Experts Smeared by Media and Greenpeace for Debunking Global Warming

William Matthew ("Matt") Briggs, Ph.D.William Matthew (“Matt”) Briggs, Ph.D.A not so funny, but somewhat predictable, event occurred after Dr. Matt Briggs co-authored a major peer-reviewed climate physics paper that exposed significant errors in the billion-dollar computer models used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Briggs and his colleagues were smeared by the New York Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe because the revealed errors suggest that there is no climate crisis after all.

Dr. Briggs joined Breitbart News Executive Chairman, Stephen K. Bannon, on Breitbart News Sunday and explained that he, lead author Lord Monckton, physicist Dr. Willie Soon, and former Delaware Climatologist David Legates developed a simple climate model that exposed the errors in the more complex computer models used by the IPCC. The report was released in a joint article titled: “Why Models Run Hot: Results from An Irreducibly Simple Climate Model.”

Dr. Briggs, who has a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics from Cornell, was assistant editor for the Monthly Weather Review, and is widely published on matters concerning climate. He explained that for decades “the computer climate models on which the IPCC and others rely, make forecasts where the temperature will be way up there. But, the reality is the temperature has been way down here. So these monitors are running hot!”

The reason that the models are running hot is based on a “firm scientific principle,” says Briggs. “If a model is making bad predictions, which these climate models are, the theory that underlies them must be wrong. So these models must be wrong.”

Briggs explained that atmospheric reaction to carbon dioxide, known as climate sensitivity, is probably too high for these models. “If you take this climate sensitivity model and tone it down, you get a much closer match to reality.” He contends that the computer models are overcompensating for the addition of CO2’s to the atmosphere.

Although their findings weren’t that controversial scientifically, it was “unwelcome news” to the IPCC and other “Global Warmists”—”and that’s when the whole thing began to blow-up,” Briggs said.

Chairman Bannon asked Briggs how he reacts to all the “smug” entertainers, celebrities, personalities, and others who assert that global warming is a settled science. Briggs responded by explaining that what is settled, “is the fundamental, unshakable scientific principle, that if you have a theory that makes bad predictions, that theory must be wrong. And we have had lousy predictions from these climate models for years and years and years. Something must be wrong. This is undeniable.”

Briggs elaborated that his paper has been downloaded 10,000 times, making it one of the most downloaded reports on climate change ever. But the statistician acknowledged that a lot of money and careers are on the line, largely relying on the premise that the planet is heating up.

Consequently, he said, reporters from the aforementioned media outlets have done their best to smear the authors’ names. Moreover, they made attempts to get Soon and Legates fired from their jobs. Accusations were made that the authors wrote the paper for financial gains. Yet, no money was ever given or received for writing it. Briggs said the reporters “did not want to believe the truth I was telling them.”

Greenpeace was able to access all of eminent solar physicist Willie Soon’s emails from his employer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center regarding the paper. But they found nothing suggesting any kind of foul play, deception or receiving of illegal funds. Mr. Bannon mocked the Harvard-Smithsonian center for having released Soon’s correspondence, sarcastically referring to the institution as a “profiles in courage” for providing all of Soon’s private emails.

Eventually, Greenpeace sent the emails to the media in a desperate attempt to unveil some sort of mistake in the study, or deception on the part of the authors. Bannon observed, “so they were trying to smear you, ruin your reputations?” Briggs said that they tried, but every point was refuted entirely.

Briggs emphasized that “if you don’t remember anything else from this radio program listen to this: If you have a theory and that theory makes bad predictions, that theory is in error….Climate forecasters have made, for decades, lousy predictions. They are therefore in error….People should not rely on them to make decisions. Certainly, they should not rely on them to make legislation.”


Continue Reading 9 Comments

Global Warming Believers Launch Attack Campaign Against Renowned Scientist

protestFirm believers in global warming are ganging up to attack the integrity of an Harvard astrophysicist, Breitbart reports.

Dr. Willie Soon’s crime was to publish a peer-reviewed study showing that climate models are simply running too hot ‚Äì they overestimate temperature increases.

Climate change advocates are not attacking the facts of his study, which seem to agree with satellite data showing no warming for over 18 years. Instead, they are looking for conflicts of interest, for dark money that might have influenced his research. The New York Times took the lead by reporting that Soon received many donations from the fossil fuel industry, which they believe constitutes a conflict of interest.

It’s not the first time that Dr. Soon received attacks for his person rather than his science. Back in 2008 when the Climategate scandal was made public, it was shown that those involved believed “that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board,” because he was able to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. Prominent global warming advocates Michael Mann and Tom Wigley then tried to smear Soon as hard as they could so he wouldn’t publish reports Junk Science

Interestingly enough, climate change believers seem to appreciate fossil-fuel money when it goes to themselves. Investigative reporter Donna Laframboise revealed that World Wildlife Fund, the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy all received tens of millions of dollars from oil companies.

Nor do they try to hide their political connections. The Climate Depot published a flashback article showing that global warming “fighter” Jim Hansen received money from the Heinz Foundation, headed by John Kerry’s wife Teresa back in 2004 in the midst of the presidential elections.


Continue Reading

NYT Smears Scientist Willie Soon for Telling the Truth About ‘Global Warming’

soonAnother day, another attack on the integrity of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, this time in the New York Times.

I first became aware of Soon in 2009 when reading through the Climategate emails. One of them was a jocular suggestion by a warmist called Tom Wigley as to how best to smear Soon and his co-author Sallie Baliunas.

Might be interesting to see how frequently Soon and Baliunas, individually, are cited (as astronomers). Are they any good in their own fields? Perhaps we could start referring to them as astrologers (excusable as…’oops, just a typo’).

You might be wondering what Soon and Baliunas had done to incur the wrath of the climate alarmist establishment. Well, they’d just published a meta-analysis of all the papers which had been written on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). What their paper showed is that contrary to claims by one Michael Mann (the name may be familiar), the MWP was not a small, localised event but global, big and widespread.

So the memo went out from the Hockey Team (the uber-vindictive Mann and his lickspittle posse) to get Soon, and they’ve been going at him ever since: not by criticising the quality of his science — that would be too difficult because his science is impeccable — but simply by trying to make his life miserable, deny him tenure, and to smear him as compromised and corrupt.

The reason for the latest attack on Soon is that he is the co-author, with Christopher Monckton et al, of a paper published earlier this year in the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences journal Science Bulletin.

This study — Why Models Run Hot — infuriated the alarmist establishment, first because it was unusually popular (receiving over 10,000 views — thousands more than most scientific papers get) and second because it made a mockery of their cherished computer models.

As Paul Driessen explains:

Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,” concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO2-driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be “no more than one-third to one-half of the IPCC’s current projections” ‚Äì that is, just 1-2 degrees C (2-4 deg F) by 2100! That’s akin to the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and would be beneficial, not harmful.

Rather than attack the substance of the paper, the warmists reverted to their usual tricks, lead by Kert Davies, an activist lawyer who works for a Greenpeace front organisation called Climate Investigations Center.

Climate Investigations Center executive director (and former top Greenpeace official) Kert Davies told the Boston Globe it “simply cannot be true” that the authors have no conflict of interest over their study, considering their alleged industry funding sources and outside consulting fees. Davies singled out Dr. Willie Soon, saying the Harvard researcher received more than $1 million from companies that support studies critical of manmade climate change claims. An allied group launched a petition drive to have Dr. Soon fired.

Davies’ libelous assertions have no basis in fact. Not one of these four authors received a dime in grants or other payments for researching and writing their climate models paper. Every one of them did the work on his own time. The only money contributed to the Science Bulletin effort went to paying the “public access” fees, so that people could read their study for free.

I spoke to Soon last night. He told me that of course he receives private funding for his research: he has to because it’s his only way of making ends meet, especially since the Alarmist establishment launched its vendetta against him when, from 2009 onwards, he became more outspoken in his critiques of global warming theory.

Harvard-Smithsonian strove to make his life harder and harder, first by banning him from working on anything even remotely connected with issues like climate change or CO2, then by moving his office away from the astrophysics department to a remote area Soon calls Siberia. What the faculty couldn’t quite do was actually sack Soon because it had no cause: he was producing too many quality papers, and he was also bringing in too much money (40 per cent of which goes straight into the faculty coffers).

So there’s nothing new or scandalous about this latest New York Times hit job on poor Willie Soon. It’s just a continuation of a vendetta which has been waged for years against an honest, decent, hardworking — and incredibly brave — scientist who refuses to toe the official (and increasingly discredited) line on man-made global warming.

What most definitely is scandalous is the vile hypocrisy of Soon’s harrassment by the warmist establishment, which receives billions every year from the US government, left-wing charities, and billionaire activists like Tom Steyer and George Soros to prop up their bankrupt cause by promoting exactly the kind of junk science which Soon (and similarly principled scientists) have made it their business to shred.

The warmists are losing their argument. Their desperation is beginning to show.


Continue Reading

Obama Administration Declares Green War on India

28d339fac0a1He wouldn’t put it this way, but Secretary of State John Kerry announced this week that the U.S. government will turn the screws on India over the country’s environmental record. This is a bold challenge to the Indian government that could become an extremely effective exercise of soft power. But even if AirNow  monitoring doesn’t work a diplomatic miracle in time for the Paris climate conference, at least the fact that India’s pollution problem hurts its people will be well-articulated. That can only increase public pressure to clean up India’s development strategy. –Stephen Stromberg, The Washington Post, 20 February 2015

World leaders are now preparing for a global summit on climate change in Paris in December, where they hope to agree on a global strategy. As the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, India also needs to make a similarly strong commitment to keep the momentum going. Mr. Modi was elected on a promise to liberalize India’s economy as a means to encourage foreign investment, create new jobs and lift millions of Indians out of poverty. The country has long argued that emissions targets would thwart these goals. Given that about 300 million Indians lack access to electricity and millions more live with shortages, the need for power is obviously great. Even so, the current path — a continued heavy investment in coal — is self-destructive, killing India’s people, taxing its health care system and making the environment so inhospitable that foreign investors could be scared away. –Editorial, The New York Times, 23 February 2015

India’s position underscoring the historical responsibilities of developing countries in the context of climate change was up against proposed dilutions to that concept notably by the U.S. and the European Union at the recent climate talks in Geneva. An Indian official said the meeting did not have any high ambition on targets though all countries took an active part in including various points in the draft treaty for Paris. The U.S. suggested doing away with the differences between developed and developing countries and one of the suggestions was that countries should be rated based on World Bank data. –Meena Menon, The Hindu, 23 February 2015

The Paris Climate Conference this December will not produce an agreement that is “environmentally optimal,” according to former Minister Jairam Ramesh who served as India’s chief negotiator at the 2009 conference in Copenhagen. The key to the Paris Conference, according to Ramesh, is not whether countries make contributions, but whether the UN can muster support for an enforcement mechanism to ensure that countries comply with the contributions they make. Developing countries like India may be reluctant to accept any enforcement mechanism that could have the effect of limiting economic growth. Were they asked to rank economic growth against climate objectives, Ramesh said, developing countries would choose growth. –Jeff McMahon, Forbes, 20 February 2015

Owen Paterson, the former environment secretary, will this week accuse the European Union and Greenpeace of condemning people in the developing world to death by refusing to accept genetically modified crops. In a strongly-worded denunciation of the “green blob” of officials and pressure groups, Mr Paterson will warn that a food revolution that could save Africa from hunger is being held back. He will like Greenpeace to the Luddites who smashed textile machinery in the nineteenth century, and accuse the EU of “neo-colonialism at its worst” by restricting food production within its own borders. — Matthew Holehouse, The Sunday Telegraph, 22 February 2015

This is also a time, however, of great mischief, in which many individuals and even governments are turning their backs on progress. Not since the original Luddites smashed cotton mill machinery in early 19th century England, have we seen such an organised, fanatical antagonism to progress and science. These enemies of the Green Revolution call themselves ‘progressive’, but their agenda could hardly be more backward-looking and regressive. ‚ÄìOwen Paterson, The Sunday Telegraph, 22 February 2015

India placed a moratorium on GM eggplant in 2010 fearing the effect on food safety and biodiversity. Field trials of other GM crops were not formally halted, but the regulatory system was brought to a deadlock. But allowing GM crops is critical to Indian Prime Minister Modi’s goal of boosting dismal farm productivity in India, where urbanization is devouring arable land and population growth will mean there are 1.5 billion mouths to feed by 2030 – more even than China. Starting in August last year, his government resumed the field trials for selected crops with little publicity. –Krishna Das & Mayank Bhardwaj, Reuters, 23 February 2015

Continue Reading

The climate con goes on

cartoon global warming orthodoxySome 200 nations may sign a “modest” Kyoto II climate treaty, say December 2014 media reports from Lima, Peru. But will developing nations agree to stop using coal to generate electricity? No. Curtail economic growth? No. Cease emitting carbon dioxide? Maybe, but only a little, sometime in the future, when it is more convenient to do so, without binding commitments. Then why would they sign a treaty?

Primarily because they expect to get free energy technology transfers, and billions of dollars a year in climate “mitigation, adaptation and reparation” money from Western nations that they blame (and which blame themselves) for the “dangerous climate change,” rising seas and “extreme weather” that they claim are “unprecedented” and due to carbon dioxide emissions during the 150 years since the Industrial Revolution began. These FRCs (Formerly Rich Countries) have implemented low-carbon energy policies and penalties that have strangled their economies, dramatically increased energy prices and killed millions of jobs. But now poor developing countries demand that they also transfer $100 billion per year, for decades (with most of that probably going to their governing elites’ Swiss banks accounts).

Where is this likely taking us? President Obama has long promised to “fundamentally transform” the U.S. economy and ensure that electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.” His edicts are doing precisely that. And now Christiana Figueres, the UN’s chief climate change official, has declared that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking “probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the [global] economic development model.” [emphasis added] Her incredible admission underscores what another high-ranking IPCC official said several years ago: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit is actually an economy summit, during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Why would any sane families or nations consign their fates to such insane, perverse arrangements? The arrangements are being imposed on them, through force, fabrication and fraud.

Poor, middle and working class families will get little but more layoffs, further reductions in living standards and longer postponement of dreams. But meanwhile Climate Chaos, Inc. (Big Green, Big Government, alarmist scientists, crony corporatist “green” energy companies, and allied universities and scientific groups) will become richer, gain more control over our lives and livelihoods, and rarely be held accountable for the damage they cause. Retracting their “dangerous manmade climate change” tautologies would endanger their money, power and reputations.

That’s why their hypotheses, assertions, intentions and computer models always trump reality. It’s why they are increasingly vicious and relentless in vilifying realist scientists like Willie Soon who challenge their “97% consensus” and “manmade climate catastrophe” mantras ‚Äì and in demanding that the news media ignore experts and analyses that do not toe the Climate Chaos line. They denigrate realists as “climate deniers” (deliberately suggesting Holocaust denial) and “oil industry shills” (while hiding their own suspect ethics, data “adjustments,” and Big Green billion-dollar Russian and other funding sources).

Realists get precious little (or no) oil money and constantly underscore the role of climate change throughout Earth and human history. What we contest is the notion that climate and weather fluctuations today are manmade, unprecedented and dangerous. Alarmists deny that Earth’s climate is often in flux, solar and other natural forces drive weather and climate, and atmospheric carbon dioxide plays only a minimal role. Real-world evidence demolishes virtually every alarmist claim.

The climate reality record is presented in a readable, thought-provoking new book, About Face: Why the world needs more CO2; The failed science of global warming, by late U.S. economist Arthur Hughes, Australian geologist Cliff Ollier and Canadian meteorologist Madhav Khandekar. Sea level is rising at only1.5 mm per year now (six inches per century), they note, and there is zero evidence that the rate is escalating or that coastal communities are at risk. Nor is “ocean acidification” a legitimate problem.

Alarmists use it to replace other disproven scares with a new panic. Earth’s oceans have never been acidic. They are mildly alkaline. Their enormous volumes of water cannot become acidic ‚Äì that is, plummet from an 8.2 pH level 150 years ago and their current 8.1 pH into the acidic realm of 7.0 or lower, due to the tiny amount of atmospheric CO2 attributable to fossil fuel use, in less than five centuries, experts explain.

The tiny effect of rising CO2 levels on climate contrasts sharply with their enormous benefits to plant growth and agriculture. Not only is more CO2 “greening” deserts, forests and grasslands; it is increasing grain and food yields worldwide, and helping people in developing nations live longer, healthier lives.

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are not in danger of collapsing, the About Face authors demonstrate; in fact, they are growing. Similarly, contrary to another scare, extreme weather events are not increasing.

No Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, and Earth’s temperature has not budged for 18 years. Claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record” are based on airport and urban measurements that are higher than rural locations and are always “adjusted” upward, with year-to-year differences expressed in hundredths of a degree. Outside those areas, for most of the world ‚Äì the 70% of Earth’s surface that is oceans and 85% of land area that is mountains, deserts, grasslands, tundra, and boreal or tropical rain forests ‚Äì practically no data exist. So NASA and other alarmists falsely extrapolate from their manipulated urban data to fill in massive gaps for the other 95% of the Earth.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Northeast is suffering through record snows and its lowest winter temperatures in decades, and America’s East Coast air has been 25-30 degrees F below normal. England’s winter death rate is almost one-third higher than normal: nearly 29,000 deaths in a two-week period in January 2015, largely because people can no longer afford to heat their homes properly, due to UK climate policies.

What’s really going on? Our sun “has gone quiet again, during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century,” dating back to 1906, says Vencore weather analyst Paul Dorian.

Alarmists don’t want to talk about that ‚Äì or about what is happening in Asia. BP’s Energy Outlook 2035 report forecasts that China’s oil, natural gas and coal use will increase by some 50% and its carbon dioxide emissions by 37% over the next 20 years. India’s energy production will soar 117% ‚Äì with fossil fuels accounting for 87% of all demand in 2035. Its CO2 emissions will also skyrocket. So even if the USA and EU eliminated fossil fuels, atmospheric carbon dioxide would continue to climb.

Climate alarmists want the newspaper and television media to ignore this information and the “skeptics” who might present it. Bill Nye “the science guy” recently asked MSNBC to link all weather events to climate change. “Just say the words climate change” when you talk about this winter’s cold and snow,” he begged. A new study shows how widespread these repulsive practices have become.

Quoting one journalist, a George Mason University analysis found that U.S. media outlets “pretty much” agree that climate change “is real, it’s happening, and we’re responsible. That debate is over.” As a result, “critics are no longer being interviewed,” the study said. In the view of “mainstream” media outlets, seeking or presenting both sides on the climate issue is a “false balance.” At least one news organization now has an explicit editorial policy “discouraging reporters from quoting climate change deniers in environment or science coverage,” the Washington Examiner noted.

Media reputations are at stake. They’ve been in bed so long with the Climate Chaos complex that acknowledging the critical role of natural forces, the expertise of climate realists, the debate that still rages, or the Grand Canyon between climate crisis claims and real-world evidence would destroy what little credibility the media still has. It would also start the collapse of the Climate Chaos house of cards.

But the real stakes are much higher. They are the businesses, jobs, families, living standards and liberties that will be increasingly threatened if President Obama, EPA, Big Green and the United Nations remain free to impose their climate and energy agenda. Responsible governors, state legislators and members of Congress must get involved, block these actions, and roll back the destructive policies.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (,  author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

Continue Reading

Heavy Snow in Jerusalem is Neither New Nor Alarming

snowForget for the moment that Jerusalem gets a heavy snowstorm every seven years on average and you might, just might, think that something is amiss with the climate in that region. Actually, the climate is behaving as expected, contrary to the alarmists who contend climate change, aka global warming, is behind the snowstorm that hit Israel (bold added):

An uncommon winter blizzard has left Jerusalem and neighboring countries buried in over 10 inches of snow, due to a cold front that hit the Middle East on Thursday and Friday.

Reminiscent of the snow storms gripping the East Coast in the United States, the blizzard left many scrambling to purchase gas heaters in countries including Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.


Some attribute the unusual weather to climate change. Israel has experienced a rise of about two degrees Fahrenheit in temperature over the last 30 years. Amir Givati — who heads the surface water department at the Israel Water Authority — says the past two years are proof of the climate changes occurring in Israel.

Unfortunately for Givati, the average temperature has not risen anywhere near 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) over the last 30 years for Israel, but rather approximately .5 degrees Celsius since 1984 (last thirty years). In fact, winters have been so cold in Israel they’ve had heavy snow for two years in a row. Globally, there has been no statistical warming for over 18 years.

This excerpt is from December 2013 (bold added):

Snow began falling in Jerusalem Thursday morning in the heaviest December storm since 1953. The winter weather system intensified across the country since beginning Tuesday night.

A snowstorm hit Mount Hermon later on Thursday, after dozens of centimeters of snow have accumulated on the mount since Tuesday. Dozens of millimeters of rain have fallen in the Gush Dan (the Tel Aviv area), Sharon and Galilee regions since Wednesday night.

You can’t have more snow in a warming world according to the IPCC, which considers itself the authority on the subject, and dictates that there is no correlation between climate change and precipitation. Givati continues with the global warmist’s mantra that says you can have it both ways (bold added):

“On the one hand, we got a long drought period last year when we didn’t get any precipitation for months in northern Israel and Jerusalem,” he said. “And on the other hand, last year we had this huge snowstorm that occurred in December. . . . The drought was the heaviest for a century. And the snow was also a record for a century.

Israel is getting snow for one simple reason: a blast of Arctic air plunged its way far enough south to turn the moisture evaporating off the normally warm Mediterranean sea into snow (ocean snow effect), laying a blanket of snow in its wake. It happens often to cities that border large bodies of water and where the jet stream dips low enough to allow this frigid air to come down.

The alarmists would also have you believe that snow is not precipitation when in actuality it is: “If the temperature is around 30 degrees, ten inches of snow might equal an inch of rain. And if the temperature is only 10 degrees Fahrenheit, it might take 18 to 24 inches of snow to equal one inch of liquid water.”

The point is that ever since people started documenting weather events in the Middle East (and elsewhere), the only pattern that has emerged is that there is no pattern. The climate is doing what it has been doing for millions of years: changing. Sometimes for the best, sometimes not so much.

If it all sounds disturbingly familiar to the Salem ‘witch’ trials, in which a person was blamed if a crop failed, or bad weather ensued, or someone took ill, you wouldn’t be far off the mark.

Now we say ‘extreme weather’ is the fault of our ‘pagan‘ lifestyles. Why? Because we responsibly enjoy the benefits of our constantly evolving technology that certain groups would deny giving to developing countries or make us pay additional fees as a penalty for using it.

Continue Reading

The real threat of climate change alarmism

cartoon al gore making moneyFor nearly four decades, we’ve increasingly been bombarded with global warming alarmism. What actually should alarm us is the corruption of science and, consequently, the undermining of knowledge-based authority.

“Global warming” began being called “climate change” about the time warming so obviously had tapered off that annual differences were essentially immeasurable, and well within the margin of error.

But warmists profit by scaring people to justify heavy-handed schemes for wealth transfer and control. To salvage their schemes, they substituted an unremarkable, meaningless expression – climate change – and claimed it had an innate, identical urgency.

In the immortal ‚Äì or should we say, immoral ‚Äì words of Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean ‚Äì neither more nor less.”

We long ago took a twilight-zone detour to where reality no longer is bound by facts, a “journey into a wondrous land of imagination,” as Rod Serling might have put it.

But, once enough scientists are revealed to be mere propagandists, all science comes into question. Once “facts” are shown simply to be concocted hoopla, moral groundings sink in quagmires of doubt.

After liars are finally exposed, when can we again believe anything they say? “This time we’re not lying!” doesn’t inspire much confidence.

This is the real dilemma posed by global warming alarmism, aka climate change, which for decades screamed that human-caused atmospheric heat threatens the planet – despite overwhelming contrary evidence.

Loss of credibility undermines public confidence, in turn, undermining legitimate authority. We are quickly approaching the point when cynicism replaces skepticism. The consequences will make global warming seem like the mild excuse for panic that it is. We already are living in an age of absurdity in which the History Channel airs documentaries on extraterrestrial visitation.

If we no longer can trust, where can we turn for truth? That constitutes cause for real panic.

Yours truly has written for years that global warming’s war on reality never was about the globe getting warmer. It always has been about control and money. Their control and your money.

As with all wars, the first victim was truth. The latest exposed canard shows warmists behind what some people call “one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.” Climate data from South America have been “adjusted” since the 1950s to give the impression that the Earth’s temperature is rising more than original data showed.

That revelation is hardly new. This columnist years ago noted the routine “adjustment” of raw data then asked why the formulas for adjusting couldn’t be shared with the public. Moreover, why were scores of earthbound temperature measuring stations around the world ‚Äì a disproportionate number of them in cold climes ‚Äì no longer being used?

Global warming data manipulation, half-truths, fallacious reasoning and flat-out distortions are corrupting science and public policy. They are agendas driven by lust for control and money.

For 15 years, the Environmental Protection Agency resisted releasing data from two key studies, while using those studies to justify some of the most costly regulations in history. The public and Congress were denied access to the data, which supposedly showed deadly dangers posed by fine particulate matter, which became the basis for Draconian regulations. Whistle-blowers finally leaked the information.

Now we know that there is no real-world evidence to suggest that not meeting EPA’s contrived parts-per-million emission standard causes sudden, or long-term, death, as the EPA insisted. “The claim that [it] kills people is at the heart and soul of how the EPA is selling these regulations,” said Steve Milloy, former editor of “But it’s a claim that’s not supported by the facts or evidence. The EPA has rigged the whole process.”

Not only is the science fraudulent, it remained secret until surreptitiously leaked.

Nevertheless, EPA press secretary Liz Purchia has insisted the resulting air quality standards are supported by “sound science and legal standards.” Or, as the Wizard of Oz put it, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

When, by government or by scientific edict, “Yes” becomes “No,” and “Fact” is replaced by “Fiction,” we live out George Orwell’s “1984,” where, “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

Exploitation of fearful people suppresses their knowledge of reality.

“[A]fter all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works?” Orwell wrote. “In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it,” observed the book’s protagonist. “It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: The logic of their position demanded it.”

Dubious temperatures, the supposed effects of human-caused CO2 emissions, particulates per million ‚Äì are all doubtful claims and standards that mean just what those who stand to gain choose them to mean, “neither more nor less.” All the better to pick your pocket and control your lives.


Continue Reading

How many servings of global warming have you eaten today?

beefThe Left now wants to label food according to how much it causes global warming. Really.

The nation’s top nutritional panel is recommending for the first time that Americans consider the impact on the environment when they are choosing what to eat, a move that defied a warning from Congress and, if enacted, could discourage people from eating red meat. The panel’s findings, issued Thursday in the form of a 571-page report, recommended that Americans be kinder to the environment by eating more foods derived from plants and fewer foods that come from animals. Red meat is deemed particularly harmful because of, among other things, the amount of land and feed required in its production.

Many scientists [many being the ones the Washington Post chose to talk to, if they chose to talk to any at all] say animal-based foods are a poorer choice for the environment because they are associated with significantly larger carbon emissions than their plant-based counterparts.  Miriam Nelson, a professor at Tufts University and one of the committee’s members, said the panel is not saying that people should become vegans.

Carbon emissions? Why should we care about carbon emissions, unless we believe in global warming? But global warming has been discredited–temperature readings have been found to be falsified, temperatures haven’t risen in 17 years, and man-made carbon dioxide is insignificant compared to naturally produced CO2 in the environment.

“We are saying that people need to eat less meat,” Nelson said. “We need to start thinking about what’s sustainable. .‚Äâ.‚Äâ. Other countries have already started doing this — including sustainability in their recommendations. We should be doing it, too.”

Thanks Miriam. So when we’re preparing dinner, we should be reading the labeling on our meat thinking, “Hm, how many global warming calories will I be eating today?” Note that unlike eating only for yourself, where if you eat a lot, you get fat, when it comes to global warming calories, you can eat as much as you like and the Earth will not be affected, as long as every one else around you is on a diet. (If global warming were really happening, which it isn’t.)

And that’s what the Left is all about. They want to tell you how to live your life. They actually have something in common with Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. AQ and IS are death cults. The radical left are not death cults (not yet), but they feel guilty at being alive, feeling that the mere existence of humanity is defacing the Earth, and they feel that humanity, collectively, has to live moderately, or else the Earth will be destroyed.  But unlike a Jonestown style cult where they drink the Kool Aid, they want you to drink the Kool Aid while they continue with their expansive lifestyle.

Will Al Gore move out of his mansion into a small apartment near a noisy railroad station? Will Nancy Pelosi bicycle ride to work instead of being driven in a chauffured car? Will Michelle Obama eat legumes and radishes and give up steak and hamburger? In each case the answer is no, but they want you to. That’s why they are politicizing food, in their continuing efforts to control every aspect of your life.

The government tries to politicize everything. Last week it was top level domain names (adding .lgbt domains, so we can have reminders to think gay gay gay on the internet), and this week it is making us feel guilty about eating meat. What’s next week?


Continue Reading

Chris Essex: Believing In Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast, And Climate Models

logoA GWPF talk by Dr Christopher Essex – Chairman, Permanent Monitoring Panel on Climate, World Federation of Scientists, and Professor and Associate Chair, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario (Canada) in London, 12 February 2015

Has the scientific problem of climate been solved in terms of basic physics and mathematics? No, but you will be forgiven if you thought otherwise. For decades, the most rigorous treatments of climate have been done through climate models. The clever model pioneers understood many of their inherent limitations, but tried to persevere nonetheless. Today, few academics are even aware of what the pioneers understood, let alone what has been learned since about the full depth of modelling difficulties.

Meanwhile popular expressions of the scientific technicalities are largely superficial, defective, comically nonsensical, and virtually uncorrectable. All of the best physics and all of the best computer models cannot put this Humpty Dumpty together, because we face some of the most fundamental problems of modern science in climate, but hardly know it. If you think you want to have a go at those problems, there are at least a couple million dollars in prizes in it, not to mention a Fields Medal or two.

But even if you don’t have some spare afternoons to solve problems that have stymied the best minds in history, this talk will cure computer cachet even for laymen, putting climate models into theirs proper perspective.

For full lecture click here

Continue Reading

China’s Coal Trends: Myth & Reality

China’s march towards coal continued in 2014 as shown by data from the latest report from China’s National Energy Administration. Despite additions of substantial wind, solar, and nuclear capacity, when properly adjusted for capacity factor (the amount of annual energy produced per unit of capacity) to reflect production capability, the amount of new coal energy added to the China grid last year exceeded new solar energy by 17 times, new wind energy by more than 4 times, and even new hydro by more than 3 times. And, despite having more than 30 new nuclear reactors under construction, China’s new nuclear capability was still a fraction of new coal energy. — Armond Cohen, Clean Air Task Force, 18 February 2015


The basic coal math in Cohen’s piece is a sobering reminder that the fossil age is not ending any time soon. Unfortunately, I don’t share Cohen’s optimism about prospects for the deployment of CCS at a scale the climate would notice, mainly because there’s no incentive for China to pay the additional cost, no sign (unless you can identify one?) that developed countries will be willing to cover the difference and little evidence that the world is serious about a much more ambitious push on large-scale demonstration of integrated systems for capturing and storing CO2. –Andrew Revkin, International New York Times, 18 February 2015

One of the biggest miscalculations that the global warming alarmists have made is claiming that global CO2 emissions must reach their peak by 2020 and then begin falling rapidly. If they don’t, there will be no chance of reaching the 2¬∞C maximum warming target. Planetary catastrophe will ensue, the alarmists claim. British energy behemoth BP has just released its BP Energy Outlook 2035, and it states in no uncertain terms that there is no chance of CO2 emissions beginning their decline by 2035, let alone 2020.  The BP Report shows strong growth in renewable energy, but it will be only about 8% of global energy supply by 2035. That’s light year’s away from the UN’s 50% target. Obviously, no one except a few token countries are taking renewable energies seriously. –Pierre Goselin, No Tricks Zone, 18 February 2015

chart 2

We project that by 2035 China becomes the world’s largest energy importer, overtaking Europe, as import dependence rises from 15% to 23%. China’s energy production rises by 47% while consumption grows by 60%. China’s fossil fuel output continues to rise with increases in natural gas (+200%) and coal (+19%) more than offsetting declines in oil (-3%). China’s CO2 emissions increase by 37% and by 2035 will account for 30% of world total with per capita emissions surpassing the OECD by the end of the Outlook. —BP Energy Outlook 2035

India’s energy production rises by 117% to 2035 while consumption grows by 128%. India’s energy mix evolves very slowly over the next 22 years with fossil fuels accounting for 87% of demand in 2035, compared to a global average of 81%. This is down from 92% today. Oil remains the dominant fuel (36%) followed by gas (30%) and coal (21%). CO2 emissions from energy consumption increase by 115%. —BP Energy Outlook 2035

American taxpayers spent an average of $39 billion a year over the past 5 years financing grants, subsidizing tax credits, guaranteeing loans, bailing out failed solar energy boondoggles and otherwise underwriting every idea under the sun to make solar energy cheaper and more popular. But none of it has worked. —Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA), 12 February 2015

Continue Reading

Drought and predictions of doom for the Southwest

droughtTony Davis has another climate scare story in the Arizona Daily Star: “Study: Worst SW drought in 1,000 years coming.” We should expect more stories like this because polling shows that “global warming” is not of great concern among the public, but many interests such as the money-grubbing IPCC, the EPA, and alternative energy companies depend on maintaining the myth of CO2-caused global warming. Tony writes: “Due to human-caused global warming, this region and the Great Plains are likely to experience droughts from 2050 to 2100 that are worse than the ‘megadroughts’ that lasted up to 60 years in the Southwest in pre-Medieval times, the study said.”

You can read the full study here. If you do, you will find that the study is based on failed computer models, statistical inference, and manipulation of data.

Bob Tisdale has some comments about this paper at the WattsUpWithThat blog. The thing about Bob is that he has this nasty habit of comparing computer model predictions against actual observational data.

Below, I show one of Bob’s graphs. This graph compares June-July-August precipitation data from 1979-2014 for both climate models (red) and observations (blue).


There are two things to notice about this graph. First, the models have always predicted that there would be twice as much precipitation than has actually occurred. Therefore a “modeled drought” might just be the model’s approach toward reality. Second, all the models show a slight decreasing trend in precipitation when in reality there has been a slight increasing trend in precipitation.

The drought scare seems to be a persistent theme. Back in August, Tony had another drought scare story featuring some of the same researchers (see: Megadrought and the Arizona Daily Star). In that previous story the researchers had this disclaimer:

“An obvious limitation of our work is that it is ‘blind’ to certain aspects of dynamically-driven changes in prolonged drought risk. For instance, changes in the magnitude, frequency, or teleconnection patterns of El Nino and La Nina (e.g., Coats et al. 2013) may alter the statistics of interannual variability in ways that are not captured by our simple models. Further, megadrought statistics over the last millennium may be forcing-dependent, as suggested by Cook et al. (2004), for instance, which shows that megadroughts were more common during the medieval climate era of 850-1200 CE. Another very serious limitation is imposed by the reliability of the models themselves to make realistic predictions of changes in climatological precipitation for the end of the 21st century.”

One other thing, both Tony Davis and the study authors claim “human-caused global warming.” Yet, to my knowledge, no one has presented any physical evidence to support the contention that our carbon dioxide emissions are a significant factor.

In a previous article, I show, with observational evidence, that the much touted enhanced greenhouse effect from our carbon dioxide emissions does not exist, see: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect .


Continue Reading

1,700 Private Jets Fly to Davos to Discuss Global Warming

private jetsA squadron of 1,700 private jets are rumbling into Davos, Switzerland, this week to discuss global warming and other issues as the annual World Economic Forum gets underway.

The influx of private jets is so great, the Swiss Armed Forces has been forced to open up a military air base for the first time ever to absorb all the super rich flying their private jets into the event, reports Newsweek.

“Decision-makers meeting in Davos must focus on ways to reduce climate risk while building more efficient, cleaner, and lower-carbon economies,” former Mexican president Felipe Calderon told USA Today.

Davos, which has become a playground of sorts for the global elite, is expected to feature at least 40 heads of state and 2,500 top business executives. Former Vice President-turned-carbon billionaire Al Gore and rapper Pharrell Williams will be there as well; each plans to discuss global warming and recycling respectively.

Another big theme of the mega-rich confab will be combating “income inequality” and how the world’s rich can pay their fair share to reduce the gap between top earners and the lower class. Admission price for Davos: roughly $40,000 a ticket.

The World Economic Forum will also feature discussions on gender equality and opportunities for women. According to the World Economic Forum’s own statistics, just 17% of all 2015 participants are women.

The 45th World Economic Forum meeting begins on Wednesday and runs through Saturday.


Continue Reading