Game (i.e., a starting pressure of 12.5 psi, a starting temperature of between 67 and 71 degrees and a final temperature of 48 degrees), the Ideal Gas Law predicts that the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psi at the end of the first half, just before they were brought back into the Officials Locker Room.”

Sound familiar? It should. Bill Belichick made that exact point in January. Beyond this, the NFL commissioned investigation shows—deep in the report beyond the executive summary and in contradiction to the “probably” guilty conclusion offered as the takeaway—that eight of the 11 Patriots balls tested at 11.32 psi or more by one of the two NFL referees at halftime. In other words, the majority of the balls experienced natural drops in pressure, and not unnatural ones enacted by a needle, by halftime according to at least one of the two NFL referees.

Like the meat of the Wells Report contradicting the executive summary takeaway, not everything upon further investigation is as it appears. Bill Nye isn’t actually a scientist. He played one in a movie once. That role, in the 1998 Disney Channel movie The Principal Takes a Holiday, along with his mechanical engineering bachelor’s degree from Cornell, propelled his interest in science and the public’s interest in him as a “scientist.” But he’s as much of a scientist as Bill Belichick, Wesleyan ’75, is an economist.

“To really change the pressure you need one of these,” Nye insisted to Good Morning America, “the inflation needle.”

According to actual scientists, rather than a guy who played one in a movie, atmospheric pressure works, too.


Continue Reading 22 Comments

Former UN Chief: Americans Should Eat Insects to Fight Global Warming

annanMarie Antoinette may or may not have said “Let them eat cake” at the outset of the French Revolution 200-plus years ago, but former United Nations General Secretary Kofi Annan just made Marie Antoinette’s alleged dictate seem downright magnanimous. Pointing his finger at America and other Western democracies, Annan this week said Americans should begin eating insects to do our part to address the fictitious global warming crisis.

Complaining about a “rapidly growing middle class,” Annan told the Guardian that more people being able to afford beef and chicken is causing “a major threat to the climate” because raising livestock produces global warming emissions. “There are alternative sources of protein,” said Annan. “Insects have a very good conversion rate from feed to meat.”

Annan criticized people in Western democracies for not embracing insect food sources linked to poverty in developing nations.

Insects “make up part of the diet of two billion people and are commonly eaten in many parts of the world. Eating insects is good for the environment and balanced diets,” said Annan.

Annan misses a very important point. People in poverty-stricken Third World nations generally do not “choose” to eat insects to “balance” their diets. They resort to eating insects because they live in abject poverty and cannot afford steak or chicken Florentine.

Make no mistake, Americans empathize with people in Third World nations who are malnourished and go to bed hungry. It is for this reason that our government sends billions of dollars in foreign aid to such nations and, additionally, individual Americans give generously to charities such as Save the Children. However, it’s one thing to empathize with people in Third World poverty and quite another thing to expect Americans to devolve into a similar life of misery.

Or perhaps Annan – rather than missing a very important point – is well aware of the point but begrudges people in Western democracies for creating a wealthy, dynamic, free society. In the very same interview in which he tells middle class people in Western democracies that they should give up beef and chicken for cockroaches and locusts, he pushes for carbon taxes on Western nations and a redistribution of wealth from Western democracies to Third World dictatorships.

“We need equitable and effective polices, which ensure that the world’s richer countries support the aspirations of developing countries to follow a sustainable development path,” Annan asserted.

Apparently, in the worldview of Annan and the United Nations, it is not “equitable” that Americans currently give mere billions of dollars to other countries around the world. According to Annan, they have a right to much more. Only hundreds of billions of dollars ‚Äì or even trillions ‚Äì in global entitlement payments would satisfy Americans’ “fairness” debt, according to Annan.

Annan’s asserted plans help explain why the United Nations continues to assert a global warming crisis even while hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, and other extreme weather events become less frequent in our modestly warming world, and while global soil moisture, crop production, and foliage dramatically improve. It was never about climate, temperatures, or the environment; it has always been primarily about punishing Western democracies and our freedom-centered, wealth-creating values.

Marie Antoinette probably did not utter the seemingly heartless declaration, “Let them eat cake,” But even if she did, Kofi Annan has taken dietary cruelty to another level.

Americans? “Let them eat bugs!”


Continue Reading 9 Comments