For nearly 40 years, the global warming cabal has spread fear and wasted resources on an emergency that doesn’t exist. While their influence has begun to wane, as their credibility has crashed and their lies have been exposed, the fabrications, exaggerations, and junk science continue. [some emphasis, links added]
How much longer will we have to endure their campaign of rancid propaganda?
The dawning moment of the global warming movement was NASA scientist James Hansen’s June 1988 testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
“In my opinion,” he told lawmakers, “the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”
There was evidence, he insisted, “that the Earth is warming by an amount which is too large to be a chance fluctuation and the similarity of the warming to that expected from the greenhouse effect represents a very strong case.”
And yet 38 years later, there’s been no climate catastrophe.
Reality hasn’t slowed the flood of lies, though. Let’s take a look at a few.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee reflexively blamed his state’s wildfires on climate change. Soon thereafter, a man was arrested in connection with one of the three fires burning through Spokane County and has been questioned in arson investigations into other fires.
And as our friends at Power Line have noted, wildfire damage, [when measured by] acres burned, peaked nearly a century ago and is down more than 80%.
NPR wants Americans to believe “climate change is now threatening a pillar of childhood: summer break,” which has become “increasingly dangerous through heat, wildfire smoke, floods, and storms.”
Retired meteorologist Anthony Watts says “the premise is false, ridiculous even,” with NPR relying “almost entirely on anecdotes rather than evidence.”
“What has changed is not that summer suddenly became dangerous. What has changed is the media’s insistence on framing ordinary weather challenges as catastrophic symptoms of dangerous climate change.”
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who is responsible for the migrant invasion from Morocco, swears that “climate change kills.” And not just people, but also “our ecosystem, our biodiversity” as well as “the things we as a society hold dear – our houses, our businesses, our livestock.”
And where is the evidence? He offered none because there isn’t any. Why do voters in Western nations keep putting loons in office?
Read rest at Issues & Insights
Why is there an article about polar bears surviving?
Somebody is asloop at the switch.
“The “greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now,” he said. There was “99 percent confidence” that human-caused global warming was underway.”
The 1988 statement by James Hansen was correct
While his 1988 testimony was measured and strictly scientific, Hansen’s subsequent research papers, public speeches, and books—such as his 2009 book Storms of My Grandchildren—openly adopted terms like “climate catastrophe” and “dangerous human-made interference” to describe the long-term trajectory of unchecked fossil fuel emissions
That statement by Hansen was a lie back then and it’s been shown that there is no greenhouse effect from increasing COW levels almost four decades later. Not a single prediction by all these so-called scientists have come true. But they continue to lie because that’s how they get the grants to keep up their livelihoods.
99.9% of scientists agree, based on evidence, there is a greenhouse effect
The same scientists predicted that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause global warming and they were 100% right
Every prediction of a climate catastrophe, however, has been wrong
Recognizing the climate effect of CO2 emissions is science, but making wrong predictions of a coming climate catastrophe is not
You keep repeating the lie about 99.9% of scientists. Who are these 99.9% so-called scientists?
The 99.9% figure doesn’t mean 99.9% of scientists were surveyed and agreed. The 2021 Lynas et al. paper examined the abstracts of randomly selected climate-related papers, not a population of scientists. It estimated the proportion of the peer-reviewed literature that did not reject human-caused climate change. Those are two very different claims. And the claim you’re making is from The Guardian, hardly a reliable or unbiased source of information.
Of note, there was also a 2023 peer-reviewed critique of the Lynas methodology that argued treating papers with no position as being consistent with consensus inflates the resulting percentage. They specifically objected to treating absence of disagreement as agreement.